Vote on Adopting "No Thread-crapping, etc" Rule (A Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[dmcowen674]

1) Stop creating flame baiting threads or posts

2) Stop posting inaccurate statements

Until then people like myself will call you out.

You are not a Mod or Administrator of this site.

The only one posting inaccurate statements is you.

I link articles with my posts, you have a problem with them take it to the Journalists/Websites of origin.

In the mean time the administrator/Moderators of this site will determine the actions of you and your buds "call outs".

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You are not a Mod or Administrator of this site.

The only one posting inaccurate statements is you.

I link articles with my posts, you have a problem with them take it to the Journalists/Websites of origin.

In the mean time the administrator/Moderators of this site will determine the actions of you and your buds "call outs".

Never claimed to be a Mod.

90% of the time the links don't match your title or opinion/ranting/claims.

I still think the Mods need to check the IP addresses and when proven you have falsely accused members you should be banned.

 

[dmcowen674]

Never claimed to be a Mod.

90% of the time the links don't match your title or opinion/ranting/claims.

I still think the Mods need to check the IP addresses and when proven you have falsely accused members you should be banned.

Then stop posting as if you are a Mod

Link, proof of "90% links don't match your title or opinion/ranting/claims".

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Then stop posting as if you are a Mod

Link, proof of "90% links don't match your title or opinion/ranting/claims".

Here ya go, most are nothing more than flamebaiting and misrepresentations of the truth.

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=88727

 

[JEDIYoda]

Here ya go, most are nothing more than flamebaiting and misrepresentations of the truth.

http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=88727

You say misrepresenting the truth...
Oftimes there is no truth that is absolute....
Take these accusations being thrown around by Iran and Israel.....

Where is the truth??
Surely not in some unidentified source....
In somebody`s blog....
Often the only truth is that an event happened!
The why and who did it....quite a bit of the time are mere speculation....

Yet it is true what Londo says about dmcowen674...

He will have a perfectly legitimate Links about a news item and then instead of using the title of the news article he will purposely is-represent the thread title and there by negate any positive discusion that could take place due to his mis-leading thread title..lol.....90% is probably accurate....

 

[JEDIYoda]

The problem\solution is being portrayed completely back assedwards. -- In the eyes of those who make a living doing such things on purpose!!

The problem is not people who post an off topic or flaming post, it is the reaction of the others involved in the thread. --so why post in that manner, unless it is to get a reaction from those very people?

You are asking a few to moderate a forum for you because you cant do it your selves. Is it so hard to ignore a thread that has irrelevant information? -- wow thats a very narrow minded and no to brilliant comment. You are arguing to be able to post BS that is wrong or mis-leading by saying that people don`t have to read the thread??

When reading a tech manual or political paper on an ad supported site, do you contact the admin of that site to complain about the intrusion of the ad or do you make a decision to either continue to read or find a less annoying site to read it from? -- thats not even the same!! Trying to cloud the issue.
Is calling someone an idiot for thread crapping any better than the initial crap in the first place. Ignore the crapper he will go away. -- no he will not!! He will keep posting and posting unless called out in a nice polite manner!

If you give someone else the ability to remove posts based on the content of that post, what happens when you have a point somewhat off topic but relevant in a twisted obscure way in an attempt to show that something is possible? -- I am sorry but very rarely are things relevant in a twisted obscure way!! Thats like starting a thread on Violence in the middle east and somebody posts that it has been proven that eating a peanut butter and Jelly sammich decreases aggressive tendencies.....the peanut butter and Jelly sammich is relevant in an obscure way but is in reality thread crapping!

How is every mod expected to know everything about everything and everyone? -- they have past posts and usually its the same group of people over and over who play around...


Yes there are some people that post shit, but you don't need a mod to point them out or remove their posts. -- umm actually you do need a mod to help keep those from posting nonsense from ruining a good topic with BS!!

If the mods are right leaning you will end up with all derogatory posts from the left removed. Ready for that? I for one glean as much information from a flaming off topic poster than I do from an on topic one.--- thats the oldest argument in the book...and from my experiences just not true!!

So can we take from this post that you want to be able to post anything you want regardless of the relevance???

 

[DominionSeraph]

Basically its the same as how the technical forums operate.

Wait, what????
I voted for the "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" option because the "no logical fallacies" and "misinformation" parts implied that the rest was in reference to the validity and quality of argument, and that's what needs moderation. But that has nothing in common with the technical forums. Tech is rigidly defined across levels so you can moderate simply by shuttling different levels to different threads -- that is how they are moderated and that works fine. But holy hell how that would fuck up any philosophical discussion to moderate by nothing but surface topicality.

Yes

If the thread was titled "Is Obama great?" or "I think Obama is great, what do you think?" then you are free to go in and "rain on the OP's parade".

If the OP wants to make a thread that is not open to all sides then that thread can be an Obama lovefest if desired, or if the community has no interest in such threads they will fall off the frontpage anyways.

So you're giving stupid people protected "reality-free" zones. Why are you giving them more tricks to use instead of taking them away?

 

[dank69]

Wait, what????
I voted for the "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" option because the "no logical fallacies" and "misinformation" parts implied that the rest was in reference to the validity and quality of argument, and that's what needs moderation. But that has nothing in common with the technical forums. Tech is rigidly defined across levels so you can moderate simply by shuttling different levels to different threads -- that is how they are moderated and that works fine. But holy hell how that would fuck up any philosophical discussion to moderate by nothing but surface topicality.

I pretty much concur. The only thing that needs moderation is the logical fallacies and misinformation parts, IMO. All the rest is relatively inconsequential. I don't necessarily agree that moderating the other stuff will fuck up any discussion, though I do see the possiblity that it could if taken too far.

 

[Idontcare]

Wait, what????
I voted for the "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" option because the "no logical fallacies" and "misinformation" parts implied that the rest was in reference to the validity and quality of argument, and that's what needs moderation. But that has nothing in common with the technical forums. Tech is rigidly defined across levels so you can moderate simply by shuttling different levels to different threads -- that is how they are moderated and that works fine. But holy hell how that would fuck up any philosophical discussion to moderate by nothing but surface topicality.



Then this is over your head and we need to get someone in here who does have an idea on how to actually moderate for quality argumentation.

It is a volunteer position, trust me, you are getting your money's worth.

When I say "I have no idea..." I expressly mean "given the limited free time I am willing to devote to such matters".

Face it, you are operating in a resource limited environment here. I have no idea how to spread the minimally available resources ever thinner and thinner while accommodating your goal to have one-on-one moderator quality time auditing and scrutinizing every post of every thread 24x7 here.

It is in this context that I made my statement.

 

[Idontcare]

I pretty much concur. The only thing that needs moderation is the logical fallacies and misinformation parts, IMO. All the rest is relatively inconsequential. I don't necessarily agree that moderating the other stuff will fuck up any discussion, though I do see the possiblity that it could if taken too far.

You can say it is inconsequential, but 40% of the voters in this poll felt it was consequential enough to vote against even that much being done around here.

 

[dank69]

You can say it is inconsequential, but 40% of the voters in this poll felt it was consequential enough to vote against even that much being done around here.

My concern is that a truthful thread pointing out a flaw of dems/reps will be viewed as a 'troll thread' by the side it is attacking. Does that make it a troll thread? No. Yet if you put it to a vote, you might get 40% of people here claiming it is a troll thread. Trolling is subjective. Misinformation and logical fallacies are not.

 

[dank69]

...

So you're giving stupid people protected "reality-free" zones. Why are you giving them more tricks to use instead of taking them away?

This is my greatest concern, by far.

 

[dank69]

Look at this thread for a great example. At one point, it looked to us like the story was complete fabrication. After further review and analysis, it turned out to be 100% true. What would have happened if a mod stepped in and closed the thread before the truth was discovered? Many people here would be more ignorant about the subject because of it, including me.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You can say it is inconsequential, but 40% of the voters in this poll felt it was consequential enough to vote against even that much being done around here.

One of those votes is mine, and I voted against it here because the interpretation you laid out of "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" is so mind-bogglingly stupid. Instead of putting up rules that would allow us to chase down those who put up bad theories -- putting up rules that would disallow them from derailing with fallacies and nonsense -- you're actually giving them MORE tricks they can use to avoid having to face the truth.

 

[Idontcare]

Look at this thread for a great example. At one point, it looked to us like the story was complete fabrication. After further review and analysis, it turned out to be 100% true. What would have happened if a mod stepped in and closed the thread before the truth was discovered? Many people here would be more ignorant about the subject because of it, including me.

Why would a mod have done that?

This community poll has nothing to do with auditing/editing thread OP's.

That activity was voted to be very low in priority by the community:

This thread, and its accompanying poll, is about thread-crapping and topic-derail.

 

[Idontcare]

One of those votes is mine, and I voted against it here because the interpretation you laid out of "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" is so mind-bogglingly stupid. Instead of putting up rules that would allow us to chase down those who put up bad theories -- putting up rules that would disallow them from derailing with fallacies and nonsense -- you're actually giving them MORE tricks they can use to avoid having to face the truth.

I am not doing anything here, everything you see in these polls from start to finish has come from the community.

Do not make the mistake of falsely attributing to me the rules which are under vote here.

That is akin to blaming the police officer for the speed limit. Police officer didn't set the speed limit, he's merely there to enforce it.

It is up to the community to decide what the speed limit is. This community expressed a desire for a particular set of speed limits to go up, then they expressed a desire for a specific speed limit to be posted in the highway of thread-crapping/trolling/derailing/etc.

If you have an issue with the laws of the land then you need to look to your neighbors on the left and the right, blaming your local law enforcement for doing the bidding of the community is a non-starter.

 

[dank69]

Why would a mod have done that?

This community poll has nothing to do with auditing/editing thread OP's.

That activity was voted to be very low in priority by the community:

This thread, and its accompanying poll, is about thread-crapping and topic-derail.

If the entire story turned out to be false, the the thread could be classified as a troll thread, no?

 

[dank69]

I am not doing anything here, everything you see in these polls from start to finish has come from the community.

Do not make the mistake of falsely attributing to me the rules which are under vote here.

That is akin to blaming the police officer for the speed limit. Police officer didn't set the speed limit, he's merely there to enforce it.

It is up to the community to decide what the speed limit is. This community expressed a desire for a particular set of speed limits to go up, then they expressed a desire for a specific speed limit to be posted in the highway of thread-crapping/trolling/derailing/etc.

If you have an issue with the laws of the land then you need to look to your neighbors on the left and the right, blaming your local law enforcement for doing the bidding of the community is a non-starter.

I voted yes right when this poll came out. Then you posted this:

The rule is "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation".

Since it is a public poll, if people want to vote "yes" conditionally and then succinctly explain in a post what it is they take exception to then we can work with it from there.

I have no idea how to enforce a "No Logical Fallacies" rule. If it goes on the books then I doubt that specific clause will ever be enforced.

We could hold off on this vote and have yet another vote on what to include in this rule...folks seemed to be getting antsy though so I tried to accommodate the impatient folks by expediting this final vote thread.

If this had been a poll that asked if we wanted to enforce 'No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling' I would have voted no. I only voted yes for logical fallacies and misinformation. I am disappointed that logical fallacies will most likely never be enforced. However, if misinformation will be enforced, I would still keep my vote as yes.

This is why I said these 6 things should have been broken out and multiple choice in the poll, rather than lumped together. Then you could get an accurate representation of exactly what the community wants to see enforced.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Face it, you are operating in a resource limited environment here. I have no idea how to spread the minimally available resources ever thinner and thinner while accommodating your goal to have one-on-one moderator quality time auditing and scrutinizing every post of every thread 24x7 here.

Proactive moderation to some external standard was not demanded. Reactive moderation is fine: "It's not a problem unless someone involved is having a problem with it."

 

[DominionSeraph]

I am not doing anything here, everything you see in these polls from start to finish has come from the community.

No, your interpretation is your interpretation.

I voted for "No Thread-crapping/Derail/Off-Topic/Trolling/Logical Fallacies/Misinformation" because it was the only option that had anything to do with argumentation. Logical fallacies and misinformation go directly towards problems in getting a quality argument, and "thread-crapping/derail/off-topic/trolling" also describe debate tricks. Now I'm voting against it because what you're describing is NOTHING LIKE THAT. You've got a clusterfuck of nonsense going instead of giving the community any tools they can use to moderate an argument.

 

[cybrsage]

Logical fallacies are simply impossible to moderate with the resources available to this forum. There simply are too many of them and many of them are routinely used in arguments by just about everyone.

 

[dank69]

Logical fallacies are simply impossible to moderate with the resources available to this forum. There simply are too many of them and many of them are routinely used in arguments by just about everyone.

I'm sure you wish that were the case. If logical fallacies were deemed 'against the rules' we could simply go to a reporting system. If someone thinks a poster is using a logical fallacy they can report it and include a proof in the report. The mod can then review the report, ask for clarification from the two parties and other mods and then render a decision. If the mod decides a logical fallacy has been used they can add the evidence to the offending post and issue an infraction if necessary.

One downside is that mods would need to educate themselves about logical fallacies if they aren't already. The only other downside is that if they did institute this rule there will be a huge initial flood of reported posts until community gets educated.

There would be no need for active 'policing.'

 

[cybrsage]

I'm sure you wish that were the case. If logical fallacies were deemed 'against the rules' we could simply go to a reporting system. If someone thinks a poster is using a logical fallacy they can report it and include a proof in the report. The mod can then review the report, ask for clarification from the two parties and other mods and then render a decision. If the mod decides a logical fallacy has been used they can add the evidence to the offending post and issue an infraction if necessary.

With the resources available to the forum, logical fallacies are simply impossible to moderate.

One downside is that mods would need to educate themselves about logical fallacies if they aren't already. The only other downside is that if they did institute this rule there will be a huge initial flood of reported posts until community gets educated.

There would be no need for active 'policing.'

Not only would moderators need to be educated, but forum posters. In the other stickied thread you claimed you did not post logical fallacies, yet you posted three of them on two posts alone. Your claim you did not is irrelevant to the reality that you did. A man caught robbing a store can claim he was not, but his claim is irrelevant to the fact he was caught robbing it.

 

[dank69]

... In the other stickied thread you claimed you did not post logical fallacies, yet you posted three of them on two posts alone. Your claim you did not is irrelevant to the reality that you did. A man caught robbing a store can claim he was not, but his claim is irrelevant to the fact he was caught robbing it.

This has been thoroughly debunked in that other thread.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Lets talk about thread titles --
Patranus latest thread title was -- Someone Did Something Which Showed Something Somewhere

That has nothing to do with the article ands why could he not have used the title of the article??

Air-quality study: Electric cars out-pollute gas engines

Why use a thread title that has no bearing on the article or anything said in the article??