Discussion about Discussion Thread - Page 5 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

So, you're agreeing with Noodle Wazlib when he says "It takes two to argue", and disagreeing with mongidig when he says "Blame the instigator not the responder"... correct ?

06-25-2017 , 10:15 PM

#103

5ive

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 6,766

this donkfish doesn't know about shania hands

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongidig

Maybe.

It's like if a poster in a poker forum sais he opened UTG with 72o and now he want advice as to how to play the rest of the hand. From the responders standpoint the action afterwards doesn't matter because nobody good opens 72o UTG.

If these people weren't instigating then there would be no reason for Will to respond. You need to lay the blame were it is deserved. Blame the instigater not the responder. Blame the criminal, not the cop. Etc etc.

06-25-2017 , 10:20 PM

#104

5ive

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 6,766

monistat,

wil has me on ignore, and he's not a peeker. I frequently point this out for various hilarious reasons. We even got into a mini-discussion about it. If he didn't have me on ignore my posting would be radically different concerning him, obviously.

Everything you post is so perfectly stupid.

06-25-2017 , 10:54 PM

#105

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

shame trolley is a smearing pseudo-behaviorist.

06-26-2017 , 01:03 AM

#106

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!

So, you're agreeing with Noodle Wazlib when he says "It takes two to argue", and disagreeing with mongidig when he says "Blame the instigator not the responder"... correct ?

Neither covers it all.

The more iterations the to and fro has gone through, the more it becomes destructive to argue about who started it.

06-26-2017 , 02:24 AM

#107

Shame Trolly !!!1!

Neo-Gorean

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 4,843

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

... The more iterations the to and fro has gone through, the more it becomes destructive to argue about who started it.

Eh, it's always 'destructive'* to argue about who started it (* assuming 'destructive' is the ill-defined opposite of the ill-defined 'productive'). That's not the case we're discussing. The case we're discussing is where we know the starting sequence quite well (if fact, in Alta we could quote it). Like this:

Jane: The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.
Dan: Jane, you ignorant slut, it rains more in the hills.
Jane: [triggered] Slut !!!1! Look who's yelling and screaming about sluts !!!1! Pix not pokes !!!1! Slap a kid !!!1! 'Statist' !!!1! Circus Music !!!1! Taxes are theft !!!1! [etc/etc].

Are Dan & Jane both to blame, because it takes two to argue? Or, should we wholly blame Dan the instigator, and never blame Jane for being a Special Snowflake who is so easily Triggered ?

Last edited by Shame Trolly !!!1!; 06-26-2017 at 02:33 AM.

06-26-2017 , 05:48 AM

#108

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,236

Bizarre example but if that's the totality of it and then Dan is responsible for 'starting it'. Jane is still responsible for retaliating.

If it's continues in that vein for a prolonged time then who started it because irrelevant.

06-26-2017 , 09:22 AM

#109

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

If you grew up in a household where you were forced to watch old musicals it's one of the best examples of all time.

06-26-2017 , 09:24 AM

#110

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,236

damn damn damn damn!

06-26-2017 , 10:38 AM

#111

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

That's what I said when my parents told me they'd got tickets to Joseph.

06-26-2017 , 10:53 AM

#112

Shame Trolly !!!1!

Neo-Gorean

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 4,843

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Bizarre example but if that's the totality of it and then Dan is responsible for 'starting it'. Jane is still responsible for retaliating...

It's not bizarre at all. In fact, substitute "r-word-er" for "ignorant slut", and you have by far the most common derail scenario here in Los Dos Politards since forever. I really find it simply amazing that you would characterize the exact scenario the happens all-day-every-day here in Los Dos Politards "bizarre". It's certainly not bizarre in the sense of being at all rare.

Quote:

... If it's continues in that vein for a prolonged time then who started it because irrelevant.

IDK why you keep bringing up this completely unrelated scenario. Once again, that's not at all what we are discussing. Not even close. What we are discussing is this...

Over in Alta AFAIK forever, and for the time being now in Baja, the rules are predicated on the theory that it is 100% the instigators fault. The instigator is subject to possible sanctions for name-calling. The Special Snowflake who is easily Triggered and then Spews Gibberish is never subject to any sanctions at all.

We have decades worth of evidence that this theory simply doesn't work in practice. My contention is that the underlying theory itself is wrong... as it gives the Special Snowflake a free-role to derail any thread he wants by acted-out as Triggered fool. Like we see all the damn time.
Previously here in Baja Politards, the working lack-of-a-theory was that it simply didn't matter. The instigators were free to instigate. The Special Snowflakes were free to be easily Triggered, and then Spew their Gibberish.

We have a few years worth of experience showing that, in practice, the above lack-of-a-theory is equally as flawed as the 100%-blame-the-instigator theory.
One option that might actually work out is based on the "It takes two to argue" theory. That would be that both the instigator, and the derailer, are subject to sanction. This would still give the Special Snowflakes a way to act-out when they get Triggered... they'd just have to have enough self control to remember to smash the post report button -vs- reflexively Spewing Gibberish into the forum instead.
However, the best option, and option I had in mind in the recent vote, is based on the theory that it's 100% the Special Snowflakes fault. Under this option, name-calling is A-OK. Only the derailing itself is sanctionable.

The pro comeback is, of course: Jane: Dan, you pompous ass, weather.com says you're FOS. That tits-for-tats the name-calling, but most importantly keeps the conversation on topic. If Jane takes the bait, so to speak, and instead starts acting like a Triggered Special Snowflake Jane, only Jane, is possibly subject to sanction.

I say let the Special Snowflakes that are easily Triggered stay on over their Safe Space in Alta Politards... good riddance !!!1!

06-26-2017 , 10:57 AM

#113

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,236

With r-word it's a continuation of a long on-going to and fro. It doesn't compare to your example which suggested the 'fight' was just starting.

06-26-2017 , 11:51 AM

#114

Shame Trolly !!!1!

Neo-Gorean

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 4,843

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

With r-word it's a continuation of a long on-going to and fro...

I've asked this Q of you several times, without ever getting a direct answer. Do you feel the r-word is especially special? Do you feel it is problematic to such a significant degree, that as a practical matter, rules wise it needs to be handled as a special case?

FWIW, I think the the answers are an emphatic "yes". So far, however, I've gotten zero traction trying to make this point.

Quote:

... It doesn't compare to your example which suggested the 'fight' was just starting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongidig

... If these people weren't instigating then there would be no reason for Will to respond. You need to lay the blame were it is deserved. Blame the instigater not the responder. Blame the criminal, not the cop. Etc etc.

It wasn't my example, and the example wasn't about the r-word. It was mongidig's example regarding a hypothetical "Will". Remember, please, this thread is a meta-discussion about discussions. Please don't inadvertently derail this discussion by speculating on who this hypothetical "Will" might remind you of, or any imagined backstory you may fancy regarding our hypothetical "Will".

If you wanna sever the examples that use the r-word from mongidig's hypothetical 'taunting', that's fine with me. However, you would need to explicitly make that call as discussed above.

So, back on topic...

Do you feel, as long enshrined in the rules of Alta, that only the Taunter should possibly be subject to sanctions... and that the Triggered Special Snowflake should always be held 100% blameless.
I assume you don't feel, as was previously the policy of Baja, that neither party should ever be subject to any sanctions... since you yourself changed that policy. Am I correct?
What are you thoughts on rules that would possibly subject both parties to possible sanctions?
What are your thoughts on rules that would only possibly subject the Triggered Special Snowflake to sanctions?

06-26-2017 , 12:25 PM

#115

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

This is like asking the inmates to run the asylum.

06-26-2017 , 12:33 PM

#116

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

06-26-2017 , 01:00 PM

#117

pokerodox

The Situation

Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 4,889

So good. May be time to re-watch that.

06-27-2017 , 03:49 PM

#118

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shame Trolly !!!1!

Yes. But only because of the long running confusion regarding it's meaning and the potential to make political use of that confusion.

Quote:

I wasn't imagining any such thing. I'm drawing a distinction between long running political (or other) arguments which cannot be divorced from a post that may seems like the beginning of an argument.

Quote:

So, back on topic...

For the following I'm not implying acceptance of the 'taunter' or 'triggered special snowflake' descriptions but ignoring that ...

Quote:
Do you feel, as long enshrined in the rules of Alta, that only the Taunter should possibly be subject to sanctions... and that the Triggered Special Snowflake should always be held 100% blameless.

No. Everyone is responsible for whatever they post. Sanctioning both does not apply equivalence btw

Quote:

I assume you don't feel, as was previously the policy of Baja, that neither party should ever be subject to any sanctions... since you yourself changed that policy. Am I correct?

You are correct.

Quote:

What are you thoughts on rules that would possibly subject both parties to possible sanctions?

I cant imagine any good rules that wouldn't potentially sanctions both posters.

Quote:

What are your thoughts on rules that would only possibly subject the Triggered Special Snowflake to sanctions?

They would be bad.