| I'm gonna have to support this. I'd like to post more in there, but the quality of the posts in some of these threads is detrimental. |
 |
| i think its fine, we do not need intellectual discussions all the time anyway and i myself just ignore a thread if i do not feel posting on it you are basically removing the informal talks on Casual Discussion this way so its like you want its name to change to Formal Discussion board |
Max said: As of right now, Casual Discussion is an illusion of off-topic discussion. It is extremely rare to see an honest thread not bundled with a political agenda or derailment into one. The allowance of these threads decreases the quality of the board overall; it tends to attract users who break the rules or otherwise cause problems in peaceful discussion. Not only is this tiring for the casual user, but the site's moderators have it even worse. I honestly think you should restrict Casual Discussion to non-political topics, if not the entire forum. It's bound to drive users off, but that's the point. These topics do not belong on a forum used predominately by teenagers, and ignoring that problem will only worsen the situation. At the time Rule 6 was implemented, I didn't understand the need for it. Now I completely do, and I believe it needs to be furthered. edit: phrasing, title What the hell is wrong with you? "Silence them, they tire me!?" Seriously? If you want to censor all 'political agendas' in discussion, you'll need to remove the entire current events board while you're at it. If anyone took you seriously, all they'd be achieving with such a change is giving mods free reign to delete anything they don't personally agree with. That's fucked up. You can't get rid of political agendas from discussion, because everyone has one, whether they'll admit to it or not. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Yes, let's just ban everything while we're at it. No sex threads. No political threads. No religion threads. No gender threads. Let's see what's left after that. |
 |
Max said: Cersei said: Yes, let's just ban everything while we're at it. No sex threads. No political threads. No religion threads. No gender threads. Let's see what's left after that. By "political threads", I mean everything you just mentioned—everything considered a hot-button issue right now. You may be skeptic, but I do think it would work for the better. Why don't you want people sharing opinions about worldly things? Debate is a great way for people to learn why they believe what they believe about whatever they believe. This is a place where people can do that without having to put their real identity in the line of fire. That's a good thing which can help people develop and mature intellectually. It's worth keeping. Max said: I just don't think the current housing of reactionary discussion is a great idea. Reactionary discussion happens on MAL anyway. Try praising Sword Art Online in Anime Discussion and see what happens. MAL has to house reactionary discussion in some form or another to house any remotely fair discussion at all. It is supposed to be a site where people share contradictory opinions. Max said: Nearly all of these threads get locked or deleted anyway, so I see no problem in prohibiting them completely. That some mods illegitimately delete threads which they don't like shouldn't be an excuse to remove that type of thread entirely. That makes no sense. Just because some people commit violent crime doesn't mean that we should remove laws against violent crime |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Max said: Caelidesu said: Why don't you want people sharing opinions about worldly things? Debate is a great way for people to learn why they believe what they believe about whatever they believe. This is a place where people can do that without having to put their real identity in the line of fire. That's a good thing which can help people develop and mature intellectually. It's worth keeping. Please. You may be right in any other context, but not on here. There's not even a semblance of civilized debate that happens on these forums. If someone disagrees, they're immediately ridiculed and shamed for it. I'd appreciate it if you ignored the tone of my initial response and instead did me the huge favour of assuming that I might actually have the slightest clue about what I'm talking about. You are talking about the forums I most often visit, after all. I've been ridiculed and shamed endlessly on this site. I've been called a bigot, a racist, backward, a troll, and all sorts of variations of insane, and yet I can say with no doubt that there is plenty of civilised discussion that happens. I've seen it, and I've been involved in it. It might not be the majority of it, but it's certainly there. Max said: Don't bother with the "develop and mature intellectually" stuff, either—it's rare enough I see people handle these subjects maturely, let alone with an appropriate demeanour. Without knowing the history of two characters, it's impossible to distinguish between light-hearted banter and aggressive and purposeful insults. I'm sure you have an excellent capability of doing so in real life, but over here it's different. Pseudonymous text is much more vague than you made it out to be in that response. Max said: Caelidesu said: Reactionary discussion happens on MAL anyway. Try praising Sword Art Online in Anime Discussion and see what happens. MAL has to house reactionary discussion in some form or another to house any remotely fair discussion at all. It is supposed to be a site where people share contradictory opinions. You can share dissenting opinions without contributing to toxicity. You're only proving my point that the userbase is too irresponsible to be having these discussions. Exactly how am I proving your point? Your first post really offended me: Religious and political arguments are my thing, and this is a good place for me to learn how people respond to certain word combinations. This place has been a great help to me in that regard at least, and you're suggesting that that be taken away from me; And you're not even involved in the arguments you want silenced. Does that make it toxic? I don't know what toxicity is supposed to mean; you could be using that as a dummy epithet. But note the second response I made: I gave you an example of the nature of MAL. I like a MAL with reactionary discussion, where people can get into heated arguments about why one ridiculous cartoon show is better than another. Some people enjoy letting off some steam by writing a smackdown. It's not like there aren't tons of threads and clubs where people can chill and chat about how they're feeling and what they're watching too. Max said: Caelidesu said: That some mods illegitimately delete threads which they don't like shouldn't be an excuse to remove that type of thread entirely. That makes no sense. That doesn't happen. Even if it did, it's completely irrelevant. I'd appreciate if you didn't use this thread as an excuse to bash the site's staff. One of my own threads has been deleted illegitimately before. The point I was making wasn't a slight on the mods, although I can see why you'd think it was. The overall point I'm making is this: there are threads made about these topics that actually foster good discussion. I've seen them. They have happened. It can easily get surrounded by trolling, but that shouldn't be an excuse to ban the good discussion too. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Caelidesu said: There is no "illegitimate" thread removal on MAL. If a thread is removed you get a private message with the thread in question and a reason for its removal. If for some reason you did not get this PM, you contact a forum moderator on MAL or IRC asking why was your thread removed.Some mods illegitimately delete threads which they don't like shouldn't be an excuse to remove that type of thread entirely. That makes no sense. Know about what you're saying before you start talking of things you know little about and have a look at the Site & Forum Guidelines to avoid making threads that break the rules in the future. |
 |
Hederick said: Caelidesu said: There is no "illegitimate" thread removal on MAL. If a thread is removed you get a private message with the thread in question and a reason for its removal. If for some reason you did not get this PM, you contact a forum moderator on MAL or IRC asking why was your thread removed.Some mods illegitimately delete threads which they don't like shouldn't be an excuse to remove that type of thread entirely. That makes no sense. Know about what you're saying before you start talking of things you know little about and have a look at the Site & Forum Guidelines to avoid making threads that break the rules in the future. Wow, you actually replied! |
Read Toriko! |
Usagi said: Yes, let's just ban everything while we're at it. No sex threads. No political threads. No religion threads. No gender threads. Let's see what's left after that. Besides the sex threads, all of those listed usually do generate some form of decent discussion. It's not always good discussion, but the board is called "Casual" discussion and not "Solemn" discussion. The sex threads are the only real thing that should be banned, and they're technically already banned. Mods are just not enforcing rule 6 enough. |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
| If you ban that kind of discussion from CD, where do you think it would leak to? Or are you assuming people would simply stop posting? Leave it be... It's better than having those threads on AD. |
| The threads aren't the problem, the users are. It's as simple as that. While some threads will cause more shit than others, the users decide the fate of how a thread will go. |
 |
| While I am against this.. All I want to say is that we can't ignore this situation that is happening in CD. I don't blame the current rules but I strongly think that this is still a backlash from the removal of spam.. Yeah I've said this way too many times :v I expect more threads for improving CD in the suggestions and its not surprising(this is number 4?). I've already offered my ideas and I no longer wish to repeat myself, its up to the staff to read this shit anyways to better the forum.. [spoiler] Also Rule 6 wasn't ever properly addressed so I don't understand why it was mentioned. Lol When you said you expected users to leave I'm guessing you meant from CD? Otherwise if you meant leave MAL that's completely idiotic, the devs and staff want more traffic to get more features not the other way around :v You Mentioning rule 6 and becoming the personification (Banning all/majority topics) of what Immanoob actually was mocking makes me chuckle. /spoiler] |
 Behold of my awesomeness~ controversial and/or sensitive topics likely devolve into the same repetitive, derogatory, abusive, and harassing comments can no longer be posted. But my feels. |
Risara said: You do know that topic's been made over hundreds of times, right?It's sad because I made a thread about pedophiles expecting serious discussion, The thread was going well until the next day it was deleted due to "trolling and spam". |
|
Hederick said: Caelidesu said: There is no "illegitimate" thread removal on MAL. If a thread is removed you get a private message with the thread in question and a reason for its removal. If for some reason you did not get this PM, you contact a forum moderator on MAL or IRC asking why was your thread removed.Some mods illegitimately delete threads which they don't like shouldn't be an excuse to remove that type of thread entirely. That makes no sense. Know about what you're saying before you start talking of things you know little about and have a look at the Site & Forum Guidelines to avoid making threads that break the rules in the future. Please understand that what follows isn't a personal attack; don't use this as an excuse to delete this thread too: I stand by what I said. You straight up deleted one of my threads, for 'spam, off topic and baiting'; a thread that discussed the subtleties of subjectivity and objectivity in the rating of anime; a thread placed in Anime Discussion. I spent a lot of time promoting interesting discussion in that thread and you deleted it instantly, even though it followed all of the guidelines. All a mod needs to do to remove a thread is write this: 'Thread devolved into a lot of Spam, off topic and baiting. No hope for discussion.' The content of the thread is irrelevant, because a mod can always use this tagline as an excuse for deleting a thread and get away with it. It doesn't matter if you receive a PM about it, because no-one is obligated to respond to your response. There is only a pretence of a dialogue. Apparently that also implies that by making enough troll responses to a thread, you can get it deleted, regardless of the quality of the content on the first page. So yes, I can say that a thread was illegitimately removed from MAL, and I will continue to say so. And it is relevant to this discussion: it's bad enough that mods can remove threads at a whim for incredibly vague reasons, so being able to remove a thread at a whim because it wasn't in line with said mod's political ideology would give mods the complete freedom to delete threads as they saw fit, assuming they don't already have that and the rules aren't a total farce. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| I support this. The community isn't mature enough to handle these sorts of discussions, which is partly why I don't bother with CD. If users want to discuss these kinds of topics, they should go to a more appropriate community to do so. Also... xbobx said: If you ban that kind of discussion from CD, where do you think it would leak to? Or are you assuming people would simply stop posting? Leave it be... It's better than having those threads on AD. I believe I would report those as long as I browse AD. While I wish the staff would actively "patrol", I also wish more users would make use of the report function. |
| Remove CD. There's no point at keeping a subforum alive if you can't rely on its userbase and moderation enough to allow talk about common and recurrent topics. That, or actually do something with moderation that increases coverage and makes it more efficient, as pointed by Zerg. |
| yeah they should remove CD. |
 |
Max said: jal90 said: Remove CD. There's no point at keeping a subforum alive if you can't rely on its userbase and moderation enough to allow talk about common and recurrent topics. That, or actually do something with moderation that increases coverage and makes it more efficient, as pointed by Zerg. Increasing the quality and quantity of moderation that happens on this site is definitely a good way to combat all of this, but barely anyone is eligible for the position. Even the ones who are would probably decline the offer. It's much harder than it sounds, is what I'm trying to say. I don't really think so, eh. A lot of people would decline the offer, but a good number of people would accept; if only because of statistic chance. There's enough people in MAL to cover a large functioning moderation, but this can't ever be properly done if the staff is fine with ten users covering a forum with over 635,000 threads (not including clubs), almost 3,000,000 accounts and thousands of subforums. I think it's absurd that we think about limiting what threads should be talked about to avoid abuse instead of dealing with the major problem that allows all of this to happen and that is plain and simply lack of effective moderation tools. Your solution won't solve the problem, it will just make it more bearable for a while before trolls and shitposters find another way to defy rules and another extension of the rule 6 thread is needed. So instead of patches that will need revision in the near future why not focusing on trying to deal with the underlying issue once and for all. |
jal90Oct 2, 2015 12:12 PM
jal90 said: Max said: Increasing the quality and quantity of moderation that happens on this site is definitely a good way to combat all of this, but barely anyone is eligible for the position. Even the ones who are would probably decline the offer. It's much harder than it sounds, is what I'm trying to say. I don't really think so, eh. A lot of people would decline the offer, but a good number of people would accept; if only because of statistic chance. There's enough people in MAL to cover a large functioning moderation, but this can't ever be properly done if the staff is fine with ten users covering a forum with over 635,000 threads (not including clubs), almost 3,000,000 accounts and thousands of subforums. I think it's absurd that we think about limiting what threads should be talked about to avoid abuse instead of dealing with the major problem that allows all of this to happen and that is plain and simply lack of effective moderation tools. Your solution won't solve the problem, it will just make it more bearable for a while before trolls and shitposters find another way to defy rules and another extension of the rule 6 thread is needed. So instead of patches that will need revision in the near future why not focusing on trying to deal with the underlying issue once and for all. I think it's more that the staff don't seem open to increasing moderator numbers. From what I recall, Kineta personally oversees moderator training. The staff needs to be more compartmentalized, really. Micromanaging DB issues, forum moderation issues, site development issues, review system issues, internal issues, and a host of other projects (MAL Rewrite, events, etc.) is frankly too much for one person unless they're being paid to run the site full-time. Without compartmentalization, you have what we have- a loose and messy site that is rather slow to improve. This is not a personal attack against the staff nor an attempt to vilify them; it is an attack on the methods rather than the people. We need separate people to oversee different areas, people who are trustworthy and have final authority (comparable to Kineta's current authority in most areas); whether we call them admins or mods doesn't matter to me, but they should oversee a significant portion of the site. A head forum moderator, a head database moderator, a head review moderator, and a designated event organizer would be a good start. Head admins should only be concerned with major internal problems (e.g. staff corruption investigations, addressing "head" staff's concerns, etc.), technical problems (bot accounts, name changes, etc.), coordinating with the coding team/making coding-related announcements, and addressing site-wide suggestions. Even those duties could potentially be split between multiple people. Those four to eight roles should be the only ones "difficult" to find people to fill since they would require unusual amounts of time and responsibility. Anyone lower down the latter would be overseen by the people in said positions and wouldn't necessarily need to devote as much time. At that, since they could be more closely watched due to having multiple "head" roles, these lesser staff wouldn't have to be screened quite as heavily to determine their worthiness since they could be dealt with more swiftly should they misuse (i.e. innocently) or abuse their position. You could expand from there. In the context of this thread, the new head forum mod might want to further delegate power to mod team leaders for specific subforums (CD, AD, clubs, etc.) and mostly focus on addressing complaints about forum mods or w/e. Such a system would be far more preferable to the current state in my opinion, but as long as the staff aren't willing to undergo such a massive reorganization, I will support the so-called "patches" that they will at least consider. |
TripleSRankOct 2, 2015 9:27 PM
| are you people suggesting to stricken the moderation on the forums? strictly moderated forums are mostly dead because of super slow forum activity, one example on top of my head right now is AnimeSuki forums |
ios said: are you people suggesting to stricken the moderation on the forums? strictly moderated forums are mostly dead because of super slow forum activity, one example on top of my head right now is AnimeSuki forums The AnimeSuki forums had different rules and standards from the beginning. What we are proposing here would not affect the conception of the rules, in fact it would make some current rules such as 6 unnecessary, but would make moderation more effective and prone to answer to whatever infraction. This is more about being effective than being strict. @TripleSRank I agree with the system you introduce here, but I'm not fully convinced about this temporary solution that was proposed in this thread. It is a patch, which I guess can work for a while, but it as well is a huge limitation to the talk in CD, as well as something very arbitrary. Controversy is in fact too often driven by the answers and not the concept of the thread. If one creates a thread named "Do you believe in God?" I assume it's asking for personal viewpoints and feedback, not for offensive remarks among users. |
jal90Oct 3, 2015 3:22 AM
jal90 said: ios said: are you people suggesting to stricken the moderation on the forums? strictly moderated forums are mostly dead because of super slow forum activity, one example on top of my head right now is AnimeSuki forums The AnimeSuki forums had different rules and standards from the beginning. What we are proposing here would not affect the conception of the rules, in fact it would make some current rules such as 6 unnecessary, but would make moderation more effective and prone to answer to whatever infraction. This is more about being effective than being strict. No. All extending rule 6 to cover all 'controversial topics' would do is give the mods licence to shut down any discussion that didn't fit their own political agenda. Everyone has an agenda. For example: Max wants to promote 'peace through censorship', by giving authorities licence to remove threads without any rhyme or reason. I just want a place where I can state my opinions freely in a setting where most people vehemently disagree with me, and see how well those opinions hold up to scrutiny. Now you're telling me you want to take that away from me, and you can't even give a clear reason for it, or even a clear account of it. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Caelidesu said: jal90 said: The AnimeSuki forums had different rules and standards from the beginning. What we are proposing here would not affect the conception of the rules, in fact it would make some current rules such as 6 unnecessary, but would make moderation more effective and prone to answer to whatever infraction. This is more about being effective than being strict. No. All extending rule 6 to cover all 'controversial topics' would do is give the mods licence to shut down any discussion that didn't fit their own political agenda. Everyone has an agenda. For example: Max wants to promote 'peace through censorship', by giving authorities licence to remove threads without any rhyme or reason. I just want a place where I can state my opinions freely in a setting where most people vehemently disagree with me, and see how well those opinions hold up to scrutiny. Now you're telling me you want to take that away from me, and you can't even give a clear reason for it, or even a clear account of it. Okay what the hell does that have to do with what I'm saying here. Oh, I think I got it. I thought ios meant what Zerg, me and later TripleSRank were talking about on improving the moderation system, hiring more mods and etc. Sorry for the mess. |
jal90 said: ios said: are you people suggesting to stricken the moderation on the forums? strictly moderated forums are mostly dead because of super slow forum activity, one example on top of my head right now is AnimeSuki forums The AnimeSuki forums had different rules and standards from the beginning. What we are proposing here would not affect the conception of the rules, in fact it would make some current rules such as 6 unnecessary, but would make moderation more effective and prone to answer to whatever infraction. This is more about being effective than being strict. ok if you are implying that the forum rules will be revise to be more simple and less strict then im fine with your idea to increase moderators as to compensate for that sounds like reversing the current situation we have, because right now we have too many forum rules that are vague or too strict while there is only few moderators |
| Casual discussion isn't casual at all I agree that CD has issues. It should either be removed or strictly reformed. I also agree that the issue lies with the users. It's a gathering of depressed people that have nothing better to do. I don't believe this is the right forum or section for their discussion topics. |
| No. In other words you do not want to discuss anything that is actually worth discussing beyond food and clothing threads or dumb stuff like that... Tyrel said: Then why usually punish the person who made the thread instead of the users themselves? Entire threads being locked or deleted because of a few people. The threads aren't the problem, the users are. It's as simple as that. While some threads will cause more shit than others, the users decide the fate of how a thread will go. |
traed said: Tyrel said: Then why usually punish the person who made the thread instead of the users themselves? Entire threads being locked or deleted because of a few people. The threads aren't the problem, the users are. It's as simple as that. While some threads will cause more shit than others, the users decide the fate of how a thread will go. well said dude |
traed said: Much more thought process than just deciding on banning a few select users. And, the OP themselves can contribute to terrible posts as well in their own topic. Even if they aren't contributing to that, you gotta think of the long time run of how a thread is going to play out and whether or not if this is going to be an on-going issue. Unless you wanna volunteer to mod these threads 24/7, then yeah. More mods isn't a solution—as we've seen that already.Tyrel said: Then why usually punish the person who made the thread instead of the users themselves? Entire threads being locked or deleted because of a few people. The threads aren't the problem, the users are. It's as simple as that. While some threads will cause more shit than others, the users decide the fate of how a thread will go. And maybe I should've thought about what I wrote before saying it. The threads CAN be the source of a problem, not only the users themselves. But a lot of times a thread can be fine, but then the users decide to roll out how a thread will go—sometimes the thread can be cleaned and then banning said users without locking it—done it before myself. Then there's times where you've gone through a thread and cleaned up the whole thread, leaving it with only a few posts left and or nothing at all. A mod has the decision of deciding whether or not this topic can be discussed seriously again without them having to lock it/delete it. Mods don't want to have to come into a thread 24/7 to clean up a bunch of kids posts. A good prime example of this is the Shounen thread in the Anime Discussion back in its old days (Not sure if it's still the same). If I had my way, I'd lock it. But that thread gets ignored a lot... |
TyrelOct 3, 2015 6:48 AM
|
| Great idea ~ Why don't we rename "Casual Discussion" while we're at it ~ We should call it "Strictly non controversial super friendly kindergarten discussion" ~ No OP, what we need is efficient moderation. Restricting Casual Discussion even more than it already is isn't going to solve anything |
Comic_SansOct 3, 2015 8:42 AM
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Tyrel said: traed said: Much more thought process than just deciding on banning a few select users. And, the OP themselves can contribute to terrible posts as well in their own topic. Even if they aren't contributing to that, you gotta think of the long time run of how a thread is going to play out and whether or not if this is going to be an on-going issue. Unless you wanna volunteer to mod these threads 24/7, then yeah. More mods isn't a solution—as we've seen that already.Then why usually punish the person who made the thread instead of the users themselves? Entire threads being locked or deleted because of a few people. And maybe I should've thought about what I wrote before saying it. The threads CAN be the source of a problem, not only the users themselves. But a lot of times a thread can be fine, but then the users decide to roll out how a thread will go—sometimes the thread can be cleaned and then banning said users without locking it—done it before myself. Then there's times where you've gone through a thread and cleaned up the whole thread, leaving it with only a few posts left and or nothing at all. A mod has the decision of deciding whether or not this topic can be discussed seriously again without them having to lock it/delete it. Mods don't want to have to come into a thread 24/7 to clean up a bunch of kids posts. A good prime example of this is the Shounen thread in the Anime Discussion back in its old days (Not sure if it's still the same). If I had my way, I'd lock it. But that thread gets ignored a lot... the moderators should just focus on dealing with insults, this is what AnimeSuki forums got right heck i and many (i think) have been suggesting to make word censors here on MAL forums, the dev team can do that, Warez-BB forums has this feature and it works well, the moderators will be free of a lot of work too a lot of times threads get lock because of too strict rules about thread being a listing thread or versus threads even though they have good discussions going on, why not reduce the rules to more simple ones, insults and spambots are the only thing that causes a lot of problems anyway, the other rules are not needed much, you can free a lot of work for the moderators that way again too if the rules are streamlined to just ban on insults and spambots (and include other necessary rules too) |
jal90 said: @TripleSRank I agree with the system you introduce here, but I'm not fully convinced about this temporary solution that was proposed in this thread. It is a patch, which I guess can work for a while, but it as well is a huge limitation to the talk in CD, as well as something very arbitrary. Controversy is in fact too often driven by the answers and not the concept of the thread. If one creates a thread named "Do you believe in God?" I assume it's asking for personal viewpoints and feedback, not for offensive remarks among users. I don't think such threads are generally productive, however. When you discuss a topic that many contest isn't a matter of opinion, it is bound to invite controversy, and controversy that doesn't serve a purpose is worthless: I don't think most users coming to such a thread are going to suddenly decide that they do or don't believe in God as a result of reading the thread. While there might be a few that might change their mind, I question if the aforementioned controversy is worth the trouble. Personally, I don't think it is. If the site's users were more mature and we had a larger, more responsive moderating staff like the one I mentioned, it might be practical. In the current state I don't think it is. At that, the few that could discuss such a topic in a meaningful way could still do so via their profiles/PMs, so it's not as if the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. Not every kind of discussion topic needs to be made available on the public forums. Over time I've lost confidence in the staff's willingness to change. If Kineta or Luna comes in here and tells us that they're going to reorganize the staff, then I'm willing to reconsider, but otherwise I think OP's suggestion would be for the better. |
TripleSRank said: jal90 said: @TripleSRank I agree with the system you introduce here, but I'm not fully convinced about this temporary solution that was proposed in this thread. It is a patch, which I guess can work for a while, but it as well is a huge limitation to the talk in CD, as well as something very arbitrary. Controversy is in fact too often driven by the answers and not the concept of the thread. If one creates a thread named "Do you believe in God?" I assume it's asking for personal viewpoints and feedback, not for offensive remarks among users. I don't think such threads are generally productive, however. When you discuss a topic that many contest isn't a matter of opinion, it is bound to invite controversy, and controversy that doesn't serve a purpose is worthless: I don't think most users coming to such a thread are going to suddenly decide that they do or don't believe in God as a result of reading the thread. The changing of a single precept in someone's mind or the banishing of a single false assumption are not 'worthless' things. They are worth something, albeit very little. I agree that such a thread will likely change no-one's mind, but even so it's useful to see where two vocabularies collide; it's useful to see which words a believer and a non-believer will have different definitions for. TripleSRank said: While there might be a few that might change their mind, I question if the aforementioned controversy is worth the trouble. The trouble? You need to elaborate on this. It's really bothering me. What trouble is being caused? People lying and slandering each other? That's why forums are a good place for such things. A third party can show up to a discussion and call someone out on their bullshit. TripleSRank said: Personally, I don't think it is. You need to explain why discussion of such a topic equates to trouble, or what that trouble even amounts to. I'm not seeing any personally, and I've witnessed every dirty form of debate tactic in action. How can we enforce civility in the regard you're imagining it when it's so difficult to distinguish between a slanderous piece of propaganda and a misunderstanding of word definitions? |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Max said: If MAL is the honest-to-god representation of civility and manner that you claim it is, they would know not to make that mess in the first place. They would know to deal with their own problems, letting others go about their day instead of attacking them for a difference in belief. You are basically never involved in said discussions anyway: you're taking offence on someone else's behalf without their permission. Insulting someone isn't the same as attacking them and neither of those are the same as disagreeing with them. Quit it with the semantic terrorism. Max said: Zerg, your points deal primarily in opinion and speculation. While we share some common ground, the staff and their actions aren't the primary focus of this discussion. I wish to keep it to what we know so as to discuss the matter as objectively as possible. You want to discuss the manner in an objective fashion? No worries. Start by explaining what the actual problem is, and without using any blatantly subjective or misleading terms. A subject involving someone's political agenda is often not a lower quality one. If you find a thread tiring then you can always not read responses on it. A peaceful discussion is often a boring one. 'controversial topics' is so incredibly vague that it's impossible to police. If the problem is nothing more than you not wanting to read certain topics, then that's a problem you can solve yourself without ruining anyone else's fun by simply not reading those topics. Explain what the actual problem is, and without using any blatantly subjective or misleading terms. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Caelidesu said: TripleSRank said: I don't think such threads are generally productive, however. When you discuss a topic that many contest isn't a matter of opinion, it is bound to invite controversy, and controversy that doesn't serve a purpose is worthless: I don't think most users coming to such a thread are going to suddenly decide that they do or don't believe in God as a result of reading the thread. The changing of a single precept in someone's mind or the banishing of a single false assumption are not 'worthless' things. They are worth something, albeit very little. I agree that such a thread will likely change no-one's mind, but even so it's useful to see where two vocabularies collide; it's useful to see which words a believer and a non-believer will have different definitions for. I disagree with the bolded. Also, semantics wars are generally a symptom of arguing to win rather than discussing to come to an understanding (which doesn't necessarily imply agreement, mind you). Caelidesu said: TripleSRank said: While there might be a few that might change their mind, I question if the aforementioned controversy is worth the trouble. The trouble? You need to elaborate on this. It's really bothering me. What trouble is being caused? People lying and slandering each other? That's why forums are a good place for such things. A third party can show up to a discussion and call someone out on their bullshit. Slandering, insulting, flaming, and trolling are all against the rules; they're all "trouble". If by "calling someone out" you mean flaming/insulting/slandering back or backseat modding, then that's generally equally bad. Caelidesu said: TripleSRank said: Personally, I don't think it is. You need to explain why discussion of such a topic equates to trouble, or what that trouble even amounts to. I'm not seeing any personally, and I've witnessed every dirty form of debate tactic in action. How can we enforce civility in the regard you're imagining it when it's so difficult to distinguish between a slanderous piece of propaganda and a misunderstanding of word definitions? I already explained why in my response to jal. The what, I pointed out in response to the above quote. |
TripleSRank said: Caelidesu said: The trouble? You need to elaborate on this. It's really bothering me. What trouble is being caused? People lying and slandering each other? That's why forums are a good place for such things. A third party can show up to a discussion and call someone out on their bullshit. Slandering, insulting, flaming, and trolling are all against the rules; they're all "trouble". If by "calling someone out" you mean flaming/insulting/slandering back or backseat modding, then that's generally equally bad. Trolling: I made a thread a while back where I claimed that no-one was able to shitpost or troll, and responded to posts as if they were heartfelt. Everyone who was supposedly a troll gave up after less than two pages. Trolling is in the eye of the beholder. Flaming: Learning to put up with users like that gives you opportunities to destroy them. Don't feel obliged to read through the following thread in full, but the gist is that two different conversations happened here. One between CondemneDio and I, and one between Dawkins and I. They went in opposite directions. The former initially made an offhand remark that was quite rude, yet we came to a point of understanding over 3-4 posts. The latter called me: dogmatic, a troll, mixed up in a fantasy world, insane, etc. He also slandered my position and slandered what my source material actually said. Yet that was one of the most fun arguments I've had, because by the end, even someone that shared his beliefs acknowledged that it just seemed like he was getting "beat into the ground". Here's the point of all of that: even with all of that insanity, several interesting conversations took place, I cleared up a misunderstanding, and the person who was initially getting flamed and slandered ended up enjoying that thread the most. If I'd cried for mods I would have not only ruined my chance to have such an amusing exchange, but also cut several other people's conversations short. Insulting: Sticks and stones. Better to have a space where people can get angry at others than a space where people take offence for no good reason and get others banned. Slandering: What's the difference between a false assumption stemming from ignorance, and malicious slander? For example, isn't this slander? Max said: There's not even a semblance of civilized debate that happens on these forums. If someone disagrees, they're immediately ridiculed and shamed for it. |
CaelidesuOct 4, 2015 9:13 PM
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Risara said: How can you expect anime fans (and even some underage users) to have a serious discussion on pedophilia? Isn't that against the rules for being a heavy topic as well?It's sad because I made a thread about pedophiles expecting serious discussion, The thread was going well until the next day it was deleted due to "trolling and spam". |
|
| there is a pooling for moderators now - http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=1435506 maybe some of you here are interested becoming a moderator and change the rules for the better perhaps |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Add list setting to make notes private (on public lists)S_h_a_r_k_93 - Nov 12, 2022 |
25 |
by anonymate
»»
Apr 24, 9:57 PM |
|
» Add number of episodes and number of members in the advanced search.Yacine2104 - Jan 10 |
8 |
by Alexioos95
»»
Apr 24, 12:26 PM |
|
» Local Language districtskuroneko99 - Apr 22 |
5 |
by Luchipher-Zen
»»
Apr 23, 1:02 PM |
|
Poll: » Change picture of favorite character ( 1 2 )gehoti2822 - Nov 12, 2022 |
60 |
by AgravityBoy
»»
Apr 23, 9:09 AM |
|
» Corporate imagesNoctisnox - May 15, 2023 |
19 |
by himanshi122
»»
Apr 19, 5:51 AM |