08 Oct, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 121st comment:
Votes: 0
I think that, were you to investigate, you might find that I have considerably changed the nature of my participation in these threads since this whole affair started. I have no idea how long you've been lurking or how much you have paid attention, but, well, I have in fact been trying to discourage these discussions (with the occasional failure of saying a thing here or there – but quite differently from the past). Obviously, this doesn't work if other people are merrily engaging in conversation, including the admins and moderators themselves. As long as admins and moderators want to and do engage in these conversations, well, they will keep on going.

You see, the reason why I think the two "no" options are actually quite different is that if you were to remove the "discourage" option, I would change my vote to the "get rid of them as a formal rule" option. In fact, all of this discussion is making me think that the distinction between "forbid" and "discourage" is far too subtle, apparently lost on several people in this thread, and people don't seem willing to play the discouraging game anyhow. So, well, I feel that I'm being pushed toward saying that the conversations should be officially considered unwelcome. If people don't understand discouragement, then do the only thing people understand.

It's quite simple, though. As long as admins and moderators engage in these conversations, many others will. Especially when people are calling other people stupid, dishonest, or any other choice adjective you like. :wink:
08 Oct, 2009, Koron wrote in the 122nd comment:
Votes: 0
It's funny. Nobody involved in these recent flamewars (although I am loath to call them that) has stormed off and left the community, unless they've done the first part via PM to the mods.
Also, I have to agree with the premise that a true "not care" vote would be … not clicking the vote button.
Finally, it seems sad when a community is not free to chatter generally (to quote a forum category) due to threat of "punishment" by the mods. Open flaming is one thing (naughty naughty trolls), but as long as the discourse is civil, what's the problem? "But Koron, I don't like to read that sort of thing!" So don't. When a thread's title openly involves a topic you "know" will lead to flaming, don't click it.
</dead horse>
08 Oct, 2009, Zenn wrote in the 123rd comment:
Votes: 0
No, seriously. If we're going to argue about the exact wording of the stupid poll ..
08 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 124th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
It's quite simple, though. As long as admins and moderators engage in these conversations, many others will. Especially when people are calling other people stupid, dishonest, or any other choice adjective you like. :wink:


Huh.

Well, while some people think that ditching "hot" topics of conversation solves the
problem of uncivil discourse, I think that it's better to treat the disease and not
the symptom, and simply have some other people conduct themselves more civilly.

I mean, that's the elephant in the room and it's getting a bit ridiculous. If there
really is a problem to solve, let's solve the problem, not pretend it's not still
sitting in the room after we change drapes.


Koron said:
"But Koron, I don't like to read that sort of thing!" So don't. When a thread's title openly involves a topic you "know" will lead to flaming, don't click it.
</dead horse>


QFT. I'm ok with removing the general chatter board, making such stuff, and
other non-mud stuff strictly offtopic. But this business of picking and choosing
topics based on what is known to make one guy flip his wig doesn't actually
solve anything, it just infantilizes everyone because one dude can't manage himself
and people can't help but morbidly follow a thread they don't like.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Oct, 2009, Koron wrote in the 125th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, I don't know where the hell the suggestion that flamewars only come from politics/religion debates came from, but it's pretty absurd.

No coder would ever argue over the best way to do something, or the best program to use, or the best language, or the blah blah blah.

"It's a mud forum, so we should discuss only muds!" Sounds good, except we're all humans and when we see something we dislike, we argue about it. If you really want to avoid it, code a snippet so our muds can talk about themselves and ban all human interaction.
08 Oct, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 126th comment:
Votes: 0
That xkcd comic should be stickied. :smirk:



Maybe we could just change the name of the general forum:

Someone is wrong…
A forum for those compelled to set others straight.
08 Oct, 2009, Koron wrote in the 127th comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, I think that's a wonderful suggestion, Sandi. Seriously.
08 Oct, 2009, Grumny wrote in the 128th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Quote
QFT. I'm ok with removing the general chatter board, making such stuff, and
other non-mud stuff strictly offtopic. But this business of picking and choosing
topics based on what is known to make one guy flip his wig doesn't actually
solve anything, it just infantilizes everyone because one dude can't manage himself
and people can't help but morbidly follow a thread they don't like.


There are two things in this I want to comment on. First the first part about removing the general chatter board. I like this idea. I was one who voted to not allow these threads. Not because I don't find them interesting, to the contrary, I like them. What I don't like is the decided lack of maturity, reasonableness and consideration that seems to occur in these threads more often than any other.

Cratylus wants to solve the root problem. I would love to solve it, but when the problem is, immaturity, unreasonableness and inconsiderateness, the problem cannot be solved on a forum. It will only be solved when people grow up.

Now, to the second part, about picking and choosing threads based on how "one guy" will react. I know, and I'm sure all of you know as well, who this "one guy" is "supposed" to be when Cratylus says it. But, and this is a very big but, you can replace that "one guy" with 3 or 4 names around here and get an equally strong response of disgust from a very significant number of people who frequent these threads.

I am frequently disgusted with the anti-Samson vigilante group here. I expect better behavior from the 13 year olds I teach, and you know what? I get it. You can disagree with Samson, that's fine. Call him on factual inaccuracies, that's cool, but, and to use a quote from one of those involved, this group "fisting" is totally inappropriate and really needs to stop if you truly expect serious people to take you seriously.
08 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 129th comment:
Votes: 0
Grumny said:
I am frequently disgusted with the anti-Samson vigilante group here. I expect better behavior from the 13 year olds I teach, and you know what? I get it. You can disagree with Samson, that's fine. Call him on factual inaccuracies, that's cool, but, and to use a quote from one of those involved, this group "fisting" is totally inappropriate and really needs to stop if you truly expect serious people to take you seriously.


The opinions I expressed are based on my perception of where the gross
uncivil behavior comes from. You may not like it, you may want to characterize
it as abuse, but I am simply speaking truth to power and sticking my neck out
to say what I think is true.

I'm ok with you thinking I'm immature (though I'm curious about which specific
posts you have in mind). It's not that high a penalty to pay considering I've been
banned, toaded (aka "trolled"), and suspended from here for just telling it
like I think it is. I'll live with your disdain.

I think this poll is flawed, and what is being voted on itself is ridiculous because
it doesn't get at the problem: incivility that the mods were supposed to be
addressing in the first place. If they are helpless to do so, is it hard to understand why?
Do you think they're afraid of me?

Cmon, man.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Oct, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 130th comment:
Votes: 0
So when did this become a debate thread? I thought this was just one of those threads where you cast your vote, then explain why you voted the way you did. There is no need for all this debate. The thread only asks for your opinion, not for you to debate or defend your opinion.
08 Oct, 2009, Orrin wrote in the 131st comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
I think this poll is flawed, and what is being voted on itself is ridiculous because
it doesn't get at the problem: incivility that the mods were supposed to be
addressing in the first place. If they are helpless to do so, is it hard to understand why?
Do you think they're afraid of me?

Speaking only for myself of course, I am not afraid of you or anyone else and try to treat everyone the same when moderating discussions. I think I have a fairly laid back approach to moderation and am certainly in no hurry to lock threads or stifle discussion. My view has always been that if consenting adults choose to participate in controversial threads then a little bit of heat is to be expected. I agree that there is a more fundamental problem here and that banning these topics is unlikely to solve it, but I also don't see any other proposed solutions. I suppose as moderators we could take a much harder line and start enforcing civility and if that's what users are calling for then I'll go along with it, but I've always had the impression that those involved in these heated exchanges enjoy them as they are, otherwise why participate?
08 Oct, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 132nd comment:
Votes: 0
Encourage civility certainly, but not enforce it. That is to say, if someone is uncivil for a moment, the mods should call them on it and tell them to re-evaluate their behavior. If a person then insists on continuing the action they should be punished. But I don't think the first act should be punishment, and even sometimes the 2nd act. We're all ABLE to control ourselves if given the opportunity and if we are called out on it. Some of us choose not to, and those are the ones that should be punished. Sometimes we all lose our civility in certain topics, but those topics do have a purpose and nothing would get done if people were punished with extreme prejudice for occasional flare-ups.

Damn it… you got me debating on this thread right after I made a post complaining about that very thing.
08 Oct, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 133rd comment:
Votes: 0
I wonder how fast the forum will die if mudbytes is turned into another mudlab. There's only so much newbie help and well-meant useless advice one can handle.
08 Oct, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 134th comment:
Votes: 0
Grumny said:
You can disagree with Samson, that's fine. Call him on factual inaccuracies, that's cool, but, and to use a quote from one of those involved, this group "fisting" is totally inappropriate and really needs to stop if you truly expect serious people to take you seriously.

How interesting. It's ok to disagree with somebody, but when a bunch of people disagree with one somebody, it suddenly becomes "group 'fisting'", more immature than thirteen-year-olds.

This is like some perverted version of the fallacy by popular appeal: the more people think something is to be disagreed with, the less valid the disagreement becomes!

What exactly is it that you object to? Does it bother you that several people (including all three moderators, who are presumably not your "usual suspects") have disagreed with Samson in the "God" thread? Is there something else? I'm genuinely curious, because you seem to have a major issue with something here, major enough to warrant calling the posters in that thread immature, unreasonable and inconsiderate – worse than your thirteen-year-old students. I dunno, maybe you have some specifics in mind? Since we're trying to be productive here, it would certainly help to explain yourself instead of using some rather insulting adjectives to describe people.
08 Oct, 2009, Koron wrote in the 135th comment:
Votes: 0
I find it particularly important to mention that while these politicky and religiousity discussions have been underway, the "I need help!" threads haven't disappeared and are still being answered.
08 Oct, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 136th comment:
Votes: 0
Koron said:
I find it particularly important to mention that while these politicky and religiousity discussions have been underway, the "I need help!" threads haven't disappeared and are still being answered.

Good point.
08 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 137th comment:
Votes: 0
I look forward to long threads debating whether politics is under
discussion, and if so who "started it".

Oh and while we're at it, people using sigs and links and
images to get around the topic ban.

Oh and "wait, he just gets a warning for that, and I get
suspended if I respond? wtF?"

I'm not at all sure this is a drama reduction measure.

I think y'all mods should really think this through. Since the
core problem is not actually being dealt with, the unpleasant
results will likely ocntinue in one way or another, even if the
stuff I came up with offhand is mitigated.

I think maybe people don't want to read such threads but
can't help it if it's on the front page or something. Make an
opt-in board that people have to explicitly join to see offtopic stuff.

It's not rocket science, it would *actually* reduce drama,
and wouldn't treat members like children.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
08 Oct, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 138th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
*lots of threats of people misbehaving*

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Not so good.
08 Oct, 2009, Tonitrus wrote in the 139th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm changing my vote from "I don't care" to "I hate you all."

People will argue over anything. I, for example, will argue with you for arguing over things I don't care about, and if that isn't stupid, I don't know what is. And the world is full of people even dumber than I am. You may as well argue over whether or not cutting down sequoias will prevent forest fires.
08 Oct, 2009, Kayle wrote in the 140th comment:
Votes: 0
All this debate…

I hate seeing these threads come up. I don't generally read them until well into their flame war state, and on rare occasions I've actually read them for the first time after they've already passed the flame war state and returned to a semi-civil discussion. And most times I only read them so that I can follow discussions on IMC that pertain to the threads.

The problem with these threads is that in some weird freakish equivalent to Godwin's Law. They always turn into some kind of flame war. The God thread had been fine and stayed relatively flame free until recently. But like all others before it, it descended into flamery. (Lol. New word.) I don't read them. But eventually everyone's curiosity will get the better of them. When a thread reaches 30 some odd pages, Human curiosity kicks in, and you can't help but wonder what all the discussion is about.

Disallowing them entirely will not fix the core issue here. But it will at least stifle it a little bit for a while, and allow us to (hopefully) work on that core issue. The more elaborate, and arguably more appropriate solution, would be to split the General Chatter thread into General MUD-Related Chatter, and General Off-Topic Chatter, and hide the off topic chatter from the RSS Feed, and Recent Posts box. This solves the issue of people that don't want to see them not needing to. And then those that are interested in them can navigate to them and carry on their pitchfork waving revelries all they like, meanwhile, MUDBytes retains the illusion of being MUD Specific without having 30 and 40 page shit-slinging contests over who's political stance is better, or who's religion is better.
120.0/182