@saosmash said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
I feel like no arguments get more heated in the constructive part of the forum than arguments about our moderation standards. I've now read this whole thread and I'm honestly not sure why.
Yeah. I asked for examples of people dogpiling for no reason, and I was delivered it in spades.
@auspice said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@tempest said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Did I not get the memo on "gaslighting is the new buzzword"? I swear this is the only place I hear this phrase come up more than once in a blue moon, and weirdly enough, it seems to only ever come from a certain crowd.
I do not think I have ever made the accusation on these boards. However, it was the specifically naming SunnyJ as someone who complains about dogpiling/attacks/et al that pinged my spidey senses here because SunnyJ is probably one of the more chill people on the boards who has no fucks to give on a general basis.
As for the 'arguing with' I actually noted to Gany and Ark both already that this is already, very obviously, a troll and what my personal recommendation is.
Oh, I think sunnyj is the guy who said the sjw thing, or maybe the c-word in the other thread. That's why I brought them up. I absolutely may have been misremembering.
Also, I'm not a puppet or anything. Just a lurker who realizes once again why this site's many iterations are just the same 20 conversations on repeat for the past 15 years. My mistake for having a calm and rational discussion in the constructive forum.
@tempest said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Did I not get the memo on "gaslighting is the new buzzword"? I swear this is the only place I hear this phrase come up more than once in a blue moon, and weirdly enough, it seems to only ever come from a certain crowd.
Yeah, people are very upset that I disagreed with them online about disagreements online so they're reaching as hard as they can. They can go back to it. There's a reason I tend toward just lurking.
@ganymede said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
You're still sort of buying into the weird idea that assholes put out that 'dogpiling' is inherently negative.
Why would you state your opinion in opposition to another's when someone else has said exactly the same thing?
What are you adding to the conversation?
That's what I'm saying - why does only one person get to express any given opinion? Why is a person saying 'yeah I agree with poster#378, this isn't a good thing to do'. a heinous crime?
You have to understand how silly this question is, right?
@auspice said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@roz said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee something something don't call people assholes outside the hog pit something something
Honestly, I'm seeing more some disturbing levels of gaslighting attempts at this point.
In what way? I feel like I've been very consistent.
@three-eyed-crow said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
I don't even so much want downvotes back (dear God the wangsting, and I'm sure it'd create more mod problems) as I miss a mild form of 'this is incorrect' between just putting a user on ignore (which is what I've taken to doing when a poster makes the same nonsense asshole post over and over again) and joining in dogpiling.
You're still sort of buying into the weird idea that assholes put out that 'dogpiling' is inherently negative. Speaking up about your opinions, even if other people disagree with them, is a good thing to do. Don't buy into the narrative of the sunnyj's and lisse24's that claim they're 'being attacked' when someone disagrees with them. That's how shitty opinions go unanswered, and its a good way to let a place become poison.
edit: Using dogpiling as distinct from 'hogpiling' or whatever we want to call it, where you're just an unrepentant asshole for no reason. Disagreement =/= being an asshole.
@bored said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
I'm not sure it's a 'level of venom' thing. I imagine most people would agree I'm one of the more willingly combative posters and don't think the hog pit should go away. Sometimes torches and pitchforks are the required answer, particularly as it pertains to some of the forum's original function as a space where people can report on game abuses away from on-game censorship or reprisal (although the reprisals still happen, as we saw on the SF/Spider thread). Sometimes the vicious dog-pile is social correction.
And I very strongly believe we always need a space where someone can go 'look at this shitstain of a corrupt creeping fucknugget staffer and their garbage pile of a game, AVOID AVOID AVOID'. And when the staffers come on to defend their shitty behavior, they get dogpiled and it's glorious and proper. I support watching those people flail and dig their holes, and moderation in those cases would almost certainly be abused by the guilty staff to silence their detractors.
But I also recognize the value of having constructive spaces and have
badgered until the mods gave inargued for the creation of places for people who want the civil discussion. That's actually how we got the Game Dev section. But civil discussion really means civil discussion, if that's what you want. In that thread, I had been suggesting that it get a higher standard of moderation per the desire of people like @surreality and @faraday who wanted somewhere they could discuss ideas with very strict controls on criticism.We got the new forum, but we didn't get the higher moderation standard. So we still just have more of this shitty weird moderation that's hands off except when they personally disagree or don't like someone, that promotes 'attack the idea not the person' but has no fucking clue of where that line is (as mod participation in the OC thread demonstrated), etc. I don't know that we need a forum-wide revolution but yeah, maybe test 'actually be nice' on the forum where that was supposed to be the goal? Instead of just more half-assing it.
I'd agree with most of this. But, I still haven't seen it be near as bad as it was back in the heyday of angry grump posting that this site's previous iterations have seen and I'll stand by that, whether I've been actively posting or not.
@three-eyed-crow said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee
Yeah, I mean, if you look at the member list, the majority of users registered lurk and don't post a ton, which is most forums. I think it's interesting to read what someone uninvolved in the same fight 20 times thinks, because it's probably not wrapped up in petty grudges from that asshole who upvoted a post where somebody was mean about me that time or whatever.
Yeah, I dunno. I guess I've seen some slapfights, but it feels to me more like 'omg its the 6 fingered man making a post! I must defeat them now!!!' more than 'these posts are particularly vitriolic and negative to a degree that demands almost 300 posts about whether its ok to have more than one person disagree with an opinion'.
People are mad because mu*ers have been mad for decades because we're all miserable weirdos. That's why we play online TT nerd games where we pretend to be sexy vampires.
And like you said. Posters can't even deal with being DOWNVOTED. The least in your face version of disagreement. The problem is that a lot of people on this forum seem to be very inured to the idea that they can say and do whatever they want, and anyone saying that they disagree is the same as a punch in the face, or government censorship.
I think that's silly.
@ganymede said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
When I said "absence of experience," I was referring to your self-professed inactivity on places like this. What I was saying is that we've tread through a particular topic before, which is why some of us are exasperated with certain ideas, arguments, or situations.
And when I said I'd been around for forever, it meant that I've been reading all those threads right alongside you. And I haven't noticed anything like the level of venom that some people are claiming is happening here. I also have admitted several times that I could be wrong. Don't try to diminish my contributions because I have a low post count.
@ganymede said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
I'm not trying to be rude, but I've asked two or three people for examples now, and they've been unable to provide them. It's starting to look like maybe this problem is imagined more than experienced.
Examples are not the same as evidence.
Faraday's point is clear to me: why should I spend my time nattering with assholes? It seems like a silly thing to do, if one wishes to avoid them.
We all know how the Hog Pit works. Since you're new, you're probably not seeing how the toxicity consistently bleeds from there into other places, like here, in the Mildly Constructive area. But this is something we've talked about before.
So, your lack of evidence is more of an absence of experience to me.
I've been around since wora (or swofa? whichever was first I never remember the acronym order) and been mu*ing for 20 years. I'm posting for the first time in a while, and even back then I wasn't very prolific. I brought that up a few times in my posts. It definitely has happened. It doesn't regularly happen anymore very often, the hog pit does a good job with that from what I've seen. I absolutely accept that I could be wrong - but again, in this isntance even? Which is being treated like a hogpiling? It was one person being politely asked not to say a word, and a few people eyerolling at his 'OMG SJWWWW!!!!!!!' reply to that. Then another person stomped in and, because they consider themselves a conservative, decided that they were being attacked when someone else was asked not to say the c word.
@auspice said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Someone claiming to represent a group =/= what the group represents. Harassing a victim of unwanted sexual contact for speaking out is not at all in line with the ideals of social justice or really even being a good person.
There are violent jerks in every subgroup. They do not tend to define the subgroup, unless the subgroup itself is founded on violent, jerk-like beliefs (see: white supremacists, etc.)And yet that is what a good number of political disagreements come down to. It's what a lot of things on these boards come down to.
@Templari brought it up early on. We witnessed it again later.
Right-wing supremacists are terrible. Even most conservatives will agree to that. Yet there are very public places on the internet where all you see is 'All conservatives/Republicans/Centrists/Libertarians are idiots/racists/nazis/etc'.
In this day and age, people believe that the subset is the entire group. That even if the main group decries them, works against them, routes them at, the main group is still, in the end, at fault. I mean, churches like Westboro have, for many, come to define Christianity despite the fact that true Christians utterly loathe them as well.
It does not matter that 'SJW' had good "intentions," it has become sullied. So, so many people have seen vicious, terrible attacks. Been viciously, terribly attacked themselves that they want nothing to do with the term. That they immediately shy away from anyone who will bear it 'loud and proud' because to them that's a warning sign already.
This isn't really the place for the political direction you're attempting to take this conversation. I'd readily welcome some PMs, or a post in the politics subforum though. There was no evidence of the insane psychopathy you are attempting to paint people who don't want to be called the c-word with in the thread that's being discussed. Nor have I seen evidence of it on these forums.
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee - I already do stay out of the hog pit, but thank you for the suggestion. And the moderators are already well aware of the types of threads I'm referring to, since they're the ones moving them to the hog pit. I really see no value in hunting them down so people can debate each one individually. If you haven't seen it? Great. But it definitely exists.
If you don't want to provide evidence that's fine, but it doesn't make your arguments very compelling. I'm not trying to be rude, but I've asked two or three people for examples now, and they've been unable to provide them. It's starting to look like maybe this problem is imagined more than experienced.
I realize you aren't talking about just this instance, but.. that's the only one that started this thread. And it's the only one I've discussed. By all means, if you want to discuss other instances? Please bring them up here! I'm sure people will be more than willing to talk about those and how to improve.
That said, in response to your last paragraph:
Your mental health is more important than the latest gossip about which 6 dicked Crinos BSD player is banging which of the latest crop of Arx Princesses this week and why that's a really bad thing for the community. Stay out of the Hog Pit, and have staff dish out bans/deletions when people do weird stuff outside of it. I've been lurking for a while and I haven't really seen it. It's definitely been a thing in the past, but the quoted post on page 1 that Ark used as an example was certainly not an example of hogpiling in any way, shape, or form. And that was FROM the hog pit!
@auspice said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
someone using SJW (a person who has chosen to not be a dickwad online)
One could argue the usage of 'dick' there is utilizing a gendered slur and thus we have come full circle.
And many of the people who label themselves 'SJW' can be very violent, threatening individuals. Oh, sure, they avoid gendered, homophobic, transphobic, and racial slurs, but there are those who will dox people, stalk them, threaten them, and engage in other forms of utterly gross behavior.
I recently reported a woman to Twitter (who did, indeed, acknowledge that it was out of line) because she was harassing Terry Crews for being 'just out for a quick dollar' for speaking out about his sexual harassment. In many of her posts to him, she was outright telling him to kill himself. But her profile proudly proclaimed her as a feminist and SJW.
So yes, for many people, SJW is a bad thing nowadays. It is not 'someone who just doesn't behave poorly online' because many, many who call themselves that do.
Someone claiming to represent a group =/= what the group represents. Harassing a victim of unwanted sexual contact for speaking out is not at all in line with the ideals of social justice or really even being a good person.
There are violent jerks in every subgroup. They do not tend to define the subgroup, unless the subgroup itself is founded on violent, jerk-like beliefs (see: white supremacists, etc.)
I'll give you dickwad and retract that - with the understanding that you are able to understand the difference between a gendered insult toward a man and a gendered insult toward a woman based on the historical power disparity there. Being a dick doesn't prevent you from getting promotions, and is frequently seen as a positive quality in a powerful person who 'gets stuff done'. Being a c-word is never a good thing. This false equivalency is kind of lame and very played out in tyool 2018.
@ganymede said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Absolutely, that seems very reasonable to me. the majority of my position has been 'Calm down about people disagreeing with you online everyone. It's not the end of the world.'
In response to that, I would say: that's one part of it.
The other part is: if arguing on the internet is pointless, then so is hyperbole; type clearly and concisely if you are actually trying to say something meaningful.
I guess. I disagree with you there. To me it's more this:
There is a social cost with being an asshole (using sjw as a pejorative, saying the c-word, etc.). If you don't want to pay the social cost of being an asshole (being made fun of, ostracism, hyperbolically negative replies, etc.) then don't be an asshole.
Absolutely, that seems very reasonable to me. the majority of my position has been 'Calm down about people disagreeing with you online everyone. It's not the end of the world.'
@faraday said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
Like you said, it's kind of hard to avoid 'dogpiling' if your definition of dogpiling is 'multiple people disagree with me'. I don't feel that to be a useful definition.
For me it's more about the way multiple people are disagreeing.
If it's six people all making rational arguments like "Have you considered..." or "I see it differently because..." then you can push back against claims of dogpiling.
But when it's six people with variants of "OMG are you insane?" and "That idea is the worst thing ever!", mocking the idea or ripping it to shreds with malice, then it can absolutely feel like being set upon by a wolf-pack.
I get that. But it's still just being disagreed with hyperbolically on the internet. Especially in the instance that, to my knowledge spawned this thread - someone got mad that they were asked not to say the c-word, a few people rolled their eyes and said 'yeah it's pretty uncool to say that word' and then.. I dunno. Not much else?
I'm not sure why ark felt the thread was necessary, but now that we're here.. I dunno. Should we just ban hyperbolic speech on the internet? Should we try to convince people to care less what strangers they'll never meet think about their opinions?
The post that 'made a good point' started off by someone using SJW (a person who has chosen to not be a dickwad online) as a slur in order to defend another person that dropped a c-bomb on a thread out of nowhere, and was politely asked to not use that word as its misogynistic. At no point in the linked thread was there any real 'omg you need to die', there was some eye rolling, a tiny bit of fun poking, and then.. the thread reasserted itself and people went back to complaining that staff on a game did a thing they didn't like.
I guess I'm just not seeing the version of dogpiling (hogpiling?) that's being claimed in this instance. Sure it's happened in the past, but.. it didn't happen this time. So why is everyone so freaked out, to the point of me being harassed endlessly, even after they were asked to chill out by an admin, by a person with a grudge for sharing my opinions?
@insomnia said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@lisse24 said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
That being said, dogpiling does happen on this forum, a lot.
It does. And I want to come up with a way to address it that's not worse than the original problem.
Having been dog-piled on, on former iterations of the board, for game stuff, not social stuff, I'm not entirely sure not dog-piling is possible. I mean the very first versions of the board were ostensibly made to post about the shitty / stupid things staff were doing on WoD games so people could mock and laugh at them. Dog-piling has been in every form of the forums, even IGU, though not nearly as bad. It's part of the DNA of the board. Sure, the discussions have been added to since that time, but they in no means have moved on. Especially since we, as a community hold on to grudges in a way that is in no way healthy.
Not saying it's a good thing, but it's still a thing. And let's face it joking about it being 1995 again or not, it doesn't change the fact that people being fired / removed from games because of whatever version of the board there is has been a thing. An extreme, stupid thing, but a thing because dog-piling has been a thing since the start in one form or another.
Plus I mean, Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory and all...
Because really, what are the consequences if you are an asshole to someone on the forum? Even getting booted isn't a deterrent for some people or you guys wouldn't need a thread that someone has been banned, again, getting updated every so often.
Like you said, it's kind of hard to avoid 'dogpiling' if your definition of dogpiling is 'multiple people disagree with me'. I don't feel that to be a useful definition.
I understand that it can go to extreme lengths and end up being very unpleasant, but 'I can't convince this person that I'm correct' seems to be enough to bring out claims of dogpiling. I think a better definition is needed, and this thread seems like it was designed to allow for that discussion.
@arkandel said in MSB, SJW, and other acronyms:
@friendlybee @surreality could you please take this feud to personal messages or other threads?
Sure! This slapfight isn't likely to go anywhere anyway. @surreality can PM if they want to continue.
Too much effort to format with quotes and stuff. You get the gist.
Assuming a lot, again.
You keep posting about how stressful this is to you, and how close you are to the edge. What is the takeaway that you want me to have from your posts? I’ve been more than willing to hear your side. I’ve even asked for it three or four times, and had you get frustrated and rude that I dared ask you to elaborate on your point.
Then say so if you wish to.
Have been saying it. 
Then say so if you wish to.
I have been! Not sure what more I can do to express that opinion other than express that opinion.
The argument you were making was an assertion that 'dogpiling' was part of US political culture. It's not. The person you have issue with is not even in the US.
Yep, I walked that back. Twice now. You’re correct, it was unnecessary.
...I have?
You’ve certainly started targeting me and my posts, telling me that you want me to stop posting, that what I’m saying isn’t appropriate for vague reasons, and threatened to put me on ignored. Yes.
Have I said this? No.
Have I reported you for some improper behavior? No. (Mods can verify 'no', they certainly seem willing to pipe up today, after all.)
Have I asked you to be silent? No.
I asked you to read the thread before you stuck your foot in your mouth, because the sequence of events you described has no basis in the actual reality of this conversation or how it came about.
I didn’t stick my foot in my mouth, I even admitted that my reading was, perhaps, biased and backed down somewhat on the rhetoric. You’ve refused to recognize that, which is also fine.
Your 'playful' is someone else's rude, just like someone else's 'it's just a word' is someone else's cutting slur. That's why this is complicated.
Agreed! That’s why we have discussions about it. Like this one, that I’m participating in.
Because it's, in itself, bigoted to say. I mean, hello, irony?
No one enjoys this. No one, of any political leaning on earth, is immune to being upset by this.
I already retracted that. Twice.
Again: citation needed.
You’ve told me that I’m on the edge of being put on ignore. Do you need me to go back to the post you made 20m ago and cite it to you as an example of you not wanting to see what I’m saying? Or the other posts where you repeatedly tell me to be quiet or that I’m ‘putting my foot in my mouth’ because we disagree on something?
<fingertips lightly tapping on the edge of the desk>
I don’t get this reference.
That line between 'playful' and 'rude' you mention... ? As someone who actually has been threatened at gunpoint and assaulted, I really don't find this remotely cute or playful.
I apologize if it was at all triggering for you to read that, it wasn’t my intent. It’s common on a lot of forums that I’ve been to over the years to make that sort of playful joke at the expense of someone who is very negatively affected because they’re choosing to read a thread.
I suspect, however, from the rest of your posts that this isn’t incredibly genuine on your part and that’s a bit frustrating. I’m more than willing to drop it though, and won’t make that sort of reference again.
You're really not. Certainly not here. If you think 'people who want to call each other cunts because we're super sexist' is the majority here on the forum, you'd be wrong. Hilariously wrong.
I absolutely am. My arguments weren’t 100% about dogpiling – there were some earlier comments that were and I walked that back and said I shouldn’t’ve spoken up about them. I have made fun of the idea that ‘multiple people disagreeing with you’ is a grave sin a few times, but the majority of my argument was actually about censorship vs. forum policies. You’ve remained doggedly latched onto side tangents while trying to convince me not to keep making the other arguments.
I’ve.. resisted your lazy attempts at controlling the narrative.