Metal Machine Music Flag Conversation

This is exactly what I have a problem with. The long post with the link to Pensions wiki is probably the one that set everyone aflame and is the only post in this thread I would consider to be flag worthy. You are punishing him by removing the entirety of his attempts at correspondence because he is failing once.

He remade those same tired points mostly in one comment, and for all the world it does appear spammy. But this cavalier attitude of obliviating intercession in others conversations because he’s committed an infraction is unjust.

1 Like

I’d say that someone else’s conversation is what happens in PMs. Intercession into conversations seems like the point of discussing things in forums.

Anyway, I feel like this is turning ugly so I’m going to bow out.

1 Like

I agree, only with more conversation/discussion.

It might be difficult but I hope it’s not ugly.

1 Like

A funny thing: I was going to fork my reply over to the ol’ “why do we flag” thread so as to help re-rail this one. And then was belatedly reminded of how and why that thread got unceremoniously locked a month ago. Oof.

Anyway, I have to take it on faith that people flag in good faith. It’s not always obvious that they do. This was one of the less-obvious examples.

That’s the one thing I really like about the current flag system. I pretty much always read flagged posts if they haven’t been eaten yet. I’m a lifelong peeker-under-of-rocks.

Really, my concern about a case like this boils down to two points:

  1. Why do the flaggers think that I shouldn’t read this comment? Especially if it’s not one of the spammy/trolly/abusivey comments? Just because they believe the guy is a broken record, does that give them the right or obligation to throw a rug over him, when I haven’t heard this particular ditty before?

  2. If we value our back-and-forth with dissenting opinions, and we also value our reputation for valuing dissenting opinions, should we make any extra effort toward including such opinions? If we’re quick to flag because “that guy is making that same ol’ noise again, nobody needs to hear that,” shouldn’t we make some effort to emphasize that such a reaction comes across more as “this opinion is false/misguided/in bad faith because XXX” rather than “this comment shouldn’t be read”? That is, to avoid the appearance of echo-chambery behavior, can we not refute rather than flag in such instances as these? Yeah, it takes more keystrokes, but maybe that extra effort is conducive to healthier dialogue.

Again, sorry for the derail. I just don’t quite have it in me to fork out a whole new Meta thread about flags. Sigh.

7 Likes

I envy your eloquence. :wink:

5 Likes

The first reply to his first post (before he posted any of the others) was asking why he was flagged into oblivion. Your “people are interfering with the conversation” and “one post that set everyone aflame” narrative seems to assume that the conversation happened first. On the contrary, he was flagged as off-topic, and then the conversation started, from replying to a flagged post.

No. First, we are acting because he is repeating past mistakes, not because he’s failing once. Second, we are not trying to punish anyone.

Once again, the Off-Topic flag isn’t supposed to obliviate anything. It’s a call to move something, not to hide or delete it.

We are trying to get the discussion split off to somewhere where it is actually on-topic. If that isn’t the end result, take it up with the mods. Start a meta topic to have this issue looked at. But saying “don’t flag” isn’t the answer.

We’ve been told, again and again, by someone that has access to look at the stats, that we aren’t doing enough flagging, and we should be flagging everything even slightly questionable and letting the mods sort things out: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Maybe off-topic flags shouldn’t hide a post. Maybe enough off-topic flags should automatically branch off the discussion to a new topic. I don’t know. But @codinghorror has said, and I believe him, that we should be flagging more, not less.

2 Likes

I saw that ninja’d wink, smartarse. :wink:

You got three times my eloquence, and everyone here knows it.

2 Likes

lol, I just thought the phrase sounded almost like a line.

2 Likes

Clearly in this case flagging for review isn’t working, because those are still “temporarily hidden” and have been for days.

Flagging should drive mod action and a response.

Maybe the hiding t’hold is too low, too. Don’t know what it is. 2? 3? 10?

2 Likes

Which one? I gotta know which of my zingers belong on the Greatest Hits album, and which belong on my Metal Machine Music outtakes compilation.

1 Like

You know, right now pensions would be so much more on topic than the conversation we’re having!

We should probably ask a friendly mod to move our comments. Shall we create an appropriate arena?

I’ll try and pick an acceptable title like “Why the regular big meanies want to steal your voice” or something.

Here it is:

Please feel free to change the title, I chickened\styled out.

@orenwolf Massive apologies for creating this mess. Would you be kind enough to move our OT conversation to the thread linked in this comment:

Metal Machine Music Flag Conversation

I think that’s comments:
41, 42, 45, 55, 58, 59 ,61, 62, 70 through 88

The rest are either nickle’s comments, replies to nickle or replies to people asking why nickle’s comments were flagged.

4 Likes

I disagree, In my limited specific knowledge of Mod actions, I’ve not once agreed with the choices made, they tend to be unsubtle. Flagging is like inviting in firemen with hoses and axes, you’d better have a fire or you might regret it. Most recently when someone was flagged for being obnoxiously controlling of a popular long running thread, the thread was locked rather than the offending posts deleted and the poster warned.

2 Likes

Fascinating! So it turns out that we agree!

CBs set interest rates low to rescue the Banks after the collapse of 2008. It is definitely an transfer from savers to Banks. Since the banks didn’t have enough capital, it was the only thing left to do, unless the CBs were prepared to take the banks into public ownership. The combination of unwillingness to nationalize weak banks but desire to pretend they were solvent is why rates had to be cut to zero.

However the design of the system requires CBs to have the power to set rates.

If capitalism is to be anything other than a system of entrenched privilege it must be possible to fail. CBs effectively ended capitalism in 2008 - creating a system of socialism for the rich, atty the expense of the rest of us.

I would say lynch them, but remember that it was not the Central bankers that made the decision but Obama.

1 Like

Well, you’re certainly not the only Boinger who thinks that way.

Can’t argue with any of that. But the rescue did keep big employers like automakers solvent. I’m not financially astute enough to know how you could have done it without the 10% getting the most, they have most of the wealth, after all.

I do think they should have reset rates for underwater borrowers, if not written down the underwater losses. But that would have made the bonds even more worthless driving the banks deeper. Heads they win, tails you lose, don’t play and the world ends. No great choices.

from the BBS FAQ

Stay on topic. Don’t hijack threads, repeat yourself or post generic talking points.

Look at nickles history of posting here. It is very repetitive. They rarely post anything that isn’t along those lines, and usually ends up talking about pensions whether it is on topic or not.

(I didn’t flag the post myself, it was already hidden when I got here)

21 Likes

Because a) it is off-topic, and b) the poster in question has brought up the same hobbyhorse on multiple occasions previously and has been rebutted multiple times. So, c) The assumption that he is debating in good faith is no longer present.

26 Likes

yeah, there is off topic and then there is aggressively off topic with a side of rules-lawyering. And you’re correct, perfectly civil tone with a not-illogical question, but its still aggressively off topic.

Not even “Politically Incorrect” as it wouldn’t be moderated in it’s own thread or in any discussion of a related topic, which this is not. The mods would rather see flags than flames afaik. Moving on then…

4 Likes

I’ve come late, so I’m not the one who flagged. However, I honestly don’t know what the hell they’re saying.

1 Like

Argle wargle bargle Social Security argle wargle bargle Socialism argle wargle bargle Pensions argle wargle bargle.

23 Likes