Print

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

[Leafsnail]

I can see you point G-Flex, and... I think it would be perfectly valid if the forum was one you were running, or if the forum had a clearly defined aim towards serious discussion.

But... I'm not sure we do here.  The upper forums have had plenty of randomness and messing around (cat jokes?  child murdering?  bizarre mods?) since forever.  I really don't think that there is any reason to have an aim to stamp out sillyness.

I mean, turning it around, serious discussion often spills over into the silly threads, with people complaining about them inside.  They also attract the kind of people who discuss things seriously.  Should we get rid of them in order to avoid having them ruin things for people on the silly threads?

[G-Flex]

I can see you point G-Flex, and... I think it would be perfectly valid if the forum was one you were running, or if the forum had a clearly defined aim towards serious discussion.

But... I'm not sure we do here.  The upper forums have had plenty of randomness and messing around (cat jokes?  child murdering?  bizarre mods?) since forever.  I really don't think that there is any reason to have an aim to stamp out sillyness.

I mean, turning it around, serious discussion often spills over into the silly threads, with people complaining about them inside.  They also attract the kind of people who discuss things seriously.  Should we get rid of them in order to avoid having them ruin things for people on the silly threads?

You're right that none of it's my decision, and that I can't decide what sort of atmosphere the forum should have. I can, however, say what I think is reasonable based on certain things I can assume (for instance, that the forums are an important part of the community surrounding bay12games and are important to bay12games' image and, to some degree, its success/donations), and give my own perspective. It's not like I'm going to get pissed off and stamp my feet if Toady considers it and reaches different conclusions than me.

However, regardless of whether you value "silliness" or "seriousness" or whatever people in this thread have decided the discussion is about, there's also a lot of strange, disruptive, cliquey behavior that I'm not sure I'd like one way or the other. Again, that's just me. Actually, no, it's not just me, it's me and probably a dozen other people I could name off the top of my head and undoubtedly plenty of others I can't, but it's still subjective.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

I said I found the rhetorical parallels hilarious, especially since you're not seeing them yourself. You're complaining about "those types and how we don't want those types around." It's quite obviously not a racist sentiment, just that the way you keep going at it it just gets more and more awkward, which I find funny.

You've just been asked to drop it, twice.

Funny, never had the little red "you've been ninja'd" text not show up before...

Anyways, that was just to clarify that I'm not actually accusing him of being racist, or of doing it deliberately, but pointing out that his rhetoric is inherently flawed.

It's not like I'm going to get pissed off and stamp my feet if Toady considers it and reaches different conclusions than me.

He sort of already did, back on page 15 or so.

[G-Flex]

Anyways, that was just to clarify that I'm not actually accusing him of being racist, or of doing it deliberately, but pointing out that his rhetoric is inherently flawed.

You were saying that what I said had racist undertones. Please try not to backpedal so hard.

Also: Either way, you're trying to draw parallels between what I was saying and racist rhetoric in ways that aren't even fair. There is nothing necessarily flawed about saying that one group can cause problems for another, larger group. Now can we please just drop this already?

He sort of already did, back on page 15 or so.

I saw that post, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him, or that I think he's really considered all the points made. Toady making one post about the subject doesn't make the subject dead forever.

[Leafsnail]

You're right that none of it's my decision, and that I can't decide what sort of atmosphere the forum should have. I can, however, say what I think is reasonable based on certain things I can assume (for instance, that the forums are an important part of the community surrounding bay12games and are important to bay12games' image and, to some degree, its success/donations), and give my own perspective. It's not like I'm going to get pissed off and stamp my feet if Toady considers it and reaches different conclusions than me.

I agree with the first part, but I'm not sure how, say, a preference for seriousness follows from that.  I'm not sure if a forum full of only serious threads would actually present that great an image of a website that produces games for people to have fun with.

However, regardless of whether you value "silliness" or "seriousness" or whatever people in this thread have decided the discussion is about, there's also a lot of strange, disruptive, cliquey behavior that I'm not sure I'd like one way or the other. Again, that's just me. Actually, no, it's not just me, it's me and probably a dozen other people I could name off the top of my head and undoubtedly plenty of others I can't, but it's still subjective.

The problem is, I'm still not entirely sure what you're trying to say.  I mean, I could guess, but that'd probably just lead to more accusations of straw manning.

As far as I can tell... there's some kind of behaviour, which isn't forbidden by the rules, but which everyone hates and which poisons the entire forum?

[G-Flex]

I agree with the first part, but I'm not sure how, say, a preference for seriousness follows from that.  I'm not sure if a forum full of only serious threads would actually present that great an image of a website that produces games for people to have fun with.

Depends on what you mean by "seriousness", which isn't even really a distinction I brought into the discussion in the first place.


Regarding the rest, I'm not sure how to explain what I've said better than I have already.

[sonerohi]

I think G-Flex is getting at forum cults and elitism? That is the impression I get when he says disruptive cliques.

[Leafsnail]

Well, that'd be even harder to tackle in any meaningful kind of way.  And that's if you can actually define what you're fighting...

[G-Flex]

I think G-Flex is getting at forum cults and elitism? That is the impression I get when he says disruptive cliques.

That's one thing, at least. All this "mew-mew" crap (cliquey injokes, particularly those taking the place of actual content) and the completely pointless and redundant blog-threads in GD are another (GD seemingly made up largely of, well, that these days). Not that these are all I've talked about, but yeah.

[sonerohi]

The only way to fight cliques would be from within, with members of them reaching out and forming larger circles. Otherwise, it will be forcing your way through an infinite amount of concentric circles. But yah, I do agree that there is definitely some form of... class divide or something I guess. The IRC crowd probably has their jokes and ongoing gags and such, but they are so distinct from the forum that it does not leak over and alienate anyone that does not have dual membership. I am not sure where the other crowds go, but there are definitely groups on the forum that have their stuff elsewhere and bring it here, and I often feel left out, like all the other kids have candy and I don't.

[G-Flex]

The only way to fight cliques would be from within, with members of them reaching out and forming larger circles. Otherwise, it will be forcing your way through an infinite amount of concentric circles. But yah, I do agree that there is definitely some form of... class divide or something I guess. The IRC crowd probably has their jokes and ongoing gags and such, but they are so distinct from the forum that it does not leak over and alienate anyone that does not have dual membership. I am not sure where the other crowds go, but there are definitely groups on the forum that have their stuff elsewhere and bring it here, and I often feel left out, like all the other kids have candy and I don't.

The thing is that it's not just specific in-jokes, it's behavior and attitudes. There seems to be this strange divide in GD between actual discussion (serious or not) and the twitterspam/circlejerk stuff, for instance. I think a lot of this divide comes not from different individual inside jokes or anything like that, but from different standards of behavior and different interests in general.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

He sort of already did, back on page 15 or so.

I saw that post, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him, or that I think he's really considered all the points made. Toady making one post about the subject doesn't make the subject dead forever.

Why am I even bothering arguing against this... I know, on a rational level, that he's not going to enact your bloody purges of the ill-defined "undesirables" that are totally not just anyone you don't happen to like, because doing so would be entirely at odds with everything related to the forums I've seen him do. But your attitude on the matter is still offensive, and when I say this I am talking to both you and everyone who's agreed with you on this.

When asked for any evidence or a more coherent argument as to why, in fact, people should believe what you're saying, you simply repeat yourself and act as though it's self evident. Considering you're arguing in favor of radical and ill-conceived changes, you really need more than "because I totally think this."

[Retro]

your bloody purges of the ill-defined "undesirables"

I get that this is hyperbole, but that's really putting words into his mouth, and is more telling of your own point of view coming into this discussion than his.

[LordNagash]

He sort of already did, back on page 15 or so.

I saw that post, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him, or that I think he's really considered all the points made. Toady making one post about the subject doesn't make the subject dead forever.

Why am I even bothering arguing against this... I know, on a rational level, that he's not going to enact your bloody purges of the ill-defined "undesirables" that are totally not just anyone you don't happen to like, because doing so would be entirely at odds with everything related to the forums I've seen him do. But your attitude on the matter is still offensive, and when I say this I am talking to both you and everyone who's agreed with you on this.

When asked for any evidence or a more coherent argument as to why, in fact, people should believe what you're saying, you simply repeat yourself and act as though it's self evident. Considering you're arguing in favor of radical and ill-conceived changes, you really need more than "because I totally think this."

'Bloody purges of the undesirables?' Can you please actually address the points people are putting forth instead of trying to make everyone who disagrees with you out to be a racist or a fascist? You accuse G-Flex of not making a coherent argument, but you haven't made any argument at all. Bringing this forum more into line with nearly every other forum on the internet is hardly radical, nor is it ill-conceived.

[G-Flex]

I know, on a rational level, that he's not going to enact your bloody purges of the ill-defined "undesirables" that are totally not just anyone you don't happen to like

If you're going to continue to talk like this, then I have no reason to assume that you're interested in discussing this rationally at all, and have no reason to respond to anything you're saying, as there simply isn't a point, especially since I've explained myself quite well in several posts already. I'm not taking the bait anymore from you.