Yeah that post about wanting to police his own thread made me just go O.o
Some people are clearly flagging posts they disagree with, and other people wish a debate to be curated to the point where only people who’s opinions they like should be allowed to post.
What. The. Eff.
As I told you privately after you messaged me, I have no issue with having a conversation or with dissenting views. That’s what I was asking for. For example, CommanderJ provided input that I don’t necessarily agree with, but he didn’t attack the integrity (moral or intellectual) of the people posting and he stayed on topic (as defined in my original post).
The bottom line is that most of the last 20 posts on that thread devolved into a debate about each poster’s intelligence and arguing technique. That has nothing to do with my original post or with the proc interaction on beam staff. If you want to tell people that their logic sucks or you think they are somehow “arguing in bad faith” about a video game that we all love, then send them a private message. That thread was not an appropriate place to do it.
Honestly, I’m not sure I care any more. This was the same problem with the last post and why Hedge had to intervene. I don’t really see this issue getting fixed unless there is real moderation added to this forum. I’ll just go back to work/gaming and let you guys derail the next post you disagree with and bicker with each other about off-topic issues.
Yes, and per the community guidelines:
That seems like a negative connotation based on your perception of his character. /s
I think the important point to take from this thread other than the flagging system can be abused is that everyone gets frustrated; especially if it’s involving a hobby they enjoy. I would just recommend that you don’t take a frustrated remark and paint the entire person with that.
Edit: This was not targeted at any specific individual.
I appreciate your posts here as well as Avar’s and hope you both feel comfortable debating issues and not people in the future as well. I can tell you both put effort and thought into your posts.
And you’ve yet to address either my original points from my PM to you, my restating those same points when you failed to address them, or my counterpoints. Also, you’re currently doing the exact thing you were decrying in your thread and to a much greater degree: going way "off-topic.’ Again, not gonna flag it because I’m a big boy and it’s tangentially related.
Once again, I at no point attacked anyone’s integrity. The auto-moderation system isn’t in place for people to run to when their feelings are subjectively hurt. Your assertion is untrue.
That is a lie. Further, pointing out when something is incorrect is on-topic if the thing one is pointing out is on-topic. By your logic, your entire post right now is completely off-topic. Again, not flag-worthy because it’s tangentially related and any reasonable person with common sense recognizes the natural flow of discussion.
Again, if someone posts a fallacy, and someone points out it’s a fallacy, that is not a personal attack. It is a statement of fact. This is not subjective. I recognize that you want people to be able to make comments that support your case unchallenged but that isn’t how the world works.
If there was permanent moderation you wouldn’t have been able to abuse the auto-mod system in the first place. It doesn’t exist for you to control the narrative. Hedge already stated this is something the devs are looking at but that the weapon is working as intended so by your very own logic, there was no point for you to make your thread in the first place other than to move the goalposts.
Point out where I criticize an individual without very clear clarification that it is not intended as a personal attack in any way and I will gladly expand upon or defend my comments as required. The only times I have ever said anything about anyone is in reference to something they have said or done that demonstrates extremely specific and easily recognizable issues wherein my statements are fact-based. Example: da3strikes outright lied in the post I’m responding to; I’m not going to start going around calling him a liar in general, because it’s rude, but I have no problem calling him out as a liar there. Does that call his character into question? Yes. Is that my fault? No. Was my argument that he’s wrong because his character was called into question? No, it was based on sound reasoning with careful and clear explanation. Does his lying in this instance mean I can just dismiss him as a liar in my comments in general? Obviously not. I don’t shoot from the hip dropping pith-bombs or telling people they’re wrong or that their ideas are bad for no reason.
Uh, I didn’t make that claim? Did you mean to link someone else? I’m over off topic talking about whether or not a hypothetical would be an ad hominem.
Crap, sorry, I must have made a mistake there. My bad man. Thanks for the correction and I agree that this has gone off the rails a bit.
Edit: Post corrected.
Sorry, I was reading all of this, it’s quite entertaining, without writing anything, but you’re pulling in.
I don’t know if he is writing as a “politician” (what do you mean?) but I’m sure he is the logic one.
There will be some changes made, they’re going to take time to put in place, but they will enable a user trust level within the forums.
I don’t wan’t to delve too much in to how it will work, but in essence the more “trusted” a user is based on various criterion, the more weight their reports will have and as such more impact on a topic’s state.
I am also on the look out for moderators, and am currently assessing the quality/accuracy of reporters of posts and threads to determine which users might make good candidates.