Re-Opened: The P&N Improvement Association -- Please Read & Contribute

[CrackRabbit]

I guess I could deselect the "Show Images (including attached images and images in code)" in my User CP as well as using the ignore function and I wouldn't have to see either the troll or the pics.

Then again it may cause me to miss picture or chart I want to view. Based on that posting "Ban Him" and "Don't Feed The Troll" pics should be against forum rules.[/QUOTE]

I agree that I am trolling the posters whose threads I post those in. I also honestly believe that doing that is the only way those posters should be interacted with by anyone. It is pointless to call them out on their BS, because they don't care, know they are trolling, or are so completely wrapped up in their own reality that they don't understand what is being said to them.
So, I choose to attempt to disrupt their nonsense, disallow them to get their message out, and make the environment completely hostile for them.
If everyone did it to the few obvious troll posters they would give up or at least refrain from posting new threads.
I'm sorry that you don't agree with my vigilante posting tactics but I reserve them for a very few number of posters.
As I've said before I'll be happy to converse in a polite manner with almost anyone if they are willing to reciprocate.

 

[WHAMPOM]

LOL!! Quoting a poster you claim to have on ignore, hilarious!

Why ban trolls or insults? Just hang a permanent warning on them.

"Troll Warning! Your Moderators consider this person a pernicious poster.
Please consider reading or replying as you would swallowing a spoonful of vinegar."

 

[WHAMPOM]

I agree that I am trolling the posters whose threads I post those in. I also honestly believe that doing that is the only way those posters should be interacted with by anyone. It is pointless to call them out on their BS, because they don't care, know they are trolling, or are so completely wrapped up in their own reality that they don't understand what is being said to them.
So, I choose to attempt to disrupt their nonsense, disallow them to get their message out, and make the environment completely hostile for them.
If everyone did it to the few obvious troll posters they would give up or at least refrain from posting new threads.
I'm sorry that you don't agree with my vigilante posting tactics but I reserve them for a very few number of posters.
As I've said before I'll be happy to converse in a polite manner with almost anyone if they are willing to reciprocate.

I consider flaming a troll in righteous indignation a good thing.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I agree with what is being said....
Let me say that I believe being a mod involves a lot more than just donating your free time to a job that has no benefits and very little in the form of compensation other than knowing that you did your best!!! Even if your best falls short from time to time.....

With that said those who say -- Hey make me a mod and I will clean this place up are so sadly mistaken......there is more to being a Mod than banning and infractioning people....

Being a Mod involves getting along with the populace and sometimes trying to understand where somebody who you deem a trouble maker is coming from.....then there is trying to help posters who definitely have issues be they psychological or other issues....

Pax!!

 

[Moonbeam]

I pretty much agree with all this. There is no shame in being biased against stupidity.

You are not dealing with stupidity. The science on liberals shows them to be as intelligent as liberals. I have said so many many times, but do liberals hear it? No. Liberals are blind to the fact that conservatives don't reason with their intelligence, they use it to protect their egos from truths that are painful to them. I believe this is a survival mechanism that allowed them to survive a childhood forced them to conform or die. But whatever the cause the fact is documented by neuroscience. So you want to ban folk who are stupid who are not stupid. Doesn't sound right to me.

As to their aggressiveness. You would be aggressive to if your felt your survival was at stake. If conservatives have an enlarged fear center, the right amygdala, as shows up on brain scans of people who self report as conservatives, then it is no great leap of logic to imagine that they are more effected by fear, and fear and violence, fight and flight, are bed fellows. Nor is it any surprise that conservatives would drive liberals crazy, leaping so to speak, without looking.

But the neuroscientists suggest that an instant ability to react to in some situations, instantly has survival value, just as a slower dis passioned examination of how to respond intelligently in other situations makes better sense. So it seems that if we were to truly ban conservatives, we would lose valuable survival abilities as a group.

The danger comes in other areas of difference two. Conservatives are better team players, great when we are in competition against some external threat and dangerous when there is none and the conservative team turns against liberals.

This is the situation as I see it. The challenge, then, is how to reach conservatives and notify them they have become dangerous to themselves, since they can't see it with logic and reason.

One suggestion propounded by folk who study this is for liberals to get with the program as to the real nature of the problem and find ways to communicate with conservatives. One suggestion is that they may be reached by stories, another that condemnation of their demonization of other teams may be required given that distust, and theoretically, by extention, self disgust, is in their nature, one of the many moral sensed they have that liberals don't so much.

At any rate, it seems to me that this they are stupid mentality is just part and parcel of liberal inability to deal with the fact that conservatives are impervious to reason. Folk who want to teach pigs to fly are barking up the wrong tree.

If the objective is for the segment of the population, only, who can reason be welcome to the forum, fine, but that would be a big mistake, in my opinion. I can go with demanding that they have to state their reasons why they feel any opinions they express seem right to them, not just unload their raw opinion because that's all it is and totally useless to others, because I believe they will soon be met with the fact that their reasons are no reasons at all but purely rationalizations of defended ego identifications. This is how I learned to think such as I am able, by questioning everything I thought was real, trying to logically prove it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Are you one of this "any number of people?" Are you willing to make the time and integrity commitment to becoming a moderator here, and to follow through?

If so, pm me and we will explore this possibility.

I thought about this a lot since this morning. I don't think I could be a mod in the conventional sense. I would want to immediately perma-ban certain members, and I feel strongly enough about some issues that it would be difficult for me to be impartial.

BUT

Reading through the list of threads on this forum I think it would be good to have a few mega-threads. A gun-control thread, a Democrat-Republican bickering thread, a health care thread, an economy thread etc.

I would be happy to volunteer as a mod with the limited power to merge threads into these megathreads and edit user posts to explain the merges. I don't know if it's possible to make an account a mod account with no authority to ban or infract, but if not, I have enough self control to not use those functions. If others think this is a good idea, maybe someone from the right can volunteer to be a co-mod...?

 

[waggy]

Ok, I am reopening this thread. The following posters are on notice that the next time they personally attack another poster here, they will be summarily vacationed:

monovillage, dmcowen674 dank69, CrackRabbit, CharlesKozierok, Incorruptible, Londo Jowo, jackstar7, JEDIYoda.

Some of the above acted more egregiously than some others, but each of you contravened my warning to some degree. Some of you will feel you didn't act that badly. I don't care.

Frankly, I don't have the highest of hopes for this thread going forward, but the effort still needs to be made. I sincerely hope you all prove me wrong!

nothing you guys do is going to matter. there are far to many issues.

AT&P has such a wide range of plitical ideas and to many take it personally. Honest discussion also won't happen here either. you have some that are hellbent on doing nothing more then causing a argument.

It needs 3-5 people who are going to be fair, ethical, not let personal ideas interfere etc.

 

[LunarRay]

Perk, It seems any attempt to create laws or rules that will please everyone will please no one... completely. And, it seems the focus is always on that aspect of a law or rule that is at odds with one's own feeling/belief/activity while those that are acceptable to them are not considered as part of a compromise. That and the fact that folks, it seems, have some need to lash out using what ever weapons are available... lawful or not when they get flustered.

So... Be a dictator! Make the rules and get folks who agree with you to enforce them with you. Those who don't like the rules can abide non-the-less and learn a new way to be obnoxious - if that is the case - or don't post, leave or otherwise comply.

Anyhow, trying to create a meal that everyone will consume and enjoy will bring to you an unending time consuming and joyless experience as you no doubt already know.
I feel badly for you cuz I know you seek to find what don't exist... Folks won't let you cuz most folks are myopically focused on only what they can see using their brain to interpret it.... But, I am quite impressed by your attempt and tenacity to prevail.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't think there's any point in discussing how to improve this place without addressing the deliberate, systematic ill behavior of a handful of posters. You don't want that, then fine, it won't happen. (That said, I don't see how it is that Moonbeam didn't make your list.)

M: The issue, it seems to me is HOW you address the deliberate and systematic ill behavior of some posters and WHO has the clairvoyance to know what is deliberate and what is just natural, I think. The issues that that I want addressed are the mindless injection of personal opinions, "Great Post when the post is a pile of shit or otherwise, Yup so in so is an asshole, etc." There is no value in such a post for others, nothing really to respond to with reason or analysis, etc. It's just dumping turds on people. Secondly, I don't want to see insults. I want people addressed with respect. Everybody deserves respect. But I also don't want folk to get away with being malicious to others. Haven't we all seen the salutary effects of standing up to bullies. People who will not stoop to the level of some of the coarser folk who post here leave, or as in the case of LunarRay, get beaten to death without them ever noticing. I want them to notice if the put downs aren't mandated to stop.

I don't know why I didn't make Perk's list. All I know is that what I think bothers you about me is well who knows some sort of misunderstanding You called me flame bait or something and a troll. I would challenge you to find a post of mine where I ever called others either of those things. The reason is very simple, in my case. I don't presume to know who is a troll and who is flame bait, or even what those things are really supposed to mean. But because you were so certain about me, I showed you what your certainty looks like. I can be pretty certain too, when I want to be.

And my remark you quoted wasn't meant to be an attack:

"Originally Posted by Moonbeam
I would get rid of insults for the sole purpose of getting rid of insults.
...
In my opinion you are a moron and an asshole, small minded and immature.

But the whole quote was this:"

"Also ban posts like this: "Excellent rebuttal that's spot on in every aspect." In the first place I stated I would not respond to that post so the poster here is something of a coward, pilling on after the fact. But the important point is that it is a total expression of his opinion without one fact or example to back it up. Where is the potential to refute what you say when you actually say nothing but your opinion. In my opinion you are a moron and an asshole, small minded and immature. Did you profit from that? Every point I made was perfectly you, no? Try to grow up.

I believe you think I attacked this poster but in fact I only held up to him a mirror. I showed him that my stupid worthless opinion of him was every bit as valuable as his stupid worthless opinion of me, worth totally nothing. Were he to understand this he would be more mature. In short I posted to him exactly the kind of post as his and that I hope new forum rules will prevent. You see hypocrisy, I suppose, but I don't.

Why should I have to subject myself or others be subjected to other people's garbage without having to eat a pile of it themselves. All that happens is that decent folk who will not tolerate such garbage leave the forum.

CK: My main advice to you on this is the same as it's always been -- the Nike motto. "Just Do It". Pick one or two reasonably moderate moderators, have them come up with some reasonable but generic rules along the lines of "be rational and don't act like an asshole", and then let them clean the place up.

M: Clean up or sterilize? I worry about your certainty.

CK: Forums are a classic example of the Pareto rule: 90% of the problems are caused by 10% of the posters. Ban or rehabilitate a few people and you'll be stunned at how little work remains.

M: But can we be sure that the 10% we see are the real problems.

CK: People who are reasonable will just need the occasional steering back on course, just like you guys do in the tech forums.

M: On course to where?

CK: And one more thing: a point that was raised in a prior version of this thread. There are people here who do not engage in personal attacks but still contribute to making the place a three-ring circus by derailing threads onto their pet topics, and by engaging in the same arguments over and over again without ever addressing counter-arguments. They are just as much to blame for the problems as the people they infuriate into losing their tempers.

M: Yes but who is whom; is it not subjective? Doesn't it depend on the nature of your sore toes? I completely agree there are folk as you describe and you seem to think I'm one of them. I'm rather used to somebody, manybodies feeling like that. Perhaps for these reasons I might be a bit more tolerant of others than you are. I don't disagree with your view, only with your confidence in yourself to say who is what. You seem to me to be more confident in yourself than I find rational. Also, I do not buy for a second that people infuriate others. This I feel is a total cop out of responsibility. Nothing can make a person angry he's not already angry about. We are each individually responsible for what we feel. This is why we call it pushing buttons, because we instinctively know that something old within us is being triggered. It is a very bad habit that people have, here when we design forums, that we take caution not to protect ourselves too much from the truth about ourselves.

I think, then, that some of how we differer in what we want to happen here, is that you want to deal with ideas and I want people to learn about themselves.

 

[Abraxas]

I had a couple ideas regarding this, one of them somewhat original. But more on that later.

Firstly, as has been stated, one set of rules will not please everyone. Logically speaking, you cannot have two sets of contradictory rules in the same forum. It follows then that we need two forums. The subforum idea has been proposed many times, but I still think it is the best step towards a long term solution to the quality of content in regards to politics and news at Anandtech. A lot of people have said they want more intelligent debate and discussion with a low noise to signal ratio, let them prove it. A heavily moderated subforum will serve two purposes.

First, it will give the people who want adult conversations on the important topics of the news day an outlet where they aren't going to be subject to an endless stream of brain damaged one liners and will perhaps encourage activity from the group here at Anandtech that claim they want to post in P&N related topics but just regard it as too much of a swamp. Secondly, it will act as a filter to remove from the community people who are incapable of holding intelligent discourse. Either they will shape up to participate at the big boys table or they can get banned or keep sitting in the swamp where at the very least people interested in debate won't have to look at them.

That brings me to the second point, participation in the subforum is voluntary to people who don't want to obey strict rules won't have anything to complain about. They can still be the asshats they always dreamed of, they will just have to live with a smaller audience, and, frankly, I don't see the problem there. It should quickly become clear whether people actually want to behave like adults and discuss in an in depth and intelligent fashion or if that is just a facade to make themselves look better and they are really just here for the Thunderdome. Putting it in concrete terms, furnishing the whole community a ready made place where they can do what they say they want to do should once and for all settle who actually means it.

Finally, my somewhat original thought, I don't think all insults should be banned, but I do think they can be reigned in. My thought was to start implementing a ratio to insult quota for all posts, something to the effect of no more than 1/3 to 1/4 of any post in P&N can be insults (anything flagrantly irrelevant to the topic would not count towards the total). That would cut down on posts that are basically just "you're a <insert insult>" and maybe force them to say something interesting if they just have to get in that cutting remark. I have no doubt people will game the system and just spout a few talking points (though most do that anyway already) but maybe it will just make it too much work to be worth it unless they actually have something to say and at least cut down on some of the hollow abusive one-liners that are now a forum staple.

All of this of course depends on the moderator resources that can be committed to the project as both would require fairly active moderation to be effective.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It follows then that we need two forums. The subforum idea has been proposed many times, but I still think it is the best step towards a long term solution to the quality of content in regards to politics and news at Anandtech. A lot of people have said they want more intelligent debate and discussion with a low noise to signal ratio, let them prove it. A heavily moderated subforum will serve two purposes.

First, it will give the people who want adult conversations on the important topics of the news day an outlet where they aren't going to be subject to an endless stream of brain damaged one liners and will perhaps encourage activity from the group here at Anandtech that claim they want to post in P&N related topics but just regard it as too much of a swamp. Secondly, it will act as a filter to remove from the community people who are incapable of holding intelligent discourse. Either they will shape up to participate at the big boys table or they can get banned or keep sitting in the swamp where at the very least people interested in debate won't have to look at them.

That brings me to the second point, participation in the subforum is voluntary to people who don't want to obey strict rules won't have anything to complain about.

Exactly. It serves as an experiment to see if a more tightly moderated forum can succeed, and it takes nothing away from anyone who likes the current place the way it is.

It's win-win.

 

[UberNeuman]

Exactly. It serves as an experiment to see if a more tightly moderated forum can succeed, and it takes nothing away from anyone who likes the current place the way it is.

It's win-win.

I believe a sub-forum is worthy at this point. A No-Bullshit zone - a zone of facts...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I believe a sub-forum is worthy at this point. A No-Bullshit zone - a zone of facts...

I think a sub forum should be for the bullshit, saving fact and decorum for the main forum with new stricter moderation of the nonsense. I'd volunteer for helping with that to improve the quality of discussion.

 

[UberNeuman]

I think a sub forum should be for the bullshit, saving fact and decorum for the main forum with new stricter moderation of the nonsense. I'd volunteer for helping with that to improve the quality of discussion.

That's a nice idea... However, people go to where the heat is....

If a sub-forum was made only focusing on fact and serious discussion, then it would be like drawing trollish flies to the light that zaps them....

\they won't and can't resist that glowing light...
\\think of a sub-forum as bug-light.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Whose facts?

 

[UberNeuman]

Whose facts?

Let's talk about facts, shall we? Do you believe that women raped can, just by their will, can prevent being impregnated?

\which would be the point of a sub-forum...
\\and if a sub-fourm came about - you'd either be ready to support any claims you make or you should choose not to enter...

 

[Moonbeam]

Let's talk about facts, shall we? Do you believe that women raped can, just by their will, can prevent being impregnated?

\which would be the point of a sub-forum...
\\and if a sub-fourm came about - you'd either be ready to support any claims you make or you should choose not to enter...

Yes, I believe that but where it doesn't work there was a lack of faith.

 

[UberNeuman]

Yes, I believe that but where it doesn't work there was a lack of faith.

I've got a lot of faith to give, brother...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Let's talk about facts, shall we? Do you believe that women raped can, just by their will, can prevent being impregnated?

\which would be the point of a sub-forum...
\\and if a sub-fourm came about - you'd either be ready to support any claims you make or you should choose not to enter...

Thats what I thought you meant.....
Facts that you believe and not the facts of others that conflict with what you think of as facts......

We are not talking about what I believe!
My belief is that a woman who is raped can get pregnant in that situation should be allowed the choice to keep or abort the baby.....

We are talking about facts......
Again whose facts?
If somebody posts that they do not agree with what you believe what do you do?
Well as long as that person is respectful and posts in a manner that does not put your person or your family down in anyway then that person should be allowed to post their opinion be it factual or not!

Again whose facts.......if I may again whose facts?

 

[UberNeuman]

Thats what I thought you meant.....
Facts that you believe and not the facts of others that conflict with what you think of as facts......

We are not talking about what I believe!
My belief is that a woman who is raped can get pregnant in that situation should be allowed the choice to keep or abort the baby.....

We are talking about facts......
Again whose facts?
If somebody posts that they do not agree with what you believe what do you do?
Well as long as that person is respectful and posts in a manner that does not put your person or your family down in anyway then that person should be allowed to post their opinion be it factual or not!

Again whose facts.......if I may again whose facts?

Do I not have ground beneath my feet, do I not have sky above my head.... are those facts to be contested?

Everyone that reads or posts here has to face what facts are....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Do I not have ground beneath my feet, do I not have sky above my head.... are those facts to be contested?

Everyone that reads or posts here has to face what facts are....

true my facts verses your facts...or your facts verses somebody elses facts...

 

[UberNeuman]

true my facts verses your facts...or your facts verses somebody elses facts...

You wouldn't survive a moment in a AT political sub-forum.....

 

[Moonbeam]

I've got a lot of faith to give, brother...

I will take you at your word, but you shouldn't have taken me at mine. An appeal to faith, the lack of it, as a factual argument for why rape victims sometimes get pregnant is not rational and can't be used to argue as I did, not at least in any factual forum I would run. You wanted to argue facts but I failed to provide. It is known that stress before ovulation can affect viability, but not if a woman has ovulated before she is raped. As far as I know, that's the most that can be said.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You wouldn't survive a moment in a AT political sub-forum.....

lets see how well you would survive.....


Alright, you two. This back and forth stops here.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[LunarRay]

I will take you at your word, but you shouldn't have taken me at mine. An appeal to faith, the lack of it, as a factual argument for why rape victims sometimes get pregnant is not rational and can't be used to argue as I did, not at least in any factual forum I would run. You wanted to argue facts but I failed to provide. It is known that stress before ovulation can affect viability, but not if a woman has ovulated before she is raped. As far as I know, that's the most that can be said.

As you know, I'm a stickler for first defining parameters, definitions and all the other stuff folks take for granted and who neglect to consider the frame of reference existing in the mind of the person they speak to.

For instance... According to the FBI (2012) definition of Rape... It don't require sexual intercourse... could be by an object... ergo, there are conditions where rape cannot result in pregnancy... but if broom sticks are genetically similar I could be wrong... maybe