Fuck this place
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
@Rhywden the problem is that censorship can end up emboldening the censored. It depends on how and where you do it and what you censor. I suppose you need a Germany-style piece of shit of a Führer to have the necessary guilt to enforce censorship of the Nazi ideology strongly (for instance). Having fascists really censored in Italy (fascism and apology of fascism are illegal technically) would never work.
Censoring antivaxxers would be surely counterproductive, as you would lend support to big pharma conspiracy theories.
I'm against censorship not necessarily on moral or ethical grounds, but also on practical ones.
I'm not sure that it counts as censorship when you have to say: "I disagree with you on that point" instead of: "You raging shitpiece, your opinions are garbage!"
That's why it's called "moderation" when you do it in a discussion and not censorship.
Also:
Censoring antivaxxers would be surely counterproductive, as you would lend support to big pharma conspiracy theories.
Yeah, because we don't have those already. I draw the line at lending support to harassing people and being responsible for the deaths of infants. You're currently seeing the backlash of this: Children being banned from schools, cracking down on exemptions and so on. And before you ask: Yes, that goes for all extremes, left, right, up, down, I don't care.
There are literal troll brigades on Facebook, Twitter and so on which only wait for someone to pop up and be pro-vaccinations. Your child is not your property.
-
@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:
I'm not sure that it counts as censorship when you have to say: "I disagree with you on that point" instead of: "You raging shitpiece, your opinions are garbage!"
That's why it's called "moderation" when you do it in a discussion and not censorship.Yeah, but there's a thin line. E.g. if someone thinks that something is an identity, and someone else thinks it's a mental illness, is that an insult to say so? Etc. And it just spirals from there to "holding these views is offensive".
-
@HardwareGeek There doesn't seem to be anything in any other threads either.
-
@MathNerdCNU said in Fuck this place:
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck this place:
It's only where people argue with ...[intentional omissision]... accuse the other of arguing in bad faith...[also intentional omission] that the Garage becomes toxic.
Wasn't the point of posting in Garage, that one waived good faith arguing? Did that change or am I just a dingus? I know I haven't been round these parts in awhile but I thought the point of the Garage was to leave you baggage at the door and Thunder-Dome-your-diffrences?
I never saw it as a place to intentionally start a brawl for the sake of brawling. I always saw it more as a place for discussions on topics that were likely to (or already had) become flame wars. Except for the occasional humorous snark that isn't out of place in the rest of the forum, I don't argue in bad faith even in the Garage. Maybe others do intentionally argue in bad faith there, and if so, that might be the source of the friction.
-
@pie_flavor said in Fuck this place:
@Rhywden Yeah, but there's a thin line. E.g. if someone thinks that something is an identity, and someone else thinks it's a mental illness, is that an insult to say so? Etc. And it just spirals from there to "holding these views is offensive".
So you get an escalation in that case, a spiral you called it.
One problem with this line of thought: If person A already thinks that something is an identity and someone else is yelling at him that it's a mental illness - does that somehow make the situation better? There will be no escalation, no flinging of insults?
I'm not sure that this is the best example you could have gone with. Because you've got trouble either way.
-
@HardwareGeek I feel your interpretation of the garage is reasonable, however my position was colored by the
days so...that should explain that. Wasn't there a "super cereal" part of the forums for genuine debate or am I mis-remembering again? Now I feel old. @boomzilla this is your fault and I demand a refund.
-
The Garage is not the problem, the Garage leaking is the problem. Lorne is the primary instigator of that, other than Polygeekery occasionally bringing down Salon threads. The rest of this thread is irrelevant inside the Garage (even the OP - it's not search indexable for exactly this reason). If you complain that it's an echo chamber, go in and argue the other side. If you complain that it's a screaming flaming trolling match, then you have missed the point of the Garage. If you complain that this exists at all on this forum, then leave the group and you don't have to see that it exists. If you are being met with the same insult over and over again from multiple people, you have likely earned it - imagine if @Gribnit went full crybaby over being called a loony.
-
@MathNerdCNU Yes there is, the Civilized Salon.
-
@MathNerdCNU said in Fuck this place:
Wasn't there a "super cereal" part of the forums for genuine debate or am I mis-remembering again?
IIRC the Civilized Salon was created as a Garage-lite, where political topics could theoretically be discussed without calling each other alt-right mental commie nazis.
-
@hungrier I rather liked the floof tax.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck this place:
It's only where people argue with strawmen, ignore or misunderstand what the other person wrote, accuse the other of arguing in bad faith, and finally start flinging personal insults that the Garage becomes toxic
But this happens immediately.
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
@Gąska according to the posts in the thread, the situation has become worse in time. In my own experience, voteless forums tended to be a bit more civilised.
Yeah, uh, many of the old CS threads weren't much different.
-
@MathNerdCNU said in Fuck this place:
I know I haven't been round these parts in awhile but I thought the point of the Garage was to leave you baggage at the door and Thunder-Dome-your-diffrences?
We have a Thunderdome for that, actually.
-
@Gribnit So that's what it's for - you should have said.
-
@pie_flavor Someone said Fun-der-dome? Close enough to Thunder-dome. Let's do this!
-
@Groaner Lord knows you could have Signature Guy'd a voting system with a little effort.
-
@pie_flavor I'm not saying that's what it's for and I'm not telling you what it's for. What the Thunderdome is for is too obvious to explain.
-
@Gribnit It's where you go to poop after eating mexican food, right?
-
@Gribnit said in Fuck this place:
@MathNerdCNU said in Fuck this place:
I know I haven't been round these parts in awhile but I thought the point of the Garage was to leave you baggage at the door and Thunder-Dome-your-diffrences?
We have a Thunderdome for that, actually.
Considering that it has a definitive lack of "Finish him!" announcers, it's rather more "Fartdome" or "Soundthatairmakescomingoutofaballoondome".
-
@pie_flavor said in Fuck this place:
@Groaner Lord knows you could have Signature Guy'd a voting system with a little effort.
CS was running out of memory and space like it was, ninja-ing a voting system which needs to store state somewhere might have well triggered a work-induced ban from the administrators when they caught anyone trying it.
-
@Gribnit said in Fuck this place:
FOR POSTERITY: If you want to see what kind of deranged assholes people on this forum really are, check out the garage. The depth of head-up-assedness will stun you. You will find yourself wondering how people managed the sane posts you had seen elsewhere. Also you'll be really surprised how closely libertarianism can align itself with the far right.
Is there any behavior in particular you'd like to call out?
-
@Groaner Oh, oh, oh! Pick me! Pick me!
-
@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:
@pie_flavor said in Fuck this place:
@Rhywden Yeah, but there's a thin line. E.g. if someone thinks that something is an identity, and someone else thinks it's a mental illness, is that an insult to say so? Etc. And it just spirals from there to "holding these views is offensive".
So you get an escalation in that case, a spiral you called it.
One problem with this line of thought: If person A already thinks that something is an identity and someone else is yelling at him that it's a mental illness - does that somehow make the situation better? There will be no escalation, no flinging of insults?
It seems to me that the person who thinks it's a mental illness will almost always be accused of yelling, because the person who thinks it's simply an identity takes the other person's opinion as a serious personal insult.
OTOH, the person who thinks it's an identity will almost always be accused of screeching, because the person who thinks it's simply a mental illness takes the other person's expression of their opinion as further evidence for his perspective.I'm not sure that this is the best example you could have gone with. Because you've got trouble either way.
Yes, that was his point.
-
@djls45 That's not what I mean by "moderation", however. Again, it's not censorship. Also, that example shows only that censorship is as bad as completely free speech, for that specific example.
There's also the question of what you hope to achieve by doing this. I mean, from what I always hear is that it's supposed to be an "exchange of ideas" and stuff.
An exchange implies willing recipients. In this case, such an extreme disparity of opinions - because one person will view either of the two options as an attack - will have no useful result at all. Neither will have changed anyone's mind.
Free speech solely for free speech's sake does not make any sense to me. Behind every speech there's always a purpose. Or you wouldn't have spoken it.
If you aim to convince someone attacking the person is not a good way to do it. If you aim to make your opinion known then you need to frame it in a way such that it is not perceived as an attack. After you've done so you could then ask, for example, why the classification as a mental illness is such a problem. Basics of discussion: Evaluating standpoints, showing an interest, analyzing differences and commonalities.
If you only want to rile up the other person or are not willing to moderate your statements to make your opinion palatable then I'm questioning whether that type of speech is such a great idea.
A proper discussion about divisive topics is difficult. Just letting all rules fly loose and cackle "Free speech, bitches!" is easy, cheap and will not serve any purpose other than to fortifying everyone's already hardened positions.
-
Alright, here's my take on the fundamental problem here:
Garage leakage has definitely happened, and is definitely the surface-level issue. I think there are two deeper causes for that.
The garage is such a right-wing circle jerk, nobody who doesn't already hold those values would ever want to seriously post there. Because the garage is known to be an "anything goes"-type area, the likelihood of being insulted and downboated as opposed to actually having a discussion is effectively guaranteed.
I've seen the salon described as "the garage with sugar coating," an assessment I basically agree with. Even if there aren't literally people calling others unhinged with mental health issues, you still have the same mob saying the same things repeatedly until the other side gets bored with it all.
So that's why I think there is a group of people with similar mindsets who post garage content in other categories and steadfastly refuse to take it "where it belongs": in their view, the only things that "belong" in the garage are right wing American ideals.
Beyond the idea of two separate garages (ooh!
a category every side of every issue!), what could be preferable is if garage posters made a conscious effort not to resort to argumentum ad hominem at every single opportunity that presents itself.That's why things start out of the garage in the first place. Then there's the problem of it staying out. The responsibility for this lies squarely on the moderators. If they can't be bothered to move posts appropriately, kneeling warthog and so on, then they simply shouldn't be moderators. Moderation is an actual responsibility and not simply an ability.
@boomzilla is probably the most active moderator by any metric. Yet I feel that he just can't help but have trolleybussing garage discussions (for a rather lenient definition of "discuss") wherever there are libtards to be owned rather than jeffing as appropriate.
Just remember it takes two to tango, and as was mentioned many times in "Going Daily Postal", it's not garage worthy until someone else takes the bait and starts the flaming.
And above all,
-
@kazitor said in Fuck this place:
The garage is such a right-wing circle jerk, nobody who doesn't already hold those values would ever want to seriously post there.
I post in the Garage and I do not identify as right-wing.
Beyond the idea of two separate garages (ooh!
a category every side of every issue!), what could be preferable is if garage posters made a conscious effort not to resort to argumentum ad hominem at every single opportunity that presents itself.I think in general, they do. The times I remember people descending into ad hominem off the top of my head all were the result of exasperation, such as being in the midst of thousand-post flamewars with someone like
.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Fuck this place:
@Cursorkeys said in Fuck this place:
The garage has been leaking a lot and the easy solution for that is for the mods to do their job and put it back there. And it is a job, in reward for the poistion you have to donate your time, if you don't want that then elect another mod(s).
I don't agree at all with @Weng that he's powerless to act without some form of forum constitution, I've been a mod on a decently large forum and we didn't have a hard list of rules, you talked with other staff if it was something that might be borderline but otherwise you just acted with your best judgement. There doesn't seem to be much point in you existing as a mod otherwise?
It doesn't have to always be the stick either, edit the offending post and just warn the user, most people can take the hint.That would probably require more mods around here...
I mean, if I were mod.... Wait, stop tricking is into giving a campaign speech!
-
@Deadfast said in Fuck this place:
Given my location, often times when I log on the discussion is long over.
I've wondered...
-
@loopback0 said in Fuck this place:
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
@Deadfast if voting were disabled in the Garage what would you do?
It would make no difference because no-one posts shit just for likes
but... I'll be the first to admit I don't Garage correctly.
-
@Weng said in Fuck this place:
@brie So is your argument that the only reason people don't abuse their power is because they may be held to account later?
Because that's a neat philosophical debate that doesn't need to be buried here.
Quick! Jeff it out before it frowns!
-
@Groaner said in Fuck this place:
I post in the Garage and I do not identify as right-wing.
Me too. I am filthy centrist.
-
@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:
There's also the question of what you hope to achieve by doing this. I mean, from what I always hear is that it's supposed to be an "exchange of ideas" and stuff.
An exchange implies willing recipients. In this case, such an extreme disparity of opinions - because one person will view either of the two options as an attack - will have no useful result at all. Neither will have changed anyone's mind.
Free speech solely for free speech's sake does not make any sense to me. Behind every speech there's always a purpose. Or you wouldn't have spoken it.
My purpose, when I engage, is not always to change the other person's mind; but rather to provide another perspective so that others who read my posts can perhaps see that it is not necessarily an evil or illogical thing to hold a different position.
If you aim to convince someone attacking the person is not a good way to do it. If you aim to make your opinion known then you need to frame it in a way such that it is not perceived as an attack. After you've done so you could then ask, for example, why the classification as a mental illness is such a problem. Basics of discussion: Evaluating standpoints, showing an interest, analyzing differences and commonalities.
That's really hard to do (perhaps impossible), though, when the other person just assumes bad-faith and reacts accordingly. Both sides have to act appropriately.
If you only want to rile up the other person or are not willing to moderate your statements to make your opinion palatable then I'm questioning whether that type of speech is such a great idea.
A proper discussion about divisive topics is difficult. Just letting all rules fly loose and cackle "Free speech, bitches!" is easy, cheap and will not serve any purpose other than to fortifying everyone's already hardened positions.
Do you know of a way to tell the difference between a troll and someone who honestly holds that opinion (and therefore may honestly change it if engaged in an honest manner)?
I would guess that the Founders of the USA Constitution who passed the Bill of Rights thought long and hard about that and couldn't come up with anything that couldn't eventually be used to silence "wrong-think" from whichever corners of the political spectra become most unpopular.Also, to reiterate something that seems to come up not infrequently, the right to free speech does not entail the right to be heard: "I can say whatever I wish, but no one is required to listen to me." I have come to the understanding that there is a method of hiding posts from people who seem to be egregiously caustic, so as to avoid having to "listen" to them.
-
@kazitor to be honest, despite it being one big circlejerk and an echo chamber of generically libertarian right-wing ideas (for lack of a better term, I'm looking at you G(on)ska), I quite enjoy the Garage. It allows me to see a different viewpoint to the echo chamber that my other social media are (usually liberal in the American sense). We don't get that many libertarians in Europe, we're too smart for that
but I appreciate that they have a specific viewpoint that I personally find 
but it is somewhat coherent. And for many reasons I actually share with them a certain "attitude" about social interaction on a certain fundamental level. Of course, if the participants were less hellbent on making it a shouting/sniggering contest it would be better but it wouldn't be the Garage, I suppose (I still don't think there is that much value in the Garage being such a free-for-all, meaning that, even though I get the need for an "unsafe space", I find it a bit juvenile especially in the long run) and I realise that it's beyond their capabilities 
and I don't usually take offence because in the end it's just the Internet innit?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Fuck this place:
@e4tmyl33t said in Fuck this place:
@Cursorkeys said in Fuck this place:
The garage has been leaking a lot and the easy solution for that is for the mods to do their job and put it back there. And it is a job, in reward for the poistion you have to donate your time, if you don't want that then elect another mod(s).
I don't agree at all with @Weng that he's powerless to act without some form of forum constitution, I've been a mod on a decently large forum and we didn't have a hard list of rules, you talked with other staff if it was something that might be borderline but otherwise you just acted with your best judgement. There doesn't seem to be much point in you existing as a mod otherwise?
It doesn't have to always be the stick either, edit the offending post and just warn the user, most people can take the hint.That would probably require more mods around here...
I mean, if I were mod.... Wait, stop tricking is into giving a campaign speech!
I'm curious. How does one get to become a moderator?
It seems we have 5 mods, but two of them seem to be inactive/gone. Wouldn't there be a corresponding increase of work (yeah, yeah,
) for the remaining ones? Oughtn't they be replaced?
-
@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
@Rhywden the problem is that censorship can end up emboldening the censored. It depends on how and where you do it and what you censor. I suppose you need a Germany-style piece of shit of a Führer to have the necessary guilt to enforce censorship of the Nazi ideology strongly (for instance). Having fascists really censored in Italy (fascism and apology of fascism are illegal technically) would never work.
Censoring antivaxxers would be surely counterproductive, as you would lend support to big pharma conspiracy theories.
I'm against censorship not necessarily on moral or ethical grounds, but also on practical ones.
I'm not sure that it counts as censorship when you have to say: "I disagree with you on that point" instead of: "You raging shitpiece, your opinions are garbage!"
Yes, being hateful isn't very productive and can sometimes end up dangerous. But the problem is, what's hateful and what's not is itself a heavily debated point. Does criticizing the government count as hate speech? What if you're criticizing the government for helping the minorities? What if you're criticizing the government for wasting shitloads of money on stupid and pointless things when the official justification for wasting money on stupid and pointless things is helping the minorities? Or in another discipline - is doing research looking for a way to debunk some mainstream scientific theory hate speech? What if the research is about controversial issues, like correlation of gender or race with other personality or societal traits? Should science rescind itself from ever researching anything that could be viewed as controversial? That would be kinda bad, as controversial issues usually arise when there is some big problem with the world - and the best way to tackle any problem is always science (when applicable). Artificially limiting science artificially limits humanity's potential to solve problems. Also - what if a researcher wants to sustain the mainstream hypothesis, but the test results don't give a shit and prove it wrong? Should they be treated differently from the researchers that perform the same experiments and get the same results but have the opposite hypothesis at the start?
Of course there's bad science that leads to wrong conclusions due to systemic errors and the like - but is getting rid of it worth the associated costs? How much does it hurt us really? And there's the problem that we don't really know whether something actually is bad science until we do even more science on the topic.
The worst thing that can happen is to have a government body that decides whether something is hate speech on case by case basis. If you want to avoid fascism, you have to assume bad actors in the government. Consider what could happen if the mentioned government body consisted of only bad actors. If you think that couldn't possibly happen - look who's the president of the United States..
Near the other end of spectrum, you have very strict, very precise rules that are not open for any interpretation. Precise, but not necessarily limited in scope - what matters is whether any layperson can tell without any difficulty whether a given statement falls under it. "Nobody can use the N word under any circumstances, ever" is quite broad but also very precise. In this case, what's the worst case scenario? Well, you could end up with overly restrictive or just plain wrong rules - but the thing is, their restrictiveness or wrongness would be plain as day. You wouldn't have to make up hypothetical (or wait for sufficiently bad real) scenarios of "how this could be abused" to make your point. Anyone with half a brain would be able to see the problem just by reading the rule itself. And that would promptly push people to demand that rule to be repealed - or in most cases, to not have this rule enacted in the first place. The other problem would be too few rules which don't prohibit evil hard enough. And there's even more obvious solution here - enact more rules! As long as they're clear, precise, and agreeable, it will work. As you can see, the potential for things to go horribly wrong is much lesser than with authoritative committee.
-
@Gąska one thing: arbitrary rules are not necessarily wrong. I have my own idea of right and wrong for starters (basically there is no right and wrong, there is "we like" and "we don't like") but anyway they are just rules. Rules which are imposed or bargained, and which you are free to break and subsequently take responsibility for such breakage (heroically, if you wish). The fact that such rules exist is not an absolute negative though, especially for such a niche like this forum (I'd argue that huge social media such as Facebook or Twitter or whatever may have more of a social responsibility, as banning certain ideas from such an important avenue goes very close to real-life censorship). I don't think that a web forum is the place for grand narratives and big concepts anyway, sometimes rules are just there for convenience (of management mostly). You can do without explicit rules, and I prefer it that way, but let's not get carried away.
-
@Carnage said in Fuck this place:
I could be a mod
I nominate you for mod over.... Sandbox!
@e4tmyl33t said in Fuck this place:
require more mods
Your nomination is for.... Sidebar WTF!
@bb36e said in Fuck this place:
I have no idea why
You can have General Help!
@Karla said in Fuck this place:
What?
You can be lord over FAQs!
@Gribnit said in Fuck this place:
@Karla I wasn't trying to be helpful.
Thy domain shall be Coder Challenge!
@topspin said in Fuck this place:
Really?
You are called to the position of Mod in the area of Flags/Badges!
@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:
after all.
It has been decreed you should be purveyor of the Error'd category!
@wft said in Fuck this place:
upvote this several times
It was foretold that one such as you should be Viscont of Spam!
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
practical ones.
Your contract here reads for you to be the supervisor of TBD.
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck this place:
the happy place
The ledger shows you're up next for team lead over Bot Testing!
@loopback0 said in Fuck this place:
not enough.
The sticks have been drawn, and yours has written on it...
The I-Hate-Oracle Club!@pie_flavor said in Fuck this place:
the job description.
As has been given by divine revelation, thou shalt be master over Migration!
@blek said in Fuck this place:
in any other threads either.
By way of random dice roll... You are thus named mod of the Look At Me! category!
@Gribnit said in Fuck this place:
But this happens immediately.
This signed communique appears to indicate your immediate stewardship over Games!
@Groaner said in Fuck this place:
much different.
A special delivery just arrived, and it seems to be an award declaring your new position of Supervisor of Mafia!
@MathNerdCNU said in Fuck this place:
Let's do this!
The Twitter Polls are very decisive here. You are now Overseer of PBP RPGs!
@JBert said in Fuck this place:
triggered a work-induced ban from the administrators
I just got a text with a confirmation code. Seems to have unlocked a loot box that gave you Perm for the Meta category!
@djls45 said in Fuck this place:
Yes, that was his point.
The sand has settled, and in it are written the words "@djls45 is now mod over Funny Stuff"...
@kazitor said in Fuck this place:
And above all,
This calm imposing figure behind me has made me understand that you shall be flamed into Spam!
...
....
Wait, well, fuck, I reached the end of the thread before all category mod positions were filled!
Whelp...
-
@Tsaukpaetra you picked @Gribnit twice. You had one job.
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
@Tsaukpaetra you picked @Gribnit twice. You had one job.
It was getting long and I ran out of memory so...
-
@admiral_p Could be worse. You could be like @Gribnit and have two jobs.
-
@pie_flavor said in Fuck this place:
@admiral_p Could be worse. You could be like @Gribnit and have two jobs.
Considering the post rate in the two mentioned categories, that's not saying much...
-
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
let's not get carried away
That would be against this forum's rules.
-
@admiral_p I think there's only a handful who participate in the Garage who are just there to mock certain viewpoints. There does seem to be a lot of "ganging up" against certain people (who seem to be mostly towards the left), but I think that's simply because there are more who lean more towards the right, so it's just how the numbers play out. It's interesting, even with a somewhat non-left bias, to see the various individual distinctions among everyone's positions.
-
List of nominations
@Tsaukpaetra said in Fuck this place:
@Carnage said in Fuck this place:
I could be a mod
I nominate you for mod over.... Sandbox!
@e4tmyl33t said in Fuck this place:
require more mods
Your nomination is for.... Sidebar WTF!
@bb36e said in Fuck this place:
I have no idea why
You can have General Help!
@Karla said in Fuck this place:
What?
You can be lord over FAQs!
@Gribnit said in Fuck this place:
@Karla I wasn't trying to be helpful.
Thy domain shall be Coder Challenge!
@topspin said in Fuck this place:
Really?
You are called to the position of Mod in the area of Flags/Badges!
@Rhywden said in Fuck this place:
after all.
It has been decreed you should be purveyor of the Error'd category!
@wft said in Fuck this place:
upvote this several times
It was foretold that one such as you should be Viscont of Spam!
@admiral_p said in Fuck this place:
practical ones.
Your contract here reads for you to be the supervisor of TBD.
@HardwareGeek said in Fuck this place:
the happy place
The ledger shows you're up next for team lead over Bot Testing!
@loopback0 said in Fuck this place:
not enough.
The sticks have been drawn, and yours has written on it...
The I-Hate-Oracle Club!@pie_flavor said in Fuck this place:
the job description.
As has been given by divine revelation, thou shalt be master over Migration!
@blek said in Fuck this place:
in any other threads either.
By way of random dice roll... You are thus named mod of the Look At Me! category!
@Gribnit said in Fuck this place:
But this happens immediately.
This signed communique appears to indicate your immediate stewardship over Games!
@Groaner said in Fuck this place:
much different.
A special delivery just arrived, and it seems to be an award declaring your new position of Supervisor of Mafia!
@MathNerdCNU said in Fuck this place:
Let's do this!
The Twitter Polls are very decisive here. You are now Overseer of PBP RPGs!
@JBert said in Fuck this place:
triggered a work-induced ban from the administrators
I just got a text with a confirmation code. Seems to have unlocked a loot box that gave you Perm for the Meta category!
@djls45 said in Fuck this place:
Yes, that was his point.
The sand has settled, and in it are written the words "@djls45 is now mod over Funny Stuff"...
@kazitor said in Fuck this place:
And above all,
This calm imposing figure behind me has made me understand that you shall be flamed into Spam!
...
....
Wait, well, fuck, I reached the end of the thread before all category mod positions were filled!
Whelp...
I second these nominations!
All in favor...
-
@Groaner said in Fuck this place:
I post in the Garage and I do not identify as right-wing.
I do. Well, I identify as center-right, but probably just about everyone left of me would identify me as right, and I'm sure some would even call me far-right.
The times I remember people descending into ad hominem off the top of my head all were the result of exasperation, such as being in the midst of thousand-post flamewars with someone like
.Exasperation, yes, but I think most of it, at least since @Fox was escorted off the premises, is with people who insist that person A said "X" when person A denies saying it, or "reads between the lines" to insist they meant it even if they didn't exactly say it, or OTOH, when person A continues to insist they didn't say "X" when presented with a quote of them saying "X." This is exasperating, and I see it happen on all sides of the debates.
-
@HardwareGeek It helps when you really nail down what the definition of "is" is
-
@Tsaukpaetra But... I don’t even read that!
Well, as long as it’s not the Likes or Swampy thread. 😱
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Fuck this place:
@wft said in Fuck this place:
upvote this several times
It was foretold that one such as you should be Viscont of Spam!
@kazitor said in Fuck this place:
And above all,
This calm imposing figure behind me has made me understand that you shall be flamed into Spam!
:face_with_raised_eyebrow_from_ANYTHING_but_emojione_if_the_tdwtf_emoji_plugin_thing_had_a_face_with_raised_eyebrow_would_that_override_the_shitty_one:
-
@kazitor said in Fuck this place:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Fuck this place:
@wft said in Fuck this place:
upvote this several times
It was foretold that one such as you should be Viscont of Spam!
@kazitor said in Fuck this place:
And above all,
This calm imposing figure behind me has made me understand that you shall be flamed into Spam!
:face_with_raised_eyebrow_from_ANYTHING_but_emojione_if_the_tdwtf_emoji_plugin_thing_had_a_face_with_raised_eyebrow_would_that_override_the_shitty_one:
...
....
Next time I'm using a spreadsheet.
