Patrick....I have an idea.
« prev   misc   next »

4
4

Patrick....I have an idea.

By Strategist following x   2017 Nov 13, 6:55pm 974 views   62 comments   watch   quote     share  


#misc @patrick We all want some kind of a balance between uncivil posts and normal posts.
Suppose, the moderator, instead of making the post disappear, redirects it to a thread just for "insults and uncivil" posts. All responses to insults, which are inevitable, would simply end up in the "insults and uncivil" threads. This way, everyone gets what they want from the site, and no one gets discouraged from posting. If someone does not like the "insults and uncivil" thread, they never have to click it on. Those who want to read or respond, will have there say too.
A couple of refinements will be needed, but if the concept makes sense to you, lets work on it.

Comments 1 - 40 of 62     Next »     Last »

2 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_ef72f says
Strategist says
We all want some kind of a balance between uncivil posts and normal posts.


No, you(r ideas) don't. You(r ideas) only want to limit insults to the people you agree with. Stop (your ideas from) being such a lying liar.


How will my ideas limit insults to the people I agree with? How? I'm not even a moderator. Same rules would obviously apply to all, regardless of insults or opinions.
3 WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:11pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Strategist says
#misc @patrick We all want some kind of a balance between uncivil posts and normal posts.
Suppose, the moderator, instead of making the post disappear, redirects it to a thread just for "insults and uncivil" posts. All responses to insults, which are inevitable, would simply end up in the "insults and uncivil" threads. This way, everyone gets what they want from the site, and no one gets discouraged from posting. If someone does not like the "insults and uncivil" thread, they never have to click it on. Those who want to read or respond, will have there say too.
A couple of refinements will be needed, but if the concept makes sense to you, lets work on it.

I don't think your idea is bad. The problem lies in the #politics topic itself. There's going to be a flaw with ANYONE on this site currently moderating that topic the current way or with your suggestion. I know we're past the Thunderdome era, but just let it be what it's going to be at this point. People can use ignore and it works in much the same way as moderation considering the types of attacks and insults.

The anons are a problem, but if @Patrick goes back to the random word user names (winehorror) being used in place of anon, then that might help. Although I think most users are jumping to different IP's relatively easy, so that may not work either.

It's been roughly 5 days on housing and I'm driving the Tesla of moderation. Mind you there haven't been many new threads, but I felt a duty to look through the more recent threads and even in the more commented one's it stays pretty civil. I think politics is a unique thing and to try and have that moderated is a fools errand. I'm not giving up on moderation, but it's clearly not working in politics. And I don't think it can. Whoever moderates anything in that topic is instantly biased against whoever they moderate. It's a lose lose proposition for whoever is moderating and it seems like that's what the topic shifts to. Who's moderating and not the actual topic at hand.
4 anon_06961   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:13pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Somehow everyone was fine before moderation, other than occasional spam that needed deletion. Why this such an issue now? I don't get it.
5 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

WookieMan says
Strategist says
#misc @patrick We all want some kind of a balance between uncivil posts and normal posts.
Suppose, the moderator, instead of making the post disappear, redirects it to a thread just for "insults and uncivil" posts. All responses to insults, which are inevitable, would simply end up in the "insults and uncivil" threads. This way, everyone gets what they want from the site, and no one gets discouraged from posting. If someone does not like the "insults and uncivil" thread, they never have to click it on. Those who want to read or respond, will have there say too.
A couple of refinements will be needed, but if the concept makes sense to you, lets work on it.

I don't think your idea is bad. The problem lies in the #politics topic itself. There's going to be a flaw with ANYONE on this site currently moderating that topic the current way or with your suggestion. I know we're past th...


Thanks for the input Wookieman. All opinions are important on this topic, because we all want this very interesting and fun site to thrive.
Lets collect all ideas, criticisms, opinions, desires, wants, etc etc and turn it into a "think tank" for everyone's benefit.
6 KimJongUn   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:23pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_06961 says
Somehow everyone was fine before moderation, other than occasional spam that needed deletion.


There was also constant clamouring to delete this or that user from a certain group of people. So apparently not everything was fine for the said group.
7 anon_62240   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 7:54pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Tin foil hats on.

I think the political discussion problem is not restricted to Patnet. Both the pubs and dems have embraced marketing at its worst. Instead of only crafting their own messages, they've started twisting their adversary's message. If you question immigration, you're racist. If you want to protect the weak, you're a communist. The messages are being embraced by their target audience and it's at the point that their is no common ground. The true tin-foil-hatter in me thinks that it's all irrelevant; the high and mighty want the average joes on both sides to fight amongst themselves while they guide us into our new lives as serfs.
8 TwoScoopsMcGee   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 8:14pm   ↑ like (7)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Pat.net was doing fine until somebody became President and some posters lost their shit.

When people are butthurt, they get more butthurt easily. It's not unusual.

I simply ignore flounced anon users. Added 3 in 48 hours, maybe less. Butthurt people could ignore users they don't like.

With ignore, I don't see any reason why somebody would leave the forum over a poster or two.

People are peddling butthurt conspiracy theories because of butthurt, when you don't agree or call them out for the nutty, evidence-free BS it is, you're uncivil and a horrible person.

I still like a "reddit" style idea, with categories. Maybe 5 of the most popular threads, then the top 5 categories on the landing page.

I'm off to pee on some hookers before bed, nighty night all.
9 KimJongUn   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 8:17pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

TwoScoopsMcGee says
With ignore, I don't see any reason why somebody would leave the forum over a poster or two.


Word.
10 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 8:27pm   ↑ like (7)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Everything is still OK for discussion, just don't attack the other users personally.

I should have imposed this rule years ago.
11 RC2006   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 8:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Hey Patrick I shot you an email about my account could you respond to it not sure if its going to your junk mail or something,
12 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 8:45pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

anon_62240 says
Tin foil hats on.

I think the political discussion problem is not restricted to Patnet. Both the pubs and dems have embraced marketing at its worst. Instead of only crafting their own messages, they've started twisting their adversary's message. If you question immigration, you're racist. If you want to protect the weak, you're a communist. The messages are being embraced by their target audience and it's at the point that their is no common ground. The true tin-foil-hatter in me thinks that it's all irrelevant; the high and mighty want the average joes on both sides to fight amongst themselves while they guide us into our new lives as serfs.


Interesting thought, not out of the question.
13 HowdyThere   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 8:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

mell says
Interesting thought, not out of the question.


Visit other forums or MSM related chat rooms (just temporarily, come back here, right Pat) and you'll see a trend. I think we're being coralled.
14 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 9:01pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says
Everything is still OK for discussion, just don't attack the other users personally.

I should have imposed this rule years ago.


Lol ya think?
15 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 9:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

rpanic01 says
Hey Patrick I shot you an email about my account could you respond to it not sure if its going to your junk mail or something,


@rpanic01 I don't see it in regular mail or junk.

When did you send it?
16 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 9:27pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

mell says
the high and mighty want the average joes on both sides to fight amongst themselves while they guide us into our new lives as serfs.


Absolutely.

We fight, and they run off with the ball.
17 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 9:41pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote        

I never thought a simple rule directing people to “attack the point not the person” would cause so much turmoil.

Seems simple but maybe the discussions around here have gotten so vicious that it’s now the norm and those who don’t engage aggressively are the abnormal ones.

I swear though PatNet wasn’t like this back in the days when thomas1986 and others were still around (for people who were around then).
18 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 9:41pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Patrick says
mell says
the high and mighty want the average joes on both sides to fight amongst themselves while they guide us into our new lives as serfs.


Absolutely.

We fight, and they run off with the ball.


This is why Patnet is more relevant than ever. Patrick, you have a place where "they" don't control the narrative. Nearly every other media outlet has conformed to the will of the elites. But here everyone has a voice, even those we disagree with (as long as they can express their views in a civil fashion).
19 Sniper   ignore (7)   2017 Nov 13, 9:44pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

mell says
The true tin-foil-hatter in me thinks that it's all irrelevant; the high and mighty want the average joes on both sides to fight amongst themselves while they guide us into our new lives as serfs.


Sadly, that's not tin foil.

HowdyThere says
Visit other forums or MSM related chat rooms (just temporarily, come back here, right Pat) and you'll see a trend. I think we're being coralled.


Patrick says
We fight, and they run off with the ball.


Very true. Go read any article on any news or financial sites that allow comments. You'll see the comments immediately dive into tribal battles, the actual info in the article is rarely discussed. Meanwhile, DC continues it's rape and pillage of all Americans, and no one is paying attention.
20 Patrick   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 13, 9:46pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Goran_K says
I swear though PatNet wasn’t like this back in the days when thomas1986 and others were still around (for people who were around then).


I think it's because I was a Nazi about deleting flame war comments back then.

Really. Seems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory is true.

Grateful to have moderator help in deleting all the personal attacks.
21 Fucking White Male   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 13, 10:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Patrick says
Goran_K says
I swear though PatNet wasn’t like this back in the days when thomas1986 and others were still around (for people who were around then).


I think it's because I was a Nazi about deleting flame war comments back then.

Really. Seems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory is true.

Grateful to have moderator help in deleting all the personal attacks.


It was a bloodbath for Thomas and Bap. I don’t even know how those guys could deal with it as they were outnumbered in any thread by 20 to 1. I stayed out of the politics forum here for years.
22 mell   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 13, 10:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Fucking White Male says

It was a bloodbath for Thomas and Bap. I don’t even know how those guys could deal with it as they were outnumbered in any thread by 20 to 1. I stayed out of the politics forum here for years.


Yeah I remember that. Talk about a site for "right-wingers" - NOT! That was some outright brutal reception they received, indeed.
23 HEY YOU   ignore (7)   2017 Nov 13, 11:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

"idea"!
That's a first for patnet.
24 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 14, 4:36am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

Except it wasn’t politics then, it was Housing, and Thomas was often given the business because his position was that housing was on path to crash to 1970’s levels, and smarter people then him were illustrating why this wasn’t ever going to happen. It’s also the reason for some of the incivility, as some of us were buying houses at the bottom and others were arguing against reality. Is it any wonder why a certain sect of the sites posters became so angry? Had I argued against reality and stayed on the sidelines renting, while everyone else was getting rich with their housing investment, I’d probably be a salty prick as well, especially if I were the type of moron to never take in new information and change my mind.

And it’s the same reason why Iwog was so polarizing, he laid out investment strategies with reasoning and a game plan time and time again over the years, and halfwits determined to be against him had to watch time and time again as he nailed trades bigly, and they’d always look stupid for trying to fade him, while others that listened were making bank. Again, if I were a partisan moron, i can see how that would be frustrating.
25 PeopleUnited   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 14, 5:11am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I liked Iwog's investment advice. It had nothing to do with his polarizing nature which was by and large his ego and politics.
26 Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 8:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

Sniper says

Very true. Go read any article on any news or financial sites that allow comments. You'll see the comments immediately dive into tribal battles, the actual info in the article is rarely discussed. Meanwhile, DC continues it's rape and pillage of all Americans, and no one is paying attention.


And it will never change. Why fight the tide? Just go with it.
27 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 8:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

errc says
And it’s the same reason why Iwog was so polarizing, he laid out investment strategies with reasoning and a game plan time and time again over the years, and halfwits determined to be against him had to watch time and time again as he nailed trades bigly, and they’d always look stupid for trying to fade him, while others that listened were making bank. Again, if I were a partisan moron, i can see how that would be frustrating.


I personally didn't have a problem with Iwog offering investment advice.

Iwog left because he disagreed with his NSFW pictures being moderated and then tried to get around moderation by posting politics topics under investing. He was abusing his moderating ability right out of the gate. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I've tried really hard to be impartial and fair in the comments I've deleted or moderated (and it's not more than a handful thus far).
28 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 14, 9:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Goran_K says
errc says
And it’s the same reason why Iwog was so polarizing, he laid out investment strategies with reasoning and a game plan time and time again over the years, and halfwits determined to be against him had to watch time and time again as he nailed trades bigly, and they’d always look stupid for trying to fade him, while others that listened were making bank. Again, if I were a partisan moron, i can see how that would be frustrating.


I personally didn't have a problem with Iwog offering investment advice.

Iwog left because he disagreed with his NSFW pictures being moderated and then tried to get around moderation by posting politics topics under investing. He was abusing his moderating ability right out of the gate. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I've tried really hard to be impartial and fair in the comments I've deleted or moderated (and it's not more than a handful thus far).


You view a personal attack on yourself as uncivil and you treat it as such with censorship. However, if someone you view as being on your team, attacking someone who you view as on an opposing team, then you allow it to remain.

You need to try harder, you’re not doing a good job
29 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 9:57am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote        

Goran_K says
Iwog left because he disagreed with his NSFW pictures being moderated


That's a red herring if I ever saw one, and exhibit A in the ongoing indictment of Goran_K's practices. The preceding is absolutely not why iwog left. Anyone can read iwog's last few dozen comments and see clearly that this is false. What iwog protested against was that newly appointed moderator Goran_K, a self-professed libertarian, or lover of freedom, engaged in dishonest, arbitrary and tyrannical moderation practices, while attempting to hide behind a veil of protecting civility and making the #politics topic Suitable For Work.

BY THE WAY, my saying so is neither "uncivil" nor a "personal attack". It is a characterization of Goran_K's ACTIONS. In the same way as stating that politician X caused the death of Y people of Iraq through his actions, is not a "personal attack". If we cannot say that "person X is doing bad things" or "person X is being dishonest" without being subjected to censorship, then freedom of speech does not exist on patrick.net, and arbitrary censorship rules patrick.net. That is, arbitrary censorship by an omnipotent moderator and a gang of like-minded helper thugs that are more than willing to mark criticism of the moderator and his actions as "uncivil".
30 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 10:01am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

justme says
All that exists is arbitrary censorship by an omnipotent moderator and a gang of like-minded helper thugs that are more than willing to mark criticism of the moderator and his actions as "uncivil".


Like minded helper thugs is borderline uncivil but I'll allow it since you had a point in the middle of your personal attacks.

The truth is Iwog did leave after being asked to not post NSFW material, and even challenged me to state an opinion on #politics about how I would treat his NSFW postings. I even tried to compromise and say we could remove the front page thumbnail. He found that still unacceptable and left shortly after. So while that may not have been the only reason why he left, he did leave shortly after that exchange.
31 justme   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 10:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote        

The above is a complete mischaracterization of what actually happened. Everyone should go back and read iwog's last dozens of posts.
32 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 10:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

justme says
Everyone should go back and read iwog's post.


I agree.
33 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 14, 10:08am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Since when does Patrick.net have any need for being SFW?

You can’t be working and posting/reading Patnet simultaneously. Unless your job is to troll Patnet.

As an American that values the Economy, the last thing we need is to enable people to be avoiding their work at their job, to post on Patnet.

Get back to work if you’re at work

Or better yet, man up and make something of yourself so you’re not subject to censorship from your boss
34 Onvacation   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 10:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

errc says


You view a personal attack on yourself as uncivil

Because it is.
errc says
if someone you view as being on your team, attacking someone who you view as on an opposing team, then you allow it to remain.

YOU have the power to mark uncivil and then patnet can become a place where people can share and debate ideas.
35 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 10:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

errc says
Since when does Patrick.net have any need for being SFW?


Good question.

Start a thread under #misc or #patnet and tag Patrick. If Patrick decides NSFW is not important then that's what it will be. It would limit my time being able to hang out on PatNet though to off hours.
36 errc   ignore (2)   2017 Nov 14, 10:15am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Goran_K says
errc says
Since when does Patrick.net have any need for being SFW?


Good question.

Start a thread under #misc or #patnet and tag Patrick. If Patrick decides NSFW is not important then that's what it will be. It would limit my time being able to hang out on PatNet though to off hours.


If it’s a good question, why not simply answer it?

AFAIK, you were the one who decided the need for SFW after Iwog posted granny in her bra.

Maybe you should be focusing your energy on working while on company time, rather than attempting to censor opposing points of view
37 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 10:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

errc says
If it’s a good question, why not simply answer it?

AFAIK, you were the one who decided the need for SFW after Iwog posted granny in her bra.

Maybe you should be focusing your energy on working while on company time, rather than attempting to censor opposing points of view


I decided it would be the case for #politics. But if Patrick thinks granny titties and Anthony Weiner's dick pick is fine site wide, then those will be the rules. I won't go into multiple threads making dozens of comments complaining about it.
38 YesYNot   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 14, 10:25am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

Goran_K says
The truth is

pretty much exactly as justme summarized it.


Goran_K says
He was abusing his moderating ability right out of the gate.
He didn't abuse his moderating ability (sic). He posted a comment in the wrong category, so that he could avoid you as a moderator. That didn't rely on his moderating powers, because any poster could do it. Although he disagreed with your categorization of a picture, I recall that he clearly stated repeatedly that you were unfit as a moderator for other reasons. I'll take you at your word that you are trying to be honest and represent what happened accurately. But if that is the case, it seems to me that your ego is preventing you from seeing the situation clearly.
39 Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 14, 10:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (4)     quote        

YesYNot says
He didn't abuse his moderating ability (sic). He posted a comment in the wrong category, so that he could avoid you as a moderator


Yes, he miscategorized a post to avoid moderation. Your ego and bias is preventing you from admitting that he basically attempted to circumvent the site's rules and moderation because of his personal opinion of a mod, and was rightfully called out for it and the thread was moved back into its proper category.

Regardless, I won't debate Iwog's action anymore since he decided to "leave". He's not here to defend his actions or explain them anymore.
40 Sniper   ignore (7)   2017 Nov 14, 10:35am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote        

YesYNot says
He posted a comment in the wrong category, so that he could avoid you as a moderator.


Wrong.

He started a Politics THREAD under his Investment moderation control, so he could avoid Goran, and moderate it himself.

Big difference.

Comments 1 - 40 of 62     Next »     Last »


Comment as anon_f02b0 or log in at top of page: