Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

14 (18.9%)

No.

27 (36.5%)

I had no idea it existed until I read this.

33 (44.6%)

Total Members Voted: 73

[kaijyuu]

But when their only response is "You're an ass!" then that is it, they aren't trying, and they have nothing of value to say, I'm done. I'm sure any little idea still floating around in their head will be better heard from somebody else.

There are times when we need to be told we're being an ass, too. We all say stuff that can be unintentionally hurtful to others and "you're being a horrible asshole" is the most concise and reasonable response.

[Zangi]

I disagree, and would conjecture a test.

Go to a ______ themed forum, and tell them that you disagree with __________.

See how fast the ignore and or permaban happens.

*Fixed

To be fair, it sounds like you went to the forum, solely to troll. 
Noone is going to give you the time of day or benefit of the doubt when you come out of nowhere and try to start a 'debate' that looks like it is there to antagonize the forum dwellers.

[wierd]

Ahh, but "Disagreeing with _______" is fundamentally on topic to "Discussing ________".

If not on a forum for ______, where would such discussion be appropriate?

I would remind you of the original definition of the word "Forum", specifically #3.

A forum and a private club are not the same thing.

[GlyphGryph]

It does not matter if I am polite about it-- if I am correct, and can prove I am correct, that's what matters. How one "feels" about the answer is immaterial.

Being right is not the same being correct, and neither is the same as being worth discussing things with. The last one only really requires an open-ness to contradictory evidence, and a demonstrated ability to stay on topic.

Whether I ignore someone or not has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong, and everything to do with their ability to contribute in a positive way to the progression of a discussion.

I won't ignore people for having an opinion I will disagree with - I will totally ignore people for having an opinion I think is right but who have demonstrated an inability to consider opposing viewpoints, and a willingness to bring their arguments into inappropriate places. If you keep bringing up the plight of Syrian Refugees in a thread about food, for example, it doesn't matter how much I agree with you about how terrible that is, you've failed the "worth discussing things with" test because of your inability to stay on topic, and that's the only test that matters to me. If you don't understand context, you don't understand flow of conversation, and you don't understand what it means to have a productive and meaningful interchange of ideas, the opportunity cost of engaging you is likely to be rather high, high enough to make said engagement not worthwhile.

And I don't use it here, because thankfully that sort of behaviour, where someone is simply incapable of contributing in a worthwhile manner to pretty much any conversation at all, isn't common here. I've ignored people elsewhere, though. I have a whole big list of people to ignore on the xkcd forum, because I know whatever it is they are trying to say it won't have jack to do with what the thread is actually about, and is only likely to damage my ability to follow the pre-existing conversation up to that point if I mistakenly dive into reading it and trying to understand their contribution.

As an example of inappropriate and non-productive behaviour, see: derailing a discussion about Buddy Lists to talk about the problems with ignoring people. (I don't mind so much in this case because the previous discussion seemed to be pretty much "I don't use it except accidently" and this one is more interesting, but if I wanted to talk about buddy lists, I'd be quite cross with you, and if you did this in several threads discussing things I wanted to talk about, you'd probably end up getting ignored and I might even encourage others in those threads to do the same so we could return to the conversation at hand. Considering the 'MLP forum' comments, you do seem to have a certain lack of understanding concerning 'context' in regards to effective discussion, and coupled with your accusations here demonstrating you have a general unwillingness or inability to understand why others act in a way you disagree with, I'm very surprised you've done nothing so far to make me even want to ignore you - I wouldn't be surprised if a few people DID though, considering.)

[wierd]

Gryph:

MLP was a subject of convenience, I am ambivalent about adult MLP fans. I dont care either way. They were convenient, because the trolling has occured both ways, and their forums tend to be more akin to private clubs than open forums about the topic they present-- Fandom of MLP.  Opposing lines of reasoning for adult fandom of MLP are just as on topic in that context as is lines of reasoning FOR adult fandom of MLP. The point that it is seen immediately as trolling is exactly the point I was getting at. It shouldn't be seen that way, IMHO.

As for this derail, it started with my simply saying I was philosophically opposed to the idea of one, and why. Others continued the derail. This isn't a one man show. That you would choose to ignore such a viewpoint because it does not fit your personal scope of context, to me at least, indicates that you like to operate with the contextual tunnel vision I warned about-- it leads to dangerous places. I think you should reconsider the policy. Yes, seeing OT stuff can be annoying. That is not reason to ignore.

[Zangi]

See here though, 'forums' as in internet forums are not really public places.  Admins/Mods still have to manage the forum and keep the peace, because they are responsible for it. 
There is the basis of the fact that newperson123 only signed up to tell everyone that they disagree with _____.  There is no indication or show of faith that newperson123 is there to actually join the community or contribute to it in a positive way.
It is the admin/mods initiative to eject those who are their to antagonize its forum dwellers.  It is a judgment call, based on the little information they have on newperson123.

[LordSlowpoke]

I used the buddy list a total of two times, the ignore list is really much more useful~

[Cheeetar]

Perhaps it's a meta-commentary on the usefulness of the ignore function by providing a stunningly excellent nominee for its use on.

[GlyphGryph]

MLP was a subject of convenience, I am ambivalent about adult MLP fans. I dont care either way. They were convenient, because the trolling has occured both ways, and their forums tend to be more akin to private clubs than open forums about the topic they present-- Fandom of MLP.  Opposing lines of reasoning for adult fandom of MLP are just as on topic in that context as is lines of reasoning FOR adult fandom of MLP. The point that it is seen immediately as trolling is exactly the point I was getting at. It shouldn't be seen that way, IMHO.

I have absolutely no idea how this is relevant to anything you said. Clearly I failed to communicate something, because what you read certainly isn't related to what I wrote.

That you would choose to ignore such a viewpoint because it does not fit your personal scope of context, to me at least, indicates that you like to operate with the contextual tunnel vision I warned about-- it leads to dangerous places. I think you should reconsider the policy. Yes, seeing OT stuff can be annoying. That is not reason to ignore.

If it's proving a detriment to the conversation I am actually trying to have - yes, yes it is. If ignoring, and encouraging others to ignore, is the only way to keep the discussion productive instead of getting bogged down in a pointless tangent, it is very much worth ignoring. Because otherwise I can't have meaningful conversations at all, if any progress is going to be destroyed by derails and tangents before the conversation has gotten anywhere.

Productive interchanges require time and effort, and if you insist on posting in such a way so as to render worthless the time and effort others have put in should I engage with you, what should I do other than ignore you? You have literally made yourself the least important person in the conversation by refusing to participate in the conversation, and on top of that you've made yourself kind of a jerk by saying the thing you want to have a conversation about is way more important than the thing people were already talking about.

I don't particularly care how badly you want to prove you're correct - it doesn't actually matter, if you're using a methodology in which rational and purposeful discussion becomes impossible.

Like with science, being right is not even close to the most important condition for participation (in fact, it's one of the less important ones). Being right is completely worthless without context, rigor, and the ability to demonstrate that rightness to others, or at the very least the ability to act on that rightness to make meaningful change in the world (depending on what your goal is in regards to being right).

I'm not a charity worker, and it's not my job to address everyone on the internet with a worthless opinion, especially if they've shown themselves to be not worth the effort of engagement. I usually make an effort, but some people (like my personal troll, that oh so lazy dude cat) aren't interested in having anything approaching a rational discussion, and I'm not interested in having a "fight" where people score "points", or in catering to others demands for attention for no reason beyond the fact that they desperately want people to pay attention to them.

Why should I want to have a conversation with someone who has demonstrated in inability to hold a conversation? It sounds like you're arguing that I should waste a lot more of my time than I already do for... some unclear purpose. What is it that I, or at least someone, would gain by following your policy? Is it actually likely to accomplish anything of value at all?

And yeah, ignoring the bulk of my post to quibbly at details, and then misunderstanding the details, certainly makes me want to, if not outright ignore you, at least stop engaging with you. What's the point of putting work into writing these posts if the actual content is just going to be ignored? Your argument seems to be "I'm warning you about some bad thing!" - you need to actually argue why that thing is bad, and why I should care.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I think it's a bit of a life-difference. I consider it the same way that I do in-person annoyance. I don't just ignore a person forever for pissing me off one time or two times. I get over it, eh.

[wierd]

*sigh.


I would disagree that the derail has been nonproductive. Several opinions have been tendered on the matter, and discussion has occured. Under glyph's prerequisites, specifically:

Whether I ignore someone or not has nothing to do with whether they are right or wrong, and everything to do with their ability to contribute in a positive way to the progression of a discussion.

If you want to argue semantics about "productive", such that it implies somebody has changed their opinion, I consider that a poor decision; Being made aware of, and exposed to a dissenting opinion is itself profitable and positive in my estimation. Without that exposure, you would never know that the opinion existed, and thus would not think to doublecheck your own position. It is this lack of doublechecking and the problems it causes that leads me to hold the philosophical view I hold. I am not out to convert you. That is not the purpose of the derail. I was trying to explain the opinion I hold to expand your scope. I consider that a positive contribution.

As for this part, specifically the bolded part-

As an example of inappropriate and non-productive behaviour, see: derailing a discussion about Buddy Lists to talk about the problems with ignoring people. (I don't mind so much in this case because the previous discussion seemed to be pretty much "I don't use it except accidently" and this one is more interesting, but if I wanted to talk about buddy lists, I'd be quite cross with you, and if you did this in several threads discussing things I wanted to talk about, you'd probably end up getting ignored and I might even encourage others in those threads to do the same so we could return to the conversation at hand. Considering the 'MLP forum' comments, you do seem to have a certain lack of understanding concerning 'context' in regards to effective discussion, and coupled with your accusations here demonstrating you have a general unwillingness or inability to understand why others act in a way you disagree with, I'm very surprised you've done nothing so far to make me even want to ignore you - I wouldn't be surprised if a few people DID though, considering.)

is patently untrue, and I can prove it.

If you note, I said I was philosophicaly opposed to the idea. I never said I wanted to take the button from you.

Some people indeed cannot be reached, but it is unfair to the people that can be, and to yourself, to choose not to try despite this.

It isn't about wasting energy; it's more about how deep your ability to comprehend and cope with the existence of completely incompatible worldviews you have.

...snip...

I probably have abnormal amounts of patience there, being addicted to information-- (and love being corrected), but logically, you still only truly fail when you fail to try. To me, clicking "ignore" is choosing to fail, because trying is too hard.

I don't mean anything personal by that. It may well BE too hard. But to me, choosing to fail is silly.

[GlyphGryph]

I think it's a bit of a life-difference. I consider it the same way that I do in-person annoyance. I don't just ignore a person forever for pissing me off one time or two times. I get over it, eh.

I have ignored people forever (in real life) who felt the need to insert some irrelevant pet issue into every unrelated conversation, though! It's just, like... I don't have time for that sort of thing, you know? It doesn't even piss me off, most of the time it just leaves me confused and a bit sad that the thing I was enjoying talking about is, again, going to have to take a back seat to this persons seeming insistence that everything, all the time, be about them. Of course, after a certain point everyone else just chooses to ignore them too, limiting their ability to deal damage.

demonstrating you have a general unwillingness or inability to understand why others act in a way you disagree with

is patently untrue, and I can prove it.

If you note, I said I was philosophicaly opposed to the idea. I never said I wanted to take the button from you.
Some people indeed cannot be reached, but it is unfair to the people that can be, and to yourself, to choose not to try despite this.
It isn't about wasting energy; it's more about how deep your ability to comprehend and cope with the existence of completely incompatible worldviews you have.
...snip...
I probably have abnormal amounts of patience there, being addicted to information-- (and love being corrected), but logically, you still only truly fail when you fail to try. To me, clicking "ignore" is choosing to fail, because trying is too hard.
I don't mean anything personal by that. It may well BE too hard. But to me, choosing to fail is silly.

I have no idea how the things you said are relevant to the thing I said. None of this is relevant to the reason I choose to ignore people, and it seems entirely founded on assumptions that you seem to... want me to agree with? Maybe? I'm not even sure. Forget proof, this is just a description of why you feel I should be here and how I'm failing (and choosing to fail, at that!) by being here for a different reason - or its just a description of why you think that about yourself in which case, again, I don't understand what I'm supposed to take from it or what it has to do with anything, unless you do intend it to be a commentary on the approach others should take, in which case its a terribly assumptive and unconvincing one.

Summary: I honestly don't know what you are trying to communicate here, though, so it may just be a failure to communicate. It might help if you'd tell me what your point is for posting the quote, because I'm not sure how it's supposed to prove what you're saying it proves.

logically, you still only truly fail when you fail to try

Also, this is complete nonsense. Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play. Just because someone wants me to do something doesn't mean I should, and failing to do what other people want isn't really a "failure" in any way I care about.

[wierd]

And yeah, ignoring the bulk of my post to quibbly at details, and then misunderstanding the details, certainly makes me want to, if not outright ignore you, at least stop engaging with you. What's the point of putting work into writing these posts if the actual content is just going to be ignored? Your argument seems to be "I'm warning you about some bad thing!" - you need to actually argue why that thing is bad, and why I should care.

As you wish:

Here's is another convenient example.

The ideological divide in the US, concerning religious faith, and its consequences.

The choice of both sides to systematically exclude the other in conversation about the matter, and the resulting insular camps produced, makes the problem untenable.

I provided an example of this earlier, which you seem to have ignored, in contravention of your own assertion quoted above.

The issue I have mostly encountered is that others may not accept the proof of correctness, because the proof may require the use of axioms outside of their mental toybox.

A good example of this would be a creationist VS an evolutionist/secular scientifically literate person, debating the origin of humans.

From the axiom toolkit of  the creationist (at least for the typical christian variety), the argument is that the physical reality we experience is actually an illusion to be overcome to achieve the true prize in a supernatural afterlife, and humans were directly created the way they are specifically to facilitate this role (as such, the assertion that objective reality is a manifestation of truth is immediately exclude-able as false)-- but to the evolutionary/scientific axiom toolkit, the physical reality is the objective manifestation of truth, and the religious axiom is nonsense that is immediately exclude-able as false.

The failure to stop insisting that the other drop their toybox and play with yours causes this problem, and the choice to ignore because "They clearly cant hold a rational conversation" (despite the position they have taken being genuinely rational, just from different axioms) only serves to galvanize both camps, and create a very negative problem even worse.

That is why I suggested this:

If you summarily ignore them, by asserting "they are all ignorant biggots", and they all ignore you, by asserting that you are an egotistical godless heathen, there will never be a dialog worthy of mention.

That can only happen when one side or the other takes a vested interest.  We can't force other people to take that step, but we can force ourselves to take it.

Taking that step makes us better, more rounded people. The treasure is the journey, not the destination.

and this

For instance, to reach the previously mentioned southern baptists, you have to frame your arguments from within a biblical context, because that is where they draw their axioms from. Arguing from a secular context is every bit as inapplicable, as theirs are from a religious one are at winning you over.  If they want to win you to the jesus camp, they have to frame a solid secular argument no? That is what you expect of them, right? How is the inverse any different?

Specifically, to combat the violent radicalism of the southern baptist, I would start asking them some honest questions concerning several applicable biblical passages, and their stances. You would be surprised at how profitable that is.

It looks to me, that you took this:

It does not matter if I am polite about it-- if I am correct, and can prove I am correct, that's what matters. How one "feels" about the answer is immaterial.

and ran with it out of context, in contravention of your own admonishment.

[wierd]

[snip]
Summary: I honestly don't know what you are trying to communicate here, though, so it may just be a failure to communicate. It might help if you'd tell me what your point is for posting the quote, because I'm not sure how it's supposed to prove what you're saying it proves.

Certainly. The quoted posts, in context, demonstrate the opposite of the implication you made, because they do indeed acknowledge the existence and validity of the opposing view, demonstrating that the position from which you were arguing is not valid. My assertion that I am ambivalent about MLP fandom earlier removes the "You must hate MLP" implication, and my point about forums being open to public comment by nature, and that "discussion of MLP fandom" is equally inclusive of dissenting views being tendered, and that it should not be immediately viewed as trolling has merit-- The mention of going to the MLP fan forum and making that mention was not intended to convey that I think it is acceptable to bully people; Nowhere in this derail have I made any inclination to that effect, and as quoted above, quite the contrary.  Rather, the context was more in line with stating that the immediate reaction to such a post as being exclusively to troll is a consequence of acceptance of ideological insulation-- the MLP fan forum is insular-- the reaction they would have to the opposing view would be to immediately ban and ignore, regardless of any validity.

I further pointed out that this problem does not extend only to strictly insular community hubs, such as such forums-- it spills out onto neutral territories as well, such as the linked Deviantart blog.

If you want a real example of why insulation of this nature is a bad thing, just read the linked blog's comments section.

[GlyphGryph]

Certainly. The quoted posts, in context, demonstrate the opposite of the implication you made, because they do indeed acknowledge the existence and validity of the opposing view, demonstrating that the position from which you were arguing is not valid.

...I'm not seeing it. Honestly 100% not seeing it. Nowhere in your quoted section do you acknowledge any opposing view that I can see, you just talk about yourself and what you think. Did you quote the wrong thing? If not, you might have to break it down for me, because I'm not making the connection.

My assertion that I am ambivalent about MLP fandom earlier removes the "You must hate MLP" implication

This is exactly what I meant with the whole "you are clearly reading something different than the things I am writing" thing. Such an implication was not intended, and in fact would have detracted from the point I was attempting to make.

The rest of the post mostly seems to be an argument that people shouldn't be accused of trolling when they are trolling. I'm not sure if you actually think trolling is a good thing, and just don't understand what the word means, or if you honestly see a way for "Go to a ___ themed forum, and tell them that you disagree with adult fandom of ___." to be anything else? I mean, that is pretty much text-book trolling right there. I am literally having trouble coming up with a possible intention here that isn't either "trolling" or worse.

Even if the intent IS something other than trolling, what you communicate is way more important that what you intend, and what you're communicating with something like this is "I don't care about any of you I just want attention pay attention to me pay attention to me now" at best and "I'm gonna rile some people up hurr hurr" being the most likely reading.

"discussion of MLP fandom" is equally inclusive of dissenting views being tendered

Well these are definitely words, but I have no idea what they are saying.

and that it should not be immediately viewed as trolling has merit

This is easy to say when you're not part of a group that's a common target of trolling. Think of it like the bodies immune response - a fever and chills and swelling are hardly good things, true, but it's better than letting the disease destroy the body. Much like a foreign body encountering the immune system, if you look like a hostile invader with no apparent goal beyond doing damage and attacking, you're probably going to be treated like one.

the context was more in line with stating that the immediate reaction to such a post as being exclusively to troll is a consequence of acceptance of ideological insulation-- the MLP fan forum is insular-- the reaction they would have to the opposing view would be to immediately ban and ignore, regardless of any validity.

And I'm lost again. If it's a forum for the MLP fandom, and you go there to argue against the MLP forum, the argument that you're a troll is pretty valid. The argument that you clearly don't understand the purpose of the forum and thus are unlikely to be able to make a positive contribution is even more valid.

If you want a real example of why insulation of this nature is a bad thing, just read the linked blog's comments section.

I think insulation is a bad thing - but sometimes better than the alternative. I also think acting like a troll, enabling trolls, or listening to trolls, is going to do absolutely nothing to help, in either case.