Sheep Lover wrote: » Oh I've read it, I wouldn't be here if I didn't. You're very confused altogether Frank. If you could explain how it was implied that it was a "conspiracy" that would be great.
Frank Grimes wrote: » Nope, completely unaware of that. Maybe if you focus on re-reading that post, rather than trying to have a pointless dig at me, you might see what I'm talking about.
Sheep Lover wrote: » You know the words "coincidence" and "conspiracy" mean different things right?
Frank Grimes wrote: » That is not what that post was saying, it was implying that the crane crashing was some sort of conspiracy. The thread was barely started and people were making a joke out of something that's left 87 people dead and lots injured more. I think that says at least something, if not "it all".
Sheep Lover wrote: » An AH mod banning and carding posters due to them spouting the crazy "conspiracy" that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims. Says it all really.
RDM_83 again wrote: » To be honest I think it sort of works on a site like Reddit because you have so many multiple different rooms because its easy to set them up so the defacto correct opinion is constantly changing (if you keep an open mind and browse around rather than staying safe in a certain bubble)
nesf wrote: » It's essentially what Slashdot/Reddit/et al do with voting on threads and posts/replies. It's got upsides and downsides. For hotly debated political issues it doesn't work very well. The bigger side basically shuts down discussion by the other one.
Overheal wrote: » I only invented the suggestion, I don't think it's ever been a standard practice, but could be handy.
Cold War Kid wrote: » I'm not sure why I'm getting this rather disingenuous response. Someone said the majority of the thread-spoiling (inflammatory comments, getting personal, making crude statements with no back-up, no interest in discussing - only in shouting the loudest) is being caused by people who are opposed to assisting asylum-seekers. Logically this is therefore a matter of numbers. So if you read the thread, you will see that the number of posts causing a headache are mostly by a particular type of poster. There's no "belief" or "feeling" in something happening - it is a case of solid numbers, evidence in front of you. Comparing with the bible is not comparing like with like, as that content relates to something for which there is scant or no evidence. (Plenty of people concerned with who Ireland takes in are not being inflammatory/abusive btw - most aren't; and not all those in favour of Ireland letting in asylum-seekers are being angels. The majority in both cases are arguing reasonably though, and from a moderate standpoint).
Overheal wrote: » What if users post on thread that they would like the thread moved, and others thanked it/reported that posted request? It's an option to consider if you're just being bludgeoned with strawman arguments in AH for example.
OneOfThem wrote: » But of clarity wouldn't go amiss in relation to this. Loads of politically themed threads are left in AH, loads of humanities leaning ones too. What's the criteria for moving or leaving them?
Cabaal wrote: » This is the same sort of logic religious people use for belief in their god. "Read our holly books, its all the proof you need." There's a difference between a belief in something happening and it actually happening. Sometimes people only read what they want to read in order to suit their belief.
Zaph wrote: » Political threads get moved from AH to (mostly) Politics Café these days. So I fail to see why people are surprised or see some sort of conspiracy when a debate on what is clearly a humanitarian issue is re-directed to Humanities.
Eugene Norman wrote: » Another example is KB worrying about autonomous drones making drone warfare easier. Cue ten posters suggesting he's living in a fantasy world about sky net , self aware AI, lizard people etc. Totally disingenuous since his meaning was clear. What followed was pages of responding to these straw man arguments rather than the morality/legality of the drone killing.
KomradeBishop wrote: » *Sigh*...no actually, many of the forums on Boards are about debating, and specifically have rules referencing 'standard of debate'. Who the fúck wants to discuss a topic with someone, who thinks logical fallacies are acceptable? That's the opposite of debate - deliberate use of logical fallacies is what destroys quality of debate, and it's arguably trolling/soapboxing when the poster is aware of their use of fallacies - and when posters know they are using fallacies, that means they inherently know they are lying/being-dishonest. That style of debate, liberal use of logical fallacies (rather than just straw-men, one type of fallacy, like I mentioned earlier) - people who use fallacies as a guide to debate, rather than something to avoid - can be generalized as being the problem with poor quality of debate, on the whole site. I can't actually think of how to fully and properly express, just how antithetical acceptance of logical fallacies is, to discussion itself - posters who seek to knowingly use tactics like that to control/disrupt threads, should be sanctioned and eventually banned, if they keep that up - enforcing that may not be practical though, as there are so many grey areas in debate.
Cold War Kid wrote: » Proof? Read the threads. No matter what side you're coming from this is undeniable.
K-9 wrote: » That's between you and the mods and C-mods and Admins if you decide to appeal it. I handed out a ban recently and probably would have cut it or rescinded it, never got the chance because of the abusive pm I got.
Old Jakey wrote: » Well I was banned from humanities for talking about the Swedish rape epidemic.
K-9 wrote: » Not being liberal enough? Seriously! You believe that?
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: » If the mods infracted and banned people instead of locking threads we would still have people coming here claim there is censorship counting the number of pro and anti immigration people who have been infracted or banned.
