The Glade 4.0

Agreed. I believe it got to the point that something had to be done, kinda like hitting a reset button or something. At the time, I didn't agree with everything that was done, but time having passed I think that on the whole, it was beneficial.

By "before" I meant before this weekend's lock. That, to me, is relatively unmoderated. Before you had moderators at all, it was completely unmoderated.



Ok, I decided to give this some thought overnight.

All right, first of all, the people who want no moderation so they can avoid being contradicted really just want other people to ignore them so that no one is contradicting them, but by the same token, they won't be ignoring other people, so they'll have a free forum to flame their opponents and expound their ideas without contradiction. Not only that, but the ignore function doesn't ignore quoting, so its essentially worthless.

As for people getting contradicted all the time and/or in great detail..

That's the point of a discussion forum for controversial topics. It's not a problem at all except for people who think that the point of a message board is for everyone to agree all the time lest there be some forum on that board with ideas they find unpalatable or disagreements that wouldn't be acceptable to air at parties.

If you're being contradicted all the time, it means someone disagrees with you on a lot of topics. If you're being contradicted all the time by the entire board, unless its a board specifically dedicated to one position (which this isn't) it means there's serious problems with your positions.

The real problem is that people start making the thread about the other person, or the rest of the board at large. I don't mean stuff like "you're inconsistent" or "you've used this argument 3 times in a row, I've pointed out this flaw 3 times, and you're just repeating yourself" which are really about the argument, but have the pronoun "you" in them. I mean the stuff both direct and veiled about "there's so much hate here" or "Why do you let him get to you?", the direct and indirect accusations of racism/homophobia/sexism against people that don't hold the "correct" opinions because I just know those things when I see them, or the endless other examples.

It's only exacerbated when we get people who come in here with these comments about "why do you always have to be right?" or comments about e-peens, or talking about what a shithole this is. It's essentially just saying "I really don't want to have to defend my ideas in any detail or take any serious time with these issues, but I just can't stand that my opinion isn't being heard, so I'll poke my nose in, make a 3-or-4 line post and then complain that everyone else isn't just agreeing to disagree."

All of these, while not really personal attacks as we've defined it up to this point, are the real source of the problem, and they're the reason Monty is the catalyst for so many problems: He wants these things to be ok when he does them to other people, but he wants them to be not ok when done to him. Sure, it goes on with other people too, but at a far lesser level; it's not this constant message of "give respect, get respect" which really means "When I feel you guys are being respectful enough, I'll stop acting the way I act if I feel like it, which I never will because I feel your positions are inherently disrespectful because they're abhorrant to me."

The other thing with Aizle and LK was a one-off thing that kind of blew up out of nowhere and really indicates nothing whatsoever.

This is why the second forum is superfluous, and really misses the point. We don't need an unmoderated forum unless we're just going to go ahead and call it the "flameboard" and say right up front its for flaming people, not for discussion. We also don't need one where serious discussion is under constant threat of a banhammer just because they pointed out a problem in some overly-sensitive person's argument.

What would really help more than anything is simply telling people to STFU with the reports and PMs over every pissant thing, and mroe importantly, stay out of Hellfire if you don't like it, including the posts that do nothing but complain about the fact that other people do want to discuss these issues. The "people being wrong on the internet" meme has gotten old; yes, some people get carried away with wanting to win internet arguments, but that doesn't mean every serious topic is automatically some screaming shitfest when it hits page 3.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE:

Ok there is a lot here and thank you for the well thought out post. I'm not going to go point by point but hopefully my answer will satisfy you, if there is something specific you want addressed that I unintentionally leave out let me know.

First, real quick since I dont think I've addressed it, yes I believe the most recent incident was a one off thing. No moderation or anything else would have prevented it, and something like it will likely happen again eventually. I am sorry it happened, I know people left because of it. I dont think Aizle was being malicious and I understand he has apologized. Beyond that I'll leave it alone.

Now you mentioned being contradicted by the entire board all the time. I've probably said this before, but the other board I run would be way more sympathetic to Monte's positions than mine politically. Here is an excerpt of one of our uh.. conversations:




Now, that's heavily excerpted and we were screwing around, but we did actually discuss the issue... kinda. Still, no minds get changed for the most part. if that's where you start out where do you go? Not big fans of republicans over there, no fan of Reagan, if you dont support full abortion on demand rights, gays in the military getting married, universal healthcare NOW or you hate poor people, or any other boilerplate red meat liberal position *unquestioningly!!!* then you're in for a fight. Monte's positions would fit right in I'm telling you. Maybe I should just let him in there. (Oh the huge manatee)

Over here, well I'm in a general agreement with much of the board so it's way easier to fit in. That's also why many of you get along while some are on the receiving end of a lot of flak.

So look, there are people out there who will dictate their beliefs, proclaim themselves right by fiat, ignore evidence to the contrary, cite biased sources, call you a bigot if you disagree. I'm one of them goddamn it. But seriously, this is why you dont discuss politics on the first date. It's just the nature of it. People have to deal with it.

Now believe me, I get the concept of wanting to challenge people when they are wrong on these things. I'm like that on the other board because I'm in the minority and I want my view represented. But there needs to be a point where you understand what you're going to get from the argument. How are you going to deal with those people? Moderators should ban them? If it is just Monte, he's still gone for a while as far as I know. If it's just the threat of moderation keeping you hoodlums in line I guess we will find out who the douches are soon enough. Since most of the moderation was what I consider stupid stuff, in theory things should not change much. If they do we'll see what happens.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. Maybe I should ahve been more specific about being contradicted all the time.

You'll notice I did make an exception for boards dedicated to one side of a position or another. While your other board may not be, from hat you're saying it sounds like there is at least a de facto united liberal front there that means there's really just one viewpoint being expressed by a number of posters, or close to it. Here, we actually have a wide divergance of views, but even people who disagree heartily on many issues see problems with Monty, and even those who basically agree with him call him out sometimes.

That's because the problem with Monty isn't really in his inability to debate effectively or logically, or his Wall of Ignorance techniques, refusal to cite sources, or consider facts, or any of that. It's that his use of his views as a mask for what are really personal attacks.

If you disagree with Monty, there's always some reprehensible reason you'r doing so, either because you're a <insert bigot label here> or because you're defending someone or something reprehensible here. It's one endless moral lecture from him. All he does is (usually) do it by implication. If it's not some label like racist or homophobe, it's greed or whatever he thinks people that defend foriegn policies he doesn't like are called.

That's the real problem: it's all personal with Monty, and because it's personal for him he thinks its the same for everyone else.

Yes, other people do this too, and that's why the moderation was actually doing well; the "poisoning the well" problem of making every issue about how your opponent just doesn't think right because there's something personally wrong with them was being addressed. The only thing that really wasn't being addressed was the crapping all over Hellfire where people essentially were just saying "All of you are Wrong on the Internet for caring about debating this stuff; why can't you just be like me and let it go after 1 post?" Even that was really pretty minor.

Yes, Monty would fit in better on your other board because he can't handle being in a place where he's disagreed with. He doesn't understand that disagreeing with him is not evidence of moral failure on the part of others. That belief is why he antagonizes people so much; he expects different rules for him because he's "calling people" on stuff or "telling it like it is" or whatever.

The problem really just required enforcement of the "don't make your opponent the issue" rule, and it was being done.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Best. Gif. Evar.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

That is pretty awesome.

_________________
The Dude abides.

You know why I don't like Monty?

He makes me defend George.

And I hate George.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

None of this is inaccurate.

I will say that I've seen posts from others taking a similar tactic. It's just not as persistant or ubiquitous. (Advocate raising taxes for social programs in front of Rynalmarnieh for example.) But this is a pretty accurate portrayal, just the same.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

*hug*

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

Foamy:

If you read a critique, and you know it doesn't apply to you, why would you become indignant?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

At the risk of seeming an *** for reviving this topic, I was catching up on some reading and wanted to single this out, because it really bothers me. Amdee would be absolutely horrified at being the impetus for either this kind of gross, blunt-object moderation OR a driving factor in people being nasty to each other in the first place.

I kind of grew tired of reading around page 6, and started skimming, but I'll throw my hat in alongside most of DE's comments.

With regard to Mookhow's post on page 6, all I have to say (as a former moderator) is that it really read as "we knew Monte was the problem but were afraid to lock him out of Hellfire."

Finally, to the moderation team (and I'm including DFK! in this despite his recent resignation) -- really, I think you've been doing a laudable job, with one exception; you guys should've started passing out the week-long suspensions a long time ago. The reports fell off because people saw your warnings as toothless, and thus not worth bothering to report things. If you'd passed out suspensions with the warnings after the first 2 or 3 weeks of moderation, we probably would have avoided this current situation. And I think returning to the old rules, ditching Heckfire, and backing up the warnings with short suspensions is really the better way to go than Heckfire.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades