Mod Sponsored Community Poll - Your Input is Requested

[JEDIYoda]

so who owes whom an apology?


and, again, stoning is a method of execution. if a protester is throwing rocks at police it's not a stoning.

It does not say who threw the rock or from what direction it was thrown.......

We can assume...so I still say the Mod was perfectly just in changing the thread title.....

 

[cybrsage]

You really don't get it, do you? First, subjective and meaningless are not the same thing at all. While subjectivity may be unacceptable in precise disciplines like Mathematics, it is an inevitable factor in almost everything else ... including human interaction. As long as human moderators are moderating human discussions, subjectivity is a given. It's something all socially well-adjusted people learn to live with as part of our daily lives.

So you would be fine if Spidey was set as a mod and was allowed to use his own subjective views as to if your posts are noise or signal, right?

Second, it is Anandtech moderators who will make those subjective decisions about what is signal and what is noise. That's their role here. This isn't your forum or my forum or Spidey's forum. It's Anand's forum, and he has delegated this responsibility to his moderators. Don't like it? Get your refund and go somewhere else. Start your own forum where you can make the rules, or where you can delegate that responsibility to Anarchist or Spidey if you want them to decide. The fact of the matter is as long as you are a guest here, you're going to have to learn to accept the decisions of the moderators who run the place.

Anand did not make the post, I think you realize that. Some other standard poster made it. I think you keep forgetting that part, even though Idontcare was very clear in in his explaination that Perknose was not a mod when he posted it. As such, his subjective post is open to be destroyed for him presenting subjective opinion as fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

So you would be fine if Spidey was set as a mod and was allowed to use his own subjective views as to if your posts are noise or signal, right?

No, but I am an adult and don't hold your false sense of entitlement. I recognize I am a guest here, and I am subject to the rules -- and even the whims -- of the guy who owns the place. If Spidey was a mod who freely abused his role, I would likely simply exercise my adult right to make choices and go somewhere else. I would not play the role of a petulant child, demanding that others conform to my wishes.

(And in fact I did exactly that a few years ago, at another forum. I found the atmosphere rather hostile, so I left. I didn't throw a tantrum about how the moderators there were subjective, demanding they should change for me.)

Anand did not make the post, I think you realize that. Some other standard poster made it. I think you keep forgetting that part, even though Idontcare was very clear in in his explaination that Perknose was not a mod when he posted it. As such, his subjective post is open to be destroyed for him presenting subjective opinion as fact.

Which has exactly nothing to do with anything I said. I'm not addressing your pointless and misdirected attacks on Perk. I'm addressing what you said in the post I quoted, whining that moderation for content (i.e., signal vs. noise) would be somehow meaningless and open to abuse if it is subjective. Tough. Yes, it will be somewhat subjective, and you'd better get used to it since that's how the world works. My response has nothing to do with any specific comments from Perk or Idontcare.

 

[cybrsage]

No [I would not be fine if Spidey was set as a mod and was allowed to use his own subjective views as to if your posts are noise or signal]...

So you are saying you would not accept the view of a standard poster you usually disagree with, while saying I must accept the view of a standard poster I usually disagree with.

How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposed views?

 

[dank69]

So you are saying you would not accept the view of a standard poster you usually disagree with, while saying I must accept the view of a standard poster I usually disagree with.

How do you reconcile these two diametrically opposed views?

He clearly stated that if he didn't like the choice in mods (ie: if Spidey were to be a mod) he would leave, and he clearly thinks you should do the same if you don't like the mods here. Why are you so confused?

 

[Patranus]

I think the biggest problem with the concerns listed in that OPs graph is that many of the items are subject to the opinion of the moderators like 'bigotry'.

Politics is based on personal opinion and the personal opinion of the moderators shouldn't influence the discussion.

If rules are going to be enforced, then they have to be clear cut rules. If subjective rules are enforced then this forum is pointless as it simply turns into a place to post news links with little to no discussion.

An example of rules that are clear cut and equitable in their enforcement are blatant personal attacks and ensuring that all news stories are linked. If someone writes "fuck you" as a response, that is clear cut. Someone could claim a personal attack for disagreeing with a position and such a thing shouldn't be enforced. If a thread doesn't include a link to the story that is clear cut.

Rules against things like 'bigotry' are too subjective. To some you are labeled a 'bigot' if you are against gay marriage.

The only things that should be enforced are direct personal attacks, blatant topic derail (sometimes the topic evolves), lack of OP link (unless it is unsinkable like live news), or direct insulting retorts (like the example).

The rest are pretty subjective.

 

[cybrsage]

He clearly stated that if he didn't like the choice in mods (ie: if Spidey were to be a mod) he would leave, and he clearly thinks you should do the same if you don't like the mods here. Why are you so confused?

Because that was not part of the original premise.

 

[Bowfinger]

He clearly stated that if he didn't like the choice in mods (ie: if Spidey were to be a mod) he would leave, and he clearly thinks you should do the same if you don't like the mods here. Why are you so confused?

Exactly, thank you. I'm comfortable this was clear to anyone not being gratuitously argumentative.

 

[Whiskey16]

Rules against things like 'bigotry' are too subjective. To some you are labeled a 'bigot' if you are against gay marriage.

AnandTech Forum Guidelines

Do not use our Forums to post any material, or links to any material, which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

As a learning aid, here a couple of present clear-cut examples of bigotry:

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.


Muslims are instructed by sharia law to kill non-muslims.

A fear mongering and false declaration that Muslims are inherently a violent threat to others, and therefore fair game for retribution killing. Not just bigotry, but open incitement for lethal violence upon any Muslim.

If there was rape or stoning in Islamist states people would be joining in the fun, let alone getting it reported. Don't even try putting these subhumans at an equal standing with Israel.

Not just a full-on falsehood upon multiple Muslim states and societies, but an open dehumanisation upon all Muslims.

Nothing open to subjectivity there.

Out and out bigotry, but sadly on this forum, the bigoted targeting of Muslims is a regular display that would make Anders Breivik grin with glee, while condemning the society of AnandTech for what it still tolerates.

 

[Patranus]

AnandTech Forum Guidelines



As a learning aid, here a couple of present clear-cut examples of bigotry:

A fear mongering and false declaration that Muslims are inherently a violent threat to others, and therefore fair game for retribution killing. Not just bigotry, but open incitement for lethal violence upon any Muslim.

Not just a full-on falsehood upon multiple Muslim states and societies, but an open dehumanisation upon all Muslims.

Nothing open to subjectivity there.

Out and out bigotry, but sadly on this forum, the bigoted targeting of Muslims is a regular display that would make Anders Breivik grin with glee, while condemning the society of AnandTech for what it still tolerates.

It is your opinion that those opinions are false.
That is why it is subjective
People who claim they are Muslim also claim it is their religious duty to kill non Muslims. That is their opinion on what it means to be Muslim. Your opinion on being Muslim differs. Many people would agree that people who participate in stoning are subhuman. You disagree. That is your opinion. What make you or anyone else entitled to be the arbitrator of who holds a valid opinion and who doest?

The ability to post ones opinion freely is what makes P&N great. By instituting subjective guidelines you destroy that.

 

[SparkyJJO]

I find it a little amusing how the thread started out and quickly burned dmcowen

I also find it amusing how certain people want things to remain lax on enforcement probably because if the forum rules got equally applied here they'd have been cooked a long time ago (you know who you are )

I think it would do the forum good to more equally enforce rules here as anywhere else. When most threads devolve into insult screaming matches you know there's a problem. "Let us be adults" - well then ACT like adults and not a bunch of bratty bullies acting like screaming obscenities makes your position somehow stronger or more relevant.

My 2 cents.

 

[Patranus]

I find it a little amusing how the thread started out and quickly burned dmcowen

I also find it amusing how certain people want things to remain lax on enforcement probably because if the forum rules got equally applied here they'd have been cooked a long time ago (you know who you are )

I think it would do the forum good to more equally enforce rules here as anywhere else. When most threads devolve into insult screaming matches you know there's a problem. "Let us be adults" - well then ACT like adults and not a bunch of bratty bullies acting like screaming obscenities makes your position somehow stronger or more relevant.

My 2 cents.

The issue is when you have subjective rules they inevitably end up being unequally applied.
P&N is unique as the issues discusses become emotional for everyone involved.
It is too hard for some to stay objective.

 

[SparkyJJO]

The issue is when you have subjective rules they inevitably end up being unequally applied.
P&N is unique as the issues discusses become emotional for everyone involved.
It is too hard for some to stay objective.

That's why they need to be objective, not subjective. Screaming at people that they are <insert favorite obscenity-laced personal attack here> is objectively a lack of self control. There should be no reason to not be able to enforce some moderation of that. I'm not saying ban everyone who says "oh you dummy, you don't get it. This is how it is etc etc." That's one thing. But when the only content of the post is, "You're a @($#%^(@ @(%^#%. Moron!" That is totally unnecessary and useless.

People can learn to curb their emotions and remain at least somewhat civil.

 

[Patranus]

That's why they need to be objective, not subjective. Screaming at people that they are <insert favorite obscenity-laced personal attack here> is objectively a lack of self control. There should be no reason to not be able to enforce some moderation of that. I'm not saying ban everyone who says "oh you dummy, you don't get it. This is how it is etc etc." That's one thing. But when the only content of the post is, "You're a @($#%^(@ @(%^#%. Moron!" That is totally unnecessary and useless.

People can learn to curb their emotions and remain at least somewhat civil.

Like I said, I would be ok with moderation of cut and dry things like replying to someone with just 'fuck you' or purposly not linking s source in the OP.

I really don't think if regulation in P&N starts the it will be limited to just that.

I do not mean the following as a "mod callout" but it might be take as that but I think it is a valid concern. If a mod perceived the following as a "mod callout" please give me a chance to delete it. I am only expressing a concern and using ATOT as an example.

The best example of what I don't want to happen in P&N is what happened in ATOT regarding the word "savage". Certain moderators thought it was 'racist' so they started to ban those who used it. It is a concern because the articles linked to threads using 'savage' as a descriptor contained actions which were by definition 'savage'.

So like I said, P&N is shackled with rules that are subjective to the moderators, then it becomes nothing more than another new aggregator as anyone can find almost anything offensive/racist/sexist/bigoted/ect. if they try hard enough.

 

[JSt0rm]

sometimes a fuck you is all thats needed.

 

[heymrdj]

sometimes a fuck you is all thats needed.

Nah at the point of fuck you you don't have anything constructive to add. It's just an obscene and pot stirring way to say I still disagree, and at that point you have to agree to disagree, nothing more can be done. You won't be allowed to win at that point so accept your draw/defeat and walk away.

 

[JSt0rm]

Nah at the point of fuck you you don't have anything constructive to add. It's just an obscene and pot stirring way to say I still disagree, and at that point you have to agree to disagree, nothing more can be done. You won't be allowed to win at that point so accept your draw/defeat and walk away.

shhhhh...

Christians should be seen not heard.

 

[Perknose]

The best example of what I don't want to happen in P&N is what happened in ATOT regarding the word "savage". Certain moderators thought it was 'racist' so they started to ban those who used it. It is a concern because the articles linked to threads using 'savage' as a descriptor contained actions which were by definition 'savage'.

Wrong.

I thought it was so important and potentially dicey that I went straight to Anand and asked him directly if the use of "savage" should be allowed BEFORE we acted.

You and others want to believe that the use of the word "savage" to decribe savage acts by African Americans doesn't contribute to stealth racism, but the entire Admin corps AND Anand unanimously think otherwise.

So when you state here, as you did, that only "Certain moderators thought it was 'racist' ", as if perhaps some rump group of mods acted on their own in some high-handed fashion, such an implication just does not even begin to stand up to the FACTS.

I hope this permanently clears up any misconception you may and other poster here have been laboring under.

 

[heymrdj]

shhhhh...

Christians should be seen not heard.

What are you babbling about...

 

[SparkyJJO]

sometimes a fuck you is all thats needed.

I wasn't mentioning anyone in particular on purpose, but since you decided to post that, well, you're a good example. Seems at least half your posts are nothing but that. Totally unnecessary, worthless garbage of posts that serve no purpose but to insult and maybe somehow make you feel better about yourself perhaps. Crap like that is something we could all do without as it only clutters the threads and sometimes just turns them into pissing matches.

Though I will say it is entertaining at times when you go flying off the handle. I can picture you pounding your keyboard in fits of rage as you scream with fury, your face beet red and spittle spattering all over your monitor

 

[Gillbot]

Wrong.

I thought it was so important and potentially dicey that I went straight to Anand and asked him directly if the use of "savage" should be allowed BEFORE we acted.

You and others want to pretend that the use of the word "savage" to decribe savage acts by African Americans doesn't contribute to stealth racism, but the entire Admin corps AND Anand unanimously think otherwise.

So when you state here, as you did, that only "Certain moderators thought it was 'racist' ", as if perhaps some rump group of mods acted on their own in some high-handed fashion, such an implication just does not even begin to stand up to the FACTS.

I hope this permanently clears up any misconception you may have been laboring under.

+1

 

[JSt0rm]

I wasn't mentioning anyone in particular on purpose, but since you decided to post that, well, you're a good example. Seems at least half your posts are nothing but that. Totally unnecessary, worthless garbage of posts that serve no purpose but to insult and maybe somehow make you feel better about yourself perhaps. Crap like that is something we could all do without as it only clutters the threads and sometimes just turns them into pissing matches.

Though I will say it is entertaining at times when you go flying off the handle. I can picture you pounding your keyboard in fits of rage as you scream with fury, your face beet red and spittle spattering all over your monitor

Half my posts?

Probably more then half my posts to you. When I find truly ignorant people here who refuse to see any rational discussion then I will toss a fuck their way. The truly stupid deserve no more.

I never get angry though. This entire place exists for me to take breaks while working, sometimes i have a interesting debate and sometimes I curse out low iq conservative dumb shits. Either way I stay entertained.

 

[allisolm]

The best example of what I don't want to happen in P&N is what happened in ATOT regarding the word "savage". Certain moderators thought it was 'racist' so they started to ban those who used it. It is a concern because the articles linked to threads using 'savage' as a descriptor contained actions which were by definition 'savage'.

That's wrong. We ALL thought it was racist and Anand himself tasked us with eliminating such remarks

 

[SparkyJJO]

Half my posts?

Probably more then half my posts to you. When I find truly ignorant people here who refuse to see any rational discussion then I will toss a fuck their way. The truly stupid deserve no more.

I never get angry though. This entire place exists for me to take breaks while working, sometimes i have a interesting debate and sometimes I curse out low iq conservative dumb shits. Either way I stay entertained.

Here's the problem - you don't even present a rational discussion to start with. You make your statement, someone disagrees with you (me, for example, since it happens often), and you turn around and scream obscenities back at them and call them idiots. And you blame the other person for the lack of rational discussion?

But thanks for proving my point, anyway.

 

[Idontcare]

Wrong.

I thought it was so important and potentially dicey that I went straight to Anand and asked him directly if the use of "savage" should be allowed BEFORE we acted.

You and others want to believe that the use of the word "savage" to decribe savage acts by African Americans doesn't contribute to stealth racism, but the entire Admin corps AND Anand unanimously think otherwise.

So when you state here, as you did, that only "Certain moderators thought it was 'racist' ", as if perhaps some rump group of mods acted on their own in some high-handed fashion, such an implication just does not even begin to stand up to the FACTS.

I hope this permanently clears up any misconception you may and other poster here have been laboring under.

Perknose posts the truth.

Administrator Idontcare