Forum Discussion - v. Please Don't Call Hezzy A Cunt - General

Tudd was successful in trolling the entire community considering the amount of bans that were dished out to dissenters before he finally got his, and I have a really bad feeling the community will never, ever learn from its mistakes. Some people were literally incapable of ignoring his threads and posts and I could never understand why. I couldn't feel sympathy for the people who got banned, just like I couldn't feel sympathy when people couldn't function around craptasket after he made fun of someone who committed suicide. We get it, you didn't like that. We get it, you don't like that person. At some point it's just redundant/unnecessary/spam. As it turns out, removing Tudd just made a hole that was free to be filled - maybe not by someone who is trolling, but someone who is legitimately unintelligent, incapable of arguing, or whatever quality people want to attribute to a Tudd-like poster. And as a community, we're going to have to learn how to get over it even when they don't get banned. Yes, we should have moderators and we should encourage enforcement, but reliance on moderation isn't an excuse for endlessly pouting about X in every thread you come across or being otherwise being unable to function around Y. If the community can't put up with people like geel, maybe the solution both short-term and long-term is stop interacting with geel. Seano? Stop interacting with seano. If you can't play nice and end up making yourself look like an asshole you deserve to be put in timeout, potentially indefinitely, for taking the bait and giving these people attention. And there's ratings too, so you can rate people dumb to your hearts content without posting.

Can we just set fire to SH and PD, and use the flames to warm small orphan children?

The problem with this is that it is the same thing as telling people "Just add that user to your ignore list". That isn't a solution. (To some cases it is, to the Tudd situation, it was not) If someone is trolling, ignoring them is what you do until a moderator acts on it. Not what you do in lieu of moderation. As for people bitching in threads about trolls/rules/moderation. I find it to be a form of protest. Posting in this thread clearly accomplishes nothing. So take it to the outside world and make it obvious how it is failing. Annoying, yeah. But necessary in my opinion when all other avenues have failed.

No it is not. Thanks for pointing it out, stupid shit stirring post from my side. My apologies, I should know better.

The argument isn't that the forum should outgrow the need for moderation, the argument is that the forum needs to grow period. People need to figure out how to function in spite of garbage people. Whenever someone like Tudd comes around, people get banned for it and then hold contempt for the moderators when they made an ass of themselves. I think we need self-control AND moderation.

I wasn't able to ignore it because there were always enough gullible fools who took his drive-by-threads and videos serious and I don't want these one-sided regressive views and propaganda to perpetuate.

I think that's different because you're contributing to a conversation, whereas most posts were aggressively accusing Tudd of bigotry in hopes of "winning". Both are different end goals

The previous way of handling the situation was what was best. Tudd should have been banned well before he actually was. The people who made a scene about it should have been dealt with as well. "Report, don't reply" as I have said multiple times on the last page. Tudd was just a very weird situation where it was perpetuated by the staff, and that really made things worse the longer it went on. People can exercise self-control when moderation is there to help keep things orderly. Those who can't should be handled. Presently, we have zero moderation. People are getting upset, and they are trying to handle things on their own because everything else has failed. We have no ignore feature to fallback on, nor does it sound like that will be a thing (nor do I think it should). The only options for people are to ignore it (extremely hard when it is often presented as a part of the discussion), debate it (futile), or call it out.

last 2 got baited into flaming the baiter needed to be banned, the two who flamed were perfectly in the right to shit down that idiots throat check book classic tudd example btw guys this is what the new rules is allowing

The flaw in this thinking is that there was no reason to ban people for complaining about Tudd in the first place

I dunno man. At some point people were asking if shitty bait opinion videos/news threads with propaganda sources should maybe not be allowed and Hezzy still took it as "don't complain about Tudd"

Are we ever getting popular threads back? Its just a freaking feature that lists threads per active view. I'm getting bored of complaining about this every month.

There are ways to fix a bunch of the problems in PD. However the solution may end up creating a set of new problems. Ultimately one would have to test it out to see what would happen.

Thanks for saying absolutely nothing with this post.

I was going to write a lengthy post that said absoutely nothing, in response to your post. But I felt lazy, so I wrote you this instead.

You truly are a master at this craft.

I’d make a post on how much wasted space your two posts were but then a ban would waste more space on top of that

What I meant is that I could make solutions for some of PD's issues. For example: People in the polidicks subforum are rude to each other. We want to stop this. Well, the easiest way to solve this is to remove polidicks. This is a 100% guaranteed to work plan, but I think that we want the Polidicks forum to stay around so we can't use it. Similar issues occur if we ban every single forum user. So what do you do? Flaming is banned, but not all insults seem to count as flaming. It seems that only direct insults are banned. So ban those other forms of rudeness as well. Basically you ban for any sort of comment that would be an "Ad Hominem" if it was used as an argument. This covers basically any sort of rudeness. This obviously does not address anything about "dumb posts", or low effort posts. But those are a separate issue. Now what new issues would be made by this? Well I don't actually know as I haven't seen this in practice, but I can throw out some (possibly wild?) guesses: These harsher(?) rules may be against the intended direction of polidicks. The amount of people who use Polidicks may decease. Higher standards makes for a smaller userbase. (I'm pretty sure I thought of more issues with my idea, but If I had then I have forgetten about them at this time).

That sort of metric just means that unpopular posts are banned. While popular "shitposts" might get away "scot free".

i could make a post calling you a curry muncher and technically under the new rules that would be borderline old rules i'd be dead faster then you can say thank you come again so you can see how some people are being banned for flaming, others are not, you can also see that being baited then flaming the person who baited you gets you banned, it's a very messy situation, i hope this really gets some refinement soon alternatively if you and i are okay with being flamed in such way i guess this also follows in the treat others how you wish to be treated it isn't very good general guidance and it is leaving to a shit show sorry if that offended you btw, i mean no harm but to prove a point how this isn't working

The two kinda go hand in hand. If we go with the example of Tudd then if the mods had actually taken action instead of pulling the shit they did there then the issue wouldn't have continued to get worse and worse. In fact it's a similar issue to what's currently happening in SH/PD. People feel like the mods won't do anything about people being assholes so they take matters into their own hands and try to do what they personally can about it. The root cause of both issues is people doing stupid shit and getting away with it. In Tudd's case because of the moderators being held back by Hezzy and in the current case due to the relaxing of the rules combined with people not only not realizing they can still report things and maybe they'll get dealt with but shit reports are apparently no longer a ban reason either. (Which was honestly something that should have been dealt with a bit better in the first place. I got banned for a shit report once only to get unbanned later on after explaining myself, along with Missy Q who hadn't even appealed their ban as well as one other time Hezzy contacted me through pm wanting an explanation for a report. Though the latter was perfectly acceptable in my opinion. Hezzy wasn't sure what I thought was bannable about threported post and needed clarification, even if I do think he approached it from the wrong perspective by starting out saying it was a shit report and wanting justification rather than more information.)

There's no moderation at the moment, so you are free to feed the troll and then cry when you get trolled. I won't stop you. I'm just saying maybe you shouldn't.

Visit here; Facepunch Auth You'll need your old username / password If it's not working then post in this thread; Migration Issues / My Account Is Broken and we'll try and sort it. There seems to be issues at the moment but we need more people plugging away at it to see if it's 100% broke or just broke for some people. Thanks for the level headed post. I'm not turning a blind eye to things, I'm trying to sound things out. The changes we're making can't be measured in days, or even weeks. It has to be months, to allow things to calm down and people to get used to how things are. For example, whenever there are changes to rules, you get the inevitable jobsworths who try to be edgy and post things that previously would've gotten them banned. I communicate all the information I have to everybody. I communicate things you guys say back to garry. I don't always get a reply, but I know he reads it and takes it on board. I have spoken to garry about the moderation style and we're going to continue with how it is currently, with small tweaks here and there. Prior to the migration to the new forums, we banned for a lot of dumb shit ("advocating murder", "that cat", "memes", etc). I want to still ban people for being shitheads and disrespecting others. Where garry and I disagree is with "shitposts". I believe that sometimes when people are repeatedly shitting on threads they need to be given a time out, because they're "shitposting". In the new rules, garry does not want "shitposting" to be a reason to ban people. He wants to put things into the hands of the community, to either choose to call somebody out on their shit or to simply ignore it. I'd like there to be a warning system that disables people's ability to post for a few hours (changeable by moderators) after they read the message. It will complement our old style of using bans as warnings, but still allow people to use the forums without having to log out and all that nonsense you used to have to do. Bans should be used for more serious infractions and to remove people from the forums permanently. We shouldn't have to protect people from replying to trolls. People should be grown up enough and experienced enough by now to recognise it and think "This isn't even worth my time". The event log is still accessible, why would people think we're banning people for shit reports when there hasn't been a single ban for this on the new forums? Always report if you want to bring something to a Moderator's attention. We still read all the reports. You can even add freetext now so you can describe why you've reported the post. Same, it should be flexible and at Moderator's discretion. The "Why Reply" ban was spam. Why post in a thread saying "i don't care"? It's not subjectivity. Flaming is still bannable under that rule. Garry has been focusing on Tub recently but forum development is still ongoing at an albeit slower pace. Thanks for your useful input as always ASIC We have 14 moderators at the moment, I'm considering hiring some more so watch this space

In case this is a joke about how vague the post was, I did elaborate a little on my thoughts afterwards. To quote a specific part of a persons post, this is what you have to do: First you have to highlight that part of their post, like how you would highlight something when copy pasting text. Then you want to click the reply button.

The past still hurts Hezzy. The precedent was already there. Saying it’s okay now is probably not the most effective. No way to show it either.

I tried to elaborate in the post after the one you were referring to. This one was a joke.

You're welcome. I think we have ran the experiment long enough to realize that what we have isn't working. At least in the Polidicks/SH sections. Those are special subforums that need special attention. The remainder of the subs are all discussion based, these are debate oriented. I think before Newpunch, our ruleset was fine. At least the level of strictness that we carried with it. However, some of the more archaic rules that we kept around like the ones against memes/image macros were ready to hit the door. I think if we brought back that style with a leaner rule set, we could see the same open discussion in a more pleasant environment. I never understood why bans had to remove a user from viewing a forum when a forum could be viewed by unregistered users. A ban should put that person into a read-only state. That way if it is temporary, they can still keep up with threads. If it is permanent, then who cares, all they had to do was log out. This is not a good line of thought to have. Saying people should be grown up/experienced by now implies that the community isn't changing. New people come in, old people exit. Some stick around, others don't. Not every user is at the same level of experience/maturity as people who have been here for a decade or longer. And you should keep people from replying to trolls by removing the trolls. That is the biggest issue presently with the rules that we have. Trolls are allowed to thrive and it causes shitshows in threads. Mods don't take action on it, there are no rules against it, and people have nothing else to turn to for help. I explained this in a previous post last night. I was under the impression this was still a thing as well. When the report function was added I am pretty sure that it was stated to not use it to report for things not against the rules or else you would be banned. Since we have no rules, you couldn't report for anything, and people were afraid to use it. If someone wants to have a spat with another user, then "treat others the way you want to be treated". If you want to dictate how people handle interactions and set a limit on how heated they get, then I would suggest adding "No flaming" to the rules to clarify that.

Why? Here are some guesses: Checking the event log may not occur to people. If they do check it, they may interpret the info incorrectly. Like instead of whats actually going on, they could just assume that no on has managaged to get banned for low quality reports so far even if it is still banan

Yeah back on oldpunch this made sense, but now there's very little for moderators to do, so you don't need more.