It is “really” an argument. You can argue that it is insufficient, or unpersuasive or what not but you can’t legitimately claim it “isn’t an argument”.
Frankly, AP, it’s not a search string that will be easy to target and I’m not going to literally waste bandwidth on it at this time.
But, just for giggles, do you deny that people have used flagging here in the BBS to censor viewpoints? I realize the burden of proof isn’t yours, but I’m curious whether you actually think that doesn’t happen.
What is the explicit viewpoint that you are concerned with preserving?
your highness, I disagree. I humbly petition the court to accept it’s own burden of proof as requisite to provision ones peers with evidence in conversational endeavors, lest one come across as one with a complex of superiority.
There is no single viewpoint I have in mind. Largely the issue is viewpoints that don’t tow the line of a core group of posters.
i never deny unproven points.
To do so would be to enable a fallacy.
So what contentious topics get flagged?
You obviously have many tangible examples in mind if you watch this occur regularly.
Well, seeing that the account was created just to slag on a particular person or topic (like gamergate) is a very conscious decision.
what is that? You keep referencing this ‘line’ as a discrete thing. Could you describe it?
I think letting folks take a timeout from each other (e.g. improved time/topic scoped mute) might actually be a better alternative to flags in many scenarios covered here, with better outcomes for everyone.
That’s another reason I am kinda changing my mind on muting being a bad thing.
like, right there. just now.
Hey, don’t change your mind on that. You’ve only just convinced me recently that muting doesn’t do any good. Are we going to have to switch sides and do this all over again?
I wouldn’t say we’re bullies, just that tensions are high and there’s sometimes the tendency to overreact. Everyone here has been a little snappy in the past couple months. However, I have not seen indiscriminate for-shits-and-giggles bullying here, certainly not from Regulars.
It’s a question of how it is used.
One-click “disappear this person from my world forever” → bad.
A dialog that offers “give me a timeout from this person for today / in this topic only” → good.
Sadly the former nuclear option is how it is implemented in most software. Show me the button in Twitter that gives me a timeout from someone for a day, or just mutes a particular Twitter “conversation”, because it doesn’t exist.
How about a variable, mandatory time between posts?
Granted, that can be unfair to the person being dogpiled trying to respond to multiple people on the warpath and makes them “vulnerable” to being Gishgalloped out of being able to respond effectively, but perhaps there is something that could be useful?
We already have rate limits for posting in general, and additional warnings when someone posts a whole lot in the same topic such that they are dominating the conversation.
One thing I want to add is a “get a room” reminder when someone is replying to the same person over and over. It’s on my list. And you know what else is on my list?
Ah, that does seem like a better idea in the sense that you won’t be implementing a permanent “Engage Echo Chamber” button.
Id go through my download posts and find some removed ones that show just this but I promised falcor I wouldn’t refer to that person by name.
Gishgalloped
I get the idea but question the application of the principle.
List is up-to-date again. Much easier this time, as most of the thread is now an argument about cliques.
Have I seen posts flagged and deleted because of their viewpoint? Yes. How do I know? Because a Regular pointed out that post and user as perhaps suspicious, and we discussed it and, while we find the viewpoint horrible (I think it was someone coming by to gloat about Trump’s victory), we agreed that there was nothing flag-worthy. It was smug, it was a contrary viewpoint, it was full of falsehoods and unproven assertions, but it wasn’t flag-worthy. And then it got flagged into oblivion anyway.
Could a few of those flags have been contributed by Regs? I wouldn’t be surprised, but no one admitted to it afterwards. Was there a conspiracy to do so? Certainly not. Most likely, I think that ordinary Members flagged it into oblivion for its viewpoint, and then the Don’t Push Your Luck Dragon ate it for its smugness.
If there’s a system which gives you a “good feedback” button (Likes) and a “bad feedback” button (flags), then of course a few people are going to abuse it by flagging stuff they simply don’t agree with.
But any allegations of a conspiracy by the Regulars to preserve some fictional uniformity of viewpoint are ridiculous.
Unless the rumors of an Ultra-Lounge with Super-Regulars are true. If so, the evidence is probably in Hillary’s emails.
