[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4541

File: 1561239391832.png (389.65 KB, 945x969, 315:323, bryce_normal_b.png) ImgOps Google

Given the standard and supposed ideal of what /townhall/ is to be, with productive discussions and arguments of serious topics and all, the current standard of allowing accusatory and, frankly, rather insulting remarks seems to be counterproductive.
Someone immediately saying your arguments are "intellectually dishonest", malicious, antagonistic, or belligerent, is never going to result in a productive dialogue, as it explicitly goes after the tone, rather than the actual arguments presented.
It contributes absolutely nothing to a productive dialogue, and only serves to escalate aggression in arguments, leading them straight down the line of name-calling back and forths.
This is primarily because there's not really a good defense for someone saying "You're being malicious", since any explanation of your reasonings for statements could be simply met with the same statement. You're still being malicious, or belligerent, or intellectually dishonest.
The only real practical response is to resort to the same kinds of statements. When someone says "You're being intellectually dishonest", you respond with "You're being needlessly antagonistic". But,  the problem is, that can end up just going back and forth, because these aren't practical statements that mean anything, in terms of provable logic. They're just perceived critiques. So, the other guy just has to respond with "You're just assuming malice", and you've got the whole fiasco continued.

Needless to say, this kind of "nuh-uh, you're the butt" back and forth is inherently counter-productive to any healthy discussion.
Given that /townhall/ seems to desire a stronger standard for discussion, to the point of banning the slightest bit of sarcasm which seems to me to be a good mile less disruptive, it does not make any sense that this kind of behavior is allowed.
Personally, I would've thought it wasn't allowed, given rule 2. But, it seems that Mondo has clarified that such behavior is perfectly acceptable at the moment.
So, I'm hoping to make this thread to say "Hey, maybe it shouldn't be".

Truth be told, I wouldn't mind this type of thing applying to the whole site. These kinds of things are rather, to be quite flat, dickish. But, given that even Mondo, who seemed to be the most okay with these particular statements agreed that it would [and did] devolve into back-and-forth namecalling >>4454 , if nothing else the place that is supposedly specifically for polite and productive discussions should have such items explicitly prohibited.
Sarcasm is far less disruptive, and yet that's banned on /townhall/. I don't see any sensible reason why this particular item should not also be the case.

 No.4542

>>4541
Holy shit, give these people a break. You're being incredibly autistic with these rules.

 No.4543

File: 1561256618677.jpg (159.28 KB, 750x746, 375:373, 1506902357510.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4541
I agree, to some extent.  I think it might be helpful if the mods guide the tone of the conversation to be less hostile/inflammatory, and gently inform users  who might be unaware that their post violates the guidelines, and warn them if they continue to do it.  But I wouldn't want the mods to be too trigger-happy with the ban hammer.

 No.4544

>>4543
I'm fine with them being soft about it, as soft as they are on sarcasm and such at least.
I just don't like running in to the stuff constantly.

 No.4572

File: 1561535836597.jpg (359.71 KB, 2048x1707, 2048:1707, 1561259409799.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

To the staff:  i said rules changes etc are incapable of solving this problem, and i see it remains unsolved.  Hmm.

>>4541
Nooms.  Buddy.  Wtf is going on around here.  We go back far enough together that i hope you will listen to a little hard-found wisdom.  Don't debate me, just consider these words and maybe a few of them will make sense to you.

I feel your pain on Manley and the staff.  I got into similar trouble.  But, as it turns out Manley is not a bad guy.  He's not trying to make you flip out, and you are (i promise!) inferring more insult than he means to imply.  As for you, you are escalating things with the staff in ways that are unproductive and can't end well for you.  Trust me on this.

Calm down.  Be forgiving.  Give everyone a break.  I know, you object.  But try.  For yourself.  You are the one causing your own pain here, and the more you argue the more pain you cause yourself.  Just relax and be cool.  It'll be ok!

>>4542
Who are you?  I know you are not an anonymous poster; they dont behave like you.  You are a named poster going anon so you can say things you know you shouldn't.  You really are only adding to the toxicity and you are doing it on purpose.


So who the fuck are you, coward?  Confess your identity or shut up and back off.

Edit:  for the record that last bit was way out of line and i'm sorry.

 No.4576

>>4572
>>4572
>He's not trying to make you flip out, and you are (i promise!) inferring more insult than he means to imply.
I agree.  I've observed that Manley seems to have a knack for wording things tactlessly and not realizing how insulting they are taken by other people.  I think he can improve though if it is explained to him calmly why what he said is insulting.

 No.4578

>>4576

>I've observed that Manley seems to have a knack for wording things tactlessly and not realizing how insulting they are taken by other people.

I think it's better characterized that he's not willing to accept that it could be considered insulting if to do so would make him lose face or if he interprets such a criticism as implying he's a bad person. Honestly, he does basically the same thing as Noonim does and read things between the lines that aren't necessarily there.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]