Me, now that I'm bored with the pointless parody. Flint is fine with political threads never enlightening anyone, but I'm not.

Fair point about your random response.

But fuck you on 'my' petty squabbles

*smiles*

I clearly need to work on my sarcasm. I'm shocked to discover sincerity in this thread.

You were a casualty of what we are talking about.

*laughs*

Start another. Third time lucky?

Well, you're one of the chief complainers, right? Either you are or you aren't--which is it?

Flint: Were you not just complaining? Why so sensitive?

Why so sensitive? I am responding to direct personal attacks and accusations issued by name against me.

Much like the so-called debate in politics, which you deride others for getting upset about.

From the thread where I attacked you Flint:

And from this thread:

Are those the personal attacks and accusations to which you are referring?

lol...every forum seems to have it's little drama

Proceed with whatever your point is.

Whether "the so-called debate in politics" has the qualities you say it has is neither known about nor cared about by me; therefore I can form no such analogues as you propose. I'll take your word for it, but to my knowledge it has nothing to do with me.

The attack on you would not have happened if the political debate had been fact-based rather than personal. That is what we're trying to address.

good morning UT

I have an idea I'd like to offer.

I was running out of gas last night when I made the post to which you replied, and now I see there's been much activity since then. I like much of what has been said, especially by DanaC and by Griff. Flint's remark that we're all adults here, by choice, so quit crying has some resonance for me too. But I'd like to point out that another of Flint's comments strikes at the heart of how the conversations in the Politics thread (and other threads too) get derailed. He said something to the effect of "I was just making a random comment in a random thread, why all the torches and pitchforks?".

Exactly.

For me, I was participating a NON random discussion (same thread though) and (in this case) Flint bursts in with his randomness. Chaos ensued. The discussion was derailed. It kind of reminds me of ... a streaker racing across the playfield. The game stops. Or Bill Gates getting a pie in the face at a conference. Utterly irrelevant to the content of the conference, I can't even remember what he talked about, but I remember that he got hit with the pie. These kinds of interruptions detract from my experience of the conversation/debate. I wish I didn't have to see them.

Exactly.

My suggestion is this: I wish there were a way to not have to see INDIVIDUAL comments in a thread. A collapse button would be ideal for this. I envision that a post would default to expanded, but could be toggled with a click. This wouldn't prevent me from seeing the post in the first place, but I could streamline the flow of the conversation to my own satisfaction.

I see lots of advantages to this hypothetical solution.

1. infinitely customizable, for each dwellar and each thread.
2. It's reversible.
3. it's better (for this purpose, at least) than the "ignore poster" function, since it allows more granular control
4. this puts minimum restrictions on the poster's "freedom of speach"
5. this puts minimum burden on some moderator to control the "debate"

I don't think it is possible for me to control other people's words and actions and thoughts. Even a moderator can not do that--the can only remove offenses. I don't wish to control others' words, I just want to be able to minimize the distraction they present for me.


I see potential disadvantages too:

1. the conversations could be choppy (choppier, since random acts of non-sequitor-ocity are already a clear and present (and growing) danger)
2. there's a risk that I'd see/hear a different story/flow than what others see/hear. But this is actually what I desire. I already don't like how it's hashed up--I'm trying to clarify things for myself.

Basically, some of these discussions are in sore NEED OF EDITING. This would let me do that editing. Lots of what I write and think and say gets edited. Some of what I express is lightly edited if at all. There's a time and place for both. But up until now, I couldn't think of a way to achieve this editing for those conversations that require it. In the past, I've suggested (and done) that the crap posts simply be ingnored. That's actually a lot easier said than done. This would make it a bit easier to do.

The analogy of a bar has long been used to describe the interactions here in the cellar, and it's an apt one. This function would be like being able to mute (ooo mute, maybe the function can be called "mute post") a voice that *I* find disruptive to my attention/experience while hanging out at "the bar". I could just click that button and I could return my attention to the thing I want to focus on. The interrupter could continue to babble on, and might (or might not) have something constructive to contribute later, we'll both see. We do this all the time when we're trying to have a conversation, we turn down the tv, or we close the door behind us, or we move away from the noise.


... wow... that's a lot of talk... your thoughts sir? Your thoughts, friends?

There's a display mode for you (upper right, Display Modes, Threaded Mode), but it doesn't really work because Quick Reply doesn't count in Threading.

Massive alteration of vBulletin is not going to happen.

How do you know whether or not you want to see someone's comments or not, until you have seen them?

Doesn't the ignore feature take care of this problem?

So. You are, by your own admission relatively ignorant of what occurs in the politics forum and therefore much of the context of the problem we're discussing. Yet, you feel perfectly well-qualified to tell those of us who are familiar with that context and have concerns, that said concerns are petty and groundless.

You are upset/annoyed by my 'attack' on you, which is primarily about your post and not you as a person, yet you think people who've been subjected to highly personal attacks in the politics forum should just grow up and be less sensitive.

If those two quotes above are enough to upset you, then it is probably a very good thing that you don't follow the politics forum more closely.


[eta] For the record, as soon as you said you'd unwittingly wandered into that discussion and made a random comment to a random poster, I accepted that. And throughout I have been clear that yours was not the post that caused the problems but rather the 'straw that broke the camel's back'. In other words a relatively innocuous and light example of something bigger that came just after the real problem.

That is where DanaC's yellow/red card theory could be more effective. The poster gets temporarily locked out of politics after so many fouls so the reader can be reasonably assured that there will be a discussion.

accent on "wish"


I did not intentionally suggest a massive rewrite of vBulletin.

Hi Nirvana--

In my fantasy rewrite of vBulletin, I was thinking I could see the post to begin with. This is ... you got to start with it showing or not... I pick showing. I could see the post, and if it was crap, just collapse it so the visual flow of the conversation didn't include that one.

the Ignore feature as it is now works great, but for a given poster *everywhere* on the cellar. When I'm UP TO HERE!!!11 with a given poster, I put them on ignore and my blood pressure is reduced. This functionality doesn't apply the way I want it... I just want selective comments removed from the conversation, not whole dwellars.

There is in fact a "red card yellow card" system built in to vBulletin, and a user getting infractions can be automatically penalized into a different user group or banned entirely.

The problem is that such a system changes, and complicates, the dynamic of the forum.

Many forums offer reward systems, in the forum of up or down votes. People at such places are not honestly themselves, but are competing to win ups or downs. Circlejerks reinforce themselves with upvotes. Hive minds develop. Some are ostracized with downvotes.

Imagine the internal politics that could develop. Imagine a Cellar Red Card Bannination Crew, working in consort. We'd have discussions breaking down into which user got close to making a heretical statement, and what penance they should offer to make things right. It'd be uglier than it is now.

How do you, UT, handle unwanted and irrelevant intrusions into your attention now, in real life?

Earplugs.

Good points. What if the call were only made by a mod?

I don't think there are enough mods to manage it.

hahahahaha. sad, but true. sad, but funny, and true.

Actually very funny

I don't think anything structural needs to change in the cellar. The beauty of the cellar is that it is a self policing community. I've been to other communities that are heavily moderated and regulated and they suck. Personally I don't like some of the changes I've seen in the culture of the cellar in the last few years. I have the ability to either whine about it (which I have), try to be a catalyst for what I'd like to see (I'm not so good at that), or leave (which I've done for months at a time). That's self regulation and it works. While I have zero respect for a couple of dwellars I dont' want some system in place where we vote their comments in or out of the threads. They're free to be assholes and I'm free to respond how I see fit.

For me I think the cellar is just a sympton of a much larger problem in our society. This is a reflection of discourse in the world now. Ideas are really not that important anymore except as a banner to wave pretentiously in support of our political/social identity. The right believes they are superior to the left because they're "more patriotic and american", "stand for values", and are obviously much more intelligent. The left believes they are superior to the right "because they care about the middle class", "believe in compassion", and are obviously much more intelligent.

It seems most people refuse to consider that two people can look at the exact same data and come to drastically different conclusions not because one is brilliant, kind, and pretty while the other is stupid, evil, and smelly. We have all experienced life differently and because of that have different priorities and different views of what the ideal society would be.

Of course those we have voted to rule our lives benefit by keeping us divided so they stir the pot with rhetoric to keep us battling right v left, rich v poor, black v white, red state v blue state. No one wins except the ruling class.

Lookout, sorry, but I disagree. I think that is an easy way out of addressing the problem.

My disagreement is the manner in which people "discuss" their differences.

I have had brief, but interesting discussions with Flint and Classicman in which we disagreed, but we were respectful.

That is not the case with one member here. One who, in my experience, is always the first to start with the name-calling (pussy, asshole, loser,...), who arrogantly refuses to provide facts to support his position when requested but instead demands that others prove him wrong and who broadly categorizes anything he doesnt agree with as biased or propaganda (including facts like text of laws).

If you think the discussions could be better, my suggestion is to start with the biggest deterrent.

I get that he is a "valued" member of the community. If the community wants to skirt around it and doesnt want to address, then so be it.

If that is the case, its no big deal. Those who want a more civil and respectful discussion of political issues will find it elsewhere.

added:
And, yes, I am guilty of responding in less than the most respectful manners at times, but I would urge you to look at the discussions in the totality.

Yebbut, to be fair, zengum was high on crack when he posted that stuff. And his hobo just died.

UG's not a "valued member of the community" to me. I generally skip his posts except when I'm in a sarcastic, short tempered mood. You could post ANYTHING to UG and he'd either ignore it or else call you some unpleasant name.

I think next time I see one of his posts, I am going to reply by copying some segment of the Constitution purely as a scientific experiment. I wonder if he'll tell me to "put my crack pipe down."

I disagree with UT about forums that allow members to give rep points. The system seems to work pretty well on another forum I'm on. Of course that place is huge, and sometimes the number of rep points can help gauge a poster's reliability. But that forum is heavily moderated. In fact, I bet almost everyone from the Cellar would get banned from it in a few days! I'm always watching my step there.

Part of the reason I like this place is because I can type the word "fuck" and not have it censored. But part of the reason I don't like the politics forum is that vicious personal attacks are allowed - the language used there is far worse than "fuck."

I've never had any interactions with UG, but I do get a good laugh out of his posts.

I guess I wasnt clear enough. In my experience, Mercenary is the primary instigator and the one who has two sets of rules, one for himself and one for those who challenge his opinions with their own.

Then police yourself. If that one member is offering you no value then ignore them. You can either do that by just not reading the posts or by putting them on ignore status.

And SIA, I'm glad you enjoy that other forum but if UT were to start something along those lines in the cellar I don't think it would work. Actually the cellar would probably become a much friendlier place but it would be at the cost of a large portion of long term dwellars.

Sure, I could ignore him.

But, looking at the bigger picture, I dont think that will make the political forum any better or more informative.

Rather than police myself, why not address the larger issue? Reading through this thread, I am not the only one who identified this problem person.

Go ahead and move to get him banned. Even if the mods did ban him it wouldn't change the level of discourse on political issues because while merc's posting habits are so over the top he's really just an amplified example of what passes as political debate here. At the end of the day I don't really care if he stays or goes I just think it is silly to pretend he's the source of all the problems. If you really think he's a troll and adds no value then IGNORE him. If a troll is genuinely ignored then they aren't getting what they want and will either change or go away on their own.

It's kind of like the kindergartener saying "teacher teacher I don't like the way billy plays with the blocks. He won't do it the way I want him to." Fuck it. Don't play with him. Either he'll get bored having no friends to play with and change or he'll continue to be ignored.

I didnt suggest banning anyone. Nor did I suggest he is the source of all the problems. But to address the tone and manner of discussion, IMO, you should start with the worst offender.

As to ignoring him, while I dont pretend to know it all, when I see blatantly false information posted (as opposed to opinion), I think the community is better served by challenging the post with facts rather than letting false information be perpetuated.

I've had my say. The community will do as it wishes.

We've had TW posting blatantly false information for years. This is nothing new.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not defending merc's style. I generally don't read what he has written. My point in all this is that you're an adult, if what he types on the internet bothers you so much then ignore it because you already know you aren't going to have a rational give and take on these contentious issues.

Exactly lookout.

If you don't like the way the discussion is going, change it yourself by only speaking to people you find reasonable. Simple as that. Your experience here is what you make of it, no one else dictates it.

Because of the nature of the lefty pack here, I don't know that simply ignoring is doable. Merc will broadcast spam across the board and someone will respond.

What about this? Anytime someone has a problem with mercs behavior s/he posts Morocco for verbal abuse:f130: and South Vietnam for falsehoods :f179:

Don't reply in kind and don't engage in conversation unless he is on his meds.

Goddamn but you're sexy when you're right :p

I agree with this. I don't particularly want to see increased moderation in the Cellar.

I do think it's useful now and then for us to air this stuff though. If for no other reason than it lets people who've perhaps been under the impression that we're all cool with the shitslinging know that actually they're not alone and the problem has a wider recognition.

Protect us from ourselves. Would there be a troll problem if everyone just completely ignored trolls? No there wouldn't, but people can't seem to controll (haha) themselves.

On second thought, I don't like the idea of thought police and have to agree with Bullitt and Lookout, who I don't really find sexy, but that's just me.

TWAT!

Oh wait...

What?

Are you talking about the fact that the majority of dwellars are left of center or are you talking about particular posting habits?

No way are the majority of posters left of centre.

My own reading of dwellars is that most are a combination of left of centre and right of centre views. A lot of dwellars are, for instance, socially progressive and economically conservative.

Your center may be a bit different than mine. It seems most brits think CNN is a hard right wing propaganda machine. I may be exaggerating that a bit, but you get the point.

100% Agree: I am bewildered by the level of resistance towards concepts that my pre-kindergarten age children are aware of, and capable of practicing. We do not need more rules or moderation here. We do not want more rules or moderation here. If you are in favor of a "rules or moderation" solution, then you have the choice of either growing up and learning how adults interact, or fucking leaving the Cellar.

If you leave, don't feel like you need to make an announcement. Just go away and find someplace that you like.

The only people who have suggested moderation in one form or another, in this thread, are Undertoad, Aliantha, Limey, Footfootfoot, Griff and myself, though mine was a joke suggestion.

So, all these people are just childish idiots who need to grow the fuck up or leave the cellar?

Or was it aimed mainly at me? In which case it doesn't make a lot of sense as, my flippant comment about red and yellow cards aside, I have spent much of this thread arguing against increased moderation.

You have just characterised a bunch of people as childish because they have a different view of how the board might work to the one you hold. Whilst steadfastly refusing to engage with the issue at hand.


[eta] Twat.

Alternatively the rest of the kindergarteners simply abandon the idea of playing with the blocks altogether.

Welcome to self policing.

I never said "idiots."



I did say "weak-minded fools" and "sloppy thinkers" but I never said "idiots."

Starts to seriously limit the playbox though.

I would go so far as to say the vast majority here are left of center.

Your post is screaming for a poll!! hear it?

Dana, set up a Poll Poll Poll

I was paraphrasing. Had I been quoting I'd have employed the quote box. Nice side step though.

/waves/These are not the insults you're looking for/jedi hand/

Maybe it's a Brit thing. The board seems mostly centre right to me.

I couldn't tell if it was "paraphrasing," a "joke suggestion," or simply a "flippant comment." Exactly which kinds of posts absolve you of reponsibility? Does that work just for you, or am I also allowed to be "flippant" in your brave new world?

If you really believe someone is shitting in the corner of the sandbox, do you really want to play in that corner?

I get your point, but focusing on Merc seems kind of pointless to me. Sure he's an ass but really he's not alone and if he's quieted then some of the other asses will still make the politics forum unliveable. In the end I feel reasonable political discussion is done and dusted, not just in the cellar but in society.

Then again, you think anything to the right of Marx is a neocon.

You can be flippant all you want sweetie.

The red and yellow card suggestion was in response to somebody else's suggestion that we have a referee: in football (soccer) referees show red and yellow cards when a player does something against the rules.

Not a hilarious joke I grant you, but a joke nonetheless.

You can tell when i am being serious: I explain myself. As I did here:


and here

Now I'd like to get back the fact that you think Undertoad, Aliantha, Limey, Footfootfoot, BigV and Griff are weakminded fools who need to grow up or leave the cellar.