P&N Community Poll (mod-sponsored): Renewal Vote on "No thread-crapping, etc" Rule

[Moonbeam]

LunarRay: Cybrsage seems to have reasonable and contrary points that he proffers which tend to irritate and he may even 'couch' his comments in a more confrontational in your face manner than others but he does have those points that do represent a point of view.

M: When I challenge somebody's point of view I do it because I may think I see into the matter more deeply than perhaps they do. I have to be prepared to expect others may challenge me for the same reasons. As much as I want others to see what I see, I should think others have that same expectation of me. If I don't respect the attitude and experience of the other person, how would I think they might respect mine.

LR: Folks like my friend, Nehalem256, and others have a similar style... like a pit bull who can't or won't be swayed by what others feel are rational or obvious truths... They simply keep chewing away at tangents which at times don't go to the central theme but they are thought provoking in my opinion.

M: Hehe, for some they provoke more than thought, or maybe I should say less than thought. When you see a horse jumping around you could suspect it has a burr under it's saddle. Like Freudian slips, folk can sometimes reveal their issues via compulsive dwelling in my opinion. Once Mulla Nasruden found a parrot blown far far off course in a storm. He dyed it brown and cut it's bill to make it look more like a hawk because it was the only bird he had ever seen.

LR: I don't really know what a Troll is or how to qualify or quantify Trolling. I don't get upset or maybe only marginally when I'm debating an issue and the folks commenting are all over the place, as I see it. I simply continue to pound out what I see as the only rational answer to the issue. They may not agree and as far as I'm concerned that is their prerogative.

M: Very few people will ever know anybody as rational as you are in my opinion. You know that you know that you know in a way that is self contained. You need nothing from other people. You can't be trolled or knocked off course by emotions. I can, but I don't believe in it. I see that if somebody gets to me it's my problem not theirs. Negative reactions are like cow bells to the mind telling you that the unconscious has entered the act.

LR: In politics, religion, and a few other topics folks tend to be polarized and simply don't buy into the basic premise of the other side... That can't be trolling or I can't imagine that to be the case.

M: Politics, religion and parents make promises that are never kept. We have all been built up and let down. There is an anger this leaves in the heart, a hurt we don't want to feel again. We hate hope because we loved and had our hearts crushed. We are dying for hope and we kill it when it comes, just as we did with Jesus. We crucify the world because it happened to us. This hope and cynicism creates two different parties where trust but verify forms a middle way. Those who hope have every reason to and those who doubt have every reason to. You neither hope nor doubt. You know you've been saved. There are no trolls for you.

LR: So... As far as I'm concerned trolling is non existent... But, personal attacks do exist and I suppose to some that is upsetting... It don't upset me and I don't know why it should... I see it as the ultimate frustration brought about by difference of position where nothing more can be said in a debate... it don't do much since it don't present argument... "I know you are but what am I"... from my youth was the way that was handled or "I'm rubber and you're glue..." Insults are only words... how can they do anything... It would seem to me that to be beaten in a good game of chess is more bothersome than being called some insulting whatever...

M: I have many reactions to personal attacks. I believe this is done by bullies, folk who have pain they want to pay back. There are two issues here. First off bullies awaken other people's insecurities and pain by pegging in on pain people already feel. But they don't do this to help folk see their pain is old and needs fixing. They just want people to hurt. So they add to the total pain people feel instead of trying to heal it. They are turds but they are turds because they were make to be that way by being treated badly themselves. So they are hateful on one hand and pathetic on another. They know not what they do.

There is only love but many a bully changed his ways when he gets kicked in the nuts. It's especially sweet when they do it themselves kicking a mirror.

 

[cybrsage]

You and I are not telepathic.

Sadly, I inherited none of my Betazoid parent's abilities. 🙁

I feel that you are not being fair in these two cases because it is a behavior I have seen in myself and done in the past, and a behavior I do now want to be a part of how I behave.

Maybe not, you could be right.

This is because I know that when folk deny my sincerity they generally do so to cause pain, to make me doubt my own truth, to make me feel ashamed. But a long time ago my sincerity cause me to question everything I believed and loved as truth, and I found it all to be worthless lies. I felt all that pain when I died to it. I was a shipwreck survivor. I came ashore with only what can't be taken, an inner treasure I had forgotten long before and had not known I had.

I think it is not that people doubt your sincerity, it is that people doubt your ability to understand what is and is not brain damage.

So I hope that when you say that people lie, I hope you offer them something also better with which they can replace it.

Good point.

 

[Moonbeam]

cybrsage: I think it is not that people doubt your sincerity, it is that people doubt your ability to understand what is and is not brain damage.

M: What most folk question about my understanding is the knowledge I have into what people are feeling on an unconscious level, a knowledge I have had for a long time, one rooted in my own explorations of myself, one, in other words, that I have tasted directly. What I understand about people is that they are unconsciously motivated by self hate despite being totally unaware of it. I have known for a long time that people will not see this one thing, that we are each our own worst critic and enemy, that what we see in others are these feelings we are terrified to awaken.

I am, I like to think, highly sensitized to how the mind deflects and projects. You just did that here in my opinion. You chose to use the term brain damaged instead of brain defective for a reason. You feel damaged, as if your brain was maybe only say 50% operational having been 50% destroyed for some reason, rather than having your brain larger and smaller than liberals in two areas, larger in the fear center and smaller where courage and optimism seem to emanate. It is not known if these are genetic differences or environmental but they are measured by scientists, so I call such data factual.

I believe they likely relate to what kinds of parents we had, a purely intuitive guess that may be wrong. Now, in that case it could be called damage but not in the sense of non function area of the brain. These traits do not affect IQ for example.

One begins to understand the matter of reasoning with IQ and rationalizing with it when we come to the subject of bigots, folk who, via my insights and experience in peering into the unconscious to dredge up motivation has established for me the clear crystallization the bigots posses an unconscious bias inaccessible to their reason and to which they apply rationalization to maintain.

So let us be clear again, you have a brain defect, in my opinion, not a damaged brain. And if you prefer fear, cowardliness and pessimism over liberal thinking than it's liberals who have a brain defect or may have damaged brains. I know where my sympathies lie. We are the world as some say, that we create our own reality, our own heaven or our own hell. Since I believe mine is heaven and yours is hell, I try to help you with knowledge to understand what drives your thinking. Here is some of the data:

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

“It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes,” Geraint Rees, the neurologist who carried out the study, told the media.

Source: Raw Story (http://s.tt/1d7CK)

 

[dank69]

...

I believe they likely relate to what kinds of parents we had, a purely intuitive guess that may be wrong. ...

I would like to know why you think this and what effects you think parenting have.

Also, please do not report me for 'misquoting' you. 😉

 

[Moonbeam]

I would like to know why you think this and what effects you think parenting have.

Parenting styles range from permissive to strict, relaxed or disciplined, loving and supportive to brutal and harsh, encouraging or discouraging, etc.

When we look at the world we see, I think, a world where most people conform, seek to belong to a group, think that social acceptance is important, etc. There is, I think, a tremendous intolerance of difference, that we see in this thread.

Parents have hopes and dreams of their kids and can try to live their lives through them. They can fear their children might be different and exert tremendous pressure to make them conform. This authoritarian streak can have two consequences, it makes baby baby Hitlers and baby Maos, oppressors or revolutionaries, depending on whether the child is co-opted or rebells. I believe the differences in brain structures between conservatives and liberals may start here with a fearful punishing environment leading to enlarged capacities to feel fear, and a admonishment in optimistic attitude, etc. There is much more that could be considered here, but this gives an indication of how I see it.

 

[Idontcare]

I believe the differences in brain structures between conservatives and liberals may start here with a fearful punishing environment leading to enlarged capacities to feel fear, and a admonishment in optimistic attitude, etc. There is much more that could be considered here, but this gives an indication of how I see it.

 

[jackstar7]

The Unmarried Sex difference is telling.

🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

The Unmarried Sex difference is telling.

🙂

What is telling to me is which you would choose if you had a choice and why we can't if we don't. Who wants to walk in their sleep running an unknown program?

How do these operating systems get installed if they are acquired tastes or are they just the natural genetic continuum of the human race?

Or s one better, more recently emergent, more evolved, more suited to human survival or even, as I mention often, that required for survival of ones childhood environment?

There are so many things in this for me at least. I think we could throw out the real world altogether and just have P & N about this diagram.

Thanks for posting this, IDC.

Why did a Mangalore quote suddenly pop in my head?:

"If it's a war they want, it's a war they'll get!"

 

[Idontcare]

Alright, the final results of the community poll are in and it looks like the people have spoken.

70% voted in favor of permanently adopting the "no thread-crapping" rule, while 30% voted to not adopt it.

As such, the "no thread-crapping" rule is hereby permanently adopted into P&N posting rules and guidelines.

Now, a point of clarification, while we refer to the rule as the "no thread-crapping" rule, as noted in the OP that went along with the poll, the rule encompasses more than just thread-crapping.

The rule is: No thread-crapping, no thread-derailment, no off-topic posting, no trolling, the no intentional posting of logical fallacies or misinformation.

Note the inclusion of "no trolling" as well as "no thread-derailment".

Here's how this works. You, good citizens of this community, report any and all posts you come across that appear to violate this rule by using the "Report Post" button located in the lower-left corner of the post you wish to report.

It looks like this:

And for those of you who are worried you are at risk of being reported for trolling and/or derailing threads...the advice for you to take is to do what needs to be do so as to avoid presenting yourself to the community as if you were a troll and you'll find yourself spending far less time attempting to defend yourself as not being one to the moderators who are on duty at the time.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Ninjahedge]

IDK, just a word of warning.

Certain lifetime troublemakers will try to use terms like "no thread derailment" as a tool to kill a thread that is following a line of conversation.

Some "transgressions" may need a hint or a nudge rather than a violation issued to try and keep the conversations going and the deliberate spam/derailment at bay.

2¢

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not sure I agree with all these rules but they're in place and that's fine for now.

One rule I would support: if someone makes a factual assertion, and they are challenged to supply a source, they either supply it, leave the thread, or face a temporary ban. The mod can use his or her discretion if someone is harassing another poster for sources to prove something generally known like water is wet. And it should only apply where the person is reported, obviously.

Lots of crap around here would dry up over night if such a rule was adopted and enforced, including the need for many of the insults.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not sure I agree with all these rules but they're in place and that's fine for now.

One rule I would support: if someone makes a factual assertion, and they are challenged to supply a source, they either supply it, leave the thread, or face a temporary ban. The mod can use his or her discretion if someone is harassing another poster for sources to prove something generally known like water is wet. And it should only apply where the person is reported, obviously.

Lots of crap around here would dry up over night if such a rule was adopted and enforced, including the need for many of the insults.

That would require too much of mod labor that probably isn't available.

Obviously it's good when people back up their statements, but I find that most of the time such requests are used for harassment as you say. In other words, the challenging party just wants to create work for his opponent and most importantly, he's not willing to chance his opinion even when confronted with new evidence. (Not that I think it would be feasible but if your rule was implemented I would say a matching rule would be that if you request evidence for an idea, you have to be willing to change your position if it's proven true.)

Isn't the crap you're talking about all that this forum is? There are never any clean resolutions to debates on P&N. The only end-game is a subjective judgment that someone made a good argument or not. Once in a blue moon people will concede a point.

 

[woolfe9999]

That would require too much of mod labor that probably isn't available.

Obviously it's good when people back up their statements, but I find that most of the time such requests are used for harassment as you say. In other words, the challenging party just wants to create work for his opponent and most importantly, he's not willing to chance his opinion even when confronted with new evidence. (Not that I think it would be feasible but if your rule was implemented I would say a matching rule would be that if you request evidence for an idea, you have to be willing to change your position if it's proven true.)

Isn't the crap you're talking about all that this forum is? There are never any clean resolutions to debates on P&N. The only end-game is a subjective judgment that someone made a good argument or not. Once in a blue moon people will concede a point.

My problem is that insults are not allowed, but nothing is done to prevent/deter the behavior which causes many of the insults.

I suggested this particular rule precisely because it isn't difficult to implement. Compare, for example, a no logical fallacy rule that is way too subjective/impossible. And note, the rule I propose has nothing to do with judging source credibility. That wouldn't be feasible. I'm just suggesting that if someone has been asked to supply a source that they supply something or else leave the thread. The only mod judgment call is whether it's just harassing someone to source a matter that is well within common knowledge, and that is not actually very subjective. It would also require a report to trigger action. I think it's very feasible to implement.

 

[Infohawk]

My problem is that insults are not allowed, but nothing is done to prevent/deter the behavior which causes many of the insults.

I suggested this particular rule precisely because it isn't difficult to implement. Compare, for example, a no logical fallacy rule that is way too subjective/impossible. And note, the rule I propose has nothing to do with judging source credibility. That wouldn't be feasible. I'm just suggesting that if someone has been asked to supply a source that they supply something or else leave the thread. The only mod judgment call is whether it's just harassing someone to source a matter that is well within common knowledge, and that is not actually very subjective. It would also require a report to trigger action. I think it's very feasible to implement.

Again, I think it's hilarious that people try to act like insults have legitimate causes or justifications when you're talking about a forum where the goal is to have reasonable debate. It's ad hominem and that's all it ever is. It's never going to change someone's posting behavior (it will probably make it worse) and it's never going to address whether their argument is valid or not. (Now if you want to point out that someone is not basing their argument on fact, go ahead and point that out. That's clearly not within the scope of the new rule. And neither is saying someone's argument is stupid.)

If you ignore source credibility, you can quickly get to absurd situations. What if someone links to a racist blog? Or their own personal blog that just has conclusory statements?

PS I agree the no intentional posting of logical fallacy / no misinformation _portion_ of this rule is silly because it seems impossible to enforce (and I don't think I've seen anyone punished for this.) Edit: not saying the entire rule is silly, just that portion.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You try to document and legislate too many vague possibilities and you get stipulations that are difficult to prove or enforce..

 

[WHAMPOM]

If it is kept, can we at least get a working definition of troll that everyone will use? Everyone should be using the same meaning so that enforcement has a chance of being the same from mod to mod.

TROLL n. (in Scandinavia)bad-tempered dwarf (P&N) cybersage.

TROLLING n. (in Scandinavia)bad-tempered dwarf's progeny v. (P&N) action of cybersage posting on most any subject.

You have your definition, the boundary is stated, now don't abuse it.

Personal attacks aren't permitted here. -Admin DrPizza

 

[cybrsage]

How many hours did you spend thinking up that gem?

 

[dank69]

How many hours did you spend thinking up that gem?

It's ok cybr, time heals all wounds. I'm sure you'll be back to fighting form before you know it. Just take your time and relax while you recover from the pain. You don't want to rush it otherwise it won't heal properly. I'm rooting for you little buddy.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Baby's got the bends......

 

[cybrsage]

It's ok cybr, time heals all wounds. I'm sure you'll be back to fighting form before you know it. Just take your time and relax while you recover from the pain. You don't want to rush it otherwise it won't heal properly. I'm rooting for you little buddy.

I have been in training. I have been clicking the Urban Dictionary link over and over, to strenghen my index finger. I have been reading religious posts by Richard "it is better to molest children than teach them a religion" Dawkins, to galvanize my mind against atrocious idiocy. I have been reading Democratic Underground, to desensitize myself to liberal talking points.

My Logitech gaming mouse gave up the ghost in the process. Poor guy, begged me to save myself and leave him at 4chan - but I did not. I dragged his dying form from there. Who knows the horrors they would have inflicted. A replacement is being sent from Logitech High Command, but it is not here yet, so I am currently being held back by a Dell mouse...

I will be in top form once the USPS arrives with the new mouse.