Bottom post of the previous page:
Or at least ban admins from viewing it. It's a fucking mess 24/7 and makes me want to scrub my eyes with steel wool. Can't you people go to your meta-discords to jerk each other off over politics?
The hut was an inside job. But who funded it? The Freemasons? The Catgirl Mafia?Farquaar wrote:False. Feast your face on the truth.cacogen wrote:mso tricked us into destroying it ourselves
This is not a bug and is actually what happens on tg anyway, despite your claims to non bias, I just don't pretend otherwise unlike tg.MrStonedOne wrote:What always happens is certain semi-political discussions are never enforced as against the rule unless a mod takes offence with the discussion. This isn't to say the mod in question is acting in bad faith but to say that if you see a discussion you don't like, you are more likely to subconsciously think about what rules it disobeys compared to a discussion you do like.
technokek wrote:Cannot prove this so just belive me if when say this
The no politics rule would be exclusive to the tg server (at least what would be enforced here), therefore there are already a theoretically infinite amount of "politics containment" channels these users will still have access to for the purpose of discussing these topics, just not on tgstation platforms.MrStonedOne wrote:The benefits of the no politics rule out-weight the downsides Only when a politics containment channel exists to mitigate the downsides.
Saege Tilth wrote:Banning politics all together is very short sighted. Instead of banning politics, have something more of a "political logistics". To give you an example, we need four political boards in reality. One board will be for left wing politics, one for right wing politics, one board for community elected officials that will represent each wings ideas in civil discussions, and a final board for third party (lol).
This is how you create an echo chamber. People don’t go to politics containment to circlejerk they go to fucking diggAgain this is not teamspeak or IRC where it isn't as intuitive to make your own discord server (4 clicks + textbox for the server itself) where you can post content the original server will not allow, or navigate to different servers if you're interested in discussing specific topics. Even the manuelites by day coomers by night figured this guy out.
Because then people will just leave TG because some people pissed their pants and complained about politics. It’s not like tg isn’t already a sinking fucking ship not helped by dumbass codersLike can someone give me the hot take on how we supposedly dislike the discussions enough that we have to make this one shitty channel to sorta please people but not enough to just say "please take that to a platform not on the official tg discord"? Just a reminder once more that tg is not the only server on discord, not even for people in the community tg (manuel hut being the most obvious). Please walk me through the why these discussions MUST exist explicitly on the tg server so I can better understand where it's coming from.
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
basically yaStickymayhem wrote:We've seen the issues that arise from satellite communities around /tg/ that become insulated echo chambers and drama hotspots.
A regulated version of the unwanted discourse is always preferable to excising it from the community to totally unregulated areas where the worst hold influence and authority.
Timberpoes wrote: Lepi was right all along.
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
Its an argument against an argument against keeping polcon, its not an argument for keeping polcon.Naloac wrote:arguing that shitty people existed in the past on orbit servers then arguing it would be better to keep everyone in our server to stop such a thing happening again is stupid.
That being said ive personally flip flopped on it. Keeping it gives us very little bar having a nice place to house the people who dont shut up about it.
Removing it means we dont have to deal with the retards who constantly bring up politics. Although in that case we have to deal with admins ignoring discussions of the politics that they like without even realising they are doing it.
tbh just reading this thread makes me flip flop on it as I read it.
Something frustrating. The political containment board was probably a mistake to begin with. Having a political discussion area is basically opening Pandora's box. The good thing from it is there's some people who just want to power trip from time to time and they can get their rocks off on the people who discuss politics instead of regular people in the community. The bad thing is that certain things should just never exist to begin with, such as a karma system, in many cases certain "rules" and enforcement of said rules, and moth people. In order to try to put the Genie back in the bottle, you need arbitrary rules that make zero sense or else you'll just end up upsetting people which isn't entirely a bad thing when you consider that there are unwritten quotas to be met by impulsive individuals. Here's an example of an arbitrary rule that would influence the political containment board. All messages have to be encase in a spoiler. Think about it.Stickymayhem wrote:We've seen the issues that arise from satellite communities around /tg/ that become insulated echo chambers and drama hotspots.
A regulated version of the unwanted discourse is always preferable to excising it from the community to totally unregulated areas where the worst hold influence and authority.
Mothblocks, winter 2020, “successfully” preventing bagil death with relevant data wrote:You seem to be under the fallacy that reinforcing that Bagil is a TDM shithole where you must carry bolas and spears on you at all times, while looking for the next valid to hunt down is a positive change to the server. I don't. The data suggests other people don't.
imsxz wrote:I give up there’s too many furries
cacogen wrote:i asked oranges how often he plays and he deleted the post
cybersaber101 wrote:Welp, you guys let a terrymin become a headmin, thousand years of darkness.
Vekter wrote:I jerk off Nist a bit too much but he's honestly one of the best silicon players on the server. B.O.R.G.O. is also pretty good.
It’s crazy how if something isn’t broken you shouldn’t try to fix itFarquaar wrote:Option 1: Delete politics containment, keep politics ban
Without politics containment, people will still want to discuss news and politics. Do you really want administrators to be forced to scrub any discussion of current events that are vaguely political in nature? If your goal is to reduce drama, do you think the inevitable selective enforcement of a politics ban will be drama-free, when people are forced to discuss current events in the off-topic channels? Or God-forbid, separate Discords? We've seen what drama-hounds will do when you give them an in like this.
Option 2: Delete politics containment, rescind politics ban
I don't think anybody wants this.
Option 3: Keep things as is
If you don't like the politics, you don't have to read the politics channel. If you do like the politics, you have your containment channel. Everyone wins.
ȷ́ḿád́MrStonedOne wrote:that one guy whos name i don't hint at anymore because everytime i do he pm's me on discord to remind me how he's still following everything i do
Do tgmc guys really not get added to the channel automatically? I'm pretty sure terranaut is there so that's a bit weird.Qustinnus wrote:if the problem is that we can't ban it because people would do it somewhere else anyways we should open an erp channel so people dont erp in the other channels.
It's much easier to precisely define ERP than to precisely define political discussion.Qustinnus wrote:if the problem is that we can't ban it because people would do it somewhere else anyways we should open an erp channel so people dont erp in the other channels.
They aren't riots we're protesting the certification of the headmin election it's perfectly legitimate and exactly what scaredofshadows would have wanted.oranges wrote:Why anyone is taking sticky's comments at face value when he is constantly holding court in politics containment and often incites the biggest riots, beats me.
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
Stickymayhem wrote:Imagine the sheer narcisssim required to genuinely believe you are this intelligent.
dont confuse me with a manuel player, pleaseXivilaiAnaxes wrote:Look I realise some TGMCers might have mental defects that lead to ERPing, but normal people usually want to discuss the world while not usually having uncontrollable urges to start asking about whether someone's imaginary character is wearing underwear or not. The two are hardly comparable.
Sorry bud but we all know you have to ERP with the tgmc lead to get admin, the secret discord link leakedjoooks wrote:dont confuse me with a manuel player, pleaseXivilaiAnaxes wrote:Look I realise some TGMCers might have mental defects that lead to ERPing, but normal people usually want to discuss the world while not usually having uncontrollable urges to start asking about whether someone's imaginary character is wearing underwear or not. The two are hardly comparable.
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
p good explanation of why the containment necessity meme isn't how it really beQustinnus wrote:if the problem is that we can't ban it because people would do it somewhere else anyways we should open an erp channel so people dont erp in the other channels.
Politics affects everyone. ERP is something only a certain amount of people engage with. It's better for them and everyone else if it's kept private. Talking about what's happening in the world shouldn't be banned if it happens to be political.Qustinnus wrote:if the problem is that we can't ban it because people would do it somewhere else anyways we should open an erp channel so people dont erp in the other channels.
technokek wrote:Cannot prove this so just belive me if when say this
we had a no admin channel for years so clearly no one cared about thatXivilaiAnaxes wrote:I'm pretty sure if it just got left alone to post CP it'd close down the whole discord server for breaching "terms of service".Swept wrote:Or at least ban admins from viewing it.
You mean the one that had cp posted to it twice that I had to clean up and handle?iksyp wrote:we had a no admin channel for years so clearly no one cared about thatXivilaiAnaxes wrote:I'm pretty sure if it just got left alone to post CP it'd close down the whole discord server for breaching "terms of service".Swept wrote:Or at least ban admins from viewing it.
also: Why is it gone again? Remind me.so clearly no one cared about that
Here is a fun read: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844dang 3 hours ago [–]
It made things worse and we ended the experiment after a couple days. I don't have links handy right now but may try to dig them up later. It turns out that there's no faster way to politicize everything than to try something that simplistic. Wherever the optimum is for regulating the intense pressures HN is under around this, it's in a much less obvious place.
okay but neither of those things need to be prevented with a channel they can both just be banned with a no politics rule.cacogen wrote:Politics affects everyone. ERP is something only a certain amount of people engage with. It's better for them and everyone else if it's kept private. Talking about what's happening in the world shouldn't be banned if it happens to be political.Qustinnus wrote:if the problem is that we can't ban it because people would do it somewhere else anyways we should open an erp channel so people dont erp in the other channels.
This whole thing is an effort to stop bad politics shitting up the place or taking root in an echo chamber. But no one can agree on how to define it so it can be done.
>person says something that one admin thinks is politicalQustinnus wrote:maybe we should ban people that argue semantics for ages
Why throw the baby out with the bath water by banning conversation about everything political, even it's just recent events?Qustinnus wrote:okay but neither of those things need to be prevented with a channel they can both just be banned with a no politics rule.cacogen wrote:Politics affects everyone. ERP is something only a certain amount of people engage with. It's better for them and everyone else if it's kept private. Talking about what's happening in the world shouldn't be banned if it happens to be political.Qustinnus wrote:if the problem is that we can't ban it because people would do it somewhere else anyways we should open an erp channel so people dont erp in the other channels.
This whole thing is an effort to stop bad politics shitting up the place or taking root in an echo chamber. But no one can agree on how to define it so it can be done.
technokek wrote:Cannot prove this so just belive me if when say this
do, which is "everything I don't like"
I think Rule 11 has done a lot to reduce the problem of /pol/ infiltrating politicscacogen wrote:Why throw the baby out with the bath water by banning conversation about everything political, even it's just recent events?Qustinnus wrote:okay but neither of those things need to be prevented with a channel they can both just be banned with a no politics rule.cacogen wrote:Politics affects everyone. ERP is something only a certain amount of people engage with. It's better for them and everyone else if it's kept private. Talking about what's happening in the world shouldn't be banned if it happens to be political.Qustinnus wrote:if the problem is that we can't ban it because people would do it somewhere else anyways we should open an erp channel so people dont erp in the other channels.
This whole thing is an effort to stop bad politics shitting up the place or taking root in an echo chamber. But no one can agree on how to define it so it can be done.
The problem is idiots and people acting in bad faith shitting up the place with exclusionary, fringe views they promote through misinformation and emotional manipulation. Why not just ban people who promote harmful views or act in an overly disruptive manner?
The false equivalency between regular political discussion and /pol/ just results in platforms that are trying to facilitate healthy discussion getting taken advantage of. Here we're talking about banning discussion of all things political implicitly to prevent /pol/ taking root and being disruptive.
4chan has been overrun with off-topic political shitposting, the vast majority of which is propaganda promoting alt-right views. It's not a matter of a difference of opinion. It's the site being taken advantage of while the administration does very little to solve it.
But we don't have much of a problem with that here from what I've seen. Servers like Hippie are more welcoming to the dumb and malicious. But if political discussion in its current state is a problem that needs to be addressed, solve it by identifying the problems and punishing the people causing them.
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
technokek wrote:Cannot prove this so just belive me if when say this
technokek wrote:Cannot prove this so just belive me if when say this
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
