While I understand that discussions on technical sub-forums can become heated, aspeople with brand loyalties hurl insults at each other from time to time, it isn't the same thing as people discussing politics and social/cultural issues. People are vastly more emotional in general about these topics than they are about whether AMD or Nvidia has better drivers. I've been around the fanboy trolling nonsense since the days of 3DFX v. Nvidia, and I've also constantly been on political discussion boards, and there is no real comparison between the two. One can be controlled much more easily than the other.
Then again, I'm not saying the insults can't be controlled here to a point. It's that the most offensive behavior isn't the insults. It's the blatant dishonesty. I'd rather have someone call me the worst imaginable names than purposefully mis-characterize my argument. And frankly, there are occasions where the insults seem like the best remedy, which is why I remain a fence sitter about this issue.
Well put and totally agreed all around.
The problem would be how to moderate for dishonesty. As I see it, IDC has attempted,
admirably, I might add, to put a codified and structured set of rules in place that endeavor to remove personal moderator judgement from any one moderator decision.
Of course, this is never 100% possible when you have people dealing with other people.
I, too, loathr blatant intellectual dishonesty and the purposeful mis-characterization of my arguments. It's ridiculously frustrating when you make a detailed and factually link-based argument only to be met by responses that seem to come from an colicky infant speaking a different language from a bizarro alternate universe.
This thread is a classic example.
The problem is that one can never totally ascribe to dishonesty what might mainly be some lethal combination of stupidity, ignorance, and blinding partisan/ideological emotion.
So when I think, "That guy KNOWS that's not what I said" and
seems to purposefully miss the point, he may well be a) not that bright or logical or b) not all that bright exacerbated by the compounding factor of emotion-driven partianship.
Or he may just be a lazy, intellectually dishonest troll who doesn't at all care about having any sort of fair or real discussion.
Asking the moderator to continually rule in these cases would be taxing, difficult and time-consuming. I believe that no pre-drawn up, static guideline can truly account for all possible situations, which exist on a fungible continuum the goes something like this: factual, accurate and straightforward post / somewhat BS post / more BS than truth or light post / totally dishonest troll response.
This real life continuum of all possible characterizations of the intellectual honesty of member posts is not neatly amenable to being broken down into the two totally discrete categories -- infractable/not infractable -- that a system like IDC's requires.
IDC has put one ton of time and effort into trying to bring as much fairness and order to P&N as possible. I hope you all appreciate his efforts. He really has put his heart and soul and not inconsiderable intellect into this.
He passionately believes in being fair. He does this, like the rest of us, for zero money. He doesn't need the money, but if any of you are moved to paypal him a buck or two as a
tangible gesture of your appreciation, I say, "Go for it!"
I believe you nailed it, wolfe, when you pointed out that the roiling emotions that drive P&N exist on a scale tht makes VC&G look like the Serenity Now Council of Composed Elders during nap time.
Facebook
Twitter