Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the following post, by the owner of the site, an acceptable one?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is the following post, by the owner of the site, an acceptable one?

    [edit]THE VOTES ARE NOT SECRET, EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT YOU VOTED FOR! For maximum drama[/edit]


    Poll proposed by Great Big Tree, I don't take or accept ownership of anything in the rest of this message.
    For the source, see:
    https://www.etcforums.com/forum/next...2423#post22423


    Is this type of personal attack on a poster acceptable behaviour, that anyone on the site should be able to post as well?

    "His argument is mask=authoritarian=bad. In another thread he argues that a similar clothing mandate is good, freedom to be lgbt=bad. He hasn’t yet demonstrated that totalitarianism is bad, nor that it is his real concern. Considering his descriptions of people who follow laws to protect others, science as a religion, etc., are all thinly veiled personal attacks against anyone who sees the world differently from himself, and seeing his absolute refusal to address sources and logical arguments, my argument seems like something that may possibly get through to his particular type of reasoning. And if not, calling a bad faith shitposter on his own hypocrisy at least helps keep things in perspective."
    COVID prevention measure - Forums (etcforums.com)
    23
    Yes
    60.87%
    14
    No
    8.70%
    2
    I don't care
    17.39%
    4
    Female Space Marines
    13.04%
    3
    Last edited by OgorOrukOomanDuardin; 07-03-2021, 11:19 PM.

  • #2
    It's not a personal attack. It's an accurate description of someone's posting history.

    Comment


    • #3
      I voted Female Space Marines.

      i would like to see the results. I have already asked the moderators to moderate me if they feel it is appropriate.

      Comment


      • #4
        We can see what you voted Bob. I felt it would be more dramatic if the votes were open. I'll edit to mention it.

        Comment


        • #5
          For what it’s worth, I requested an anonymous poll so that people voting “inappropriate” would not be subject to retaliation.

          Comment


          • BobtheInquisitor
            BobtheInquisitor commented
            Editing a comment
            I don’t know who voted what or care. But if it helps, go ahead. Just don’t vote again as Adam N Sporter. ;P

          • GreatBigTree
            GreatBigTree commented
            Editing a comment
            Feel free to ban that account at your leisure. It was created and used with the blessing of the then admin team.

        • #6
          Originally posted by GreatBigTree View Post
          For what it’s worth, I requested an anonymous poll so that people voting “inappropriate” would not be subject to retaliation.
          Ok I made another one, anonymous. We can check if there is a difference between the two polls.
          If you are afraid that someone could just look up in the database to see who voted what, I can make something on a different server where I'm the only one having direct access to the database. If you trust me. If you don't, well... the only solution is to make it yourself then, I think?

          Comment


          • #7
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #8
              OOOD, I have no reason to doubt your integrity.

              Comment


              • #9
                As one of the 'likers' of the original post you called out elsewhere, I thought I'd chip in.

                This is a factual post highlighting the contradictory stance of a poster who is the epitome of bad faith debate.

                Given that there's no actual moderation action on this sort of thing, and I think many users are annoyed about it, I can understand bad faith posters being called on bad faith posting and other users supporting it.

                what's your actual objection to the post? Do you think it's misleading or inaccurate? Is it just infringing on QARs imagined right to shitpost?

                Comment


                • Herzlos2
                  Herzlos2 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Is it really an attack though? He hasn't said anything mean or threatening. He's just providing some context on why debating with QAR is pointless.

                  He didn't even moderate anything.

                • Queen_annes_revenge
                  Queen_annes_revenge commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Because I don't meet the standards you set for me? Hilarious!

                • Wolfblade
                  Wolfblade commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Exactly. It isn't an attack, GBT is just pearlclutching and whining that no one is listening to him.
                  Last edited by Wolfblade; 07-04-2021, 11:04 PM.

              • #10
                Well, the writing is on the wall. So, let’s make a game of it!

                I’ve deleted all previous PM’s, received and sent. If you’d like to leave an Easter egg for the winner, send me a PM and it will stay there!

                The first letter of my password is “ f “. Have fun guessing!

                Comment


                • SilverbackWookie
                  SilverbackWookie commented
                  Editing a comment
                  GBT, what was the point of this?

                  If you were ever sincere about fostering meaningful debates, you wouldn't be doing this.

                  My recommendation is for you to step back a bit, and see where this goes.

                • GreatBigTree
                  GreatBigTree commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I *was* sincere about trying to make this a better place. I mean, the writing is quite figuratively on the wall. This isn’t what I’m after. And, with genuine respect, the direction of the site hasn’t changed, and it doesn’t seem to have reason to, to my minor chagrin.

                  Based on my previous posts... you folks don’t even have rules. Talk to nfe and bunnies about that... as it seems you might disagree on that point. Without rules, the place is just kicking responsibility for the site down the road a bit. While unaccountable folks run the show, and make a big show of how Democratic it’s all going to be. The analogies to political history are as amusing as they are farcical. People say I need to step back, but I’ll invite you to do the same.

                  I was expecting some more support. Not gonna lie, I wasn’t expecting it to be a complete landslide. But, I’ve chronically misjudged this site from the get-go, so nothing new there!

                  Good luck, Silverback.

                • Wolfblade
                  Wolfblade commented
                  Editing a comment
                  GBT, you can cut the act on the "long-suffering martyr" there. You were a major reason while it failed in the first place.

              • #11
                I thought I was weak, and not going to go through with it, a couple posts ago? ?

                You see, decorum isn’t just “say anything as long as you say it politely.”

                It’s the mechanism to keep people open, honest, and *vulnerable*. How is someone to keep themselves vulnerable, when people are directly attacking each other? Particularly when it comes to the drudging of the past. People learn to stop being vulnerable, particularly to the idea of change. If both parties aren’t vulnerable, then there can be no arguing in good faith.

                Because arguing in good faith means an open mind, willing to change. How many posters, particularly the regular name callers, are arguing with an open, vulnerable to change mind? Yes, valid sources, playing the game of points, yes, that’s part of it too. But it’s all predicated on the approach of good faith to the whole enterprise.

                That’s what makes all the claims of bad-faith so baseless. If the accuser is coming the the argument with an open, vulnerable mind, then there *could* be a point. But not when the initial agenda was to “destroy” the other. That is a bad-faith approach to the whole enterprise.

                Do the people you disagree with seem open, honest, vulnerable? Are you in turn? Does calling them a liar, bigot, shit poster, whatever ist or ism seems to fit, does that seem like you’re still approaching the argument in good faith?

                That’s why *actual rules* regarding decorum are needed, and need to be enforced. Otherwise people stop being open, they stop being vulnerable. And when that happens, no good faith arguments can happen. That’s what you lose. The ability to have arguments that are approached in good faith by both parties.

                For the pleasure of being able to punish the wicked. That’s what you get in exchange. Good faith is lost, but you can shout really loud, sometimes even loud enough to silence someone. And for that, you score one internet point. You didn’t need to be open, honest, or vulnerable. In fact, one might even look at it as opposite to that. But you did give a right proper shaming to the bad guys.

                And it’s dumb to keep this up. But I do love hanging on crosses! So awesome! So I hope it’s at least making someone uncomfortable. Making someone take a “step back to see the bigger picture.”

                If if you really, honestly, want to be able to talk to real people. Not the stage name, not the avatar, but the *real* person, *both* of you need to be open. Rules for decorum protect people. They let people be vulnerable. Without it, there is no good faith posting.


                (Hey OOOD! Keeping it entertaining enough?)

                Comment


                • Herzlos2
                  Herzlos2 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  No-one cares. Either contribute to the forum like a big boy or just leave.

              • #12
                Originally posted by GreatBigTree View Post
                You see, decorum isn’t just “say anything as long as you say it politely.”
                And yet, you're more worried about people calling out hypocrites and liars and bigots than you are about the actual hypocrites, bigots, and liars adhering to any sense of "decorum." You're more worried about those who are trying to elevate the discussion and get people to support their points beyond just restating them than you are of the shitposters. Ironically, in your completely misguided and failed efforts to make people participate in good faith, you seek to specifically protect those engaging in bad faith.

                Originally posted by GreatBigTree View Post
                The ability to have arguments that are approached in good faith by both parties.
                And yet, in that exchange you're in such a tizzy about, QAR was not engaging in good faith. They were being hypocritical, they were refusing to say anything more than "X is bad," and were treading down a path they've been down a dozen times here before. There was no attempt by QAR to engage in good faith even at the start, which is where your entire argument falls apart. Good faith arguments require both sides to agree to it.

                You are not some noble knight, you are not a teacher, you're not some enlightened guru, you're a pearl-clutching fool who can't be bothered to reflect on their actions and who throws a temper tantrum when you don't get your way. You believe you know so much that you don't understand how little you actually know or understand. And the REALLY REALLY ironic part is that you have insisted compromise is the only viable path forward in any situation and yet, at every single chance you've had to actually compromise you instead choose to demand everyone agree with you or refuse to cooperate with them in any way. You're still attempting to push your vision of the forum onto the current admins and declaring the forum a failure because they won't bend over for you.
                Last edited by Wolfblade; 07-05-2021, 03:02 PM.

                Comment


                • #13
                  This seems like a conversation that will escalate, so let’s take a day off and let the poll do it’s work.

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    Originally posted by GreatBigTree View Post
                    (Hey OOOD! Keeping it entertaining enough?)
                    Sure. But I want to be clear that, if you want me to delete the thread, you just have to ask. I'm not there to hurt people, but I was always candidly open about that, I'm here for fun more than anything else. Wrote about it on the previous iteration of the forum.
                    I'm not against your vision, I just know that the way you are currently going about it, it has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. So why get invested? I mean, for what you envision, you really need to start over from scratch, because it's not going to work with this forum and this userbase. Not my fault.
                    If you want my opinion on how to make it work I'd be happy to oblige, though.

                    Comment


                    • #15
                      Not a criticism, intended in a light hearted manner.

                      I genuinely appreciate you setting up the poll.

                      EDIT: And here comes the part where I test good faith, despite the appearance of being manipulative. I swear it is in good faith.

                      If you agree with the premise that for a good faith argument to occur, both sides must approach in an open, honest, and vulnerable manner... will you change your vote from “I don’t care” to “No”?

                      “I don’t care” is a vote saying that it doesn’t bother you that the post in question is not engaging in good faith. It is (as far as I can tell) honest. But it isn’t open, and it certainly isn’t vulnerable. And if that attitude / approach is acceptable from the owner, what chance does the site have, to have *any* good faith arguments?

                      Open, honest, vulnerable... I’m asking you to stand in front of a hostile crowd and show your support for an ideal, whether it has a chance or not.

                      The second letter is “ u “.
                      Last edited by GreatBigTree; 07-05-2021, 05:31 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X