MsElectric, AR, Kugerrand and Johan discuss TMC moderation

[AnxietyRanger]

It's a statement of fact, that's all. You've chosen to repeatedly criticize the past little while. Do you believe the moderators are unable to read and comprehend the written word, and that's why you keep on? Do you think continuing to take pot shots at them is working toward the goal you wish for this site? Don't you think a better approach is to take it up with the site owner directly?

I'm not actually looking for you to answer me. But thanks for taking a pot shot at those here who don't think the site needs to change, suggesting they're not critical thinkers. *thumbs up*

Lest it be misunderstood: By a critical thinker I did not mean a person capable of careful thought, merely a critic in this case.

I actually find current moderators on TMC to be a fair bunch. Most of the atmosphere I'm referring to is not due to them.

- - - Updated - - -

ModeratorS. I didn't find it 'anything' but disagreements between strangers. Kind of like right now, so no biggie. FYI, you can't actually turn in the green bars for any merchandise of value, I know I tried. So that makes them expendable.

On topic: Great article! Curious comments section.

Which moderators were they? I will guess unless answered, so no worries.

Considering that the "green bars" are a community process, it is certainly an interesting thought that singular people would take them away.

 

[Krugerrand]

Not to speak for K (which would be foolish), but she might be suggesting that the rules of the road (TMC) are best discussed in somewhere like Site Feedback rather than the thread about WSJ.

Get out of my head, it's interrupting my ability to critically think. :tongue:

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Get out of my head, it's interrupting my ability to critically think. :tongue:

As said, I did not mean a person capable of careful thought, merely a critic in this case.

 

[Johan]

Get out of my head, it's interrupting my ability to critically think. :tongue:

To think critical thoughts you mean

 

[Krugerrand]

Which moderators were they?

None of your business.

Considering that the "green bars" are a community process, it is certainly an interesting thought that singular people would take them away.

It's called negative rep, and at one time anyone could leave neg rep. Now only moderators can. It's not really that interesting a system. It'd be more interesting if I could get that pony from page 32 of the catalogue, but I can't.

Back on topic, pls. I'm on a record streak right now of not having any of my posts moved to snippiness and I'd like to keep it going.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Only if you provide proof that changes my mind of course, as it directly goes against what I have explained is my view of reality.

Obviously the same applies to me, I don't share your view of reality on TMC, yet I do understand you might see reality differently than I do. But I get it, not an inch.

- - - Updated - - -

None of your business.

Fair enough, you brought it up originally, I thought it was open for discussion.

It's called negative rep, and at one time anyone could leave neg rep. Now only moderators can. It's not really that interesting a system. It'd be more interesting if I could get that pony from page 32 of the catalogue, but I can't.

Personally I would think all or nobody being able to use it would be fair(er).

 

[Johan]

Obviously the same applies to me, I don't share your view of reality on TMC, yet I do understand you might see reality differently than I do. But I get it, not an inch.

Of course I understand that you see things differently than me. Don't play this game of "taking the high road" and belittling me.

I said you were wrong. You said I was wrong. We both know that the other person disagrees with our respective view of reality.

I presented evidence, if you will, for my view: topics that hadn't been quelled.

You haven't presented evidence for your view yet. Only stated that you agree with MsElectric, who didn't either provide any proof other than a subjective statement.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Of course I understand that you see things differently than me. Don't play this game of "taking the high road" and belittling me.

I said you were wrong. You said I was wrong. We both know that the other person disagrees with our respective view of reality.

I presented evidence, if you will, for my view: topics that hadn't been quelled.

You haven't presented evidence for your view yet. Only stated that you agree with MsElectric, who didn't either provide any proof other than a subjective statement.

You provided an assertion, as did I. Neither of our positions provided any evidence beyond one supporter in this thread, mine in response to MsElectric, and Krugerrand offering later support to your view.

 

[Krugerrand]

Fair enough, you brought it up originally, I thought it was open for discussion.

Stop it. It was part of a larger comment making a very specific point to you, and you know it.

Personally I would think all or nobody being able to use it would be fair(er).

You weren't here when everyone could leave negative rep, so what you think would be fair(er) isn't necessarily reality.

Enough now. PM is in the upper left hand corner of your screen. Let's talk WSJ.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Stop it. It was part of a larger comment making a very specific point to you, and you know it.

Sure, I agree I took the comment on a tangent. I just didn't know your history with moderators was private. I assumed it happened in public, thought your comment reflected as much, and was curious. No, I definitely didn't know it was private.

 

[Johan]

You provided an assertion, as did I. Neither of our positions provided any evidence beyond one supporter in this thread, mine in response to MsElectric, and Krugerrand offering later support to your view.

Are saying that I'm lying when I'm stating that there has been long, very negative and free discussion on this site regarding the subjects/issues I listed? It sure seems like you're saying that it just my opinion and not an actual fact. Well guess what? I was a member when these things were discussed and I was a critic and part of many if those discussions. They are all in the archive. Please go and search.

Now please provide something more concrete to support your position or I'm going to assume that you're just a rather gifted and articulate troll.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

You weren't here when everyone could leave negative rep, so what you think would be fair(er) isn't necessarily reality.

I can understand (and appreciate) the negative ramifications of "popularity system". Of course.

Yet I'm not so sure an asymmetrical popularity system is any better.

- - - Updated - - -

Are saying that I'm lying when I'm stating that there has been long, very negative and free discussion on this site regarding the subjects/issues I listed? It sure seems like you're saying that it just my opinion and not an actual fact. Well guess what? I was a member when these things were discussed and I was a critic and part of many if those discussions. They are all in the archive. Please go and search.

Now please provide something more concrete to support your position or I'm going to assume that you're just a rather gifted and articulate troll.

No, I'm saying neither of us offered any proof for our assertions. Your word is not proof, any more than mine is. By the way, I don't think TMC is heavily moderated in the traditional sense and I've made the point before. As I said, I'm fine with the current moderators too, overall. But see some critical or otherwise uncomfortable threads (for Tesla) and what happens in them, that is my point. Part of it is cultural, a mob reaction and the moderation is not there to limit that either. Now, you disagree and that's fine - we just disagree.

 

[Johan]

I can understand (and appreciate) the negative ramifications of "popularity system". Of course.

Yet I'm not so sure an asymmetrical popularity system is any better.

- - - Updated - - -



No, I'm saying neither of us offered any proof for our assertions. Your word is not proof, any more than mine is. By the way, I don't think TMC is heavily moderated in the traditional sense and I've made the point before. As I said, I'm fine with the current moderators too, overall. But see some critical or otherwise uncomfortable threads (for Tesla) and what happens in them, that is my point. Part of it is cultural, a mob reaction and the moderation is not there to limit that either. Now, you disagree and that's fine - we just disagree.

No I'm so sorry we don't "just"disagree. We disagree and either I'm right or you're right. We can't both be right. I really meant it whenI said go search the forum in 2013 and first half of 2014, before you were a member. Then come back and say these are just unsubstantiated claims on my part.

After that at least tell me which topics you have seen being mistreated from "the fanboys" here.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

No I'm so sorry we don't "just"disagree. We disagree and either I'm right or you're right. We can't both be right. I really meant it whenI said go search the forum in 2013 and first half of 2014, before you were a member. Then come back and say these are just unsubstantiated claims on my part.

After that at least tell me which topics you have seen being mistreated from "the fanboys" here.

Agreeing to disagree is usually considered a nice way of letting a topic be, but it can be more than that - it is an acknowledgement that you and I might be measuring the issue on a different scale. We CAN be both right. We might just measure "quelling conversation" very differently.

That said, I doubt I'll go looking for evidence from any archives - my view isn't based on 2013, it is based on the past six months here. Some people agree with my view, others don't, and that's the way it is. But I'll tell you what, next time such a thread comes up, I will PM you and we can mutually assess if it is something we can agree on or not.

Let's hope it means one never does come up again. After all, the staff has changed too.

 

[JohnQ]

Well, I'm glad to have been the catalyst for this therapy session. Though I suppose it wouldn't have taken much :biggrin:.

 

[Johan]

Agreeing to disagree is usually considered a nice way of letting a topic be, but it can be more than that - it is an acknowledgement that you and I might be measuring the issue on a different scale. We CAN be both right. We might just measure "quelling conversation" very differently.

That said, I doubt I'll go looking for evidence from any archives - my view isn't based on 2013, it is based on the past six months here. Some people agree with my view, others don't, and that's the way it is. But I'll tell you what, next time such a thread comes up, I will PM you and we can mutually assess if it is something we can agree on or not.

Let's hope it means one never does come up again. After all, the staff has changed too.

The words of a troll.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

The words of a troll.

I think that's overly harsh.

 

[Krugerrand]

Yet I'm not so sure an asymmetrical popularity system is any better.

Feel free to leave your criticism here: Reputation points? - Page 25

 

[Johan]

I think that's overly harsh.

Then why bring up a topic just to put forth a long dissertation about how you are such a well balanced person who has the ability to always see both sides of an argument and there is surely some merit to any argument and how we must all be very respectful to any and every opinion put forward?

 

[Krugerrand]

Well, I'm glad to have been the catalyst for this therapy session. Though I suppose it wouldn't have taken much :biggrin:.

You don't charge enough.