Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on March 12, 2014, 10:50:59 am
-
Something really interesting happened on HLP in the last day-and-a-half, and it's worth talking about in a more meta-view. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87069.0)
For one of the first time's in my recollection, and despite the lock (which I'm hoping the mods reverse, though I can understand The E's reasons behind it), we had a discussion where someone stated an unpopular, offensive, and factually inaccurate opinion that was not a direct personal attack, and it didn't get treated like a personal attack. The thread didn't get locked. Rather, a broad swath of community members took to the thread in a polite and respectful way to challenge and refute that view, and it worked - it's abundantly clear to anyone reading that thread that the original post is an opinion that doesn't act as a personal attack and therefore won't be removed, but simultaneously earned the disapproval of a whole bunch of people who expressed that in a respectful way.
...and it's somewhat ironic that it involved the topic and players that did did after the discussion in the rules thread, in which I was drawing the difference between an offensive but non-personal attacking statement on a group of people, versus the same type of statement toward an individual, and how one is generally acceptable while the other was not. I'm actually glad it played out the way it did, because I'm hoping this sets a bit of a precedent in the new style of moderation stemming from the new guidelines.
Anyway, just thought it's worth talking about briefly since this appears to stem from the new moderation/guidelines approach, and I think it's a very positive development. The only suggestion I might have is that, while the thread was becoming more heated, it also was still maintaining a pretty respectful tone and perhaps could have continued without a lock (which I've said before, and I think others agreed, we wanted only used as a last resort). (Let's strike the lock discussion so as not to lose focus, see my response to The E below). (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87074.msg1740149#msg1740149)
So...yeah. Discuss.
-
I am not so sure that leaving it unlocked would have been a good idea at this point. Given the parallel discussions in IRC at the time (especially after InsaneBaron's last statement), I felt that locking the thread and waiting for people to cool off a bit would be the best course of action.
-
Too soon man.
Look, this was also discussed last night in IRC. I brought up your written examples as analogies to precisely what went on. Basically my conclusion of what the mod team told me is that while not a personal attack it was asking to be moderated and it was so - it *was* split and only let on until InsaneBaron either apologized or explained, he did so, the purpose of the thread was finished. More than that, I think that The_E made the right call, because the thread was escalating, not defusing, for various reasons. We here in the HLP are a variety bunch and that was made patently clear there.
-
I am not so sure that leaving it unlocked would have been a good idea at this point. Given the parallel discussions in IRC at the time (especially after InsaneBaron's last statement), I felt that locking the thread and waiting for people to cool off a bit would be the best course of action.
...and of course, I wasn't present in IRC so I don't have the complete picture. Like I said, I totally understand the lock, and I guess I should clarify: I didn't post this thread to necessarily discuss or question the decision to lock. I posted this thread to discuss how the new moderation scheme is evolving and, now that we have one excellent example of the difference between personal attacks and offensive generalized opinions, how people feel about the way the new guidelines are being applied.
For the record, I really like the way this was handled, and hope the community encourages more of it.
-
Battuta disagreed with you there. And Goober almost ressuscitated a new dramafest with him. I would hardly call that thread a success story.
-
Battuta disagreed with you there. And Goober almost ressuscitated a new dramafest with him. I would hardly call that thread a success story.
It's an evolving process. I think its abundantly clear that many people disagreed with me advocating in the other thread for a strict policy of moderating action only with personal attacks and not offensive comments towards generalized groups, yet in practice we ended up with a result that appears at least acceptable to the moderation team and I don't take issue with... something of a middle ground.
The fact that a dramafest *almost* resulted and yet was *avoided* is worth drawing attention to.
At the risk of drawing attention to my would-you-like-fries-with-that-psychology-minor background, let's talk about our feelings :)
-
You are working on the assumption that this is already over.
I'm still waiting to see if it is avoided. Until Battuta or Goober come back and don't reignite it I'll repeat it: too soon.
At the risk of drawing attention to my would-you-like-fries-with-that-psychology-minor background, let's talk about our feelings :)
Wat.
-
I think a couple important conclusions can be drawn.
1. It's entirely possible for someone in a bad mood to post something that their better judgement would tell them is wrong. If angry, have a glass of water before posting.
2. Giving a person a chance to make some sort of apology is a good idea. Unfortunately not everyone will be cooled down by such an apology, and that's to be expected.
3. Going off one and two, not everyone is going to stand by every post they make, and it's not unreasonable to ask someone to admit that they've crossed the line.
4. Not every response to a bad post is going to be a bad post (see Joshua), but not every response to a bad post is going to be a good post either.
And 5. I don't have an objection either way about whether thread is locked or not; I'm going to have to deal with the results of my post either way unless I leave HLP (which would be cowardly). However, I'm all for giving people a chance to calm down.
-
(see Joshua)
Thank you :).
-
(see Joshua)
Thank you :).
I appreciate anyone who can stay cool in a situation like that and debate actual points respectfully. Even I fail to stay cool at times.
-
Splitting the thread and asking InsaneBaron to retract his post was appropriate. But everybody started adding his own take on the situation, and that just inflamed the situation further.
In particular, Flipside...
Whilst I don't want to dogpile, what angers me is...
...and Battuta...
e: sorry Kara, hadn't seen your post. Still.
...actually admitted that they were dogpiling even though they acknowledged karajorma's warning against it. And Zacam...
Any apology would just strike me as shallow and meaningless, but I'll allow for the effort of one anyway.
...implied that wouldn't matter whether InsaneBaron apologized or not.
I think there is still some room for improvement.
-
I think you are expecting too much Goober.
Most of the comments on that thread at the start were not attacking Baron, but attacking the comment and wanting clarification on what was meant, which is what is wanted.
If you keep moving the hurdles, you'll keep confusing people.
-
Most of the comments on that thread at the start were not attacking Baron, but attacking the comment and wanting clarification on what was meant, which is what is wanted.
If you keep moving the hurdles, you'll keep confusing people.
MOST of the comments. Not all, unfortunately.
-
Well, that's the nature of forums everywhere, you'll always get a few, as you yourself said, people get angry and type things they don't actually mean because of that anger.
You'll never, ever erase that completely, but I will say it's a lot harder to do if nearly everyone else is trying to be reasonable.
-
MOST of the comments. Not all, unfortunately.
If only we could meet your standards.
-
MOST of the comments. Not all, unfortunately.
If only we could meet your standards.
I don't want to start the argument all over again, so I'm going to resist the temptation to respond in kind here. If you don't want to restart the drama, sarcasm isn't going to help.
-
(see Joshua)
Thank you :).
I appreciate anyone who can stay cool in a situation like that and debate actual points respectfully. Even I fail to stay cool at times.
I haven't developed a relationship due to various difficulties that proved to be impossible for both of us to overcome at the time. As a result, the feelings of one who has overcome these hurdles and has succesfully developed a relationship are alien to me, as I have not experienced them. Like an author of, say, an FS2 campaign can make me gain an understanding for what a person feels at a time, I don't feel exactly what the protagonist feels.
However, I do have an understanding of relationships. For many, it is the greatest thing they have ever accomplished, the greatest passion they know. It defines who they are, in a very good way. It's their heart.
That diabolical statement of yours attempted to rip the heart out of half the forum's members and paint it black. I understand that that is not what you intended, however... Had I been part of the group that that statement made such dark accusations about, I would not have stayed so calm. Again, I don't feel what some have felt, but I can comprehend it.
EDIT: slight edits for the sake of softening up the post a bit. I may have been hyperboling for dramatic effect, which is probably unwise.
-
(see Joshua)
Thank you :).
I appreciate anyone who can stay cool in a situation like that and debate actual points respectfully. Even I fail to stay cool at times.
I haven't developed a relationship due to various difficulties that proved to be impossible for both of us to overcome at the time. As a result, the feelings of one who has overcome these hurdles and has succesfully developed a relationship are alien to me, as I have not experienced them. Like an author of, say, an FS2 campaign can make me gain an understanding for what a person feels at a time, I don't feel exactly what the protagonist feels.
However, I do have an understanding of relationships. For many, it is the greatest thing they have ever accomplished, the greatest passion they know. It defines who they are, in a very good way. It's their heart.
That diabolical statement of yours attempted to rip the heart out of half the forum's members and paint it black, white and red. I understand that that is not what you intended, however... Had I been part of the group that that statement made such dark accusations about, I would not have stayed so calm.
Which brings us back to the fact that, had I realized at the time the accusation I was making, I wouldn't have posted.
-
True. You did continue to make less dark but still rather bad statements afterwards though (which is why I was responding in the first place), which were thematically linked to the post that kicked it off in the first place. I don't think this send a positive signal to those rightfully offended. A full apology and subsequent withdrawal would have been my choice, in that situation.
-
MOST of the comments. Not all, unfortunately.
If only we could meet your standards.
I don't want to start the argument all over again, so I'm going to resist the temptation to respond in kind here. If you don't want to restart the drama, sarcasm isn't going to help.
So I ask you to drop the condescending and professorial tone. It's a bit maddening for me to see you pointing fingers at the reaction of some people after what you wrote in that tone of yours. A bit of discretion, I agree, is advised. I refrained from making the same comment that Battuta eventually wrote because I did not want to "create more drama", but I'm beggining to think that was ill-advised. I am also learning here how to properly engage the community and particularly today and yesterday were bizarre and hard.
-
MOST of the comments. Not all, unfortunately.
If only we could meet your standards.
I don't want to start the argument all over again, so I'm going to resist the temptation to respond in kind here. If you don't want to restart the drama, sarcasm isn't going to help.
So I ask you to drop the condescending and professorial tone. It's a bit maddening for me to see you pointing fingers at the reaction of some people after what you wrote in that tone of yours. A bit of discretion, I agree, is advised. I refrained from making the same comment that Battuta eventually wrote because I did not want to "create more drama", but I'm beggining to think that was ill-advised. I am also learning here how to properly engage the community and particularly today and yesterday were bizarre and hard.
For the record, I withdrew what I had said that offended people. Not a lot of posters do that.
-
You did not withdraw everything offensive, I am afraid. I would not have responded to your latter statements if you had.
-
Okay, this thread is turning into a rerun of the last one, which is not at all a good thing. I agree with Luis that bring this up for discussion so soon after the event might not have been a good call.
I've admitted that what I said was untrue and disrespectful. As I've said multiple times, if I had been in a condition to think before posting I would not have posted for exactly those reasons. I don't see anything to be gained by continuing the haggling. You've made your points.
I'm ready to move on. And I intend to make sure nothing of this sort happens again in my case. By the end of today I'll stop responding to further comments on the event unless they really need response.
-
Luis, InsaneBaron, and Joshua - stop. The point of this is not to re-hash specific issues discussed in the other thread, the point is to discuss the way in which the moderation of the other thread was handled, e.g.:
1. Well, but can use refinement. <- My view
2. Ambivalent.
3. Atrocious.
Anyone who wants to be snippity can go do it via PM.
-
Luis, InsaneBaron, and Joshua - stop. The point of this is not to re-hash specific issues discussed in the other thread, the point is to discuss the way in which the moderation of the other thread was handled, e.g.:
1. Well, but can use refinement. <- My view
2. Ambivalent.
3. Atrocious.
Anyone who wants to be snippity can go do it via PM.
Thank you. I would agree with you and Goober that the moderating was pretty good but could use some refinement.
-
Well, you will never ever make GD an area free of those kind of reactions unless you ban religious and political threads, because years of experience in this place has taught most users that these are hot subjects that almost always lead to an argument or attack of some kind.
I'm not saying that is what should be done, but it doesn't really matter how it's moderated, there will always be someone who claims bias because they feel they were treated unfairly, it's one of the reasons I quit as a GM, because it was getting to utterly stupid levels.
So there's little point in complaining about a thread getting inflamed when everyone knew that would happen from the moment they read the title of it.
-
that was not a direct personal attack
I cannot possibly agree with this sentiment. I was told that I am a habitual murderer, that the only reason my wife and I are contemplating a child now is to kill it.
That statement was not retracted, except, in the words of the meme, in the sense of "le uneducated opinion" "you're a moron" "No, see! I TROL/SOCIAL EXPERIMENT U". I did not receive an apology; nobody said they were sorry. Telling me that I am a better person than you thought I was is an admission of error, yes, but it is not an admission of wrongdoing; the efforts that were gone to in the same post to deflect the suggestion anything wrong or, frankly, sinful had been done were injury to insult.
To make matters worse, InsaneBaron's faux-apology only excused those who were active in the thread there. It offered no apology for claiming that all atheists were this way, and it did not retract its position that anyone who was not personally involved in the thread was still exactly what the original posting claimed. It remained an attack on any member of this board who it claimed to describe and who was not active in the thread.
The first post example is about as clear an example of "fighting words" as I have ever seen; the only thing that prevented me personally from reacting violently is that I can't punch people through the Internet. The second does not address more than a fraction of the offense that was given in the first posting even in the most charitable of readings.
-
Finish reading the thread, and you'll get the admission of wrongdoing you want.
-
Finish reading the thread, and you'll get the admission of wrongdoing you want.
I've read it; I didn't get it either. Wouldn't it have been more sense to just use the post you just made to apologize, rather than saying, "I apologized elsewhere! Go look it up yourself!"?
-
IMO, the fact that the thread didn't turn into a seething ball of naked rage probably had more to do with the character of the group of people that was disparaged (or at least the subset that elected to respond) than it did with the moderation style.
At any rate, people still feel personally attacked when someone says something nasty about a group they are a part of. It's probably worse than being singled out with an actual personal attack in most cases, both in terms of general disruptiveness to the conversation and for what it reveals about the attacker/overall group dynamics.
Personal spats/vendettas might make a couple people quit here and there, but stuff like this could make people abandon ship in droves if it isn't thoroughly stomped out.
-
Finish reading the thread, and you'll get the admission of wrongdoing you want.
I've read it; I didn't get it either. Wouldn't it have been more sense to just use the post you just made to apologize, rather than saying, "I apologized elsewhere! Go look it up yourself!"?
Well, if that's what you want, I hereby admit, not for the first time, that what I did was unacceptable. Satisfied?
I sent him back to the old thread to make it clear that he had made a mistake.
-
So one thread full of angry people has now become three...
I'm not really sure this is helping.
-
So one thread full of angry people has now become three...
I'm not really sure this is helping.
For what it's worth, I don't think its helping either.
-
Finish reading the thread, and you'll get the admission of wrongdoing you want.
If I had seen another post I thought bore even slight relevance, I would have mentioned it. I did not.
I read the entire thread before making my first post in this topic. (Several times in fact, because I was rankly incredulous.) I even called Goober out over PM for his insensitivity before I posted here. Assuming I am rageposting and chiding me in this manner is compounding your offenses, not mitigating them.
Doubly so because you did not link to any specific post, you simply mockingly chose to tell me to reread the entire thread. Your behavior is not that of a man who is sorry for his actions. It is infused with a supercilious, toxic superiority.
-
Finish reading the thread, and you'll get the admission of wrongdoing you want.
If I had seen another post I thought bore even slight relevance, I would have mentioned it. I did not.
I read the entire thread before making my first post in this topic. I even called Goober out over PM for his insensitivity before I posted here. Assuming I am rageposting and chiding me in this manner is compounding your offenses, not mitigating them.
Doubly so because you did not link to any specific post, you simply mockingly chose to tell me to reread the entire thread. Your behavior is not that of man who is sorry for his actions.
I'm done arguing with you. You got what you wanted multiple times, here and in the other thread. No mockery involved. I never even accused you of rageposting, I simply asked that you correct your mistake.
From this point on, as I stated earlier, I will not be responding to further comments about the matter unless someone brings up something that's both new and of value. I'm not going to beat the dead horse any longer.
-
I never even accused you of rageposting, I simply asked that you correct your mistake.
So, I'm just going to take the time to mention to everybody, as a member of HLP and without my moderator hat for a moment, that I find this almost hilariously ironic.
-
huehuehuehuehueh
gibe empathi plos
-
I get that a lot of you are rightly pissed at InsaneBaron for the original post and lack of a meaningful apology, and I admit that I was also pretty pissed off concerning the implication that my wife and I don't have a loving marriage and are ready to off our two kids at a moment's notice just because.
But.
But, what happened was NOT a personal attack. People can choose to take it as a personal attack, and take offense, but that is their response and not the original content (it did devolve further after what became the OP, but that's a secondary issue).
Now, as in real life, it is my personal opinion that I would rather participate in a forum where people are allowed to make stupid generalizes statements and get thoroughly debated on the subject, than one in which moderation deals with subjective offense taken instead of objective offense given TO A INDIVIDUAL.
I'm not saying it was improper to take offense to the post; rather, I'm saying that the best way to handle posts of that nature is to thoroughly deconstruct them and express how unacceptable it is, rather than a simple lock. What makes more of an impression on someone expressing flawed reasoning - one moderator shutting it down, or a community explaining exactly why that line of thought is neither valid nor reasonable?
There are obviously some interesting dynamics at play - the drama comment among them, given the vigor of the discussion in the opposite direction in the guidelines thread - but I honestly do believe that this example is a positive change in the way off topic moderation has been handled on HLP.
-
I don't think that deconstructing an argument necessarily precludes the possibility of punishment though.
Had InsaneBaron stood by his original comment, the outcome would, and I believe should have been very different.
-
But, what happened was NOT a personal attack.
InsaneBaron quite literally stated it was intended as a personal attack on his opponents when he said they were better than he thought in the second post; he admitted that it was not a stupid generalization, but a specific descriptor of his opponents, by saying that his descriptors had changed in regard to those specific people.
This is why I stated that on reflection, I think the first post was handled properly. Your view of events is valid, assuming only the first post. But we don't actually have just the first post. This is why when the second clarified the first was actually meant as a personal attack on InsaneBaron's opponents, I was and remain convinced that action should have been taken. Just because the attack is withdrawn does not mean it did not happen.
I would have to compare threads to be assured that there was also no participant in the first thread where it originally went up, but not the second where the post was split to, and hence not absolved of their status. My instinct on quick review is no, but it's possible.
-
I don't think that deconstructing an argument necessarily precludes the possibility of punishment though.
So... he retracted his post. He apologized, not once but three times. He has been pummeled over the course of three threads. And you still think he needs more punishment?
No wonder he has the impression that there's a bias against him.
-
The original post was a very personal attack. InsaneBaron's initial response was laudable, but unfortunately, his subsequent posts have undermined his position. He keeps returning to a judgmental, supercilious stance that makes his apologies feel insincere - and, worse, cast his past actions in a different and much less generous light.
Because I have proportionally smaller time and energy to devote to HLP these days, the emotional tenor of that time is going to eat up more of it.
Man, I just checked the thread and Goob seems to think I'm trying to get Baron banned and that my reaction was a calculated play. This is weird because I posted an acceptance of Baron's apology before I left for work this morning. I suspect it didn't get through, but I hope Goob will accept my word that I tried to send it as evidence of good faith.
This is super rough. I am very conflict-averse and an out-and-out accusation that I'm trying to work this situation like some kind of Machiavelli is - man, how do I even talk about it without Goob accusing me of being a drama queen? How do I even talk about talking about without running into that kind of accusation?
I think I'm going to request some more time off. I guess Goob will conclude I'm emotionally unstable? I am not sure how to react to this except to get some distance. The InsaneBaron stuff was working out fine but this feels too crazy.
I honestly have no idea how to handle a situation in which another party thinks everything I say about how I feel is some kind of calculated political move. The Bungie job is a massive time sink and I just don't want to have this worrying at me. Is there some way I can make this a genuine human statement instead of a potential robo-maneuver?
-
This is weird because I posted an acceptance of Baron's apology before I left for work this morning. I suspect it didn't get through
Quelle surprise!
but I hope Goob will accept my word that I tried to send it as evidence of good faith.
No need to rely on my opinion. Just post the acceptance again, or as close to the original as you can remember, and your good faith will be demonstrated for all to see.
-
This is my cat asking for food.
Everyone look at the hungry moggy.
[attachment deleted by an evil time traveler]
-
This is weird because I posted an acceptance of Baron's apology before I left for work this morning. I suspect it didn't get through
Quelle surprise!
but I hope Goob will accept my word that I tried to send it as evidence of good faith.
No need to rely on my opinion. Just post the acceptance again, or as close to the original as you can remember, and your good faith will be demonstrated for all to see.
Re: Luis' post about the abortion debate I said 'Agreed, that will go bad places' and re: InsaneBaron's I said 'Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm going to have to think about this, but it's good of you to apologize'. His conduct since then has ticked me off a bit, but I did hit 'post' on that around - 8 or so PST this morning.
Man I don't know if you think I'm trying to play all this or what, but your attitude about this - hurts? Do you believe that? Do you think I'm just trying to compassion bait here? I don't know what to say.
-
And look, I'm obviously pretty raw about you accusing people of getting overly emotional. That is a point on which we have historically had some dispute and which has turned out very badly.
-
Re: Luis' post about the abortion debate I said 'Agreed, that will go bad places' and re: InsaneBaron's I said 'Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm going to have to think about this, but it's good of you to apologize'. His conduct since then has ticked me off a bit, but I did hit 'post' on that around - 8 or so PST this morning.
Then I shall accept your acceptance at face value.
-
I genuinely appreciate that, it's a weight off.
-
The original post was a very personal attack.
I happen to agree with this. While some people may want to claim there is a distinction between saying "You are an arsehole" and "All people who like purple are arseholes" I tend to feel that distinction fades the second you know you are talking to people wearing purple.
I don't think that deconstructing an argument necessarily precludes the possibility of punishment though.
So... he retracted his post. He apologized, not once but three times. He has been pummeled over the course of three threads. And you still think he needs more punishment?
No wonder he has the impression that there's a bias against him.
This is the second time this week I have to question if you are even reading my posts before replying to them. Did you not read the second sentence I posted before trimming it out?
Deconstruction of InsaneBaron's post would have occurred (and in fact HAD occurred) long before he posted. The fact that it occurred does not preclude some measure of punitive action, especially if his post upon returning had been a defence of his original post.
-
I don't think that deconstructing an argument necessarily precludes the possibility of punishment though.
So... he retracted his post. He apologized, not once but three times. He has been pummeled over the course of three threads. And you still think he needs more punishment?
No wonder he has the impression that there's a bias against him.
This is the second time this week I have to question if you are even reading my posts before replying to them. Did you not read the second sentence I posted before trimming it out?
Deconstruction of InsaneBaron's post would have occurred (and in fact HAD occurred) long before he posted. The fact that it occurred does not preclude some measure of punitive action, especially if his post upon returning had been a defence of his original post.
I read it, but this helps clarify what you said. You were using "precludes" in the general sense, not in the present-tense sense. If that's the case, then you weren't calling for additional punishment at the present time, and I retract my post.
-
I find Goober's treatment of General Battuta incredibly appalling. The bullying and manipulation involved here is astonishing. "Drama Queening"? "Quelle Surprise"? Accepting acceptance on behalf of others? What the royal **** is this? People here just generally put up with this?
-
This is weird because I posted an acceptance of Baron's apology before I left for work this morning. I suspect it didn't get through
Quelle surprise!
but I hope Goob will accept my word that I tried to send it as evidence of good faith.
No need to rely on my opinion. Just post the acceptance again, or as close to the original as you can remember, and your good faith will be demonstrated for all to see.
Re: Luis' post about the abortion debate I said 'Agreed, that will go bad places' and re: InsaneBaron's I said 'Thank you, I appreciate that. I'm going to have to think about this, but it's good of you to apologize'. His conduct since then has ticked me off a bit, but I did hit 'post' on that around - 8 or so PST this morning.
Man I don't know if you think I'm trying to play all this or what, but your attitude about this - hurts? Do you believe that? Do you think I'm just trying to compassion bait here? I don't know what to say.
I accept your acceptance as well. I'm genuinely sorry for my actions. And I entirely believe you that the event was painful.
-
My initial reaction to this secondary fallout was very much along the lines of what Luis posted above. It's so important not to assume disingenuous manipulation on the part of the person you are talking to, especially when you are in a position of authority. That's straight up community poison.
Likewise, it's also important for us not to immediately assume that Goober's quelle surprise stuff is a conscious effort to manipulate and discredit.
-
I wanted to have nothing more to do with that thread(s) than stay aloft in my Battlecruiser and listen to choral records. But I think it typified the issues I brought up in the rules thread. There was no specific topical issue in that thread to address, it was essentially a generic attack on religion, nothing more than than spoiling for a fight. Christianity is a bunch of make believe BS and we would be Type II civilization if it weren't for that asshole Charles Martel. Folks chime in to agree and have a laugh, (which like it or not basically insinuates that religious people are a bunch of dumb neobarbs) until eventually someone on the other side rises to the bait and insinuates that atheists are a bunch of amoral baby killers. Every bodies' feelings are hurt and lets chew on each other for seven pages. It would still be going like an Iraqi oil fire if one side didn't have the numbers to browbeat the opposition.
At the end of the day I doubt any of the participants are getting anything out of that thread but thinking what a bunch of arrogant assholes their opposition are and possibly some sub cockle region satisfaction. Has this contributed to the Freespace community in any way? Has it been a detriment? If someone was interested in Freespace, visits the forum and sees seven pages of vitriol and invective back and forth are they going to form a positive opinion on the community? I know Diaspora is in need of more staff, I certainly wouldn't want potentially productive prospects to tell Mr. Malmesteen to GUTFBIO.
-
That's not a fair description at all StarSlayer.
Should I really remind you that the thread first post was about how the "devastating arguments" against christianity were false. That is, the first post was a post against some of the atheist arguments, not the other way around. And how that post was followed by a civilized, understanding discussion and (mostly) agreement on how those arguments were indeed flawed. People also chimed in with their own thoughts on how some points were only addressing parts of the issues, and of course these things were discussed at lenght.
Nowhere did I see a "laugh" nor a "we should be civ kardashev ii by nau" kind of post. I challenge you to find one.
Herra makes a challenge against religion in theological terms. Goober doesn't like it. A civilized discussion of what the story of Job means and what not ensues.
So I really challenge you to tell me where this "spoiling for a fight" occurred. Because I really fail to see it. Help me here.
-
Affirmative, I'll reread the thing again and be back for pie if necessary.
-
The purpose of making a discussion about transgressions of the rules was to try and solve the problem without resorting to moderator action, not in order to continue to gang-bang the 'offender'. I know that's an absolute favourite pastime in here, but that really wasn't its purpose.
-
Okay I reread the whole thing and paint me seventy shades of stupid and regard my post as a probably the largest systematic brain fart I've suffered on the internet, ever. I formally apologize, I'm not quite sure what comedy of errors lead me to the interpretation I drew. I'm actually chuckling in embarrassment at my machine. I'll be sure to gaze upon it in the future and ponder folly.
In the meantime...
(http://williambeem.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Humble-Pie.jpg)
Delicious Pie.
Mmmmmmm.
Holy crap I'm dumb, I mean wow. Maybe I took too many men shots in Kendo?
-
Either way, it's the perfect day for pie, or at least will be in a few hours here.
-
Likewise, it's also important for us not to immediately assume that Goober's quelle surprise stuff is a conscious effort to manipulate and discredit.
Given that it is consistent even up to an ungracious acceptance that was offered not only in the name of himself but another who wasn't even a participant in the discussion, and Goober's...somewhat warped view of authority on the forum, I'm not sure immediate is the word for what most people are going to assume about this.
And you still think he needs more punishment?
Do the rules have consequences or can I retract any breach of them before a moderator or admin makes a decision to punish me and escape? Effective systems for maintaining order require certainty of punishment for transgression. Contrition is good. Accepting your mistakes have real consequences is better.
-
Likewise, it's also important for us not to immediately assume that Goober's quelle surprise stuff is a conscious effort to manipulate and discredit.
Given that it is consistent even up to an ungracious acceptance that was offered not only in the name of himself but another who wasn't even a participant in the discussion, and Goober's...somewhat warped view of authority on the forum, I'm not sure immediate is the word for what most people are going to assume about this.
I'm not saying that a conscious effort to manipulate and discredit should be off the table when deciding how to interpret the interaction, just that it could also be consistent with other, less damning explanations. Like, maybe he grew up in an environment where it would be unheard of for one man to admit to another that words had hurt him emotionally, so he came into the conversation preconditioned to be suspicious of that sort of thing and reacted without reflecting. That doesn't excuse posting in that way from a position of authority, but it's a possible explanation that doesn't demand ill will.
-
Because everyone else finds it so easy to admit when we are wrong.
This place has changed...
e: And to clarify, there are lots of people here who have said stupid things in the past, myself included, we've all been given a second chance at one point or another, and I know for a fact there are members here who would be screaming blue murder about conspiracies and **** if they had to spend the next few days facing this kind of treatment because of it.
Yes, what he said was stupid and hurtful, and he's been called up on it, and he's apologized, some of you may not by wholly satisfied with the apology, and that's fine too, but this has gone beyond reasonable reaction now and yet still this storm rages. How many times are we going to kick people every time they do something dumb, even if they recognize that what they did was dumb?
-
I think it's probably best to lock this thread for now as we're basically dealing with an issues now that should be (and I had believed were) thrashed out by the moderation staff before the new guidelines came into effect. I assure you that this matter is already being discussed amongst the moderators.