But it's still posting your opinion attached to your name in the forums. I don't see why that should go by different quality standards. It's against forum rules to be racist, but you can rate a hate crime article with winner and be fine? fuck that
Do you really think it's possible to ban every racist, sexist, transphobe in this forum? Do you think it's needed?
So long as they're civil and don't cause a disruption with shitposting people should be allowed to believe what they like, be as shitty as they like.
Expressing your inner edge with a rating is 100% non disruptive, even if you're rating a baby rape and murder news article funny. The ones causing a disruption are the ones derailing the thread to complain about mean ratings.
The reason we ban for racist posts is because we don't want those people in the forums.
Most funny rated post on FP was about a boy that drowned.
The thing is, if someone had replied to that thread and said it was funny, they wouldn't have been banned. We DO ban for transphobia and racism though
Since we're on the topic, I wish we didn't have to be so uptight about others' posting/rating habits, even in Polidicks. Even with the dumb/low effort posts, at least it made the place less serious and more interesting to browse. When someone posts a bad opinion or something, I think we should just dumb and move on. If they respond, let's have that debate. It seems like the heavy handedness of the moderation when it comes to that sort of thing more or less discourages people to post, making a lot of threads fairly predictable and kinda boring, imo. Of course blatant racism should be banned, but it seems to go beyond that to me.
It used to be bannable for even posting about ratings; I still think this is the best solution. They're super unobtrusive and are easily ignored. Like, who cares if someone made an edgy rating? Ignore it, move on. Acknowledging it by post just gives it way more attention than it deserves.
I don't think we should ban people for crap ratings, but I don't see why we should ban people who address it either? It creates this weird paradox where, even though the website has this feature designed for sharing your opinion and participating in the thread, nobody can talk about it, you can't treat it as participation without getting banned.
Like wtf is up with people who rate a thread suddenly becoming Voldemort? Its always seemed super weird and arbitrary to me
remember when caring about ratings was bannable
Dude, it's never gonna happen. Not sure how else I can explain to you that trying to sanitise your user base is a bad thing to try and do.
You make the assumption that someone who you consider a racist (which could mean a variety of things depending on who you ask, from people who want to lynch PoCs to people who think immigration should be stricter), and someone who you consider a transphobe (which could refer to someone who thinks all transgender people should be insitutionalised as well as someone who just thinks that GRS doesn't solve all your dysphoria problems and can make them worse) is a terrible, irredeemable human being who doesn't deserve to be on the same forum as you.
You also seem to forget that internet forums are places where people come to relax and have fun, and not everyone is gonna be the same upstanding human being that they try to be in their daily life when they come on here. The best you can and should do is enforce the rules, and the rules should be based on banning behaviour that is disruptive to the forums, not the way you think everyone else in the world should behave like to the point of not clicking little buttons because it might offend people.
How do you establish rule breaking from a SINGLE rating though.
yeah sure there are instances everyone is going to feel rating a particular thread funny was not acceptable
but every thread is going to be different, every mod will have a different perspective, every person that made the rating will have a different reason for why they rated. guaranteed.
that is why i hate banning for ratings. Prove the user is trolling through posts, offsite activity, or patterns of activity: 1. user is rating a lot of sensitive topic threads funny would be a ban no question 2. they are known to piss people off. That will produce a better ban.
I'm usually for less rather than more rules, but I'd have 0 trouble with this rule being brought back.
The thread in question has completely derailed into a ratings discussion. And we don't want to encourage people who call out users who have rated them dumb or similar. Usually only newer users do this, but a rule would make it clear that you're not supposed to take ratings seriously.
Imagine being banned for a 24x24 image
And what It appears is that Knockout has done exactly what was predicted, Garry sees it and decides
"They're making their own replacement, GUESS I DON'T NEED THIS ANYMORE!"
The self-fulfilling prophesy of making knockout "in case FP dies" is going to kill this place.
I think the whole point is that there's a difference between being butthurt over being rated dumb versus someone skirting around the Polidicks' guidelines encouraging you to "put effort into your posts or avoid posting" by rating Diamonds (as a sign of approval) to posts about kids dying in the New Zealand shooting, or people similarly sentiment with ratings that would get them banned if they posted instead.
Yes, it was terrible.
Imagine being banned for being a shithead.
Shitposting is shitposting, whether you type out a paragraph of shit or be an edgelord with ratings imo.
It's slightly different. The news post wasn't funny, but the sonic drowning video (posted later) was.
If nothing else, can a user rating a thread (with the intention of passive shitposting) at least prevent people being banned for calling that out?
Like, it's one thing to derail an anti-Trump thread with "EXPLAIN THIS TUDD" when Tudd didn't even post/etc, but if people are rating tragedies as Winner/Diamond/etc, I don't think that they should be able to hide behind that and reap the results of people expressing disgust for those kinds of scenarios.
Tbh I think the best solution is to make ratings anonymous again.
It's a bit harder to give a shit when there isn't a name connected to the ratings.
I think that would just further incentivise trolling
Honestly as much as I dislike what their most likely stance is on these kind of issues, I do believe people should still be able to express their view/opinion no matter how extreme it is. Both rating wise and posting (assuming they can at least give some kind of justification).
Unless you can prove that they're rating things like that to purposely troll and get reactions sure ban them, but if not then idk. Craptasket made a pretty good post about this before.
If someone wants to be an idiot on a forum, then just let them be and laugh at them instead of getting angry.
I would see the appeal of humoring that line of logic if today’s political/social climate wasn’t the way it is, but I feel that’s a massive thread derail in the making if I go further than that.
A post is just a sequence of 16 pixel tall characters. Describing how something looks on a screen doesn't remove all meaning from it.
I don't think ratings should be bannable but it seems way too easy to troll if someone calling out a rating is enough to get them banned
You start banning people for rating one or two posts, you're gonna get a ton of awkward misunderstandings and probably make people scared of rating.
Ratings don't matter, so let's remove them. Or did I lose some of you when I said that?
Because time and time again, the community's responded negatively when someone says to remove ratings. Always with the argument that they do matter and serve the same purpose as a post that just says "agree" or "this is dumb"
Which one is it? Do they serve the same purpose as a post with that reaction, or should people who respond to them be banned because ratings don't matter? There's obviously a middle ground here. Ratings are less intrusive, they require less effort, they're more easily misclicked or misinterpreted, those are all ways in which they're different from a post, and reasons why we shouldn't ban people willy-nilly just for a couple of ratings.
At the same time, if ratings weren't used to make a point and let everyone see it, we would've either removed them, or made everyone's but your own invisible. It's super awkward that we have this feature designed to make it easier to participate in a thread, but don't treat it as participating in a thread. The reason why people rate and don't post is so they can share their opinion, without anyone being able to disagree without getting banned
Just hit the search bar for "transgender" for instance, almost[1] every[2] single[3] thread[4] that[5] comes[6] up[7] has[8] ratings[9] from[10] [11] [12] Chryseus2, Cureless, windwakr or Laika (can I even name them or am I about to be banned for a callout?), always a positive one or "big woop" if it's about the death, abuse, torture of a trans person or removal of their rights, and always a negative one if it's about trans representation
Don't ban people for ratings, don't even ban the ones I named (unless you think it falls under Crapt's definition of a pattern), just, stop banning anyone who responds to them, lol. It's a ridiculous double standard that FP blows the fuck up when removing ratings is brought up, because they give so much power for people to react, but we also can't treat them as reactions because actually they don't matter
Easy, make the OP not able to have ratings.
That way, you can only rate a user's post directly and respond to them individually instead of responding to the news itself. Less ability to "hide from ratings" to avoid getting banned for being an objectively worse human being with an inferior viewpoint.
Yeah it would be so constructive and enriching to have to divert legitimate opportunities for conversation to argue with, say, white supremacists and homophobes. We all know that extremism in its many forms relishes in personal growth and learning from others. Most assuredly of all, racists or people who extol violence are definitely not in any desperate need for validation and never seek to influence other people. Especially not in opaque ways that undermine and divide communities.
I'm rather late to the discussion but the issue here isn't a single rating. It's people who not only have a history of this exact kind of rating but also a long history of being explicitly transphobic before it became bannable to post transphobic shit. And in the case of Chryseus and Cureless they still do post as much transphobic shit as they can get away with without being banned. So when you go and look back through their history, it's fairly cut and dry and not all that ambiguous.
Maybe, but at the same time people would care less about the actual ratings because you'd no longer know who's behind them
It would go back to being useless as actual communication by certain users who want to annoy people without participating in conversation, and instead just be a gauge of general opinion with some random noise thrown in.
yup. and just reiterating here, banning for ratings is sTuPiD and weak modding. A user may be interacting with the thread by making a rating, but it's not even remotely close to the weight of a post. There is simply not enough to go on in a mod perspective.
Like you mentioned seeing patterns of behavior and history, that is going case by case which is good. you don't have to make a weak ban anymore it becomes solid enough to consider mod action as Trolling/Asshole.
Is it just me, or has the font been going crazy all day?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Forum Discussion VII: We had a good run
