Attempted Socialism wrote:I wondered if this thread warranted another reply, because this is getting tiresome and frankly, as Lamoni already shot down this suggestion on the first page, I only posted my second response because I wanted to clarify Shofercias ill-conceived response to my initial post (And then got dragged in -- my mistake). However, there are some things I do wish to comment on, just to set the record straight for posterity.
Setting the record straight, would that set a few things straight, like the fact that you haven't addressed the second point of the rule at all, or the fact that you didn't address the extremely successful example of political nicknaming, and won't be doing so in this post? You've also made three replies, excluding this one, after Lamoni's post, so why bring Lamoni in now?
Also, I think that not responding to the bait is wrong. Here's my proposal of how to respond to the bait:
"That's a rather mediocre bait, but, more importantly, would you care to comment on my argument, or do you feel the need to bait and run away from the argument at hand, thus conducting a bait and run from the argument? Attack the argument, not the poster making it!"Anyways, I do hope, Attempted Socialism, that the theme of your post won't be the repeated claims that my mind reader is broken, as that wouldn't apply to the crystal clear rule that I've shown, and the fact that reports will go up if the warnings are automatic, as the example with political nicknamed clearly demonstrated.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:Just because you choose not to respond to posts without chopping them up, doesn't mean that works for the rest of us.
I often like to respond point-by-point, yes. As we shall see in just a bit, this is not just for the sake of clarity -- which argument fits where -- but also a restraint on myself to actually respond to points in context, which makes my arguments more coherent and less prone to strawmen.
The problem is that when you respond point by point all the time, as you've been doing in this thread, you miss the forest for the trees. For instance, you've stated that it'll increase Rules Lawyering, but when taken as a whole the rule is explicitly clear, and won't result in rules lawyering. The only way you'd miss that, is through a point by point response, i.e. missing the forest for the trees.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:For the umpteenth time: the purpose of the rule is to deter baiting. This is what the rule does. The reason that the current rules are insufficient, is because, as stated earlier in the thread:
If you bait an opponent for da lulz or to get your opponent to flame you so that they're banhammered from NSG... you should be warned.
And you're making a very persuasive case for the rules not needing any revision. I know it's repetitive, but I'm asking what the current rules are unable to do; what you want fixed. And you point out that unreported posts go unwarned... Well, the clear solution to your problem would be to report what you think is baiting.
The very same "logic" could be applied to political nicknaming, and yet the mods felt the need to apply the political nicknaming rule. As a result, reports of political nicknaming shot up. I'm asking that the same be done for deliberate, off topic, baits, that are a clear attack on the poster.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:Posters can utilize a tactic where they viciously gang up on someone whom they don't like with baits, deliberately driving said poster to flame them, and then they get a slap on the wrist for one or two baits, while the baited poster is banhammered for a day or two. Rinse and repeat until the target leaves the forums, or is bannhammered. By providing the same degree of punishment to the baiters, as their target would receive, and ensuring that it's automatically applied, this scenario doesn't occur.
In the scenario you describe, the baiter gets one or two warnings while the baitee gets one (While apparently having quite a history to warrant a day ban). You'll have to forgive me for not seeing your grand persecution, but if people baited like you suggest, they'd be banned at the same speed their target was banned for flaming. What's the issue that the current rules can't fix?
In the scenario that I described, and in the example that was provided, which included your bait that wasn't warned, had four baiters gang up on one baitee. Each baiter would get the same, single warning as the baitee, rather than two warnings. Not even sure where you got that one from, and you seem to be rehashing old arguments rather than clarifying anything for posterity.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:You're asking me to trawl through countless NSG threads to find that, which quite frankly you and I both know exists, so it seems that you're just trying to get me to back off or waste my time, in order to protect the privilege to bait someone into being banhammered.
No, I am asking you to back up your point by providing examples of where the current rules are insufficient but your rule would solve your perceived problem; no I don't know it exists, which is why I ask for a convincing argument; no I am trying to get you to justify your suggestion; no I don't want to protect the "privilege" to bait someone. Your mindreader is really shitty, I think you should replace it.
I provided an example in the OP, and four examples subsequently, one of which was your very own. Instead of accepting the additional examples, you proceeded to claim something else entirely, a tactic known as moving the goal posts.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:And since you're going to chop up this post as well, you're hoping that other readers won't be able to see the forest, but will focus on the proverbial strawman trees that you'll knock down.
I actually like this analogy, except I think you meant the tone to be facetious.
Nope.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:That's essentially your tactic here, get me to waste my time by responding to frivolities, like "you cannot possibly be that gullible" instead of focusing on the real issue
See, this is where point-by-point responses are a help. That line was to a specific statement of yours, namely the line about master baiting. You're the one bringing up frivolities, I reject their validity because I think it's a waste of time. It's the same with your weird focus on semantics; if you have a better argument, why are you discussing frivolities?
Trawling the forums looking for baits takes several minutes, and might take even longer. Responding to imply that I don't mind puns, takes a few seconds. I can waste a few seconds, and run, instead of walk down/up the stairs to get those seconds back. Wasting ten minutes is a bigger issue.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:it seems that you're trying to defend the baiters' rights to banhammer posters with whom they disagree through the tactic that I've described, repeatedly. When I quoted your, verbatim, and your response was
"I like how blatant you make your bad faith posts."
Again, I think you need a new mindreader.
Ah yes, the repetition tactic.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Also, again, a point-by-point response here would show the context:
Shofercia wrote:This is the core of your argument, right here, and that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post:
This was specifically what I called out, since 1) it wasn't the core of my argument but rather your strawman version and 2) you actually did bother with responses to the rest of my post. If you don't bother with my post, don't bother;
So you're admitting that addressing the rule wasn't the core of your post, but pretending that I don't know what puns are, and other similar stuff, was? Thank you for the admission. Because the part that I quoted was addressing the core of my argument about the rule.
Attempted Socialism wrote:this coy BS isn't convincing anyone. Your verbatim quotes do not defend you here, rather they show how the figurative sausage is made.
You: "you quoted me out of context"
Me: "I quoted you verbatim"
You: "this coy BS isn't convincing anyone. Your verbatim quotes do not defend you here, rather they show how the figurative sausage is made."
Uh, ok...
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:Since you're so eager for me to do it, I'll clarify the tactic even further, so that even if I don't get the rule change, other NSGers will spot it and call it out:
1. Find someone whose viewpoints you revile
2. Bait them and get others to bait them
3. Wait for the eventual flame that will come, and report the flame
4. Be sure to thank the mods and tell the target that they really deserve the warning
5. Rinse and repeat
Since you've asked for an example, here you go:
I wonder who the Second Baiter is in that scenario... wasn't that you? And here you are, working to preserve that very right to bait.
These examples aren't of baiting, though.
Uh, yeah, they are. That's the crystal clear definition of a flamebait.
Attempted Socialism wrote:If you disagree, feel free to report me.
Considering that those posts were from 2017, we both know they won't be warned.
Attempted Socialism wrote:I also made a search for posts in Moderation about Keshiland, and apart from an appeal I made when
I was warned for flaming
them (I had totally forgotten about that),
this is the only post I could find. I was surprised to see how many of their warnings stemmed from some bonkers and off-topic baiting comment in the gun threads, though. If anything, Keshiland shows that the system is working fine as-is.
As you said, you were warned for flaming, not baiting.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:Edit: The reason that the bait demonstrated in the OP wasn't warned for baiting, was probably because no one reported the bait, which happens all the time on NSG, which is why I suggested automatic punishment. Had you not ignored the second point I made, you would've caught that.
... automatic punishment still requires mods to either spot it themselves and act upon it, or for it to be reported as a breach. This isn't a solution, it's pushing the issue of applying the current rules one step further away.
And as the example of political nicknaming clearly showed, reports pick up if the punishment is automatic.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:Thing is, you're saying that the bait should be warned, but that didn't happen, under the current rules. I go by what actually happened, not what should've happened. I get it, you want to preserve the privilege that baits currently have over flames on NSG, and I don't want said privilege preserved, and that's the difference between our stances.
I don't think you have adequately read my posts if you think this is my stance.
Shofercia wrote:My experience is that if someone knows that the warning's automatic, it'll be reported more frequently. I'll give you an example: Political Nicknaming was hardly ever reported, until it became warnable, and then the reports massively increased in frequency. Political Nicknaming is usually an automatic punishment, and yet it still has to be reported.
So it's...
not automatic? It still has to be reported? Again, what's the (change|addition) doing over simply applying the current rules? Apart from my point about warnings for flaming suddenly giving rise to requests for "baiters" to get warned "automatically"?
Again, the example I gave was political nicknaming. In order to usually get political nicknaming warned, it has to be reported. You knew what I meant by automatic, don't play semantic games here, you cannot possibly be that gullible.
Attempted Socialism wrote:Shofercia wrote:Attempted Socialism asked for yet another example of someone blatantly baiting a user, and getting off scot free. I provide an example of Attempted Socialism doing that very thing. If either you or Attempted Socialism don't support flamebaiting, why are you both arguing against a rule that would clearly reduce it? I'm just curious.
Because your suggested rule change is bad and you have a hard time explaining what it would do.
Some posters think it's bad, others don't, but the explanation was, and remains, crystal clear. What is unclear here?
1. Did the bait target a specific poster? If yes, proceed.
2. Did the bait address anything about the topic? If no, proceed.
3. Did the bait result in a flame from its target? If yes, proceed.
4. Was the target warned as a result? If all four steps are met, it was reported, the warning is automatic.
I think the words "did" & "the" do not require explanation. "Target" is the poster that's targeted by the bait. The words "specific" & "anything" & "about" & "topic" & "in" & "a" & so on, also have universally recognized usages. What is unclear about the rule, when taken as a whole?
Attempted Socialism wrote:Though, come to think of it, since the post you dug up of mine was 1) not baiting; 2) on topic; 3) Keshiland didn't get warned for flaming; which means according to your suggested rule, your step 4 is actually out of the question in this instance. Even if your rule had been in place, I wouldn't be warned for baiting. Your example is even worse than I thought.
Let's take a look at that post:
He doesn't even show empathy to children, it's more a freakish ownership-mentality. See current "discussion" about whether children could be allowed to see grandparents due to limiting the childrens exposure to different opinions.
It's symptomatic that what [Target] doesn't own or control is worth very little to him, and what he owns or controls better be his and only his; I don't think I've seen such a dysfunctional approach to relationships since I saw some interviews with people suffering from anti-social personality disorder, but they at least had some charisma, manipulation ability and competence at faking it. If it's any solace, [Target] doesn't have those, so all his disgusting fantasies will remain so.
The topic was:
What is your thought on marriage? You claimed that your post was on topic. Where does your post talk about marriage? The first paragraph talks about kids and grandparents, I hope that's not who you're marrying. The second talks about the Target's approach to relationships and lack of charisma, and, quite frankly, claiming that the Target is a dysfunctional uncharismatic, anti-social poster with disgusting fantasy, who cannot even fake it, is the very definition of baiting rather than posting on topic. Also, the target wasn't warned for flaming, because the target was already banned by the time mods got around to it.
Attempted Socialism wrote:United Republic Empire wrote:Also, you're coming off as implying that the player Attempted Socialism supports flamebaiting and that they do it to other people without getting in trouble for it. You may not be intentionally doing it, but that is what it looked like when I read it
I think it was pretty explicit, but not deserving of an in-depth answer, hence me repeating that Shofercias mindreader is on the blink. Given how much of this discussion has been dedicated to Shofercia arguing semantics and researching my motives (And now yours too) rather than arguing the merits of their case, I think I'll bow out. In hindsight I realise that any reply after Lamonis was a waste of time.
Ah, yes, the mindreader crap again. You know the saying, "if you repeat it enough times, it will become truth in the weak minds of some" - yeah, that applies here. Let's recap:
Your mindreader is faulty, you should adjust it.
Your mindreader is still malfunctioning.
Your mindreader is really shitty, I think you should replace it.
I think you need a new mindreader
hence me repeating that Shofercias mindreader is on the blink
And that's just the recent ones. What does the claim about my mindreader have in common with the rule that I proposed? Absolutely nothing. And Attempted Socialism knows this, so why is Attempted Socialism posting about my mindreader ad nauseum? Is this an attempt to attack the poster making the argument, rather than the argument itself?