It's only intermittently infracted, even if mods are participating in the discussion at hand.Basically, that's the definition of trolling. Which is (rightly so) infracted. So I don't see the problem
Red Diamond Threads
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
And there are other people who are blatant trolls who keep posting polls and the like on the same flamigerous issues -nananancan'thearyou style- and are rarely, if ever, infracted. However, anyone mentioning that they sound like a broken record is immediately punished.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
Didn't realise it was a test period.
I do think it is a way for moderators to focus on those threads the OPs thinks warrants serious discussion.
jtb1127
Deity
I think it has been working pretty well. Red diamond threads stay serious and spam-free.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
Or do they? 
Feel free to report anything that you think isn't or to PM a mod.Or do they?
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The Steve Jobs thread certainly hasn't, as an example. And that was even after you posted two warnings.
If RD didn't change much, it is because people have not used it.
Mise
isle of lucy
People should be seeing the RD designation as a tool - a means to an end rather than the end itself.
We need more tools.
We need more tools.
What tools do you need?
Mise
isle of lucy
A "Like" button would be nice! A positive-only Rep system would be even better - but I think the vB "Thank" button mods have this as well. Hmm I was supposed to send a PM to Thunderfall about that. I should probably do that at some point...
Anyway more generally, a bit more openness to ideas put forward in SF would be welcome. I don't see why we should only look at one thing and one thing only to make OT a better place. You guys should just give us a whole bunch of stuff, and we'll figure out what works and what doesn't. Like monkeys.
Anyway more generally, a bit more openness to ideas put forward in SF would be welcome. I don't see why we should only look at one thing and one thing only to make OT a better place. You guys should just give us a whole bunch of stuff, and we'll figure out what works and what doesn't. Like monkeys.
Agreed.
People expect to get the shed when all the mods can give us is a hammer to let us build our own shed the way we like it. They could build the shed for us, but then people would get even more mad at having no input into the shed's construction.
Dreadnought
Deity
I'm curious as to the stance of threads created as non-RD, only to be changed to RD by a mod. Is this practice going to continue? I've seen two threads like this in two days, and am curious if it is going to be common practice.
This is really irritating me. Imho it makes the whole concept of RD look absurde.
So far the only hypothetical reason i can come up with for mods putting a fist on the table, to declare their intent to protect and elevate that nonsense like a holy grail is that they personally have strong positive opinions about Jobs or Apple and are doing a bad job seperating that from their mod responsibilities.
I don't want to believe that. I want to find a better explanation.
But i have a hard time coming up with one. As i said, it's absurd:
The opening post could hardly be any less substantial and doesn't nourish debate.
And guess what: As the thread progressed there was no debate.
The most relevant things to debate would be Job's life work, Apple as a company, the future of mobile communication, Apple's marketing strategy and Apple's policies and the influence Jobs had on all that, i guess.
However non of that makes any sense when one tells essentially everybody who disagrees to stfu.
Note that this is an extreme deviation from what i naively percieved to be the RD concept. I in my blissful innocence believed RD was mostly about form, about keeping posts structurally and tonally decent.
I did not know it was about legislating opinions.
You guys cracked down on Tom Petty fandom threads several times. Tom Petty is an artist.
Now a CEO died, and you are legislating a cheer-thread that doesn't allow for dissent.
Which is in itself very curious. CEOs are known to be usually rather controversial people. That kind of comes with the job. They usually "have to" do some ethically debatable stuff (to say the least) to keep the company afloat.
Offering them (and their fans) protection from criticism when they are dead appears extremely unusual to me. More or less the same is true for politicians.
Would have offered the same kind of protection to Strom Thurmond?
The cult around Apple and Facebook isn't big enough? We are now not only very strongly expected to join but have to shut up if we don't cheer for the leader?
I guess in your view the point is that he's dead and one supposedly doesn't criticise dead people but diplomatically ignores their faults no matter how significant they are.
Apparently most people exercise significant cognitive dissonance when it comes to whether people deserve a minimum of respect when they are dead or not...
On the bottom line: I am severely diappointed.
Major cheers for Mise on account for trying to make some rational posts (what passes for cynicism these days) in the thread, despite all the threats in place that may have very well been applied to his line of posting.
Mise, if you ever die, i will start a thread about the awesomeness of your sex and defend it tooth and nail against dissent.
So far the only hypothetical reason i can come up with for mods putting a fist on the table, to declare their intent to protect and elevate that nonsense like a holy grail is that they personally have strong positive opinions about Jobs or Apple and are doing a bad job seperating that from their mod responsibilities.
I don't want to believe that. I want to find a better explanation.
But i have a hard time coming up with one. As i said, it's absurd:
The opening post could hardly be any less substantial and doesn't nourish debate.
And guess what: As the thread progressed there was no debate.
The most relevant things to debate would be Job's life work, Apple as a company, the future of mobile communication, Apple's marketing strategy and Apple's policies and the influence Jobs had on all that, i guess.
However non of that makes any sense when one tells essentially everybody who disagrees to stfu.
Note that this is an extreme deviation from what i naively percieved to be the RD concept. I in my blissful innocence believed RD was mostly about form, about keeping posts structurally and tonally decent.
I did not know it was about legislating opinions.
You guys cracked down on Tom Petty fandom threads several times. Tom Petty is an artist.
Now a CEO died, and you are legislating a cheer-thread that doesn't allow for dissent.
Which is in itself very curious. CEOs are known to be usually rather controversial people. That kind of comes with the job. They usually "have to" do some ethically debatable stuff (to say the least) to keep the company afloat.
Offering them (and their fans) protection from criticism when they are dead appears extremely unusual to me. More or less the same is true for politicians.
Would have offered the same kind of protection to Strom Thurmond?
The cult around Apple and Facebook isn't big enough? We are now not only very strongly expected to join but have to shut up if we don't cheer for the leader?
I guess in your view the point is that he's dead and one supposedly doesn't criticise dead people but diplomatically ignores their faults no matter how significant they are.
Apparently most people exercise significant cognitive dissonance when it comes to whether people deserve a minimum of respect when they are dead or not...
On the bottom line: I am severely diappointed.
Major cheers for Mise on account for trying to make some rational posts (what passes for cynicism these days) in the thread, despite all the threats in place that may have very well been applied to his line of posting.
Mise, if you ever die, i will start a thread about the awesomeness of your sex and defend it tooth and nail against dissent.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
Well said. It looks like someone is getting it, so I'll pat myself on the back for a job(s) well done in that thread.
nonconformist
Miserable
The reason that RD isn't used is because, in essence, RD threads have done nothing to improve the content of posts, while managing to filter out the not so serious, but amusing posts.
Until RD threads make it infractable to knowingly lie, be obtuse, skirt the rules, strawman, or commit the 200 methods of not overtly breaking the rules, but still preventing reasonable debate, it's playing into the hands of the eejits who thrive off thinly veiled trolling.
A rep system (maybe only positive) would be a big step forwards, as people could identify very quickly which posts are well though out/coherent/funny/positive/generally positive compared to those which are disruptive/stupid/spam/non-constructive/thinly veiled trolling.
Until RD threads make it infractable to knowingly lie, be obtuse, skirt the rules, strawman, or commit the 200 methods of not overtly breaking the rules, but still preventing reasonable debate, it's playing into the hands of the eejits who thrive off thinly veiled trolling.
A rep system (maybe only positive) would be a big step forwards, as people could identify very quickly which posts are well though out/coherent/funny/positive/generally positive compared to those which are disruptive/stupid/spam/non-constructive/thinly veiled trolling.
Whiskey_Lord
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,163
What makes you so sure the trolls wouldn't get rep points from trolling?
I think it would sort out quality trolling from merely disruptive trolling.
