Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[tuco]

Youtube comments? lol I will be honest that despite your command of English language its like talking to a kid. Actually no, I have not. I do not spend time reading Youtube comments, I seek for adult, intelligent and educated debate and Youtube is not the place to look for it.

It is for fact I did not draw any lines. For fact. How can you call facts rubbish is beyond me.

I am from this planet, how come my opinion is not in line with majority is not subject to debate. The debate is whether or not to allow personal attacks.

Those are not common English idiots, those are world wide idiots I would guess. In my language people use it too. They talk about themselves and they use "you ..." like you did. There is surely linguistic and psychological reason, but I do not care. To me its stupid. Not long ago you were lecturing Galaxian on using 3rd person when talking about himself. Get your shit together if you can.

[pErvinalia]

Youtube comments? lol I will be honest that despite your command of English language its like talking to a kid.

Actually no, I have not. I do not spend time reading Youtube comments, I seek for adult, intelligent and educated debate and Youtube is not the place to look for it.

So, tell me about the adult educated debate that occurred at ratskep. Despite having strict rules about posting behaviour, it is a clusterfuck of confrontationalism. There is very little "educated debate" at that forum. The only place I've really seen it is in the Evolution sub-forum. So where is this adult educated debate on the internet? And where is it where it meets your idea of lesser moderation is better? Put up or shut up.

How can you call facts rubbish is beyond me.

It's only a fact if you live under a rock. For those that don't the evidence is all over the internet. The less rules there are, the more vitriol you get. You can't seriously argue the opposite - that is, more rules means more aggressive behaviour and personal attacks. This is such a nonsensical notion. What is your reasoning for holding this position??

I am from this planet, how come my opinion is not in line with majority is not subject to debate. The debate is whether or not to allow personal attacks.

But your opinion is nonsensical. How can allowing personal attacks lead to less personal attacks and more respectful debate??

Those are not common English idiots, those are world wide idiots I would guess. In my language people use it too. They talk about themselves and they use "you ..." like you did. There is surely linguistic and psychological reason, but I do not care. To me its stupid. Not long ago you were lecturing Galaxian on using 3rd person when talking about himself. Get your shit together if you can.

WFT are you talking about?!? "Idiots"?? Are you seriously lecturing me about English... in your busted English?? "You" refers to "we", not "me".

[Svartalf]

As an aside, Seth seems to have confused the operation of an internet forum based on voluntary membership with the somewhat more serious business of governmental systems.

I suppose that eventually the difference will become clear to him...

I strongly doubt it, the way in which he managed to get suspended again withing minutes of getting back shows pretty clearly he's angry and not ready to reflect on his own failings

[tuco]

Youtube comments? lol I will be honest that despite your command of English language its like talking to a kid.

Actually no, I have not. I do not spend time reading Youtube comments, I seek for adult, intelligent and educated debate and Youtube is not the place to look for it.

So, tell me about the adult educated debate that occurred at ratskep. Despite having strict rules about posting behaviour, it is a clusterfuck of confrontationalism. There is very little "educated debate" at that forum. The only place I've really seen it is in the Evolution sub-forum. So where is this adult educated debate on the internet? And where is it where it meets your idea of lesser moderation is better? Put up or shut up.

How can you call facts rubbish is beyond me.

It's only a fact if you live under a rock. For those that don't the evidence is all over the internet. The less rules there are, the more vitriol you get. You can't seriously argue the opposite - that is, more rules means more aggressive behaviour and personal attacks. This is such a nonsensical notion. What is your reasoning for holding this position??

I am from this planet, how come my opinion is not in line with majority is not subject to debate. The debate is whether or not to allow personal attacks.

But your opinion is nonsensical. How can allowing personal attacks lead to less personal attacks and more respectful debate??

Those are not common English idiots, those are world wide idiots I would guess. In my language people use it too. They talk about themselves and they use "you ..." like you did. There is surely linguistic and psychological reason, but I do not care. To me its stupid. Not long ago you were lecturing Galaxian on using 3rd person when talking about himself. Get your shit together if you can.

WFT are you talking about?!? "Idiots"?? Are you seriously lecturing me about English... in your busted English?? "You" refers to "we", not "me".

I see the word "idiot" makes you excited. Its similar to idiom isnt it?

my bold: We can agree on something. Despite those rules the debates are of low quality. There are exceptions but all-in-all I would agree. My thesis is that idiots cannot produce adult, intelligent and educated debate so instead they pretend to have one and formulate rules accordingly "You cannot call us idiots (lol) because we are pretending to have adult, intelligent and educated debate here".

[pErvinalia]

Ahh, so it's the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. If the people at ratskep and rd.net before that and all the other rationalist forums around the net aren't intelligent adults, then where the fuck are they?

How about you fucking answer some questions put to you? This forum isn't for you to engage in your busted up monologues. It's supposed to be about discussion.

[rachelbean]

Jim is right, we had a discussion about personal attacks done under the guise of a group attack in such a way that was only to skirt around rules, and that we'd try and enforce it going forward. If you label someone as part of a specific group and then go on to attack people that you have decided belong to that group, it's silly to pretend it's not a personal attack or that you don't know what you are doing. More to the point, the overarching 'Play nice' has all but been completely lost for a while. Just don't be dicks. If you are a dick, and someone reminds you not to be one, just take a breath and step back instead of doubling down.

Fine: Republicans are hypocrites because bla bla bla.

Not fine: You Republitards are worthless peices of shit. You bla bla bla.

I don't think it's really that hard to follow

[Rum]

Good to see. I had noticed since returning here a few weeks ago that the default discussion mode appeared to have evolved into '..and fuck you'.

[tuco]

If everyone said " .. and fuck you" it would become common thus .. no problem. I wonder what Mr Hitchens would think about this being offended by ".. and fuck you". Its not like clever or dishonest* posters will not get around this by telling the argument to fuck off, which is for all practical purposes the same.

*edit

[pErvinalia]

Haven't you lot flogged that dead horse over at ratskep enough that you don't need to bring it over here? Here is different anyway as the "play nice" rule picks up that sort of dissembling.

[tuco]

Me? I did not start the thread. I never do. I was not even second poster here. I join in and say my piece which can be dismissed only by reactions like yours.

[Forty Two]

I've wondered since I was invited here how long it would be before the liberal fascists took over this forum and started their leftist political pogrom against any speech or expression to the right of Josef Stalin.

Now I know.

Your suspensions have not been because of your political views, but because of your personal attacks on others. This includes generalised attacks such as referring to members of the forum as "liberal fascists". This is a warning that any similar post will incur a lengthy suspension.

Wait, you can't refer to people as liberal fascists?

Will this rule be equally applied where generalized insults in the other political direction are leveled?

I ask this only because you should be careful what road you go down here. Try to enforce the rules evenhandedly, without distinction based on political opinion.

[Forty Two]

Jim is right, we had a discussion about personal attacks done under the guise of a group attack in such a way that was only to skirt around rules, and that we'd try and enforce it going forward. If you label someone as part of a specific group and then go on to attack people that you have decided belong to that group, it's silly to pretend it's not a personal attack or that you don't know what you are doing. More to the point, the overarching 'Play nice' has all but been completely lost for a while. Just don't be dicks. If you are a dick, and someone reminds you not to be one, just take a breath and step back instead of doubling down.

Fine: Republicans are hypocrites because bla bla bla.

Not fine: You Republitards are worthless peices of shit. You bla bla bla.

I don't think it's really that hard to follow

Such a rule is certainly enforceable and rational. The difficulty is in the enforcement, though. Experience tells me that quite often the seriousness of an offense such as the "not fine" example you give will have a lot to do with the acceptability (to the moderators) of the target group. However, if the moderators are careful to be evenhanded, and to enforce the rules for and against every individual on a reasonably equal basis, then it can work.

Another problem arises when moderators use rationalizations to justify allowing more leeway to one set of implied personal attacks, while tightening up another set of implied personal attacks. This will be often under the guys of knowing that so-and-so doesn't mean anything by it, or had a different "intent" behind their comment, or under the guise that one perpetrator has a "history" of trying to get under other people's skin, and therefore saying "X" (in that person's case) is not allowed, even where it is generally allowed for other, generally non-offensive, characters.

History, of course, has a relevance when someone is a "repeat offender," but that history needs to be demonstrable and clear. I.e. - you said X, and you were warned, and now that you broke a rule again, you are getting a suspension, not just a warning. That kind of "history" is fine. But, sometimes "history" is advanced in the Ratskep sense, which is that someone becomes a "known" unsavory character -- we know he or she is sexist or racist or whatever, and therefore they are appropriate targets and warrant tougher moderation. That kind of "usual suspects" mentality is common on forums, and is pernicious.

The trouble is going to come, though, when there is, say, a Trump supporter here, and someone else goes on a rant about how Trump supporters are idiots and morons and racists and homophobes and mysoginists. If nothing is done to enforce the rule to "protect" the Trump supporters, then the rule will become controversial in the sense of unequal application.

That being said -- a rule is a rule. And, if that's the way the moderation is going to go, then we should all try to abide by it.

Maybe, keep a running list of the PA's that have rendered warnings and suspensions, and then as that list grows, it can be used to compare to other violations. That will provide defensible moderation positions where someone can say "here - see, this comment warranted a warning, so shouldn't this other very similar comment warrant one too..?"

[tuco]

Just few days ago an old man got to court for trying to abide rules.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35547032

Moderation is inevitably inconsistent. Cannot be any different as moderators are humans. I have never seen these complaints to be fruitful. Everyone says their thing, someone gets punished or something, and the show goes on. And then it happens again. Sure, humans. We all have biases, prejudices, own mind etc Change the fucking rules, let people live and moderate only what is in fact interfering with debate like excessive spam or advertising.

edit: like its not enough that those abnormal, and those get punished .., are abnormal. Its enough fucking punishment for them.

[Forty Two]

I'll just invoke Godwin's Law at this point.

[tuco]

Yes that is favourite discipline of some. Point out what they believe to be fallacies of some kind.

If you make argument: rule is rule .. we should all try to abide by it .. the proper response is Auschwitz because its bullshit argument. It does not hold at all. If everyone abide by rules at all times like you suggest we still climb trees.

The problem is, and I repeat myself for X-time, that the only proper response which would be: this rule is necessary because .. cannot be made without resorting to anecdotes as its not possible to run two models at the same time and compare. Solution would be to suspend the rule, for period of time long enough, then analyse results. But that would be adult and intelligent. Then educated decision could be made.

This is made up bullshit:

Such a rule is certainly enforceable and rational.

How its rational? Show your working out.