Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[Marter]

If you look at Topaz's strong personal opinions expressed on this thread, it doesn't give much confidence that s/he has impartially moderated the thread. Especially when the topic of this thread has involved so much discussion of moderating practices.

If an abuse of power is taking place the staff handling the appeals will notice and the moderator will be dealt with.

Seeing as such a thing hasn't happened we can only assume that your lack of confidence is misplaced.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

If an abuse of power is taking place the staff handling the appeals will notice and the moderator will be dealt with.

Seeing as such a thing hasn't happened we can only assume that your lack of confidence is misplaced.

So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thanatos2k's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

 

[Marter]

So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thantos2K's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

Perhaps they weren't reported. We go through the mod queue when warning posts. You're now asking me to mind read. I can't do that.

 

[lacktheknack]

None of our moderators are intimidating, though.

So, what is "License to Ban" supposed to convey then, warm friendly hugs? A potential poster could easily be intimidated by that display into not speaking freely.

It's meant to be casual and jokey, which is something I value over professionalism.

It wouldn't be secret. You'd have to use a .sig or similar to indicate that you were also a mod or an employee.

...so you immediately ruined the point of removing the moderator account. Cross that one off the list.

No, it doesn't remove the point. It separates the user's personal account (with no special privileges) from the employee's account (which represents the company).

...and then immediately associates the mod with the user account again. You may think that this distances the actions between the two, but you'd be wrong.

Nope. Just nope. Jesus Christ, where does the internet FIND all these people who mistake police for soldiers with assault rifles?

In many countries, the police are soldiers with rifles.

You are not in one of those countries. 99% of us are not in those countries. I'd estimate that 30% of the users here conflate the two, despite not having grounds for it.

A policeman standing on a street corner is not threatening at all.

How about a policeman standing on every corner? How about a squad of police dressed in full riot gear with shields?

We have less than ten mods, all but three of which rarely even appear. That's not "every street corner" by any means. Hell, I wouldn't describe the three mods we see often as a "squad". And how do you drag riot gear into this?

A policeman relaxing is NEVER threatening.

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

False. Utterly false and wildly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you think that's a "regular" thing, please leave the internet and join the real world for a bit.

"Regularly assault people", my massive fucking ass. A policeman has to go through multiple background checks, tons of training, and then are put under extremely tight rules, as well as get tracked in the field, in the office, and even get GPS units attached to their car so there isn't an inch of wriggle-room for error on the job, all so they can experience the glory of dealing with massive shitheads and/or high-stress situations daily for the rest of their career. And then someone breaks under the pressure in a completely different department and suddenly they're the bad guy. Because fuck da police.

It's like you don't think they're human, talking about them like that, when in fact, they're humans held to much higher standards than you'll ever be held to. Gain some perspective.

I honestly can't believe you thought "X regularly assault people without cause" would be a thoughtful or insightful comment. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

I wonder if you've considered that your flippant little line right there could be seen as "personal attack". Because it totally can be.

If someone had a sig on all of their posts that said "Oh by the way, I'm also a mod on a separate account", that defeats the entire purpose of what you're proposing.
Because then everyone would know that user is also a mod. So you might as well just give that person a blue username and all the other things that mods get to identify themselves with.

No, it doesn't defeat the purpose, because when the user is posting their personal opinions, it would be clearer that they are not speaking on behalf of the company. It also means that the "personal" account could be warned/suspended/banned for violations without affecting the moderator account.

It provides a separation between the person's official role, and their personal interactions on the site. But like I said, it would be better if the moderators weren't involved in personal activity on the forums at all.

If you look at Topaz's strong personal opinions expressed on this thread, it doesn't give much confidence that s/he has impartially moderated the thread. Especially when the topic of this thread has involved so much discussion of moderating practices.

Because reading these opinions coming from "FopazTusion" with the sig "Hi! I'm a mod!" totally boosts your confidence in moderation, right?

Yeah, not buying it.

Also, it's difficult to "know a community", as you suggested earlier, if you never interact with it.

 

[lacktheknack]

If an abuse of power is taking place the staff handling the appeals will notice and the moderator will be dealt with.

Seeing as such a thing hasn't happened we can only assume that your lack of confidence is misplaced.

So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thanatos2k's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

Also, I don't think it's that hard to imagine that a mod can comment and reply at the same time.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

It's meant to be casual and jokey, which is something I value over professionalism.

It certainly doesn't come across that way, especially when the posts from that person have been anything but jokey and casual, and more on the spectrum of "willing to use the small amount of power I've been given to impose my will."

And how do you drag riot gear into this?

Since you started talking about how police aren't threatening.

False. Utterly false and wildly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you think that's a "regular" thing, please leave the internet and join the real world for a bit.

Oh, I have been in the real world. I've been in completely peaceful protests, where the protesters are charged with police in riot gear, and sprayed with tear gas. When they posed absolutely no threat. I've seen them drag homeless people away for the crime of being homeless.

You said police are NEVER threatening. That means it can never have happened even once.

"Regularly assault people", my massive fucking ass. A policeman has to go through multiple background checks, tons of training, and then are put under extremely tight rules, as well as get tracked in the field, in the office, and even get GPS units attached to their car so there isn't an inch of wriggle-room for error on the job, all so they can experience the glory of dealing with massive shitheads and/or high-stress situations daily for the rest of their career. And then someone breaks under the pressure in a completely different department and suddenly they're the bad guy. Because fuck da police.

And yet, police assaults happen regularly. Like every day. How is that not regular?

It's like you don't think they're human, talking about them like that, when in fact, they're humans held to much higher standards than you'll ever be held to. Gain some perspective.

Actually, they get away with more than most of us ever will. Police are often pardoned for some seriously sick behaviour.

I honestly can't believe you thought "X regularly assault people without cause" would be a thoughtful or insightful comment. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

Why? For speaking the truth?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

What personal attacks did I make?

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

What personal attacks did I make?

This:

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

Yes. That's totally what policemen do.

How fucking DARE you say that about my family?

 

[lacktheknack]

It's meant to be casual and jokey, which is something I value over professionalism.

It certainly doesn't come across that way, especially when the posts from that person have been anything but jokey and casual, and more on the spectrum of "willing to use the small amount of power I've been given to impose my will."

You've clearly never talked to Topaz outside of threads-that-cannot-be-locked.

And how do you drag riot gear into this?

Since you started talking about how police aren't threatening.

I said a policeman standing on a corner, under pretense of being watchful.

When the riot gear comes out, that's more or less never the situation anymore, and you know that.

False. Utterly false and wildly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. If you think that's a "regular" thing, please leave the internet and join the real world for a bit.

Oh, I have been in the real world. I've been in completely peaceful protests, where the protesters are charged with police in riot gear, and sprayed with tear gas. When they posed absolutely no threat. I've seen them drag homeless people away for the crime of being homeless.

You said police are NEVER threatening. That means it can never have happened even once.

Actually, I said a policeman relaxing is never threatening.

Which they aren't.

Police in response to something are threatening, yes. But that's not what I was talking about. And neither were you: You were talking about mods simply existing in threads with blue names and comparing it to "demilitarized zones". Because nothing says "I have perspective and know what I talking about" than comparing a police presence to a demilitarized zone.

Also, you say the people at the peaceful protest posed no threat: I don't believe you. Every time I hear about peaceful protestors getting tear-gassed, I look into it and find out they were actually screaming profanity, threatening to burn things and generally edging towards rioting. Hence the riot cops.

"Regularly assault people", my massive fucking ass. A policeman has to go through multiple background checks, tons of training, and then are put under extremely tight rules, as well as get tracked in the field, in the office, and even get GPS units attached to their car so there isn't an inch of wriggle-room for error on the job, all so they can experience the glory of dealing with massive shitheads and/or high-stress situations daily for the rest of their career. And then someone breaks under the pressure in a completely different department and suddenly they're the bad guy. Because fuck da police.

And yet, police assaults happen regularly. Like every day. How is that not regular?

Source, please. Our city's last unwarranted police assault was last year.

It's like you don't think they're human, talking about them like that, when in fact, they're humans held to much higher standards than you'll ever be held to. Gain some perspective.

Actually, they get away with more than most of us ever will. Police are often pardoned for some seriously sick behaviour.

Can you actually back this up with anything that's not publicized to hell and back?

I honestly can't believe you thought "X regularly assault people without cause" would be a thoughtful or insightful comment. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

Why? For speaking the truth?

it's funny because you think it's truth and not gleaned entirely from sources that only portray bad news. It's funny, because you think highly publicized things are common. it's funny because you think that because it happens a few times, it must happen constantly.

What you've said is not the truth, no matter how much you desperately want it to be.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

What personal attacks did I make?

This:

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

Yes. That's totally what policemen do.

How fucking DARE you say that about my family?

How is that a personal attack? Firstly, it wasn't directed at you. Secondly, it's a simple statement of fact. Abuse by police happens all the time.

Thirdly, "threatening" doesn't just mean abuses of power. Heck, police are trained to appear threatening as a means of extending power.

Have you not noticed how police clothing has gotten more militaristic over the years? It's turned sharply away from a "dress uniform" style to "SWAT team" style, especially since the supposed "war on terror" (more like war on civil liberties).

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, hey. So have yours gone unwarned.

What personal attacks did I make?

This:

What the hell? Policemen are frequently threatening. Policemen regularly assault people without cause and abuse their power.

Yes. That's totally what policemen do.

How fucking DARE you say that about my family?

How is that a personal attack? Firstly, it wasn't directed at you. Secondly, it's a simple statement of fact. Abuse by police happens all the time.

Thirdly, "threatening" doesn't just mean abuses of power. Heck, police are trained to appear threatening as a means of extending power.

Have you not noticed how police clothing has gotten more militaristic over the years? It's turned sharply away from a "dress uniform" style to "SWAT team" style, especially since the supposed "war on terror" (more like war on civil liberties).

Well, when you swing a bucket of feces freely, you're going to hit someone with it.

Refer to my previous post for the abuse and threatening parts.

Also, no. The police here are still in dress uniform with vest. You're talking about American police, presumably, who I can't comment on. Neither of us can, since we're in Canada and Australia.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You've clearly never talked to Topaz outside of threads-that-cannot-be-locked.

Why should I have had to? I've seen his/her posts in this thread. They weren't exactly comforting and lacking in hostility.

I said a policeman standing on a corner, under pretense of being watchful.

And since when did that encompass the entirely of police? And when the hell does that ever happen anyway? Police usually don't just stand around on corners being watchful. If there's a policeman doing that, it's probably for some other reason.

Actually, I said a policeman relaxing is never threatening.

Again, not true. A policeman relaxing while his partners beat the shit out of someone is quite threatening.

Also, you say the people at the peaceful protest posed no threat: I don't believe you. Every time I hear about peaceful protestors getting tear-gassed, I look into it and find out they were actually screaming profanity, threatening to burn things and generally edging towards rioting. Hence the riot cops.

You'd be wrong. It's more often the case that the riot cops escalate the situation. Riot police usually aren;t called in to control a pre-existing riot, but to create one.

You say it yourself "edging towards rioting" - not actually rioting. And you have to remember that the media is usually extremely biased in these cases. I've seen it first-hand. People who are absolutely peaceful, who get attacked by police, and then it's reported in the media as being the protestor's fault for being violent.

Source, please. Our city's last unwarranted police assault was last year.

That you know of. You do know that most of this stuff never gets officially written ump right? And that's just your city. How many cities are there in the world?

Can you actually back this up with anything that's not publicized to hell and back?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Does the Rodney King case not count because it was publicised? It's curious that you'd add that clause.

it's funny because you think it's truth and not gleaned entirely from sources that only portray bad news. It's funny, because you think highly publicized things are common. it's funny because you think that because it happens a few times, it must happen constantly.

But it does happen constantly. I know it from personal experience. Usually when a police officer assaults someone, it turns into a charge of the victim assaulting the police. That would be a good proxy for how often it happens - every time you see someone charged for assaulting the police, it's pretty safe to assume that it was the other way around.

 

[lacktheknack]

You've clearly never talked to Topaz outside of threads-that-cannot-be-locked.

Why should I have had to? I've seen his/her posts in this thread. They weren't exactly comforting and lacking in hostility.

Well, if you never see them anywhere else, then clearly they don't need to change their appearance for you.

I said a policeman standing on a corner, under pretense of being watchful.

And since when did that encompass the entirely of police? And when the hell does that ever happen anyway? Police usually don't just stand around on corners being watchful. If there's a policeman doing that, it's probably for some other reason.

Well, this all started with comparing mods to a "police-watch".

Actually, I said a policeman relaxing is never threatening.

Again, not true. A policeman relaxing while his partners beat the shit out of someone is quite threatening.

Why do you take things completely literally one moment ("Never threatening!") one moment, but in the same thought pattern, embellish it insanely?

You're... you're just trying to win. You don't want to actually improve anything or foster proper debate, you just want to win. Why else would you resort to double-mindedness?

Also, you say the people at the peaceful protest posed no threat: I don't believe you. Every time I hear about peaceful protestors getting tear-gassed, I look into it and find out they were actually screaming profanity, threatening to burn things and generally edging towards rioting. Hence the riot cops.

You'd be wrong. It's more often the case that the riot cops escalate the situation. Riot police usually aren;t called in to control a pre-existing riot, but to create one.

You say it yourself "edging towards rioting" - not actually rioting. And you have to remember that the media is usually extremely biased in these cases. I've seen it first-hand. People who are absolutely peaceful, who get attacked by police, and then it's reported in the media as being the protestor's fault for being violent.

That's why the media always sides with the protestors.

...wait...

Source, please. Our city's last unwarranted police assault was last year.

That you know of. You do know that most of this stuff never gets officially written ump right? And that's just your city. How many cities are there in the world?

Hundreds of thousands. That WEAKENS your argument, actually. Are you asking me to count literally every case of cop abuse in the world and then say "that's a lot"? Because an intellectually honest next step would be to divide that count by the number of police forces in the world.

Can you actually back this up with anything that's not publicized to hell and back?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Does the Rodney King case not count because it was publicised? It's curious that you'd add that clause.

No it's not. These cases are publicized BECAUSE they're unusual.

it's funny because you think it's truth and not gleaned entirely from sources that only portray bad news. It's funny, because you think highly publicized things are common. it's funny because you think that because it happens a few times, it must happen constantly.

But it does happen constantly. I know it from personal experience. Usually when a police officer assaults someone, it turns into a charge of the victim assaulting the police. That would be a good proxy for how often it happens - every time you see someone charged for assaulting the police, it's pretty safe to assume that it was the other way around.

As someone with ties to the police, I can safely say that you horribly underestimate just how seriously the police force takes police brutality. Your proxy is bullshit.

I have no interest in continuing this. Your rhetoric changes on the drop of a hat, you stop acknowledging any points I make when you have no rebuttal, and you have no respect for what's obviously a hot-button issue for me, instead choosing to relentlessly slam it, say stuff you blatantly pulled from your hat and completely derail the original conversation. I'm out.

I leave you with this: There's not even a snowball's chance in Hell that your suggestions on how moderation should work will be considered if this is how you present it.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Well, this all started with comparing mods to a "police-watch".

It wasn't me who brought up the police analogy, it was TpoazFusion.

You're... you're just trying to win. You don't want to actually improve anything or foster proper debate, you just want to win. Why else would you resort to double-mindedness?

Nope. I don;t give a crap about "winning." What the hell would I win? I'm just here to have a discussion.

As someone with ties to the police, I can safely say that you horribly underestimate just how seriously the police force takes police brutality. Your proxy is bullshit.

Your ties to the police don't help your credibility or impartiality on this matter.

I have no interest in continuing this. Your rhetoric changes on the drop of a hat, you stop acknowledging any points I make when you have no rebuttal, and you have no respect for what's obviously a hot-button issue for me, instead choosing to relentlessly slam it and completely derail the original conversation. I'm out.

So, it can be a hot-button issue for you as someone with "ties to the police" but not for me, who has been the victim of police assault? Do you have any respect for that?

My apologies. I did not intend to derail the situation or insult you, I was just speaking my mind.

I leave you with this: There's not even a snowball's chance in Hell that your suggestions on how moderation should work will be considered if this is how you present it.

The off-topic tangents are really unfortunate. And no, my ideas are very unlikely to become a reality.

But consider this: the conversation probably would have stayed firmly on the topic of ad blocking if it wasn't for the intervention of some completely one-sided moderators.

The thread started off as one of the most remarkably civil threads in Jimquisition history until the mods showed up. Then it got even worse after a couple of others showed up and started accusing people of stealing because of different opinions.

 

[Remus]

Wow, that's one hell of a tangent you guys got there. It went from metaphor to "I'm personally offended you think that about a metaphor and here's 12 reasons why!" It's almost deserving of its own thread actually.

 

[KisaiTenshi]

If an abuse of power is taking place the staff handling the appeals will notice and the moderator will be dealt with.

Seeing as such a thing hasn't happened we can only assume that your lack of confidence is misplaced.

So, then why have KisaiTenshi and Thanatos2k's personal attacks gone unwarned, even as TopazFusion was at the same time making personal remarks to me on this thread, instead of moderating?

You don't think Topaz's siding personally with them on the issue was a factor?

Should I assume this is you admitting that you've been reporting every post you are fighting a losing argument in?

Please. I personally don't care about winning any argument on the internet.

 

[KisaiTenshi]

As for how this relates back to the ad blocking discussion, the analogy to ad blocking for TV is using your own PVR, not the cable companies, so you can fast forward through commercials. The channel you watch may prohibit fast forwarding, and many Cable company owned VOD services disable it at the request of the broadcaster.

Wait, is this real? It's been years since I had cable (and therefore, a PVR is useless to me), but I never met a show I couldn't skip the ads on. And that was with a provided PVR.

Depends. If you have Motorola hardware, they indeedly do prevent fast-forwading on VOD. Every program on VOD is "Please note, that fast forward is disabled for this program", I'll also note the commercials on VOD are shorter. Likewise if I go directly to the premium channels websites and watch VOD directly, they won't let me skip the commercials sometimes.

https://www.facebook.com/twc/posts/231604266941493

Time Warner Cable
Disabling fast-forward is an option requested by the broadcast networks as part of their agreement to allow us to offer OnDemand for their programming.

http://www.deadline.com/2013/06/disney-exec-praises-ad-supported-vod-with-fast-forward-disabled-cable-show/

Disney Exec Praises Ad-Supported VOD With Fast Forward Disabled: Cable Show

Comcast and other cable operators hope to land series that might go to subscription streaming services such as Netflix by offering opportunities to broadcast them on VOD with ads, and the fast forward disabled.

The cable-company owned PVR can be made to prevent fast forwarding as well, but that's why third-party models exist that hook up to the firewire port. What you're going to see is more VOD-only or VOD-exclusive programming. VOD is run through the same headend as PPV is, just VOD will only let you watch what you already subscribe to (for no additional cost,) while PPV will let you watch anything, once, for a cost. Usually the 5C is set to copy-never for VOD and PPV. So your PVR can't record it.

And to repeat, Cable companies are calling their VOD services "PVR" experiences, and some providers (particularly satellite) may do Push-VOD that actually schedules the show to be downloaded to all devices, regardless if you watch it or not.

As for how this comes back to the ad blocking issue, you can't block it. Not in the US anyway (Europe's DVB standard is a bit more hackable.)

 

[Calbeck]

If you hit your audience with invasive, annoying, and occasionally even harmful ads, you are harming the audience's ability to enjoy the show. At that point, you begin shedding viewers in direct proportion to their personal tolerance levels.

Any entertainment venue which relies on ads therefore faces a balancing act: how to bring in the maximum amount of revenue while losing the minimum amount of audience. This should be, and is, obvious, regardless of how many tangents and distractions may abound along the way.

Television survived and thrived for decades on advertising revenues because it understood that ads needed to entertain --- NOT ANNOY. The more obnoxious one's ads are, the more likely they are to drive one's audience to go do something else.

This is not changed by complaining about how "unfair" people are when they say the ads are invasive, annoying, and occasionally even harmful. Such concerns do not disappear merely because you dismiss or ignore them.

Two extremes exist here. At one end, everybody gets everything for free, the creators get nothing, and the entertainment dies as soon as its production becomes too cumbersome to maintain out of sheer love. At the other, you've implemented advertising methods so noisome that your only real viewers are those with pre-paid no-advertising subscriptions. The problem here is that The Escapist is now edging towards the latter extreme.

There will always be those who feel so self-entitled that they will AdBlock anything and everything merely because they can. They are not your paying customers.

These are NOT to be confused with those who raise concerns with substance behind them. Again, it doesn't matter if you think you can cobble together a rationale to dismiss the substance; it's still there. These people ARE your paying audience, because they WILL put up with advertising to a point.

So what call does The Escapist really have to make?

It boils down to what percentage of their paying customers they are willing to drive away, in exchange for (presumably) more-profitable forms of advertising. There is a point of equilibrium, beyond which it's simply a game of diminishing returns.

That's all there is to it.

 

[Thanatos2k]

I thought it was 90 seconds. But you know the funny thing? In the threads I saw on it, users largely responded by saying that silence was still worth adblocking, which probably didn't set forth the message they wanted.

Well yes, ad blockers are perpetuating a selfish behavior at heart, so it's no surprise they act petulantly at first when punished for it. However, you'd have to be truly stubborn to waste your time like that over the long term.

In most cases, people will rage audibly while hypocritically caving when no one can see them.