« First « Previous Comments 26 - 65 of 158 Next » Last » Search these comments
So there will be one new banned category of posts and comments: ad hominem
You may no longer attack the person themselves. Stick to attacks on their arguments.
Examples:
"You are a goat-fucker." = ad hominem, now forbidden
"Not even a Mormon would believe that." = attacking the argument, allowed
That's a slippery slope Patrick. I don't like Dan's endless goatfucker remarks, but I don't think I want to ban them. I support being able to say that Ironmoan (*) is a moron, or a Mormon, for that sake.
(*) I like that typo. From now he is a whiny little Ironmoan, just like he called me a whiny little girl ;)
That's a slippery slope Patrick.
Yep agreed. Don't let the goat-fucks and crybabies neuter you and this site.
So then include another sub forum where it's no holds barred. Call it "the penalty box" or something, where people can sit in their cages and fling feces at one another, or even just eat their own shit.
I'm of the opinion that if you want an actual Free Speech forum, where Free People are allowed to express their opinions, especially those that fall outside of the mainstream, you're going to need some degree of politeness or common courtesy, where libel is prohibited. Otherwise you get what we have here: people incapable of debating and discussing ideas thoroughly and honestly, will resort to personal attacks in a last ditch effort to silence that which needs to be heard/said the most.
I looked at the front page with images enabled again, and it is still reasonably clean, visually. Personally I will use the non-image version, though. In my book there are two main problems:
1. too many idiotic headlines. Seriously, people need to learn to write concise, accurate and DESCRIPTIVE headlines. Most headlines scream "DON'T READ THIS ILL-CONCEIVED DRIVEL".
2. too many idiotic posts by idiotic people. The volume that can be generated by idiots swamps the quality work. I support a limit of 1 thread created per person per day
(unless you are Patrick, some benefits must exist :)). Perhaps if you get 25 likes (of any kind) in a day, you can post another one.
ADDENDUM: Getting back to the original point of site visitor retention: Seeing three moronic headlines at the top of the site is a huge turnoff. No wonder people do not stay.
That is if you desire to
- capture new users
- retain them
- allow Free Speech for everyone
How is Free Speech hindered by disallowing Personal Attacks?
In the real world of Free Speech, you aren't allowed to make unfounded, false personal attacks.
Yes you are! But outside the internet, you better be able to back up your talk, or you might get punched in the head.
So then include another sub forum where it's no holds barred. Call it "the penalty box" or something
Done that. The new format is better.
How is Free Speech hindered by disallowing Personal Attacks?
Where else can we call someone a "fuckfaced nigger" without an instant ban? Where else can we call Ironman a got-fucker, or make jokes about Dan being a gay lover? Where else can we call tovacharpeter a spam-bot? Where else can ApocalypseFuck call Trump a cunt grabbing, fat-cheeto-faced, banking whore?
Is libel Free Speech?
If the answer is yes, what ways are you fighting against laws in place that disallow libel?
Let the courts deal with libel issues. If a crybaby wants to take a goat-fucker to court they are welcome to it.
Is libel Free Speech?
You're side-tracking the thread errc. In order for speech to be free, it must ALL be free, so yes.
So what can you do to fight for the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, in the real world?
"Free Speech Forum"
Perhaps make it a gigantic banner across the top, it's obviously way to small.
Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Is there anything productive about retaining ad hominem attacks, aside from the little frisson of joy people get from a well-crafted putdown?
Maybe the whole site is really just about well-crafted putdowns and I'm on the wrong track here...
Maybe the whole site is really just about well-crafted putdowns and I'm on the wrong track here...
------------
Maybe, but then encourage people to step their game up.
The personal attack material here is a crusty old record stuck on repeat. 1/10
Dan has probably went with goat fucker at least 1,000 times, and Ironman has posted that stupid picture of a pot head over 100 times
Obviously nobody is sticking around to see that tired old act stuck on repeat.
Barf
Don't worry, free speech will be well-protected, even if the views are far outside the Overton Window. It's only the ad hominem crap I'm going to get rid of.
Create a thunderdome for that :)
That way we can have our goat-fucking, didn't show at the Fort Lauderdale Restaurant threads for those who love them.
I fully support Patrick banning ad-homs. It doesn't matter whether right or left wing engages in this, the ad-homs add absolutely nothing to the conversation. For the record, I would say that the king of all ad-homs was Roberto Barabas and I can't say I miss his presence...
Create a thunderdome for that :)
Perhaps certain threads could be marked "ad hominem allowed" and kept off the home page, or at least kept below the fold.
Thanks Rew, I appreciate the good feedback. I'll implement those within the next couple of days.
Rew's just showing off! LOLjustme says
"DON'T READ THIS ILL-CONCEIVED DRIVEL".
That's the title of all my threads from this point forward!
...
If I say "ASSHOLES" it shouldn't insult anyone unless they are an ASSHOLE!
BAN me,I'm in a good humor.
Don't worry, free speech will be well-protected, even if the views are far outside the Overton Window. It's only the ad hominem crap I'm going to get rid of.
It's your right for sure but who do you think you are kidding..
Patricks "Free Speech Forum" dies this week....
Do libel laws, and the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, hinder free speech?
Take the hypocritical "Free Speech Forum" down while you are at it.
Your site absolutely won't deserve those words at the top....
I do need to ban direct insults.
Define direct insult.
"Listen, you fuckwad ..."
RIP Patrick's "Free Speech Forum"
Not true, you can attack any point you want, just don't make it about the person.
It is a limitation, but perhaps basic civility would add more to the conversation than it takes away.
And we could still designate a thread or set of threads as the Thunderdome where anything goes.
I fully support Patrick banning ad-homs. It doesn't matter whether right or left wing engages in this, the ad-homs add absolutely nothing to the conversation. For the record, I would say that the king of all ad-homs was Roberto Barabas and I can't say I miss his presence...
He was a total cunt.
Define direct insult.
zzyyzzx is an asshole.
Tis my opinion that zzyyzzx appears to hold opinions inline with that of an asshole. (looking down my nose at you, and spreading Grey Poupon from my limo)
zzyyzzx is deplorable.
zzyyzzx is a Trumpthuglican.
CIC likes goats.
Not true, you can attack any point you want, just don't directly attack the person making it.
I think zzyyzzx's point is a valid one. The arbitration of 'direct insult' might be difficult.
At the very least, it will be a significant change to the culture and discourse on Pnet. I'd settle for seeing the trolliness/ignore and dislike numbers while we ponder this more. :P
And we could still designate a thread or set of threads as the Thunderdome where anything goes.
That is a idea, lets see where the numbers go to. I have odds on no holds barred "Thunderdome" 100-1.
zzyyzzx is an asshole.
Tis my opinion that zzyyzzx appears to hold opinions inline with that of an asshole. (looking down my nose at you, and spreading Grey Poupon from my limo)
zzyyzzx is deplorable.
zzyyzzx is a Trumpthuglican.
CIC likes goats.
All clearly ad hominem in my book. They attack the person and not the point being made.
I think zzyyzzx's point is a valid one. The arbitration of 'direct insult' might be difficult.
True, there could be borderline cases. I hate that. As a spergy programmer type, I prefer clear algorithms for making decisions. But humans are messy.
Do libel laws, and the inability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, hinder free speech?
Why is this such a hard question to answer?
For that matter, why not address the title of the thread?
Is the only thing you Special Snowflakes know how to do is bitch and moan like a woman on her period?
"Waaaah, Patrick is trying to improve hit site. Waaaah I want to stifle Free Speech by discouraging unpopular things from being said with unoriginal, disinteresting personal attacks. Waaaaaaahhh"
your next rape or misogyny thread
If you're saying "you", that's a good clue that you're attacking the person and not the point, which is the definition of ad hominem.
your next rape or misogyny thread
If you're saying "you", that's a good clue that you're attacking the person and not the point, which is the definition of ad hominem.
So fucking what.... Some alternative facts for a fake Free Speech Forum
It's not about worthwhile freeness of speech but rather the #'s.
Patrick may not want to put another stab wound in free speech but damn
if he could just get a few more #'s this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Very pathetic....
« First « Previous Comments 26 - 65 of 158 Next » Last » Search these comments
I put Google Analytics back on the site. Here's a screenshot showing the last week's session durations:
Most new people look at the home page for 0 to 10 seconds, and then just go away. The users who are already into the site hang around much longer.
How can I make the home page more "sticky" so that new users immediately understand the site and want to explore more?
Any insights appreciated.
#patnet