patrick.net

anon_8f6fa says

What was wrong with just enforcing some basic rules before - against obvious trolls like CiC, for example?

That sounds like the "I want people I don't like banned" argument. Both "obvious" and "troll" lie in the eye of the beholder. Whatever happened in the past where lines were or weren't crossed, but certainly more than temporary bans were enacted, is history. The rules apply for the current handles and I have not seen anybody taking over any topics or deliberately trolling (which again is a subjective term) to the point where threads became useless or uncomfortable (unless you're uncomfortable with uncivil direct personal insults which have come more from the side that wanted moderation). I didn't think this site needed any moderation. Btw. arguing that one is on the side of 90% of the scientists opinions - like say wrt climate change - doesn't make the opposite stance trolling. Many ideas and theories that were later proven started out being ridiculed and attacked by the vast majority, so we should embrace different positions (regardless whether one may or may not think they are scientifically valid as science is, has been, and will be perpetually moving and transforming).

Here's a great example where a woman running a Column, Marilyn vos Savant, was ridiculed (by many PhDs!) for quite a while for giving the correct answer to the Monty Hall problem. Certainly a woman could not be right against a bunch of scientists! Well, she was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
" Paul Erdos, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999)."

By the way, insisting that it would be impolite and uncivil to point out the obvious shortcomings and misdeeds and various personal qualities of one's opponents is one of the most effective tactics used by the Republican party for many many years. The timid Democratic politicians fell for the strategy and as a result kept losing for years. Hell no, I say.

justme says

By the way, insisting that it would be impolite and uncivil to point out the obvious shortcomings and misdeeds and personal qualities of one's opponents is one of the most effective tactics used by the Republican party for many many years. The timid Democratic politicians fell for the strategy and as a result kept losing for years. Hell no, I say.

Ha ha ha. Remember, both Dems and Reps need each other to slaughter. It wouldn't be a real fight if there was no one to massacre.

lostand confused says

HUh-in an alternative universe maybe. Have you lived through the Trump era??

You may have misunderstood. I said the tactic kept Democrats losing for many years. But no more. Now Democrats have understood they cannot play along with the Republican tactic. Trump is the first Republican US president that gets the full treatment of Democratic Party scorn.

mell says

That sounds like the "I want people I don't like banned" argument. Both "obvious" and "troll" lie in the eye of the beholder. Whatever happened in the past where lines were or weren't crossed, but certainly more than temporary bans were enacted, is history.

A ban is a ban. You either ban someone or you don't.are you seriously saying that CiC isn't a troll given his posting history? That isn't subjective. Everyone knows what he does.

justme says

You may have misunderstood. I said the tactic kept Democrats losing for many years. But no more. Now Democrats have understood they cannot play along with the Republican tactic. Trump is the first Republican US president that gets the full treatment of Democratic Party scorn.

I'd phrase it differently. The Democrats have used their full scorn tactic for quite a while, but Trump was the first to fire back without being cucked by the mainstream Republican party members, and basically exposed the Democrats' identity tactics. I mentioned earlier that Ron Paul was attacked hard w/ Rayscyst allegations when he ran - although he was much closer to the Dems than the other contenders - because of some dubious newsletter publicized by some random dude loosely affiliated with Paul, really more like an 8th degree connection on LinkedIn. And it worked and caused Paul to go into the defensive and appear like a frail old man that had been run over by a freight train. Trump changed that game by not holding back and - for now - won, whether you like him or not.

Cic wasn't banned for trolling. Cic was banned for doxing and calling someone's boss to try and get the person fired via a fake weapons threat.

Mell, join the liars club.

mell says

Since Politics has evolved into the biggest category, why not have 2 politics topics with 2 different moderators. One of the anons can come out of the woodwork and take the other politics topic, or justme or PCGyver. @Patrick what's your input

Let's just try this for now.

anon_ae030 says

A ban is a ban. You either ban someone or you don't.are you seriously saying that CiC isn't a troll given his posting history? That isn't subjective. Everyone knows what he does.

Yes it is subjective as not everyone knows or agrees what he does which is obvious by the fact that patnet has many users who do not care about this and do not perceive there to be a disrupting trolling force. Discussions simply go on.

anon_25c83 says

Cic wasn't banned for trolling. Cic was banned for doxing and calling someone's boss to try and get the person fired via a fake weapons threat.

Mell, join the liars club.

Yes, that was the narrative and it's ok since I wasn't there and Patrick is the one who runs the site and decided to take these measures (and the rules about doxxing and threats - of which Roberto made some himself btw. - were clear). However banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective. Furthermore whomever one may suspect as a new handle of a former user, the site was running fine recently, esp. since most of the personal fights weren't going on much anymore. It just flared up since some here wanted to be judge and jury and this clearly doesn't work in a system with checks and balances. Nowhere did I say he was banned for trolling, only that I am against banning for trolling. I'm also against banning errc or justme or whomever vents once in a while, but I'm also against banning anybody else unless they risk breaking the law, one of the very few rules Patrick has always had. Can't be any clearer than that.

mell says

However banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective.

When did that happen?

anon_25c83 says

mell says

However banning for trolling is ridiculous as it is far too subjective.

When did that happen?

It hasn't yet and I think that's good. The rules that were put up and decided upon were around non-civility, personal attacks/insults etc. (which some implied as part of trolling but likely much easier to define for most and to come to a consensus for a definition than trolling) and have been enforced, more or less across the board, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of those rules, I'd prefer no moderation as mentioned above.

justme says

Trump is the first Republican US president that gets the full treatment of Democratic Party scorn.

Double Huh-did you live through the Bush era?? Trump won because he turned the democrat tactics against them and called them out for the trigglypuffs they were. That they think they are finally rising up is odd-when they have been screaming banashees for decades. Nobody dared stand up to their racism/sexism charges -until trump.

trump belled the leftist cat and now nobody cares and the left is acting like the crazy fool stripped of their legitimacy. It is interesting looking at their viewpoints.

Many thanks to trump for saving this great republic from the zombie-err leftie hordes.

mell says

Yes it is subjective as not everyone knows or agrees what he does which is obvious by the fact that patnet has many users who do not care about this and do not perceive there to be a disrupting trolling force. Discussions simply go on.

Oh come on, are you seriously saying that you can't look at CiC's posting history and come to a logical conclusion that his intent is destructive? The whole point is that with him in full flow that discussions did not simply go on. They were invariably derailed, which was entirely his purpose.

mell says

It hasn't yet and I think that's good. The rules that were put up and decided upon were around non-civility, personal attacks/insults etc. (which some implied as part of trolling but likely much easier to define for most and to come to a consensus for a definition than trolling)

And that obviously applies to CiC whether you're a fan of those rules or not. He is both a troll and invariably highly uncivil with it.

PCGyver says

@patrick the idea of moderator is good. but I think it should be done in a different way. We should each get to moderate our own threads. Whom ever starts the thread is the moderator. If they want personal attacks then it goes, they moderate as they see fit. If people don't like how one moderates then they won't post on said moderators thread.

That would be fine if everyone's intentions were sincere. They aren't and would leave the site open to the potential for abuse. I think moderating each thread is fine in essence, but culling of posts can't simply be arbitrary, or characters like CiC would have a field day.

lostand confused says

Many thanks to trump for saving this great republic from the zombie-err leftie hordes.

FFS, do you laugh when you post stuff like that?

anon_ae030 says

FFS, do you laugh when you post stuff like that?

www.youtube.com/embed/LV1SHNOFWrc

That’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?

anon_44ed6 says

That’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?

Liberals-how dare you call me out-how dare you-you liar-blah, blah, blah.

lostand confused says

anon_44ed6 says

That’s supposed to be proof for your ridiculous comment?

Liberals-how dare you call me out-how dare you-you liar-blah, blah, blah.

Is that supposed to mean something?

IT's not the idea of user moderators. Although it's hard to see it working well.

It's just allowing Goran to moderate politics that's the problem.

HOw does the redditor model avoid bad moderators ?

The bottom line.
"Ignore" solves everything.
You don't see their posts, they don't see yours.
But for some people, knowing that certain people are posting regardless of whether they are seen, drives them crazy.

PCGyver says

or just put him on ignore and never see him at all

PCGyver says

anon_ae030 says

That would be fine if everyone's intentions were sincere. They aren't and would leave the site open to the potential for abuse. I think moderating each thread is fine in essence, but culling of posts can't simply be arbitrary, or characters like CiC would have a field day.

Well then, at the very least, we would see who is a good moderator and who is not. In CiC's case either you'd enjoy his style or just put him on ignore and never see him at all.

No moderation highlights the benefits of small government and why it's so important. Cause you can never be sure when the big governing axe will come down against you, like taking 40% of your hard earned income or put you into jail. Comment jail ain't that bad compared to that ;)

BlueSardine says

The bottom line.
"Ignore" solves everything.
You don't see their posts, they don't see yours.
But for some people, knowing that certain people are posting regardless of whether they are seen, drives them crazy.

PCGyver says

or just put him on ignore and never see him at all

That’s a lie.

I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.

errc says

That’s a lie.

I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread

Who is that? I searched the user list, which one is he?

https://patrick.net/users?user_name=ironman

YesYNot says

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting.

YesYNot says

It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

anon_0e631 says

Who is that? I searched the user list, which one is he?

Piggy trolling again. How droll.

YesYNot says

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.

If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, accepted Trump and even embraced at least a few of his stances or simply got turned off by the continued identity politics of the left, and are discussing a wide range of topics it has indeed shifted a bit, to a more balanced stance, maybe a bit overhang to the right. Everybody is still free to post whatever they want and discuss openly, so while I would not like to see some go - different viewpoints are essential for a good discussion - I think the site will do fine. Nobody is forced to post anonymous, I think maybe anonymous should be revoked. The previous system was not foolproof due to alts, but much better than anon posts.

anon_d57f7 says

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!

Then lobby for revoking moderation and going back to the old format. It was fine.

If you can't pull users from behind their duck blinds of anonymity, physically stalk them, and threaten them and their relatives with weapons and bodily harm, then freedom has no meaning.

Ad Hom is so lame ass compared to flaming poo on the porch and bullet holes in the windows.

mell says

anon_d57f7 says

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!

Then lobby for revoking moderation and going back to the old format. It was fine.

Ad homs are the biggest reason why this site started to and continued to struggle. We need civilization to civilize the kindergarten. No one wants this site to end up like a show on KSFO, nobody!

Ok, then there is a hole in the "ignore" system.
You are still seeing ironmans posts when they are referenced in another users post.
Fix is to search post contents to detect this reference, and treat the post as if it was from the 'ignored' if any of the text contains the 'Ignored' userID.

errc says

I put Ironman on ignore, he logged off to read my posts, quoted them, harassed me about them, and then had one of his buddies quote him so it shows up in the thread

mell says

YesYNot says

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.

If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, accepted Trump and even embraced at least a few of his stances or simply got turned o...

@mell , name them by name.

Who are you referring to?

anon_0e631 says

Can you step up and start making more Liberal threads if you want to see more?

It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy. It's a lack of good and novel ideas, particularly in response to others. I don't really have an interest in trying to take up the mantle of all of those who have left. I'm perfectly happy to contribute if there are other posts that I find interesting and agreeable, but I'm finding less and less of those. That will reach critical mass if it has not already. That's just how I see things at this point.

Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more frustrating than fun. If the moderator is more concerned with what constitutes an insult than what constitutes an intelligent and relevant idea, then that's another problem. I've seen both of those problems so far.

anon_d57f7 says

anon_313db says

Ad homs are the biggest reason why this site started to and continued to struggle.

No that's never true. 4chan exists and grows even when the entire purpose is to ad hominem each other to death. If you want a reason for the decline it's because Patrick simply doesn't give a shit. He stabbed the most loyal users in the back and handed control over the place to the liars and trolls.

Personally, I did not find ad homers of either side valuable, they were discussion destroyers pure and simple, whether it's left winger like el professor Roberto or right winger like CIC. Do you really believe they had anything productive to contribute when at least 70% of their posts were outright ad hom?

errc says

mell says

YesYNot says

In the last year, there has been a drop off in the number of liberals posting. This appointment of goran as moderator seems to have accelerated it, and I would agree that the moderation has been one sided. It's not a flagrant abuse, but I believe that it's enough to dissuade liberals from bothering to engage here. It's lack of interesting posts that's the real problem, and if you get rid of anon posts, you will be left with an echo chamber at this point.

If you look at the current threads, mostly politics, they are relatively balanced on both sides. Certainly enough Trump bashing on there, and then some neutral stuff as well. Here's an alternative explanation. The site was dominated by lefties and narcissists / strong personalities all united in their hate for Trump, but now that many moved on, ac...

I see topics started by Hey You certainly on the left of things, Roidy as well, tovarichpeter, sometimes yesYnot and timaurora and rew, then neutral ones like tvgnus, heraclitus, curious2, bob doesn't start many but certainly replies to many (also more on the left though somewhat centrist). The rest I'd put on the right side of the spectrum. Here's to all of those staying on.

YesYNot says

It's not a lack of threads that's a problem. Thread starting is easy.

Agreed.

YesYNot says

Regarding uneven moderation, this is why I think it's a problem: I know that there will be snide and marginally insulting posts coming my way. To a point, that's fine as long as I am able to respond in kind. However, if I expect to be hit with harsher moderation than the people who are insulting me, that's going to be more frustrating than fun. If the moderator is more concerned with what constitutes an insult than what constitutes an intelligent and relevant idea, then that's another problem. I've seen both of those problems so far.

That's why I think that the previous model where you could moderate your own threads but not beyond was fine.

anon_d57f7 says

Nope. Fuck this anti free speech forum. You can shit all over it but for god sake don't insult anybody. Them's the new rules!

Freedom of speech.
Free to debate ideas.
Free to try to change minds about issues.
Free to bring forward evidence so that others can weigh that evidence and show you why it is lacking.
Free to show your algorithms and let others detect errors in your logic.
Free to bring your opinion and debate or ignore the opinion of others.

Patrick is an intelligent, thoughtful, person who has spent a lot of resources to provide a place for civil discussion of ideas, politics, current events and humour.

Patrick.net Patrick rules.