Why?

[littlelolligagged]

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.

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?

Making accusations about particular people is less than constructive. It can easily lead to that person feeling backed into a corner and needing to defend themselves. I'd really rather this thread didn't evolve into a finger-pointing mess. I know you're not the first person to have done it in this thread, but since you were the last I'm grabbing you.

[']['ear]

You re such a mom.

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.

Dread, you absolutely have NOT dealt with people trolling threads. Your record is absolutely horrible, and the consequences are a community where a lot of people have come to you complaining about the atmosphere. Your avuncular amusement at our antics and the occasional chiding has been largely useless. And by you I include Rand, who is even more detached.

I've been saying for years that you guys need to uphold reasonable standards of conduct. A society without rules quickly resorts to tribalism, bullying and might is right. And community opprobrium, the model you guys seem to favor, is not effective because it generally breaks down along tribal lines.

It's not that I don't appreciate you guys. I do. But in CC you had the excuse of dealing with DBZers, spam and adbots, and a steady flow of babbling naifs. Plus you had to keep an eye on multiple forums. Here there is no excuse. ALL you have to do is keep people from going over the top. But you don't do that. Not at all. People have gotten away with saying things that are obscene. You guys let Cain run rampant, mainly because he seemed to amuse you (plus he without fail sucked up to both of you, knowing which side of the toast was buttered). What possible excuse do you have for letting him taunt depressed tweens? It happened more than once. Not only did you fail to meet your obligation to Atari (for what that's worth--not much), you failed to meet your obligations as decent human beings! And as for the "community opprobrium model," almost nobody said anything. That kind of extreme shit shouldn't happen.

Also, you have been totally inconsistent. What Silverlink said was over the top, but it was in a pm. You'll recall I asked that he not be banned, and almost didn't forward the pm to you. But others have gotten away with worse. I appreciate your defending me during my impending organ failure, but you DO need to be consistent.

But it continues to happen because your enforcement is rare and capricious. Cain stomped off in a huff because he was shocked by relatively mild offense he got called on. He got away with FAR worse stuff without a peep, and had done the trick you penalized him for a score of times with me. How about we have some consistency? These are the rules, don't violate them. You'll get a warning, and if you keep going you'll get WLPs, and after that.... Clear cut, eh? Cut newcomers some slack, but let them know when they cross over the line.

It's like parenting: you set some simple rules, and then you enforce them consistently. I certainly appreciate the service of you guys, but if you can't do that consistently and impartially, then we need new moderators.

It's quite simple. No flaming beyond simple chippiness, e.g. "I'm embarrassed to have to explain this again" isn't particularly bad. You have to give people some freedom, after all. But bringing somebody's family into it is unacceptable (I'm looking at you, Fuzzy). Can the ugly personal stuff, and stuff that is just plain mean. No first post into AR81's thread being "you're such a moron." No posting to Kathaksung that he's an insane loon. If somebody posts little but insults in a thread, then they should be cited. If somebody posts something off topic and clearly designed to incite somebody else, warn them. For infrequent infractions, just tell somebody to cool it. For a frequent offender, give them WLPs. If they can't stop, then clearly they can't play constructively with others and don't belong here. The warning system plus points, temporary bans, etc. is perfectly good. If people can't co-exist within that system that allows them to calibrate their behavior, they don't belong here.

If this catches me, so be it. Really. I think the community will be a better place for these rules, and everybody should have to co-exist with these minimal standards.

Also, I recognize the possibility that the community thrives on conflict. Make the conflict tepid, and people may leave. If so, that sends a message and you can change back. But you've never really tried anything but anarchy, have you? Things have been typed in this forum that should never be typed anywhere but the wilds of the internets. So let's try imposing a ceiling on the level of viciousness we're willing to tolerate. Clear and consistent. All you have to do is be consistent, impartial, and have the guts to make some judgment calls. I'm confident you can do it. When Rand started as mod, I thought he would do poorly, because he was opinionated and confrontational as a member. He actually changed a lot, and became much less partisan, like a judge. Well, both of you need to be active judges. The laissez faire approach doesn't work.

And no double standards. If they are to work, the rules need to be applied equally to everybody. Everybody, you hear? No doubt some will become good at skirting the boundary without getting tagged. That's OK.

[littlelolligagged]

Nothing at Atari matters anymore, Tear. Entirely different place. It's over.

Here, they were moderating exactly the way we said we wanted - or, in other words, as little as possible. Blaming RB and Dreadnaughty for our inability to act like grown-ups and play pseudo-nicely with others is rather unfair. I asked for change, knowing that Ness and a few others already agreed with me to see what would happen. The response has mostly been favorable, so it seems likely it will happen.

That doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly magically agree. And, as we already pointed out, you can even shitpost to your heart's content in GC - but, even there, a fight in one thread doesn't need to be dragged to another.

Civility.

[LittleFuzzy]

Nothing at Atari matters anymore, Tear. Entirely different place. It's over.

Here, they were moderating exactly the way we said we wanted - or, in other words, as little as possible. Blaming RB and Dreadnaughty for our inability to act like grown-ups and play pseudo-nicely with others is rather unfair.

That's not true. They're moderating exactly the way they want to mod, possibly the only way they can see to mod in a place where they also participate in discussion. I don't think you realize how much you've been conditioned to an almost completely unmoderated atmosphere. Now some on the forums undoubtedly do prefer that style but I think most "want" it simply because it's how they're used to Dread and Rand always modding.

[littlelolligagged]

That's not true. They're moderating exactly the way they want to mod, possibly the only way they can see to mod in a place where they also participate in discussion. I don't think you realize how much you've been conditioned to an almost completely unmoderated atmosphere. Now some on the forums undoubtedly do prefer that style but I think most "want" it simply because it's how they're used to Dread and Rand always modding.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[']['ear]

Nothing at Atari matters anymore, Tear. Entirely different place. It's over.

Here, they were moderating exactly the way we said we wanted - or, in other words, as little as possible. Blaming RB and Dreadnaughty for our inability to act like grown-ups and play pseudo-nicely with others is rather unfair. I asked for change, knowing that Ness and a few others already agreed with me to see what would happen. The response has mostly been favorable, so it seems likely it will happen.

That doesn't mean that everyone will suddenly magically agree. And, as we already pointed out, you can even shitpost to your heart's content in GC - but, even there, a fight in one thread doesn't need to be dragged to another.

Civility.

Agreed that "we" asked for anarchy. (*I* didn't, I asked for active moderation, more active than the laissez faire CC, though I don't give a crap about curse words and such). Now you're asking for something else.

I've also made it very clear that I will respond to assholes who fuck with me. You can either keep them from being dickheads, or you can tolerate my justified responses. Well, a third response is to kick me out.

Or, you can have the moderators do their job. And stop slurping up to the likes of Cain. My charge of their negligence being unconscionable is not far off. Certainly for CC, arguably for here. Cain got warned for his typical Nicaragua trolling, but not a peep was made when he said that I'd gotten my horrible illness from whoring outside of military bases. Seeing as I went through hell on earth in the last couple of years, that's just plain evil, and much worse than what Silverlink said in a pm, or anything he did here. The mods did nothing, and the peanut gallery just sat around watching their Kitty Genovese show while munching popcorn. Do you blame me for my skepticism about your touchy feely "let's all behave nicely" memorandum? Either put some teeth in it and enforce it, or resign yourself to tribalism and warring. Anything else is naive utopianism. Hell, Fuzzy brings my wife into right in this thread and nobody says a peep. Fucking hypocrits.

[littlelolligagged]

In this very thread, where you decided to cheerfully bring Chacha's house in, despite it having no relevance at all, just for the sake of trolling him? And where you keep bringing up Cain, who is gone?

You are not a victim, kindly stop pretending that you are.

[']['ear]

In this very thread, where you decided to cheerfully bring Chacha's house in, despite it having no relevance at all, just for the sake of trolling him?

It is utterly relevant, because I was making the point that it was critical to preserve the right to make controversial or even hurtful points as long as they are on topic. Otherwise we're just sanitizing our discussions of anything that is uncomfortable, and I'll assume that is not the goal.

There has been no experience of mine that is a better example of that than huge house imbroglio. In a thread on what one can give up for the environment, I mentioned one of the the two 800 pound gorillas (the other is cars, and particularly the trophy cars. I've ranted about them plenty before and ruffled some feathers). Granted, I should have said it here without any barbs, both here in this thread and in the "what would you give up" thread, and that was a bad call on my part. Bringing it up here and there was totally germane.

There is no way you can reasonably say that my bringing it up was trolling. My including a barb was just habit, a residual of ire, and being absolutely typical for posts in this community. It was a bad idea.

And where you keep bringing up Cain, who is gone?

Who could possibly me more relevant? Doubly so, because Cain illustrates that a lot of the dynamic here is that of a bunch of vampires feeding on incidental blood. The last thing they want to do is interrupt, or have any rules that could decrease their entertainment. At least *I* interrupt Lolli, including on your behalf.

You are not a victim, kindly stop pretending that you are.

Stop lecturing me and intentionally misinterpreting what I have posted. The huge house and Cain are central to this discussion here. I claim no victimhood about Chaloobi. I DO claim victimhood for Cain's vicious and indefensible attacks, just as you should (and did) for Silverlink's vicious and indefensible attacks. I don't claim victimhood from the vampires who sat around and munched their popcorn, but I judge them. And I have no problems with that at all.

As for Fuzzy, what possible excuse does he have for bringing my wife into it? THAT is the only completely selfish act you've seen in this thread. You'll notice I refrained from lashing back, though doubtlessly he deserved that.

Edit: and don't you DARE lecture me on the civil community. You're not a worst offender, but you're nowhere near the ideal. You've dropped bitchy bombs on me twice in the last two weeks with no possible excuse other than just being, well, a bitch. Did I respond to either? No. So it's fine for you to move for more civility, which I entirely agree with, but don't you DARE get judgmental with me. You troll as much as anybody.

[Ziggy Stardust]

About the rules. I think we were all so fed up with the moderating of first Phoxeh and second Timmy, we came here happy to have hardly any moderation at all. Clearly, we need to have some, otherwise you're going to get these kind of discussions which descent into: he started it!

Was anyone ever dissatisfied with the Atari rules as they were enforced before the shit hit the fan? I wasn't, and I'd like to see them enforced again. What is needed though is us being able to draw a line and say from now on, this is how we're going to do it. This will mean not referring to the many shitslingfests we had here in our short time we've been here. Now the trouble is that instead of a large forum, moderation and enforcing of rules can seem to get personal pretty quick, so I'd like to propose an addition. Namely, no Public Discussion of Moderator Action. If you have a problem with a moderation decision you try to settle it in PM with that moderator. Public discussion will be removed on sight. This because I think it's easier to reach an agreement one on one in private then in public where saving face and winning arguments in front of a life internet audience play a part. We're all susceptible to it, so don't try to tell me anyone is above that. If a private conversation can't reach a conclusion, it means the rules or the enforcement isn't clear. It should be up to the moderator to create a thread in the Site Discussion part of the forum about this disagreement and how we as a community are going to solve this.

This just from the top of my head, probably many ifs and butts I haven't spotted.

Lastly, whatever is decided, it's not going to be 100% to everyone's liking. Settle for less.

[']['ear]

About the rules. I think we were all so fed up with the moderating of first Phoxeh and second Timmy, we came here happy to have hardly any moderation at all. Clearly, we need to have some, otherwise you're going to get these kind of discussions which descent into: he started it!

Was anyone ever dissatisfied with the Atari rules as they were enforced before the shit hit the fan? I wasn't, and I'd like to see them enforced again.

I wasn't satisfied with them in CC. I think they were applied inconsistently and with favoritism. Anybody who knows about parenting knows that one of the most important things is consistency. If you set rules, you need to enforce them at the same threshold every time.

What is needed though is us being able to draw a line and say from now on, this is how we're going to do it. This will mean not referring to the many shitslingfests we had here in our short time we've been here. Now the trouble is that instead of a large forum, moderation and enforcing of rules can seem to get personal pretty quick, so I'd like to propose an addition. Namely, no Public Discussion of Moderator Action. If you have a problem with a moderation decision you try to settle it in PM with that moderator. Public discussion will be removed on sight. This because I think it's easier to reach an agreement one on one in private then in public where saving face and winning arguments in front of a life internet audience play a part. We're all susceptible to it, so don't try to tell me anyone is above that. If a private conversation can't reach a conclusion, it means the rules or the enforcement isn't clear. It should be up to the moderator to create a thread in the Site Discussion part of the forum about this disagreement and how we as a community are going to solve this.

This just from the top of my head, probably many ifs and butts I haven't spotted.

Lastly, whatever is decided, it's not going to be 100% to everyone's liking. Settle for less.

I disagree with only one thing: I've watched pro sports a lot, and there's a lot of conspiracy theorizing about the NBA precisely because of their "no public discussion" policy. Transparency is always preferable to secrecy. To assume otherwise is to assume that the watchmen are infallible. Bad call.

[littlelolligagged]

I Ziggy.

[Hazir]

That's not true. They're moderating exactly the way they want to mod, possibly the only way they can see to mod in a place where they also participate in discussion. I don't think you realize how much you've been conditioned to an almost completely unmoderated atmosphere. Now some on the forums undoubtedly do prefer that style but I think most "want" it simply because it's how they're used to Dread and Rand always modding.

I think I have to side with Lolli here. We did talk about these issues during the first weeks and it is only fairly recent that people are calling for a tighter type of moderation.

I also feel that this is a moment where I want to come out stronger in support of the way Rand and Dread are doing 'their job'. I do not have any problems with their hands-off approach and the reason why I like it is not because I am used to it, but because it suits my ideas about what a mod should be at the most. Which is little more than a person cleaning out the rubbish that is in no way related to the debates/topics.

Finally I can't help but feeling, and mind you that is a FEELING, that those who are most critical of the modding are also the usual suspects with regards to violating the rules they are asking for.

[Aimless]

It's possible that the reason people just stand by and watch is because it's extremely unpleasant to get involved in some fights, and rarely worth the icky feelings. I know that's why I usually stayed far away from your fights with Cain--there was never anything in those for me besides a strong sense of wasting my time on something very unpleasant and useless. You and he were the only ones who got anything out of those posts.





You're right in that you should be allowed to bring up Chaloobi's house in a discussion where Chaloobi's ownership of a large house is relevant. I hope you can refrain from bringing it up in 6 out of ten discussions without any great need to do so





Re. some sort of devil's advocate game, I really only meant that it may be good if we try to see our opponents as rational and intelligent rather than crazy stupid miscreants. I must once again say that I have enjoyed D&D more in the last few days

[littlelolligagged]

Yes, Tear. At the very beginning of the thread I admitted that I had behaved badly, and that I was including myself in the people who need to change their behavior in order for us to have any threads that weren't nothing but shitslinging at all. Since then I have made the effort not to, same as several others. I'm far from perfect, at some point I am almost sure to lose my temper with someone in a D&D thread again, and with any luck at all I'll have the grace to admit my error, apologize, and move on - while hoping whoever else is involved will accept and move on as well.

I'm sorry you can't just put the past behind you. I really am.

@Minxypooh - I have, too.

[']['ear]

I think I have to side with Lolli here. We did talk about these issues during the first weeks and it is only fairly recent that people are calling for a tighter type of moderation.

I also feel that this is a moment where I want to come out stronger in support of the way Rand and Dread are doing 'their job'. I do not have any problems with their hands-off approach and the reason why I like it is not because I am used to it, but because it suits my ideas about what a mod should be at the most. Which is little more than a person cleaning out the rubbish that is in no way related to the debates/topics.

Finally I can't help but feeling, and mind you that is a FEELING, that those who are most critical of the modding are also the usual suspects with regards to violating the rules they are asking for.

1) I didn't ask them to be at all related to topics and discussion. Just trolling and flaming. And, BTW, somebody almost ALWAYS is the one who started it. you stamp that out, and it all becomes civil.

2) Clearly referring to me, if I'm a main offender, which I am, why would I favor greater enforcement of trolling and flaming. And make no mistake: I want significantly stronger policing of that.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I disagree with only one thing: I've watched pro sports a lot, and there's a lot of conspiracy theorizing about the NBA precisely because of their "no public discussion" policy. Transparency is always preferable to secrecy. To assume otherwise is to assume that the watchmen are infallible. Bad call.

I realised this. But as I said, when it's discussed en public there's more at play then just that one moderator action. And if you can't work stuff out with the moderator you can ask him to make a thread dedicated to that.

At least the thread where the disagreement happened won't turn into a shitslinging fest, and whatever the topic it can continue on topic, while taking the problem elsewhere.

edit: This does mean though, that when you're flamed or trolled, you report it and that's that.

If you respond to it flaming, however justified you may feel it is, that flaming will have to be booked as well.

[EyeKhan]

You're right in that you should be allowed to bring up EK's house in a discussion where EK's ownership of a large house is relevant. I hope you can refrain from bringing it up in 6 out of ten discussions without any great need to do so

You know what, maybe EK's house really isn't ever relevant because its his personal life and he clearly doesn't like it discussed in the horrible context represented by elements of this forum. From there you might say "Ok, lets leave it lie from now on since its the courteous thing to do." Or you might also say its his own damn fault for revealing said information - a big mistake that won't happen again, I'm sure - and go on to say "fuck you EK, you're fair game any time I want to take pot shots at your character and personal life, just for the fucking fun of it. And I'll challenge you to justify your life to me whenever you get mad about it."

But you can also choose to say in whatever discussion "hay, I don't like people that buy big houses for reasons x, y and z" and never even mention EK or his personal life, thus avoiding EK getting mad and the resulting mini-war that's so disruptive around here. AND, wow, you still get to make your point in the discussion! The bottom line reason for mentioning EK's house in any context other than when EK is freely talking about it is not to make any kind of relevant point, it is to bait and harrass EK.

Any point to be made that isn't intended as a direct personal swipe at EK can be made without referencing him. And if all or part of your point is to take a swipe at EK, knowing how much he doesn't like it, then you are trolling.

[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.

[']['ear]

I realised this. But as I said, when it's discussed en public there's more at play then just that one moderator action. And if you can't work stuff out with the moderator you can ask him to make a thread dedicated to that.

At least the thread where the disagreement happened won't turn into a shitslinging fest, and whatever the topic it can continue on topic, while taking the problem elsewhere.

edit: This does mean though, that when you're flamed or trolled, you report it and that's that.

If you respond to it flaming, however justified you may feel it is, that flaming will have to be booked as well.

I have no problem with any of this, including that last bit. I've lobbied for it for years! My problem is that in the past, certain posters would get away with murder and the mods would intentionally turn a blind eye. And, like I said, that rules weren't even close to being consistently applied. The system won't work if that persists.

It's a lot like regular society. Will all play by the rules because they are applied with some semblance of impartiality. When that fairness breaks down, then corruption sets in because people don't feel like they're going to get a fair shake in society, so they might as well just go for personal gratification.

[Nessus]

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.

I don't know how to say it other than: This is a good post, the values espoused are good and you're a better person than I if you can live up to that

[']['ear]

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.

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?

And yes, we all transgress. And it's very nice to see it's going to be a peaceable kingdom with the lions and the lambs. That will last until somebody gets pissed off at what somebody else says, or somebody's partner broke up with them, etc. They'll be an asshole to somebody, who will flame back. Grudges will fester ad then we're right back where we started. Expecting this community to spontaneously organize itself into harmony is utopian BS (typically liberal, if I may say so ). It won't happen, or if it does it will be because the community has gotten small enough and any contentious elements have wandered off. In that case, it won't be fun anymore, except for a few people tossing around some silly inanities.

Or, you can set up sound ground rules and consistently enforce them. In the RW we need laws to ensure that people don't walk up to you and hit you, or take your money. Or drive drunk. Is there really a good reason why we don't need some basic rhetorical guidelines here as well? People complain about the "shitslinging," but do I really have to put up with some ass hounding me from thread to thread for weeks or months? No, I should not be expected to. If somebody can come along and tell him to STFU, and back it up if he doesn't, then we have contentious conversations but no shitstorms, eh? But guess what? You've actually got to back it up. Dread saying once or twice a year, "oy, could you guys cut it out?" is a joke. It flies in the face of everything we know about human nature. If you want standards of conduct, you need to consistently enforce the standards to minimize transgressions. And if you consistently enforce the standards, escalations will generally be short-circuited, ugly debating techniques will become scarce, and grudges will die out. Remaining will be the healthy brawling argumentation that we want, with only a small amount of real ugliness.

And I'm absolutely confident I'll do well in such a system. I'm a germanic rules guy. I know where the lines are, and I don't cross them. Nor do I resent a reasonable level of structure and authority. FREEEEDOOOMMMMM is pretty nice for Mel Gibson, but I'm perfectly contented to have a place where I can shoot off my fat mouth at all. I don't need to have the right to bludgeon the people around me to be happy. But I do need the right to defend myself if I'm going to be repeatedly assaulted, and I'm not going to let the guy next to me bludgeon me repeatedly.

[Loki]

In the real world, there are no laws against someone coming up to you and insulting you (within limits). And there are no laws about your colleagues cursing you out any time they disagree with you. And yet neither happens with a great frequency (can't say either ever happened to me). Most people get socialized into their environment, with or without laws. There are always a handful that don't, but there's little that can be done about them.

[Ominous Gamer]

thats what trespasses and bans are for this place isn't exactly comparable to a random encounter on a random street corner. but that ends up putting us back into the discussion of what we expect from the moderators.
having the community decide what is expected and acceptable behavior is great. but it needs to be enforced, not left as expected behavior for the regulars, otherwise you get users abusing it to their advantage in several different ways. From insults they know wont be challenged to false apologies of "it won't happen again." We have after all banned users who, while annoying, hardly matched the behavior trends of some of us.

[Hazir]

I think it's nonsense to say that people don't do bad things to other people because of rules. Most people are simply not inclinded that way. The rules we need for the people who willingly do bad things.

As for my comment on the worst transgressors being most vocal in their demands for the imposition of rules; yes Tear, you were included in that group. It was however not just you I was thinking of.

[']['ear]

In the real world, there are no laws against someone coming up to you and insulting you (within limits). And there are no laws about your colleagues cursing you out any time they disagree with you. And yet neither happens with a great frequency (can't say either ever happened to me). Most people get socialized into their environment, with or without laws. There are always a handful that don't, but there's little that can be done about them.

Apples and oranges. I too don't have real world interactions as negative as those I have had here. But I think that the anonymity of the internet removes some social barriers, both positive and negative. The shy person can be bold, the diffident, confident.

But the barriers to hurt are also removed. In real life, we know that an ugly statement will be met by shock and hurt, and aside from psychopaths we learn from an early age to avoid saying things that will elicit those responses, some because we don't like seeing that happen, and others because we know what the consequences are.

These characteristics are also features of the media: press, radio and television. Distinguished press can offer quite biting critique of a person, but it is generally not personal. Other press offer much more pointed commentary, on down to the tabloid, which can invent the most heinous and hurtful lies about people. If you put yourself forward as a public figure, you open yourself up to that commentary. All of it.

Are we not in effect a public venue? In fact, we're exposed to the entire world. But in a practical sense we are exposed to each other just like celebrities are. We protect ourselves by keeping our identities secret, and only reveal certain selected traits. Everybody here has succumbed to the temptation of putting down your "foe" during an online argument to strengthen your point, or distorting out outright lying about what they said previously to promote your own viewpoint. Some go farther than others, but that inevitable behavior leads to resentment, grudges, factions/cliques, etc.

So what value in comparing TWF to the interpersonal interactions of the real world? Far better commentators than I have noted the radical differences between life online and life in our homes and jobs. Facebook anecdotes abound, peoples' careers have been ruined, and some have committed suicide. If you put yourself on the internet, there is no limit to what you can be exposed to. Consequently, we are proposing a set of rules to enforce certai standards. I am arguing for modest rules in this regard, but if we're going to have rules we need to enforce them to the letter, consistently and fairly. Let's not even bother with the exercise in lip service that was CC. Either do it or don't insult us with the pretense.

I think it's nonsense to say that people don't do bad things to other people because of rules. Most people are simply not inclinded that way. The rules we need for the people who willingly do bad things.

As for my comment on the worst transgressors being most vocal in their demands for the imposition of rules; yes Tear, you were included in that group. It was however not just you I was thinking of.

Yes, I got that. You yourself are not exempted. The first day I saw your apt signature, I saw you post something that prompted me to think, "he needs to read his own sig."

People adhere to societal standards because they want to co-exist in that society. Simply put, they see something of value in that society and they collaborate to make the society function. This is how kids negotiate ethics in preschool. they are little animals, but they learn that if you hit or bite, not only will you be punished by teachers, but other kids will no longer play with you or share their toys. Parental guidance, of course, can model and enforce a lot of these ethics, but they are not sufficient. Witness the difficulty kids who have never been to preschool have going to kindergarten, compared to those who have spent a couple of years constantly negotiating with other kids. The ethics are learned in the practical world.

The practical world of the internet is different than that in which we were raised, because many of the normal human inhibitions are removed. Caveat emptor. It is a very different place, with very different conduct. Smugly saying "most people are not inclined that way" is not sufficient. It is, as I said, utopian idealism.

[Loki]

But the barriers to hurt are also removed. In real life, we know that an ugly statement will be met by shock and hurt, and aside from psychopaths we learn from an early age to avoid saying things that will elicit those responses, some because we don't like seeing that happen, and others because we know what the consequences are.

I'm fairly sure that the reason most people are relatively polite in the real world is not because they're afraid of being assaulted if they were not; they are polite because those are the norms they've been brought up with and ones they have seen allow them to build relationships with people. The only people who change their behavior due to a threat of violence are sociopaths.

[']['ear]

Did you not read my post? The only thing I said differently was adding to "brought up with" the notion of "negotiated with other kids." People learn the consequences of bad behavior, both to themselves and the hurt of others.

Funny how that doesn't translate here.

[Hazir]

Apples and oranges. I too don't have real world interactions as negative as those I have had here. But I think that the anonymity of the internet removes some social barriers, both positive and negative. The shy person can be bold, the diffident, confident.

But the barriers to hurt are also removed. In real life, we know that an ugly statement will be met by shock and hurt, and aside from psychopaths we learn from an early age to avoid saying things that will elicit those responses, some because we don't like seeing that happen, and others because we know what the consequences are.

These characteristics are also features of the media: press, radio and television. Distinguished press can offer quite biting critique of a person, but it is generally not personal. Other press offer much more pointed commentary, on down to the tabloid, which can invent the most heinous and hurtful lies about people. If you put yourself forward as a public figure, you open yourself up to that commentary. All of it.

Are we not in effect a public venue? In fact, we're exposed to the entire world. But in a practical sense we are exposed to each other just like celebrities are. We protect ourselves by keeping our identities secret, and only reveal certain selected traits. Everybody here has succumbed to the temptation of putting down your "foe" during an online argument to strengthen your point, or distorting out outright lying about what they said previously to promote your own viewpoint. Some go farther than others, but that inevitable behavior leads to resentment, grudges, factions/cliques, etc.

So what value in comparing TWF to the interpersonal interactions of the real world? Far better commentators than I have noted the radical differences between life online and life in our homes and jobs. Facebook anecdotes abound, peoples' careers have been ruined, and some have committed suicide. If you put yourself on the internet, there is no limit to what you can be exposed to. Consequently, we are proposing a set of rules to enforce certai standards. I am arguing for modest rules in this regard, but if we're going to have rules we need to enforce them to the letter, consistently and fairly. Let's not even bother with the exercise in lip service that was CC. Either do it or don't insult us with the pretense.



Yes, I got that. You yourself are not exempted. The first day I saw your apt signature, I saw you post something that prompted me to think, "he needs to read his own sig."

People adhere to societal standards because they want to co-exist in that society. Simply put, they see something of value in that society and they collaborate to make the society function. This is how kids negotiate ethics in preschool. they are little animals, but they learn that if you hit or bite, not only will you be punished by teachers, but other kids will no longer play with you or share their toys. Parental guidance, of course, can model and enforce a lot of these ethics, but they are not sufficient. Witness the difficulty kids who have never been to preschool have going to kindergarten, compared to those who have spent a couple of years constantly negotiating with other kids. The ethics are learned in the practical world.

The practical world of the internet is different than that in which we were raised, because many of the normal human inhibitions are removed. Caveat emptor. It is a very different place, with very different conduct. Smugly saying "most people are not inclined that way" is not sufficient. It is, as I said, utopian idealism.

Well that is maybe the difference between the kind of person you are and the kind of person I consider myself to be. I never saw any inherent difference between the people I meet in real life and the people I meet online. I don't have a special personality online completely separate from my off line personality.

The only differemce there is, is that inhere it's easier to misunderstand people because you interact through written words. I can also change the way I see other people in this forum. I have changed my ideas about Nessus after Nessus' posts in this forum changed. Not so long ago I said some pretty harsh words, which I really meant at the time. But for me it didn't stop there.

You were awfully offended when CC brought up the lies you told to 'us' over and over again. Did it ever occur to you that he really despises you? I can tell you that the things he said did resonate with me at least. I sort of missed your confession thread, as much as I missed that whole 'contra' lie. But even so your credit with me is fairly limited. It also means I don't really want to deal with your 'need for clear rules and regulation'. All that doesn't mean I will be stuck in this suspicion towards you forever, it may change over time. But it's certainly not going to change by the personal attacks I see from you over and over again.

[Illusions]

<snip>

Alright, I'm getting pretty tired of this crap mainly because you're the only one pulling the "I'm only going to behave so long as everyone else does" card. You're explicitly stating that while you can recognize the high ground, or the more adult thing to do, that you'd rather act immature if even one other person does, solely out of some personal warped sense of fairness. And new rationalizations or excuses keep coming. Please, for the love of anything you hold sacred, stop trying to justify, almost as if on an objective level, why you can act like an asshole. It wastes everyone's time, and its not going to lead to any progress.

[Dreadnaught]

I have to say so far I agree with Hazir and Lolli so far. Folks are really forgetting what they came here wanting, and underestimating what they asked for.

But very well, if folks want me to come down on "unproductive" discourse in D&D, I will and we'll see how it goes.