Print

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

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I never really understood this whole nonsense.  Probably because one look at the titles of the threads and the number of pages within told me it was mostly nonsense to be avoided.  I know when the sad thread (and happy) started it was on topic, but it quickly turned into meaningless jibber-jabber, the kind of stuff Toady locked the entire "Simply Nonsense" Forum over (not sure if thats the right name) a few yeras ago.  Because I avoided these thread, I have no idea what this "shitstorm" is.  Not everyone takes part in or cares about the same threads.  For some reason I think this is a "Much Ado About Nothing" kind of problem.

[TherosPherae]

So I'm sorry, but I'd rather have someone make a seemingly crappy post and then know what's going on so they can post relevantly than for them not to make the crappy post and end up thinking the situation is wildly different than it actually is.

How do you think everyone else figured out what was going on?

That's just it - I think that some people didn't, and posted anyways, resulting in more confusing crap.

And frankly, if I don't understand something, it's faster and makes more sense to just ask what happened instead of reading a couple hundred posts and wracking my brain trying to figure out arguments. I'm sorry if you see people's requests for clarification as crap posting, but there really are times where I just can't get it and need someone to explain it to me - and I'm sure there are other people who need clarification in this sense as well.

Wait, what? Toady needs a moderation overhaul? Since when?

Since a long time. Realise that this entire subforum is almost unmoderated: Toady/Threetoe only ever come in here to respond to reports, under which circumstances they may not have the light of the full situation (nor the time to appraise themselves thereof). The recent drama - or rather, the long-term drama - and subsequently this thread, are products of that.

Oh, the good old "the moderators aren't sure about what's happening in here" issue. I've dealt with that before with a different, more tightly-knit forum community than this one, and the response was to make a couple of the more reasonable people of the group moderators for that specific subforum. I guess that could work for GD, too, but I'm not sure about Toady's feelings as to appointing moderators.

[soundandfury]

I never really understood this whole nonsense.  Probably because one look at the titles of the threads and the number of pages within told me it was mostly nonsense to be avoided.  I know when the sad thread (and happy) started it was on topic, but it quickly turned into meaningless jibber-jabber, the kind of stuff Toady locked the entire "Simply Nonsense" Forum over (not sure if thats the right name) a few yeras ago.  Because I avoided these thread, I have no idea what this "shitstorm" is.  Not everyone takes part in or cares about the same threads.  For some reason I think this is a "Much Ado About Nothing" kind of problem.

It would be, and I'd still be completely ignoring the whole of the Lower Boards... were it not for the fact that out of the blue, this craziness has somehow lead to the banning of Captain, Makrond, Dasleah and Retro.  Now, say what you like about the banning (don't: let's not get into that here), but the forum is poorer for the loss of such intelligent and reasonable people.  That is why we can't just ignore the nonsense.

BTW the forum was called "Various Nonsense", and what's happening now is pretty much what VN was locked for.  If this drama happens too many more times Toady has already indicated he might just delete GD or even the entire forums.

[Phmcw]

It's true that retro and Maydays where cool, I'll miss them.
Now I support your initiative (as long as it doesn't derail into a "Toady have to change the way he moderate his forum" thread) but I don't see how you will make it useful.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

The only person I was familiar with was Captian and Dasleah.  Never had a problem with them.  I didnt know Retro or Makrond.  Thanks for the reminder that it was called "various nonsense".  If I remember right, there was some banning after that got closed also.

[scriver]

My take on this whole matter:
First of all, I am no fan of rules/restrictions or "guidelines" in any way, especially not in social contexts, so if there ever is any list made from this I'll probably stick to using my own common sense anyway, simply because I believe that different circumstances require different approaches. I like most of the silly I like that this forum can be both the light-hearted and serious side by side, it is in fact one of the main reasons I stayed here. So if this eventually turns into any form of "do things like this" (which I know is not the purpose at the moment), it will loose my support. Just to be clear.

However, I do not enjoy the thought of so many of the people who got me to interested in this forum not feeling at home here any more. And I don't like the thought of all the silliness alienating others. And while I do understand the concern that threads like this might only increase the "division" between parts, I definitely think that it must at least be discussed. I don't think trying to ignore it will lead anywhere but to passive-aggressiveness and "social festering". I have enough of that in my own family, and I don't want it to spread to my "online family" (because yeah, I might not be a high profile on these forum, but I do consider this an "online home" of sorts. Basically, there's a reason this is one of the only two forums I visit regularly).

So, to be concise, I think at least talking about it is a necessity, even if it results in nothing or next to nothing. I want to hear what people from both "sides" (as I said before, I'm still not sure if there really are different "sides" to this) have to say on the matter, as I really don't think shutting anyone out from the discussion will accomplish anything. Both what people consider this "shit talking" to be, and what previously self confessed "shit talkers" (I really do dislike that term) have to say on the matter. At the very least, I hope this thread will bring a little more understanding and respect between users.

pseudo-edit: The thread has drifted a little since I started writing this, but yeah, such is life.

[Willfor]

I just want to address one thing on the topic of meta-threads as they have been brought up: I can't see how making a topic about a topic is going to end well. Discussion and dissension should take place in the topic that sparked it unless there are drastic circumstances preventing it, and it is entirely unpreventable. As in: Never.

In fact, "Don't post dissension in threads other than the one you have a difference of opinion about" should be one of the guidelines that this thread is espousing, especially as it often prevents escalation of conflicts through an entire board instead of in a single thread. I have experience in trying to clean up forum messes that have been spread across a board rather than a single thread: it's NOT fun.

I'm not dissenting myself, as I honestly see no problem with this thread so long as it's not trying to force itself on others. However, "go make another thread" when the discussion is about the topic in question is not the right way to go about things. "Go make another thread" is for drifting like talking about quantum physics in a politics thread -- it doesn't go there. There are only three other options -> Debate, ignore and the report button. These are how you're to deal with dissenting opinions in their various degrees of offensiveness.

[fqllve]

It would be, and I'd still be completely ignoring the whole of the Lower Boards... were it not for the fact that out of the blue, this craziness has somehow lead to the banning of Captain, Makrond, Dasleah and Retro.  Now, say what you like about the banning (don't: let's not get into that here), but the forum is poorer for the loss of such intelligent and reasonable people.  That is why we can't just ignore the nonsense.

BTW the forum was called "Various Nonsense", and what's happening now is pretty much what VN was locked for.  If this drama happens too many more times Toady has already indicated he might just delete GD or even the entire forums.

I wasn't here for VN, but from my understanding GD is nowhere near what it was at. The last thread like this ends with an insightful post from Toady on the matter.

I don't think things have gotten to the point where we need to delete any other forum sections as with VN.  There aren't any moving battle fortresses or porn threads that I'm aware of, and I don't see the same kind of wide-scale disruptions we were having back then.  Other than that, I think some of you guys just don't like each other, and there's not a lot I can do about that.

Whatever problem you might have with spam posts (and such problems would be reasonable) GD has not dissolved into a fit of dengeneracy and porn. Regardless of the threads that attract low-content posting there are threads of value down here that do contain actual discussion. The ratio is not even as bad as one would be led to believe by going from posts on the matter and the threads that attract low content posting are themselves not so bad as one would be led to believe either. There is actual discussion that occurs in those as well.

And I would say the best solution to encouraging discussion is to make threads that encourage discussion. To make posts that other people will want to respond to reasonably and thoughtfully. If anyone is saddened or alienated by the spam stuff then I see it as a call to be proactive, not in the sense that this thread is proactive, but by forcefully and prominently contributing to discussion in a way that cannot be ignored. Advice for writers is "Show, don't tell," and if you want people to see that low content posts aren't welcome here then don't tell them about it, show them.

[soundandfury]

I just want to address one thing on the topic of meta-threads as they have been brought up: I can't see how making a topic about a topic is going to end well. Discussion and dissension should take place in the topic that sparked it unless there are drastic circumstances preventing it, and it is entirely unpreventable. As in: Never.

In fact, "Don't post dissension in threads other than the one you have a difference of opinion about" should be one of the guidelines that this thread is espousing, especially as it often prevents escalation of conflicts through an entire board instead of in a single thread. I have experience in trying to clean up forum messes that have been spread across a board rather than a single thread: it's NOT fun.

I accept this point, and realise that I handled things badly earlier.  I was simply trying to avoid this thread becoming a continuation of the argument that's been rumbling along in the Sad Thread, because that would also have broken your above guideline.

I shall change the relevant line in the OP.  I have also added your guideline to the suggestions list.

[Vector]

I think this is a reasonably good idea.  I also think that reporting spammers would help.  I feel that we're doing better about reporting trolls, but the spammers are going under the radar--and they, too, break the official forum rules, and furthermore there's not that many of them.

But whatever.  It's just an idea.

[Virex]

I don't know if I am to happy with the whole idea of this. At times I have opinions that are, let's call it less then pleasant for some people. Even though I try to adapt my posts as not to create a smoldering crater, I would still like to be able to formulate my opinions and if I would need to avoid any potentially hurting comments then that is going to be very difficult.

[Vector]

I think it's the idea of intentionally causing hurt to others, more than it is about causing hurt at all.  There's a difference between expressing a differing opinion and posting solely to levy an attack against a particular individual's well-being.  One is trolling; the other is arguing.

I, for example, have been known to frame arguments in manners that were not exactly the most polite.  But no one seems to be bothered by that, and I don't think we're contending that no strong language whatsoever may be used--whether that's taken as swearing, or as disparaging commentary.

[Sowelu]

It's a bit dangerous to start inventing rules--even common-sense ones--and then try to enforce them against people who break them by threatening to come down with the full force of social pressure.  That's how you start ugly, ugly clique wars.

So, to help this congress to make things better instead of worse, I think you should codify in it something like this:

These are suggestions, not rules.  Don't throw a fit if someone doesn't follow them.  Yes, it means they're not being nice, but just because you put it in rules somewhere doesn't give you a right to lump extra abuse on them.  Just, you know, normal amounts of abuse and/or reporting.

Unofficial or not, declaring rules (or "codes of conduct") like this just isn't a way to make friends.  Suggestions, on the other hand, those are nicer.  When someone needs to enhance their chill, you can point them at helpful suggestions, and something might actually get done.  Stepping in and saying "You are breaking the unofficial rules, and our gang no longer likes you" on the other hand...

Be helpful, not hostile.

[Vector]

Well, yes, that ^ would be what I wish I had the wherewithal to say.  Thanks for adding that on.

[Virex]

It's a bit dangerous to start inventing rules--even common-sense ones--and then try to enforce them against people who break them by threatening to come down with the full force of social pressure.  That's how you start ugly, ugly clique wars.

So, to help this congress to make things better instead of worse, I think you should codify in it something like this:

These are suggestions, not rules.  Don't throw a fit if someone doesn't follow them.  Yes, it means they're not being nice, but just because you put it in rules somewhere doesn't give you a right to lump extra abuse on them.  Just, you know, normal amounts of abuse and/or reporting.

Unofficial or not, declaring rules (or "codes of conduct") like this just isn't a way to make friends.  Suggestions, on the other hand, those are nicer.  When someone needs to enhance their chill, you can point them at helpful suggestions, and something might actually get done.  Stepping in and saying "You are breaking the unofficial rules, and our gang no longer likes you" on the other hand...

Be helpful, not hostile.

In that case, the first rule should be "Speak out for common sense." I don't know if you'd need any other rules, unless you happen to be that inflammatory prick called Virex or someone like that, but in that case Toady will quickly take care of you