A simple suggestion

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Please, let’s not have that discussion here. There is already a place for it.

https://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7466/whemblys-faith-hyprocrisy-fallacy-usage?page=1

And wow, it hasn’t been updated in a while.

Another example of engaging a thread where the poster, wolfblade in this case, refusing to having any discussion whatsoever. This thread was nothing more than an attempt to shame me.

@RiTides: I would argue that this should be unacceptable to do, unless there's a real debate between the parties.

**Wolfblade**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Please, let’s not have that discussion here. There is already a place for it.

https://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7466/whemblys-faith-hyprocrisy-fallacy-usage?page=1

And wow, it hasn’t been updated in a while.

Yeah, there's no point. He claimed I couldn't find any, so I did, then he, ironically, proceeded to participate in bad faith.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I used to post on a forum that offshot from sherdog MMA forums back in 2007. It was completely OT. The barest of rules (no empty or 'first' posts etc) but that was it. Best forum I ever posted on. If you wanted a proper conversation, you could have one, if you wanted a scrap with no rules you could have one. The onus was on the individual to choose what he or she responded to. People crying about posters doing things they don't like, why not just move on? You don't have an obligation to indulge them if you don't want to. Take your own responsibility. You guys are all focused on moderation, who should do this, what should and shouldn't be allowed to be said or not... Have you ever stopped to think that fewer rules might be the answer?
Having 'trials' or banning people for 'bad faith' just leads to those being abused, and more of the same round and round bs. I know this will never happen here, and probably not at this new one if it manifests either, but one can dream..

Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish. The solution to someone purposefully and intentionally gaking up the place should not be "abandon thread/forum" it should be "the moderators need to be dealing with this more than not at all."

**BobtheInquisitor**

A thought occurs.

This whole thing requires neutral or impartial moderators, right? But modern US politics is so pervasive, divisive and harmful it brings up two questions: how do you find someone truly impartial, and what the hell is wrong with that person?

**whembly**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I used to post on a forum that offshot from sherdog MMA forums back in 2007. It was completely OT. The barest of rules (no empty or 'first' posts etc) but that was it. Best forum I ever posted on. If you wanted a proper conversation, you could have one, if you wanted a scrap with no rules you could have one. The onus was on the individual to choose what he or she responded to. People crying about posters doing things they don't like, why not just move on? You don't have an obligation to indulge them if you don't want to. Take your own responsibility. You guys are all focused on moderation, who should do this, what should and shouldn't be allowed to be said or not... Have you ever stopped to think that fewer rules might be the answer?
Having 'trials' or banning people for 'bad faith' just leads to those being abused, and more of the same round and round bs. I know this will never happen here, and probably not at this new one if it manifests either, but one can dream..

That's basically what was dakka's OT political thread was like. Only caveat was that you had to abide by Dakka's rules (be nice, don't bypass swear filters, etc...).

The issue then, was that nastiness in the OT forum spread to the other "main" forums, such that the mods had enough.

I think some commenters seek some sort of "validation" that their viewpoint is the acceptable one and when faced with dissenting views, rather than engaging on that topic many resort to appeals to authority, bullying, patented poop-n-swoop posts, and ultimately petition the forum owner/mods to "do something" about the dissenters. People have pretty strong views that are not political related (looking at the pro/anti GW factions...yeowsa!).

At the end of the day, posters are privileged to post at a certain site, so the owners/mods set the rules. We'd all be in a much better place to recognize that and treat each other accordingly, because there *is* a limit what the host/mods are willing to spending their moderation hours.

EDIT: and look at the usual posters from Wasteland coming here to comment. I rest my case RiTide, over and out.

**queen_annes_revenge**

I feel you. That was made all too clear in certain threads this year. But if you have fewer rules, people have no choice but to like it or lump it. The more rules, the more people can appeal to them when they need to cry to mods when someone hurts their pride/feelings...

**AlmightyWalrus**

whembly wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Arguing in good faith is a prerequisite for civil discussion. Remember when you linked half a page's worth of articles that supposedly backed your views on climate change and I actually read them, pointing out that you'd included, among other things, an article critisizing people doing what you were doing? What about claiming that Bush would've won Florida even after recounts in 2000 and then linking a page that says literally the opposite?

Those were my sourcing mistakes.

Yet, you'd handwaved other sources substantiating my arguments as well.

Your efforts were to point out my mistakes instead of engaging the merits of the arguments.

Whembly, one of the links you linked literally said, and I quote verbatim:

The naysayers on climate change typically begin with appeals to the evidence. Lots of evidence. Ironically, they seem to revel in long lists of obvious counterexamples, “embarrassing predictions” (Newman, 2014), “admissions” of earlier errors (Dixon, 2013), Al Gore’s mis-takes (Terrell, 2014), simple facts about carbon dioxide (http://www.iloveco2.com/), and graphs, graphs, graphs.

You linked this article in a list that looked like this:

Spoiler:

The merits of your arguments do not exist, there is no argument to be had unless you argue in good faith. Tell me again how this list of *checks notes* one hundred and thirty four (!) sources where the result of a "sourcing mistake"?

You'll also note that the statement that I handwaved your other sources after that monster of a self-own was a l̶i̶e̶ sourcing mistake, as the debate continued after that point. I thus argue that I have amply proven that you're not, in fact, all that bothered about actually having a civil debate. QED.

**Azreal13**

Much could be gained by the adoption of a mantra I've kept to the forefront of my thinking for a while now.

"The conscious decision not to engage is not synonymous with an admission of defeat."

**insaniak**

Wolfblade wrote:
Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish.

The problem, as discussed earlier, is recognising 'bad faith' posts. One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion. We even saw examples of that in action in this very thread.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I feel you. That was made all too clear in certain threads this year. But if you have fewer rules, people have no choice but to like it or lump it. The more rules, the more people can appeal to them when they need to cry to mods when someone hurts their pride/feelings...

Allowing people to be rude to each other would not solve the problem of people taking their grudges to other parts of the forum.

To make it very, very clear - having Dakka be an environment that encourages verbal free-for-alls is the exact opposite of what the site's owners want. That is not in any way a welcoming environment, and is not what the majority of forum-goers want. People come here because it's a place to discuss their hobby. That should be an enjoyable experience, not one where you should expect to be insulted because you have a different opinion to someone else.

Expecting people to display a modicum of common courtesy while they are here really shouldn't be a big ask.

**Wolfblade**

insaniak wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish.

The problem, as discussed earlier, is recognising 'bad faith' posts. One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion. We even saw examples of that in action in this very thread.

I feel like that's a weak excuse when everyone was complaining about a handful of posters, not because of their political alignment, but because they engaged only in bad faith tactics like moving the goalpost, begging the question, and so on. Hell if I can provide about 100 examples of ONE poster almost exclusively based on logical fallacies and flat out ignoring previous discussions and pretending they didn't happen or not even reading their own sources, then the defense of "One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion" is incredibly weak.

**Slipspace**

Wolfblade wrote:
insaniak wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
Or, by banning those who participate only in bad faith, it lets actual discussion flourish.

The problem, as discussed earlier, is recognising 'bad faith' posts. One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion. We even saw examples of that in action in this very thread.

I feel like that's a weak excuse when everyone was complaining about a handful of posters, not because of their political alignment, but because they engaged only in bad faith tactics like moving the goalpost, begging the question, and so on. Hell if I can provide about 100 examples of ONE poster almost exclusively based on logical fallacies and flat out ignoring previous discussions and pretending they didn't happen or not even reading their own sources, then the defense of "One person's 'bad faith post' is someone else's simple difference of opinion" is incredibly weak.

I think the problem for the Mods is something like "bad faith" posting is necessarily a pattern that builds up over the course of many posts. To the person complaining about it, they may seem very obvious if you're in the middle of the discussion, maybe specifically looking out for a particular poster's replies and seeing that pattern develop. But for the Mods, they may need to go back through pages and pages of posts, interspersed with perfectly reasonable posts from the bad faith poster and others and build up a picture for themselves before making a decision. I guess at that point the question becomes how much work do we expect the Mods to do in that situation?

Also, people indulging in logical fallacies, ignoring points and moving the goalposts may just be really bad at debating, or bad at communicating their points. Are we going to ban them for that?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Slipspace wrote:

Also, people indulging in logical fallacies, ignoring points and moving the goalposts may just be really bad at debating, or bad at communicating their points. Are we going to ban them for that?

If they keep doing it after being called out repeatedly? Absolutely.

**insaniak**

Slipspace wrote:
I think the problem for the Mods is something like "bad faith" posting is necessarily a pattern that builds up over the course of many posts. To the person complaining about it, they may seem very obvious if you're in the middle of the discussion, maybe specifically looking out for a particular poster's replies and seeing that pattern develop. But for the Mods, they may need to go back through pages and pages of posts, interspersed with perfectly reasonable posts from the bad faith poster and others and build up a picture for themselves before making a decision. I guess at that point the question becomes how much work do we expect the Mods to do in that situation?

That's a big part of it.

It's also worth pointing out that people should be expected to take responsibility for their own responses. If you're in a real world social situation and someone is presenting an argument that you feel is intended to just stir the pot, do you expect the host to kick them out? Do you abuse them? Or do you just not respond to them? (Hint - only one of those options would generally be considered socially acceptable)

The fact that the discussion is on a forum shouldn't change that. Realistically, you have two options - you can treat the argument as genuine and respond in a civil fashion, or you can assume it's just stirring the pot. And as much as people seem to dislike it when we present it as an option, choosing to ignore someone you feel is arguing in bad faith is generally the best and simplest option. If they actually are arguing in bad faith, they're doing it for the attention. Responding to them, especially if just to get abusive, just gives them what they want.

Also, people indulging in logical fallacies, ignoring points and moving the goalposts may just be really bad at debating, or bad at communicating their points. Are we going to ban them for that?

Also this. It's worth remembering that in an online forum environment, the person behind that post may be an adult ... or may be a 14 year old with very little life experience.

**BaronIveagh**

Can we all pick a forum to have this discussion, since the participants are jumping between forums?

I've already had Whemb try to hijack this thread just because it's Whemb, I'm more interested in what RiTides has to say than you guys fight.

@Wolf: we all know that Whemb just trolls anything to do with politics, and you egg him on. To be honest, I'd love to put the two of you in a cage and toss in a running chainsaw just to see who comes out. I could probably sell the recording on any number of sites you both frequent.

@insaniak The real issue is seeing the difference between certain posters who do it just to troll forums, and people who just suck at debate. One is a legitimate reason to ban, and the other is grounds for mild annoyance.

**Wolfblade**

insaniak wrote:

It's also worth pointing out that people should be expected to take responsibility for their own responses. If you're in a real world social situation and someone is presenting an argument that you feel is intended to just stir the pot, do you expect the host to kick them out? Do you abuse them? Or do you just not respond to them? (Hint - only one of those options would generally be considered socially acceptable)

This honestly feels like a defense for doing absolutely no mod work. In the real world, if someone is spouting bs and trying to disrupt everyone else over and over, not responding stops being an effective option, and kicking them out becomes the right choice as they'll just keep escalating until they DO get a response.

**insaniak**

BaronIveagh wrote:

@insaniak The real issue is seeing the difference between certain posters who do it just to troll forums, and people who just suck at debate. One is a legitimate reason to ban, and the other is grounds for mild annoyance.

Yes, that's the issue. Which is compounded by the fact that people tend to be absolutely certain that [poster] is just trolling, and therefore when they demand that said user be booted from the forum and that doesn't happen, clearly the mods got it wrong.

**BobtheInquisitor**

In real life, most people don’t tolerate such toxic behavior in their lives. People lose friends, jobs, and partners from this level of persistent bad behavior.

**insaniak**

Wolfblade wrote:

This honestly feels like a defense for doing absolutely no mod work.

It's nothing of the sort. The existence of moderators does not absolve people from personal responsibility for their own actions.

In the real world, if someone is spouting bs and trying to disrupt everyone else over and over, not responding stops being an effective option, and kicking them out becomes the right choice as they'll just keep escalating until they DO get a response.

Even in that situation, things wouldn't generally jump straight to kicking the person out. You would generally start with talking to the person causing the ruckus and giving them the opportunity to amend their behaviour. Which is what Dakka's moderation aims for.

To be fair, we don't always get the balance right there, and that's something that we're still aiming to improve. But removing someone purely because someone else thinks they're arguing in 'bad faith' is never going to be a viable option.

**Wolfblade**

insaniak wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:

This honestly feels like a defense for doing absolutely no mod work.

It's nothing of the sort. The existence of moderators does not absolve people from personal responsibility for their own actions.

In the real world, if someone is spouting bs and trying to disrupt everyone else over and over, not responding stops being an effective option, and kicking them out becomes the right choice as they'll just keep escalating until they DO get a response.

Even in that situation, things wouldn't generally jump straight to kicking the person out. You would generally start with talking to the person causing the ruckus and giving them the opportunity to amend their behaviour. Which is what Dakka's moderation aims for.

To be fair, we don't always get the balance right there, and that's something that we're still aiming to improve. But removing someone purely because someone else thinks they're arguing in 'bad faith' is never going to be a viable option.

I think after years of trying and failing to and talk to them and get them to be reasonable, they'd kick them out. By your own analogy, we tried the first bit here, and it didn't work. And instead of solving the problem by removing the bad faith posters, you (as in, the mod team) threw their hands up and said "No clue on how to fix this, just stop talking about it I guess"

**greatbigtree**

Hi Folks. This

*gestures at everything in this thread, particularly the personal attacks on the last few pages*

Is way into the deep end of shouldn’t be happening here, right? Could we maybe stake this vampire and close the coffin on this?

**insaniak**

Wolfblade wrote:

I think after years of trying and failing to and talk to them and get them to be reasonable, they'd kick them out. By your own analogy, we tried the first bit here, and it didn't work. And instead of solving the problem by removing the bad faith posters, you (as in, the mod team) threw their hands up and said "No clue on how to fix this, just stop talking about it I guess"

Yes, when you grossly over-simplify the problem, that's possibly how it looks.

This has all been discussed ad nauseum in the past, but here it is again - the problem was never just bad faith posters. The problem was that people couldn't control their tempers in political discussions, and that grudges stemming from those discussions were polluting other parts of the boards.

Sure, we could have just booted everyone who was causing a problem... although that would have included a lot more than just those people you may feel were arguing in bad faith. The problem with that approach is that many of these were people who actually provide a worthwhile contribution to the site elsewhere, and only ever run into problems as a result of political discussion in OT. Removing these people is not, in the long run, a benefit to the site. As such, removing the topic of discussion that causes these issues to arise becomes the much more attractive option, particularly when keeping that topic results in a disproportionate amount of work for moderators who are supposed to be moderating discussions about toy soldiers.

It's not like this is even a particularly controversial solution. Many, many forums ban political and religious discussion, because it's just not worth the headache. And continuing our real world comparisons, many, many families and social groups do the same. My wife's family is one of these... the family is large, and comes from a range of different backgrounds, and many of them have very strong opinions on different aspects of politics. So in order to keep family gatherings amiable, we just don't talk politics.

You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case. The politics ban was simply seen as the most sensible way to keep the forums a slightly more pleasant place to be.

**Wolfblade**

insaniak wrote:

You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case.

It's more that, in my experience with mods here has always been negative. Time and time again I saw nothing happen to people who consistently cause problems as long as they're "civil," myself included. In fact, those posters were defended, and the people who did get in trouble were the ones who called them out by name, leading to any sort of discussion of problem posters having to skirt around If the problem posters were dealt with, they wouldn't have heckled others or wound others up into also becoming problem posters in my opinion. Basically, I feel the mods were too hands-off to the detriment of the community.

**Tannhauser42**

Wolfblade wrote:
insaniak wrote:

You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case.

It's more that, in my experience with mods here has always been negative. Time and time again I saw nothing happen to people who consistently cause problems as long as they're "civil," myself included. In fact, those posters were defended, and the people who did get in trouble were the ones who called them out by name, leading to any sort of discussion of problem posters having to skirt around If the problem posters were dealt with, they wouldn't have heckled others or wound others up into also becoming problem posters in my opinion. Basically, I feel the mods were too hands-off to the detriment of the community.

That's largely because, on Dakka, Rule #1 is "Be Polite", not "Be Honest and Truthful".
And that's always going to be the core problem with any political discussion: unless there is a penalty for dishonesty or falsehood, there can be no progress.

**Wolfblade**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Wolfblade wrote:
insaniak wrote:

You seem determined to paint this as the mods being lazy and refusing to do any work, but that was never the case.

It's more that, in my experience with mods here has always been negative. Time and time again I saw nothing happen to people who consistently cause problems as long as they're "civil," myself included. In fact, those posters were defended, and the people who did get in trouble were the ones who called them out by name, leading to any sort of discussion of problem posters having to skirt around If the problem posters were dealt with, they wouldn't have heckled others or wound others up into also becoming problem posters in my opinion. Basically, I feel the mods were too hands-off to the detriment of the community.

That's largely because, on Dakka, Rule #1 is "Be Polite", not "Be Honest and Truthful".
And that's always going to be the core problem with any political discussion: unless there is a penalty for dishonesty or falsehood, there can be no progress.

And that's the core of my complaint I guess. Dishonesty in political discussions where being polite trumps everything means you'll get pages of text and dozens of people dedicated to refuting a paragraph from one or two people. And then after all of that, they'll pretend the conversation didn't happen in a week and repeat what they said almost word for word and then pretend to act confused when people get tired of them, all the while only being able to gently rebuke them.

I won't belabor the point again, but it's why I feel the mod team was too hands-off considering the literal years of refusal to address the core of the problem.

**AlmightyWalrus**

In a sense I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to how lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1. It is, after all, generally considered rather impolite to lie.

**LordofHats**

Azreal13 wrote:
Much could be gained by the adoption of a mantra I've kept to the forefront of my thinking for a while now.

"The conscious decision not to engage is not synonymous with an admission of defeat."

Problem posters are like a pyramid scheme.

They don't fall so long as there's always someone new, unfamiliar with their behaviors and patterns, to suck into the pyramid. Given the breadth of the internet, this makes problem posters perpetual until something is directly done about them. You can say this, and people can eventually learn it themselves, but by then there's already someone new innocently banging their head against the wall and becoming frustrated. That frustration spills into the broader topic space and endures.

Moderation policy shouldn't be solely predicated on the notion that posters will make mature choices. If people were so reliable, we wouldn't need mods at all. I don't call it lazy so much as stubbornly naive.

And to be clear, I'm fine with politics being banned. It's a gak hole topic, and while a lot of my criticism imo is relevant to the board at large, it's not such a problem that it demands a complete change in moderation policy. Politics invites far more heat from everyone than toy soldiers and nerd stuff most of the time. Nothing of value is really lost by ditching it and nothing of value really gained by bringing it back. It would take serious effort to properly moderate political discussions in a way that doesn't becoming simmering puss, and I don't hold it against the mods for not wanting to wade into that issue for something that is unnecessary to the board's purpose. The ban is the most sensible solution, and the mods have been fairly lenient and understanding in fringe cases, letting discussions dance close to the political line so long as things are civil. Everything else is a disproportionately absurd amount of extra work for Lego or the moderation team, or an utter waste of their time.

These facets are however relevant to the idea of starting an outside board to serve the purpose of a 'DakkaDakka Politics' space, which I would still consider both those things unless whoever starts it is willing to address the issues presented by disruptive posters whose only contribution is frustration and bitterness. On Dakkadakka, the usual suspect getting the occasional thread locked is completely innocuous. I only notice because I've been on the board for a long time and am familiar with their habits. It's not that much of a disruption here when the main lightning rod (politics) is banned. A political board won't have that luxury though. It'll be the same problems over and over and over again. Dakka can simply ban the topic and remove most of the problem. A politics board does not have that option unless it wants everything to be toxic under a civil veneer, which isn't healthy for anyone or the space they're in.

**BobtheInquisitor**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In a sense I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to how lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1. It is, after all, generally considered rather impolite to lie.

Bullseye.

**NinthMusketeer**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In a sense I think a lot of us are a bit confused as to how lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1. It is, after all, generally considered rather impolite to lie.

Bullseye.

You know I never had it put into words before but that is exactly where I'm at. Confused and frustrated.

Though I do suspect why lying isn't considered a violation of rule #1--it isn't in real life either. Maybe it's mostly a US thing, but modern society is both infested with liars and largely disinterested in holding them accountable. But I am very, extremely sure that the Dakka mods are intellectually above that, which leads to the confusion.

**BobtheInquisitor**

I’m a USian, and I was taught that lying, deliberately misleading, and arguing in bad faith were more disrespectful than blunt honesty (most insults).

**insaniak**

So... Just so we're very clear: You guys want the volunteer moderators of a forum devoted to toy soldiers to be the arbiters of truth?

Are you sure? Because from where I'm standing, that sounds like an awful idea.

If nothing else, a lot of the time judging whether someone is deliberately lying, or just confused is just too subjective. It's right up there with the whole bad faith argument thing.

Theoretically, yes, someone deliberately lying might be seen as rude.. But what action we could conceivably take against that would depend entirely on the situation, and in practice would require a great deal of erring on the side of caution. Because you can guarantee that the moment we suspend somebody for 'lying' there would be a dozen people in here shouting about biased moderators suspending people for disagreeing with them.

**Wolfblade**

insaniak wrote:
So... Just so we're very clear: You guys want the volunteer moderators of a forum devoted to toy soldiers to be the arbiters of truth?

Are you sure? Because from where I'm standing, that sounds like an awful idea.

If nothing else, a lot of the time judging whether someone is deliberately lying, or just confused is just too subjective. It's right up there with the whole bad faith argument thing.

Theoretically, yes, someone deliberately lying might be seen as rude.. But what action we could conceivably take against that would depend entirely on the situation, and in practice would require a great deal of erring on the side of caution. Because you can guarantee that the moment we suspend somebody for 'lying' there would be a dozen people in here shouting about biased moderators suspending people for disagreeing with them.

I feel like this is a purposefully misframed argument, if not an outright strawman. You're not being asked to rule on truth or reality, you're being asked to recognize and act accordingly when someone is purposefully acting in bad faith. Their intentions should not matter and it doesn't have to escalate immediately to a permaban. A warning will do just fine for the first offense or two, as will a temp ban if it continues. If you are worried about people needing to be educated on discussing in good faith, make a pinned post with resources and/or explanations of what good faith looks like and some basic dos and do not.

Again, I feel it's important to mention no one is asking you to be "the arbiters of truth," and I cannot stress this enough. If that's what you've taken away from this entire discussion with multiple people expressing the same feeling, I feel like you have lost the plot so-to-speak.