The Talk Thread (Please Read the Rules)

[111]

Forgive multiple replies, I feel it will make more sense that way though.

 

There is a large sense of entitlement, coupled with being offended, slighted, or otherwise wronged. More often than not a thread is derailed with venom, or excuses and reasons why things won't work, than solutions and questions on how things CAN. That said, these are things I can't solve. That no one individual or conversation can either.

 

This is a thing I have been noticing as well. Before there were conversations that got out of hand, and threads that were closed because of it. (Housing even required a ban on housing threads). However I feel people were legitimately angry about it, and there were a lot of high strung feelings.

 

Too often I think in recent arguments, those who do not like either the discussions or opinions taking place simply just try to have the thread obliterated. Again, the reaction to this thread is a good example. There is no requirement to read this thread, or to speak in it. There is even a rule against calling people out. So if you don't post in it, you'll never even be spoken of.

 

However for some, just the existence of a thread they do not like is offensive. It happens so often though, and it has become so predictable, that the community can tell when it is happening. Whenever you see a thread with 30 people watching it, its almost never because they all have something relevant to say and contribute. Generally we're all spectators at the bullfight, waiting for the matador to get gored.

[111]

The first question I will ask is:

What do you think of this thread? Do you agree with what I think has happened in the RPC community? Was the RPC community always this way?

 

What do I think of this thread? I think it'll be locked at around... page 6. Page 7 if we're lucky. Already, you could see people sniping at each other.

 

I'm actually very curious about this. Where do you think people are sniping at each other? There have been a few posts that have either ignored the rules of the thread or the forum rules, so I've ignored them.

 

I think discussion has been relatively reasonable. I worry that things have been so toxic lately that disagreement and discussion are assumed to be hostile.

[111]

Nat, could you provide a clear and concrete example of what you consider to be "unsanitized" good-faith discussion? It doesn't have to be something from the RPC itself, but I'm hesitant to say we've fallen from some Platonic model of what the community "should be" without knowing what the "should be" was or if it ever existed at some point.

 

 

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread.php?tid=7486

I feel like this was a reasonable and honest discussion about a topic that could have very easily exploded. Now some threads did explode back then, it is true. Some threads can talk about sensitive topics now with no problems. It seems to be an issue of trends rather than absolutes.

 

Regarding the rest of the topic, I have spoken in the past about why I have engaged in hostilities. I don't feel I need to go into that a second time. I can, however, explain why I avoid threads which appear to exist purely for the purpose of promoting positivity: many times, they feel false.

 

Kellach (and I name him only because I am still grappling with nesting quotations) explained why he prefers the Compliment thread over, say, the Kudos thread. I've reviewed both. I've posted in the Kudos thread, but never in the Compliment thread. The material in the Kudos thread feels more earned, more genuine, and usually comes from posting good content. Those in the compliment thread feel very superficial - in the past ten pages of that thread, the overwhelming theme of them, with some variation, is "X is a good person." I don't really need to hear that. I'd rather hear "X posted good content for X, Y, and Z reasons."

 

I agree with Kellach that they're necessary. I don't agree that they're necessary as a counterbalance. Rather, I think they're important because they highlight the fact that this is not a single community. Rather, it is multiple separate communities bashing against each other on the same website, confusing themselves into believing they are a contiguous group. I will likely never interact with the majority of the posters in the Compliments thread in roleplay, especially those who make a point of posting regularly, because we expect different things out of the website in terms of content and purpose.

 

So what you see, Nat, as a sanitizing and a splitting of the community when it comes to discussions, I see as people realizing that there isn't - can't be - a single community. People are still fighting to believe it is, hence "why have people gotten so mean/so relentlessly positive, why can't things go back to how they were." It's wiser to accept that it can't be so. Acknowledge the difference, recognize posters who fall outside your conception of what the website's community "ought to be," and steer clear.

 

Interesting, I don't ever thing I've quite thought of it that way. I agree about the relentlessly positive threads (I suppose that is a far more neutral term than hug box). To me there is no point in praise and compliments for their own sake. However I do not begrudge people for making them. If that is what makes people happy then they are welcome to it.

 

Also as you say, there are groups of people who do not care about that, and come to the RPC for different reasons.

 

However how then do you fix the fact that we are, if two communities, we are two communities on adjacent seats on a long distance flight. We have one website and one set of forums, and I for one have no desire for the community to fragment. If one group of people thinks threads should avoid conflict and negativity, and the other thinks it is ok if the gloves come off. How do we prevent both sides from having a shitty time?

 

It's a slightly rhetorical question, because I made this thread to both discuss and experiment if different rules could help on certain threads.

 

There are however deeper issues that the two group theory unmasks. Issues that also cause problems in the community, such as the different groups and their different ideas of RP excluding people who believe otherwise. Though I don't think there are really /any/ solutions to that.

[Kellach Woods]

Kellach (and I name him only because I am still grappling with nesting quotations) explained why he prefers the Compliment thread over, say, the Kudos thread. I've reviewed both. I've posted in the Kudos thread, but never in the Compliment thread. The material in the Kudos thread feels more earned, more genuine, and usually comes from posting good content. Those in the compliment thread feel very superficial - in the past ten pages of that thread, the overwhelming theme of them, with some variation, is "X is a good person." I don't really need to hear that. I'd rather hear "X posted good content for X, Y, and Z reasons."

 

I don't disagree with that assessment of it being more earned on one thread over the other. Earned has nothing to do with the compliment thread more so that you get what you give. The Kudos thread requires that the person who wishes to give you thanks actually knows of the thread and decides to actually post in it. Which, other than a few people, barely anyone does. I've done it once when I thought it appropriate, but most of the time I'll thank people in person rather than use the forums because most of the peeps I know don't care much for actual interactions on the forums. Never cared for why, they got their reasons.

 

So not for nothing but the Kudos thread can be read as pretty much a circlejerk same as the Compliments thread, except in my eyes the latter is easier to access than the former because the requirements are far less stringent and they are not dependent on other people.

 

I can also understand why they feel false - a lot of them have to do with the person posting not really knowing the person they have to say something good about. I, however, believe that's still a fairly good perspective to have if you force yourself to post for someone you've had a disagreement with. It humanizes the other person, which is something I've not seen with people mentioning entitlement.

 

I agree with Kellach that they're necessary. I don't agree that they're necessary as a counterbalance. Rather' date=' I think they're important because they highlight the fact that this is [i']not[/i] a single community. Rather, it is multiple separate communities bashing against each other on the same website, confusing themselves into believing they are a contiguous group. I will likely never interact with the majority of the posters in the Compliments thread in roleplay, especially those who make a point of posting regularly, because we expect different things out of the website in terms of content and purpose.

 

I don't see how one thread means the community's splintered. The Compliments thread is just a random thread in an off-topic forum. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss everyone in there unless you decided to take your peddlin' ways exclusively out of the actual FFXIV game. Saying that one thread means the people posting in there would not use the website in the same way you or anyone else does is dishonest. I use the website same as most, I just post in a positive thread from time to time, either for humor or to move the thread along.

 

As for the rest, I use RP discussion to discuss RP, I use FFXIV discussion to discuss FFXIV, Character Development to develop my characters, I rarely post Bulletin Board stuff IC or do letters anymore if people want to read that. I don't see how this usage is any different than any other user on the website with the exception that I don't expressively RP on the website, saving that for in-game.

[Kellach Woods]

I'm actually very curious about this. Where do you think people are sniping at each other? There have been a few posts that have either ignored the rules of the thread or the forum rules, so I've ignored them.

 

I think discussion has been relatively reasonable. I worry that things have been so toxic lately that disagreement and discussion are assumed to be hostile.

 

There's the two posters you "banned" for a week from posting in here, but unless you got mod powers to actually prevent that from happening it'll probably happen again. I'm not saying discussion hasn't been reasonable, nor that it won't be in the future. Just the natural way things have been happening here lately, I don't think it'll last longer than that - Thread is already under moderation watch, and it only really needs an errant firebrand to explode. Something we have in excess here if we're to look at locked topic history throughout the past few months.

 

I want to give this thread a chance really, but already we're re-treading the same subjects - community is splintered, nobody wants to actually interact with one another, positive vs. negative posting, etc. At one point you have to wonder how much we actually care about these subjects to do something about them, rather than just talk endlessly about them. Personally, I don't believe the community is splintered to such a point that you can fit them in tiny little boxes, and I'm starting to actually think that all of this endless talk is sorely because people aren't giving others enough credit.

[111]

I'm actually very curious about this. Where do you think people are sniping at each other? There have been a few posts that have either ignored the rules of the thread or the forum rules, so I've ignored them.

 

I think discussion has been relatively reasonable. I worry that things have been so toxic lately that disagreement and discussion are assumed to be hostile.

 

There's the two posters you "banned" for a week from posting in here, but unless you got mod powers to actually prevent that from happening it'll probably happen again. I'm not saying discussion hasn't been reasonable, nor that it won't be in the future. Just the natural way things have been happening here lately, I don't think it'll last longer than that - Thread is already under moderation watch, and it only really needs an errant firebrand to explode. Something we have in excess here if we're to look at locked topic history throughout the past few months.

 

I want to give this thread a chance really, but already we're re-treading the same subjects - community is splintered, nobody wants to actually interact with one another, positive vs. negative posting, etc. At one point you have to wonder how much we actually care about these subjects to do something about them, rather than just talk endlessly about them. Personally, I don't believe the community is splintered to such a point that you can fit them in tiny little boxes, and I'm starting to actually think that all of this endless talk is sorely because people aren't giving others enough credit.

 

I didn't actually ban them, I just asked them to keep out unless they're were planning on following the rules. I can't actually stop them from posting, obviously.

 

I don't think the thread will explode though, but not because everyone is calm. I just think people are more interested about complaining than changing things. I can't say I'm not guilty of this as well, as you say.

 

I feel like things /have/ been calmer though in the last week or so. Perhaps people have been making decisions to be more geniuine? Or maybe we just haven't had the proper thread for everyone to explode on.

[Melodia]

Lots of stuff.

 

 

That's my two cents. I enjoy the community and the site.

 

If I might ask, you say that in the past you have been part of the 'negativity'. Why do you think you took part in such things? Also what caused you to make a conscious decision to stop doing it?

 

 

I honestly, looking at my behavior, whether it was complaining, engaging in self-pity, blaming others, etc. it was simply because I was being selfish. I expected one thing and didn't get that. "Oh look, those people talk to each other....why aren't they including me? Aren't I part of this community?" *insert table flip here* That is the kind of behavior that I have knowingly engaged in, and simply because I felt a sense of selfish entitlement. Regardless of how many people told me to work for it, to try my best, I still threw fits and acted the part of a spoiled child. Simply because I didn't get what I wanted. And it took a good level of straight talk from folks here in PMs to get my head on right.

 

One person who I won't name said it best.... "What kind of example are you setting for your child when you act like this?" It stung but that person was right. And so I have made a conscious effort to improve how I engage with folks here and in game. I actively try to be a positive or at least productive contributer with posts rather than some reactionary flamer.

[Kellach Woods]

I didn't actually ban them, I just asked them to keep out unless they're were planning on following the rules. I can't actually stop them from posting, obviously.

 

I don't think the thread will explode though, but not because everyone is calm. I just think people are more interested about complaining than changing things. I can't say I'm not guilty of this as well, as you say.

 

I feel like things /have/ been calmer though in the last week or so. Perhaps people have been making decisions to be more geniuine? Or maybe we just haven't had the proper thread for everyone to explode on.

 

Hence the quotes - I know you don't have mod powers else your name'd be in light blue. Honestly, I think things have been calmer because less people have been posting. It's just a question of numbers rather than an actual conscious decision to think about what they're saying. Most people are gearing up for Heavensward or other such things, they got other things to do, etc.

 

I sincerely doubt we've genuinely started giving each poster the credit they deserve - that they're a sentient being worthy of at least a modicum of respect.

[Hammersmith]

I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

 

 

 

Alright.  Where were we?

 

I'm new here.  Frighteningly new.  I am a RPC newb. Realtalk.

 

With that said: I haven't found this place hostile.  The mods have been murderously on point and guard about dealing with potential drama.

 

The threads I've taken part in that could have, and by all internet rules SHOULD have, exploded into flame wars were either cooled off through real talk or by a mod with a fire blanket.  Compared to a lot of sections of the internet the small minded and often petty ass-hattery seems to not be a focus here.

 

I'm guessing what the OP alludes to with it's initial prompt is one of those inertial drifts that communities, RP ones especially, accumulate given time.

 

 

Speaking from a relative outsider perspective I don't see the place as hostile or out of control in any fashion.  I've been here for a month or...so?  It's been calm.  There's been no flamewar.  There was rational talk about ERP without resorting to the pit of all too familiar internet slurs associated with the topic.

 

Gods help us all it's almost like people are capable of acting like rational adults. 

 

Yeah. I know. That's weird to me too.  This is the internet, afterall.

 

I just hope it continues.

[Zyrusticae]

I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

 

As someone who occasionally goes completely off the rails at times, I just wanted to post about my experience here.

 

It seems to me like half the time any problems come up because one or both 'sides' in a conversation decide they no longer need to show any due reverence or respect for the other participants or their conflicting views, and phrase their language in such a fashion that makes that extremely obvious. It's one of those things that you can kind of become blind to because you've been engaging in it for so long that you no longer realize when you're doing it. I'm... not even sure how often I've done this, and honestly, I'm afraid to go back and check.

 

It's a rather fine-grained distinction to make, and I know some folks frown on the idea of 'tone-policing', but it is simply a part of our reality that we must accept - that people are emotional beings and can and will be prone to acting out emotionally given the proper stimulus to do so. As such, it only makes sense to be very careful in how we articulate ourselves in order to prevent that emotional side from overtaking everything. However, in some cases this may not actually be possible, because the subject itself is an emotionally charged one full of people with passionate stakes in the matter. I know exactly what those issues are for me, and I will not hesitate to admit that I should probably refrain from all topics discussing them, simply because I will not be able to behave in a rational manner.

 

At the same time, I also think it's important for people to understand and be able to recognize when those lines have been crossed. If you see someone acting out about a topic they really believe strongly in, it's important to trust that those feelings are genuine and come from the heart, rather than blowing them off and treating them as non-entities, which ALWAYS exacerbates matters and only makes things worse.

 

One of the most frustrating things I've dealt with is the one time someone decided to call out my behavior as 'emotional manipulation' (note - I am not interested in discussing that individual here, I am only focusing on the specific behavior). It wasn't until long after the fact that I realized how incredibly disingenuous such an accusation actually is, especially as the only evidence supporting such a thing is the author's own hunch and not a long-term pattern of behavior. To put it short, I was effectively being called a liar, and there are very few ways you can call someone that without making the target look extremely bad and possibly inflaming the situation.

 

If, on the other hand, the author assumed my behavior to be genuine (which it was) rather than fakery used specifically for emotional manipulation (which it wasn't), things could have gone on much more amiably than they did. Pointing out errors in logic is one thing - that's something I hope to see more of, if done with enough tact - but straight-up questioning the truthfulness of someone's admission of emotional weakness is... hilariously villainous, in hindsight.

 

Those kinds of behaviors are the sort of thing I want to see a lot less of around these parts. Or around the Internet in general, really. It is possible to have friendly arguments without matters devolving into emotional and verbal abuse and constant bouts of passive-aggressiveness. The problem is keeping things from ever reaching that point in the first place, as often only a small, seemingly insignificant trigger is all that's needed to cross things over from one side to the other. I don't really have a solution for any of this, other than that we, in general, as posters, need to work on our collective conversational skills as well as being able to recognize when our emotional states do not allow for the kind of productive conversations one would hope to have on here.

 

This is something I'm constantly working on, and honestly, how good I am seems to go up and down in long phases. A lot of it is just how much pressure I'm dealing with in my daily life, and I suspect that goes for a lot of posters on here as well. High stress is most definitely NOT conducive to any kind of conversation. Maybe all that's needed is for folks to go on a voluntary 'time-out' to go cool off sometimes. That's not a long-term solution, but it could help for the odd flare-up here and there.

 

Heh, but that just sounds like life advice in general. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to just disappear and cool off in their given life circumstances, but, generally speaking, every one of us benefits from being able to just sit back and relax every so often. If you can't get that time off, you may have bigger issues that need your attention than some stranger on the Internet saying things you don't like, you know?

 

To put it short: be truthful, be genuine, assume others are doing the same, and DON'T be nasty even if you completely disagree, and that would solve like 99% of issues on here that I see. The only hard part is getting everyone to cooperate, which I admit is still most of the challenge. Sorry I can't be of more help on this point.

[111]

So a side question, among the other one.

 

What do you think the place of image macros, reaction gifs, etc, have in discussions? Do you think they should be banned? Only allowed in certain threads? Allowed in all threads?

 

I'm personally of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed except in certain types of threads, that they tend to just disrupt a discussion without adding anything of value.

 

However they are fun, and I like seeing them in lighter hearted threads.

 

What do you think? Obviously they are frowned upon by the mods and the new updated rules.

[ProvaDiServo]

So a side question, among the other one.

 

What do you think the place of image macros, reaction gifs, etc, have in discussions? Do you think they should be banned? Only allowed in certain threads? Allowed in all threads?

 

I'm personally of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed except in certain types of threads, that they tend to just disrupt a discussion without adding anything of value.

 

However they are fun, and I like seeing them in lighter hearted threads.

 

What do you think? Obviously they are frowned upon by the mods and the new updated rules.

 

(By posting in this thread I am aware of whetever rules apply, etc. etc. Kinda a given otherwise why post?)

 

Honestly reaction gifs are cool. just spoiler them I find them to work in any topic really and it is always nice to have the image coupled with the message for me.

 

But in terms of overall forum cleanliness and structure Please for the love of god spoiler them so that the page aint stretched. Same for anyone with huge ass signatures expanding beyond 135 pixels in height. I love the creativity and style of fellow graphic bros. but good lord it bothers me when signatures are super huge.

 

Keep it concealed.

[Kellach Woods]

Image macros are the nuclear option when involving a discussion. In that they serve nothing but to shit up the entire thread for all involved just because you don't personally like it, and it'll take approximately a million or so years before the thread has any sort of relevance again.

 

In certain threads, where, y'know, it's what the thread's about? Sure. Any other thread and you're essentially saying "this thread is irrelevant to me and thus everyone else (as there's obviously no difference between the two). I'll therefore drop trou and defecate here."

 

Whether or not I agree with the rules on this is irrelevant - I'm using the forum, I'm expected to follow the rules of the forum. Same goes to you, the mods, etc. If someone breaks them, you report them instead of piling onto the stank already present here.

 

IMO they're frowned upon because people don't use them to create a lighthearted atmosphere but to add that extra spice of dismissal in their posting. If people were more responsible about the usage of image macros then perhaps that rule wouldn't be.

[Hammersmith]

They don't belong in a discussion topic.  They're, as already stated, a blatent derail of purpose anywhere except threads where it's acknowledged that the point is to not have a point.

 

Otherwise it's widescale sad-pepe memes and reaction gifs instead of words with actual meaning as far as the eye can see.

[111]

So then, if as you three say, Image Macros and such add little to nothing to most discussions, but should not be banned.

 

How should we determine whether or not they're appropriate?

 

Forums like something awful have thread tags, maybe we could try something like that here? Maybe two sets of rules, one for serious threads and one for light hearted ones?

 

I still maintain that I could care less about warnings, except for the permaban. I'm totally cool getting one and toning it down for a few weeks. However their permanence almost just tempts me to keep going.

 

Sort of, "I'll get 10 eventually, so fuck it."

[ShoggMommy]

I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

 

So a side question, among the other one.

 

What do you think the place of image macros, reaction gifs, etc, have in discussions? Do you think they should be banned? Only allowed in certain threads? Allowed in all threads?

 

I'm personally of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed except in certain types of threads, that they tend to just disrupt a discussion without adding anything of value.

 

However they are fun, and I like seeing them in lighter hearted threads.

 

What do you think? Obviously they are frowned upon by the mods and the new updated rules.

 

This is something I completely agree with Natalie. I think that image macros, reaction gifs, etc should not be allowed (mostly). It's far too easy for them to be dropped into a thread, and have the person run off without actually contributing. Sure, allowing them in certain threads is fine, meme threads, fun-off-topic things stuff like that. But where it comes to RP threads likely not (unless-).

 

Unless they are there to actually boost the thread or to explain something. Sometimes pictures work better than words. I remember a thread I posted to with 'anchor howl' which most people wouldn't get unless they watched Log Horizon.

 

The main problem is using them for snappy little comments which I have seen. People quickly oft them to say "Oh I was being funny" but when people post snidey little memes in a way to circumvent is concerning.

 

So to how to determine whether or not they're appropriate is something I'm uncertain. Because a lot of it is subjective. I think, to solve it; honestly is just to remove them out of all discussion areas, even if they do help 'describe' in the case of anchor howl.

[Kellach Woods]

I still maintain that I could care less about warnings, except for the permaban. I'm totally cool getting one and toning it down for a few weeks. However their permanence almost just tempts me to keep going.

 

Sort of, "I'll get 10 eventually, so fuck it."

 

You said this was the real talk thread, so let's talk real.

 

Why in the grandiose fuck would the rest of us want people around who are not mindful of the rules enough that they are already planning to be banned? (emphasis because come the fuck on)

 

Is your desire to derail threads and go entirely off-topic and insult users so strong that you must disobey the rules to do so?

 

You can't say I've been overly nice except in the compliment thread. Hell I'd dare say I've a 50/50 shitposting to relevant post ratio. Yet even with this system I've received zero warnings, none whatsoever. And don't even bring up the future in this because I trust myself to not completely shit on the line of posting decency.

 

So at this point, I'd ask : Why can't you? Why is it that you're always bringing up the inevitability of your banning?

[111]

I still maintain that I could care less about warnings, except for the permaban. I'm totally cool getting one and toning it down for a few weeks. However their permanence almost just tempts me to keep going.

 

Sort of, "I'll get 10 eventually, so fuck it."

 

You said this was the real talk thread, so let's talk real.

 

Why in the grandiose fuck would the rest of us want people around who are not mindful of the rules enough that they are already planning to be banned? (emphasis because come the fuck on)

 

Is your desire to derail threads and go entirely off-topic and insult users so strong that you must disobey the rules to do so?

 

You can't say I've been overly nice except in the compliment thread. Hell I'd dare say I've a 50/50 shitposting to relevant post ratio. Yet even with this system I've received zero warnings, none whatsoever. And don't even bring up the future in this because I trust myself to not completely shit on the line of posting decency.

 

So at this point, I'd ask : Why can't you? Why is it that you're always bringing up the inevitability of your banning?

 

Well as the ways the rule are written, it can be something as an image macro or a post that isn't quite on topic.

 

It's sort of a death from a 1000 cuts. Perhaps it will be better once the rules are adjusted. I don't think getting 10 warnings means you are shitting on the line of posting decency. I think currently a user could get 10 warnings, and get permabanned, without being a shitposter.

[Hammersmith]

So then, if as you three say, Image Macros and such add little to nothing to most discussions, but should not be banned.

 

How should we determine whether or not they're appropriate?

 

Forums like something awful have thread tags, maybe we could try something like that here? Maybe two sets of rules, one for serious threads and one for light hearted ones?

 

I still maintain that I could care less about warnings, except for the permaban. I'm totally cool getting one and toning it down for a few weeks. However their permanence almost just tempts me to keep going.

 

Sort of, "I'll get 10 eventually, so fuck it."

 

 

Banned? No.  Warned? Yes.  I think the current revamp of the rule is really the best approach to it.

 

As for the "Well fuck it", that's a non-sequitor example.  The same sort of logic applies to "I'm going to die anyway, why not murder a baby? Fuck it yolo."

 

We're dealing within the bounds of reason.  If we're dealing with crazies, or in this case a terminal troll, they're not going to be bound by what we're discussing in the first place so there's no point in accounting for them other than "They're going to run into an admin, fuck THEM."

 

I think warnings work.  We've already seen people check themselves before wrecking themselves, with the one hiccup so far being the one area that had too much non-defined application.

 

I think warnings work.  I don't think "Well if crazy people do it why should we have rules at all" is good counter logic against them.

[111]

So then, if as you three say, Image Macros and such add little to nothing to most discussions, but should not be banned.

 

How should we determine whether or not they're appropriate?

 

Forums like something awful have thread tags, maybe we could try something like that here? Maybe two sets of rules, one for serious threads and one for light hearted ones?

 

I still maintain that I could care less about warnings, except for the permaban. I'm totally cool getting one and toning it down for a few weeks. However their permanence almost just tempts me to keep going.

 

Sort of, "I'll get 10 eventually, so fuck it."

 

 

Banned? No.  Warned? Yes.  I think the current revamp of the rule is really the best approach to it.

 

As for the "Well fuck it", that's a non-sequitor example.  The same sort of logic applies to "I'm going to die anyway, why not murder a baby? Fuck it yolo."

 

We're dealing within the bounds of reason.  If we're dealing with crazies, or in this case a terminal troll, they're not going to be bound by what we're discussing in the first place so there's no point in accounting for them other than "They're going to run into an admin, fuck THEM."

 

I think warnings work.  We've already seen people check themselves before wrecking themselves, with the one hiccup so far being the one area that had too much non-defined application.

 

I think warnings work.  I don't think "Well if crazy people do it why should we have rules at all" is good counter logic against them.

 

I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.

 

Currently though the issue has been any discussion of this topic has been hijacked by people who cry out loudly that dissension and disagreement are wrong, and that you should essentially obey, or get out.

 

Then it all goes downhill from there, the recent thread 'police state thread' is a decent example.

 

Reform is not bad, people. And not liking a thing is ok.

[Hammersmith]

 

 

I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.

 

Currently though the issue has been any discussion of this topic has been hijacked by people who cry out loudly that dissension and disagreement are wrong, and that you should essentially obey, or get out.

 

Then it all goes downhill from there, the recent thread 'police state thread' is a decent example.

 

Reform is not bad, people. And not liking a thing is ok.

 

That's too black and white for what happened in that thread.  The thread was a pointed example of "Oh, yeah, ok, we should change things".  Not "OBEY."

 

However it was also a good example of why you need the Obey marker on the board, somewhere, clearly spelled out.

 

Because us nerds are The Wurst when it comes to getting into "White man plays devil's advocate in issue that doesn't affect them in any way shape or form" arguments for the dicking of it.

 

It's a major note seen over and over again in any RP/Game community. It's why the mods are more than a good idea, they're a requirement.  It also means some people are going to crybitch about it.  It is literally a battle you should not be approaching as something you need to "win", like I said.

 

Consistency mixed with critical acceptance works.  It's working here, and now, as we speak, with that gif rule re-write.

 

Edit:

 

Responded 10 minutes too soon. TIME OUT TIME FOR ME

[111]

 

 

I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.

 

Currently though the issue has been any discussion of this topic has been hijacked by people who cry out loudly that dissension and disagreement are wrong, and that you should essentially obey, or get out.

 

Then it all goes downhill from there, the recent thread 'police state thread' is a decent example.

 

Reform is not bad, people. And not liking a thing is ok.

 

That's too black and white for what happened in that thread.  The thread was a pointed example of "Oh, yeah, ok, we should change things".  Not "OBEY."

 

However it was also a good example of why you need the Obey marker on the board, somewhere, clearly spelled out.

 

Because us nerds are The Wurst when it comes to getting into "White man plays devil's advocate in issue that doesn't affect them in any way shape or form" arguments for the dicking of it.

 

It's a major note seen over and over again in any RP/Game community. It's why the mods are more than a good idea, they're a requirement.  It also means some people are going to crybitch about it.  It is literally a battle you should not be approaching as something you need to "win", like I said.

 

Consistency mixed with critical acceptance works.  It's working here, and now, as we speak, with that gif rule re-write.

 

Just as a note, please follow the 30 minutes waiting period. I'd rather not have this thread explode like the other one. If someone doesn't want to say it in 30 minutes, it's probably not worth saying.

 

(Though I do think this is a good post, I just want to keep consistent)

[Aduu Avagnar]

So a side question, among the other one.

 

What do you think the place of image macros, reaction gifs, etc, have in discussions? Do you think they should be banned? Only allowed in certain threads? Allowed in all threads?

 

I'm personally of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed except in certain types of threads, that they tend to just disrupt a discussion without adding anything of value.

 

However they are fun, and I like seeing them in lighter hearted threads.

 

What do you think? Obviously they are frowned upon by the mods and the new updated rules.

I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

I would like to expand upon this, if I may?

 

I believe, as said above that image macro's can serve a humorous addition to a post. If they are the addition, not the core content. Which is what I believe the spirit of the rules is.

 

• Spurious off-topic posts, including meme images and patent nonsense
  
• Creating posts and/or topics whose purpose/title is sarcastic, belittling, or intentionally provocative in a negative manner (i.e., "baiting").
  

 

I would say that my interpretation is if your entire post can be summed up just by the use of said meme, then is it worth posting? It doesn't add anything to the discussion. If however you have a response thought out and written out, and said meme adds emphasis that is pertinent to your response, then its all gravy.

 

that is however, my opinion on them.

[Nero]

I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith

 

How should we determine whether or not they're appropriate?

I would agree, if the rules were better defined, and if minor infractions did not inevitably lead to a ban.

 

In regarding the point above, the key here is examples. A general policy when writing rules is that you can never be too specific--or, if you prefer more insulting language, that they should be written in a way that accommodates the lowest common denominator--because someone somewhere will make an incorrect assumption. Clear, definite examples that encompass the variety of threads in which low-effort content is permissible/not permissible would remove any of the ambiguity that the rules may fail to address. With the vagueness of the rules swept away, people who receive minor infractions will ideally fall into three categories:

 

(1) People who don't think before posting despite being aware of the rules 

(2) People who haven't read the rules and are unaware of them

(3) People who don't care about the rules

 

In cases (1) and (2), the warning system suits it just fine and prevents further future cases. I hesitate in advocating for the idea of infractions that accumulate to a ban for something that is relatively minor in comparison to flaming, harassment, blatant slurs etc. but regardless, making the user aware of their breach in site rules one way or another is enough to stop it.

 

People who are (3) are going to get banned by their own actions sooner or later anyway. Like Hammersmith above pointed out, it's a similar argument to, say, gun control: there's no point in making guns illegal because criminals will break the law to obtain them anyway.

 

That said, it's also important to note just how vital proper communication is, especially in regards to moderator vs. user. This entire brouhaha, like most brouhahas do, came out of the two things that cause 99% of all human conflict: kneejerk reaction and miscommunication. Someone receiving an infraction for an inflammatory post should be made aware that the infraction was given in regards to their language and tone inciting flaming, not because their opinion differed from the topic at hand. I highly doubt anyone on the moderation team is banging a drum for censorship, but when communication isn't effective, people get the wrong idea before they start crying out ignorant "free speech" platitudes.

 

In the end, I don't particularly have a problem with the moderation in regards to warnings, infractions, and the policies thereof. This is a privately run board that has no obligation--and indeed, should not have any--to guaranteeing the freedoms of its users. I've yet to see an issue where someone was warned or banned for the nature of their opinion as opposed to how they presented it. So long as that doesn't become an issue, and as long as efforts are made to remove any incertitude from the possibilities of how the rules are interpreted things seem dandy.

[Khadan]

I understand all the rules of the legit talk thread, and will obey them. If I am found to have broken any of the rules, I will refrain from posting in the thread for a week. I understand that the purpose of this thread is to try and maintain discussion in good faith -lazily quoting but there it is

 

The first question I will ask is:

What do you think of this thread? Do you agree with what I think has happened in the RPC community? Was the RPC community always this way?

 

I think it's a good thread in intent, sure. I also believe that no topic is 'sacred' or 'off limits' because of the innocuous chance of 'offense'. I will hold a discussion with anyone on anything, at any time because that is my right to do so and 'censoring' discussions don't help anyone or any situation, ever; even the most heinous topics are up for debate, discussion, and ultimately skepticism. 

 

So when you mention if I and others agree on what has happened to the RPC community? Well I suppose so, to a degree. Though this isn't any different than anywhere else; this isn't unique to the RPC. You see this a lot on tumblr, of course, and other online communities. Sanitizing discussions, hugbox cliques, passive aggressive behavior, and the general nature of 'offense/outrage culture' lend people to believe that they have a right to never be offended (they don't), and that their feelings are valid reasons for ceasing a discussion (they aren't). Of course the opposite to this is if the site rules DO state that such things are the case, which as far as I know aren't the case though given that we're about to experience an ownership/moderatorship/adminship change here, things might change.

 

Was it always this way? I can't honestly say one way or the other. I can say that what I've observed is that the moderatorship of the RPC is and has been far too involved in the RPC's general discussions. My personal experiences moderating an equally sized community in the past for TESO have shown me that the more involved the moderators are the more unhappy people are with the moderators. Tone policing, nitpicking every word looking for 'offenses', and getting into petty arguments with the users do not endear a community to you, your authority, or whatever order you're trying to maintain; just because someone reports something and/or is 'offended' does not mean it warrants action.

 

On the nature of gifs etc, I think people kneejerk too hard on them as if they are some kind of giant lump of feces in the middle of their driveway that they're about to step in. It's kind of ridiculous to fixate on the use of images rather than focus on, say, the reason and intention behind why people use these images. To me it's like using vulgar language. IRL I swear pretty much every hour of every day because to me language is just language; it's only 'offensive' if employed offensively. However do I swear to people at work? Of course not unless I'm absolutely confident that it won't get me in trouble, of course. The difference being that a workplace IS a sanitized area for many reasons, some legitimate, others not. People tend to use gifs and images as a sort of passive aggressive caltrops, on average. That's pretty shitty and shouldn't be condoned. If, however, an image compliments what you're saying and is on the topic of whatever you're responding to? That's fine. Just like swearing; if the language fits the narrative then good. If not, then you're just being a tool.