Open Mic Thread: Tell us your likes and dislikes of P&N

[Idontcare]

I think you are mistaking bigotry for racism. Anti-religious bigotry is a very popular attack in these forums. It's only racial bigotry that's not allowed.

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.

You are going to have a difficult time convincing me that when the author of the above devoted their time to drafting and adopting this clause that they intended for anti-religious bigotry to find safe harbor while all the other listed behaviors were to be treated as verboten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religious belief or spirituality, nationality, language, sexual orientation, and age; and to those from a different region, with non-normative gender identity, those who are homeless, and those with various medical disorders, particularly behavioural and addictive disorders. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views.

The bottom line is that intolerance is the fundamental issue behind a huge percentage of the issues we moderators find ourselves tasked with managing between forum members, and another name for intolerance is bigotry.

Show me a P&N that is devoid of bigotry and I suspect you'll be showing me a forum that has no need of moderators outside of the mechanics of keeping the forum going (plz lock thread, plz remove this spam, etc).

That said, show me a forum that fully embraces bigotry as acceptable behavior and you will likewise be showing me a forum that has no need of moderators since pretty much all personal attacks and flames have their roots in bigotry of one shade or another and as such it would be allowed and condoned.

Which goes back to the spirit of our posting guidelines:

1) No trolling, flaming or personally attacking members. Deftly attacking ideas and backing up arguments with facts is acceptable and encouraged. Attacking other members personally and purposefully causing trouble with no motive other than to upset the crowd is not allowed.

We want to give all our members as much freedom as possible while maintaining an environment that encourages productive discussion. It is our desire to encourage our members to share their knowledge and experiences in order to benefit the rest of the community, while also providing a place for people to come and just hang out.

We also intend to encourage respect and responsibility among members in order to maintain order and civility. Our social forums will have a relaxed atmosphere, but other forums will be expected to remain on-topic and posts should be helpful, relevant and professional.

We ask for respect and common decency towards your fellow forum members.

In my mind the rules are very clear, bigotry was never intended to find safe harbor in the AnandTech Forums, but the question here for the community is does the community care to be moderated per the existing rules, does bigotry have shelter here in P&N or is bigotry to be stamped out?

Administrator Idontcare

 

[cybrsage]

Never said I am perfect.

Show me where I intentionally made mistakes.
I use the name of the articles.

If you have an issue with the name of the articles take it to the Journalist's that wrote them.

I think there was a mess up with a quoting problem in your post...carried forward by him. I think he was referring to my mistake and thinking you were blasting me for it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

1) No trolling, flaming or personally attacking members. Deftly attacking ideas and backing up arguments with facts is acceptable and encouraged. Attacking other members personally and purposefully causing trouble with no motive other than to upset the crowd is not allowed.

The second sentence is ignored by the membership and tolerated by the Moderators:thumbsdown:

idiot
stupid
dumbass
retard
fuckoff
liar (?)

etc

Might as well create separate guidelines for each of the Social forums vs the rest of the place. This way rules might be honored as they should apply.

 

[BoberFett]

Now, it it your turn to prove your side of the argument by posting all the examples, from this month and December, for instance, where Craig personally attacks you in the same vein.

Bonus points for his personal attacks on you in threads where you're not posting.

Nothing other than these guidelines would be fair.

The ball is now in your court. Please don't expose the weakness and insincerity of your position with attack deflection or by not responding in exact kind -- which, again, for everyone to see, would be a list of Craig's personal attacks on you in the last two months.

Attacks me? I rarely even bother to even respond to him lately so there's no interaction between us. I guess I've just made it a habit to use him as a whipping boy because of his past posts. But here's just a sample of how he responds to just about anybody who doesn't agree with him...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32807669&highlight=idiot#post32807669

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32821181&highlight=idiot#post32821181

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32736456&highlight=idiot#post32736456

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32718637&highlight=idiot#post32718637

Craig calls everyone idiots. It's just his thing. I just figure that as the caring, progressive person he is, Craig believes in the Golden Rule. He must WANT to be called an idiot.

 

[airdata]

Dislikes : People that are paid to post senseless 1 line posts in every thread on certain subjects that pop up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Attacks me? I rarely even bother to even respond to him lately so there's no interaction between us. I guess I've just made it a habit to use him as a whipping boy because of his past posts. But here's just a sample of how he responds to just about anybody who doesn't agree with him...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32807669&highlight=idiot#post32807669

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32821181&highlight=idiot#post32821181

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32736456&highlight=idiot#post32736456

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32718637&highlight=idiot#post32718637

Craig calls everyone idiots. It's just his thing. I just figure that as the caring, progressive person he is, Craig believes in the Golden Rule. He must WANT to be called an idiot.

Not to butt in to your squabbles with Craig, but I see this as a good example of why I find "personal attacks" to be a gray area. All personal attacks are NOT created equal. Some, like most of Craig's above, are really attacks on a position. Yes, he leads off with an attack, but he then supports it with reasoning related to the topic at hand. To me, while that may be a bit inflammatory, it's not over the line for highly-charged topics like politics.

(And let's face it, people do often act like idiots, however impolite it may be to point that out. If one's skin is too thin to endure that, better to stick to noncontroversial topics and avoid subjects like politics and religion.)

What I find more destructive are gratuitous personal attacks, attacks aimed directly at a person without any pretense of responding to the person's specific positions or points. There are several people here whose primary "contributions" to P&N are attacks on people, not positions. That's almost all they ever post. There are many others who mix such personal attacks with assorted one- or two-line partisan talking points, making no attempt whatsoever to support their points or add anything substantive. In my opinion, those people are net negatives to P&N. They drown P&N in noise while offering very little signal. I recognize this could be very difficult to moderate objectively, unfortunately.

While I'm on a roll, the other big issues I see are logical fallacies, especially straw man attacks on things their target never said, and a consistent failure to support one's claims, often by either ignoring challenges or constantly trying to evade challenges by changing the subject. If someone makes a claim, he should be prepared to back it up, directly and on topic. Otherwise, he's just adding noise. Unfortunately, this would also be extremely difficult to moderate.

In summary, I think P&N is probably about as good as we can reasonably expect. Certainly, there are always ways to improve. Unfortunately, the things that are easiest to moderate would suppress valid discussion. The things that could really use moderation aren't practical.

 

[cybrsage]

In summary, I think P&N is probably about as good as we can reasonably expect. Certainly, there are always ways to improve. Unfortunately, the things that are easiest to moderate would suppress valid discussion. The things that could really use moderation aren't practical.

I agree, though I would stomp out the incessant cursing we see here.

 

[Bowfinger]

I agree, though I would stomp out the incessant cursing we see here.

With all due respect, that seems rather self-absorbed to me. You're a newcomer here. Why should a long-established culture be forced to change to conform to your personal tastes? It seems to me that it was incumbent upon you to do your due diligence and find out whether P&N suited you before you jumped in. Failing that, it seems your reasonable options are either accepting it for what it is ... or you can always get a full refund of your membership fee and move on to someplace more in tune with your tastes.

 

[shortylickens]

Misleading thread titles is another issue that needs to be address. and to be fair i have seen the mods slap hands on very blatant distortion of the title that is flat out trolling.

Misleading titles are supposed to be an offense anywhere in the forum, but in P&N it has become a common occurrence. And if not misleading just straight up inflammatory.

 

[cybrsage]

With all due respect, that seems rather self-absorbed to me. You're a newcomer here. Why should a long-established culture be forced to change to conform to your personal tastes? It seems to me that it was incumbent upon you to do your due diligence and find out whether P&N suited you before you jumped in. Failing that, it seems your reasonable options are either accepting it for what it is ... or you can always get a full refund of your membership fee and move on to someplace more in tune with your tastes.

Simply requesting the Forum Guidelines be followed.

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.

 

[Bowfinger]

Simply requesting the Forum Guidelines be followed.

That doesn't change my point in the slightest.

 

[dank69]

Not to butt in to your squabbles with Craig, but I see this as a good example of why I find "personal attacks" to be a gray area. All personal attacks are NOT created equal. Some, like most of Craig's above, are really attacks on a position. Yes, he leads off with an attack, but he then supports it with reasoning related to the topic at hand. To me, while that may be a bit inflammatory, it's not over the line for highly-charged topics like politics.

(And let's face it, people do often act like idiots, however impolite it may be to point that out. If one's skin is too thin to endure that, better to stick to noncontroversial topics and avoid subjects like politics and religion.)

What I find more destructive are gratuitous personal attacks, attacks aimed directly at a person without any pretense of responding to the person's specific positions or points. There are several people here whose primary "contributions" to P&N are attacks on people, not positions. That's almost all they ever post. There are many others who mix such personal attacks with assorted one- or two-line partisan talking points, making no attempt whatsoever to support their points or add anything substantive. In my opinion, those people are net negatives to P&N. They drown P&N in noise while offering very little signal. I recognize this could be very difficult to moderate objectively, unfortunately.

While I'm on a roll, the other big issues I see are logical fallacies, especially straw man attacks on things their target never said, and a consistent failure to support one's claims, often by either ignoring challenges or constantly trying to evade challenges by changing the subject. If someone makes a claim, he should be prepared to back it up, directly and on topic. Otherwise, he's just adding noise. Unfortunately, this would also be extremely difficult to moderate.

In summary, I think P&N is probably about as good as we can reasonably expect. Certainly, there are always ways to improve. Unfortunately, the things that are easiest to moderate would suppress valid discussion. The things that could really use moderation aren't practical.

+1 since IDC is counting

 

[Infohawk]

In my mind the rules are very clear, bigotry was never intended to find safe harbor in the AnandTech Forums, but the question here for the community is does the community care to be moderated per the existing rules, does bigotry have shelter here in P&N or is bigotry to be stamped out?

Those definitions of bigotry are pretty vague and require you to guess the motive of the poster. Let's keep in mind that 99% of the time "bigot" is used on this forum (a personal attack by the way that is _never_ punished) it's because someone is criticizing a group like Christians or Muslims. I can't think of any time I've heard a poster on this forum say "you dirty n***er" or something like that used towards another poster. In the few situations where someone has made a homophobic slur, they've been punished as far as I can recall. These slurs aimed at individuals are personal attacks and can be dealt with as such.

What a vocal minority on this forum seem to want goes beyond that. They don't seem to think people should be able to criticize certain classes of people which in practice amount to criticisms of opposing ideologies (including religious positions). You can't have an open discussion about politics if criticizing certain ideologies are off-limits.

 

[Infohawk]

Misleading thread titles is another issue that needs to be address. and to be fair i have seen the mods slap hands on very blatant distortion of the title that is flat out trolling.

I agree. And it's not just about misleading titles, it's about uninformative titles too. This is a very basic one that is easy to enforce. Does the title tell you what the thread is about? You can't blame people for posting duplicate topics when someone gives a ridiculous title. (I'm not calling out specific mods but I've seen moderators do this too (I'm thinking specifically of uninformative titles) which may be why it's something that hasn't been addressed. It may seem funny to use a title that sets up a sort of punchline but usually it's not even that funny and just wastes peoples time.)

 

[JEDIYoda]

What a vocal minority on this forum seem to want goes beyond that. They don't seem to think people should be able to criticize certain classes of people which in practice amount to criticisms of opposing ideologies (including religious positions). You can't have an open discussion about politics if criticizing certain ideologies are off-limits.

A good example is how dare you criticize Muslims or Palestinians...but its OK to bash Jews and Israelis......

and I am sure the other side would say -- How dare you criticize Jews or Israeli`s.....but it`s okay to criticize Muslims and Palestinians.....

Lets don`t take this so far that it becomes a I love you, you love me lets all embrace hands, light some candles and sing -- Kumbya.......

 

[DrPizza]

Simply requesting the Forum Guidelines be followed.

Thank you for an example of what should NOT be allowed in P&N; and something people find very unethical in the news world (though Fox and a few others use it constantly) - lying by omission. You conveniently ignored the sentence that follows immediately after what you quoted:

Special exception to the restrictions on vulgarity and profanity are granted ONLY in the social forums.

This type of dishonesty in discussions should not be allowed - it nearly invariably leads to unnecessary animosity in threads when others point out that the person's source doesn't even agree with their point.

 

[Whiskey16]

A good example is how dare you criticize Muslims or Palestinians...but its OK to bash Jews and Israelis......

Israel is a state, and as such the policies and actions of a state or any other political identity are open to criticism.

That is not bigotry.

Bigotry is of general condemnation of Muslims being expected killers of "infidels," enemies of the west, Israel, infiltrators of our society, etc.

The same chastising. for bigotry follows true for such condemnation against geographically or nationality classified groups such as Palestinians, Arabs, Africans, etc.

You, JEDIYoda, are guilty of the above - even in this thread.

Certainly the vice-versa for bigotry is equally valid when Jews, Christians, etc. are generally condemned or thrown into common wack conspiracy theories.

[EDIT] Sorry, I typed above upon my phone. For that context of bigotry, here's the direct quote from a few pages back:

Your kidding right?
On the muslim comment--- This forum is spot on in how it percieves Muslims as a whole and as it percieves the Muslim Extremists!

You can`t have it both ways....a pot painted red is still a pot painted rewd....

 

[dank69]

I agree, though I would stomp out the incessant cursing we see here.

With all due respect, that seems rather self-absorbed to me. You're a newcomer here. Why should a long-established culture be forced to change to conform to your personal tastes? It seems to me that it was incumbent upon you to do your due diligence and find out whether P&N suited you before you jumped in. Failing that, it seems your reasonable options are either accepting it for what it is ... or you can always get a full refund of your membership fee and move on to someplace more in tune with your tastes.

Simply requesting the Forum Guidelines be followed.

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.

Thank you for an example of what should NOT be allowed in P&N; and something people find very unethical in the news world (though Fox and a few others use it constantly) - lying by omission. You conveniently ignored the sentence that follows immediately after what you quoted:

Special exception to the restrictions on vulgarity and profanity are granted ONLY in the social forums.

This type of dishonesty in discussions should not be allowed - it nearly invariably leads to unnecessary animosity in threads when others point out that the person's source doesn't even agree with their point.

Quoted for the lulz, and he had the nerve to accuse me of misquoting.

 

[Bowfinger]

Thank you for an example of what should NOT be allowed in P&N; and something people find very unethical in the news world (though Fox and a few others use it constantly) - lying by omission. You conveniently ignored the sentence that follows immediately after what you quoted:

This type of dishonesty in discussions should not be allowed - it nearly invariably leads to unnecessary animosity in threads when others point out that the person's source doesn't even agree with their point.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Thank you, excellent point! So much of the unnecessary noise can be attributed to dishonesty.

 

[monovillage]

Thank you for an example of what should NOT be allowed in P&N; and something people find very unethical in the news world (though Fox and a few others use it constantly) - lying by omission. You conveniently ignored the sentence that follows immediately after what you quoted:

This type of dishonesty in discussions should not be allowed - it nearly invariably leads to unnecessary animosity in threads when others point out that the person's source doesn't even agree with their point.

You mean like naming Fox "and a few others", but not naming the few others? You mean lying by omission like that?

 

[DrPizza]

You mean like naming Fox "and a few others", but not naming the few others? You mean lying by omission like that?

Here's another one: a disgenuous reply with an interpretation that you know wasn't meant. You are not making a valid argument, but are only attempting to stir the pot. Fox was used because it's widely accepted that Fox uses this all the time. They're not the only one who uses this often. There was absolutely no reason for me to list EVERY SINGLE news organization that is guilty of this for my analogy to be valid.

Had I said "the model was flying through the air, just like a bird" - would you have accused me of lying by omission by not saying "just like a bird, or a bee, or a bat, or a..." and listed EVERY thing that flies? Of course not.

Those types of people - the type who do nothing more than stir the pot, without adding ANYTHING to the discussion - they're another problem here.

 

[monovillage]

Pretty true and accurate, but can i help list "and a few others" ? CNN, ABC,CBS,NBC.
Thanks.

"widely accepted" by those on the left confirmation bias anyone?

 

[Whiskey16]

This type of dishonesty in discussions should not be allowed - it nearly invariably leads to unnecessary animosity in threads when others point out that the person's source doesn't even agree with their point.

Thank you, DrPizza, for concisely calling this out.

Such intentional omissions/misquoting and thereby dishonestly altering a presentation for the sake of a fabricated argumentation are among the reasons that character was banished from other similar forums, such as Rage3D's Politics & Religion.

He is not interest in accurate context -- only an argument and reeling in those who he may lure.

Can't teach old dogs new tricks. Yet, the unfortunate tricks are now of AnandTech's concern.

Less hassles, frustration, and topic derailment if more are aware of the expected type of discourse he brings.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Israel is a state, and as such the policies and actions of a state or any other political identity are open to criticism.

That is not bigotry.

Bigotry is of general condemnation of Muslims being expected killers of "infidels," enemies of the west, Israel, infiltrators of our society, etc. --bigotry is

The same chastising. for bigotry follows true for such condemnation against geographically or nationality classified groups such as Palestinians, Arabs, Africans, etc.

You, JEDIYoda, are guilty of the above - even in this thread.---YES!! I am guiilty of stating that eventually Muslims who immigrate to other countries will ask that country to set aside the laws of the land that pertain to all people, so that Muslims may follow their own laws. In ytou need proof just look at whats happening in Europe...and these are just regular Muslims who are not extremists!! Look at this whole head covering issue that happened in France....look it the issues Great Britian is having.....
Yet you condemn me for speaking the truth? The truth is NOT bigotry!!

Certainly the vice-versa for bigotry is equally valid when Jews, Christians, etc. are generally condemned or thrown into common wack conspiracy theories. -----true enough....

[EDIT] Sorry, I typed above upon my phone. For that context of bigotry, here's the direct quote from a few pages back:

Yet by your definition my speaking the truth about Muslims as a whole and as members of other societys you would call "Bigotry"........that is very interesting to say the least!!

At least you tried to read what I said this time...instead of totally taking out of context what I said....


here is the dictionary definition of Bigotry -- 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed , belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.



By using this definition it would seem even a discussion between two people who totally disagree on any subject could be "Bigotry".......yet who is being the bigot??

May I suggest they both are being bigots???

Thus we need to shut down P&N.......there is no room for discussion because we all are bigots...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Thank you, DrPizza, for concisely calling this out.

Such intentional omissions/misquoting and thereby dishonestly altering a presentation for the sake of a fabricated argumentation are among the reasons that character was banished from other similar forums, such as Rage3D's Politics & Religion.-- as you did when you attacked me in this thread??
JEDIYoda, in this moderator's thread upon overhauling the managing of this forum, you have concisely reaffirmed many members concern against this society having developed a free pass for generalised hate speech on through to outright calls of violence upon Muslims/Arab/Palestinians.

Every one of your posts propagates a call to violence with your choice of a signature:

Quote: Once Israel accepts the violence, peace can finally reign.

That resolution route to enact a final solution and inflict extreme violence upon Palestinians is right along the line of Anders Breivik's regular internet posting and manifesto of xenophobic hatred through to calls for violence upon Muslims in Europe and evidently his fellow countrymen who engaged respect toward Palestinians.

After witnessing an all powerful moderation warning upon Nebor's latest common presentation to wipe out Palestinians, I am gratified to see a new page for tolerance and moderation against extremism will be enacted here at AnandTech.

You chose to take out of context and twist what this saying really means -
Once Israel accepts the violence, peace can finally reign. -- instead you claimed it was calling for violence with your choice of a signature.

He is not interest in accurate context -- only an argument and reeling in those who he may lure.

Can't teach old dogs new tricks. Yet, the unfortunate tricks are now of AnandTech's concern.

Less hassles, frustration, and topic derailment if more are aware of the expected type of discourse he brings.

Shalom