patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Disrupting someone else's conversation is not free speech.

WTF!
A comment is not an insurrection of a physical attack on the OP or those that comment.
It's words.
Please don't offend my tender sensibilities.
I'M A SNOWFLAKE.
I'll ignore you.
Free speech-saying something that I agree with.

It's not about offense. I have never taken offense from any troll as I simply do not respect them as human beings, nonetheless their opinions. It's about the ability to have a discussion or debate with other people and not have that discussion derailed with endless alts reposting bullshit. Conversations have flows. There is nothing you or any troll cannot say in your own threads. Hence, there is no censorship.

Furthermore, if you look at any of my threads, you'll see that not only do I welcome people challenging my positions, I demand they do that, attack the core of my position, rather than making straw men, ad hominems, poisoning the well, no true Scottsmen, and other faulty arguments that fail to attack my position.

Finally, calling someone a snowflake doesn't make them so. It's a poisoning the well argument and carries no weight.

Dan8267 says

Replace ignore with "ban from my threads".

Disagree with this.

Dan8267 says

You are arguing that trolling is necessary for conversation.

I'm arguing that you, Dan, should not be the arbiter of what constitutes trolling, not even on "your" threads. There is no need to turn the PatNet free speech zone into a collection of non-interacting free-speech "silos". It is counter to the very fundamentals of free speech, if you ask me. There should be the possibility of exchange of ideas, no matter how troll-y you may find them. The ignore functionality is good enough for me. Dan, you can feel free to recommend on your own threads who you deem should be ignored, but you should not be able to FORCE them to be ignored.

Dan8267 says

You are arguing that trolling is necessary for conversation.

Dan8267 says

It's not about offense. I have never taken offense from any troll as I simply do not respect them as human beings, nonetheless their opinions. It's about the ability to have a discussion or debate with other people and not have that discussion derailed with endless alts reposting bullshit. Conversations have flows. There is nothing you or any troll cannot say in your own threads. Hence, there is no censorship.

Furthermore, if you look at any of my threads, you'll see that not only do I welcome people challenging my positions, I demand they do that, attack the core of my position, rather than making straw men, ad hominems, poisoning the well, no true Scottsmen, and other faulty arguments that fail to attack my position.

Finally, calling someone a snowflake doesn't make them so. It's a poisoning the well argument and carries no weight.

I understand the points you are trying make.
I know that many on here are forced to read comments,they disagree with,on their threads
& have to respond to comments on their threads,Patnet rule # 11.
Ignoring something doesn't require a click.
HEY YOU has clicked zero "Ignores"
Notice I used "I" 3 times in my comment.
If I say SNOWFLAKES or any other name doesn't mean someone is.
Old sayings:Hit dog hollers. If the shoe fits wear it. etc.

People just look for a reason to be offended.
I'm ignoring those that disagree with me & taking my threads,going home & "you" can't play.

Anyone can post comments on my threads.
If they open themselves to personal attacks for hypocrisy based on a pretzel logic value system,
I'm more than glad to point it out.
They are welcome to be ASSHOLES!

Ignoring is not censorship?
Of course it's not! Those that"ignore" said so.

" It's a poisoning the well.."
WELL! Let's limit access to the well.

justme says

I'm arguing that you, Dan, should not be the arbiter of what constitutes trolling, not even on "your" threads.

Ah, but the points you are making don't hold water.

1. There is no need to turn the PatNet free speech zone into a collection of non-interacting free-speech "silos".

Stopping trolls from disrupting does not turn a forum into non-interacting silos. The fact is a person either chooses to engage with the troll or chooses not to. If the person chooses to engage the toll then he won't ban the troll or will engage in third-person threads. If the person chooses not to engage the troll then already the very isolation you are opposing has been actualized.

2. It is counter to the very fundamentals of free speech

No, discouraging people from starting threads would be counter to the very fundamentals of free speech, and trolling does this very thing. A lot of people simply decide that it's not worth their time to write on a forum were trolls run rampant. By allowing trolling, you are actually decreasing the amount of free discussion between people with opposing ideas.

3. There should be the possibility of exchange of ideas, no matter how troll-y you may find them.

A user preventing a troll from posting on this thread does NOTHING to prevent the possibility of the exchange of ideas between any two persons, even the user and the troll. Each can still broadcast their ideas uninterrupted on their own threads. Each can still read the other persons threads while not logged in. Your assertion is empirically false. This very website's history disproves it.

[stupid comment limit]

rando says

I do love suggestions!

Need to finish making the site able to escape shutdown notices, then I'll start dealing with these.

I'm using packer.io to generate vm's that I will be able to deploy to any cloud provider quickly to move the site. Haven't quite got it working, but soon. Is there a better way to make the site instantly portable to another ISP?

Patrick, I will say your response time is incredibly good. I attribute that to the simplicity of the site and lack of overhead.

4. The ignore functionality is good enough for me.

The ignore function already bans trolls from a user's threads. What I'm proposing is less restrictive than the ignore function. It would allow both users to see each other's posts even while logged in. The only thing I'm adding is a mechanism that circumvents the effectiveness of using alts to force yourself into someone else's conversation so as to disrupt it.

The only thing accepting trolls does is encourage people who want to participate in honest debate and discussion of controversial issues not to.

HEY YOU says

Ignoring something doesn't require a click.

I don't want to ignore trolls. I want to keep them out of conversations that would be productive and enlightening otherwise. Many times two or more people with good intentions are discussing a controversial issue. That conversation immediately stops when a troll barges in. Ignoring the troll doesn't work. Banning him and deleting any comments made by him with an alt does work. It works damn well because trolls hate it when their comments are deleted. It makes them completely impotent.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to communicate with consenting audiences, not the freedom to force your voice onto others or to prevent others from being heard.

Thanks for the link to home and the arrows Patrick. Makes it much easier on mobile.

I have a question: When quoting from linked articles is there a way to make the quoted text a different shade or color? I have to put quotations around all quoted text or else it is unclear whether it is the OP writing it or coming from the article, so then the quoted text mixes with the OP's text and it can get confusing. The other part of this is when I link to an article, text from the article never automatically appears in the post, like it used to.

Doesn't sound to hard to make text quoted from articles to show up in a different color. But then when you quote that in a comment, you want the color to remain, right?

If you post an article link with no other text, the site should still attempt to auto-quote it. Some sites are resistant to quoting though, maybe because of a paywall or some such.

Maybe I should try to auto-quote if the link is alone on a line, rather than entirely alone in the post or comment. Yes, that sounds better.

Thanks for the suggestions, these things are on the list and I should get to them soon, since I have made a lot of progress on making the site portable to other cloud providers in case Digital Ocean threatens shutdown again.

Yea Piggys entire purpose here is to derail conversation by polluting threads with stupid images and personal attacks. The majority of his posts are personal attacks.

But he's achieved his goal of getting everyone to hate him. It's what self-loathing losers are all about

Would banning personal attacks restrict free speech?

errc says

Would banning personal attacks restrict free speech?

Personal attacks don't have to be banned. Under my proposal they can still be made, but thread authors can keep them and other trolling out of their own threads so as to keep conversations from being hijacked.

rando says

the site should still attempt to auto-quote it

I don't find auto-quoting to be very useful. The first paragraph of an article isn't always the best summary of it, or the best quote for an original post. An intentional selection of text by the author of the OP is going to produce must better results than any mechanical selection of text. Same for YouTube videos.

Dan8267 says

I want to keep them out of conversations that would be productive and enlightening otherwise.

Now this is in FUN!
What makes you think you are productive & enlightened or that any patnetter
could contribute anything positive?

Patrick, the up/down arrows (top of page/bottom of page)... having it next to every single screen name takes away for the screen name focus and is redundant. If you want to include one of those links at every post, please put it off to the side in the right hand margin. Seems like that would make more sense given that you scroll from the right hand margin?

However, I don't think you need more than two of those links (one at the top and one at the bottom).

thanks @BayArea yes i will do that

ok, done

HEY YOU says

What makes you think you are productive & enlightened or that any patnetter

Honey, each author would be the arbitrary of what constitutes trolling. Authors who reject participants for other reasons will simply have less popular threats. Same for authors who accept trolls. Let the market forces determine success. Do you hate free markets?

Looks like Ironman has been very successful in his trolling :)

rando says

ok, done

Solid! Thanks

FP says

Looks like Ironman has been very successful in his trolling :)

How exactly do you score that as success?

50-100 posts per day of nothing but personal attacks and nonsense, all day, every day, for years. Sounds like the definition of failure

Maybe it's one of those things that doesn't translate properly for people from third world shit holes with poor command of the English language.

errc says

How exactly do you score that as success?

What is trolling success according to you, smarty?

errc says

Maybe it's one of those things that doesn't translate properly for people from third world shit holes with poor command of the English language.

LOL Good try but I'm immune to trolls.

Absolutely hilarious that safe spaces on Pat.net are being advocated.

Even more hilarious that the site Alpha troll is calling for the banning of someone else....for trolling.

Fucking White Male says

Absolutely hilarious that safe spaces on Pat.net are being advocated.

They are not, and your assertion is nothing more than a combination of a straw man and poisoning the well.

A "safe space" is suppression of content that contradicts your political agenda. Trolling contains no content. It is not a counter-argument. It is an attempt to disrupt a conversation and prevent arguments and counter-arguments from being used to find the truth. Trolling is not debate. Trolling disrupts debate.

Ironically, trolling is one of the most commonly used techniques to create so-called "safe spaces" by squelching controversial discussions.

Here is a perfect example of why trolling does exactly what you claim to want to avoid. Tell me how Trigglypuff is adding to the debate?

www.youtube.com/embed/Y69tkCbeC5o

How exactly would tolerating Trigglypuff advanced free speech and the discussion of issues by opposing ideas? Notice that Trigglypuff is calling herself the victim of free speech oppression while oppressing the free speech of others. This is what trolls do.

errc says

FP says

Looks like Ironman has been very successful in his trolling :)

How exactly do you score that as success?

50-100 posts per day of nothing but personal attacks and nonsense, all day, every day, for years. Sounds like the definition of failure

Exactly. Trolls will most often fail in their goal to make people miserable, but they will still disrupt conversations. If a troll considers that to be a success, more reason to ban his ass.

Intending to disrupt conversations is not an exercise of free speech. It is an exercise in the suppression of free speech. It's time to call trolling what it is, an attack on free speech.

Ironically, trolling is one of the most commonly used techniques to create so-called "safe spaces" by squelching controversial discussions.

--------------

You're counting on simple people to understand something "complex". It's really not that complex, but expecting people to follow an Implications Chain out past the first iteration, is asking a lot

It's time to call trolling what it is, an attack on free speech.

--------------

Exactly

Trolls do not post to present opposing facts or opinions. They post to prevent opposing facts and opinions from being heard.

@Patrick

Looks like another bug. This time in accept_comment.php. Can't post the following comment in another thread. I get a generic error page after a long timeout.

No such post: accept_comment.php

What is trolling success according to you, smarty?

-------------

Successful people don't troll. They are antonyms.

errc says

What is trolling success according to you, smarty?

-------------

Successful people don't troll. They are antonyms.

Trolling success = success in trolling != successful person.

Learn English.

Take out the trash, Patrick.

There's precedent here, no? I recall you banning someone for trolling in the past.

As an American operating a Free Speech forum, why do you find it desirable to retain the board Troll?

errc says

There's precedent here, no? I recall you banning someone for trolling in the past.

Yeah, but Shrek's back as Macropodia.

Dan8267 says

@Patrick

Looks like another bug. This time in accept_comment.php. Can't post the following comment in another thread. I get a generic error page after a long timeout.

No such post: accept_comment.php

Crap, thanks for telling me.

errc says

As an American operating a Free Speech forum, why do you find it desirable to retain the board Troll?

You're talking about Ironman, right? Maybe he's an asshole, but there is actually content in his posts and comments.

The whole site is really an experiment in how best to ensure that all points of view get exposure regardless of their "offensiveness", an excuse routinely used to shut down legitimate speech, like Milo's.

Why is it not enough to be able to put him on ignore and block him from commenting on your posts? Anyway, even if I deleted one account, it's pretty easy to create another. I could ban by IP, but then there are ways around that too, like proxies.

I want to find some set of self-service rules that lets readers get what they want without my being the judge of content.

rando says

The whole site is really an experiment in how best to ensure that all points of view get exposure regardless of their "offensiveness", an excuse routinely used to shut down legitimate speech, like Milo's.

Trolling isn't about being offensive. It's about being disruptive.

Milo's an asshole, but he's not a troll. Trigglypuff is. CIC is.