Close

Complete Captcha

• 7 months - 63 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 239 Goods vs 122 No Goods

1. Economist
   4a34
   

   One potential change would be to divide the forums up a little more. When you create a thread, you declare what "forum" it is in, but because of the way the board functions, that tends to be irrelevant when browsing.

   I don't know how easy it is to do, but I would suggest that it would be better if there were 2 or 3 forums that you couldn't browse simultaneously. 1 or 2 "serious" ones with tight moderation, and one "jokey" one with somewhat looser rules.

   I would also like to pose a thought to both critics and supporters of the board that there are several tiers of "trolling". For example

   1. Silly jokes.
   2. Edgy jokes that could be interpreted as as sexist or racist, but are clearly not intended to be taken seriously.
   3. Comments that could be interpreted as sexist or racist, and are intended to be taken seriously.
   4. Personal attacks.

   What tends to happen is that critics focus on category 3 and 4 and supporters focus on 1 and 2 to say that the critics don't understand. The reality is that there are both on this board.

   7 months ago # QUOTE 7 Good 2 No Good !

2. Economist
   02fc
   

   All I have done is to post links to articles and scientific papers. I don’t make stuff up and I don’t troll. I show the supporting evidence for everything I say.

   But some people evidently cannot handle that. Instead of countering with evidence of their own, they just delete or close threads.

   It’s as if one side is handicapped in the battle of wits.

   7 months ago # QUOTE 2 Good 2 No Good !

3. Economist
   d8ca
   

   One potential change would be to divide the forums up a little more. When you create a thread, you declare what "forum" it is in, but because of the way the board functions, that tends to be irrelevant when browsing.
   I don't know how easy it is to do, but I would suggest that it would be better if there were 2 or 3 forums that you couldn't browse simultaneously. 1 or 2 "serious" ones with tight moderation, and one "jokey" one with somewhat looser rules.
   I would also like to pose a thought to both critics and supporters of the board that there are several tiers of "trolling". For example
   1. Silly jokes.
   2. Edgy jokes that could be interpreted as as sexist or racist, but are clearly not intended to be taken seriously.
   3. Comments that could be interpreted as sexist or racist, and are intended to be taken seriously.
   4. Personal attacks.
   What tends to happen is that critics focus on category 3 and 4 and supporters focus on 1 and 2 to say that the critics don't understand. The reality is that there are both on this board.

   You fail to see that the worst threads are not stupid racist jokes. The worst are threads that are meant to be taken seriously, sometimes by one single crazy individual posting from several different ips. Look at the AG threads. One deranged lunatic kept accusing him of all sorts of things, but that lunatic actually seems to believe those conspiracy theories. It's not meant as a joke -- the person seems to really believe those theories. And, while doing that, keeps calling names and making fake accusations of all sorts.

   7 months ago # QUOTE 4 Good 1 No Good !

Reply

Post <blockquote><blockquote>I tried to 'moderate' this discussion by deleting clearly insulting comments ( 5 in total so far, plus another one that I did not but someone else did). It already emerges that moderation is key here, and perhaps that this forum does not have the technology or means to moderate itself yet, but there is big hope that it can and would become more positive, so the suggestions above are very good and hopefully there are new ones coming! </blockquote> Trust me. Keep on reporting bad threads.</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.