|
Speaking of which, there's the lock... someone needs to tell all the people who closed the OTD forums.Wow, that took longer than I expected. Still, I'm thankfull they finally closed it.This is my second bipartisan effort of the day, with my conservative undead buddy.
This thread is a model of political cooperation!
Still, I'm almost sad that they picked this particular moment to shut the thing down. Old Joe and the others were getting on a roll.
|
Still, I'm almost sad that they picked this particular moment to shut the thing down. Old Joe and the others were getting on a roll.Speaking of which, there's the lock... someone needs to tell all the people who closed the OTD forums.Wow, that took longer than I expected. Still, I'm thankfull they finally closed it.This is my second bipartisan effort of the day, with my conservative undead buddy.
This thread is a model of political cooperation!
Mmmhmm. I hope enough curious people still take the time to click on the link I posted.
|
Hey folks,
After killing a flame war this morning that specifically railed against Lisa's post above, I thought a nice "bump" would be in order. Read her post again and take it to heart.
Consider this a blanket warning: threads started with incendiary titles for the specific purpose of starting a flame war will earn the poster a temp ban, no warning, from now on. Paizo's messageboards are not the place for you to air your grievances against those you disagree with. Play nice.
-Josh
Josh is the man. I missed where people were speaking out against Lisa's "play nice" note.
Peeks in the door
All back to normal now? Excellent. Good job CH and AZ!
|
|
Damnit. What was the thread that got obliterated?
Hnestly it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Just a bunch of liberals making fun of conservatives and then conservatives saying "so, liberals are just as bad." A few people tried to engage in discussion of a substantive nature, like Patrick, but most were just looking to pick a fight.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hnestly it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Just a bunch of liberals making fun of conservatives and then conservatives saying "so, liberals are just as bad." A few people tried to engage in discussion of a substantive nature, like Patrick, but most were just looking to pick a fight.Damnit. What was the thread that got obliterated?
Cute. Glad it got shut down, sounds like grade A a*!!$&*-ism to me.
(which wouldn't be so bad if I had been able to be a grade A a~&#!&& too, but I'm doubly angry that I didn't get to participate.)
|
|
Hnestly it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Just a bunch of liberals making fun of conservatives and then conservatives saying "so, liberals are just as bad." A few people tried to engage in discussion of a substantive nature, like Patrick, but most were just looking to pick a fight.Damnit. What was the thread that got obliterated?
Cute. Glad it got shut down, sounds like grade A a#~&~~&-ism to me.
(which wouldn't be so bad if I had been able to be a grade A a#~&~~& too, but I'm doubly angry that I didn't get to participate.)
It was pretty clear that the op was feeling like an asstard from the thread title.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It was pretty clear that the op was feeling like an asstard from the thread title.Hnestly it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Just a bunch of liberals making fun of conservatives and then conservatives saying "so, liberals are just as bad." A few people tried to engage in discussion of a substantive nature, like Patrick, but most were just looking to pick a fight.Damnit. What was the thread that got obliterated?
Cute. Glad it got shut down, sounds like grade A a#~&~~&-ism to me.
(which wouldn't be so bad if I had been able to be a grade A a#~&~~& too, but I'm doubly angry that I didn't get to participate.)
Okay, I'm dying to know, what was the thread title? (you can delete the response right away if you think it'll stir the trouble back up).
|
|
Okay, I'm dying to know, what was the thread title? (you can delete the response right away if you think it'll stir the trouble back up).It was pretty clear that the op was feeling like an asstard from the thread title.Hnestly it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Just a bunch of liberals making fun of conservatives and then conservatives saying "so, liberals are just as bad." A few people tried to engage in discussion of a substantive nature, like Patrick, but most were just looking to pick a fight.Damnit. What was the thread that got obliterated?
Cute. Glad it got shut down, sounds like grade A a#~&~~&-ism to me.
(which wouldn't be so bad if I had been able to be a grade A a#~&~~& too, but I'm doubly angry that I didn't get to participate.)
Yeah it's sad that it was somone who should know better. And people who should know better got sucked in too.
*sigh* guilty on that one. No more posting political, I'm goin' legit! Only drive-by 4E-hating flameposts from now on!
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No stones thrown from my end Patrick - it seems like the type of thread that is hard not to respond to given how it was pitched.
I'm in on the 4e drive-bys.
Hey, speaking of 4e drive-bys and gossiping about fellow posters, is Scott Betts still around? Seems like I haven't seen his name pop up in the active threads in a while, and it used to be that he made a showing in every 4e thread...
I'm glad I didn't open that thread...although, I did miss out on an opportunity to send my little blue gnome in there.
ADD: See, this kind of thing pisses me off and makes me think that we do need a Politics or Controversy forum. I mean, Heathy and Pat are the kind of people I may need at a moment's notice. Unavailable for a day or two? That's just not acceptable!!!
Hey, speaking of 4e drive-bys and gossiping about fellow posters, is Scott Betts still around? Seems like I haven't seen his name pop up in the active threads in a while, and it used to be that he made a showing in every 4e thread...
Hmm, not sure. I closed up the 4e threads a while back. Nothing but danger there, and everytime I posted advocating moderation I got my face chewed off. They still busy over there? Honestly I haven't kept up with the new iterations evolution.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hey, speaking of 4e drive-bys and gossiping about fellow posters, is Scott Betts still around? Seems like I haven't seen his name pop up in the active threads in a while, and it used to be that he made a showing in every 4e thread...Hmm, not sure. I closed up the 4e threads a while back. Nothing but danger there, and everytime I posted advocating moderation I got my face chewed off. They still busy over there? Honestly I haven't kept up with the new iterations evolution.
They generally seem calmed down, but I don't go there much anymore either. I'm starting to become a Heathy type poster who just drops in to make a joke and moves on.
Except I do it with style.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm glad I didn't open that thread...although, I did miss out on an opportunity to send my little blue gnome in there.
ADD: See, this kind of thing pisses me off and makes me think that we do need a Politics or Controversy forum. I mean, Heathy and Pat are the kind of people I may need at a moment's notice. Unavailable for a day or two? That's just not acceptable!!!
Ah, but the key is to use these two days to fill the thread with unwarranted attacks, fake avatars, and general insults against Heathy. He won't be able to ignore it for long...
|
|
Hey, speaking of 4e drive-bys and gossiping about fellow posters, is Scott Betts still around? Seems like I haven't seen his name pop up in the active threads in a while, and it used to be that he made a showing in every 4e thread...Hmm, not sure. I closed up the 4e threads a while back. Nothing but danger there, and everytime I posted advocating moderation I got my face chewed off. They still busy over there? Honestly I haven't kept up with the new iterations evolution.They generally seem calmed down, but I don't go there much anymore either. I'm starting to become a Heathy type poster who just drops in to make a joke and moves on.
Except I do it with style.
The 4e boards have calmed down quite a bit. There's still the occasional flame-up, and sadly I think a lot of it has to do with a hyper-sensitivity to edition war flames.
Mostly, though, it's become a lot more civil, with people actually talking about 4e products and issues.
Scott Betts still posts there. Mostly, as above, posting on actual 4e content, and he's quite knowledgeable on the system. When there's an edition war flare-up, though, he still gets a little defensive.
Ah, but the key is to use these two days to fill the thread with unwarranted attacks, fake avatars, and general insults against Heathy. He won't be able to ignore it for long...I'm glad I didn't open that thread...although, I did miss out on an opportunity to send my little blue gnome in there.
ADD: See, this kind of thing pisses me off and makes me think that we do need a Politics or Controversy forum. I mean, Heathy and Pat are the kind of people I may need at a moment's notice. Unavailable for a day or two? That's just not acceptable!!!
Hmm...for an evil-4e-pretty pony-lawyer, I like the way you think. Still, I'll have to wait for Patrick. Hope there's nobody else I need turning OTD off.
Hmm...for an evil-4e-pretty pony-lawyer, I like the way you think. Still, I'll have to wait for Patrick. Hope there's nobody else I need turning OTD off.
No worries, David alerted me on Facebook that the thread had been locked and snocked. I reopened the OTD immediately, since this and the PbP forums are really the only place I post ...
|
|
Hmm...for an evil-4e-pretty pony-lawyer, I like the way you think. Still, I'll have to wait for Patrick. Hope there's nobody else I need turning OTD off.Ah, but the key is to use these two days to fill the thread with unwarranted attacks, fake avatars, and general insults against Heathy. He won't be able to ignore it for long...I'm glad I didn't open that thread...although, I did miss out on an opportunity to send my little blue gnome in there.
ADD: See, this kind of thing pisses me off and makes me think that we do need a Politics or Controversy forum. I mean, Heathy and Pat are the kind of people I may need at a moment's notice. Unavailable for a day or two? That's just not acceptable!!!
Patrick is back, he posted on the previous page.
So I'm applying for an internal job posting, and the manager I need to give my resume to isn't in his office. Grrr.
I'm all dressed up in a suit because of another meeting I had today, so I thought it could do double-duty to make a good impression. He better come back soon.
Good, he came back. I was able to impress in my snazzy suit.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I was going to put up a new thread about the Smurf Alliance idea, but wanted to pitch it here first given that this thread is populated mostly by the regulars who would likely be most receptive to the idea. Plus, I want to make sure I've got it thought out so as to avoid the crowd that complains about thread-jacking and smurfing. I think they've got some valid points in their objections to smurfing.
Anyway, the Smurf Alliance would be our method to combat obnoxious political threads. But, we don't want to have it used as a tool to suppress opposing viewpoints, so we need some ground rules. Here're my thoughts:
1. We create a Smurf Alliance thread laying out the ground rules. Anyone can post to become a member of the Smurf Alliance. If a thread starts to get ugly, anyone can post on the Smurf Alliance thread requesting a smurfing. Any member of the inner circle of the Smurf Alliance (see below) can authorize a smurfing, but they have to be on the opposite side of the debate. So, if I get all pissed off because someone is saying mean things about my favorite liberal, I need to get someone like Aberzombie or David to sign off on the smurfing. It's no good to have Celestial Healer do it because if I'm being too soft skinned, it's likely he will be too. Plus, the Smurf Alliance should not be able to be used as a tool by one political leaning person to suppress someone on the opposite side.
2. When a smurfing is called for and approved on the Smurf Alliance thread, the person approving the smurfing posts a warning on the controversial thread stating something like "this thread has been identified by the Smurf Alliance as needing a smurfing. Please tone down the rhetoric or face immediate carpet smurfing. For more information about the Smurf Alliance, see [link to Smurf Alliance].
3. If the thread does not settle back down, the smurfing begins. For each nasty post in a thread after the warning, everyone in the Smurf Alliance will respond with a silly smurf post. Once we have 10 smurf posts in a row, we stop.
4. Once a thread has been smurfed, everyone in the smurf alliance will discontinue posting in the thread. If we can get the regulars who are the most likely to post in controversial threads (myself included) to self-police, that will probably suck a lot of oxygen out of a flamewar.
5. If a thread ever falls off the top 15 thread list, it is no longer a valid target for a smurfing. Do not ressurect a dead controversial thread for the sake of smurfing it.
6. At the end of each smurfing (the 10 posts described above), provide a link back to the Smurf Alliance thread so people know our ground rules, that we will stop smurfing if the thread goes back on track, etc.
What do you guys think? I'm not normally a big fan of having insider clubs, but I'd almost think we should have a core group of Smurf Alliance founders as the people who can authorize a smurfing (Aberzombie, David Fryer, Patrick Curtin, Celestial Healer, Heathy, CourtFool). Obviously, we have no ability to enforce any rules in regards to this, the entire thing is subject to Paizo tolerating our nuttiness, and this only makes sense if the net effect is a positive one to the community. The last thing I want to do is keep flamewar threads going through smurfing or cause people to become annoyed at the smurfing and thereby cause ancillary flame wars about smurfing.
Hmm. Very interesting. I think 3 is complicated, as is how to ID when a thread has "settled down" or gotten "back on track".
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hmm. Very interesting. I think 3 is complicated, as is how to ID when a thread has "settled down" or gotten "back on track".
You're right, it does involve a lot of discretion.
Hmmm...good point. Maybe after a smurfing has been authorized, and we've done our 10 smurf posts, additional smurfing can be requested by any member and we all respond. That way we avoid discussions of whether the thread is settled down or back on track. We want to avoid those types of discussions because they can be flamewars themselves. So, I guess we err on the side of smurf-bombing.
Oh yes, and we should also add a rule.
If anyone from Paizo says to stop smurfing, we stop.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Smurf...Would it be reserved for OTD threads? And only for those that are clearly over the line?
I am torn. I'd like to limit the scope because I don't want to step on the toes of legitimate threads, so I think focusing on OTD threads (and maybe 4e threads) makes the most sense.
It's an interesting idea, but the only problem I see with it is that it could evolve (perception-wise if not in actuality) into the "4venger" type of club where a bunch of smurfs run all over the thread to quash it.
Still, if we could manage some checks and balances, it might be doable. I just don't know how other posters would react. And anyone can 'Smurf' and keep the thread rolling in Belgian blue faeries long past our preset limit....
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
They generally seem calmed down, but I don't go there much anymore either. I'm starting to become a Heathy type poster who just drops in to make a joke and moves on.
Except I do it with style.
Aaaah, yerrs....stuck a feather in his cap, and called it macaroni....
Very well; I'm back.
and proving my point about style (or lack thereof)...
Hmm. Very interesting. I think 3 is complicated, as is how to ID when a thread has "settled down" or gotten "back on track".You're right, it does involve a lot of discretion.
Hmmm...good point. Maybe after a smurfing has been authorized, and we've done our 10 smurf posts, additional smurfing can be requested by any member and we all respond. That way we avoid discussions of whether the thread is settled down or back on track. We want to avoid those types of discussions because they can be flamewars themselves. So, I guess we err on the side of smurf-bombing.
Oh yes, and we should also add a rule.
If anyone from Paizo says to stop smurfing, we stop.
10 smurfs total (almost makes me a little sad) or ten in a row? Then we stop and only smurf bomb again if another request comes in. That sounds good to me.
Also, the additional rule is good.
I'm very much for Venger. He was the best part of the cartoons.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's an interesting idea, but the only problem I see with it is that it could evolve (perception-wise if not in actuality) into the "4venger" type of club where a bunch of smurfs run all over the thread to quash it.
Yeah, that's definitely a risk, and one I would absolutely want to avoid. Everything would really depend on the core founders obeying the rules. I suppose we could ID ourselves, so I would be something like Atheist Liberal Pro-4e - so I'd authorize the smurfing when an atheist, a liberal, or a pro-4er is crossing the line. The only check on me would be your willingness to authorize the smurfing of a thread where a conservative crosses the line. Hopefully, the mutual self-interest and respect will be sufficient.
Still, if we could manage some checks and balances, it might be doable. I just don't know how other posters would react. And anyone can 'Smurf' and keep the thread rolling in Belgian blue faeries long past our preset limit....
Definitely a risk. That's why I suggest having clearly defined rules and posting back to them at the beginning and end of a smurfing. Hopefully, that will clue people in that we are following some types of rules and that they should too.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hmm. Very interesting. I think 3 is complicated, as is how to ID when a thread has "settled down" or gotten "back on track".You're right, it does involve a lot of discretion.
Hmmm...good point. Maybe after a smurfing has been authorized, and we've done our 10 smurf posts, additional smurfing can be requested by any member and we all respond. That way we avoid discussions of whether the thread is settled down or back on track. We want to avoid those types of discussions because they can be flamewars themselves. So, I guess we err on the side of smurf-bombing.
Oh yes, and we should also add a rule.
If anyone from Paizo says to stop smurfing, we stop.
10 smurfs total (almost makes me a little sad) or ten in a row? Then we stop and only smurf bomb again if another request comes in. That sounds good to me.
Also, the additional rule is good.
I was thinking 10 in a row because it sets up a buffer between the offensive posts and the (hopefully) non-offensive posts that follow the smurfing.
Anyway, the Smurf Alliance would be our method to combat obnoxious political threads.
Hey! I thought that's what I was for!
Sploooorrrtch!
