Printable View
1) Not a taunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
2) Not abstaining:
"Copper - behave in a way that will elicit the treatment from others you would like.
Gold - treat others the way you'd like them to treat you.
Platinum - treat others the way they want to be treated."
Chiding moralism is not abstaining.
If you see someone fat on the street, do you come up to them and tell them they deserve it for not having self-control? If not strangers, do you do it to all your acquaintances?
Icky, do you remember what you told me? It was, oh, I don't know, roughly an hour ago. Maybe a little more, but certainly less than two hours ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
#1. Have you ever considered that what you say may come across differently to the community than what you intend ? And assume for just a second that it does; in that case do you hold yourself responsible for the result, or the community?Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
#2. There is no intended attack against you in the Rules. It was more directed at myself. They can't work unless you first follow them yourself, after all. But my mistake, in this charged environment I should have been more clear.
I pretty much always assume that my perception of what happens is not necessarily that of others'. Isn't this true for everybody? All sensation involves interpretation, and all interpretation is subjective. Especially with language, which is such an inefficient connection.
Ok, so when you first posted here and you used this statement: "points that happens to hurt somebody's excessively over sensitive and dramatic feelings," I took it as a clear personal attack against me. And while I don't want to pretend to know what anyone else thinks, it appears as though others saw those comments the same way. Is that what you intended when you made those comments, to take a swipe at me?
']['ear, you're an ass. Again.
I'm not quite certain I understand what you are trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
For starters I don't think that Rand and Dread are that far off the mark putting the responsability back at our doorstep. For them to enforce a strict set of guidelines on content would open an entirely new can of worms. I can't blame them for not wanting to put themselves on the line and getting the flak for it. Not to mention the fact that you run the risk of this forum killing itself through interfactional warring.
I also don't think that what we should necessarily strive for is people 'being nice' in D&D. That would be totally impossible given the people that post here. That is not just about personalities, but also about the range opinions we hold. Speaking from my position; I can change my attitude towards you as a person, as I have in the last few months. What I can not is change my ideas about (for example) Rand's ideas about Europe. I think he is totally wrong to the point that his ideas are despicable and I could never admit that there is any merit to them.
NB : as for the 'devil's advocate' game people are proposing; that can be fun but it's the kind of thing that according to me belongs in the playground of GC more than in D&D
NNBB : I think we have debated Eyekhan's house enough already, I also think indeed that bringing it up again amounts to trolling.
It's not so much "being nice" as it is that it isn't necessary to, for example, bring up Chacha's house repeatedly. I only used that example because it was already started in this thread, I do not mean to imply it is the only possible example or that Tear is the only person who does such a thing. There is a reason I was so pleased that this thread was previously filled with people discussing the ability to change without pointing fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Who ever said everyone has to agree about everything, or anything. But quit dragging the same grudges into every thread so they all look like copies of one another.
It was pretty obviously targeted directly at you, yes. Tear's big on lying to himself about not baiting people. He may not be in Kane's league, but that's not exactly high praise.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
It was the most germane example. Posting a legitimate idea may draw flames but not be trolling. The most significant example in my recent life was the big house debate. Thus I brought it up as an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Not allowed to bring up examples? Lord knows wouldn't want somebody to get their feathers ruffled!
Sanctimony blah, blah, blah. Thanks for such a novel contribution, as well as the reminder that you would never chide Cain! I feel so special, and bask in the warmth of your cyber-stalking.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Would it be too hard for you to just try? Please.
If one thread turns into a wreck, there is no reason to drag the same shit to a different one. That's all.
So I'm asking you nicely, Tear. This is the last time I will, though. Begging doesn't suit me.
To provide a germane example, someone who posts primarily so they can lash out at strangers rather than their wife would find it too hard, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
I think I already said that I would. I also said that if somebody else is consistently an ass, I won't refrain for long. Whatever people may think of me, in the large majority of scuffles I didn't start it, but my motto has always been that I'll finish it. The main exception is Lewkowski, but since his posting must be ingenuous to a certain degree, one could consider smart-ass replies de rigueur.
What the hell are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Could you consider all your current scuffles finished? :p
Naw, I'd like Fuzzy to clarify his cryptic statement.
Well at least keep it contained to one place. :)
I appreciate it.
Do I have to drink my tea with my pinky extended as well? Pinkus erectus? :p
Since that's the only part of you I get to have erect.... :p
Dirty girl. I'm married, monogamous and old. Still, flattered to finally be a target of your virtual unbridled lust. :p
I did say that was the only part of you I could have erect. I already know about your monogamy (but I've seen you, remember, you aren't too old at all).
My lust is very bridled. :(
I'd like to echo Hazir and point out that you're putting us in a pretty fantastic corner. Asking us to enforce "being nice" and "make interesting posts" is pretty impossible without creating a really bad atmosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
What we can do is try to stop people from needless and deliberate provocation, EG how Cain would bring up Nicaragua with Tear all the time. Or Tear bringing up large homes all the time.
Which brings me to Tear, who I think was a bit of an ass here. When I suggested you read the thread, Tear, I didn't mean for this to mean "blow into it and take a crap on the conversation". Which, no offense, you sorta did. But I'm glad folks seem to be at an understanding.
Back on to the original topic...
While I don't mind this sort of thing in General Chat:
...it doesn't quite seem appropriate in Debate and Discussion. I replied in the most on-topic, in the interest of continued proper discussion, manner as possible, but frankly this is a pretty common occurrence depending on the poster. How should I go about this? Should I report it, or should we waste D&D space reminding people if they are going to make a rather large claim, in what is supposed to be the intellectual debating forum, to back up their claims intelligently?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
I really don't think that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
It should not be fantastic to ask leaders of a community to, erm, lead. I cannot heap enough praise on the technical administration of this site, but the personal one has failed.
The moderation philosophy seems to have been, let everyone fling their shit on the wall and see what sticks. I really do appreciate the idea that everyone can say what they want and when they want it without fear of reprisal, but that is also not a place where interesting discourse can happen after a couple of months!
I know I have authoritarian tendencies, and that taints my thinking. But I cannot, for the life of me, imagine having a creative or thinking forum whose life hinges on people not having PMS at the same time. I have a bad week, Tear has a bad week, Low-key has a bad week, every thread in D&D suffers. How is that a good situation? How does that encourage young and interesting minds to post?
I like that I can call Chaloobi or Loki a jackass to their faces, and for them to have that ability. But I don't know whether or not that should be every thread, everywhere.
Well, you answered your own question there. We don't really have leaders and I doubt that there would be leaders in this forum without the community using the forum breaking up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
What we've got here, at best, is what we in Holland call the Polder-model. It's a system in which there is no direction as long as there is somebody whose nose is still pointing the other way. It can be maddening and slow, but it also avoids people leaving angry.
What it doesn't do is people leaving because posting on the forum has become un-interesting to them.
So Nessus, you want me warning you for calling people jackasses just some of the time? This gets back to a central point: why do you think interesting discourse happens when people have a "fear of reprisal"?
We intervene in ongoing spats that are spreading from thread to thread. But I really don't think you understand that you're asking us to do something very vague and inconsistent. And even if we enforced politesse with extremely consistent prejudice, wouldn't that just be the Atari/Timothy2035 style that we all fled from?
I'm aware that people aren't happy and something needs to change to make people happy. But I'm concerned people are looking up the wrong alley, simply because it's the most visible and best-lit alley to look at. This is why we ask people to post the kinds of stuff they want to see. If someone consistently trolls their threads, I will absolutely deal with it. But folks also can't expect the moderators to slap people whose attitude annoys some people some of the time.
So as long as someone contributes something slightly meaningful somewhere, they are free to, lets say.... jump into the middle of a conversation to post a one liner that adds nothing to the conversation, isn't even a tangent, and is simply there are flamebait they are fanning because someone else stopped short of taking that all the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You know what, I'm just going to say it. Loki is famous for that. You've got an example of it in this very thread that lolli jumped on, and you've got another example in the beach smoking thread when you called me a moron because you couldn't comprehend litter and he ran with it.
Are you saying you are unable to tell the difference between when someone is actively trying to be disrespectful directly to a user, and when users are unable to agree on certain positions?
How about if we have a standard of conduct in the D&D arena? If a discussion resorts to name calling AND if someone reports it, then you pop in and ask everyone to cool off and/or take it to the sloppy forum. Do you think that's infeasible? Do you not like being asked to take on such a role?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
For the record, I'm pretty happy. :) If its the lack of a forum where formal discussion can take place without degenerate flaming and what not that is making many unhappy, then lets try it.Quote:
I'm aware that people aren't happy and something needs to change to make people happy.
Consider the two forums we have as Formal and Informal. Informal, mostly anything goes. Formal, create a simple rule set - no name calling. No trolling. Serious discussion required. Whatever other conduct we want to see. Then enforce the rules when someone reports violations -- the people who want the formal forum have to take an active role too and call out bad behavior. Mods take a look at what was reported and make a judgement before acting, as a check against abuse. If everyone understands up front the Formal Forum has a standard of conduct, there won't be any hurt feelings when they get spanked.
I would like it if there were a place and a time when it clearly wasn't appropriate for me to call someone a jackass. And unfortunately that has to come from something other than people going "tut, tut".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I do not think that interesting discourse needs some kind of threat looming over it, and I do not understand why you want to pose that kind of false dichotomy over this discussion.
We have not had a fun time, as I can see it, from the time we got here. I have said it time and again and your response seems to be mocking me, I suppose that's something, but it isn't constructive. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for some kind of guidance or guide-lines from people asked to do that. Being a moderator isn't just banning spam-bots, but I suppose that, too, is too much.
I do not think it is that out-landish that you say to someone that hey, you're being a bit of a dick. As a figure of authority. Because it has become blindingly obvious that this community needs some boundaries.
The Timmy2892398329823198238923-angle concerns me too, and I'd be the first one railing against some kind of censorship on valid discussion. I think it is all too likely that there is no way to engender hospitality without shoe-horning people into something they don't want.
The passive-aggressive loathing and spite that some posters seemed to carry for years flared up recently, and was dealt with in a passive-aggressive way by the community. Maybe that's a good thing, at least that way those posters could continue posting? But it ruins threads. It ruins discussion, and that is what I come here for.