Side discussion about General Topics forum

[Onkel Neal]

So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm just going to come in here.

What sort of proof is required?

I refer to the Subsim rules which state: Subsim allows for a wide range of opinions, politics, and attitudes but we do not accept members who are associated with hate groups. Examples include but are not limited to Neo-Nazi groups, Westboro Baptist Church types, racist supremacists, Klansmen, black militants, Islamic militants, Jewish conspiracists, anti-Semites, posting links to racist music, propaganda denying the Holocaust.


How does one prove such a thing without the person involved going "Oh hai, I'm a member of Stormfront, death to all the Jews."
Is it when they post links to videos with viewpoints that are based in religious or cultural hatred? Is it when they make those viewpoints repeatedly on multiple occasions and dismiss other people as fools for not believing in the same thing that they do?
Where is the line in the sand?

Exactly! I for one am pretty tolerant of different opinions. And I understand a person is like to let off some steam occasionally. Like ikalugin said: I do not mind sensible replies and even reasonable amounts of burning emotion. After all we are all humans and have limited rationality, as well as access to information and ability to process it.

Where is the line, indeed? Two big factors: who defines where it is, and who interprets each statement and measures it to determine if it is line. And that falls to me, the moderators, and the community. In the past, when we got a person who repeatedly made it clear he was an anti-semite or nazi, enough of the community would voice their disapproval and he was left out of future discussions. But not everyone is going to agree. Personally, I can stand a little more than some people. We've had a couple of avowed commies post here. I need to see a pretty blatant example before I feel compelled to yank someone. For me, I prefer to skip their posts and ignore them. And if that leads to topic spamming to get my attention, then that is sufficient grounds for dismissal.

I also cast a sour look at calling people names: Idiot, racist, liar, fool, sheep, etc. If you want to say Miley Cyrus is a tart, or some rapper is an idiot, that's less bothersome. I believe we should give elected officials a modicum of respect for their office, but they can still be criticized (just less severely than thugs, and Miley Cyrus). :P


Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

So, anyway, I moved all the offtopic posts from the ISIS and Ukraine threads here... now, if we can get back on topic.

Any ideas on improving the tone of GT? Should the moderation be stricter? Less freedom of expression? A list of names you cannot call someone?

A reasonable question that deserves reasonable answers. Until then, may I share my opinions?

1. The moderators need to be stricter about keeping members on topic. As evidenced, the mods/admin have the capability of taking posts and moving them to other threads. This needs to be done more often.

If someone makes a thread on topic abc then all the posts need to be related (how that is defined) to topic abc. The hijacking of threads on GT is getting a bit too common for my liking.

2. The mods need to be more willing to move posts to other threads that cover the same topic. Far too often someone makes a new thread that discusses the exact same thread we had last week. Move the new thread to the existing thread so the conversation can continue. It also makes searching a bit easier.

3. Some threads should have a life span. Some of the threads like the funny pictures don't. They can and should go on. It is kinda fun to see how many posts we can get on these fun threads.

On the other hand, there are too many threads where the discussion is circular. There comes a point (difficult to define) where a thread discussion has completed. Nothing new is being discussed, nothing new is being added.

4. I don't know what the mods can/should do about this one, but while I am bitchin'... I wish there was some way to limit the private arguing on the public threads. It is becoming more common for a thread to devolve into an argument between two people, each copying walls of text to insert comments so the other person copies walls of text to add comments.

Unfortunately, there are people who simply must have the last word in a conversation. When there is one of those, it is not too bad. On this forum, we have, unfortunately, several people who will not acknowledge that a person can have a different viewpoint without being wrong and must "win" every argument, no matter how many copied walls of text it takes.

5. It has been brought up before and I think it needs discussion. Should we have sub forums in GT? It seems like there are repeating topics that come up every few weeks. A religious thread that gets people spun up; then a political thread that gets people spun up. An gun thread... you get the idea. Why not have religious, political, ... sub forums. That way all threads are there (or are moved by mods). It is easy to search. People are are interested in that sub topic (pun intended) can find threads they would enjoy reading. Those who don't won't.

There are forums that have strict no politics and no religion rules. They tend to be pretty nice friendly forums to visit. We don't have to allow political or religious threads.

6. Last but not least (then why the hell did I not put it first?) I would like the mods to be more active in enforcing the rules. The mods don't need to brig people. That does not really accomplish much. I would like the mods to either delete or censure offending posts. If I start breaking the rules, either delete my whole post or just the offending lines. That will get the point across far better than posting my offending post and brigging me. The best way to handle trolls is to remove what they seek -- attention.

7. Boobies. This site needs a lot more boobies

[Rockstar]

I vote for more Boobies we could definitely use more Boobies.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

7. Boobies. This site needs a lot more boobies

Damn, now I'm off topic...


<O>

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

@ Oberon


But wouldn't that sexual persecution put the gay marriage topic on the banned list, what happens next time there is a Republican primary or yet another activist liberal court striking down the ban on it?

Yes it would, and rightly so. All those threads tend to do is create a soap-box for homophobic viewpoints.

Actually would "liberal" be on the list of perjorative terms? a lot of people throw that word around as an insult

Aye, just as Bigot, Nazi and the like gets thrown back in real life and on GT, but if you start cutting down on that then it's hard to know where to stop, I think, personally, that swearing is a good cut off point, beyond that it's just a case of breaking up a circular argument when it's run its course. For example your discussion with Rockstar is pretty much running to the end of its life now, and it would serve no real purpose for either of you if it were to continue in public. If there is a real interest to discuss the finer points of the Qu'ran between the two of you then perhaps it would be better taken to Private Messages?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes


Already done, and I told you a while ago in that PM after your last round of nonsense how you would be treated from now on, I gave you a few breaks lately but you have again proven yourself to be what you are.
I fully understand that when you apologised previously for making the same identical baseless accusations you were just spouting empty words with not an iota of honesty in them.
Good day young man.

How's Steve to be treated from now on? What has he proven himself to be this time? I thought Steve was old....

I swear, one would think you're trying to get banned....

[Buddahaid]

I actually think it's been working pretty well although I'm not one of those tasked with monitoring it. One of the things I enjoy most about GT is the discussion over controversial subjects and current events and I'd hate to see that squashed in the name of overt PC. I can't even watch what passes for news these days without feeling I'm being fed a line and played like a fish, and I can care less about who wore what dress and who snubbed who at the gala and who's dated who behind whoever's back which is what the lion share of the news feeds seem to be.

Don't mess with it

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

overt PC

Oh no...no, no, no, no...no...

All I am asking for is some common decency. Subsim is supposed to be a family friendly forum...so since when has racism, sexism and religious persecution been a family friendly affair?
I would hold as little truck with a radical Islamist posting about how the decadent west is doomed to fall under Islam as I would with those who decry that every Muslim is an extremist.

Now, really, we're living in the 21st century, we're supposed to be better than this, is it too much to ask that each and every human being be treated equally? Is it too much to ask that they be allowed to live without the fear of persecution because of their choice or their upbringing, or even just because of an accident of birth?

Sure, I hear many people saying, but ISIL isn't going to give them that opportunity...no, no they're not, and that is something that we must fight against just as strongly as we fight against any other form of persecution, but you cannot condemn ISIL on one hand, and then make the same fundamental flaws in judgement that they do and expect to be treated differently.

Now, obviously I'm not saying that you do Buddahaid, but there are people who do and they seem to be either unable or unwilling to see the irony in it, and so that's why I think in order to give a level playing field to any discussion here we need to remove religious, sexual or racial prejudices from the table. Humour is one thing, we all had a good chuckle at the 'Arab scud launcher' pic with the camel that went around in the post-9/11 era, just as we have a good chuckle at pictures lampooning ISIL and the like, but we must also be prepared to have the humour used back at us, the rise of the 'Murca meme, or the French surrender epics, however incorrect they may be, we are just as guilty of making the same assumptions against others.
That is one thing, but in a serious discussion such as we promote happening in General Topics (depending on the thread) then rational thinking should be encouraged and emotional outbursts, not banned but controlled. Obviously in the aftermath of an atrocity people are going to be emotional, and that is to be expected, but when this emotional train continues into ingrained hatred...then dangerous things happen.

I'm rambling a bit here, as I sometimes do...but basically, I don't want PC, I don't want jokes to be verboten or anything like that...what I want is for people to stop using General Topics as a vehicle for the promotion of the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs, just as I would like to stop radical Imams from using British mosques to promote the persecution of an entire people on the basis of their beliefs...honestly, I see little difference between the two.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

He has proven himself to be what he is again. He is to be treated exactly how one would treat anyone who is an habitual liar, pay no heed to what they say.

But I'm not saying anything. I'm asking a simple question: Can you show it? If you can prove what you claim, do so. If not, then admit you have nothing to offer.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Pardon?

You accused me of certain behavior. No one else has ever made that claim against me. I asked if you could prove it. If you can, please do so. If not, then stop claiming it.

As to the rest, all I've ever asked of you is to:

A) Stop making fun of people you disagree with, and

B) If you make a claim against anyone or their arguments, back it up. It's the claimant's job to prove what they say, with links and arguments. That's the accepted etiquette and everyone else follows it without too much trouble.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You accused me of certain behavior. No one else has ever made that claim against me. I asked if you could prove it. If you can, please do so. If not, then stop claiming it.

As to the rest, all I've ever asked of you is to:

A) Stop making fun of people you disagree with, and

B) If you make a claim against anyone or their arguments, back it up. It's the claimant's job to prove what they say, with links and arguments. That's the accepted etiquette and everyone else follows it without too much trouble.

This is getting silly now, both of you please stop or take it to PMs, this is the perfect example of what I think needs to be stopped on GT. You've both had your say, made your points and now you can carry on in private or not at all.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by Oberon

True, but take for example the Ukrainian thread, this has seen multiple circular based arguments in it, however it's still a relevant thread because the situation is on going and requires discussion. Likewise the 'Beheaded' thread which is the new de facto ISIL thread, that too has dissolved into the usual circular argument, but it's still an ongoing news story that will no doubt spark discussion in the future.

The Ukrainian thread is doing fine as far I have seen, the circular arguments are short and the thread itselfs moves on I see no problem in that.

The Beheaded thread however spirals into the usual
Islam vs Christianity which is worse arguments going back and forth for pages and the thread gets stuck and imo lost it's purpose to serve to continue the discussion.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well, I dunno about going that far, but certainly it would be better if the moderators stepped in when a circular argument had gone on for long enough and ask the two parties involved to take it to PM, and if they ignored him or her then infact them and if they ignored that then brig them.

Well then what about the following?

-Lock the thread for 48 hours to serve as a time out and give the moderators plenty of time to see who and what had the thread stray of it's path.
-Hand out ''warnings'' to the members having taken part in the circular arguments to no end.
-Re-open and the first one(s) to stray again to the same path gets an own time out in the brig for 24 hours.

[HunterICX]

Both of you, which part of the request made by me and Oberon didn't you understand?

Take it private, as Oberon already mentioned this is exactly the problem there is in the GT.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Maybe Neal can implement an IP ban to thread system

No, no, we don't want to go down that road

Originally Posted by Oberon

Well, I dunno about going that far, but certainly it would be better if the moderators stepped in when a circular argument had gone on for long enough and ask the two parties involved to take it to PM, and if they ignored him or her then infact them and if they ignored that then brig them.

How about: if you come to a thread that has devolved into a circular argument, just don't visit it any more? Man, isn't that simple?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Already done dear.
You really should avoid those absolutes

And as always when you can't prove it you fall into insulting language and mockery. But you still can't show it.

Already done, and I told you a while ago in that PM after your last round of nonsense how you would be treated from now on, I gave you a few breaks lately but you have again proven yourself to be what you are.
I fully understand that when you apologised previously for making the same identical baseless accusations you were just spouting empty words with not an iota of honesty in them.
Good day young man.

More mockery and more talk. Still nothing to show. Talk is cheap. Let's see a single proof of anything you say. Don't just claim it, show it.