Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Hey, mea culpas are nice, but only if they're accurate. Sanitized mea culpas are arguably worse than not even saying anything at all.

---

I don't think it's about asking for forgiveness, or getting it. The point was, and is, that people are so mired in conflicts that started years and years ago (I've been a member for 8 years :bulb:), and they dominate conversation. They destroy conversation.

I guess having a place to vent is nice, but I'd also like to read interesting and intelligent discussions, and maybe even participate! That is impossible when people's intellects crumble under the weight of the chips on their shoulders.

We've all said bad things to one another, had (and continue to have) low opinions of other posters, and so on. The point is that we should be able to remain civil, and if we can't, that has to be enforced, apparently.

Rand has a point that we might get tired of that in the future, or whatever. Okay, I'm fine with that! Things change all the time. But right now, for a change to happen, I believe we need stricter guide-lines in the serious forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

Enough with the blame game already.

It's tiresome.

---

Am I buggin' ya? I wouldn't want to bug ya.

Quote:

---

You're like the little kid who is so starved for attention that even negative attention will do.

---

Reported for trolling. Personal insult. You know, if you address the argument rather than the person, you can avoid being warned.

How is that a personal insult?

The problem with that kid is the parents, not the poor kid, after all.

Tear, you set the tone of the conversation here. You don't get to become this aggressive and hostile and then complain when others start to approach the same level.

Also, either hit the report button or don't. Announcing your action helps nothing and only serves to drag things out longer.

Lolli, not really helping at the moment.

Yeah, yeah.

Sorry. :downcast:

Again, ][ear. Could you please tell us what your idea is to go ahead from here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I actually don't think people's personal lives are relevant to any serious discussion. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent, but pointing that out in threads serves no purpose other than to inflame. Dismissing someone's argument because they don't live by the logic of that argument or because they might have some ulterior motive for making it is illogical and harmful to debate. I know virtually everyone here has ignored this line of reasoning in the past, including yours truly, but there is no reason to continue to do so in the future.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

I agree with that. Hell, almost every single time somebody has gotten mad at me for the last years, they've posted some version of "but you're a confessed liar, so what you post has no worth." How many times have I had to argue that an argument, any argument, should be taken on its own merits?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Saying "and you call yourself a social scientist?" in response to somebody claiming they proved something by linking to a scientific still birth did not seem beyond the pale to me. Nor did demanding that the poster in question quote the relevant passages in the future before claiming points, or saying "I proved you wrong." Neither of these are unreasonable statements. If I'd called him a dick, asshole, etc. I think I would have been very worthy of warning.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Jesus, and you call yourself a social scientist? I don't know whether this is a commentary on your abilities, your laziness, or your willingness to lose the truth to score your precious "points."

You're being both a) lazy by making us track down the data that "supports" your point, and b) disingenuous because your links often don't even support your point you claim they do (witness the high school graduation rate).

Look, we know that you're training to become a hack at one of these think tanks

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The irony is that by far the biggest criticism at least in terms of volume isn't that in my experience, but either a complaint of being "inconsistent" or of "picking" on a user when they do cross the line, whever that line is drawn.

---

To an extent, the relatively non-interventionist style you and Dread take can create an impression of inconsistency *even when it is not, in fact, inconsistent* from sheer small sample size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Tear, you set the tone of the conversation here. You don't get to become this aggressive and hostile and then complain when others start to approach the same level.

Also, either hit the report button or don't. Announcing your action helps nothing and only serves to drag things out longer.

---

Actually, you'll find multiple references in this thread to being responsible for one's own post, regardless of what somebody else says to one. I'm certainly interested in whether you plan on warning people for ostensibly responding to somebody else, or whether flames or trolls are excusable as long as somebody else "set the tone."

Bolding offenses can clue people in on that score, just an FYI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Again, ][ear. Could you please tell us what your idea is to go ahead from here?

---

I want Wraith to quote posts and bold the offense when he warns somebody. Otherwise, we have some vague notion of what the rules are, and Wraith can warn somebody for just about anything as long as he calls it "hostile" or "personal." If you look at the parallel in the real world, it's a terrible idea to give police vague powers--it leads to abuse. Defining offenses greatly helps to avoid that.

It's not too much to ask.

PS that's very nice, Loki, and I'm sure your sole purpose for posting here is to further clarify the discussion. I'm sure Wraith won't think you're trying to inflame things or anything. But you're a little off base there, since my posts refer to actual actions within that thread. Contrast to Fuzzy's out of the blue bringing up my wife in this thread. You see the distinction?

I know where that leads. It didn't exactly help when people tried to give examples previously. Quibbling won't change things, and giving you more room for it isn't going to help.

If you're really having trouble understanding things, would you mind if I put you in touch with this guy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Wraith told me my posting to Loki was inappropriately personal (true, by the way).

---

He seems to understand it, and would probably be able to help you out.

---

Tear, perhaps you should take a step back and look at this. You're throwing a fit over being asked to calm down. Not getting an infraction. Not any punishment. Not even anything anyone is likely to have remembered if you hadn't blown up over it.

First, I don't find my warned post particularly bad, except I went a little too far. I'm fairly sure that any other forum member posting the same thing would hnot have been reported, nor warned if they were reported. Second, that's just my opinion as to what was wrong with it, since you have utterly failed to indicate the offensive lines. Your resistance to doing so is baffling. If I were you, I'd now insinuate nasty crap about your motives (which, by the way, is throwing gasoline on a fire, which is why I asked you whether you could warn yourself.)

Let's be candid: I want your rules clearly defined, because otherwise you're going to **** me up the ass with your vague "hostility" and "too personal." I want the rules written down, and I want the terms defined. Defined well. Then I want each infraction to be annotated. It costs you a few seconds of extra work, but it's worth it for the transparency.

Sorry if that's too hostile, but insinuating that you are ethically suspect is no worse than you did to me, is it? Because that's another point: if the conduct mod violates his own rules, then the whole system is buggered.

Which is all another way of saying that nobody elected you dictator or martinet. Nobody advocated the approach you are taking. We wanted enforcement of specific rules to improve the atmosphere. And since I know that you loathe me (you've shared that fact), I have no confidence in your impartiality. Events so far have borne me out, and *I* think it is likely that you'll be making rules up as you go along specifically to control me the way you want me controlled. So if you want me to play ball, you run this democratically. Otherwise, your banning me sooner is just getting rid of all the foreplay for what will happen later.

Prove me wrong, or prove me right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

First, I don't find my warned post particularly bad, except I went a little too far.

---

So, would you say, worthy of a request to calm down, but maybe not an infraction? Glad we're on the same page. I trust this discussion is over now. Again.

Quote:

---

I'm fairly sure that any other forum member posting the same thing would hnot have been reported, nor warned if they were reported.

---

And I'm fairly sure I've spoken to people for less. No, no examples - it's not up to me whether or not those things get dredged up again. All of those ended quietly and needed no follow up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Actually, you'll find multiple references in this thread to being responsible for one's own post, regardless of what somebody else says to one. I'm certainly interested in whether you plan on warning people for ostensibly responding to somebody else, or whether flames or trolls are excusable as long as somebody else "set the tone."

---

He gave me just as much of a warning as he did you. I just didn't find it worth getting excited over. I deserved a little smack.

The difference is, you enjoyed that.

And yet again he has dodged the issue of transparency and defining the rules.

Is this official notice that the rules are whatever the hell you want them to be, Wraith? I know you get it, you just don't want to admit anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

And yet again he has dodged the issue of transparency and defining the rules.

---

I thought one of the rules was basically "don't make overtly hostile posts that have more to do with a poster's character or personal life than it has to do with the thread topic"! I'm kinda puzzled by this, are you saying there should be a master document outlining what constitutes hostility in the English language??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

And yet again he has dodged the issue of transparency and defining the rules.

Is this official notice that the rules are whatever the hell you want them to be, Wraith? I know you get it, you just don't want to admit anything.

---

Rules.

Coupled with a general request for basic civility in this thread.

Maybe it'd help if you saw this place as a university rather than as a bar? So you could ask yourself, "Would I say this thing to a regular colleague at my uni?" and if the answer is no then you could refrain from saying it to your fellow poster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I thought one of the rules was basically "don't make overtly hostile posts that have more to do with a poster's character or personal life than it has to do with the thread topic"! I'm kinda puzzled by this, are you saying there should be a master document outlining what constitutes hostility in the English language??

---

Why, I don't believe that Wraith has laid out the rules.

But now that you mention it, the post for which he admonished me spent far more time addressing the topic at hand than it did the personal character of somebody. So, that definition can't be right, can it?

I want specific rules, and I want warnings or WLPs to be accompanied by a quote with offending passages bolded. nobody here advocated having a dictator enforcing nebulous rules capriciously. This is how we avoid that scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

Rules.

Coupled with a general request for basic civility in this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Why, I don't believe that Wraith has laid out the rules.

But now that you mention it, the post for which he admonished me spent far more time addressing the topic at hand than it did the personal character of somebody. So, that definition can't be right, can it?

I want specific rules, and I want warnings or WLPs to be accompanied by a quote with offending passages bolded. nobody here advocated having a dictator enforcing nebulous rules capriciously. This is how we avoid that scenario.

---

We have specific rules. Highlighting and quoting just exacerbates the situation. You were asked to stop. If you had a question about how your post violated the rules you could have sent Wraith a PM and asked. Wouldn't that have been more productive than going on the defensive and accusing Wraith of behaving unjustly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Wraith told me my posting to Loki was inappropriately personal (true, by the way).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

except I went a little too far.

---

Clearly, you understand exactly what was the problem with the post, but you're not letting that get in the way of this game of yours.

It's already even been explained multiple times anyways:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tear

Look, we know that you're training to become a hack at one of these think tanks

---

The pronoun there means the comment's, uh, personal

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You sometimes misrepresent your own posts, but here is what you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tear

Jesus, and you call yourself a social scientist? I don't know whether this is a commentary on your abilities, your laziness, or your willingness to lose the truth to score your precious "points."

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

The excerpt I posted from your post was, I think, one of the hostile and insulting bits.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Overtly hostile posts like the one you made are not continuing here, Tear.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Weaving in personal insults, and an overall hostile tone is not conducive to continued civil discussion,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Even when one thing isn't too bad when taking on it's own, a whole run of things that are close can sum to something worth taking action on.

---

In fact, we can even go to the original post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Escalating to this level of hostility is unnecessary. You could have made all the same points without the personal attacks, and in fact your post loses nothing if those are removed. Please calm down.

---

Apologies to Nessus and Minx.

And no, not everything in that post was offensive. Which is why I said as such. Dialing back the hostility in it all would have made it fine, and you could have gotten the exact same points across. I'm really not moved to give you a guide for how to be as offensive as possible without breaking the rules. Err on the side of inoffensiveness.

Nothing's going to satisfy you, so there's no point in trying any further. I'm serious about not letting you get away with things just because you scream bias at me, by the way. I've given you more free shots than I'd have allowed anybody else, but it's over now. There is nothing productive that can happen with this discussion, so it's done. Mod hat.

To help you avoid the temptation of collecting on any trolling or flaming points, I'm going to try something that Fuzzy once suggested. I'm going to temporarily lock this thread for the next four hours. I'd consider making it more permanent if there wasn't another discussion with the possibility of fruitfulness struggling to stay afloat, assuming we didn't completely lose it a page back. This tract is still closed when the thread reopens.

For everybody else: Once it does reopen, I'd also like some feedback on whether or not temp-closing threads is a good idea.

Tear: A reminder. Flaming and trolling over PMs is equally unacceptable.

Tear was banned for Trolling/flaming through PM's?

TBH I think the post that started all of this rant off wasn't nice, and probably warranted a summons to tone it down a bit. But it wasn't really just an ad hominem attack. I also suspect Loki of some extremely lazy discussing. A minimum of own thinking combined with a maximum of links to questionable sources seems to be standard fare these days. And as a matter of fact those contributions are near as disrupting as Tear's whining about being treated unfairly and his demanding more rules.

Just for the record, I don't think mature behaviour can be brought about by imposing ever more formal rules of engagement. We all know when we've gone to far, and pulling back from that point is not defeat but just common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Tear was banned for Trolling/flaming through PM's?

---

I think Tear was banned for choosing to bring the PM's public after not getting contrition from Wraith privately, but I could be mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

I think Tear was banned for choosing to bring the PM's public after not getting contrition from Wraith privately, but I could be mistaken.

---

Just to make something clear; I am not questioning the ban itself. Just curious about what was the immediate reason to do it.

Edit : Ah, that was in the other thread again.

as someone who has barely been paying attention to anything around here, I thought it was because tear was dragging the issues from a closed thread into other threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Just to make something clear; I am not questioning the ban itself. Just curious about what was the immediate reason to do it.

---

http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post40922

It's there.

But really, can we move past Tear and hope that tomorrow when he comes back he'll have calmed down?


As far as temp-closing threads, I don't really know that it does any good at all, Wraithy. This probably wasn't the best thread to try it out in at this point, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

as someone who has barely been paying attention to anything around here, I thought it was because tear was dragging the issues from a closed thread into other threads.

---

Yeah, i also missed the time-out close. I can't really tell if I think it's a good idea or not. And even though it was open before I noticed it had been closed I do agree with Lolli that this 'feed-back' thread wasn't really the most opportune place to start trying it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

as someone who has barely been paying attention to anything around here, I thought it was because tear was dragging the issues from a closed thread into other threads.

---

This is about right. It was for the trolling and attempts to provoke a fight with me, and then flaming over PM and trying to drag issues from a closed thread to another thread. It should be noted that this isn't a permaban. He'll be back tomorrow.

I'd rather not drag out discussion of this particular thing too long, for fear of it all turning into bait and leading to another go when he gets back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yeah, i also missed the time-out close. I can't really tell if I think it's a good idea or not. And even though it was open before I noticed it had been closed I do agree with Lolli that this 'feed-back' thread wasn't really the most opportune place to start trying it out.

---

I thought this was more of a meta-discussion thread. I was really hoping that by closing it temporarily to let tempers cool, I wasn't going to need to do anything else.

Since the feedback doesn't seem too favorable so far, I'll avoid doing it in the future though.

I should explain that I see the entire site discussion forum as a feed-back place. After all we're still working in a semi-formal way so that just talking about the mods would be utterly lazy and dishonest. It's 'we' that make this forum, and not just 'you people' by applying rules.

That also means that I think that users should not be affraid to call out eachother's unacceptable behaviour every now and then.

I think the temp closure is fine; or at least there isn't enough data to make a ruling on its effectiveness. The intent was to interupt the momentum of an ugly set of posts. Unfortunately and perhaps predictably the momentum was transferred to another thread upon which a more specific and more effective means of interrupting momentum was employed. However well that worked won't be apparent until tomorrow.

Regarding your modship and attempting to enforce a little more civility around here, I say kudos. Earlier on I had made a suggestion that the heightened politeness only be enforced in DD and not in the sloppy forum. Is there any thought to implement something like that?

I don't think there'd be any containing it there. It'd probably lead to more infractions needing to be handed out than if the rules are applied universally.

edit: Other point: some people are here mostly for D&D, others more for GC. It'd kinda suck if one group were going to tell the other that their place is now a dumping ground for all the trash from the other.

Btw, I thought this was an important point:

Quote:

---

I'm really not moved to give you a guide for how to be as offensive as possible without breaking the rules. Err on the side of inoffensiveness.

---

As long as it's not taken to extremes, I think this is one area in which "vagueness" may be a good thing.

How on Earth do productive people validate such trivial issues? Getting paid to post here seems like welfare for people who don't need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

How on Earth do productive people validate such trivial issues? Getting paid to post here seems like welfare for people who don't need it.

---

Who is getting paid?

The thought brings a whole new level to post-whoring.

We'll post it for you, wholesale!

Temp closures are probably more on the nose with high-temper threads with several participants posting rapid-fire anger-laden posts at one another, but it certainly wasn't a bad choice with this thread either; the fact that the poster's anger spilled over to another thread is more indication of their frame of mind and simply not getting it despite repeated warnings.

It's scary how often I agree with you these days.

So, Tear's not been back yet. While I genuinely would not want to see him go permanently, I think he might benefit from a haiatus.

So what happened to Cain anyway? I know he was taking some heat for trolling Tear, then I was gone for a week, and when I got back he'd stopped posting. Was there an official "screw you guys, I'm goin' home?" Or did he just stop?

I think he just stopped posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Would it be better if we labeled one pissing matches, and the other fallacy central?

---

You know, you guys are all gonna just dismiss me again because I usually agree with OG (except when he left 'his' kid at the bus stop). But think about it; we tried to create a community by dividing it. :bulb: