patrick.net

BlueSardine says

He's bored because there's about 2.65 people that are eligible to comment in his threads...

I don't (at this time) have any particular problem with Dan. I assume you all know this, but you feed his ego any time you create a post about him and his behavior here. Not sure if it's intentional, but he almost certainly checks the site while not logged in on another computer/device. I have not used the uncivil feature myself. I have some people on ban, but I actually just went through randomly and banned some old users for shits and giggles because it seemed like the trend a couple months back. Had to get in on it. Rambling bumbling end now.

@Patrick this is a good suggestion from Nuttboxer to limit the ability to mark uncivil after a certain time period. My vote would be 7 days. Active users here, it appears, are checking things out at least once every 3-5 days minimum. Someone on vacation could throw that off, but if you're that fucking worried about someone making an uncivil comment to change it after you get back from a 2 week vacation, you may need to see a therapist. Or something.

WookieMan says

Actually I think 7 days is more than enough.

A statue of limitations on civility?

Nah. Not needed. Crap feature.

WookieMan says

I assume you all know this, but you feed his ego any time you create a post about him and his behavior here.

I enjoy exposing Dan. And in a way, it shows I care. Letting someone act in such an anti-social manner without saying anything could give them the idea it's ok. Mostly I like messing with him though...

Rew says

Nah. Not needed. Crap feature.

Why? Seriously curious to know. Seems pretty silly to mark a comment uncivil 30 days after it was posted. I'm all ears though.

Rew says

A statue of limitations on civility?

Nah. Not needed. Crap feature.

I wouldn't say just the uncivil button. I'd say anything that's not an update on the topic itself, and even that over a new thread is questionable. So basically, if it took you three months to come up with the perfect comeback to something User_A said, too late, lock the thread.

WookieMan says

Why? Seriously curious to know. Seems pretty silly to mark a comment uncivil 30 days after it was posted. I'm all ears though.

There is so much crap flying back and forth on threads here, with a very bad way of seeing anything addressed/commented specifically at you, much can go unnoticed that is targeted at a specific user.

I don't think there is any harm to someone wanting to clean a thread of theirs up, from garbage that might be a year or more after post.

People really get a kick out of trolling here? So weird.

dan needs a nemesis. please bring back ironman / CIC.

landtof says

dan needs a nemesis. please bring back ironman / CIC.

I think we are doing much better without that waste of electrons here. Thanks.

Rew says

I think we are doing much better without that waste of electrons here. Thanks.

not true. i find your shilling and concern trolling much more destructive to the site than ironman ever was.

landtof says

not true. i find your shilling and concern trolling much more destructive to the site than ironman ever was.

Thank you! That means a lot.

Rew says

I don't think there is any harm to someone wanting to clean a thread of theirs up

It wasn't Dan's thread. How do I know? Because I was allowed to post on it.

Also, I don't think purging a thread of opinions harmful to you is the same thing as cleaning up. Or was that Orwellian speak?

landtof says

dan needs a nemesis. please bring back ironman / CIC.

All I know is Dan never tried to purge 3 month old threads when ironman was around.

Rew says

People really get a kick out of trolling here? So weird.

Apparently. I've observed for a long time here before somewhat becoming active. Not sure if it's a reaction to the trolls or what not, but seems like everyone is doing the same thing to some extent or another. Some more so than others. In the real world people generally try to get a positive reaction out of others when communicating. For some reason on the internet, it's the complete opposite. Obvious "keyboard warrior" BS, but it just seems strange.

Rew says

I don't think there is any harm to someone wanting to clean a thread of theirs up, from garbage that might be a year or more after post.

I get it, but why did it take a year to read the garbage? Then mark it uncivil for example? I don't know, if you missed it out of the gate basically (within a week or so) why or how do you have that much time to go back to old threads and mark something uncivil? Totally agree there's some heavy shit slinging going on here. I just don't get why we're grabbing the pile that is petrified after sitting there a year, in some attempt to prove a point that was originally missed by the uncivil clicker.

Whatever, human nature is obviously over my head. This is probably why I lurked for so long.

Incivility is one of the top traits of Patnetters!

Dan the Ban Man.

NuttBoxer says

It wasn't Dan's thread. How do I know? Because I was allowed to post on it.

Ah, so say what you really mean then:
"I'm sad that Dan is censoring me, but I really don't have a good case to make, because what I posted was uncivil."

WookieMan says

I just don't get why we're grabbing the pile that is petrified after sitting there a year, in some attempt to prove a point that was originally missed by the uncivil clicker.

Couldn't care less. Someone cleaning up a dead thread. (shrug) Doesn't seem like priority feature work ... unless you are ...

... NuttBoxer. :) HMMmmmmm. Interesting. And other Anti-Dan fans are inline? Yes. Very telling.

Ironman / CIC ... also the biggest of whiners about any forms of moderation and decorum.

Rew says

Doesn't seem like priority feature work ...

Nothing is a priority here. I think you know that. Let alone calling any of it work (except for what Patrick does).

Rew says

Couldn't care less. Someone cleaning up a dead thread. (shrug)

Can I at least ask why? I know you may not care, but why would someone want to go back to a thread, one which they've likely already read, and then mark something uncivil? In the grand scheme of things I think we're on the same page about caring about this issue (if that's what you want to call it, an issue) but it just seems childish to me.

Rew says

HMMmmmmm. Interesting. And other Anti-Dan fans are inline?

I assume you're talking about some of the other posters in this thread? While I would probably agree they seem negative to Dan, I just don't understand the uncivil marking of comments months after the fact by him. Like I said earlier, I actually have no problem with him or what he writes a majority of the time. I'll say it can come across as condescending at times, but I think that may be his goal some of the time.

Rew says

Ironman / CIC ... also the biggest of whiners about any forms of moderation and decorum.

Why is this guy even being talked about anymore? He's obviously won at this point. I'd say he's brought up in at least one thread/comment per week. Maybe more often. It's rather annoying. Am I glad he's gone, absolutely. Are you going to catch me posting about him? Hell no. Everyone needs to move on from that patnet chapter.

Yes, please just imagine you're at a public debate on stage and think about what would be acceptable.

"You're a fucktard." -> definitely uncivil

"Only someone like you would believe that." -> not quite civil, but not so awful

"You're wrong." -> civil, but would be nice to show some good will

"I assume you mean well, but you're wrong about this point." -> very civil

NuttBoxer says

I was directed to comment jail, but my comments weren't there.

Sorry, that's a bug. Old comments would be off the end of the page and there was no pagination.

Going to limit comment jail to some period of time, and then delete truly uncivil comments older than that, to keep the current jail smaller.

Dan has entertainment value. All of the "crazies" do. If you are on PATNET, thinking that your opinion matters or that you are going to change the world, I think you are delusional. PATNET has probably saved a few marriages by having a place to vent instead of at your wife.

I let most shit slide, but when people mark my far more civil responses to uncivil posts as uncivil, I return the favor to the original post.

Also, do we really need weekly "I hate Dan because he banned my immature ass" threads? If you want to get unbanned, just show some maturity and civility like Patrick says above. It's actually not that hard.

The fact is that trolls are ruining PatNet and driving potential contributors away. At least Reddit is so large that you can just move to a different subreddit. If you are going to have to put up with trolls, it just makes sense to go to a large forum where you hop to sections where trolls are less common. That's not an option on PatNet.

komputodo says

Dan has entertainment value. All of the "crazies" do.

Again, how is this not exactly what the "uncivl" link is meant for? And the trolls falsely claim that I banned them for having different political opinions. Bullshit.

I really don't give a shit what the trolls think or write about me, but I don't want to continue getting into flame wars. It's a waste of my time. So yes, I'm going to start marking every troll comment as uncivil. I've been too tolerant. As the jail page clearly states, you can edit your comment to make it civil.

It's a spectrum. I was hoping that the uncivil link would be used mostly to filter out the harsh insults.

rando says

I was hoping that the uncivil link would be used mostly to filter out the harsh insults.

That goes against the pettiness in human nature, pettiness that is on ample display on PatNet.

There are many interesting things to be learned in watching a forum.

Looking forward to getting anon.patrick.net up soon to see how a totally anonymous forum works. Still grinding through the translation of the php code to node, but getting near the end. Then you see a bunch of subsites of patrick.net.

rando says

subsites of patrick.net.

There's a problem to be aware of. Subsites really only work when you have a sufficient number of users to generate content for the subsites. PatNet does not have enough users for more than two subsites: left.patrick.net and right.patrick.net.

(Insert negative comment about Dan here)

This is dan's problem.
He thinks that the two sentences below define him as one of the 'crazies'.
Yet that is dependent on how one interprets it.
Interpretation #1: Dan has entertainment value. In addition, all of the crazies do also.
Interpretation #2: Dan has entertainment value, so he must be one of the crazies.

I would guess snowflakes with thin skin would always interpret as #2.

Dan8267 says

komputodo says

Dan has entertainment value. All of the "crazies" do.

Again, how is this not exactly what the "uncivl" link is meant for?

The interesting question for me is how to keep people focused on the topic of debate, and not on the individual user.

Leaving out usernames helps in with that, but it also makes people less invested in the forum.

What is the ideal format and set of rules to allow maximum civil expression of ideas while minimizing personal attacks?

BlueSardine says

He thinks that the two sentences below define him as one of the 'crazies'.

The intent is clear.

Deleting history is par for the course for leftists and one of the reasons they are so dangerous. Similar to the SJw's proclaiming Teddy Roosevelt to be racist and wanting to remove his statue.

rando says

The interesting question for me is how to keep people focused on the topic of debate, and not on the individual user.

Leaving out usernames helps in with that, but it also makes people less invested in the forum.

What is the ideal format and set of rules to allow maximum civil expression of ideas while minimizing personal attacks?

Aside from learning from your mistakes, what is the value in a bad investment?

If the only thing keeping people around, is knowing which usernames to fight with, you will never meet your goals of civility and minimizing personal attacks.

They're obviously incompatible

Personally, I seek out opposing ideas and opinions. There's little to no value in piling on with others who share my beliefs. If professional gambling taught me anything, it's that to be successful and find the truth, you absolutely must thoroughly understand the other side, at least as well as you think you understand your own. It's the difference between success and failure

Dan8267 says

That goes against the pettiness in human nature, pettiness that is on ample display on PatNet.

Dan excusing his level 2 uncivil abuse.

rando says

What is the ideal format and set of rules to allow maximum civil expression of ideas while minimizing personal attacks?

Without automated or manual moderation, the users matter far more than the format. Pure anonymity might help, but it might also just give license to the trolls to be complete assholes.

The rules for civil and productive conversation are common sense, but without honest enforcers of the rules, they are worthless. But here's they are anyway.
1. No rudeness.
2. No dishonesty about your opponent's position including straw men.
3. No posting of "facts" you know are false or already debunked lies.
4. No poisoning of the well.

Good luck in getting the trolls to police themselves on these or any other rules. They won't. Civil and productive conversations is the last thing they want.

Rew says

"I'm sad that Dan is censoring me, but I really don't have a good case to make, because what I posted was uncivil."

It fell into Patrick's level 2, which is borderline. Your missing the point here. Who waits for three months, then goes back and revives a thread no one cares about anymore?

Rew says

Couldn't care less. Someone cleaning up a dead thread. (shrug) Doesn't seem like priority feature work ... unless you are ...

... NuttBoxer

NuttBoxer says

For anyone wondering why I care. If I didn't get an email telling me my comments had been jailed, I wouldn't.

NuttBoxer says

Rew says

"I'm sad that Dan is censoring me, but I really don't have a good case to make, because what I posted was uncivil."

It fell into Patrick's level 2, which is borderline. Your missing the point here. Who waits for three months, then goes back and revives a thread no one cares about anymore?

Petty, vindictive people, with far too much time on their hands.

NuttBoxer says

Who waits for three months, then goes back and revives a thread no one cares about anymore?

You are assuming intent. Your assumption is false. Why does it piss you off so anyway? The flagging was valid. Date is irrelevant. And if it pisses you off so much, just stop being a troll. It's real easy.

Dan8267 says

So yes, I'm going to start marking every troll comment as uncivil.

Who defines what a troll comment is... The all powerful DAN! Kneel before his singular grasp on ultimate truth in this universe!!

Seriously, how conceited/delusional can you be to post this stuff?

Dan8267 says

when people mark my far more civil responses to uncivil posts as uncivil, I return the favor to the original post.

THREE MONTHS LATER