Print

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

[Leafsnail]

Something doesn't even have to be reportable in order to cause problems for other parts of the forums, and I've explained why threads/subforums can affect others: They attract certain people and engender certain types of atmosphere, behavior, discussion, and so forth. Also, as has been stated by others, making a specific place to act a certain way does not mean that nobody will act that way elsewhere: Standards of behavior and ways of thinking spill over between sections quite easily, as they do anywhere.

So what exactly are mods meant to be doing about this?  Just taking out random, non rule breaking posts since they might cause people to break the rules in the future?

I don't want to have to invoke thoughtcrime, but...

[G-Flex]

You really mangled those quotes.

Now, to get this straight, you want mods to go around magically divining which otherwise innocuous and completely permitted posts they should fall upon with righteous fury because "them's stirrin up trouble all sneakylike"?

It doesn't take magic to recognize social trends on a webforum; it takes a modicum of paying attention and being over the age of fourteen. I also didn't imply any sort of malicious or "sneaky" intent on anyone's part.

So what exactly are mods meant to be doing about this?  Just taking out random, non rule breaking posts since they might cause people to break the rules in the future?

I don't want to have to invoke thoughtcrime, but...

Sure, if they're complete idiots. A better solution would be to analyze what trends occur on the forums and why, and adjust rules/board sections/moderation as is appropriate.

No one but you agrees with this. You want mods to go around hunting down "them troublemakers and their sneaky threads that aren't actually enough to report or against the rules, cause them's troublemakers like them crackheads and other minoritahs." You also have done nothing but just state that you feel that way over and over again when asked to actually provide evidence or a coherent argument as to why people should believe this.

Did you seriously just imply that I made racist comments? I don't even know how to respond to that.

Also, nobody but me agrees with what? The fact that behavior in one place can affect behavior in another place? This should be obvious to anyone who pays attention, and no, I'm not the only person who thinks that.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You compared them to crackheads and gangbangers in a ghetto. Those are kind of loaded terms, in the US at least. You perceive yourself as an omnipotent moral majority (despite facing near universal condemnation), and you want to hunt down a theoretical minority of troublemakers that... aren't actually breaking any rules, or demonstrably doing anything (by your own words).

[G-Flex]

You compared them to crackheads and gangbangers in a ghetto. Those are kind of loaded terms, in the US at least.

Er, loaded with what, aside from the obvious negative connotations? Are you seriously going to say there were racial undertones in what I said?

Anyway, it wasn't meant to be a comparison in the way you're thinking. I was just drawing up the most obvious (and therefore extreme) example I could think of to illustrate the point that one place can cause problems for another place even if nobody really complains about the first place in particular.

You perceive yourself as an omnipotent moral majority (despite facing near universal condemnation)

What? No, I don't. I'm giving my own opinion on things. That does not mean I think I'm an "omnipotent moral majority". And what do you mean by "near universal condemnation"? What the fuck is this, a witch hunt?

and you want to hunt down a theoretical minority of troublemakers that... aren't actually breaking any rules

The rules are one of the things that need to be examined, as I've stated before.

[Footkerchief]

You compared them to crackheads and gangbangers in a ghetto. Those are kind of loaded terms, in the US at least.

Er, loaded with what, aside from the obvious negative connotations? Are you seriously going to say there were racial undertones in what I said?

TBH those terms have giant, obvious racial connotations.

Everyone please take a moment to refocus your mind on the actual course of action that you're suggesting.

[RedKing]

Wow. Went away for a few days, and came back to find this thread went straight down the tubes. Awesome sauce, guys.

[ECrownofFire]

You really mangled those quotes.

Now, to get this straight, you want mods to go around magically divining which otherwise innocuous and completely permitted posts they should fall upon with righteous fury because "them's stirrin up trouble all sneakylike"?

It doesn't take magic to recognize social trends on a webforum; it takes a modicum of paying attention and being over the age of fourteen. I also didn't imply any sort of malicious or "sneaky" intent on anyone's part.

So basically what you're saying is that "if you're not an idiot, you should be able to see what I'm seeing".

[iceball3]

You compared them to crackheads and gangbangers in a ghetto. Those are kind of loaded terms, in the US at least.

Er, loaded with what, aside from the obvious negative connotations? Are you seriously going to say there were racial undertones in what I said?

TBH those terms have giant, obvious racial connotations.

Everyone please take a moment to refocus your mind on the actual course of action that you're suggesting.

Racial? I don't see racial.

Crackhead: typically someone addicted to a drug of some sort. Commonly crack.
Gangbanger: Typically someone who just chills out and yet still takes active part in a gang of some sort.
Ghetto: A cheap house/ apartment, usually found in the slums.

[G-Flex]

You compared them to crackheads and gangbangers in a ghetto. Those are kind of loaded terms, in the US at least.

Er, loaded with what, aside from the obvious negative connotations? Are you seriously going to say there were racial undertones in what I said?

TBH those terms have giant, obvious racial connotations.

Everyone please take a moment to refocus your mind on the actual course of action that you're suggesting.

Wait, so I can't imply that drug-dealing gangs are bad without also implying some kind of racist sentiment? How the hell does that even work?

I also never even used the terms "gangbangers" or "ghetto". Those words were put into my mouth by someone else. I really, really don't appreciate being painted as a racist for this. It isn't true, and more importantly, it has nothing to do with the point I'm actually trying to address here.

[iceball3]

Now thinking about this, isn't it racist to think that is racist in itself?

[Footkerchief]

Thread has officially reached the popcorn stage.  Re-rail yourselves posthaste.

[LordNagash]

I don't get how a thread can do that (except maybe in the case of the VN moving fortress thread).  Unless you're just trying to annoy some users you don't like into leaving by deleting their threads.

And if someone wanted to moderate, they could go to those threads and report things WITHOUT being a moderator.  Heck, if you want to be a mod, you could go do it now.

Something doesn't even have to be reportable in order to cause problems for other parts of the forums, and I've explained why threads/subforums can affect others: They attract certain people and engender certain types of atmosphere, behavior, discussion, and so forth.

No one but you agrees with this. You want mods to go around hunting down "them troublemakers and their sneaky threads that aren't actually enough to report or against the rules, cause them's troublemakers like them crackheads and other minoritahs." You also have done nothing but just state that you feel that way over and over again when asked to actually provide evidence or a coherent argument as to why people should believe this.

Last time I looked, people who used crack and people in gangs weren't a minority. Unless you're automatically assuming that by using the words 'crackheads' and 'gang' that automatically means minorities.

And uh, I agree with him about that. I said it on the same page of the thread - if you allow a kind of behaviour in one place people will assume it's allowed everywhere (or they just won't care if it isn't)

[G-Flex]

And uh, I agree with him about that. I said it on the same page of the thread - if you allow a kind of behaviour in one place people will assume it's allowed everywhere (or they just won't care if it isn't)

And even if they don't, allowing a set of behavior A in one place will attract people who tend to act that way in general, and yes, having two places in close proximity (like two subforums, or two forum threads, or what have you) will encourage spillover of those behavior patterns.

[Leafsnail]

So... this is about removing the people you don't like after all?

[Sowelu]

So people are saying that silliness in some threads is bad, because it will spill over into other threads.  And it's also bad in the silly threads, because the silly threads aren't reportable.

Here's a fantastic idea.  How about you just stay vigilant about reporting what IS reportable?  When silliness spills over where it doesn't belong...you report it...and that's that?

Blackberry vines could spread everywhere, but that doesn't mean you can't let them grow in limited areas.  They're tasty and beneficial.  You just have to be careful about pruning them back IF they get out of control, you don't have to nuke them from orbit (it's not the only way to be sure).