Look, I'll explain my logic in that last post just like myself and others have explained it to you before. You'll whine and complain and stick to your guns that you aren't the problem. You'll also most likely insult me more, like you just did in your last post (even though I didn't insult you in my last post). The difference this time is, I'm going to entertain you for one post, and one only, without being an ass about it. So you just keep doing what you're doing, and once joe rolls around, you'll get some fun trips to the timeout box.

Here is what you had to say to McDanger (and essentially SkankinMonkey), two posters with tons more credibility than you

Quote :

"thats the same BULLSHIT copout i've heard numerous times"

And this

Quote :

"if you can't even see past a couple cuss words or called names to see my point then fuck you I don't want you to respond..."

Wow, I didn't realize that baseless name calling and cursing should be tolerated in this section. Isn't that what this very thread is about. Or is that your viewpoint, that this section should be reduced to some shit hole where cursing and berating other users baselessly is the level of engagement?

Quote :

"you're the same kind of people who ignore everything that someone says if they happen to use improper grammar...."

Please find some examples of this happening. Heck, your friend hooksaw is about the only one I see crying about spelling and grammar. Also keep in mind, you cried for about 5 posts in FF about my using the word "loose" instead of "lose" when it was obvious after the first instance (a mistake) I was doing it on purpose.

Quote :

"i dunno, how bout to be able to post my opinion on a particular topic without somehow becoming "one of the worst posters in the section" just because you dont agree with me?"

You use this defense over and over and over again. And even when guys like McDanger flat out tell you this isn't the case, in a thread that has been even and legit (until you started posting) you cry BULLSHIT? And you think we should respect you or keep you around?

Quote :

"how bout me being able to say what i think without everybody accusing me of being something i'm completely not, like somebody who just regurgitates fox news or sucks off bush all the time?"

Instead of crying about it, if you really cared about this section, you'd show how your talking points don't fall in line with Fox News and Bushco. The fact that they do fall so routinely in line, makes it hard for us NOT to point them out.

11/26/2007 5:52:26 PM

When you resort to name-calling in lieu of actual debate, that's what people get mad at. If someone proves you wrong or makes a point that you can't/don't know how to argue against you start trolling. The reasonable thing to do is admit you're wrong or drop out of the debate until there is a point where you can re-enter with a valuable opinion.

Is a reason that the quality of debate has declined possibly due to the simple fact that the political climate in America is so negative right now? A few years ago, back when Iraq was still fresh, and things weren't so one-sided there was more room for actual debate. But now that we've had several more years of Bush and the polarization he brings with him, it's harder to go back and forth. People have pretty much made their mind up on him. Anyone on the left thinks people who still support him are brain damaged and anyone who supports him think people on the left are just hating him because he's a Republican. There's hardly any middle ground with respect to the people currently in power and that leaves little room for anything but sharply opposing viewpoints. It's kind of evident because things about the economy, or foreign affairs receive fairly good debate, but as soon as the topic starts being about American politics it takes a sharp nosedive into the troll lair.

11/26/2007 5:55:51 PM

Quote :

"thats the same BULLSHIT copout i've heard numerous times"

Here's the problem twista - I'm going to agree with Chance, Grumpy, McD, and Skankin. I'l throw in joe_schmoe as well. That's six of us. Name one person that sides with you. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

That's what I thought.

You could call it a cop-out if at least some people agreed with you. Newsflash - no one does. No one denies that you have a different perspective and insight that conflicts with the "mainstream" of TSB. Hell, Grumpy does too. Thing is, Grumpy isn't an asshole when he voices his opinions. He doesn't degrade the dirty liberals, as if they're so fucking stupid for believing what they believe. He just says what has to be said, and let's the debate proceed.

You on the other hand, moreso than everyone including me, have this self-righteous tone that poisons every post you make... as if you're always right, and anyone who disagrees is a troll/idiot/biased hack. Some people here are trolls/idiots/biased hacks, and some aren't. More than enough people have called you out to make you at least consider the possibility that you are in fact one of the problems currently plaguing TWW.


Some ideas off the top of my head - let's hear some feedback:

1) Popular election of mods specifically for TSB

2) More frequent suspensions for shorter periods of time (weeks/months at a time) for the run-of-the-mill trolling that's so common in TSB

11/26/2007 5:56:09 PM

Quote :

"Partly, we will just have to wait for new blood and new talent. Some of the lesser-knowns on this board are bound to garner attention as they post intelligent things. As we see that happening, we need to shift our focus to them, try to engage those individuals, both for our own benefit and also to drown out the hooksaws who might otherwise chase them away. Also, I think we, the concerned, need to post new topics more frequently, and to ensure that they are on good subjects. "

Exactly.

Quote :

"He can't resist trolling, even in a thread related to what to do to improve TSB. "

First in line to get his pee-pee shwacked: Chance

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 8:13 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/26/2007 8:10:34 PM

What?

11/26/2007 8:17:59 PM

How is it that twista isn't as much at fault in this thread as Chance? Just curious what your reasoning is here, Duke. I think they both should be suspended. However, your consistent anti-Chance pro-Twista bias is so extreme that even I've noticed this trend now.

11/26/2007 8:20:33 PM

IF i were to be made mod... here is what I would do immediately:

suspend BOTH Twista AND Chance *Immediately and without warning* for one (1) full day.

post a notice about it in the "Smackdown" thread declaring that they were both suspended for one (1) day as punishment for all the threads that they have BOTH mutually shit all over in the past.

then declare a "General Amnesty" for all trolls for all previous bullshit up to now

and begin my program of incrementally increasing suspensions for anyone who runs afoul of my previously-described "personal issues" posting policy -- FROM THIS POINT FORWARD.




[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 8:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2007 8:20:58 PM

my rationale was that chance started it with

Quote :

"He can't resist trolling, even in a thread related to what to do to improve TSB."

but i am not opposed to doing the same to treetwista--I just haven't seen him stirring the pot since we decided to try this approach.

11/26/2007 8:24:34 PM

wait a minute.

you suspended chance but not twista? thats hardly fair.

if Chance has trolled 100 times, Twista has damn sure trolled 99. but thats just because you didnt give him another 12 hours to catch up.




[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2007 8:26:05 PM

oh, i totally agree.

but i haven't seen him do it in the last day or two since we decided to take this approach. if i find it, he'll be next on the list.

11/26/2007 8:28:32 PM

well Duke, FWIW, I've gotta go on record as saying i disagree with this method.

you're getting some short-term relief, yes, but only at the expense of long-term sanity.

this is analogous to two young boys who have been destroying the whole house with their fighting for ages, then all of a sudden the frustrated parent lays down all the punishment at once, out of the blue, all upon one kid's head and not the other, merely because the other kid squealed the loudest after some arbitrary and unannounced "time zero" was defined by the weary parent.

im afraid this will only ultimately serve to exacerbate the problem, and further inflame the partisan zealotry that plagues TSB.






[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 8:56 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2007 8:54:39 PM

^ This is pretty accurate.

Not to mention I bet Twista feels validated when he really shouldn't.

[Edited on November 26, 2007 at 9:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2007 9:04:26 PM

Quote :

"I bet Twista feels validated when he really shouldn't. "

no reason not to suspend both of them

11/26/2007 10:09:16 PM

yes, there really is. suspending him is just lashing out--i understand why, but i can't do it when he didn't do anything since everyone was warned not to. show me what he's done today or yesterday day to warrant suspension, and believe me, i'll be more than happy to add him to the list. otherwise, stop bitching.

11/26/2007 10:53:37 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Partly, we will just have to wait for new blood and new talent. Some of the lesser-knowns on this board are bound to garner attention as they post intelligent things. As we see that happening, we need to shift our focus to them, try to engage those individuals, both for our own benefit and also to drown out the hooksaws who might otherwise chase them away."

Maybe we should consider engaging anybody who isn't a total troll, not just people who post intelligent things.

Some 18 year-old may come on here and spout some stupid shit, but if they're earnest or sincere, they're worlds better than some well-versed jerk.

Anyway, I'm pretty bad about responding to posts and not users. I completely neglect to read the username so before I know it, I'm in an argument with a jackass who is just bored at work or I'm responding rudely to some new user who I actually wanna keep around.



I also wish people followed up their posts more. When I get on TWW, I try to check my post history and respond to people who have responded to me. Sometimes I don't follow up because I was drunk when I made the original post and I don't really know what I was thinking when I made it. Other times, it's because I return to TWW to find that five or six people have responded to me and already congratulated each other on being so smart and right about everything.

11/27/2007 12:03:34 AM

Quote :

"well Duke, FWIW, I've gotta go on record as saying i disagree with this method."

joe_schmoe

Lock it up, XO! Lock it up!

Quote :

"That said though, what do YOU want out of this section?"

McDanger

I shall ponder this--seriously.

11/27/2007 12:17:38 AM

Bumping this up. This needs some more prolonged awareness and a response from some more folks about just what they want out of this section.

11/27/2007 4:05:33 PM

Ive run out of things to say.

I've stated my position on what I think the problem is and how i would execute a solution, both in this thread and in the Feedback Forum.

I've not gotten any response back from people in charge.

if any of y'all think I have the right idea, and should be given a chance to implement it, send nael a PM -- mail_compose.aspx?user=32314

11/27/2007 6:33:29 PM

After reflecting more seriously on this issue over 14 cups of coffee, I finally put my finger on the problem with TSB:

It just doesn't bring enough sexy.

11/27/2007 7:27:22 PM

Relax girl, I'm still pretty new here.

11/27/2007 7:31:12 PM

^^I'm sexy enough for this entire forum. It's just that I'm out of everyone's league.

In any case, I'll repeat what I want out of this forum. We need more punishment for people who refuse to exercise logical debating. A good start might be some kind of permanently bttt'd thread with a list of logical fallacies and examples (straw man, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, etc). Let people see how NOT to debate. Also, crack down on people who start a flame war and get the thread off track. Flame wars are one of the main reasons why any thread in TSB rarely makes it past one page. Using your post to tell someone that they're the worst poster in the world--instead of refuting their points--contributes nothing, and is in fact counter-productive. Either you have something to say about the topic at hand, or you have nothing to say at all.

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 8:27 PM. Reason : blah]

11/27/2007 8:18:00 PM

my favorite is the Appeal to Mister Rolly.

11/27/2007 8:54:37 PM

I'm sure most of you will think the ensuing post annoying, and it probably will be. It also want have any effect on this section or it's moderation (rather, it's moderator) but I'm going to say it.

Josh Duke, why are you giving your buddy TreeTwista a free pass? Why won't you just admit that you aren't fit to moderate this section. You've contradicted yourself so much regarding this TSB enlightening process that it would be mildly funny if it weren't so sad.

Let's analyze various pieces of this fiasco, chronologically I suppose works ok.

1. TSB has been shitty for a long time. Apathetic moderation could be one culprit as this sections only 'active' mod works 60-70 hr weeks (and brags about it) and posts more in The Garage than he does TSB when he is here.
2. User joe_schmoe has an idea to clean up TSB via tighter more prevalent moderation provided he is made moderator.
3. This is what Josh Duke had to say about the plan

Quote :

"My problem with joe_schmoe's plan is that it will be difficult to enforce consistently and fairly across the board...it will require an AWFUL lot of hair-splitting judgement calls and referree-ing"

4. joe mentions this in reply

Quote :

"again, not really. its a "three strikes youre out" sort of thing."

5. Also, it is worth noting in this FF thread a trolling TreeTwista, and a mod pointing out to him that they are tired of his stuff.

Meanwhile, back in TSB, McDanger has created a thread asking what users want out of TSB, it's locked with this explanation

Quote :

"mcdanger, my bad on locking this one...i locked it on the grounds that there's already a thread somewhat along these lines in the feedback forum, but then i re-read and realized that this thread is more about fixing this forum from the inside-out rather than by top-down moderation. i don't know if it'll work, but i wholeheartedly support the idea."

You re-read it? It wasn't like his first post was a book. Did you read it at all? Nice moderation! Anyway, the thread was recreated with some initial inputs from regular users. Then, somewhere in the middle of it, a policy change was 'agreed' upon (that I didn't see, I wonder did others see it?)

Quote :

"Done. joe_schmoe is now our unofficial "sub-moderator". I don't generally agree with him, but I generally like him. That may be for the best--I try to be as impartial as possible and leave my own political biases out of my decision loop, but nobody can be perfectly effective at never letting that creep in."

So now you are agreeing with him, even though you disagreed with him in the FF thread? Nice work Kerry!

Quote :

"to clarify, joe_schmoe and I can work like a sniper-spotter team (or a CO/XO, if you like that analogy better). I'll be the only one with my finger on the trigger, but realize that he is my 2nd set of eyes, and if he tells you to check yourself before you wreck yourself, realize that he has my ear."

Oh I C, new rules of engagement were made, again, buried in this thread that was supposed to be about bottom up improvement. Seems like a mod that is worth his power to suspend would at least make a new thread so that everyone sees the rule changes. I see that you have suspended terpball, and he surely doesn't post in here much at all. You're really out of touch with reality in a terrible way. Just give up the job to joe. He spends TONS more time in here than you, has more interest in this section than you, and would do a vastly better job than you.

So moving right along. We have a new moderation paradigm established, though it isn't exactly clear what it is. Is it three strikes? Who knows.


So you suspend me for this comment

Quote :

"He can't resist trolling, even in a thread related to what to do to improve TSB."

With these comments

Quote :

"First in line to get his pee-pee shwacked: Chance"

You brought a child into this world and serve this country?? Really? I'd imagine a bit more maturity than that.
And this

Quote :

"my rationale was that chance started it with"

Just what did I start? Who did I insult? And if I indeed "started something" then why did you let your boyfriend slide when he #1 responded at all #2 responded with insults. Should he not have also been suspended under these new rules of engagement? The very guy you claimed to be your "second set of eyes" felt he needed suspending, but you didn't? Just how fucked up are you? You had this to say

Quote :

"but i haven't seen him do it in the last day or two since we decided to take this approach. if i find it, he'll be next on the list."

Are you blind? In this very thread, a bit of an introspection if you will, your friend TreeTwista had this to say as his first post

Quote :

"im flattered that so many people allow me simply posting my opinion on an issue to completely ruin their entire TSB experience"

Hmmmm. Looks like troll bait. Smells like troll bait. Well by God Josh, I think it is. So two posters didn't blow up, and told him, in this thread of introspection, that we have no problem with his opinion, his delivery just sucks. We've told him, perhaps the most hard headed (or, if you aren't blind, the best troll of this section ever) poster in here that it isn't his opinion, it's his delivery...and what did he have to say

not, "well, I guess maybe sometimes it does come across harsh" or "maybe I should work on that" nope, he said this

Quote :

" thats the same BULLSHIT copout i've heard numerous times"

Bullshit? Copout? Is this guy insane? Are you insane Josh Duke?

Quote :

"if you can't even see past a couple cuss words or called names to see my point then fuck you I don't want you to respond..."

Oh boy, I can just see the improvement in TSB already. What, with guys that have no problem admitting their flaws, were on the fast track to a section that was good like in the pre-Twista days!

Quote :

"i dunno, how bout to be able to post my opinion on a particular topic without somehow becoming "one of the worst posters in the section" just because you dont agree with me?"

How is this guy either not the most retarded idiot in the world, or just blatantly trolling? He was just told, he has been told TONS of times before, that we don't hate him because of his opinion, it's because he sucks at discussing topics, this very exchange displays it perfectly. And yet...you suspend me for calling a spade a spade?

I have to hand it to you Duke, you really are on top of this moderating the TSB thing. I can see this place has a bright future with you at the helm!

11/28/2007 10:09:03 PM

^ Hell must have frozen over because I agree with Chance here.

11/28/2007 10:13:02 PM

I agree with Chance too.

11/28/2007 10:22:36 PM

for some reason reading this thread brings student government to mind.

11/29/2007 12:07:52 AM

Quote :

"We need more punishment for people who refuse to exercise logical debating. A good start might be some kind of permanently bttt'd thread with a list of logical fallacies and examples (straw man, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, etc). Let people see how NOT to debate."

I disagree with this statement. If people try to use flawed logic and whatnot in their debating, then someone is probably going to call them out on it and shoot down that particular point. If someone wants to use try using bad logic to make a point in the hope that no one notices, they should be able to. It's their opponent's fault for not catching it, in that event.

11/29/2007 1:39:15 AM

I say go ahead and make the thread--that's a great idea (it might've been done before...i can't remember. if anyone finds it, let me know and i'll BTTT it. i'm not sure it had its own dedicated thread, though.)

however, not being a good debater is simply not a suspendable offense--not even in The Soap Box...and yes, if you aren't good, a skilled opponent will simply tear your argument apart. You might not be astute enough to fully appreciate his destruction of your argument (because if you were, you probably wouldn't have tossed him such a softball to begin with), but other people will.

11/29/2007 1:58:22 AM

I think he meant more along the lines of repeatedly using methods that are not courteous and rational. Debating is supposed to be objective and courteousness and rationality are two ideal qualities. Obviously, sometimes it gets pretty heated and the courteous part goes out the window, but rationality should always be employed.

^^ I don't think flawed logic was the best term to use in that particular instance. Flawed logic has been around as long as civilization and I don't think we're going to abolish it in TSB. Certainly not a punishable offense.

11/29/2007 2:46:27 AM

^The guy I quoted used the term "logical fallacies" to describe it. He mentioned a "straw man" sort of argument as an example, which led me to think that he wasn't talking so much about completely ignoring rational thought in a heated debate, but rather, just using very poorly-thought-out arguments. Hell, most of the people using straw man arguments and other "logical fallacies" of the sort probably don't realize they're even doing it, which is hardly punishable by moderation. You got my point, though.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 4:19 AM. Reason : elaboration]

11/29/2007 4:15:10 AM

Many of you would do well to remember this advice from a scholar at CSUN concerning logical fallacies and the art of debate:

Quote :

"Debate is, fortunately or not, an exercise in persuasion, wit, and rhetoric, not just logic. In a debate format that limits each debater's speaking time, it is simply not reasonable to expect every proposition or conclusion to follow precisely and rigorously from a clear set of premises stated at the outset. Instead, debaters have to bring together various facts, insights, and values that others share or can be persuaded to accept, and then show that those ideas lead more or less plausibly to a conclusion. Logic is a useful tool in this process, but it is not the only tool -- after all, 'plausibility' is a fairly subjective matter that does not follow strict logical rules. Ultimately, the judge in a debate round has to decide which side's position is more plausible in light of the arguments given -- and the judge is required to pick one of those sides, even if logic alone dictates that 'we do not know' is the answer to the question at hand. Besides, let's be honest: debate is not just about finding truth, it's also about winning. If you think a fallacious argument can slide by and persuade the judge to vote for you, you're going to make it, right? The trick is not getting caught."

11/29/2007 4:54:32 AM

^This quote is, of course, talking about timed/live debates, in which people actually speak aloud rather than type onto an internet message board with a Backspace key, an Edit feature, and no posting limit... but you're at least a bit right in that wit and rhetoric do factor in, to a more minor degree.

11/29/2007 5:35:35 AM

There's also no moderator to tell me when I've won

11/29/2007 5:49:31 AM

wow

i bet treetwista feels pretty important since chance posted a 10 foot long post about him (or is that normal around here?)

11/29/2007 9:00:11 AM

so how does everyone like the new rules that they asked for?

11/29/2007 11:51:58 AM

I can't believe TERPBALL got suspended just for pointing out how stupid hooksaw is.

This section fucking sucks

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2007 11:53:31 AM

its like going to a city council meeting and requesting that the speed limits be lowered to 20 mph and then you drive 45 and get a ticket and dont understand why

11/29/2007 11:54:14 AM

Except terpball wasn't at the city council meeting.

11/29/2007 11:55:08 AM

i guess that exempts him from obeying speed limits

but regardless, i'm not one of the people who was leading the campaign for stricter rules and posting guidelines so dont blame me

11/29/2007 11:56:54 AM

Why would I blame you for anything? Josh Duke made a policy change, he didn't broadcast it to anyone, and poor terpball came into TSB and got suspended when he didn't realize there was a new effort to clean the place up.

If joe were moderator, I'm pretty sure he would have made an all caps thread letting users know of the new rule change, and probably would have given a day or two to comply, including bttting the thread so that people saw it. He also probably would have sent some reminders or warnings for the first week.

Josh Duke just started randomly suspending people, then tried to play innocent like "its what they wanted"?

He really is out of touch with the soap box reality. Making joe the moderator will go a long way to cleaning this section up.

11/29/2007 12:00:10 PM

Quote :

"Why would I blame you for anything?"

well you shouldnt blame me for other people getting suspended, but some people (like SkankinMonkey iirc) are blaming me simply because I haven't been suspended under the new rules, even though i havent done anything wrong since the new rules were implemented

and regardless of if joe was a mod, and if he put rules in all caps, there is still gonna be somebody who doesnt see the rules... in this case it was terpball...but it appears he has a "temporary" way to post anyway

11/29/2007 12:02:57 PM

Quote :

"but some people (like SkankinMonkey iirc) are blaming me "

Please show me where people are blaming you for anything? This discussion can't move forward until we have that as a starting point to discuss.

11/29/2007 12:04:35 PM

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: Suspending Chance without suspending you was the first thing that shows how fucked up duke's judgment is."

close enough...not specifically blaming me for terpball being suspended...simply blaming me for "duke's judgement" or whatever they are mad at at that particular time

11/29/2007 12:07:41 PM

I said that duke's suspensions were extremely biased and pointed at him not suspending you when he suspended chance as an example.

you two are a large source of the problems this forum suffers from. chance at least is acting like he wants to reform, whether this is genuine or not is really not the issue. you simply continue to play the victim card much like hooksaw likes to do.

11/29/2007 12:09:45 PM

how am i playing the victim card? i'm not the one complaining about getting suspended because when i know what are new grounds for suspension, i keep those in mind and dont fuck up and get suspended

here's a tip skankinmonky: why don't you just not spend any of your time worrying about me cause i sure could care less about you, at least not in The Soap Box

11/29/2007 12:10:48 PM

Quote :

"I can't believe TERPBALL got suspended just for pointing out how stupid hooksaw is. This section fucking sucks"

Dope

I don't give a shit what you think of me, and he got suspended for blatant trolling. If you don't like this section GTFO.

^^ Twista is nothing like Chance--and any rational person can see that. Twista simply defends himself. And instead of some of you lecturing him not to take the bait, how about you lecture Chance to stop riding his nuts and being a general nuisance?

Concerning me, keep my name out of your metaphorical mouth. Some of you need to run a reality check on yourselves--your hooksaw derangement syndrome is really getting out of control.

Let's focus on the issues and not individual users.

11/29/2007 12:53:55 PM

Quote :

"Dope: I can't believe TERPBALL got suspended just for pointing out how stupid hooksaw is."

I can't believe terpball is posting as Dope but talking about himself in the 3rd person

message_topic.aspx?topic=504175

11/29/2007 1:15:50 PM

Well, it isn't me posting this stuff - it's actually the handles I'm using

Shit gets confusing sometimes, b.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason : posting]

11/29/2007 1:19:05 PM

I can't remember who said it, but someone said that Chit Chat has better political threads than us, and that almost seems true:

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=504081&page=5

This one has gone on for 5 pages without people crapping on it.

11/29/2007 3:06:00 PM

Quote :

"someone said that Chit Chat has better political threads than us, and that almost seems true"

if it is true i wonder if its because people generally take Chit Chat threads less seriously...while your first instinct might be that that would lead to less serious discussion and therefore a worse political thread than a TSB equivalent, perhaps the less serious atmosphere of Chit Chat just makes people less likely to get all pissy and riled up and resort to personal attacks, etc...ie if you don't take yourself or the topic too seriously, you're less likely to go moonbat foam mouth overboard if someone disagrees

11/29/2007 3:31:29 PM