Forums Discussion v3 - Post about Tudd and win a 1 month ban
5,023 replies, posted
Discussing things [I]is[/I] the entire point of the forum but like I said earlier, it's up to each individual user to use their own discretion and levels of self control to determine when an argument is worth or not worth following up on.
If users can't control their level of heatedness when discussing things with someone particularly hard headed who very likely won't be changing their opinion any time soon, then it's up to that user to take a step back and determine whether or not to just move on to another post or another point in the thread. Or move on to another thread altogether. There's a difference between a stubborn, stupid opinion and the aforementioned method of "drive by shitposting" which I'm doing my best to at least address.
Like in this ban for example:
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/xdo6ctgpmld82ab/chrome_2017-08-30_23-15-15.png[/img]
It's all contextual though. We can't put down a blanket rule about shit like this because it can vary depending on topic, on the user's phrasing, on whether or not they read the OP, on their general behavior, etc.
But ultimately, it's up to anyone posting in an SH thread to use their own judgment when considering who is and who isn't worth replying to.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52632213]
It's no ones job to make people post better[/QUOTE]
Well sometimes it's the mods job but this seems to change by poster to poster or scenario to scenario. Sometimes the answer is tightening rules on posting (introducing the call out ban, or banning for "low effort" posts), and other times the answer is to just add people to your ignore list or don't reply to them.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52631853]
I see tons of people, including you BDA, becoming too emotionally invested in posts and conversations here on an online forum for a kids game. It is seriously not difficult to disengage from the forum, to not post yourself into a stupid argument, and to ignore people that you don't particularly agree with. I've managed to do it for over a decade, and I don't have any special mod perks or scripts to block out things I don't want to see.[/QUOTE]
What even constitutes "too emotionally invested" on a message board where it is literally impossible to gauge someones emotional level.
[editline]31st August 2017[/editline]
Also I think UncleJimmema and/or Crazy Ivan deserve the title that an overly-emotional moderator gave me, they are arguing for peoples right to shitpost in polidicks far more passionately than I did :v:
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52632268]Well sometimes it's the mods job but this seems to change by poster to poster or scenario to scenario. Sometimes the answer is tightening rules on posting (introducing the call out ban, or banning for "low effort" posts), and other times the answer is to just add people to your ignore list or don't reply to them.
What even constitutes "too emotionally invested" on a message board where it is literally impossible to gauge someones emotional level.[/QUOTE]
While generally speaking written type cannot express emotion directly, since there is no tone of voice or body language, its not very difficult to find out who's pissed off (thus emotionally invested).
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52632288]While generally speaking written type cannot express emotion directly, since there is no tone of voice or body language, its not very difficult to find out who's pissed off (thus emotionally invested).[/QUOTE]
What if every time I post I always put myself into a seething rage on purpse so nobody can tell when I'm actually angry and emotionally invested? Kind of like getting your driver's license photo taken while drunk
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52632288]While generally speaking written type cannot express emotion directly, since there is no tone of voice or body language, its not very difficult to find out who's pissed off (thus emotionally invested).[/QUOTE]
That sort of answers the second part of my question but where I'm confused is the threshold by which you become "too" emotionally invested. I could say "Trump is a retarded piece of shit who lacks the qualifications to run a churro stand, much less a country" but that doesn't mean I'm angrily typing it or anything. Do you think when people make big long posts full of facts and details that back up their arguments that they are too emotionally invested?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52632306]That sort of answers the second part of my question but where I'm confused is the threshold by which you become "too" emotionally invested. I could say "Trump is a retarded piece of shit who lacks the qualifications to run a churro stand, much less a country" but that doesn't mean I'm angrily typing it or anything. Do you think when people make big long posts full of facts and details that back up their arguments that they are too emotionally invested?[/QUOTE]
I think that people are allowing themselves to get too riled up over one or two members shit, hence why we have countless pages of a handful of very passionate people asking us to crucify those people. But what the hell do I know.
It's like Tudd 2.0
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52632317]I think that people are allowing themselves to get too riled up over one or two members shit, hence why we have countless pages of a handful of very passionate people asking us to crucify those people. But what the hell do I know.
It's like Tudd 2.0[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about this thread, I was asking generally, because you said this
[QUOTE]I see tons of people, including you BDA, becoming too emotionally invested in posts and conversations here on an online forum for a kids game.[/QUOTE]
And I'm just trying to figure out how you gauge when someone becomes "too emotionally invested in posts and conversations". I'd say BDA is no more or less invested in his conversations than Tudd or Chonch is, he just generally puts more effort into his posts. Which comes back to my question, because I'm wondering if you are conflating effort with emotion. I'm just trying to figure out why "just ignore them or add them to your ignore list" is okay for some posts but others are bannable. Your position seems to be that derailing threads is okay because other posters should know not to respond, and the person doing the derailing isn't punished, while on the other hand people posting perfectly on topic criticisms of Trump (as an example) but are seen as sufficiently "low effort" by another moderator are bannable. When I told people complaining about those posts to just add posters who do it a lot to their ignore list I got this title, but now that seems to be the solution?
I'm just confused, not because I necessarily disagree where you are coming from with your hands-off moderator style, but more because it conflicts with what other moderators have said or done in the past, especially since the discussions about splitting SH into two boards.
[editline]31st August 2017[/editline]
Also if you go back through the thread you have someone asking for whataboutism posts to be banned then Chonch inserts himself into the discussion then you have people responding to Chonch's (frankly ridiculous) post. No one was asking for anyone to be crucified.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52632330]I wasn't talking about this thread, I was asking generally, because you said this
And I'm just trying to figure out how you gauge when someone becomes "too emotionally invested in posts and conversations". I'd say BDA is no more or less invested in his conversations than Tudd or Chonch is, he just generally puts more effort into his posts. Which comes back to my question, because I'm wondering if you are conflating effort with emotion.[/QUOTE]
You can have plenty of effort without being emotionally invested. You can be emotionally invested without applying terribly much effort.
Lets take a look at some examples:
[quote]So what you're saying is, you're not willing to post your information, citations, and so on in a public place and would rather privately message it to me? You're right, you're not in a position to put a detailed post with citations together. You're in a position that lacks any solid ground or evidence. You are a shill.[/quote]
[quote]I wish there was a dumb rating in polidicks because every post of yours is so fucking bad across the entire forum.[/quote]
[quote]lmao you're really the kind of guy who thinks communism is just some economic thing when it's killed more people than the nazis, cool, love it[/quote]
[quote]But the concentration camp comparison? That's when you jump in. The only time. The only fucking time you will ever get to take the "it's not that bad!" position. That's when you engage. We all know that no one here would accept an overt defense of Arpaio. But as soon as someone brings up another heinous crime against humanity? That's your opening for taking his side, because it allows you to mask your support for a racist torturer with condemnation of other racist torturers. I'm here to tell you it didn't work.[/quote]
Now you can take all of these for face value, if you assume the person on the other end is a blank automaton. Generally speaking people are not however. The use of profanity generally expresses importance while also adding an emotional connotation to the sentence. The same can be said for sarcasm, which while more difficult to portray with written word it can be done with the proper use of punctuation and context. Then there's the tone of the sentence, which also generally requires context (something you do not have for these examples). Lastly is the personal attack, which generally means that someone has become frustrated with another to the point of rather than trying to combat the others argument they instead refer to name calling/degrading/etc.
With that all being said there is a certain amount of assumptions to be made. It is entirely possible to be blank faced and say "fuck donald trump", its also possible to be happy and say the same thing. However generally in the realm of written word context is what is key to determining the level of emotion invested into a conversation (post). While it may not express the genuine state of what the writer is currently in, it does convey a certain level of emotional investment whether the writer intended to or not.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52632350]
Lets take a look at some examples:[/QUOTE]
The only one that comes across as too emotionally invested is the second one. The third post seems like the exact opposite of emotional investment, which is probably why it's such a shit post. The first one doesn't need the shill bit at the end but it and the fourth are otherwise great takedowns that don't seem particularly overly-emotional to me. Is it because they seem too personal?
[editline]31st August 2017[/editline]
Also, could you PM me who made that first post? I'm curious about the context.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52632365]The only one that comes across as too emotionally invested is the second one. The third post seems like the exact opposite of emotional investment, which is probably why it's such a shit post. The first one doesn't need the shill bit at the end but it and the fourth are otherwise great takedowns that don't seem particularly overly-emotional to me. Is it because they seem too personal?[/QUOTE]
Generally speaking when things are written in a personal manner it implies that there is a sort of emotional investment involved as otherwise it would not be personal, such as the first 2. The use of sarcasm in the 3rd implies a level of discontent, which without context can be difficult to see here. The 4th's use of expletives, words in quotations, and use of self questions would imply frustration on behalf of the writer.
Now none of this is bad per say, as it really is impossible to not have some level of emotional investment into a post or speaking or whatever communication you use, but sometimes people let it take control. Sometimes people find themselves in the "ah ha, I got you" state of mind, and will continue to emotionally invest themselves to the point of frustration, to which they either will step away, continue because they have good self control, or get banned.
I am legitimately far less emotionally invested than the people I typically argue with.
If anything, my perceived lack of emotion is what pisses people off in posts, and is a common critique levied against me.
So am I also now as emotionally charged as the people who can't help to swear in every other sentence or who make only emotional appeals? :v:
I think UJ worded it perfectly. Some people need to step back, and realize where they are posting, and that at the end of the day it is an online forum.
Is there a good reason why we can't flip UncleJim's avatar horizontally?
Or is that just part of the meme
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632416]I am legitimately far less emotionally invested than the people I typically argue with. [/QUOTE]
no
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632416]If anything, my perceived lack of emotion is what pisses people off in posts, and is a common critique levied against me. [/QUOTE]
no
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632416]So am I also now as emotionally charged as the people who can't help to swear in every other sentence or who make only emotional appeals? :v:[/QUOTE]
Putting aside the fact that you make just as many emotional appeals as your counterparts;
I don't think most posters are emotionally charged, but maybe that's just my perspective as someone who's emotional state when posting differs between "tired resignation" and "exhausted beyond caring"
[QUOTE=Scratch.;52632419]Is there a good reason why we can't flip UncleJim's avatar horizontally?
Or is that just part of the meme[/QUOTE]
same reaosn im still not god king space emperor
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632416]
I think UJ worded it perfectly.[B] Some people need to step back, and realize where they are posting[/B], and that at the end of the were it is an online forum.[/QUOTE]
You said it Tudd.
[QUOTE=MoopsiePook;52632428]same reaosn im still not god king space emperor[/QUOTE]
memes it is
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632416]I am legitimately far less emotionally invested than the people I typically argue with.
If anything, my perceived lack of emotion is what pisses people off in posts, and is a common critique levied against me.
So am I also now as emotionally charged as the people who can't help to swear in every other sentence or who make only emotional appeals? :v:
I think UJ worded it perfectly. Some people need to step back, and realize where they are posting, and that at the end of the day it is an online forum.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I really see the aloofness in the barrage of "violent immigrant and leftist" threads you used to submit us to every time some new bit of bad news came out about Trump lol. Nothing emotional about that, no sirree.
Honestly, though, Tudd. As long as we're speaking candidly, I want to weigh in this: I can't speak for others, but my distaste for you as a poster has never had anything to do with your political beliefs or your "lack of emotion." It's always been based on the Olympian feats of "What About-ism" that you've based your worldview on, and the victim complex that you've attached to that. You're a propagandist at heart, attempting to distract from (if not justify) shameful acts performed by your preferred political players by pointing out the ugly fringes of your political enemies. It's terribly dishonest. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52632306]That sort of answers the second part of my question but where I'm confused is the threshold by which you become "too" emotionally invested. I could say "Trump is a retarded piece of shit who lacks the qualifications to run a churro stand, much less a country" but that doesn't mean I'm angrily typing it or anything. Do you think when people make big long posts full of facts and details that back up their arguments that they are too emotionally invested?[/QUOTE]
At least four mods would say yes every time without fail, because apparently emphasizing a point with contextually emphatic language is biologically identical to having a nervous breakdown in a crowded room.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52632330]Also if you go back through the thread you have someone asking for whataboutism posts to be banned then Chonch inserts himself into the discussion then you have people responding to Chonch's (frankly ridiculous) post. No one was asking for anyone to be crucified.[/QUOTE]
To be fair to Chonch it was probably pretty obvious that the second part of that post I made was in direct reference to a post he made in particular since I'd mentioned in the thread it happened that it may be a good idea to bring this stuff up here for discussion.
[QUOTE=27X;52632456]At least four mods would say yes every time without fail, because apparently emphasizing a point with contextually emphatic language is biologically identical to having a nervous breakdown in a crowded room.[/QUOTE]
They should really cut back some on that view. I can only speak for myself but 90% of the time I make a post that comes across as rather emotionally charged I'm no less calm than I am at any other random point in time. Often actually more calm specifically because I'm going out of my way to be rational and logical with what I'm saying. I just have a way of speaking which easily comes across as emotionally charged.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52632442]Yes, I really see the aloofness in the barrage of "violent immigrant and leftist" threads you used to submit us to lol every time some new bit of bad news came out about Trump lol. Nothing emotional about that, no sirree.
Admittedly, you've been far less prolific recently, but you're one of the most iconic "feelings over facts" posters I can think of.[/QUOTE]
I think it is well known I post threads that might be discomforting because I think they should be shared.
I hardly inject emotion into the actual threads or posts I do make though. I have always preferred posting the thread pretty much by itself and then letting people come to their own conclusions. Which is why I rarely post in the OP myself and try to spin a initial outlook on the event.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;52632379]Generally speaking when things are written in a personal manner it implies that there is a sort of emotional investment involved as otherwise it would not be personal, such as the first 2. The use of sarcasm in the 3rd implies a level of discontent, which without context can be difficult to see here. The 4th's use of expletives, words in quotations, and use of self questions would imply frustration on behalf of the writer.
Now none of this is bad per say, as it really is impossible to not have some level of emotional investment into a post or speaking or whatever communication you use, but sometimes people let it take control. Sometimes people find themselves in the "ah ha, I got you" state of mind, and will continue to emotionally invest themselves to the point of frustration, to which they either will step away, continue because they have good self control, or get banned.[/QUOTE]
If you're 12, some of your pop psychology would apply.
There are very few 12 year olds on the forum anymore.
While there is certainly an extant group that would post "rationally" and "objectively" on the forum and then spout an unending torrent of FUCKFUCKFUCKTHATFUCKINGFUCK in steam chat or slack or whatever to their immediate friends, it does not, nor will it ever circumscribe every poster nor every post, nor should it ever be [B]assumed to[/B], and thinking so falls under the same general paradigm of "you have to like what I like, and hate what I hate", which is generally how a child thinks.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632466]I think it is well known I post threads that might be discomforting because I think they should be shared. [/QUOTE]
You post threads that conform to your ideological viewpoints and help push your camps side of the culture war forward, because defending Trump outside of a designated safe space has become completely untenable. You can't make his case for him, so you do your best to tear down the establishments, institutions, organizations, and individuals who oppose him. Your threads discomfort no one.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632466]I hardly inject emotion into the actual threads or posts I do make though. I have always preferred posting the thread pretty much by itself and then letting people come to their own conclusions. Which is why I rarely post in the OP myself and try to spin a initial outlook on the event.[/QUOTE]
You have a very specific of what constitutes emotion but answer me this: why do you think [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1576707&p=52622676&viewfull=1#post52622676"]this post[/URL] has over 100 funnies.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52632442]
Honestly, though, Tudd. As long as we're speaking candidly, I want to weigh in this: I can't speak for others, but my distaste for you as a poster has never had anything to do with your political beliefs or your "lack of emotion." It's always been based on the Olympian feats of "What About-ism" that you've based your worldview on, and the victim complex that you've attached to that. You're a propagandist at heart, attempting to distract from (if not justify) shameful acts performed by your preferred political players by pointing out the ugly fringes of your political enemies. It's terribly dishonest. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.[/QUOTE]
I have seen you write paragraphs on why you dislike me, and I have seen the main reason change quite a few times.
In a lot of ways I would like to speak back to you the same way you do to me, but I don't, mostly because I know this isn't a symmetrical interaction where I can; But I would hope you would atleast realize when you use phrases "it leaves a bad taste in my mouth," that this is the exact type of language that appears hyperbolic for debate on an internet forum and extremely disrespectful.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632466]I think it is well known I post threads that might be discomforting because I think they should be shared.
I hardly inject emotion into the actual threads or posts I do make though. I have always preferred posting the thread pretty much by itself and then letting people come to their own conclusions. Which is why I rarely post in the OP myself and try to spin a initial outlook on the event.[/QUOTE]
You'll have forgive me for not buying your "innocent newsboy" routine, man. While you've been much less active in your propaganda recently, there's really no denying the obvious motives or themes behind the threads you post. At your peak, I could go through your page of recent threads you'd and categorize roughly three quarters of them as:
1) Violent Leftists
2) Violent Illegal Immigrants
3) Violent Muslims
All of which tended to coincide with pretty sensitive political events casting Trump and Company in bad light. The news you just think "should be shared" wasn't exactly subtle in content, timing, or intent. It wasn't your "lack of emotion" that was frustrating, it was your repeated insistence that you were just sharing Honest News with no ulterior motive -- the same act you're putting on now. It was your refusal to acknowledge your own bullshit.
[editline]31st August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632484]I have seen you write paragraphs on why you dislike me, and I have seen the main reason change quite a few times.
In a lot of ways I would like to speak back to you the same way you do to me, but I don't, mostly because I know this isn't a symmetrical interaction where I can; But I would hope you would atleast realize when you use phrases "it leaves a bad taste in my mouth," that this is the exact type of language that appears hyperbolic for debate on an internet forum and extremely disrespectful.[/QUOTE]
Say what you like. This is a candid discussion, and I'm not about to go retaliating against you.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52632478]
You have a very specific of what constitutes emotion but answer me this: why do you think [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1576707&p=52622676&viewfull=1#post52622676"]this post[/URL] has over 100 funnies.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm not surprised by the reaction that got considering I already thought of how that would be perceived. Ofcourse perception doesn't mean a person would be right in how they view it though.
[QUOTE=27X;52632471]If you're 12, some of your pop psychology would apply.
There are very few 12 year olds on the forum anymore.
While there is certainly an extant group that would post "rationally" and "objectively" on the forum and then spout an unending torrent of FUCKFUCKFUCKTHATFUCKINGFUCK in steam chat or slack or whatever to their immediate friends, it does not, nor will it ever circumscribe every poster nor every post, nor should it ever be [B]assumed to[/B], and thinking so falls under the same general paradigm of "you have to like what I like, and hate what I hate", which is generally how a child thinks.[/QUOTE]
This is making the assumption that I am implying my beliefs to those particular posts. Even if I did, would you know which ones I like and which ones I don't like? As I stated they may not accurately describe the state of mind of the user, but by their writing styles one can imply that they are expressing particular connotations. In that regard it is ultimately up to the reader to determine what they believe is being expressed, something that is subjective. However, the term seeing is believing comes into play pretty hard here. You could have little emotional investment into a post and still come off emotionally invested simply because of how you wrote it, and since we can't put our heads through the screen and say hello we would be none the wiser.
Good example of a "ah ha, I got you" state of mind though.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632484]I have seen you write paragraphs on why you dislike me, and I have seen the main reason change quite a few times. [/QUOTE]
*this is why I asked earlier if we were mistaking effort for emotion*
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632484]In a lot of ways I would like to speak back to you the same way you do to me, but I don't, mostly because I know this isn't a symmetrical interaction where I can; But I would hope you would atleast realize when you use phrases "it leaves a bad taste in my mouth," that this is the exact type of language that appears hyperbolic for debate on an internet forum and extremely disrespectful.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and the constant implication from you that everyone who disagrees with you is a hysterical sheep that only repeats what the Fake News tells them, who finds threads about immigrants and Antifa doing bad things "discomforting", isn't really respectful either but it's not strictly bannable so who cares?
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632416]I am legitimately far less emotionally invested than the people I typically argue with.
If anything, my perceived lack of emotion is what pisses people off in posts, and is a common critique levied against me.
So am I also now as emotionally charged as the people who can't help to swear in every other sentence or who make only emotional appeals? :v:
I think UJ worded it perfectly. Some people need to step back, and realize where they are posting, and that at the end of the day it is an online forum.[/QUOTE]
You have such a strong bias against a politician, which you admitted of having at one point, that it drove you to spending over a year, every single day of the week, countless hours a day, arguing with strangers online in favor of the now President that you don't even try to defend anymore because you never cared about him winning, you only cared about her losing.
"no emotional investment, it's just forum" my ass, you're full of shit
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632488]Well I'm not surprised by the reaction that got considering I already thought of how that would be perceived. Ofcourse perception doesn't mean a person would be right in how they view it though.[/QUOTE]
So you don't think there is anything to over 100 people finding it humerous for you, Tudd, to call for verification of stories, and whats more, not to take advantage of a political climate?
You think that's just an incorrect perception, and that the real reason you catch so much shit is because you are a perfectly rational reporter of the news that [I]really matters[/I], unbound by the human frivolity of emotion?
[editline]31st August 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;52632502]You have such a strong bias against a politician, which you admitted of having at one point, that it drove you to spending over a year, every single day of the week, countless hours a day, arguing with strangers online in favor of the now President that you don't even try to defend anymore because you never cared about him winning, you only cared about her losing.
"no emotion investment, it's just forum" my ass, you're full of shit[/QUOTE]
While this is an outstanding point, I'd just like to comment that Tudd still absolutely loves Trump and will defend everything he does, but only privately. It's a lot harder to push the false narrative that Polidicks is a "liberal echo chamber" if you actually try to make it less of an echo chamber.
[QUOTE=Tudd;52632488]Well I'm not surprised by the reaction that got considering I already thought of how that would be perceived. Ofcourse perception doesn't mean a person would be right in how they view it though.[/QUOTE]
If some guy calls you a horse, you flip him the bird.
If a second guy calls you a horse, you tell him he's a jerk.
If a third guy calls you a horse, well, maybe you should go check a mirror.
This perception of you as a dishonest propagandist hiding behind false notions of objectivity didn't just materialize out of thin air. They were informed by your actions and your behavior.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.