Whats with all the negativity towards us?

They hate us just 'coz they ain't us. Or something.

infamy! infamy! they've all got it in for me!

Mint Sauce wrote: »

So I just stumbled into a thread on another forum, where a line in the first paragragh, went like, this is being discussed in AH to the usual AH standard.

Now I know we may not be as serious as some of the other forums, there can be a bit more trolling here, wumming, scarcam and smartarse comment. But then we can be seriuos when we have to, and have produced some genuine, and educational threads, in a language that alot of us can understand, ie, in laymans terms, with out being bogged down in jargon.

I know my self, I would much rather read and contribute to a political or major news story thread here, than say a political forum, for the reason my lack of knowledge or understanding is less likely to set apoun, and any responces it receives, are in a language I can understand, and I'm not left bamboozled.

So fellow, AHs, defend yourselfs, and put the rest of them straight about us.

And that's without even mentioning your thread title. Yeh, can't think why people might not take AH seriously.

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

And that's without even mentioning your thread title. Yeh, can't think why people might not take AH seriously.

AH Charter, post number 20

Grammar Gestapo need not apply.

Don't know how far this thread will fly, since it's premised on other forums, but yes: In many other forums, if there is a large enough number of posters defending 'consensus' views, and using gutter-level argument against minority opinion, then they can - in numbers - dominate discussion on the forum, by being obnoxious enough to either deter minority opinion, or by getting minority opinion to build up infractions by calling out others obnoxiousness, when those pushing the consensus view, gain none due to being in larger numbers (which somehow seems to justify obnoxiousness, in many mods eyes).

I know this is all a bit vague, but I've encountered it on at least two subforums, where this kind of dynamic, leads to mods enforcing double standards in support of 'consensus' views, and shoving out minority views.


Now, this is why AH is so good: In AH, there's no (or very little) mod interference that is susceptible to this bias, so arguments have to be won based purely on merit - and if someone likes to use gutter level arguments, you can call them out on it (e.g. if someone is repeatedly overly snobbish/condescending, you can - quite rightly - label them a "condescending arsehole" :pac: - so long as you also pick apart their arguments).

You still get a bad quality of arguments a lot of the time, but AH does not become the echo-chamber of consensus views, that other forums become.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Don't know how far this thread will fly, since it's premised on other forums, but yes: In many other forums, if there is a large enough number of posters defending 'consensus' views, and using gutter-level argument against minority opinion, then they can - in numbers - dominate discussion on the forum, by being obnoxious enough to either deter minority opinion, or by getting minority opinion to build up infractions by calling out others obnoxiousness, when those pushing the consensus view, gain none due to being in larger numbers (which somehow seems to justify obnoxiousness, in many mods eyes).

I know this is all a bit vague, but I've encountered it on at least two subforums, where this kind of dynamic, leads to mods enforcing double standards in support of 'consensus' views, and shoving out minority views.


Now, this is why AH is so good: In AH, there's no (or very little) mod interference that is susceptible to this bias, so arguments have to be won based purely on merit - and if someone likes to use gutter level arguments, you can call them out on it (e.g. if someone is repeatedly overly snobbish/condescending, you can - quite rightly - label them a "condescending arsehole" :pac: - so long as you also pick apart their arguments).

You still get a bad quality of arguments a lot of the time, but AH does not become the echo-chamber of consensus views, that other forums become.

I disagree there is a level of logical reasoning required in the politics forum for instance. A view must be well argued.

A well argued view is not appreciated for the art of debate here.

There is no respect for a point you do not agree with but well made never the less.

Lou.m wrote: »

I disagree there is a level of logical reasoning required in the politics forum for instance. A view must be well argued.

A well argued view is not appreciated for the art of debate here.

There is no respect for a point you do not agree with but well made never the less.

Yes but what good is a well argued view, if a forum is restricted to certain 'consensus' views? AH has plenty of well argued views too, but yes, a lot of garbage as well.

None of the most important political topics that affect us, get discussed in Politics tbh; I still read Politics even though I'm banned there (when logged-off), and there is far better/more-diverse discussion on a lot of AH topics.

EDIT: I'd also disagree with the last line: There is often no respect for arguments that fall outside of consensus views - a Politics thread on protests for example, is even worse than AH for ridicule/condescension.

yawhat! wrote: »

Its generally just the high horses who act like their **** don't stink tend to dislike after hours!

Ah Jaysis, can we get those two words outlawed in the charter. Got to be the most overused words in all of Boards.ie, not just After Hours to be fair.

how would they know what's been said, unless they're stalking us, while secretly wanting to be us?