Discussion Thread Re: 8/3 No Insults Rule Amendment

[dank69]

I agree. From my perspective, this appears to be partly due to it being near the election, and even more due to what appears to be almost no moderation. Much of the blatant trolling and derailing that's ignored today would have resulted in quick vacations a year or two ago. Embedded images also aggravates this, encouraging new forms of trolling and general disruption.

This is the reason things seem worse. Once the election is over, things will start to cool off.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

This is the reason things seem worse. Once the election is over, things will start to cool off.

Having been through this in 2008, my experience is that this won't happen nearly as much as you think it will.

Regardless, why wait another two months with things as they are? We could have this place cleaned up, or a new place set up with proper discussion, in a few days.

We just have to wait for the AT admins to weigh in...

 

[Pens1566]

Having been through this in 2008, my experience is that this won't happen nearly as much as you think it will.

Regardless, why wait another two months with things as they are? We could have this place cleaned up, or a new place set up with proper discussion, in a few days.

We just have to wait for the AT admins to weigh in...

I'm with CK's thinking on this one. I don't see it getting demonstrably better after the election.

 

[Bowfinger]

This is the reason things seem worse. Once the election is over, things will start to cool off.

Note I said only partly due to the election. I do think the bigger factor is the lack of consequences for blatant trolling, derailing, and dishonesty. It's not quite a free-for-all, but it's close.

 

[dank69]

...

Regardless, why wait another two months with things as they are? ...

Because in general I prefer freedom over restrictions. I'd urge anyone who doesn't to reconsider.

I'll be the first one to laugh when someone trolls the shit out of you, while staying just inside the forum rules, to the point that you can't help but attack the troll instead of the troll's position and earn yourself a vacation once your forum utopia has been implemented.

 

[dank69]

Note I said only partly due to the election. I do think the bigger factor is the lack of consequences for blatant trolling, derailing, and dishonesty. It's not quite a free-for-all, but it's close.

I agree that that is a huge problem (in fact I was one of the first to request those issues be dealt with when IDC came in to try to mod this place), but it has been stated that they don't have resources to enfore those rules so we have to deal with it. The easiest way to deal with it is to call an idiot an idiot and move on. Or just ignore them.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because in general I prefer freedom over restrictions.

How about the freedom to have rational conversation and debate without everything devolving to the least common denominator?

We already have a free-for-all forum where people can insult the hell out of each other -- Off Topic. Why do we need another one?

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
I'll be the first one to laugh when someone trolls the shit out of you, while staying just inside the forum rules, to the point that you can't help but attack the troll instead of the troll's position ...

Which is exactly what happened when we tried the Zero Insult rule. It was a big factor in the voting to drop the rule; sharply-defined rules protect troublemakers by giving them clear boundaries for creating disruption. It was easy for dedicated misfits to find loopholes while tying the hands of those trying to be constructive members.

By the way, you seem a bit hostile to CK and I'm not sure why. He's not insulting anyone, trolling, lying, or engaging in other disruptive behaviors. He simply has a different opinion. That's OK. Personally, I've found him to be one of the most consistently reasonable posters here, even though as in this case we don't always agree.

 

[Bowfinger]

How about the freedom to have rational conversation and debate without everything devolving to the least common denominator?

We already have a free-for-all forum where people can insult the hell out of each other -- Off Topic. Why do we need another one?

Because the denizens of OT think P&N is too icky even for them.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Which is exactly what happened when we tried the Zero Insult rule. It was a big factor in the voting to drop the rule; sharply-defined rules protect troublemakers by giving them clear boundaries for creating disruption. It was easy for dedicated misfits to find loopholes while tying the hands of those trying to be constructive members.

Well, disallowing flaming should imply disallowing flamebaiting. I don't know why one would ever be allowed without the other.

PS Thanks for the kind words. I've mostly been not participating here over the last few weeks because of all the mud-slinging, but I'm trying to pick spots where I can contribute here and there, in the hopes of improving the SNR at least a bit.

 

[dank69]

...

By the way, you seem a bit hostile to CK and I'm not sure why. He's not insulting anyone, trolling, lying, or engaging in other disruptive behaviors. He simply has a different opinion. That's OK. Personally, I've found him to be one of the most consistently reasonable posters here, even though as in this case we don't always agree.

I am hostile because this is the third rehash. I was hostile when we went from all insults allowed to no vitriolic insults. The community voted for allowing insults. That should have been the end of it.

I'm hostile because if insults on the internet (especially in a P&N setting) offend someone, then that someone is a fucking idiot, IMO.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm hostile because if insults on the internet (especially in a P&N setting) offend someone, then that someone is a fucking idiot, IMO.

You used this "offended" angle yesterday, and I'll reply to it the same way I did then: it's not about me being personally "offended", it's about how one insult leads to another and the quality of discussions goes down the toilet.

But since you mentioned it, yes, some people do get offended by the mud-slinging, and they participate less or leave, and the site is worse off for it. The insults serve no functional purpose, and again, we already have a "free for all" forum where people who can't control their tempers can "express themselves".

 

[monovillage]

Well, disallowing flaming should imply disallowing flamebaiting. I don't know why one would ever be allowed without the other.

PS Thanks for the kind words. I've mostly been not participating here over the last few weeks because of all the mud-slinging, but I'm trying to pick spots where I can contribute here and there, in the hopes of improving the SNR at least a bit.

I'll disagree with Bow about this. Things got markedly better with the no insult rule, it was the changes to the rule (part of it the time sink for moderators) made by Idontcare that helped turn this forum into such a cesspit.

 

[dank69]

You used this "offended" angle yesterday, and I'll reply to it the same way I did then: it's not about me being personally "offended", it's about how one insult leads to another and the quality of discussions goes down the toilet.

But since you mentioned it, yes, some people do get offended by the mud-slinging, and they participate less or leave, and the site is worse off for it. The insults serve no functional purpose, and again, we already have a "free for all" forum where people who can't control their tempers can "express themselves".

The quality of the discussion in this forum, with few exceptions, has always been shit. It will always be shit until they start enforcing rules againt misinformation and logical fallacies. If they do that, then there will be no rational reason to insult someone and you won't need rules against insults. As has been mentioned several times now, insults are a symptom, not the root cause.

As for people leaving because they are offended by insults, again, idiots IMO. Wading through misinformation and fallacies is way more exhausting than ignoring 100x as many insults. I gotta fucking fact check every fucking thing posted in this stupid forum to make sure it isn't bullshit before I can even comment on it.

 

[fskimospy]

To be clear I stopped posting here entirely due to the non stop trolling, thread crapping, etc. from a small minority of posters. I thought, and still think, that no insults rules without moderating the other bad behavior more seriously are counterproductive.

 

[jackstar7]

To be clear I stopped posting here entirely due to the non stop trolling, thread crapping, etc. from a small minority of posters. I thought, and still think, that no insults rules without moderating the other bad behavior more seriously are counterproductive.

I'm thinking you made the right choice.

 

[Infohawk]

To be clear I stopped posting here entirely due to the non stop trolling, thread crapping, etc. from a small minority of posters. I thought, and still think, that no insults rules without moderating the other bad behavior more seriously are counterproductive.

Things seem to have gotten worse here lately. It's not just insults, but the general quality of discussion has gone down. I see less posts from decent posters and more from low-quality posters. A lot of this might be due to the hyperpartisans coming out for the election, but I have to wonder if part of is not due to the weird rule changing we've had.

With the no insults rule, I saw a general improvement in the forum. Would it be that surprising if stopping one kind of bad behavior had an effect on other bad behavior? Regardless of how well it was implemented or whether you agree with it on principle, wasn't it better overall? After their tentative rules were rejected, I wonder if some mods passive aggressively let things deteriorate (by what was a pretty meaningless vote). It seems like a lot of low-quality posters started posting more frequently because they felt like they had a free pass to do what they want after the tentative rule was rejected.

 

[fskimospy]

Things seem to have gotten worse here lately. It's not just insults, but the general quality of discussion has gone down. I see less posts from decent posters and more from low-quality posters. A lot of this might be due to the hyperpartisans coming out for the election, but I have to wonder if part of is not due to the weird rule changing we've had.

With the no insults rule, I saw a general improvement in the forum. Would it be that surprising if stopping one kind of bad behavior had an effect on other bad behavior? Regardless of how well it was implemented or whether you agree with it on principle, wasn't it better overall? After their tentative rules were rejected, I wonder if some mods passive aggressively let things deteriorate (by what was a pretty meaningless vote). It seems like a lot of low-quality posters started posting more frequently because they felt like they had a free pass to do what they want after the tentative rule was rejected.

No, it wasn't better overall, at least not for me. I was constantly getting infractions, warnings, etc, so I was well on my way to being banned anyway. The usual suspects were carrying on with their usual bad behavior (and you know who they are), but when I called someone a stupid asshole for acting like a stupid asshole I was sanctioned for it.

The problem here has nothing to do with insulting or the lack thereof, it has to do with unpoliced trolling and thread crapping.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Good to see you back eskimospy.

And I agree that an overall approach is really needed, either here or in a subforum.

 

[fskimospy]

Good to see you back eskimospy.

And I agree that an overall approach is really needed, either here or in a subforum.

I've never exactly been gone, I've always read the mobile/cpu forums, etc. I don't currently have any plans to post here still, I don't really see the point.

I'm glad to see you're trying to make the place better though. Yes, a heavily moderated subforum would probably be best.

 

[Infohawk]

No, it wasn't better overall, at least not for me. I was constantly getting infractions, warnings, etc, so I was well on my way to being banned anyway. The usual suspects were carrying on with their usual bad behavior (and you know who they are), but when I called someone a stupid asshole for acting like a stupid asshole I was sanctioned for it.

The problem here has nothing to do with insulting or the lack thereof, it has to do with unpoliced trolling and thread crapping.

Threadcrapping seems to have gotten worse lately. Again, it doesn't surprise me that those kinds of posters are fueled by insults. That is why a lot of people post. They want to attack or fight with other people and they post to trigger those fights. If you get rid of the attacks, then thread-crapping won't produce the desired results.

Trolling is used in so many ways that it's almost meaningless. Generally, I just don't know how much credibility one can have saying certain behavior is unacceptable when they think that insulting people left and right adds to the forum. If you have something more specific in mind, feel free to say what it is.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Info, I don't think people are saying that insults "add to the forum". They're saying that it's counterproductive to prohibit insults while allowing the sort of behavior that causes people to lose their temper and let loose with insults.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Threadcrapping seems to have gotten worse lately. Again, it doesn't surprise me that those kinds of posters are fueled by insults. That is why a lot of people post. They want to attack or fight with other people and they post to trigger those fights. If you get rid of the attacks, then thread-crapping won't produce the desired results.

Trolling is used in so many ways that it's almost meaningless. Generally, I just don't know how much credibility one can have saying certain behavior is unacceptable when they think that insulting people left and right adds to the forum. If you have something more specific in mind, feel free to say what it is.

It's not that I think insults add anything to the forum, it's that I have chosen to fight fire with fire.
As long as the trolls run rampant, I won't stop.

 

[Infohawk]

Info, I don't think people are saying that insults "add to the forum". They're saying that it's counterproductive to prohibit insults while allowing the sort of behavior that causes people to lose their temper and let loose with insults.

When someone posts insults, they only have themselves to blame. It doesn't serve a purpose and there really is no excuse for it. The insults themselves just generate more bad behavior.

Insulters need to understand that they are actually rewarding the trolls and causing them to engage in more bad behavior. That is what the trolls want. Trolls exist to get emotional reactions out of people. Giving them what they want is not the answer.

It's not that I think insults add anything to the forum, it's that I have chosen to fight fire with fire.
As long as the trolls run rampant, I won't stop.

See above. You're not fighting anything. You're giving the trolls what they want. You're the victim not the aggressor. The only posters you're harming are third parties who don't want to hear any of it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

When someone posts insults, they only have themselves to blame. It doesn't serve a purpose and there really is no excuse for it. The insults themselves just generate more bad behavior.

Insulters need to understand that they are actually rewarding the trolls and causing them to engage in more bad behavior. That is what the trolls want. Trolls exist to get emotional reactions out of people. Giving them what they want is not the answer.

I don't disagree with any of that -- I'm just trying to explain what the objection is to a forum where flaming results in infractions but flamebaiting does not.