Print

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

[freeformschooler]

And since everybody from IRC is still watching this...

Hush hush. We don't want the IRC to explode.

The IRC is not a bomb. It's not going to "explode" because you mention it.

Not only did I not mean explode in the sense that you think I did but I also edited my signature.

[TherosPherae]

Honestly, it was just a few replies down the page. This is a good example of what's so irritating about all this; there are daily examples of people going "hey guise whats going on in this thread?" when the answer is right there in front of them.

When people "have the answer right in front of them," they don't always understand it. I, for example, read through all the stuff in the Sad thread, then still asked what the hell I had missed, because I didn't understand one bit of it.

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.

Please also do not portray this as some kind of freedom of speech issue.  What you're doing is like walking into a Liberal party conference and telling everyone that a) they should be more conservative and b) no matter what they write in their manifesto, conservatives will still be conservative so why bother?

No it's not. Conservatives will still be conservative, yes, but if enough liberals get elected, they won't be able to do their conservative stuff in the government. This is a situation in which, whether you manage to come up with an unofficial document or not, people will still be capable of posting crap posts.

So unless you get it signed into official rules by the Toad, then it won't affect much of anyone aside those who think their own crap posting is bad, because those who don't think their crap posting is bad won't agree to it and continue crap posting, and those who don't crap post anyways will agree to it, but have no need to change themselves.

It's nice that you're trying to do something, but I'm not entirely sure this is the way to go about it.

[Darvi]

TP has put it pretty much in words that I couldn't use.

In other words: This^

[Leafsnail]

Yeah, except that there's no way that shitposting can be prevented.

Exactly. However, if somebody's offended, then instead of making such a thread, they could, oh I dunno... tell people to stop? Has anybody thought of that? Because the only person I remember doing that has been Janet.

How about just... not doing it?  Like, think before posting?  It's not necessarily everyone else's responsibility to be online all the time to stop you from posting.

I guess the thing I'd like to see most is something about thinking "would this discussion be more appropriate in another medium?".  As in, does anyone other than the person you're talking to need to see that post, or would it be better to just pm them about it?

[Darvi]

You're right, but now you're expecting people to be intelligent.

[soundandfury]

So unless you get it signed into official rules by the Toad, then it won't affect much of anyone aside those who think their own crap posting is bad, because those who don't think their crap posting is bad won't agree to it and continue crap posting, and those who don't crap post anyways will agree to it, but have no need to change themselves.

It's nice that you're trying to do something, but I'm not entirely sure this is the way to go about it.

Firstly, it is something of a hope (albeit a longshot one) that eventually Toady may endorse at least some of our guidelines.  Of course that's unlikely, but it's theoretically a possibility.  Thus the analogy holds if you replace "Liberal party" with, say "Socialist Workers Party", who are probably less likely to get elected here in the UK than our guidelines are to get adopted wholesale by the Toad.

Secondly, if I complain about someone's post annoying me, I'm the outsider.  If I can point to a document and say "I am not the only one", my complaint has that much more weight.

Finally, by doing this we're bringing the forums' political situation out of the murk and making it much clearer what kinds of faction are present.  If this convinces Toady of the need for a moderation overhaul, the problems could conceivably all be solved.

I realise that these are all long-shots to some extent.  But none of them are out of the question, and the cost-benefit of potentially decrappifying the forums just by a little discussion and a document?  Definitely worth it.

edit: Leafsnail, added your suggestion to the list

[TherosPherae]

Firstly, it is something of a hope (albeit a longshot one) that eventually Toady may endorse at least some of our guidelines.  Of course that's unlikely, but it's theoretically a possibility.  Thus the analogy holds if you replace "Liberal party" with, say "Socialist Workers Party", who are probably less likely to get elected here in the UK than our guidelines are to get adopted wholesale by the Toad.

Well, I guess that sort of makes sense. Except that the forums are more of a lightly-run dictatorship by Toady and less of a democracy by all of us - so if Toady does something we don't really like, we can't exactly vote him out of office, now can we?

Secondly, if I complain about someone's post annoying me, I'm the outsider.  If I can point to a document and say "I am not the only one", my complaint has that much more weight.

Not really. If someone's crap posting around and you ask them to stop, and they tell you to screw off, is saying that there's a bunch of people who think like you going to convince the person to stop? Maybe, but it's more likely that the crap poster will just tell you to screw off and continue posting crap.

Finally, by doing this we're bringing the forums' political situation out of the murk and making it much clearer what kinds of faction are present.  If this convinces Toady of the need for a moderation overhaul, the problems could conceivably all be solved.

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

I realise that these are all long-shots to some extent.  But none of them are out of the question, and the cost-benefit of potentially decrappifying the forums just by a little discussion and a document?  Definitely worth it.

Better to try and receive nothing than to have not tried at all, I guess. I still think there's a better way to go about this somewhere, but the concept eludes me at the moment.

[3]

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? It's not like posts aren't permanent. I read the last ten pages or so of the sad thread while it was locked. Initially, I didn't fully comprehend what had happened; looked like typical forum drama to me. When Toady unlocked the thread and more people were banned, I decided to read a little further back, and all was revealed.

Furthermore, you may not have considered that the reason things of relative importance get buried so fast may be due to the very fact that people are posting too much.

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.

[Darvi]

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

Why do you assume everybody did? I, for one, still don't know what the entire fuss is about and wish that everybody would just chill the fuck out.

[3]

Because, frankly, you do not make much effort to read prior posts.

[Darvi]

That's where you're wrong. I have tried to do so but the entire thing goes over my head, partly because the OP is one entire wall of text.

[3]

Yes, I... no offense intended, but I think that illustrates my point quite well.

For reference, this post is near enough to the start of it all. It takes a little while to get going.

[Darvi]

Ah, you're talking about the discussion in the sad thread. Yeah, I haven't read it for various reasons.

[Simmura McCrea]

Technically, it started earlier, with the discussion in the rage thread that caused Janet to lock the happy thread which caused that discussion.

[Leafsnail]

You're right, but now you're expecting people to be intelligent.

Not really.  I'm just expecting people to have a small amount of self respect when it comes to their posts.  Intelligence isn't necessarily required.