Give the people what they want (pole) - Page 11 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Archived Forums Archived Other Topics Politics version 7.0

Give the people what they want (pole)

View Poll Results: Should we make Politics Unchained Great Again?

Yes, personal attacks should once again be allowed

26 66.67%

No, the six new moderators here are right, no personal attacks

7 17.95%

Close the forum

6 15.38%

...

Page 11 of 13

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Page 11 of 13

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

06-26-2017 , 05:59 PM

#251

pokerodox

The Situation

Join Date: Nov 2012 Posts: 4,889

It's a contest to see who can be the most insulting without getting sanctioned. I'll give 1/1 on five, 3/2 on Juan... Other suggestions?

06-26-2017 , 06:05 PM

#252

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

I've got $20 on myself

06-26-2017 , 06:06 PM

#253

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

So personal attacks are allowed? But calling someone a moron isn't allowed? lol?

06-26-2017 , 06:10 PM

#254

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

Are you referring to this example?

Quote:

- you are a moron and I wish you were dead

Because I think it's the second part that's a problem, not the first.

Although my feeling was that I was not modding "you are the stupidest person on the face of the earth" too heavily either? I think, uh, there's still some details to hash out :P

06-26-2017 , 06:11 PM

#255

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

Substitute cretin for moron and you should be sweet.

06-26-2017 , 06:12 PM

#256

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

Only am imbecile would think you can just substitute cretin for moron and get away with it.

06-26-2017 , 06:14 PM

#257

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

Only am imbecile would think you can just substitute cretin for moron and get away with it.

I was referring to the previous post not yours, you cretin.

06-26-2017 , 06:14 PM

#258

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by whosnext

Here is a PM I sent Chezlaw and Well Named during our discussions. It crystallizes my own view and will reflect forum moderation going forward. (Of course, no two mods will always make the exact same judgment on each and every post in this or any forum. But the three mods of Pv7.0 have reached general agreement on this topic.)

As many posters have pointed out, political views are deeply personal. So there is a fine line between a political attack and a personal attack. So ruling out personal attacks is problematic at best. (I apologize if I wasn't clear on that point earlier.)

This is where the moderation judgment comes in. I don't know if this will help, but this is where I would draw the line. When I talk about prohibiting posts that are exclusively "personal attacks", I am talking about the following posts:
- you are a moron and I wish you were dead
- you are the stupidest person on the face of the earth
- etc.

The following posts would be acceptable (if they are "on topic" in the thread):
- all liberals are stupid
- all Trump supporters are racists
- the country would be much better off if people like you didn't exist
- only a racist believes that
- the leftists in this forum are a joke
- the conservatives in this forum are the stupidest people in the world
- etc.

I am not sure I would stand behind each and every item in those respective lists, but I am attempting to demonstrate that I have a pretty high threshold for classifying a post as a "personal attack".

The prototypical post that I would sanction: (i) contains no substantive elements; (ii) uses tone or words that rise to an "attack"; (iii) attacks the person as a human being, not the political views that that person may hold.

If a questionable post does not "qualify" on all three of those elements, judgment would be needed to deem whether or not the post is acceptable. As a general framework, I would typically allow (in rare cases with a warning) a post that does not check all three boxes.

I fully realize that trying to define what we mean by a "personal attack" may be a rabbit hole that we don't necessarily want to go down. But I wanted to give you guys some idea how I interpret that phrase in our forum's context.

Relatedly, you guys know the type of thing that drives (drove) many regulars crazy. Person X posts some extreme/offensive political viewpoint. Person Y calls Person X an idiot. Mods delete Person Y's post and gives Person Y an infraction for violating the "personal attack" rule. Person Y and many forum regulars are now pissed at the moderation and the moderators.

In that scenario I think it is best to not delete Person Y's post. Or sanction Person Y in any way. Maybe I would green ink a warning that posts should contain more than personal insults -- in the future please add why you think the person in question is a moron. (If Person Y persists in this type of posting, subsequent deletions or sanctions may be warranted.)

To summarize, my view is that as long as the discussion in the thread is not derailed, and as long as the "personal attack" is not "too personal", then I think we should allow it (with green ink warnings possible in extreme cases).

this has to be the first example of a rube goldberg set of forum rules designed to basically be PU but without all the hassle of chez admitting he completely borked this forum and must slink back to PU while pretending he isn't admitting defeat

06-26-2017 , 06:16 PM

#259

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

Are you referring to this example?

Because I think it's the second part that's a problem, not the first.

Although my feeling was that I was not modding "you are the stupidest person on the face of the earth" too heavily either? I think, uh, there's still some details to hash out :P

"You are the stupidest person on the face of the earth" should be allowed IMO as long as it is responding to a post (and just quoting the post should be enough).

06-26-2017 , 06:21 PM

#260

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

I feel like it's worth reiterating that, unlike the first unchained incarnation, this version of the forum does not allow content that violates the site rules against objectionable content.

Also I wouldn't read that whosnext PM as an attempt at elucidating an actual set of rules. It was part of a discussion about what the rules should be. I *think* that at some point there will be some revision to the actual text of the rules to try to reflect the outcome of these conversations, but I don't know how that's going to work out.

IMO the best summary of the outcome so far is when chez said the moderation would lean more in the direction of the way I was doing things while he was away. Which, in my view, means pretty minimal moderating of personal attacks unless they go over the line of the site rules (like suggestions of violence), or escalate into egregiously unnecessary derails that go on so long as to be annoying.

06-26-2017 , 06:21 PM

#261

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

Wishing death is wholly unrealated, not sure why what's his name mentioned it. But stuff like "not sure how you manage to remember to keep breathing", "dumbest man alive," "severely developmentally disabled" (except for wil, who actually is severely developmentally disabled, not cool to make an issue of that) should obviously be allowed

06-26-2017 , 06:25 PM

#262

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

I'm really looking forward to everyone trying to lawyer the **** out of this, btw. Like a creative writing class for college dropouts.

06-26-2017 , 06:32 PM

#263

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

So we can flying elbow each other as long as it is scripted, but no choke holds?

06-26-2017 , 06:34 PM

#264

5ive

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 6,766

So no alternate timelines where people don't exist for whatever butterfly effected reason? I can manage.

06-26-2017 , 06:51 PM

#265

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

I feel like it's worth reiterating that, unlike the first unchained incarnation, this version of the forum does not allow content that violates the site rules against objectionable content.

06-26-2017 , 07:12 PM

#266

JohnyCrash

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,537

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

I think you are a moron. The reason I think you are a moron is because you post like an idiot.

06-26-2017 , 07:30 PM

#267

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalfrezi

**nt Of The Year award

I believe the politically correct usage is "little people".

06-26-2017 , 07:30 PM

#268

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey

"You are the stupidest person on the face of the earth" should be allowed IMO as long as it is responding to a post (and just quoting the post should be enough).

Disagree.

06-26-2017 , 08:19 PM

#269

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by leavesofliberty

Disagree.

You are the stupidest person on the face of the earth.

06-26-2017 , 08:28 PM

#270

BroadwaySushy

banned

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 3,237

Quote:

Originally Posted by TiltedDonkey

You are the stupidest person on the face of the earth.

No, you are.

06-26-2017 , 08:30 PM

#271

TiltedDonkey

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 2,975

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroadwaySushy

No, you are.

NO U

Last edited by TiltedDonkey; 06-26-2017 at 08:31 PM. Reason: ****, now I've contradicted myself.

06-27-2017 , 09:50 AM

#272

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Well Named,

Here's a little proof that the main forum does tolerate culture war type threads

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...g-job-1543753/

Bonus:

High praise from a conservative regular

Quote:

Originally Posted by awval999

This is an insanely good discussion.

So yeah, that kind of conversation, with conservatives even, can and does happen in the main forum. Somehow there's an even bigger focus on substance than, say, that new project veritas thread here.

So again, what's the point of this place?

06-27-2017 , 09:55 AM

#273

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

So again, what's the point of this place?

It's not run by you or your gang is a great point of this place.

06-27-2017 , 10:45 AM

#274

Black Peter

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,921

Quote:

Originally Posted by whosnext

This is where the moderation judgment comes in. I don't know if this will help, but this is where I would draw the line. When I talk about prohibiting posts that are exclusively "personal attacks", I am talking about the following posts:
- you are a moron and I wish you were dead
- you are the stupidest person on the face of the earth
- etc.

The following posts would be acceptable (if they are "on topic" in the thread):
- all liberals are stupid
- all Trump supporters are racists
- the country would be much better off if people like you didn't exist
- only a racist believes that
- the leftists in this forum are a joke
- the conservatives in this forum are the stupidest people in the world
- etc.

Poster: You're a liberal
Mod: This is ok
Poster: All liberals are stupid
Mod: This is ok
Poster: You're the stupidest liberal of all
Mod: This is ok
Poster: You're the stupidest person on the face of the earth
Mod: BANNED!!

06-27-2017 , 10:49 AM

#275

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Could I get a clarification on who's next proposed rule from someone other than well named (who is great but apparently has to basically guess at what chez and who next mean just like the rest of us)? I know those two don't like answering direct questions but I really don't think it's too much to ask...

Is something like; "Jesus Christ you're a drooling moron" allowed under the proposed rules?

Page 11 of 13

First

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Last

...

Page 11 of 13

First

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Last