Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

[delet]

So I've gotten myself a lovable bit of mod wrath. I'm ok with it; I'm not appealing it. I simply want to use it as an example to hopefully better explain an argument I wish to present.

I got my little Probation for "Insulting other users and their opinions." The problem, though, is that not once did I insult the person. I insulted his mindset. I insulted the idea he was presenting. It was an idea that I disagreed with, and so I said as much. I may be a tad blunt with the things I say, but that is only to better and more clearly get my point across. This comes at the cost of rubbing a few more people the wrong way which is unfortunate, but unavoidable if I want to present my arguments as clearly as I am accustomed to.

The problem with restricting the combating of ideas is that there is then nothing left to say. I'd simply be left with "Yes, you're right," or "No, you're wrong," as responses, and thus I'd be rid of the style of writing and responding to posts that has come to characterize me. When I say something along the lines of, "your sentiment is idiotic" it means that the idea you are presenting is very wrong. By saying it as such, I show very clearly and easily what my sentiment is. If I were to simply say, "That idea is very wrong," it would lack much of the force and power of the former quote.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes, but people's opinions can still be wrong. Even so, if I say such things about someone's opinion like in the post I got my probation for and the person I am responding to takes issue with that, then they can argue the points behind their opinion in an attempt to show me otherwise. Is that not how an intelligent discussion should be performed? What I did was not "attacking a person for sharing their opinion," but rather simply stating my opinion of their opinion.

How can I expect to freely continue posting on these forums if every little thing I say is going to be misconstrued as an attack upon someone else? I understand that limits must be placed, but if I can't make a post which is only at fault for being blunt and which is not even complained about by the person I am replying to, then how can I hope to make decent arguments?

 

[lacktheknack]

So I've gotten myself a lovable bit of mod wrath. I'm ok with it; I'm not appealing it. I simply want to use it as an example to hopefully better explain an argument I wish to present.

I got my little Probation for "Insulting other users and their opinions." The problem, though, is that not once did I insult the person. I insulted his mindset. I insulted the idea he was presenting. It was an idea that I disagreed with, and so I said as much. I may be a tad blunt with the things I say, but that is only to better and more clearly get my point across. This comes at the cost of rubbing a few more people the wrong way which is unfortunate, but unavoidable if I want to present my arguments as clearly as I am accustomed to.

The problem with restricting the combating of ideas is that there is then nothing left to say. I'd simply be left with "Yes, you're right," or "No, you're wrong," as responses, and thus I'd be rid of the style of writing and responding to posts that has come to characterize me. When I say something along the lines of, "your sentiment is idiotic" it means that the idea you are presenting is very wrong. By saying it as such, I show very clearly and easily what my sentiment is. If I were to simply say, "That idea is very wrong," it would lack much of the force and power of the former quote.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes, but people's opinions can still be wrong. Even so, if I say such things about someone's opinion like in the post I got my probation for and the person I am responding to takes issue with that, then they can argue the points behind their opinion in an attempt to show me otherwise. Is that not how an intelligent discussion should be performed? What I did was not "attacking a person for sharing their opinion," but rather simply stating my opinion of their opinion.

How can I expect to freely continue posting on these forums if every little thing I say is going to be misconstrued as an attack upon someone else? I understand that limits must be placed, but if I can't make a post which is only at fault for being blunt and which is not even complained about by the person I am replying to, then how can I hope to make decent arguments?

I'm gonna agree with Aby here. I've found that blunt, "I mean this" statements can stop deliberate misunderstandings, even though they're a bit tactless.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

So I've gotten myself a lovable bit of mod wrath. I'm ok with it; I'm not appealing it. I simply want to use it as an example to hopefully better explain an argument I wish to present.

I got my little Probation for "Insulting other users and their opinions." The problem, though, is that not once did I insult the person. I insulted his mindset. I insulted the idea he was presenting. It was an idea that I disagreed with, and so I said as much. I may be a tad blunt with the things I say, but that is only to better and more clearly get my point across. This comes at the cost of rubbing a few more people the wrong way which is unfortunate, but unavoidable if I want to present my arguments as clearly as I am accustomed to.

The problem with restricting the combating of ideas is that there is then nothing left to say. I'd simply be left with "Yes, you're right," or "No, you're wrong," as responses, and thus I'd be rid of the style of writing and responding to posts that has come to characterize me. When I say something along the lines of, "your sentiment is idiotic" it means that the idea you are presenting is very wrong. By saying it as such, I show very clearly and easily what my sentiment is. If I were to simply say, "That idea is very wrong," it would lack much of the force and power of the former quote.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes, but people's opinions can still be wrong. Even so, if I say such things about someone's opinion like in the post I got my probation for and the person I am responding to takes issue with that, then they can argue the points behind their opinion in an attempt to show me otherwise. Is that not how an intelligent discussion should be performed? What I did was not "attacking a person for sharing their opinion," but rather simply stating my opinion of their opinion.

How can I expect to freely continue posting on these forums if every little thing I say is going to be misconstrued as an attack upon someone else? I understand that limits must be placed, but if I can't make a post which is only at fault for being blunt and which is not even complained about by the person I am replying to, then how can I hope to make decent arguments?

But perhaps even more importantly, my Jesus post should probably have never put me on probation.

 

[Agent Poole]

Im very sorry but some of the rules are just plane daft like you cant put all caps in a post why not?

 

[D Moness]

Im very sorry but some of the rules are just plane daft like you cant put all caps in a post why not?

Because full caps look like screaming. You do not scream to your friends in a normal conversation. It is common decency not to use full caps. I think it is even sad they have to be included in the rules

 

[Agent Poole]

Im very sorry but some of the rules are just plane daft like you cant put all caps in a post why not?

Because full caps look like screaming. You do not scream to your friends in a normal conversation. It is common decency not to use full caps. I think it is even sad they have to be included in the rules

We've gotten so sensitive in this day and age that capital letters are offensive and must be regulated against? I think it's sad people can't just say,"All caps? That's silly." and move the fuck on.

i used it to start my topic cos i was excited how is this a bad thing and dont talk to me like that

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Im very sorry but some of the rules are just plane daft like you cant put all caps in a post why not?

Because you don't need to use full caps to convey your point?

Because you wouldn't write all caps in an email in a conversation unless it held some value to your what you are saying?

Because it isn't grammatically correct? (Believe it or not, we do have some standards on spelling and grammar. By the way, you fly a plane, you don't use it as an adverb.)

Just don't use caps unless it actually adds to what you're saying. DOING THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE REALLY EXCITED SEEMS A LITTLE OVER THE TOP DON'T YA THINK!?

i used it to start my topic cos i was excited how is this a bad thing and dont talk to me like that

Uh...you realize I'm using sarcasm to take your side, right? But thanks for proving my theory that people on this site just can't wait to be offended by words.

No one is offended by all caps, its just really annoying to read...and sarcasm doesn't exactly transfer into text well >_>

 

[maddawg IAJI]

No one is offended by all caps, its just really annoying to read...and sarcasm doesn't exactly transfer into text well >_>

OK, this is a serious question even though it's not going to sound like it. Why is reading all caps annoying? Do people really read it as 'yelling' and can't think of it any other way? I ask because I have honestly never had that problem. I understand seeing it as the writer conveying yelling, but I don't understand how the reader is unable to merely filter that away and just see the content.

Well different reasons for different people. My main gripe with it is that it just doesn't add anything to the post. Unless used for emphasis or to give the mental image of yelling, caps don't do anything.

Other people would highlight how it isn't grammatically correct. Others can't read something without mentally yelling the words in their heads. Others believe it is lazy.

Its not difficult to write like this and the only difference is one tap of the shift bar for every sentence. It takes a fraction of a second to type that one capitalized letter and it does go a long way in everyone's perspective.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Others can't read something without mentally yelling the words in their heads.

That one is so weird to me. But that would suck, I suppose. Thanks for the insight.

Trust me, I know a few people who complain about all caps for that very reason at my school. They say it gives them a headache.

 

[Trolldor]

How are 'low content posts' judgeded exactly?

Why 's "true" a low content post if it imparts precisely the same meaning as "Yes, that is also a possibility and one I agree with and believe you made a cogent point"?
Clearly just saying "true" is a lot simpler.
One other member posted about how he got a 'low content post' warning for posting an image, and yet the image contained a full sentence, a joke actually that wouldn't have worked had it been accompanied by any sort of additive from the poster himself.
The rules really ought to be applied more on to breaches of behaviour, not to things like a very base and simplistic count of the number of words in a post, without consideration to what those words imply or mean.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

How are 'low content posts' judgeded exactly?

Why 's "true" a low content post if it imparts precisely the same meaning as "Yes, that is also a possibility and one I agree with and believe you made a cogent point"?
Clearly just saying "true" is a lot simpler.
One other member posted about how he got a 'low content post' warning for posting an image, and yet the image contained a full sentence, a joke actually that wouldn't have worked had it been accompanied by any sort of additive from the poster himself.
The rules really ought to be applied more on to breaches of behaviour, not to things like a very base and simplistic count of the number of words in a post, without consideration to what those words imply or mean.

Its judged based on how much effort you put in your posts. A user who posts only a picture could use it as a visual aid, but one who posts it as an entirety of his post is just copying another person's work. If the person is unwilling to put original content down (I.E: His own formed opinions in a written format) then he shows he does not wish to put effort forth. The same could be said about a user who simply says 'true.'

If your opinion as already been stated and you honestly believe that you can not add anything more to the thread, then don't post. Its a waste of bandwidth if you don't add anything anyways.

 

[Trolldor]

I was under the impression that they were forums for conversation, not academic stricture. Secondly, why is an image which conveys a user's idea any less substantial than words?
If the exact same meaning is imparted, why is it then unacceptable?

And, by the by, nothing you've put down in your post is original.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I was under the impression that they were forums for conversation, not academic stricture. Secondly, why is an image which conveys a user's idea any less substantial than words?
If the exact same meaning is imparted, why is it then unacceptable?

And, by the by, nothing you've put down in your post is original.

You're right, they are for conversation, but just saying "This" or "True," adds nothing to a conversation. Its a waste of space.

Because we don't want to see people having to rely on pictures to express their opinions. You have a grasp of the English language, so use it and tell me your opinions instead of just copying and pasting something from another site. Its lazy.

Lastly, no, the whole phrase "Nothing is original anymore" is a load of horse crap. Yes, a lot of things have already been done but you cannot possibly link one of those past events to my post. If you're gonna claim its not original, then please, tell me where I could have possibly copied it.

 

[Trolldor]

You know, I could just cite the fact I'm a published author, but that doesn't matter.
I could refer to the fact that I've been taking a University Course that would qualify me as a High School English teacher, and am now doing a Journalism course. But I won't.
Instead, I'll simply refer to this video from Stephen Fry:


The English language is more than a string words, it is the sum of its ideas.
You are not some single, omnipotent arbiter of the language.
Nor are the mods, either individually or collectively.
As a former forum moderator I know well how it operates.
You should not be making decisions on what qualifies as a worth while post. The decisions not only become inconsistent, they become arbitrary.
A simple 'spam' rule, removing any bot plugs or posts irrelevant to the conversation (also called Off-topic) is enough, but if they are still in line with the forum topic then that post qualifies as 'worth while'.
If they agree with another poster, why can't they let them know they agree? What if they have nothing to add but want to make their support known publically? It can mean a lot to that original poster that someone else shares his point of view, such posts would be worth while to him.
Or does his opinion on posts made to him not count? Is it, of course, someone else uninvolved in the exchange who should be placing value on what passes the accept-o-meter?