The Escapist Community is a tad too toxic

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

I can't help but agree with you. While I'm not gonna pretend like there hasn't been at least some amount of toxicity throughout my forum going, I would definitely say it's gotten a lot worse in the past year or two. GamerGate seems to have left its mark on these here forums, especially after GID pretty much made GG discussion less of a taboo. A significant number of the more light-hearted oldguard have upped sticks and left with those remaining becoming tired of the constant bickering. Most of the recent new blood is only here for GamerGate, which has only exacerbated it. It's bred an environment of hostility and hair-trigger reactions that makes some just lose their damn minds. I think that, had GID not been established, the forums may have recovered from the shit stirred up by the megathread and gone back to the usual stuff, like after every other controversy that blew through. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen now.

 

[runic knight]

Oh, I'm not saying your analogy was improper or offensive. I'm saying it was ridiculous.

You're comparing someone starting an argument and having people argue with them to some woman being raped because she was "asking for it".

And your personal feelings that it is ridiculous are noted and dismissed as irrelevant to me, so what is the point of clutching pearls here? I mean that, what is the purpose of saying "this offends me" in this case, other than to make it known that yes, it does offend you? A pointless commentary directed at the person, an issue that seems to keep popping up.

You mean all that stuff that wasn't in the OP?

OP presented a topic of discussion. That discussion was based on his belief, or at least his accusation, that a comic won an award just due to diversity points. That's it. That's all there was to discuss. And people discussed it. And argued about it. Which is presumably what the OP intended.

The only other thing the OP mentioned was his view that a Deadpool comic was better. Which doesn't seem terribly relevant since as far as I'm aware Deadpool wasn't a nominee.

Let me try my hand at this analogy thing. If I were to start a thread in which I say that, ohhhh, say... the only reason people take up martial arts is because they are compensating for their underdeveloped genitals, am I "victim" if a few resident martial arts enthusiasts decide to take me to task?

They mentioned an event, gave their own thoughts, and then left the floor wide open for other people. Instead of going over the topic of the thread, that of the comic winning, and the various topics surrounding that, it was instead decided, least judging by your initial reply here, that because the OP was a social misfit with a history of unacceptable views, that it was alright to ignore all that discussion potential and give them what they deserve.

As for your analogy, that depends on how they take you to task. Do note, that is the issue here, not that people replied to the topic, but rather how they did. The way that was remarked upon by the OP as example of toxicity and all that. So your analogy could work or it could not. In that, it is not a very well crafted analogy.

It won the Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story

I know, but I was under the impression that mainstream comics didn't win the awards in general. granted I am not too familiar with the awards themselves, but I was under the impression that as a sci-fi thing, they didn't delve too deep into extended universes like Marvel or DC. Not that it would invalidate them, but it would make a comic from one of them winning be unusual. If I am wrong though that is ok, was just coming up with ideas for discussion off the top of my head anyways based just on what little I know of the award and circumstances around it.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

They mentioned an event, gave their own thoughts, and then left the floor wide open for other people. Instead of going over the topic of the thread, that of the comic winning, and the various topics surrounding that, it was instead decided, least judging by your initial reply here, that because the OP was a social misfit with a history of unacceptable views, that it was alright to ignore all that discussion potential and give them what they deserve.

Way to give a totally biased rereading of what Zhukov originally said...

He did not call inu a social misfit. He did not declare inu had unacceptable views. You're putting a ridiculous amount of spin on it and you're changing the intent while doing so.

Zhukov made it pretty clear what the OPs history had to do with it. It's not that it made it okay, it's that people could more clearly guess at the OP's intent. And they responded with that intent in mind, focusing on a pretty dubious claim.

Though personally think people would have focused on the claim anyways.

Oh and the accusation Inu made was part of the discussion. Just because you think people should have focused on other parts doesn't meant it wasn't relevant

 

[Death916]

 

[Death916]

Its funny to see how much changes in so little time.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.207199-Escapist-forums-are-best-but-why?page=2#7021981
This post was only 5 years ago and has takes that are alot different than are listed here. It's quite interesting.

I do remember it beinga bit more open to dissenting opinions and hard language before though.

 

[Don Incognito]

Why would that be when GG is mostly anti bullshit

Speaking of unfounded rumors...

I strongly suggest looking in a mirror in regards to your claims about those pernicious and subversive SJWs.

 

[runic knight]

I see a lot of pearl-clutching about the analogy, but no one seems to have anything else to say about it. So I guess I must repeat.

The only pearl clutching I see is about how inu-kun got disagreed at for something he said.

I also already addressed the comparison. First it requires inu to be a 'victim' of something. Nothing unfair was done to inu. Secondly it requires the reaction to not be appropriate. It was. Take those away and it's an empty comparison.

Look to the indignation to the analogy I made for who the pearl clutching comment was directed at.

As for the assessment though, the analogy was based around the idea that the behavior associated with Inu was justification enough to warrant treating him in that fashion. The idea that they were "asking for it" with that thread. The analogy being tied to a claim that someone dressed sexually, or with a history of sexual nature, as in both cases that information is entirely irrelevant and the use of it to justify an action is equally weak in both cases, the simple and the extreme. I used the extreme in hopes the hyperbole would hammer the point in about the simple. It being fair or not or appropriate or not were not the point of the analogy, and thought seem to be matters of opinion as well.

Well, lets see. There is the merits or lack there of of the comic as to why it might win in the first place.

The OP came out with the position it was undeserved. The OP failed himself to give much on this front. It is not unreasonable for people to expect the OP to back themselves up more. [/quote]

True, they mentioned another comic they felt was better done, and a reason they felt it might have won despite being undeserved. While not much, I thought the topic was left open enough intentionally to discuss the lot of it all. And there is a lot there one could discuss about the event.

There is the competition and their merits or lack there of in judging. There was competing stories in the same bracket. There is the controversy about the puppies stuff. There was the fact it is a comic and not a book or short story in a more conventional sense. Really, it had a lot to make a topic out of, some people actually tried to do just that, but others, well, they did what you just described, they saw the poster, leaped at it to take shots at them.

They leaped at the OP's claim becaude the OP provided nothing else material for people to discuss. Starting a thread suggesting it shouldn't have been awarded to Ms. Marvel then not providing any reason why is not a very good start. Do you really expect everyone else to provide the material for the OPs opinion when they provided nothing except an accusation in regards to why it won? I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to focus on the claim the OP made and failed to back up. [/quote]

No, I saw the topic as a general "this happened, oh and here is my thoughts" with the intent to be "discuss the event" and not "jump on me to defend my opinion". The whole jumping on them about their, as others have said it, doomsaying, renders any merit the thread could have as a springboard about the awards itself entirely moot to instead make it about jumping on someone for a poorly supported opinion. I can understand if it was through the course of a longer discussion, but this seemed like a poorly designed but still topic relevant thread being torpedoed by a bumrush of people jumping on them for making commentary when they mentioned the event.

Yeah, the "woe is the culture" stuff is silly, but so what? If people didn't think there was anything on that bone, they should have, as the staff has said many times before, not posted. It still sounds like a weak justification because of how you look at them. Poland was just asking for that invasion, look how weak their military was, amIright?.

The mods didn't seem to believe any of it broke the rules so... They say that when they warn people for off topic posts and the like. They didn't warn people for it that I recall. So nah.[/quote]

And if the mods were flawless infallible beings, that would mean something to me. Or if the rules had even been enforced about that decree that people not post when they have nothing to add to the topic. Perhaps if the rules had something against the behavior in the first place for the mods to enforce it might be worth noting.

the point I was making was that the requested behavior of not shitting in topics just because they are disliked was entirely ignored if people legitimately thought there was nothing there worth talking about on the topic. It wasn't appealing to the authority of the mods for fear of punishment (where mod rulings on it being acceptable might mean something), it was rebuttal to the idea that people didn't see anything of value but posted there anyways based on the post requesting that very behavior from users (though, as mentioned, the lack of enforcement on that doesn't make it very much a rule).

 

[runic knight]

They mentioned an event, gave their own thoughts, and then left the floor wide open for other people. Instead of going over the topic of the thread, that of the comic winning, and the various topics surrounding that, it was instead decided, least judging by your initial reply here, that because the OP was a social misfit with a history of unacceptable views, that it was alright to ignore all that discussion potential and give them what they deserve.

Way to give a totally biased rereading of what Zhukov originally said...

He did not call inu a social misfit. He did not declare inu had unacceptable views. You're putting a ridiculous amount of spin on it and you're changing the intent while doing so.

Zhukov made it pretty clear what the OPs history had to do with it. It's not that it made it okay, it's that people could more clearly guess at the OP's intent. And they responded with that intent in mind, focusing on a pretty dubious claim.

Though personally think people would have focused on the claim anyways.

Oh and the accusation Inu made was part of the discussion. Just because you think people should have focused on other parts doesn't meant it wasn't relevant

Never said he called him a social misfit, I used the term to denote someone deemed socially unacceptable since that has been the running theme of the analogy and the point of contention with his reply that Inu's history is in any way justification to how people replied to his thread in the first place. So no, not spin, just trying to keep the point of disagreement there consistent.

It seems you see the point of disagreement there as well, that of using the poster's history as justification for the way they replied. You say it doesn't make it okay though, then I have to ask, what would you call it to use personal feelings about a poster to jump into their thread and berate them based on your perception of their intent rather than trying to make the topic itself into a discussion? And if you find it unacceptable as I do, then what would be the point of mentioning the person's history when discussing what happened (where the thread itself presents what happened as a negative in their premise and thus replies about it are viewed as taking the premise as granted unless specifically stating otherwise). Because it looks a lot like trying to justify what happened based on the poster's history and people's personal beefs with that being valid reason to treat them in the way the OP of this thread described as toxic.

Ah crap, double posted, meant to copy/paste this to add it to the other post.

 

[Zeraki]

There is a reason I barely come here anymore, the community has gotten so combative and passive aggressive that I just don't find much enjoyment here. Most of the threads I see now are just people taking swipes at each other with snarky comments.

There was always a level of toxicity on these forums, but over the last couple years it went downhill big time.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

They mentioned an event, gave their own thoughts, and then left the floor wide open for other people. Instead of going over the topic of the thread, that of the comic winning, and the various topics surrounding that, it was instead decided, least judging by your initial reply here, that because the OP was a social misfit with a history of unacceptable views, that it was alright to ignore all that discussion potential and give them what they deserve.

Way to give a totally biased rereading of what Zhukov originally said...

He did not call inu a social misfit. He did not declare inu had unacceptable views. You're putting a ridiculous amount of spin on it and you're changing the intent while doing so.

Zhukov made it pretty clear what the OPs history had to do with it. It's not that it made it okay, it's that people could more clearly guess at the OP's intent. And they responded with that intent in mind, focusing on a pretty dubious claim.

Though personally think people would have focused on the claim anyways.

Oh and the accusation Inu made was part of the discussion. Just because you think people should have focused on other parts doesn't meant it wasn't relevant

Never said he called him a social misfit, I used the term to denote someone deemed socially unacceptable since that has been the running theme of the analogy and the point of contention with his reply that Inu's history is in any way justification to how people replied to his thread in the first place. So no, not spin, just trying to keep the point of disagreement there consistent.

It seems you see the point of disagreement there as well, that of using the poster's history as justification for the way they replied. You say it doesn't make it okay though, then I have to ask, what would you call it to use personal feelings about a poster to jump into their thread and berate them based on your perception of their intent rather than trying to make the topic itself into a discussion? And if you find it unacceptable as I do, then what would be the point of mentioning the person's history when discussing what happened (where the thread itself presents what happened as a negative in their premise and thus replies about it are viewed as taking the premise as granted unless specifically stating otherwise). Because it looks a lot like trying to justify what happened based on the poster's history and people's personal beefs with that being valid reason to treat them in the way the OP of this thread described as toxic.

Ah crap, double posted, meant to copy/paste this to add it to the other post.

He isn't using it as a justification for how inu was treated. I don't think he even said inu was treated poorly, so I'm not sure you two are even enough on the same page for it to be a possible justification since I'm not sure he sees, and I definitely don't see, the need for justification for what occurred.

I see him using it as an explanation for what people understood inu's point to be. You see a guy rant about certain things, he makes a new thread and his conclusion involves the things you've seen him rant about, that is going to color how you interpret the intent of his thread.

So it's an explanation of why people focused on that sentence in particular. It's not justifying it, it doesn't even acknowledge that it needed justification. It explains why people interpreted it as they did and why they put importance on that last bit. They don't need to justify themselves for why they did, it's not wrong to put importance on the sentence. But if people don't get why people would well there it is.

Also since the replies are on different pages I'm not gonna merge them right now...

 

[runic knight]

He isn't using it as a justification for how inu was treated. I don't think he even said inu was treated poorly, so I'm not sure you two are even enough on the same page for it to be a possible justification since I'm not sure he sees, and I definitely don't see, the need for justification for what occurred.

I see him using it as an explanation for what people understood inu's point to be. You see a guy rant about certain things, he makes a new thread and his conclusion involves the things you've seen him rant about, that is going to color how you interpret the intent of his thread.

So it's an explanation of why people focused on that sentence in particular. It's not justifying it, it doesn't even acknowledge that it needed justification. It explains why people interpreted it as they did and why they put importance on that last bit. They don't need to justify themselves for why they did, it's not wrong to put importance on the sentence. But if people don't get why people would well there it is.

Also since the replies are on different pages I'm not gonna merge them right now...

The OP of this thread used Inu's thread as an example of toxicity in the forums in how he was treated. Thus the premise of the thread we are in is that of "he was treated badly". Thus either people posting here accept that as a premise and argue with that agreed upon, or they reject that premise and argue against it itself.

In replying how he did, Zhu presented a case where he accepted the premise, and than referred to the history of the person on the forum as a means to explain why it happened and why it was ok. If the premise is accepted, than it becomes a justification for the behavior towards the OP of that thread.

My analogy was that the use of Inu's history in such a fashion was no different argument wise than trying to use the history of someone who was deemed socially unacceptable because of sexual promiscuity or sexual attire to justify rape happening to them.

My point of complaint is that there is no point or reason to bring up "oh inu has a history of whatever" in this thread. If it is used as a justification as I originality and still do read that reply, than my analogy stands as hyperbolic rebuttal to display the failure of reasoning there. If it is used as simply commentary, than there is no point in the least to mention it as commentary.

Even trying to describe it as you have, that of explaining why it was interpreted as such by the posters, it still doesn't negate the issue with doing that in the first place, as I asked you in the last reply. What would you call it to use personal feelings about a poster to jump into their thread and berate them based on your perception of their intent rather than trying to make the topic itself into a discussion? because if someone is joining a thread solely to satisfy their personal misgivings about the OP based on their history with them instead of trying to actually discuss the topic itself, than they are still in the wrong to me. And, according to the OP of this thread, it seems to be seen as toxic. Regardless how you wish to present it here, Zhu's reply reads like he was justifying that by pointing at Inu's history as somehow relevant to explain why people were doing that, and in a thread that is condemning that behavior as toxic, it comes off only as an excuse or a justification.

 

[Callate]

I get edgy about terms like "toxic". It's one of those phrases that seems to come from an increasingly long lexicon of terms one is supposed to accept, in its combination of vagueness and broad-reaching implications, as given; heaven forefend you challenge those assertions. You can't defend something once it's described as "toxic", or at least if you do, you have an uphill battle ahead of you.

All that said, I didn't touch that whole "sad puppies" post with a ten-foot-pole for much the reasons the OP described. I think there might be an argument to be made as to whether story features friendly to a certain agenda have started to receive a disproportionate weight at the cost of character, story, and expansive ideas outside of those thus promoted. I also think that driving an all-white, all-male slate of nominees was not a particularly well-considered way of addressing that. But much like the Hugo Awards themeselves, once things came to that level, there was really little chance that there would be a "discussion"; closer to a referendum on those who dared suggest there could ever be anything wrong with something that flew under the banner of "diversity". And about as close as the TOS permits to ad-hominem attacks.

I worry that we're getting a bit, well, reflexive. As I pointed out on that whole "Shyamalan directing Airbender 2" post, a lot of people were in a hurry to drop a couple of lines venting their fury at the gall of it, but not nearly so many were willing to take a moment to check IMDB to see if such a thing actually existed. And perhaps the OP of that post about the Hugo awards could have done a better job phrasing his post, but it was a hell of a lot easier to jump on someone for attacking diversity (and promptly lump them in with a vague cabal of like-minded intolerants) than to actually contemplate the relative merits of the other nominees. (I will note it looked like a few people were trying, bless 'em.)

And I hasten to admit I'm not immune to reflexive posting myself, but I'm working on it.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I see a lot of pearl-clutching about the analogy, but no one seems to have anything else to say about it. So I guess I must repeat.

The only pearl clutching I see is about how inu-kun got disagreed at for something he said.

I also already addressed the comparison. First it requires inu to be a 'victim' of something. Nothing unfair was done to inu. Secondly it requires the reaction to not be appropriate. It was. Take those away and it's an empty comparison.

Look to the indignation to the analogy I made for who the pearl clutching comment was directed at.

I was noting I see more indignation at how people responded to inu kun.

As for the assessment though, the analogy was based around the idea that the behavior associated with Inu was justification enough to warrant treating him in that fashion. The idea that they were "asking for it" with that thread. The analogy being tied to a claim that someone dressed sexually, or with a history of sexual nature, as in both cases that information is entirely irrelevant and the use of it to justify an action is equally weak in both cases, the simple and the extreme. I used the extreme in hopes the hyperbole would hammer the point in about the simple. It being fair or not or appropriate or not were not the point of the analogy, and thought seem to be matters of opinion as well.

I'm looking at Zhukov's first post and your reply now. The problem is that he didn't justify the way people treated inu. Its an explanation that people drew an obvious conclusion about what the crux of the issue was because of inu's past behavior. So they responded to *that* point. Personally I don't think we need inu's past behavior to see it as obvious but it isn't blaming inu, it's saying people are seeing and responding to what they think was inu's main point. And what this main point was was decided, possibly and seemingly in Zhukov's opinion, because of what people knew of inu.

Well, lets see. There is the merits or lack there of of the comic as to why it might win in the first place.

The OP came out with the position it was undeserved. The OP failed himself to give much on this front. It is not unreasonable for people to expect the OP to back themselves up more.

True, they mentioned another comic they felt was better done, and a reason they felt it might have won despite being undeserved. While not much, I thought the topic was left open enough intentionally to discuss the lot of it all. And there is a lot there one could discuss about the event.
[/quote]

The other comic wasn't even nominated, just looked it up.

And the reason was really flimsy and people jumped on it. It's not like it wasn't a relevant point. Sure they could discuss more, but is there something wrong with them choosing that relevant point?

There is the competition and their merits or lack there of in judging. There was competing stories in the same bracket. There is the controversy about the puppies stuff. There was the fact it is a comic and not a book or short story in a more conventional sense. Really, it had a lot to make a topic out of, some people actually tried to do just that, but others, well, they did what you just described, they saw the poster, leaped at it to take shots at them.

They leaped at the OP's claim becaude the OP provided nothing else material for people to discuss. Starting a thread suggesting it shouldn't have been awarded to Ms. Marvel then not providing any reason why is not a very good start. Do you really expect everyone else to provide the material for the OPs opinion when they provided nothing except an accusation in regards to why it won? I'd say it is perfectly reasonable to focus on the claim the OP made and failed to back up.

No, I saw the topic as a general "this happened, oh and here is my thoughts" with the intent to be "discuss the event" and not "jump on me to defend my opinion". The whole jumping on them about their, as others have said it, doomsaying, renders any merit the thread could have as a springboard about the awards itself entirely moot to instead make it about jumping on someone for a poorly supported opinion. I can understand if it was through the course of a longer discussion, but this seemed like a poorly designed but still topic relevant thread being torpedoed by a bumrush of people jumping on them for making commentary when they mentioned the event.

Well if you post a suggestion that it won because diversity and not because those who voted thought it was of good quality is it not fair to expect people to ask for justification?

Also this ties into why Zhukov brings up inu's history. You interpet it as being about 'this is what happened here's my thoughts'. Others interpet the OP's intent differently and see the complaining about diversity as a bit more central to why the OP posted the topic. And personally if anyone else had ended that first post the way they did I wouldn't really need their history to guess at the real intent there.

Yeah, the "woe is the culture" stuff is silly, but so what? If people didn't think there was anything on that bone, they should have, as the staff has said many times before, not posted. It still sounds like a weak justification because of how you look at them. Poland was just asking for that invasion, look how weak their military was, amIright?.

The mods didn't seem to believe any of it broke the rules so... They say that when they warn people for off topic posts and the like. They didn't warn people for it that I recall. So nah.

And if the mods were flawless infallible beings, that would mean something to me. Or if the rules had even been enforced about that decree that people not post when they have nothing to add to the topic. Perhaps if the rules had something against the behavior in the first place for the mods to enforce it might be worth noting.

the point I was making was that the requested behavior of not shitting in topics just because they are disliked was entirely ignored if people legitimately thought there was nothing there worth talking about on the topic. It wasn't appealing to the authority of the mods for fear of punishment (where mod rulings on it being acceptable might mean something), it was rebuttal to the idea that people didn't see anything of value but posted there anyways based on the post requesting that very behavior from users (though, as mentioned, the lack of enforcement on that doesn't make it very much a rule).

I don't see criticizing his logic, when completely relevant to the topic as merely shitting on the thread. If people disagree with something that was said they don't need to think it's a quality thread to come in and disagred. I certainly didn't think this one was quality given how poor I find the original example but I came in to dispute the original example.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

He isn't using it as a justification for how inu was treated. I don't think he even said inu was treated poorly, so I'm not sure you two are even enough on the same page for it to be a possible justification since I'm not sure he sees, and I definitely don't see, the need for justification for what occurred.

I see him using it as an explanation for what people understood inu's point to be. You see a guy rant about certain things, he makes a new thread and his conclusion involves the things you've seen him rant about, that is going to color how you interpret the intent of his thread.

So it's an explanation of why people focused on that sentence in particular. It's not justifying it, it doesn't even acknowledge that it needed justification. It explains why people interpreted it as they did and why they put importance on that last bit. They don't need to justify themselves for why they did, it's not wrong to put importance on the sentence. But if people don't get why people would well there it is.

Also since the replies are on different pages I'm not gonna merge them right now...

The OP of this thread used Inu's thread as an example of toxicity in the forums in how he was treated. Thus the premise of the thread we are in is that of "he was treated badly". Thus either people posting here accept that as a premise and argue with that agreed upon, or they reject that premise and argue against it itself.

In replying how he did, Zhu presented a case where he accepted the premise, and than referred to the history of the person on the forum as a means to explain why it happened and why it was ok. If the premise is accepted, than it becomes a justification for the behavior towards the OP of that thread.

My analogy was that the use of Inu's history in such a fashion was no different argument wise than trying to use the history of someone who was deemed socially unacceptable because of sexual promiscuity or sexual attire to justify rape happening to them.

My point of complaint is that there is no point or reason to bring up "oh inu has a history of whatever" in this thread. If it is used as a justification as I originality and still do read that reply, than my analogy stands as hyperbolic rebuttal to display the failure of reasoning there. If it is used as simply commentary, than there is no point in the least to mention it as commentary.

Even trying to describe it as you have, that of explaining why it was interpreted as such by the posters, it still doesn't negate the issue with doing that in the first place, as I asked you in the last reply. What would you call it to use personal feelings about a poster to jump into their thread and berate them based on your perception of their intent rather than trying to make the topic itself into a discussion? because if someone is joining a thread solely to satisfy their personal misgivings about the OP based on their history with them instead of trying to actually discuss the topic itself, than they are still in the wrong to me. And, according to the OP of this thread, it seems to be seen as toxic. Regardless how you wish to present it here, Zhu's reply reads like he was justifying that by pointing at Inu's history as somehow relevant to explain why people were doing that, and in a thread that is condemning that behavior as toxic, it comes off only as an excuse or a justification.

Well at this point I think it'd be worth asking Zhukov if he even thinks the other thread was toxic.

Edit: Oh right there was also some other bits that Zhukov's actual opinion on that isn't relevant to. Forgot to address those before hitting post

I don't see it as personal feelings about them. I see it as using the past to see what message it is they are trying to convey. The more you see someone the more you get to see patterns in how they behave. What they dislike, and what they are prone to complaining about. It changes how you interpret what they say. If someone keeps complaining about X then of course people will, when the post a pretty bare thread concluding in their usual complaint, gather that it is about the usual complaint.

 

[runic knight]

I was noting I see more indignation at how people responded to inu kun.

I don't see it as much. I guess seeing something as a mark of a larger problem with the forums doesn't seem like "pearl clutching" indignation to me as much as complaining because an analogy offended someone does.

I'm looking at Zhukov's first post and your reply now. The problem is that he didn't justify the way people treated inu. Its an explanation that people drew an obvious conclusion about what the crux of the issue was because of inu's past behavior. So they responded to *that* point. Personally I don't think we need inu's past behavior to see it as obvious but it isn't blaming inu, it's saying people are seeing and responding to what they think was inu's main point. And what this main point was was decided, possibly and seemingly in Zhukov's opinion, because of what people knew of inu.

You keep saying "he wasn't justifying", and I hear you, I just did not interpret that post the same way based on, as I explained, the thread itself and the premise of it that zhu replied to.

Still looks like a dismissal of the complaint in the OP of this thread by way of "it was just Inu, look at his history" as justification for the behavior the OP considers toxic. Even seeing it as explanation alone doesn't change that the behavior itself is what is considered toxic by the OP either.

I wont disagree that Inu's opening post was lacking detail or direction, but I saw it as an opinion about an event with the topic of the thread itself meant to be the event, not about people using what they knew about him to latch onto a sentence and so on.

The other comic wasn't even nominated, just looked it up.

And the reason was really flimsy and people jumped on it. It's not like it wasn't a relevant point. Sure they could discuss more, but is there something wrong with them choosing that relevant point?

I know, though I thought the point of mentioning the comic that wasn't nominated was to highlight the lack of validity of the award to the one that won. (in vein of "this comic is better and they didn't bother to nominate it, so why did this one not only get nom, but also win?").

As for being wrong to discuss the point, no, not really, if done right. Not as fine with people latching onto the point because of personal disagreement or history with the user though, as seemed to be the explanation provided. Bit of a waste of a thread to jump on a stated opinion of the OP and ignore the juicy topic that is the whole ordeal of the award too.

That so many opted to attack Inu's opinion and ignored the overall topic though being sign of the forum's toxicity is the premise of this thread's OP though. Certainly some merit to the concern there, as if all people want to do is jump on other users like that, it does make a toxic environment. That such a point is met with a reply commenting about how inu's history explains why it happened is not helping matter there.

Well if you post a suggestion that it won because diversity and not because those who voted thought it was of good quality is it not fair to expect people to ask for justification?

Also this ties into why Zhukov brings up inu's history. You interpet it as being about 'this is what happened here's my thoughts'. Others interpet the OP's intent differently and see the complaining about diversity as a bit more central to why the OP posted the topic. And personally if anyone else had ended that first post the way they did I wouldn't really need their history to guess at the real intent there.

Really doesn't matter the history, you still have to give the benefit of the doubt and try to participate in the discussion honestly if you want to post. Otherwise, well, as I referred to previously, the staff themselves request that you don't post and let the thread die.

They had an opinion about the event, and given what I read about the puppies incident, I wouldn't exactly say it is entirely without merit, and if people want to discuss that point raised, that is fine. Issue I have is based on Zhu's explanation that people had no intent to actually discuss but rather were replying based on his history coloring their views so that they latched on a single sentence. The behavior of which would be seen as toxic by this thread's OP.

I don't see criticizing his logic, when completely relevant to the topic as merely shitting on the thread. If people disagree with something that was said they don't need to think it's a quality thread to come in and disagred. I certainly didn't think this one was quality given how poor I find the original example but I came in to dispute the original example.

If all you are doing is posting "I disagree" though, especially in repeating what other posters before you have said, all directed at the op, and largely ignoring the rest of the topic to just go after their opinion about the event, then what exactly is being done that is of value? There is something more going on than merely criticizing his logic there, especially if Zhu is mentioning how prior history is fueling replies as opposed to responding to the OP itself as it is. Obviously some people see that sort of behavior itself as a bad thing, and I can't fault them there if they do. I am more on the fence about it, though it certainly isn't the mark of a healthy and enjoyable community when that happens with such a presence.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I was noting I see more indignation at how people responded to inu kun.

I don't see it as much. I guess seeing something as a mark of a larger problem with the forums doesn't seem like "pearl clutching" indignation to me as much as complaining because an analogy offended someone does.

The thing is I just see people criticizing inu's lack of support. So it doesn't look like the example is indeed part of a legitimate problem

I'm looking at Zhukov's first post and your reply now. The problem is that he didn't justify the way people treated inu. Its an explanation that people drew an obvious conclusion about what the crux of the issue was because of inu's past behavior. So they responded to *that* point. Personally I don't think we need inu's past behavior to see it as obvious but it isn't blaming inu, it's saying people are seeing and responding to what they think was inu's main point. And what this main point was was decided, possibly and seemingly in Zhukov's opinion, because of what people knew of inu.

You keep saying "he wasn't justifying", and I hear you, I just did not interpret that post the same way based on, as I explained, the thread itself and the premise of it that zhu replied to.

Still looks like a dismissal of the complaint in the OP of this thread by way of "it was just Inu, look at his history" as justification for the behavior the OP considers toxic. Even seeing it as explanation alone doesn't change that the behavior itself is what is considered toxic by the OP either.

But it's not him saying "Oh its inu he deserves it." Its pointing out something the OP may not get. Which is why people interpret inu's thread the way they do. To the OP it may seem like an unreasonable response. To others it looks like people calling him on trying to toss in a thread that's really just a jab at diversity, complaining that it just won because diversity.

I wont disagree that Inu's opening post was lacking detail or direction, but I saw it as an opinion about an event with the topic of the thread itself meant to be the event, not about people using what they knew about him to latch onto a sentence and so on.

Of course it wasn't meant for people to 'use what they knew about him to latch onto a sentence'. But the way I see it, it was meant to complain about it winning because diversity. I don't think why he thought it won was just a small little side thing. To me, from the first post itself, it looks like that was part of his complaint. The issue as a whole looks like him complaining that Ms. Marvel undeservedly won because diversity. And his past just reinforces the impression.

The other comic wasn't even nominated, just looked it up.

And the reason was really flimsy and people jumped on it. It's not like it wasn't a relevant point. Sure they could discuss more, but is there something wrong with them choosing that relevant point?

I know, though I thought the point of mentioning the comic that wasn't nominated was to highlight the lack of validity of the award to the one that won. (in vein of "this comic is better and they didn't bother to nominate it, so why did this one not only get nom, but also win?").

As for being wrong to discuss the point, no, not really, if done right. Not as fine with people latching onto the point because of personal disagreement or history with the user though, as seemed to be the explanation provided. Bit of a waste of a thread to jump on a stated opinion of the OP and ignore the juicy topic that is the whole ordeal of the award too.

But it isn't because personal disagreement or history with the user. You're the only one suggesting it is. The only relevant bit about history is it kind of suggests what he is really getting at.

It's not a very juicy topic to everyone. From the point of someone who thinks the sad puppy complaints seem like empty yapping it doesn't seem interesting without some substance to the arguments of those on their side. There's also a thread specifically about the sad puppies.

That so many opted to attack Inu's opinion and ignored the overall topic though being sign of the forum's toxicity is the premise of this thread's OP though. Certainly some merit to the concern there, as if all people want to do is jump on other users like that, it does make a toxic environment. That such a point is met with a reply commenting about how inu's history explains why it happened is not helping matter there.

But his opinion was part of the topic. This is like complaining that someone is arguing with a pro-lifer on their opinion when the thread is about abortion.

Well if you post a suggestion that it won because diversity and not because those who voted thought it was of good quality is it not fair to expect people to ask for justification?

Also this ties into why Zhukov brings up inu's history. You interpet it as being about 'this is what happened here's my thoughts'. Others interpet the OP's intent differently and see the complaining about diversity as a bit more central to why the OP posted the topic. And personally if anyone else had ended that first post the way they did I wouldn't really need their history to guess at the real intent there.

Really doesn't matter the history, you still have to give the benefit of the doubt and try to participate in the discussion honestly if you want to post. Otherwise, well, as I referred to previously, the staff themselves request that you don't post and let the thread die.

You'll have to explain how criticizing his relevant opinion is not participating honestly. I don't believe the staff have ever said that criticizing their opinion shouldn't be done. If it was off topic posting, sure. But it wasn't.

They had an opinion about the event, and given what I read about the puppies incident, I wouldn't exactly say it is entirely without merit, and if people want to discuss that point raised, that is fine. Issue I have is based on Zhu's explanation that people had no intent to actually discuss but rather were replying based on his history coloring their views so that they latched on a single sentence. The behavior of which would be seen as toxic by this thread's OP.

He never said they had no intent to discuss. Criticizing his poorly supported position should lead to him providing support and something actual meat to his position to talk about. When people don't support their position then calling them on it isn't not discussing. You then wait to see if they provide something and you can go on from there.

I don't see criticizing his logic, when completely relevant to the topic as merely shitting on the thread. If people disagree with something that was said they don't need to think it's a quality thread to come in and disagred. I certainly didn't think this one was quality given how poor I find the original example but I came in to dispute the original example.

If all you are doing is posting "I disagree" though, especially in repeating what other posters before you have said, all directed at the op, and largely ignoring the rest of the topic to just go after their opinion about the event, then what exactly is being done that is of value?

Well if he fails to reply with substance then he dropped the ball there. If he does and they don't reply well then they did. It looks to me like the former.

If you look at the topic, at least to me, I'm not seeing people really give good reasons for why it definitely should not have won and why people would not pick it if it was not their honest opinion that it was the most deserving.

There is something more going on than merely criticizing his logic there, especially if Zhu is mentioning how prior history is fueling replies as opposed to responding to the OP itself as it is. Obviously some people see that sort of behavior itself as a bad thing, and I can't fault them there if they do. I am more on the fence about it, though it certainly isn't the mark of a healthy and enjoyable community when that happens with such a presence.

Fueling is your interpretation here. I see it as history probably changes how people interpret what others say. Are you going to say that you will completely ignore what you've seen someone post before and never build an opinion of someone and view every new post as a blank slate with no context outside the thread? If, say, someone with a reputation for being stubborn on religion and somewhat fanatical asks you "Why don't you believe in god" (no idea if you do or don't) you'd take it the same as if an atheist asked you or someone who was usually friendly on the topic if religion? You wouldn't at all imagine they might have different motives?

And people did respond to the OP anyways. It's not like they *needed* past interaction to respond as they did. His potshot last remark was sufficient to garner the response it did imo. His past just helps confirm the intent with which his remark was made.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I remember back when Extra Credits left...it seemed like a lot of the community left with them but before the exodus there seemed to have been a huge...I don't wanna call it a war but there was a lot of activity here in the forums. That was years ago of course.