Bananas and Nuts

[Cubit]

Why would anyone get offended? It’s just a word. There are no boundaries when it comes to words unless it’s a crude word for female genitalia. Qt3 is a glorious place where all slurs are welcome, unless they’re directed at a dev.

Fuck off. Accepting the use of a nasty racial slur is not maturity.

Maybe the disconnect here is that I grew up in a part of the country where the only people who use that word are ugly, racist trash. I think it’s adorable that there are places where people think it’s okay to throw it around.

For some reason I don’t think that bringing up your little pet issue every chance you get is a good way to get people to agree with you.

[Lizard_King]

I would disagree. While normative social pressure can be used to positive ends, such as the scenarios you outlined with suppressing “-isms”, it’s far more likely to be used to punish people for the sin of deviation from the norm. Encouraging the use of it also creates a very unpleasant atmosphere where posts and threads are viewed combatively. Needless to say, trolls find such an environment a delightful playground well suited to their brand of thread vandalism.

I would argue that giving people license to actively use normative pressures such as the classic QT3 dogpile in any circumstance, even in pursuit of a noble goal like frowning on racism, is going to end badly in the long term. It will start to infect other threads, people will get used to taking an insulting and derisive stance in threads, and threads that otherwise may have been worthwhile will get trashed.

The best solution is the well known one. Don’t feed the trolls.

Yes, but that reflects a more general philosophical disagreement you and I have had for a long time about escalation and confrontation, and is not based on what has actually happened here in the past. Which is that things got out of hand every now and then, a few threads got shit on, then everyone got bored or tired and moved on. You may have found that unacceptable, but if so I’m surprised you stuck around for the relatively recent innovation of preemptive moderation, body of work bans, and what have you that seem to fit the bill for your ideals.

I think this is particularly important to permit when new people join the forum (for the record, I’ve never been in favor of any ban other than obvious bots). They give the more aggressive or bored posters something to bicker with while they sort through whatever super deep points they just picked up in their Intro to Dumbass Philosophy class, and eventually the nerd couch club is back in equilibrium. Eventually people adapt or grow out of it or learn to read around a Dirt post if it upsets them. This is not to say I favor purely natural selection, but mechanisms like simply delaying new joins and the like seemed to do just fine, and I’m not really convinced the new approach is really less labor-intensive than the old ones.

It’s not a big deal because our two perspectives can and have coexisted, however uneasily. Sometimes it takes the magic of the ignore button for the more easily flustered, but that seems like a small price to pay for a comparatively lively, passionate level of debate as opposed to people walking on eggshells everytime the shit hits the fan.

That’s fair enough. So I am posting to say I agree with you. Some people just thought that their shit didn’t stink.

Fair enough.

[John_Many_Jars]

Enough palaver. You’re all namby pamby fartknockers who are scared to meet me behind the Mobil station to fuckin’ fight this out. Anyone who isn’t there by 8:30 tonight to get their ass kicked by me doesn’t actually like girls.

[Tortilla]

Yes, but that reflects a more general philosophical disagreement you and I have had for a long time about escalation and confrontation, and is not based on what has actually happened here in the past. Which is that things got out of hand every now and then, a few threads got shit on, then everyone got bored or tired and moved on. You may have found that unacceptable, but if so I’m surprised you stuck around for the relatively recent innovation of preemptive moderation, body of work bans, and what have you that seem to fit the bill for your ideals.

I’m not sure we are viewing the historical context the same way here, since my perception is that Tom has always run the forum along the lines I espoused. The tactics have varied of course but the strategy seems to have been consistent. As far as I can tell, suppressing the flamewars and disruptive behavior has been the goal. Elimination of objectionable posters has never been the ideal.

Also, it amuses me greatly that you’ve defined me as philosophically opposed to confrontation or escalation since I’ve had a great many people tell me the exact opposite in regards to my professional demeanor. I just think different rules apply online where so many interactions and relationships are transient. Confrontation accomplishes nothing online except to delight the trolls.

[Matt_Perkins]

As a long QT3er, but a longer planetcrapper, I’ll add my sure to be ignored thoughts to the issue at hand.

Here’s what QT3 is. A moderated forum. And that forum moderation tries to moderate civility and decency. And that’s why it fails. Not from creating an civil environment, it does that fine. It fails in upholding truth and good sense above all else. It values them less than being polite.

You don’t get banned from QT3 for being an asshole, or many posters, myself included, would have been banned a long time ago. You get banned from QT3 for calling people out, for making a scene, for belaboring a point, even if you’re right. It’s a pretty harsh way to handle the situation, imo, but it’s not my forum… shrugs

I point out what it is, so I can show some contrast. At planetcrap, we have a completely different policy. The only rule is…you can’t be banned. You’ll be IP blocked if you post spam (i.e. - laptop deals, etc), but you can’t be banned. So how does planetcrap handle itself? By destroying idiots. Constantly, over and over. If post idiotic things, such as horrible things about peoples RL friends being killed, you will be called out and shamed (hi former planetcrapper!) until you either leave or give up. There are no constraints, there are no punches pulled, there is no anonymity. What has this lead to? Only about 20-30 active members are left on the board. That’s how many people could play with fire and handle it long term (or didn’t just get bored).

The point of all of this is… while Lizard King is completely and totally right with his post, it won’t work on this board. Why? Because that’s not the kind of board that is trying to be made here. In whatever fantasy land Tom is living in (I love you Tom!), he’s trying to make a board where people of all flavors and backgrounds can interact without repercussions for being extremely…off. And that leads to what we’ve got now. People can post racist, homophobic, idiotic, hurtful, dumb, horrible (how can I get around the court order against me for beating my children!) and so on type posts and those of us that believe in speaking out, speaking against the bullshit, are going to be the problem makers. By QT3’s very nature, it’s can’t we all just get along and be nice theory, it allows people to post things that I, and many others, would consider abhorrent.

That’s not going to change. Plain and simple. While Tom’s policy, and QT3’s policy, is to work like the government (civility above all else), nothing will change. The people that post horrible things will still be around and the people that call them out with truth and common sense will be banned.

TL;DR - QT3 values civility above truth and common sense.

[Lizard_King]

I’m not sure we are viewing the historical context the same way here, since my perception is that Tom has always run the forum along the lines I espoused. The tactics have varied of course but the strategy seems to have been consistent. As far as I can tell, suppressing the flamewars and disruptive behavior has been the goal. Elimination of objectionable posters has never been the ideal.

Yeah, well, all I can say is that you exist on an alternate timeline where there weren’t multipage shit fits that oscillated between amusing and tragic from wall of text to interspersed quote wall of text. I’m not going to go in detail on my own experiences in terms of being on the receiving end of moderation, but I’d never even been dimly aware of crossing a line (that couldn’t be repaired through further discussion) until recent events.

Also, it amuses me greatly that you’ve defined me as philosophically opposed to confrontation or escalation since I’ve had a great many people tell me the exact opposite in regards to my professional demeanor. I just think different rules apply online where so many interactions and relationships are transient. Confrontation accomplishes nothing online except to delight the trolls.

Right, so whether you’re amused or not about the irony with respect to your role as office rambo, as far as the internet goes you think confrontation is either trolling or troll feeding. That’s a pretty fundamental philosophical disagreement between you and me that translates directly to radically divergent views of what constitutes acceptable moderation. I would also argue that in many cases the relationships are as transient as you choose to make them, and the history sometimes matters, but that’s neither here nor there.

[mouselock]

while fuckwits … are allowed to call racists and child beaters pillars of our community.

What damage is done if someone calls a racist a pillar of the community? I’m not getting what the fear is here: Are you afraid suddenly all the people in the community are going to slant toward racism because someone has shown us the one true way? Are you afraid that once one racist doesn’t get driven out on the rails, that he’s going to go find lots of racist friends and they’re going to set up camp?

You seem to have zero faith in the ability of the board at large to actually make a determination as to who they should/should not lend credence. What makes your opinion so special? You’ll excuse me if having the weight of Kalle, Mmalloy, and even the great and wonderful Bill_D isn’t exactly the ringing bell of righteous endorsement to me it seems to be to you?

I’m pretty sure I can figure out who the idiots are (at least as it intersects my worldview) and the net is not nearly so narrow as you would seem to cast it. I just assume it’s my responsibility to keep track of those folks for myself and, when I see something that incenses me, notice “Oh yeah, it’s -that- dipshit that posted it. Right then, nevermind.” This is a non-functional model why, exactly?

[Mightynute]

TL;DR - QT3 values civility above truth and common sense.

I think what you’re calling “common sense” isn’t - common sense would indicate that when you are powerless to actually affect someone’s behavior, impotently raging at them on an internet forum would seem to, from anecdotal evidence, only encourage them more.

Perhaps the next time someone goes off on a racist tear, or advocates something you find offensive - instead of going full apeshit on them, maybe drop a PM to Tom with a link to the thread (or hey, that REPORTED button!) possibly saying “Hey, Tom, could you maybe convince this person not to be such a douchemonger?”

Yes, it means you don’t get the false sense of satisfaction that comes from venting your spleen through your keyboard. But it certainly would be common sense to go through the only actual route that can resolve a situation, rather than resort to belligerence.

(Perkins, I’m not accusing you personally of belligerence, I’m using the generic you here. All of QT3 should probably listen.)

I certainly value the civility here - when I see it. I’ve loved reading threads where developers talk about what goes into making a game and producing it and selling it. It’s certainly led me to respect the industry more, and has made an impact on how I purchase games and opened my eyes to stuff I wouldn’t have previously played.

I like the thought that QT3 can be that place it seems Tom originally wanted. All it takes is people not being complete twatwaffles to each other.

[Lizard_King]

TL;DR - QT3 values civility above truth and common sense.

Great points, but I would add that I don’t think that the outliers are what concern me so long as they are dealt with somewhat equally on either end. It’s the mediocre middle that makes or breaks a forum, and if you tinker too aggressively with the moderating, you end up in a place where timidity and passive aggression become the currency of choice.

[Bahimiron]

Perhaps the next time someone goes off on a racist tear, or advocates something you find offensive - instead of going full apeshit on them, maybe drop a PM to Tom with a link to the thread (or hey, that REPORTED button!)

If only someone had thought of this.

[Demon_G_Sides]

What damage is done if someone calls a racist a pillar of the community? I’m not getting what the fear is here: Are you afraid suddenly all the people in the community are going to slant toward racism because someone has shown us the one true way? Are you afraid that once one racist doesn’t get driven out on the rails, that he’s going to go find lots of racist friends and they’re going to set up camp?

They think that they are a pillar of the community and then we have to continue to hear their racist drivel. And yes, it is a legitimate fear that if a crazy person is considered okay by the community that more and more crazy people are going to come out of the woodwork and then all hell will break loose. That’s not irrational.

You seem to have zero faith in the ability of the board at large to actually make a determination as to who they should/should not lend credence.

Marcus, Angie, Cory and others have all been banned for calling out people who’ve done some fucked up things or said some fucked up things, and people are supporting the bans. I have zero faith in the ability of the board at large to actually make a determination as to who they should/should not lend credence.

What makes your opinion so special? You’ll excuse me if having the weight of Kalle, Mmalloy, and even the great and wonderful Bill_D isn’t exactly the ringing bell of righteous endorsement to me it seems to be to you?

On an opinion based forum board, opinion is the only thing that matters. So I don’t exactly see why you think my opinion is anything less than yours.

I’m pretty sure I can figure out who the idiots are (at least as it intersects my worldview) and the net is not nearly so narrow as you would seem to cast it.

Congrats, you’re officially smarter than most of this board it seems.

I just assume it’s my responsibility to keep track of those folks for myself and, when I see something that incenses me, notice “Oh yeah, it’s -that- dipshit that posted it. Right then, nevermind.” This is a non-functional model why, exactly?

You’re right. And now that you’ve figured out how to post, that’s great that you can add your opinion to this discussion, but it dumbfounds me as to why my opinion shouldn’t count, but your should.

It’s the same exact argument. OPINIONS are all this thread is made out of (With a few facts that we all use to establish our opinions). You’re not exactly making the smartest argument saying that I can’t give my opinion while also bringing out your opinion on the matter.

[Mrenda]

Yes. Even in the face of racist, child abusing, mysoginist, fundamentalist, Westboro Baptist Church members. And if that civility is to simply ignore them, so be it.

[Greg417]

I point out what it is, so I can show some contrast. At planetcrap, we have a completely different policy. The only rule is…you can’t be banned. You’ll be IP blocked if you post spam (i.e. - laptop deals, etc), but you can’t be banned. So how does planetcrap handle itself? By destroying idiots. Constantly, over and over. If post idiotic things, such as horrible things about peoples RL friends being killed, you will be called out and shamed (hi Warren!) until you either leave or give up (he left very quickly, it was nice). There are no constraints, there are no punches pulled, there is no anonymity. What has this lead to? Only about 20-30 active members are left on the board. That’s how many people could play with fire and handle it long term (or didn’t just get bored).

Or, you know, the people who generated most of the initial content stopped writing for it for various reasons, and the number of new visitors dropped to near zero because it was no longer linked to from other sites. Add in typical attrition and you’re left with a tiny base. But I guess it’s a better argument to say it was because people were abusive towards each other.

[Matt_Perkins]

I certainly value the civility here - when I see it. I’ve loved reading threads where developers talk about what goes into making a game and producing it and selling it. It’s certainly led me to respect the industry more, and has made an impact on how I purchase games and opened my eyes to stuff I wouldn’t have previously played.

I like the thought that QT3 can be that place it seems Tom originally wanted. All it takes is people not being complete twatwaffles to each other.

See, and I call it common sense, but you’re right, it is obviously not.

Myself, I value truth above civility every time. I couldn’t care to be civil to people that don’t think about their opinions. That act from whatever inbred upbringing they’ve had, that form opinions based on what Glenn Beck tells them (or heck, Jon Stewart for that matter).

I value real conversation, not pretend conversation where we’re polite and nice, but don’t call idiots what they are. Idiots.

That said, I can adapt. I’ve done so here. I don’t call people out there 99% of the time…because not only is it the internet and does no good, I value the Games section of this forum. So I ignore the idiots and write it down to the same thing I do with the rest of society…ignorance and lack of real education.

[Matt_Perkins]

Or, you know, the people who generated most of the initial content stopped writing for it for various reasons, and the number of new visitors dropped to near zero because it was no longer linked to from other sites. Add in typical attrition and you’re left with a tiny base. But I guess it’s a better argument to say it was because people were abusive towards each other.

Hey, I know you!

And if you read the whole post I said what you said. Reading comprehension fail.

[Matt_Perkins]

Yes. Even in the face of racist, child abusing, mysoginist, fundamentalist, Westboro Baptist Church members. And if that civility is to simply ignore them, so be it.

This isn’t directed at you personally, but it’s this attitude that has gotten us into so much trouble as a society, as a country, as a world.

I’m not saying never be civil, but when you’re polite and nice to idiots like the church you mention above (or racists or child abusers, etc), people that already proven themselves to have no respect and less smarts, you’re doing yourself, your country and your people a disservice. Let them preach, sure, that’s what free speech is all about. But to act civily towards them? That blows my mind.

[Staff_Sergeant]

Marcus, Angie, Cory and others have all been banned for calling out people who’ve done some fucked up things or said some fucked up things, and people are supporting the bans. I have zero faith in the ability of the board at large to actually make a determination as to who they should/should not lend credence.

This paragraph makes no sense. The board at large can’t decide for themselves who they should lend credence to? Who should then? Perhaps you could make a list of posters whose opinions matter and the next time I need to know whether or not an opinion is worthless or infallible I can just refer to it.

[Demon_G_Sides]

If the board wants to parade around people who beat their kids as the standard quality of it’s posters, so be it. But I don’t want that to happen without at least some dissent, which is what others are asking for.

[kerzain]

[quote=“Matt Perkins,post:4236,topic:51803”]

Yes. Even in the face of racist, child abusing, mysoginist, fundamentalist, Westboro Baptist Church members. And if that civility is to simply ignore them, so be it.

This isn’t directed at you personally, but it’s this attitude that has gotten us into so much trouble as a society, as a country, as a world.[/QUOTE]And at the other end of the spectrum, witch trials.

[Mrenda]

This isn’t directed at you personally, but it’s this attitude that has gotten us into so much trouble as a society, as a country, as a world.

I’m not saying never be civil, but when you’re polite and nice to idiots like the church you mention above (or racists or child abusers, etc), people that already proven themselves to have no respect and less smarts, you’re doing yourself, your country and your people a disservice. Let them preach, sure, that’s what free speech is all about. But to act civily towards them? That blows my mind.

I disagree. I don’t give a fuck about acting civily for them, I care about acting civily because A) I’m a better person and B) So are other people I deal with. Acting like a shit just makes everyone look stupid. Counter what they say with reason, and stern disagreement, even humour if you want. And humour is where it comes to the crunch. Sometimes the humour is great satire, sometimes it’s just a string of namecalling. One I believe is acceptable, the other isn’t.