| HylianSwordsman said: Alright since people want to complain that Rol's points aren't being respected but don't want to repost the supposed valid points, I did it for you. As far as I can tell, they are as follows: 1. The problem goes deeper than the Politics board, getting rid of the board won't solve it as it'll go elsewhere, the reputation system is more work for mods than simply upping the strictness of moderation. Problem with the first point is that it has already been discussed to death. A lot of people want to keep the politics board, we get it. People would post politics outside of the Politics board if there was no Politics board. Of course they would, they already do. We get it. The mods need to do more. We get it, that's the point of the thread. 2.His second point tries to define the scale of the problem, and suggestions to deal with it. Essentially, he says titles, article quotes, and the user's original post content all twist news articles to support an inflammatory agenda. Solution? Lock such threads and moderate their authors. The history of users provides clues as to who is likely to post such threads, so keep an eye on those users especially, show low tolerance, high suspicion towards them. Valid points here, but pretty self-evident. Still, it's good to define the problem, so there it is. 3. The third point doesn't seem to have anything new to add. It's just him saying that the mod team needs to do more, and accusing this thread of being time wasting. He thinks there should be more, heavier moderation. Don't we all. He believes this is essentially the only solution and that mods are avoiding it for some reason, cites examples of times where the community thought there should be heavier moderation, cites examples of himself breaking the rules and being moderated for it. Not sure what this adds to the discussion. 4. This is less a point and more an empty threat to try to get the mods to act on this more quickly. Definitely adds nothing to the discussion. Summary: He thinks Politics is toxic, specifically in that people bait people with inflammatory twists on news events, and that it's usually the same users every time, and that mods should just lock such threads and moderate their authors. He thinks any further discussion is a waste of time and that there is community consensus on this. Did I miss anything? Feel free to spell out what I missed. I feel like most of what he said has already been discussed, so I don't see what was so awful to have dismissed. |
Quite simple its not that it has been dismissed, but the WAY it has been
Otherwise a fine tldr
"I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.
