DescentBB

Ferno wrote:[Deleted - Personal Shot]

Nope, not a personal shot. Figure of speech. Just like saying 'come on' or 'are you kidding me', or even 'i don't believe you'.

Ferno wrote:

Ferno wrote:[Deleted - Personal Shot]

Nope, not a personal shot. Figure of speech. Just like saying 'come on' or 'are you kidding me', or even 'i don't believe you'.

Sorry Ferno. It came off as a personal insult the way you placed the word. Try and keep things non-personal when posting, as difficult as that is at times around here.

tunnelcat wrote:Sorry Ferno. It came off as a personal insult the way you placed the word. Try and keep things non-personal when posting, as difficult as that is at times around here.

No. It needs to be said, and it needs to be shown. Otherwise, they can just tapdance around here without worrying about it being called out for what it is.

Ferno wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Sorry Ferno. It came off as a personal insult the way you placed the word. Try and keep things non-personal when posting, as difficult as that is at times around here.

No. It needs to be said, and it needs to be shown. Otherwise, they can just tapdance around here without worrying about it being called out for what it is.

I agree with your right to say whatever you want Ferno. But do it in a smart and coherent way. If you want to call bull★■◆● bull★■◆●, do it. You can even post blood curdling, paint peeling rants if you want, but do it without resorting to petty name calling about specifically anyone here. That's one of the few rules the mods have to enforce around here and it even applies to me. If I misunderstood where you put one insulting word in a sentence, I'll think harder next time before deleting. Also, next time, use the words "son of a" in front of your word. It'll make things more clear.

tunnelcat wrote:
I agree with your right to say whatever you want Ferno. But do it in a smart and coherent way. If you want to call bull★■◆● bull★■◆●, do it. You can even post blood curdling, paint peeling rants if you want, but do it without resorting to petty name calling about specifically anyone here. That's one of the few rules the mods have to enforce around here and it even applies to me. If I misunderstood where you put one insulting word in a sentence, I'll think harder next time before deleting. Also, next time, use the words "son of a" in front of your word. It'll make things more clear.

That's your own personal rule.


Here's the thing. You have, right now, a chance to turn this place around. It used to be about discussing ethics, discussing philosophy and light commentary. Somewhere along the way the previous mods decided to let religious and political posts exist, screwing up the whole thing. The only way to restore it to a better place is by killing any religious or political attack posts/threads on sight.

This place used to have a simple rule: No political or religious posts or threads. If you delete both of those on sight, you can bring it back to a good place to be. I'll even help you.

Fermo, you're obviously covering history that far predated my arrival, but I wonder how one can discuss philosophy and ethics in modern society WITHOUT having religion or politics crop up?

Sign of fascism #15…

Close off discourse.

callmeslick wrote:Fermo, you're obviously covering history that far predated my arrival, but I wonder how one can discuss philosophy and ethics in modern society WITHOUT having religion or politics crop up?

We used to be able to do it. We can do it again.

like I say, I'd like to know how, seeing as how religion is a major source of ethics, and politics is just philosophy put to action.

callmeslick wrote:like I say, I'd like to know how, seeing as how religion is a major source of ethics, and politics is just philosophy put to action.

...and religion is a pretty large branch of philosophy...

The discussion / commentary used to be more lengthy, more introspective, and more logically responsible... but I never perceived it as devoid of politics or religion. We (I use we loosely, as I don't think I was a primary contributor) typed at length about how and why policy, beliefs, etc. should be one way or another, rather than sliding so easily into partisanship or logical fallacies.

snoopy wrote:rather than sliding so easily into partisanship or logical fallacies.

Or stupid image memes, or youtube videos that no one will watch. Even the image memes that I'm supposed to ideologically agree with make me cringe almost all of the time.

you know, I would have loved to have seen those days. Can't speak for others, but I resorted to the response style I have here(although, dammit, I TRY and drop threads with real words and real questions from time to time) because the responses I got were such knee-jerk, shallow cartoonish responses. For the record, a Canadian friend and I are thinking of resuscitating a moribund old forum and having a moderated discussion section that might appeal to those of you writing above of the good old days. I'll gladly let anyone interested here know, if we get this together.

callmeslick wrote:you know, I would have loved to have seen those days. Can't speak for others, but I resorted to the response style I have here(although, dammit, I TRY and drop threads with real words and real questions from time to time) because the responses I got were such knee-jerk, shallow cartoonish responses.

Considering the knee jerk response from TG and Ferno I get, I can empathize to a certain degree.

it feeds upon itself, and my pal and I feel it comes from inconsistency in editorial/mod policies. Not a KNOCK against anyone, we had the same problem with that board, so we're going to try to do better. I'll let you know, Woody, if you wish to write long sentences and be prepared to back them up. The intent we're trying to formulate is real debate, without kid gloves, at an adult level.

As long as it is consistently moderated even handed, and rules were clearly stated, let me know.

woodchip wrote:As long as it is consistently moderated even handed, and rules were clearly stated, let me know.

that is the plan. Set of guidelines, adhered to without ideological or other personal biases, clearly stated going in. Shouldn't be rocket science, but...

Ferno wrote:We used to be able to do it. We can do it again.

No. It was done before by moving threads to NHB because Koolbear came in one day and didn't like some of the opinions he saw. It dried up discussion in Ethics, and hid away thoughtful topical discussions in NHB behind lock and key. In general, it was a bad decision, and was reversed after some time. Basically, if you delete religious and political posts, what exactly do you think is going to be discussed here?

I always liked discussing things in this place because Descent drew people from many walks of life and many ideological backgrounds, and our shared love of Descent united us as a tribe with a baseline of respect. It was hard finding opposing opinion at DemocraticUnderground. It was impossible to not get banned from FreeRepublic. If you don't want to read or participate in religious or political discussion, don't. But there's only like 10 people that post here, please don't restrict them from doing so.

snoopy wrote:

callmeslick wrote:like I say, I'd like to know how, seeing as how religion is a major source of ethics, and politics is just philosophy put to action.

...and religion is a pretty large branch of philosophy...

The discussion / commentary used to be more lengthy, more introspective, and more logically responsible... but I never perceived it as devoid of politics or religion. We (I use we loosely, as I don't think I was a primary contributor) typed at length about how and why policy, beliefs, etc. should be one way or another, rather than sliding so easily into partisanship or logical fallacies.

Pretty large? There's a monumental amount of philosophy out there that doesn't touch on religious beliefs.

Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Epicurus. Three of them never touched on religion, and one even questioned it.

-----------

I'll get back to you on that one, Vander. But right now, I gotta get back to work.

Ferno wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
I agree with your right to say whatever you want Ferno. But do it in a smart and coherent way. If you want to call bull★■◆● bull★■◆●, do it. You can even post blood curdling, paint peeling rants if you want, but do it without resorting to petty name calling about specifically anyone here. That's one of the few rules the mods have to enforce around here and it even applies to me. If I misunderstood where you put one insulting word in a sentence, I'll think harder next time before deleting. Also, next time, use the words "son of a" in front of your word. It'll make things more clear.

That's your own personal rule.

Here's the thing. You have, right now, a chance to turn this place around. It used to be about discussing ethics, discussing philosophy and light commentary. Somewhere along the way the previous mods decided to let religious and political posts exist, screwing up the whole thing. The only way to restore it to a better place is by killing any religious or political attack posts/threads on sight.

This place used to have a simple rule: No political or religious posts or threads. If you delete both of those on sight, you can bring it back to a good place to be. I'll even help you.

Ferno, I like you, but it's NOT my personal rule so don't whine at me like I'm singling you out. The ONLY rules I've been told about was to NOT have posters spew personal insults or call people names and to make sure threads stay within the OP's intent, PERIOD. Plus, I'm still getting into the swing of things doing this, so things will be rocky at first. If it even appears that someone has violated the insult rule, they'll get that particular comment deleted, plain and simple. If they derail a thread, which I've also been guilty of, Jeff or I will split it. Remember at most times, 2 of us are lurking. If it was me, I'll own up to it instead of cowering in the background since I'm part of this community. You'll also have to consider that some of anyone's moderating can be open to interpretation as well, so there will always be a difference of opinion about what's an insult or a rule violation. Putting the word "★■◆●" right after reaming someone out in the previous sentence falls into that category in my book.

Now as to your other complaint about no religious or political posts, if that's a rule, then someone with more authority will have to at least tell me about it. I can't enforce something that I haven't been told about. I never received a list of rules when I OKed taking this job. Krom even admitted that he couldn't even find a set of rules it had been so long since this site was formed. I also didn't take this job to be a dictator, make enemies of everyone or be an ★■◆●. If you don't like what's discussed or how foul the language is or how it's being moderated, then take up it with someone with more authority here than me to get the rules changed. I'll gladly follow any rules put forth by the higher ups here if that's what they want followed, including deleting all religious or political posts. If that's done however, it would be a very quiet place around here. Personally, politics and religion tend to piss me off and make it harder for me to be non-judgemental as a mod, so I think more philosophical threads would be nice.

Hahaha, I remember Ferno's moderation style -- he pissed a LOT of people off. Don't worry TC, you are doing just fine. Eloquent BS is still BS

This is the second time I've split THIS particular thread. Oh and Ferno's fine Grendel. I "get" his anger more than he realizes and I can sympathize. It doesn't bother me either. I'd just want him to know that nothing I moderate here is personal and when he or someone else gets "deleted", it's not a vendetta and I try not to choose sides. Same goes if I miss something. By the way, it would be nice to have an actual set of posted guidelines at the top of the E&C, so that people don't think I'm making arbitrary decisions.

How nice, when there is a smart woman. Because lately I often meet on the Internet mostly girls-moderators that look more like a monkey with a machine gun.

Some are even worse.
Impenetrable dense forest of stupidity.

woodchip wrote: Considering the knee jerk response from TG and Ferno I get, I can empathize to a certain degree.

There was a time when I would expend the effort to write-multiple paragraph posts explaining a particular point, but when all I got in return was continued ignorance I wisely decided to stop wasting my time. Given that you were one of the biggest offenders in that regard, it's really rich to hear you complaining about it.

You know what would be an interesting experiment? Restrict the entire E&C forum to one or two heavily moderated topics per week. Mods would have an easy time cutting out low quality images, waste of time videos and personal attacks. All new threads would have to be approved by a mod and the whole forum limited to no more than two active topics at a time. Let people explore and exhaust themselves on a topic before moving on.

I've been gone since the election (thanks to gambling, woohoo!) and after being away for several weeks this forum looks like spambots took over. Just a bunch of nonsense everywhere. This is the only thread I've looked at and I didn't even read most of it, hahahaha. What a ★■◆●-show. It could be better. I've seen some insightful stuff posted here in the past and things I've read have actually changed my opinion on certain topics. Not that I miss this place at all (I honestly don't), but if the forum content were curated it could be a healthy resource.

If people are unhappy with the E&C format and topic content, perhaps someone can start a vote thread (not this one since I've split it twice already), throw out some ideas and see if people come up with better topics that the operators of this board would go for.

Welcome back vision.

In general, it was a bad decision, and was reversed after some time. Basically, if you delete religious and political posts, what exactly do you think is going to be discussed here?

Are you sure about that? I know you didn't like koolbear's style, but I'm wondering if you being annoyed about how he went about things is colouring your recollection.

but it's NOT my personal rule so don't whine at me like I'm singling you out

Don't worry, TC. I'm not. I can't feel singled out. I've had people on this board act like children when I did something they didn't like, but I held to my principles. But like you've said in VIP (I read that forum, too), your style is different than the others, so that does imply that it's your own thing.

he pissed a LOT of people off

Did you talk to me about it, even once? No. You didn't. You waited until now to bring it up. All you have is second-hand information, coloured by the very people you say I pissed off. And why would I bull★■◆●? I have nothing to gain from it.

Can you tell me what was wrong with keeping dead threads dead? Can you tell me what was wrong with someone reviving dead threads with a small bit of information, when a new thread with that information has a link to the old one works better and has fresh content? You guys are adults. I expected you guys to act like adults.

It could be better. I've seen some insightful stuff posted here in the past and things I've read have actually changed my opinion on certain topics.

This is what I want aswell, and wraps up the point of the main post well.

Ferno wrote:Can you tell me what was wrong with keeping dead threads dead? Can you tell me what was wrong with someone reviving dead threads with a small bit of information, when a new thread with that information has a link to the old one works better and has fresh content?

Disclaimer: I have no idea what this thread is about, but I have an opinion on thread necromancy! Some boards frown on reviving old topics, but personally I think it's good to reuse threads when new content is specific and relevant. The reason? Forums are more than just discussion boards, they are archives of indexable knowledge. As a guy who spends a good part of my day debugging code, looking through 30+ discussions with similar titles is more aggravating that combing through a long thread because it's easier to skim.

Ok back to whatever you were talking about.

vision wrote:

Ferno wrote:Can you tell me what was wrong with keeping dead threads dead? Can you tell me what was wrong with someone reviving dead threads with a small bit of information, when a new thread with that information has a link to the old one works better and has fresh content?

Disclaimer: I have no idea what this thread is about, but I have an opinion on thread necromancy! Some boards frown on reviving old topics, but personally I think it's good to reuse threads when new content is specific and relevant. The reason? Forums are more than just discussion boards, they are archives of indexable knowledge. As a guy who spends a good part of my day debugging code, looking through 30+ discussions with similar titles is more aggravating that combing through a long thread because it's easier to skim.

Ok back to whatever you were talking about.

While it's true that forums are indexable knowledge bases, most people don't want to read the same old thread over and over again. Dead threads, when bumped again - even with specific and relevant knowledge - generate one or two replies, then become buried again. With a link, you would be saved from going through more threads than you would need to. You see new information at the top, and the old information is already there, as a link, for you to check if needed. It even accounts for situations where search engines are either buggy or broken.

Ferno wrote:Are you sure about that? I know you didn't like koolbear's style...

Yes, I'm pretty sure. My annoyance is why I remember it. I never had a problem with KB, I had chatted with him on numerous occasions. Met him at the ROXfest in Houston and he was a nice enough guy. But he was basically an absentee co-founder here, and wasn't a part of the fairly vibrant community that sprang up. So when he blew in one day, freaked out, and banished politics to NHB, yes I was annoyed. It wasn't "family friendly" was the reasoning I remember. I'm not positive, but I think that's when I became a mod in NHB.

Conversation in Ethics dried up. We were having good discussions in NHB, but it was limited by the fact that people had to ask for permission to join before they could even see if there were topics they were interested in discussing. I forget who was all in on the final decision, I want to say at least Lothar and Sirian,(Ethics mods at the time?) but politics and religious discussions were allowed in Ethics as long as they were kept professional. Flames would get moved to NHB. The archives only go back to 2004, but you can see how it was then.

But I digress. You've suggested there should be no political or religious threads in a forum the participants use to discuss political and religious topics. What, if I may ask, are you even talking about?

Ferno wrote:

but it's NOT my personal rule so don't whine at me like I'm singling you out

Don't worry, TC. I'm not. I can't feel singled out. I've had people on this board act like children when I did something they didn't like, but I held to my principles. But like you've said in VIP (I read that forum, too), your style is different than the others, so that does imply that it's your own thing.

I don't think I can have a "style" yet. All I've done is delete some petty name calling and split a couple of topics. Oh, and maybe accidentally derailed a few threads, but everything else is technically still a free-for-all cage fight.

you're doing just fine, within the format. You explain your actions, even explain if you got delayed noticing something. All good.

Vander wrote:You've suggested there should be no political or religious threads in a forum the participants use to discuss political and religious topics.

It wasn't always so. Thanks to wayback machine, I can see when the changes started to happen. Pre-2002 was when it was filled with fun stuff like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20020106121 ... 00559.html

I'm suggesting we shift the balance back and prioritizing discussions about other current events over religion/politics. If you want politics/religion, use one of the many many facebook groups dedicated to just that.

What, if I may ask, are you even talking about?

2002 is when it started the shift from a forum of light discussion to headier topics, with almost none even touching religion or politics. That's what I'm talking about.

Ferno, there were a heck of a lot more people on the board back then. Of course you'd get a far more varied set of discussions going just due to the greater number of minds floating around. Right now, it looks like we only have somewhere around 10 or so regulars, with a couple of us doing the most posting and a few who outright troll. So you want something more interesting to discuss, start a topic that interests you and lets see what transpires. There's got to be something better than all the Trump crap or my side is better than your side junk.

to be fair, TC, I've dropped SEVERAL threads in here over the past year that I tried at the outset to emphasize were NOT political, but around economics, developing industrial trends, etc, and they TURNED political within two or three responses.

Yea, I've seen that happen far too quickly. MUST.... RESIST....TEMPTATION....TO.... POLITICIZE!

Ferno wrote:Pre-2002 was when it was filled with fun stuff like this...

I'm not sure if you're intentionally trying to be ironic. That looks like a sarcastic post noting the pointlessness of this forum after political/religious topics were moved to NHB.

If you want politics/religion, use one of the many many facebook groups dedicated to just that.

How about those that want to post about politics and religion continue to use this forum as it has been used for the past 15 years, and those that don't... don't?

Vander wrote:How about those that want to post about politics and religion continue to use this forum as it has been used for the past 15 years, and those that don't... don't?

God, I can't even recall how many times I have made that point.

deleted.