I know conservatives aren't necessarily prevalent around here, so if you guys need a conservative voice around here who can be impartial, I can be on the council. If needed, I am willing to serve the Democratic People's Republic of Polidicks.
Making a fake proposal for a balanced user council so that the conservative users would all come forward and we can finally execute order 66 on them was a great idea Hezzy!
The optimum council layout would be to take the results from one of my totally bogus empirically scientific political tests and not appointing anyone who falls too far to the left or right of where I was.
I think this can work, if it's well handled and taken seriously.
I believe we have several right wing users who are very reasonable and can be impartial, like Grenadiac. Or, at the very least, people who argue for conservative views (Catbarf? He seems like a good guy who's changed my mind on some things, don't want to say he's conservative though in case he doesn't claim to be one).
I'll hate to see PD have only left wing users as mods, but at the same time people like Grenadiac could be seen more and more as left as the GOP become more extreme, we could end up in a few years where people like Tudd and Johnfisher are seen as moderate conservatives and where Grenadiac is seen as socalist.
What you're doing is considered antagonistic towards a government you support or live under. I declare myself the representative body of elected officials.
Good idea in theory but I'm already predicting that the 5 people, at some point, will start swatting away those that dare offer an opinion off the beaten track. As someone who has been part of internet "communities" that had councils like these, there's inevitable controversy and people know they can get away with anything if they're in the good books of those on the council. As much as I'd like to see this be successful, and I certainly don't plan on going out of my way to prevent it from being so, I expect that political topics will become echo chambers à la Reddit. Or, we'll take the approach of something like "2 left-wing, 2 right-wing and one centrist to keep it balanced!" and then we achieve nothing because the people in the council can't come to an agreement; the bias of folk will always find a way to leak out.
But hey, that's all speculation and there's no way to know until you test it.
I think it's an interesting idea; one that's at least worth exploring if not implemented permanently. It's no secret that the move to NewPunch has, justifiably or not, eroded the relationship between the moderation team and the general community, and so any attempt to bridge that gap should be met with a cautious optimism. My only concern would be how much the council is listened to and how much of an affect it can have on the section. My view is that codifying exactly what powers the council have, at least initially, would be extremely important as to avoid confusion or wilful ignorance towards the purpose of the council.
This is a pretty bad idea, mostly because good luck finding 5 eligible candidates every couple months, and there's also very few right-wingers/conservatives around. I've also never thought it to be a good idea to give mod powers to people who get heavily involved in discussions, as it just opens the door for people's biases to affect their judgment. Really you're better served just picking a few dedicated mods to punish bad actors who troll, make outrageous or false claims, flame etc.
I demand to be the official Antifa Representative
There's several people I'd consider to do this since they don't try to stir discourse and usually present good arguments. And then there's people who I'd say should never be remotely allowed to govern any form of rule because they're too biased. While someone being right-wing or conservative isn't ideal to everyone on the forum it allows for less of an echo-chamber to be present amongst the section. However there are plenty of left-wing/progressives who can be just as bias'd. It's probably better off having people who have no heavily favored right or left leanings to do it because you won't have someone removing people from the conversation because they feel as if they're feelings got hurt or that someone is trolling because they have an opposing view-point.
So we are creating Virtual Political parties then?
The thought did cross my mind that this is all just a social experiment by Hezzy.
Shit's about to get all Stanford Prison Experiment around here.
Going with the "crowdsource work" Valve school of philosophy, I see.
Can we have a Polidicks KGB which goes through and spellchecks everyone and if you lose -5000 smartness you get reported to the Polidicks central committee?
If we're going to attempt to fill this council to achieve a balanced left and rightness, I feel like 5 people might be too low of a number for that. I think 7 or even 9 would be better.
That's pretty much the entirety of Polidicks
okay so how about instead of making a election system that the neonazis that are already trying to brainwash people on the forums can easily rig, why dont we just cut out all this fucking middleman bureaucracy bullshit and stop pretending the real problem isn't the fucking neonazis who just "happen to share the exact stance of the alt-right but is clever enough to hide being a neonazi"
like come the fuck on we shouldn't be letting them "have a voice", if "let people just figure out they're stupid" worked we wouldn't have people falling for Q bullshit, we wouldn't have Alex Jones with millions of daily listeners, and we wouldn't have Trump to begin with
we can start by banning people falsely playing devil's advocate for issues that the alt-right neonazi movement likes to defend
we can also improve on this by fucking banning breitbart and co., and also banning chucklefucks like Count Dankula and Mister Metokur (along with every other "skeptic community" asshole on youtube 99% of them are just fucking neo-nazi propaganda channels) from being posted, who are very fucking clearly using their content to dogwhistle to neonazis and racist assholes
"b-but their freedom of speech"
they're neo-nazis, they can have their freedom of speech when they stop using it to peddle racist, sexist, and douchey myths as "the real news the libtards don't want you to hear"
"b-but we need BOTH SIDES"
this is a common misdirection tactic to get you to stop arguing the point and start arguing something else, stop fucking falling for this you are not five years old and have object permanence, apply this to your fucking debates
"b-but I thought it was interesting"
hey you know who else posted things they thought was "interesting" that just always happened to be content designed explicitly to rile people up? tudd did, and we all know what happened with him
the worst part about this method is when they post it like this, they invite curious readers who might not know what they're getting into to get entangled into the fucking neonazi conspiracy web they use to recruit and brainwash random folks
it's the same bullshit they're pulling with Q, just "wow these two things seem like they might be linked, i dunno you should research it yourself using these two helpful terms I gave you that totally are going to convince advertising algos to give you content similar to what I want you to see", like how if you accidentally click on a The Golden One video you'll get 10 years of neo-nazi bullshit recommended to you on youtube forever until you convince the algo that "no, I do not want to see steroid popping Swedish manchildren with libraries composed entirely of fantasy novels tell you about their conspiracy theory about globalists"
"b-but I agree with them about gaming journalism"
Congrats, you fell for the early neonazi campaign. Don't fucking fall for that garbage anymore. It's okay to admit you fucked up.
tl;dr, can you people stop being fucking oblivious and just tackle your issue of fucking neonazis on the forum using it as free advertising for their conspiracy and movement, instead of letting them trick you into thinking they deserve a voice?
like, just because they aren't screaming "praise kekistan" and rolling out the pepe avatars doesn't mean they aren't trying to pull bullshit
open your fucking eyes and start researching the context of why something might of been posted next time some dipshit shows up in a random thread with a nuclear-hot take on something that is so fucking out of left field, for example, "why there's totally no-go zones in sweden" or "alex jones should have a right to free speech its alright if he's crazy people wont listen to him"
I think there's balanced enough users that would be committed to it. Though the whole "two month term" thing could be an issue if Hezzy's insisting on new people constantly. I think it'd be better to handle it as a more fluid thing, adding/removing people as necessary and not necessarily having a specifically set limit on users on said council either. (Though keeping it an odd number is probably a good idea.)
My personal top two choices if we were electing PD mods would be yourself and Raidyr. Both of you are pretty fair and not quick to vilify people for simply having differing beliefs as well as both being pretty active posters there as well.
What is up with people constantly not understanding the difference between shitposts from conservative users and valid opinions from conservative users? Cause the controversial users are the ones who shitpost and argue like total ass, not simply the ones with unpopular opinions. (Unless those opinions happen to be something archaic like thinking some race is lesser than another, ie: something legitimately hateful.)
Grenadiac, Albert Wesker, ilikecorn, Kartoffel, and a handful of others are reasonable posters who are pretty impartial in general. Out of them though I think Grenadiac would be the best choice.
We are being manipulated in a thousand different ways each and every day. I don't even rightly have a grasp on what the alt right is, as it's really an American specific term, I've always labelled myself (if I absolutely had to) a libertarian centrist.
At the same time I really don't conform to any particular opinion, I just judge each thing as it is, with the experiences and knowledge I have. If I talk about topics such as international politics and especially trusting what the mainstream media is saying in times of cheap international military strikes that are not approved or sanctioned by the security council, for example, then you can bet your ass I'll speak my mind on it.
In fact apart from my openness about speaking about the immigration crisis in Europe I really don't know how you can attribute me to the alt right.
I'm surprised to see this get even the level of support it has. The OP read like a joke, not a genuine idea.
I do not expect this to end well.
I guess this is a fun idea. I hope it makes PD more moderate-able? I'd hate for it to be considered toxic enough to give it the axe.
I'm not sure it'd end well either but it's not as certain as plenty of things we've been forced to give a chance. I'm open to giving it a shot if it has a chance of improving PD.
Off to a good start
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/112373/27c31251-7f0f-4abf-a830-e89d7286c5f4/2018-08-14.png
If we can get it figured and balanced then sure, wouldn't be the worst thing in the world
The main issue is that reasonable debate is all well and good, but we're ending up with people like the now-banned Bee York showing up in threads posting contrarian opinions and making bombastic claims in the process while refusing to back up their claims/opinions/arguments with solid facts and evidence. They and many other neo-nazis are taking advantage of our now much looser rules on sourcing and fact checking in PD debates and using intellectually dishonest argument tactics, seemingly only to derail the thread and segway into another topic only connected by their own conspiracy theory or some kind of free association bullshit.
We need to be cracking down hard on this shit. It's dishonest and intended to either stir up trouble, or to advertise to passive readers who aren't going to research their claims enough to realize how false they are. The member selection for this council needs to be really fucking careful, and above all else, stop worrying about political views of the council members.
Your political views as a council member shouldn't impact you banning someone for shitposting/trying to pass off Alex Jones as "news"/debating like a douchebag with fallacies and intellectual dishonesty.
So why the fuck are we demanding we have an equal right/left wing council member amount? By putting that restriction in place, you are demanding the council vote by political affiliation, instead of the rules they are supposed to uphold.
I think it might be more useful to grab people from a wide geographical net. I also think the 2 month term length is kinda short.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but I think you're somewhat misunderstanding the point. By having a council with users representing different portions of the political spectrum then it's easier to avoid any specific political bias coming into play. So while that's irrelevant for trying to pass of Alex Jones as news or something, it can come into play a lot more for other more subjective stuff.
the only similar example I can think of is what eve online did
In part due to the matters above, CCP invited users to stand for the first Council of Stellar Management (CSM) in March 2008, resulting in 66 candidates seeking election to nine positions.[140][141][142][143] It was a requirement that candidates release their full real names in addition to stating their in-game details.[144] In May, after a two-week voting period, the first Council was elected, comprising seven men and two women; three each from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, two from the USA and one from Denmark, their ages ranging from 17 to 52.[143]
The remit of the Council has been changed since it was first proposed and is now seen by CCP primarily as a route for players to make requests for changes and improvements to the game mechanics, presentation, and game content of Eve Online. The first four Councils served for six months, after which new ones were to be elected.[142] Each individual was only permitted to serve twice. Each CSM gets the authority to put requests to CCP three times during their term of office which CCP have stated must be answered; once in person in Iceland and twice by e-mail, with most of the costs of their visit to Iceland being borne by CCP.[142] The rules were changed for the fifth CSM to feature one-year terms with two Iceland trips and four email requests, as well as the abolition of the two-term limit.[citation needed]
I would much rather we dealt with these people on a case by case basis. You may also be applying some kind of malicious intent of people with opinions that may seem unpopular, as much as I'm sure there are bad eggs, there are comparatively little compared to the regular PD breed. It's also a great opportunity for people to perhaps change a mind or two if people are shown that their arguments are embarrassing. Which is what an internet forum like this is great for. It reflects the reality of the diverse opinions, however sometimes unfounded, people really have.
I know I've had a couple of reality checks on this forum, I think most have.
I'm not in agreement with the idea of left and right wing, as it means different things in different countries but a council that stands on different sides of different fences is healthy, and will help to prevent any form of prejudice when it comes to decisions. Rule based or not.
the funniest part of the CSM was when one of the goonswarm reps described the coathanger monster fleet complete with an infographic at a CCP event and got booted off the CSM
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
