Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 05-25-2011, 09:30 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Ha. Thanks. Yes for those who didn't see it was a link to a photo of female nether regions and flowers. From a photography site if I remember correctly. Hardly one of my favorite sites for more prurient motivations. More of an artistic tribute to the female form, imo. But inappropriate for this site, so a totally justified use of the "report" function.
__________________
Uncle Ebeneezer Such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 05-25-2011, 10:31 PM
grits-n-gravy grits-n-gravy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 431
Default Re: Cosmopolitian disdain

Ouch!
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 05-26-2011, 02:02 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: Wingnut, Teabagger, RWer

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
... [T]he mere fact that some people accept a label doesn't make it not in sulting. Many people are Muslims*, but do we deny that it's intended as an offensive claim when Obama is accused of being one (in part because he's not admitting it, supposedly)? Many people may happily agree that they are gay, but that doesn't mean that "you are gay"* can't be used as an offensive slur (see Whatfur)...Similarly, many people have called themselves fascists or Stalinists or Communists or the rest, and yet those labels, when applied to people who don't accept the labels and simply are to the right or left of the US center, they are being used flat out as nothing but insults.
Steph: I agree with the overall thrust of what you are saying.* Generally, when people resort to the types of political or group labels that are meant merely as insults it is because they have run out of arguments and are left with nothing but pejoratives. I think most intelligent people--and certainly the regulars on this site qualify, by and large--can see through this style of "argumentation." My preferred course of action in these cases is to let the insulter hang him/herself. To do anything else just lends credibility to the name-caller.

I am more leery about saying that political labels of any ideological hue are out of bounds, even if the intent is to insult the one so labeled. If someone called me a "fascist" because I hold right-of-center views and voted for John McCain, my reaction would be to laugh it off. I might take the trouble to refute the claim or I might not, depending on how serious I thought the person was or how much credibility the person had on other subjects or with other people whose opinions I care about.

On the other hand, if someone makes the claim that the financial industry is run by thieves (in the absence of proof of actual criminal wrongdoing) who contribute nothing of value to society, that is, my view, Marxist-style rhetoric, even if the person employing it is not a Marxist, per se.

If someone argues that the U.S. health care system should be entirely government run, that may or may not be a "socialist," policy and the person who makes it might, in fact be a socialist, whatever his or her preferred label. But one would have to know a good deal more about the person's views on state control of the economy generally to say for sure. Moreover, the term says nothing at all about whether government-run health care is actually a good idea. Maybe socialism is the way to go in this instance.

Incidentally, in "socialist" Sweden, pensions are financed entirely by individual contributions to privately run (but closely regulated) investment funds. Are the Swedes, with their (horrors!) privatized social security system, bad socialists or good capitalists in this instance? To me they are the latter, but the semantics are trivial.

I have a much bigger problem with the guilt-by-association tactics used occasionally by some posters, along the lines of: "Republican pundit, official, etc. X is a racist, xenophobe, heartless hater [usually backed up by some quote whose purport and intent may in fact be open to interpretation]. You, Bhtv commenter Y, are also a Republican, Q.E.D. you are either a racist, etc., yourself, or at the very least tolerate the presence of such in your party. Therefore you are consigned to the Outer Darkness. I hasten to add that this is not a generalized tactic of one "side" or the other. I just dislike it when I see it, and resent it when I feel (sometimes incorrectly?) that it is being used against me.

Religious labels, when used as political weapons, can also be dirty pool. I take particular umbrage at the Andrew Sullivan-esque "christianist" term, as if there were any analogy between people in places like Afghanistan who want to keep women out of school and stone those accused of adultery with, say, a churchgoer in the U.S. who, out of religious conviction, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example.

Anway, attacks on one's moral character or motivations are a much more serious offense in my book than what are the political equivalent of schoolboy taunts.

*While I agree these terms can be and are used pejoratively, they have sting only insofar as one accepts the premise that being a member of that group carries a moral stigma. Perhaps the appropriate response is something like: "You're wrong and what's it to ya?"
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--

Last edited by rfrobison; 05-26-2011 at 04:23 AM.. Reason: punctuation
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:12 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
You are right. I beg forgiveness.
Je te pardonne.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post

I was annoyed by your comment about my comment about a certain commentator whom I called a "prig," a comment which you thought should be consigned to the dungeon. I thought this comment idiotic because I see nothing wrong with calling a prig a prig.
Well, and to be clear, my question wasn't about why your comment wasn't in the dungeon but the discrepancy between your comment (out of it) and the comments that were in. There are a lot of insulting things posters say about each other that are arguably true; some of them make it into the dungeon and some don't.

Last edited by miceelf; 05-26-2011 at 06:13 AM.. Reason: correcting the place where I pasted the end comment
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:26 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
Which implicates #2. Namely, the protected posters are those that complain and abuse the little triangle with the black bar: I'm looking (h)at at certain class of aggrieved, whiny, butthurt posters.
I find the commenter court diavlogs entertaining, truly. Bob is just enjoyable to watch/listen to, and Aryeh also- I wonder if Aryeh has any interest in being a bloggingheads performer, doing some interviews, etc.

A simple solution to the problem of people abusing the report posts function (which might also help with the resource issue) is limiting the number of times a given poster can report a problem. If you get exactly (say) four chances a week to hit the complaint button, you might be more selective about doing it, curbing the habitual complainers a bit, lightening the load on Aryeh et al., and perhaps having other benefits as well.

Heck, the *NHL* is cracking down on "diving"- in a recent game, a player was given a penalty for "exaggerating" a dirty hit on him, even as he was helped off the ice and to the dressing room, due to an injury. (dont get me started about the ethics of being the NHL's Director of Hockey Operations while your son is an active player in the league, but that's another story).

I will also echo your point about not envying people in this role. It's a thankless, impossible job.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:30 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
I don't know what options or even plug-ins ( extensions ?) your forum software provides but as a fer instance I see that there are Post Icons that can be used by a poster to make a point about the post, could there something (accessible only to admins ) icons or colors or something like it that could be used to warn commenters that certain posts are gonna start being ejected if the tenor of the conversation doesn't change, or some other metric.
There's a function in some comments sections (Aryeh, check out wowhead.com, for an example) where given posts can be rendered invisible if voted down enough times (or if, presumably, an admin disapproves).

I think the voting down aspect could be abused, but if there's a post/posts that Aryeh thinks crosses the line, he would have the option of making the post translucent (it would appear to be an empty post to the reader, with a small "this post has been downgraded, click here to view anyway" feature, which would make the post invisible to most readers, but allow the rules lawyers among us to view the post in context.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:25 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
There's a function in some comments sections (Aryeh, check out wowhead.com, for an example) where given posts can be rendered invisible if voted down enough times (or if, presumably, an admin disapproves).

I think the voting down aspect could be abused, but if there's a post/posts that Aryeh thinks crosses the line, he would have the option of making the post translucent (it would appear to be an empty post to the reader, with a small "this post has been downgraded, click here to view anyway" feature, which would make the post invisible to most readers, but allow the rules lawyers among us to view the post in context.
Mmm, I'm extremely skeptical of the "group policing" idea. I can imagine that it would quickly degenerate into just another type of flaming, as the most partisan commenters would spend their time trying to get every post by their adversaries voted off the island. There's more than enough "rah-rahing" for the left and right teams here without giving whoever has the greatest energy or most time on his hands the means to muzzle voices he doesn't like.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 05-26-2011, 08:09 AM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrobison View Post
Mmm, I'm extremely skeptical of the "group policing" idea. I can imagine that it would quickly degenerate into just another type of flaming, as the most partisan commenters would spend their time trying to get every post by their adversaries voted off the island. There's more than enough "rah-rahing" for the left and right teams here without giving whoever has the greatest energy or most time on his hands the means to muzzle voices he doesn't like.
I basically agree with the sentiment expressed here but one of the issues is the amount of time that a limited staff has to monitor comment threads. To little time per post, could lead to errors as well. So we have usually 2 choices, one is to let the software do some stuff and the other is some form of peer review or self-management. I wonder what other forums with similar goals do to keep a certain amount of civility, keeping in mind that Bob's particular intentions are unique to him. I think a little group policing wouldn't be a bad idea. I also think that while there are partisan commenters there are a relatively small number that are willing to spend endless amounts of time "working the refs".
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 05-26-2011, 08:25 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrobison View Post
Mmm, I'm extremely skeptical of the "group policing" idea. I can imagine that it would quickly degenerate into just another type of flaming, as the most partisan commenters would spend their time trying to get every post by their adversaries voted off the island. There's more than enough "rah-rahing" for the left and right teams here without giving whoever has the greatest energy or most time on his hands the means to muzzle voices he doesn't like.
To be clear, when I said that I thought the voting down aspect could be abused, I meant it shouldn't be part of the feature. Rather, Aryeh should have the power to mark given posts as non-productive and semi-invisible. I was focused on this aspect as potentially useful. I was NOT endorsing a plan where voting down could make it invisible. Just presenting this as an alternate way for *Aryeh* and no one else to take offensive posts out of the mix.

Sorry, I can totally see how what I intended wasn't clear.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 05-26-2011, 09:22 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
To be clear, when I said that I thought the voting down aspect could be abused, I meant it shouldn't be part of the feature. Rather, Aryeh should have the power to mark given posts as non-productive and semi-invisible. I was focused on this aspect as potentially useful. I was NOT endorsing a plan where voting down could make it invisible. Just presenting this as an alternate way for *Aryeh* and no one else to take offensive posts out of the mix.

Sorry, I can totally see how what I intended wasn't clear.
No need for apologies. I misunderstood.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 05-26-2011, 10:46 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrobison View Post
Mmm, I'm extremely skeptical of the "group policing" idea. I can imagine that it would quickly degenerate into just another type of flaming, as the most partisan commenters would spend their time trying to get every post by their adversaries voted off the island. There's more than enough "rah-rahing" for the left and right teams here without giving whoever has the greatest energy or most time on his hands the means to muzzle voices he doesn't like.
Yeah, agreed (and understand it's not being suggested).

I'm familiar with other sites that work on that kind of concept (get a certain number of votes and get banned for a time) where it seems to work okay, but I don't see it working here or most places, especially ones focused on politics.

I generally dislike it when sites hide posts based on likes (or dislikes, really) of others, in that I don't like the idea that popularity makes a comment worthwhile or not.

(You get really stupid versions of this in some of the heated amazon review discussions.)
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 05-26-2011, 11:20 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Wingnut, Teabagger, RWer

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrobison View Post
My preferred course of action in these cases is to let the insulter hang him/herself. To do anything else just lends credibility to the name-caller.
We agree entirely on this. I knew you were a smart and reasonable guy! :-)

(Note that I'm trying out emoticons, which I normally avoid, for this discussion, simply because I'm trying to keep the tone a little lighter.)

Quote:
I am more leery about saying that political labels of any ideological hue are out of bounds, even if the intent is to insult the one so labeled. If someone called me a "fascist" because I hold right-of-center views and voted for John McCain, my reaction would be to laugh it off. I might take the trouble to refute the claim or I might not, depending on how serious I thought the person was or how much credibility the person had on other subjects or with other people whose opinions I care about.
Yes, I again agree, and this is what I've been trying to say. I hope no one's been taking my complaints to suggest that I'm saying even the dumbest insults along this line should be banned or dungeonized. I'm just saying if they are going to do it for some, they should be consistent, or else you get greater problems based on feelings of unfairness and preferential treatment and why am I being called out when so and so wasn't, etc. At least, that's how it makes me feel, and I've never even been called out (and I try not to insult people).

Quote:
On the other hand, if someone makes the claim that the financial industry is run by thieves (in the absence of proof of actual criminal wrongdoing) who contribute nothing of value to society, that is, my view, Marxist-style rhetoric, even if the person employing it is not a Marxist, per se.
I don't agree -- I'd say it's more classical populism (which I dislike, and I disagree with the statement, in case that's not clear). However, I'd not assume that raising the issue of whether socialist assumptions were underlying the view or some such in this case was a simple insult of the kind I've been complaining about. But that's why context is relevant. However, I think you and I both agree that context can best be judged by the other participants. Some such accusations (like yours here) I would consider valid and worth discussing. Others would cause me to conclude that the person involved was not interested in real discussion and just wanted to insult liberals and post partisan talking posts. I would cease talking to such a person. You can generally tell pretty easily where the person stands if you try in good faith to have a real conversation and see the response.

I've had decent conversations with Op, for the record, even though when he gets in one of his "calling people fascists or going on about Obama's lack of intelligence" modes I find conversation uninteresting (and tell him that -- I think we get along well enough). Similarly, ohreally posts some stuff that makes me roll my eyes and seems not worth discussing (the Wall Street point you were referencing, probably), but he's plenty interesting to talk to on other points and doesn't just insult his discussion partners. And I know you weren't suggesting otherwise, just a related thought. (I admit that Op and ohreally, who have little in common and I'm not suggesting that they do, are free to think I'm the irrational one on the topics in question.)

Quote:
"socialist" Sweden, pensions are financed entirely by individual contributions to privately run (but closely regulated) investment funds. Are the Swedes, with their (horrors!) privatized social security system, bad socialists or good capitalists in this instance? To me they are the latter, but the semantics are trivial.
Sure. I don't really think Sweden is really what those who toss around the term "socialist" in a stupid way are trying to invoke -- more Soviet Russia, as I said, or perhaps North Korea. One reason I think the socialist/capitalist dichotomy is pointless and simplistic is that the vast majority of reasonable people in the US (and probably Europe) suppose some kind of limited and regulated capitalism. I'm a pragmatist in that I'm interested in how other countries make things like pensions and health care and industry and labor relations and public transportation and so on work, not wedded to any particular solution due to preexisting ideological attachment.

Indeed, my problem with the Ryan plan is less that I think things shouldn't be privatized (I'm for privatizing some things, although yes I have concluded that it doesn't work well for health care as a whole, especially for the old), but because his goals seem to me to be focused on destroying Medicare for preexisting ideological reasons of his own. I see zero connection between the problems that I agree exist (growing health care costs) and his proposed solution. And I see no genuine effort to address the hard questions (like how do we make choices about what the government is able and willing to pay for). There's, instead, a pretense that this problem goes away if we just privatize. (Combined with the nasty political argument -- and it's not you, current Medicare recipient, anyway, it's the poor people on Medicaid and people under 55.)

Quote:
I have a much bigger problem with the guilt-by-association tactics used occasionally by some posters, along the lines of: "Republican pundit, official, etc. X is a racist, xenophobe, heartless hater
Well, maybe you think that's what I've just done with the rant about Ryan and his goals, but I'd strongly disagree. If it comes to actually saying the kinds of words you do above, I'd agree that it's usually not worthwhile commentary, and I generally don't think assumptions that people are racists simply because they disagree with you or that their #1 goal is something negative like wanting more kids to die is sensible or commentary that will be seen as credible.

However, on the other side, I think it's too easy and common for the type of points I made above to be dismissed as "oh, she's just saying Ryan is a bad guy," and that's not accurate. I'd generally agree that most people want what they think is best, even if they think some philosophy that I find intellectually-bankrupt, like libertarianism, will in the long run (and despite the admitted costs) be best for this country. I don't think that makes you evil or someone who hates kids and kicks dogs. But I don't see how that's relevant, really -- the important thing is the results, not one's motives for wanting the results. (For example, Bush may have had the best intentions in the world -- I've never actually suggested otherwise. All of my criticisms of his policies still stand and are unaffected.)

Quote:
Religious labels, when used as political weapons, can also be dirty pool. I take particular umbrage at the Andrew Sullivan-esque "christianist" term, as if there were any analogy between people in places like Afghanistan who want to keep women out of school and stone those accused of adultery with, say, a churchgoer in the U.S. who, out of religious conviction, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example.
I think the "chistianist" label, as often applied, is is dumb too, but I don't take it any more seriously than the fascist stupidity. Indeed, in that I think it's an accusation that hurts the accuser more than the target given the realities of US politics, it's hard for me to get too worked up.

Last edited by stephanie; 05-26-2011 at 11:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 05-26-2011, 11:33 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Prig and idiot responds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
These words are just the kind of name-calling you resort to when you run out of arguments or lose an argument. They display weakness.

Emoting in the forum does not serve you well, as others have noted. Crying "idiot" for the 1000th time offends no one because after the first few hundred we all become immune to the venom in your stinger.
I will try to keep your "oprah-ish" advice in mind. But you are mistaken in saying that I cry "idiot" all that often or that I cry it when I am losing an argument. In the first place, my few serious posts are usually about something said in a diavlog, and in the second place I do not consider certain posts by commentators here to come even close to an argument in any sense of that word with which I am familiar. Sometimes, there is nothing to do but cry idiot. Not that I think you are an idiot, wonderment, just a little too preachy and a little to complacent in your moral certainties.

Last edited by Florian; 05-26-2011 at 02:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 05-26-2011, 11:50 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Prig and idiot responds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I will try to keep your "oprah-ish" advice in mind. But you are mistaken in saying that I cry "idiot" all that often or that I cry it when I am losing an argument.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that this betrays one of the weaknesses of English relative to French.

I took Wonderment to be using "you" as in "on", not "you" as in "vous"

In other words, he seemed to be saying that in general, the use of insults is an indicator that one has lost the argument or is losing it.

Although i can see how one might take him as talking specifically about you.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 05-26-2011, 12:04 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Prig and idiot responds

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I could be wrong, but I suspect that this betrays one of the weaknesses of English relative to French.

I took Wonderment to be using "you" as in "on", not "you" as in "vous"

In other words, he seemed to be saying that in general, the use of insults is an indicator that one has lost the argument or is losing it.

Although i can see how one might take him as talking specifically about you.
On ne peut pas être plus injuste à mon égard. Mais vous avez peut-être raison.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 05-26-2011, 02:38 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Prig and idiot responds

Quote:
Not that I think you are an idiot, wonderment, just a little too preachy and a little too complacent in your moral certainties.
Against the wishes of my attorney, I plead guilty on both counts.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 05-26-2011, 04:20 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Prig and idiot responds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Against the wishes of my attorney, I plead guilty on both counts.
Frog march! Frog march!
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 05-26-2011, 04:47 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by graz
Which implicates #2. Namely, the protected posters are those that complain and abuse the little triangle with the black bar: I'm looking (h)at at certain class of aggrieved, whiny, butthurt posters.
I find the commenter court diavlogs entertaining, truly. Bob is just enjoyable to watch/listen to, and Aryeh also- I wonder if Aryeh has any interest in being a bloggingheads performer, doing some interviews, etc.

A simple solution to the problem of people abusing the report posts function (which might also help with the resource issue) is limiting the number of times a given poster can report a problem. If you get exactly (say) four chances a week to hit the complaint button, you might be more selective about doing it, curbing the habitual complainers a bit, lightening the load on Aryeh et al., and perhaps having other benefits as well...
For the record, I don't use the report button that often. I used it three times in the last set-to. The first two were to complain about the speculation that I was a Fur sockpuppet, the third, because TS had changed the wording in someone else's post to say something against harry and me. I think it should be against site rules to idly speculate about others being sockpuppets. That sort of thing should be kept to PM gossip, where no doubt it is already rampant.

I also forwarded the renzo PM.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 05-26-2011, 04:52 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Prig and idiot responds

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Frog march! Frog march!
Careful! That idiom might have unfortunate unintentional connotations!
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 05-26-2011, 05:07 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
TS had changed the wording in someone else's post to say something against harry and me.
You're lying, look. I did not "change the wording in someone else's post." I merely quoted someone who said something you didn't like.

Here's StarWatcher's statement about how your posts are "so bad." I quoted him here.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 05-26-2011, 05:11 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
You're lying, look. I did not "change the wording in someone else's post." I merely quoted someone who said something you didn't like.

Here's StarWatcher's statement about how your posts are "so bad." I quoted him here.
lol Okay.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 05-26-2011, 05:27 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
For the record ...
I also forwarded the renzo PM.
Why don't you post the addendum to the forwarded pm. I'm sure it would put to rest any claims that you are working the refs, aggrieved, a victim, etc...
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 05-26-2011, 05:41 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
Why don't you post the addendum to the forwarded pm. I'm sure it would put to rest any claims that you are working the refs, aggrieved, a victim, etc...
Addendum to forward:

Quote:
Please note this was sent to me anonymously during my talk with Brendan tonight.

I think you have bigger problems than you realize with the hostile nature of Brendan, TS, graz, etc. and what they do to the general feel of this board.

I realize you probably view me as a pain, but I care for bhtv as much as any of them.

CC: Brenda, Aryeh, Brendan, Jeff, Wonderment
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:03 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
I think it should be against site rules to idly speculate about others being sockpuppets. That sort of thing should be kept to PM gossip, where no doubt it is already rampant.

I also forwarded the renzo PM.
Are you referring to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Are you referring to my quote? If so, please refrain from insinuating that I am Fur. You may think it's funny, but I think it's libelous and creates an atmosphere of distrust on the board.
Which was your response to this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Which was a link to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
They were snarking at your girl badhat FYI, remember: friends don't let friends drink and post.
that was obviously a warning regarding the dangers of drinking and posting (Furbossnavmaki's disease), and in no way an accusation that you were a sock puppet, any more than it had much of anything to do with you, which, when coupled with the assertion it's libelous to be called fur, was one of the funniest posts ever?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 05-26-2011 at 06:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:16 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Are you referring to this:

Which was your response to this:



Which was a link to this:


That was obviously a warning regarding the dangers of drinking and posting (Furbossnavmaki's disease), and in no way an accusation that you were a sock puppet, any more than it had much of anything to do with you, which, when coupled with the assertion it's libelous to be called fur, was one of the funniest posts ever?
Please forgive my confusion, but it's hard to know what your intention was when you were answering Brendan's slam to harry:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe
Quote:
Yes! She's here to help!

I am comforted to know that she now acknowledges that government regulation will keep things sustainable forever.

Also, what has happened to badhat's spelling?

Did she and 'fur get confused about who's supposed to be posting to what account?
Furbossnavmaki's desease.
by linking to a mysterious post from you to me:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by look
Just like this thread. I didn't know there was such a thing as midnight kindergarten. I wonder if they've shown each other their pee-pees yet.

They were snarking at your girl badhat FYI, remember: friends don't let friends drink and post.
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...63&postcount=3
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:17 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Addendum to forward:
I'm totally changing my handle to "etc.". I must have gotten left out of the PM gossip conspiracy, though, WTF?
You aren't paranoid enough to be fur, but close. His level of patriarchal condescension is a close match to your level of matriarchal condescension, however.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:22 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
I'm totally changing my handle to "etc.". I must have gotten left out of the PM gossip conspiracy, though, WTF?
You aren't paranoid enough to be fur, but close. His level of patriarchal condescension is a close match to your level of matriarchal condescension, however.
Go stand in the corner, and don't come out till you've thought about it.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:22 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Please forgive my confusion, but it's hard to know what your intention was when you were answering Brendan's slam to harry:



by linking to a mysterious post from you to me:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpo...63&postcount=3
Sorry about the mystery, I thought I was explaining the flap about badhat, that you were snarking about in the original post.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:22 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Just for the record, the idea that Brendan, graz, etc. are especially nasty, especially compared to some of the other posters, is false. (Also, I don't even know who this renzo person is, so whatever the connection is supposed to be that look is implying goes over my head.)

I didn't realize the working the refs was quite so blatant when I first started talking about it, but I think that demonstrates quite clearly why many of us are worried that factors that currently exist are encouraging the moderation to work in a biased manner.

It's sad, because if look and others are going to be making such comments and sending such emails, then I do feel like I can't just be a big girl and ignore comments that I don't care for. While that would be in the best interest of the forum if others followed similar policies, it seems that there is a responsibility to point out the nasty posts that get directed at me and at other posters who aren't of the type to try and lobby the moderators. The negative, of course, is that if others of us do feel a necessity to respond in kind and follow such a policy, there will be lots more complaints and boring and disruptive meta arguments about the nature of comments.

I strongly, strongly urge TPTB to stop giving reinforcement to such tactics. You cannot trust that a complaint about a few posters is in any way representative of what happens on the board or who is generally perceived to be a problem. If you don't have the time or staff to really moderate it or the interest to participate enough to do so, then I think basing assumptions on who complains is wrong. Seems to me complaints like the one look quoted are really obviously based on political dislike. The fact that look has been extremely vocal in lobbying for Whatfur, a poster who frequently made anti-gay and obscene slurs, demonstrates, I think, that there's something going on besides a concern about abuse on the boards.

As I've said before, I've gotten into a number of debates with Brendan, about drug policy and religion and the discussion of creationism (topics on which people tend to be passionate, as I expect we all know), and he's thought plenty of things I had to say were completely wrong and perhaps worse, but he's never been abusive. That was true from the time I first started posting here, when he didn't know my politics beyond those issues, really, and when I tended to post much more conservative. (Since I think I am pretty moderate and conservative on some issues, it's just compared with the current Republican Party that I seem a flaming liberal.)

Last edited by stephanie; 05-26-2011 at 06:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:23 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Go stand in the corner, and don't come out till you've thought about it.
But maaaaa! Weuns wuz jist funnin'!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:30 PM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Commenter court is one of the most commented diavlogs on the site

And I think I know why, the subject matter... is ourselves.


And like all good narcissists the most important topic in the universe that deserves discussion, is ourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:34 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Commenter court is one of the most commented diavlogs on the site

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
And I think I know why, the subject matter... is ourselves.


And like all good narcissists the most important topic in the universe that deserves discussion, is ourselves.
This is totally true. Meta discussions tend to be popular everywhere, probably for the same reason. It's one reason giving any oxygen to this kind of thing tends to be dangerous.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:42 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

I will just point out the problem here, which is that especially given the lack of resources for moderating, the complaint function may not be representative of the nature of what goes on.

Some are clearly more willing to use it than others.

My suggestion of limiting the number of times a given poster could use it over a given period was a serious one.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:43 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Heh.

Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:49 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Sorry about the mystery, I thought I was explaining the flap about badhat, that you were snarking about in the original post.
You disappeared and didn't explain. I sincerely thought you were implicating me, as well as harry, of being Fur. As I said, I think it's a serious matter to idly speculate about sockpuppets, as some, especially newcomers, may take it seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:51 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
But maaaaa! Weuns wuz jist funnin'!
;(
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:54 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
You disappeared and didn't explain. I sincerely thought you were implicating me, as well as harry, of being Fur. As I said, I think it's a serious matter to idly speculate about sockpuppets, as some, especially newcomers, may take it seriously.
I seriously thought you would figure it out when you got this response:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
ROFL
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:09 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Just for the record, the idea that Brendan, graz, etc. are especially nasty, especially compared to some of the other posters, is false. (Also, I don't even know who this renzo person is, so whatever the connection is supposed to be that look is implying goes over my head.)

I didn't realize the working the refs was quite so blatant when I first started talking about it, but I think that demonstrates quite clearly why many of us are worried that factors that currently exist are encouraging the moderation to work in a biased manner.

It's sad, because if look and others are going to be making such comments and sending such emails, then I do feel like I can't just be a big girl and ignore comments that I don't care for. While that would be in the best interest of the forum if others followed similar policies, it seems that there is a responsibility to point out the nasty posts that get directed at me and at other posters who aren't of the type to try and lobby the moderators. The negative, of course, is that if others of us do feel a necessity to respond in kind and follow such a policy, there will be lots more complaints and boring and disruptive meta arguments about the nature of comments.

I strongly, strongly urge TPTB to stop giving reinforcement to such tactics. You cannot trust that a complaint about a few posters is in any way representative of what happens on the board or who is generally perceived to be a problem. If you don't have the time or staff to really moderate it or the interest to participate enough to do so, then I think basing assumptions on who complains is wrong. Seems to me complaints like the one look quoted are really obviously based on political dislike. The fact that look has been extremely vocal in lobbying for Whatfur, a poster who frequently made anti-gay and obscene slurs, demonstrates, I think, that there's something going on besides a concern about abuse on the boards.
As I've said before, I've gotten into a number of debates with Brendan, about drug policy and religion and the discussion of creationism (topics on which people tend to be passionate, as I expect we all know), and he's thought plenty of things I had to say were completely wrong and perhaps worse, but he's never been abusive. That was true from the time I first started posting here, when he didn't know my politics beyond those issues, really, and when I tended to post much more conservative. (Since I think I am pretty moderate and conservative on some issues, it's just compared with the current Republican Party that I seem a flaming liberal.)
This is a good observation. Although Fur is a friend, I admit I should have come down on the gay stuff. As I have said before, I have a big problem with how Brendan has behaved over time, causing many good posters to leave. That's my judgement, ymmv.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:10 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
I seriously thought you would figure it out when you got this response:
Really? Coming from TS, I assumed nothing but derisive laughter.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:11 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Commenter Court: Positive Reinforcement (Robert Wright & Aryeh Cohen-Wade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJkxFhFRFDA
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.