Why?

[littlelolligagged]

Why do we even bother with the pretense that D&D and GC are two separate sections? The original thought was that there would be serious discussion in D&D, and everything else in GC. Instead all the threads in all of the sections look exactly the same. All pissing matches, all the time. I'm not the first person to raise this complaint, but while I didn't agree with her entirely then I most certainly do now.

Now, I admit that I am guilty of the same behavior I am complaining about, but it really does seem to want to suck everyone in because it is there. It really isn't necessary to drag the same shit into thread after thread, so that it doesn't even matter what the OP is anymore, because the entire thread is really about nothing more than who has the biggest e-peen within five posts. There is absolutely no reason to start finger-pointing now. There are a very few people on the forum who are guiltless, and everyone knows exactly who they are without having to have a discussion about it.

Therefore, I am once again going to make the attempt at raising the level of D&D. If the only thing you can come up with to say to someone is a personal attack, don't bother posting it in that thread. Send a PM. Post ugly attacks in a thread in GC if you are only doing it because you get off on performing for an audience. Just stop turning every serious thread into an "oh my god, I hate liberals/conservatives/peoplewhodisagreewithanythingIhaveeversaid" fest.

[LittleFuzzy]

I still see a difference in general topics, if not in where the level of discussion always goes. Most of the threads in D&D are of at least limited interest to me and I'll read through them, even if I don't have a comment to make. I rarely even look into more than one or two of the threads active in GC on any given day. Threads like "What's Messing with your Groove," or the ones referencing that current Old Spice spokesmodel actively annoy me. I like having the two different sections because it means I don't have to scan through all the threads, I can just take a quick look at GC, see if either thread I'm interested in has a new post, and then mark them all as read. Merging them would leave me having to spend rather more time sifting through the new or updated threads for the material I actually want to read.

[littlelolligagged]

I'm really more interested in where the discussion always goes at this point.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm really more interested in where the discussion always goes at this point.

I don't see where that was ever a distinction between the two sections, or a reason to keep them apart or put them together.

[Ominous Gamer]

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

[littlelolligagged]

I don't see where that was ever a distinction between the two sections, or a reason to keep them apart or put them together.

Funny, I thought the purpose of D&D was serious discussion.

But if everyone else is happy, I'll just shut the fuck up.

[Illusions]

Funny, I thought the purpose of D&D was serious discussion.

Report threads if you think they belong elsewhere, and if the mods feel the same, they'll probably move it to its rightful place. This is the same as any community. Its inhabitants need to take an active role in its upkeep. If you've been reporting them, and nothing has been done, perhaps that fact needs to be sorted out.

[littlelolligagged]

Report threads if you think they belong elsewhere, and if the mods feel the same, they'll probably move it to its rightful place. This is the same as any community. Its inhabitants need to take an active role in its upkeep. If you've been reporting them, and nothing has been done, perhaps that fact needs to be sorted out.

The problem is that while the original threads may belong where they are, they get polluted into catfights within 4 or 5 posts.

[Nessus]

I don't see where that was ever a distinction between the two sections, or a reason to keep them apart or put them together.

Report threads if you think they belong elsewhere, and if the mods feel the same, they'll probably move it to its rightful place. This is the same as any community. Its inhabitants need to take an active role in its upkeep. If you've been reporting them, and nothing has been done, perhaps that fact needs to be sorted out.

You see how that goes? No one is suggesting we merge the sections, or that people keep misplacing threads. It's about the fucking attitude, and tone of discussion. We have more meta-discussion and two-penny psychoanalysis of the posters posting WRONG opinions than we do actual discussion. It's really, really tiring. I suppose I should add a disclaimer that just because I'm quoting you two doesn't mean I'm accusing you two of being perpetrators The well is truly poisoned here.

To re-iterate what I whined about in my version of the same; I'd like to read (and participate in to my capabilities) engaging and intelligent discussion whose focus isn't scoring debate club points. Or making people look foolish. But if the response to that suggestion is "tell a mod, lol", well. There goes that.

As lolli said, I'm to blame just as much as the next dingle-berry, and it has always been a part of the culture of the community to be absolutely, heinously vicious to people you disagree with. Some of that I like, but right now the forum division seems to be "arbitrary shit and joke posts" vs "stupid cat fights and joke posts". If we have to have a flame pit subforum just so people can be nasty to each other, maybe that's not so bad. If we can have nice conversations in another subforum. I realize how Minxy this sounds, but in all honesty his posts have been my favourites in D&D for some weeks now, and that should tell people something!

Can't we have one forum where we're obligated to be excellent to each other? Even if we're all horrible dicks.

[Nessus]

This bit is all me, and because I'm nuts it probably is, as well, but here's how I see the difference between the long-ago and what we're doing now:

Back on A][ari I often actively and purposefully shat on discussions, because it was a webspace provided by some shitheels who could not care less about what we did, until they cared. Because the forum was some collection of mooks divided by ideological lines, and those lines were trenches. People grew to hate and loathe one another. It was a pestilent and hostile atmosphere.

So what changed when we moved? That same bunch of mooks came along, because on one level or another we all wanted to keep talking to one another. What changed for me, personally, was that the same gods-damned second we came to a webspace held by us instead of some faceless entity, I started caring. It's probably because I'm a bleeding heart leftist, but there it is. Instead of wanting to sabotage the discussions I saw as inane and motivated by the ugliness in man, I'd like to explore why those things horrify me. Because we're on our own now, I would like to see some honest conversations too. That's about as sensible as I can explain it, because I don't really understand it myself, either.

While I appreciate the atmosphere of say what you want, it has engendered a culture of discussion where people knee-jerk at near-light-speed, anticipate each other's posts, malign their motives, the works. Most likely because we've been doing it for years. I think it is healthy we have an arena where we can say what we want about whomever we want, but maybe we also need one forum where some rules of courtesy are upheld. Well okay, not need, but it's a place I'd like to see, where people could post without the constant need to be at least passive aggressive if not outright hostile and baiting. The flip-side is the dumb and inane posters and their posts, but people tend to ignore those on the serious threads already in favour of lambasting their nemeses.

No, I don't really have any concrete suggestions about how this all should work out. It's all general disappointment in how things have played out, and it's unfair disappointment because I'm one of the worst offenders. But there it is all the same.

[littlelolligagged]

You're right. It's a lot different now that it is ours.

We don't have the DBZbrats to take out our abusive natures on anymore, so continual personal attacks on others with different ideologies is the way to go in a lot of cases. It doesn't have to be like that. It's possible to disagree with someone and still have some semblance of decorum. Attack the message instead of the messenger. Use actual facts to support yourself instead of demonizing the opposition.

I'm a fucking hippy tree-hugger. I think the only person we ever have around who is further left than me is Psilon. I'm a firm believer in "make love, not war." I enjoy a good debate, but the ferocious attacks are completely meaningless. It isn't remotely about issues anymore, it's all about proving that you're the big cat.

Enough is enough. Don't say "I'll stop if ___ stops." Just stop the shit already.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The girls are right!

"Just because you can say it, doesn't mean you should".

[Hazir]

Yeah, the girls are sort of right-ish. Maybe we should impose a rule in D&D where a reply that's too short is simply rejected. That way at least the quality of the sniping would be upped

[Ziggy Stardust]

I wouldn't mind stricter moderation in D&D. Even if that would mean I'd be a likely offender. But then we have to address the issue of rules again.

[Hazir]

Rules, definitions, whatever you call it. D&D and GC don't have to have the same rules anyway. However, the risk of course of a tighter moderation in D&D will also have the risk in it that D&D sort of dies the same sort of death the zombie-blog suffered.

[littlelolligagged]

I wouldn't mind stricter moderation in D&D. Even if that would mean I'd be a likely offender. But then we have to address the issue of rules again.

So why don't we?

What rules would you personally like to see, Zigz? What method do you see of getting the shit-slinging down to a manageable level?

Can you fix it?

[littlelolligagged]

Rules, definitions, whatever you call it. D&D and GC don't have to have the same rules anyway. However, the risk of course of a tighter moderation in D&D will also have the risk in it that D&D sort of dies the same sort of death the zombie-blog suffered.

The zombie-blog's death has more to do with a bunch of lazy people who don't want to take the time to write for it.

[Nessus]

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is not the height of intelligent reasoning some people seem to think it is, for starters

[littlelolligagged]

An argument in one thread really doesn't need to continue to the next.

And personal anecdotes, while occasionally entertaining, are not facts and should not be treated as such.

[LittleFuzzy]

An argument in one thread really doesn't need to continue to the next.

And personal anecdotes, while occasionally entertaining, are not facts and should not be treated as such.

They are facts, actually. It's just easy to over-generalize from them when we shouldn't. That reference Dread made to his own experiences in border states, and those of his family, was actually a good one. It was used to demonstrate and reaffirm common knowledge. OG's challenge was crap, part of that weird vendetta he's pursuing, and Tear is actually demanding Dread provide proof of the "common knowledge," he's questioning the narrative which he and Dread have both been hearing about for pretty much the entire last decade.

[littlelolligagged]

They are facts, actually. It's just easy to over-generalize from them when we shouldn't. That reference Dread made to his own experiences in border states, and those of his family, was actually a good one. It was used to demonstrate and reaffirm common knowledge. OG's challenge was crap, part of that weird vendetta he's pursuing, and Tear is actually demanding Dread provide proof of the "common knowledge," he's questioning the narrative which he and Dread have both been hearing about for pretty much the entire last decade.

I was not referring to any specific event, but no - your personal observations may be relevant and interesting - but a story used to illustrate the facts (even common knowledge) should not replace the facts themselves.

Yes - it's unreasonable to ask for proof of something that is common knowledge - except how do you determine what is common knowledge?

[Illusions]

Itsa me, Nessie-o'

I am unsure if you have checked your PM's, or if the PM I sent you was incredibly dumb...

[Nessus]

It wasn't incredibly dumb, though I doubt it would help much, either; what I don't understand is why you didn't just post it out in the open!

[Illusions]

It wasn't incredibly dumb, though I doubt it would help much, either; what I don't understand is why you didn't just post it out in the open!

I'll post it now, however I felt if it was ill-thought-out that it may have derailed this thread...

Edit:

For debate and discussion limit how much someone can post per day/per thread. The motivating factor of this is that if you only get something like one or two posts you'd be less likely to waste them on an ill-thought out reply, a topic unrelated comment, something that could've been said via PM, or a personal attack. This might also help to make them more thought out. In addition if people wish to waste their one or two post (or however many they have) on personal attacks and the like, instead of the thread immediately devolving into a flurry of feuding posts, the offending parties have to take days in order to accomplish what they would have in minutes before. This time lag will hopefully give the parties time to cool off.

In addition to this we could reward good or insightful posters with more posts per day/per thread. We could also take away these rewards if they become abused.

I don't actually know how a system like this could be implemented, or if it can, and depending on certain people who've harbored grudges for years, taking jabs every few days instead of minutes might not make a difference.

Edit #2: I've been following the above rule set as a personal experiment for most of today so far, and it kept one joke/worthless/possibly derailing post from being posted in D&D.

[littlelolligagged]

I don't really like the idea of trying to improve quality by limiting quantity.

[Illusions]

I don't really like the idea of trying to improve quality by limiting quantity.

Art School 101: Helpful critiques come with explanations.

[littlelolligagged]

Art School 101: Helpful critiques come with explanations.

Alright...

The problem with putting limits on is that it could stifle legitimate participation in a thread - a hot and interesting thread could easily go well over a set number of responses in a given time - and unless a mod was on to reset then everyone would have to cool their heels - or move the conversation to GC and make it fragmented instead. If you made the limit high enough not to affect normal posting activity, it would be so high that bitchfights would have lots of room to develop.

Better?

[Hazir]

The zombie-blog's death has more to do with a bunch of lazy people who don't want to take the time to write for it.

I didn't want to state the obvious.

I think that sources can have some relevance in a debate, but I am sometimes surprise at how people will discard opinions for no other reason than that it isn't followed by a link to a source. Sometimes demand even that a source is provided. As if the stronger rebuttal wouldn't be to do the search yourself and disprove the positon you don't agree with.

By taking that initiative you also come accross as less acerbic.

[Illusions]

Alright...

The problem with putting limits on is that it could stifle legitimate participation in a thread - a hot and interesting thread could easily go well over a set number of responses in a given time - and unless a mod was on to reset then everyone would have to cool their heels - or move the conversation to GC and make it fragmented instead. If you made the limit high enough not to affect normal posting activity, it would be so high that bitchfights would have lots of room to develop.

Better?

I've thought about this before sending my suggestion off to Nessus, but I'm uncertain if this would actually happen, or if it had been in place, would've caused a problem in the past. We'd need to look at prior threads, and "good" threads to see whether or not it would be a problem. I could definitely see this happening if we had more activity, or more people, however at this point I'm uncertain, due to lack of data.

[LittleFuzzy]

I was not referring to any specific event, but no - your personal observations may be relevant and interesting - but a story used to illustrate the facts (even common knowledge) should not replace the facts themselves.

Now that's just nonsensical. They are facts. They did happen, therefore they do happen. Something happening is demonstrative proof that the negative assertion, that it doesn't happen, is false.