Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[Snarf Zagyg]

Snarf, just stop.

You're convinced there's something wrong with the system. No matter what I tell you, you come across as completely convinced it can't be for completely legitimate reasons. The more we talk, the more I see you trying to paint me as some protector of a shady implementation, when I only engaged to give you my version of a technical explanation.

I did not use the phrase "you can't accept" to refer to anything more than my message. You're setting up a straw man here, by "respectfully" saying you don't agree with a position I don't have and haven't stated. The only approach leading to toxicity here is yours. Stop alluding that I might confuse rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. It's a cheap argumentative trick, and it derails from the topic.

The topic is: what you see isn't there. It's just you. There's nothing suspect with the way XenForo works.

But if you refuse to listen to me, perhaps you'll listen to Morrus instead. Here's his post introducing the functionality:


Now please drop your suspicion that there's somehow something questionable with the way you can't keep people you've ignored out of threads you start. The function has been deliberately set up this way by people that do care. Not "programmers". It is set up this way to protect you - not "those who wish to wade in". Other platforms might do things differently, but EN World isn't different for the suss reasons you try to allude to.

?What?

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Try looking back at the conversation. I was (gently) pointing out that different defaults end up with different ... results. Right? Pretty basic stuff. If you have an opt-in as opposed to an opt-out, changing that default has a meaningful difference.

That was it. You keep going back to the same idea that you do here ..... about keeping people out of threads. Which is really a weird way to look at things. That's .... that's a you thing. If you are looking at this in terms of power dynamics and pulling one over on you* as opposed to ... I don't know ... people that just don't want to engage with certain types... I can't change how you view things.

But I think there might be a correlation you're missing.


*In most contexts ... trying to frame the idea that you have the right to intrude when someone doesn't want you around ... is not looked on favorably.

 

[Blue Orange]

And the bolded is a price I'm not willing to pay.

Sooner or later everyone has something worthwhile to say and I'd rather not miss it when it happens.

The nice thing about this site is the signal-to-noise ratio is kept high and thus those worthwhile things come up more often.

Right, but why is the SNR so high? I've been on much more lightly moderated boards and I'm glad they exist (I'm suspicious of the right to ban speech absolutely), but there's a lot of people slinging racial slurs around and saying things that make me uncomfortable.

Besides, you and I aren't the ones maintaining the site and paying for the server. If you want to shell out the money you can always try to build your own forum. This isn't a virtual monopoly like Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, or Google; there are sites to the right and to the left of this one.

 

[TheSword]

On the other hand, I dislike equally people who respond to a carefully constructed, fact-backed and illustrated argument with a 1 line dismissive answer. Equally frustrating are people who make 40 posts to reply to different posters when they could have made a single post, adressing sub-points of their argument in a single, cohesive answer if they had taken the time to gather their thoughts in an argumented and solid post (which would be strengthened by a a limit on the number of post per day in a given thread). Brevity isn't using few words, it's using no unnecessary word. Few quality discussions happens on twitter for a reason, especially on serious topic (I can imagine a 1-line answer to "do you prefer to use a mat to roll your dice on, or the table?" but not to "is it ethical not to cast Plant Growth over the field of the village where the inn you're sleeping in before getting your long rest?"). To each his own, I guess.

I don’t disagree with you, but who’s talking about one line answers? There is a happy medium to be struck surely? by the same token, it shouldn’t take a 1,000 word essay to explain the answer to your plant growth question either.

I totally agree that capturing several posts in one concise paragraph is best. Better than quoting 7 different posters and answering each one separately in the same post anyway. The latter makes having a conversation harder because they are only giving you one 7th of their attention And in replying You have to delete a lot of other peoples sections.

I don’t have any problems ignoring a one line responses. It doesn’t get my back up or create animosity. If someone doesn’t want to engage, theres no point disliking them for it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

IYO, how does it speak to the chacter of the person who takes digs at another person while hiding behind the ignore feature?

I and Me are pronouns.

Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.)

Pronouns: personal ( I, me, you, him, it, they, etc.) - English Grammar Today - a reference to written and spoken English grammar and usage - Cambridge Dictionary

dictionary.cambridge.org

Besides, this is where the idea came from:

I Me Mine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If someone thinks your custom title is transphobic, then blocking you without engaging with you is not a sign of cowardice or bad faith. Someone that makes pronoun jokes don't tend to be the type of people that trans people like to interact with.

 

[Fifth Element]

But, the Internet is a big place, and someone once accused me of being a Nazi for suggesting that all children should be taught proper English in school.

I would bet the context would make this sound at least a little less ridiculous, though you never know.

My main pont in responding, though, is to point out that there is no such thing as "proper English". English comes in many different forms and none of them have any more claim of being "proper" than any other form.

For example, it used to be pretty common for people to say that pronouncing "ask" as "acks" is not "proper English". Generally people now recognize that as a racist attitude, since that pronunciation is common specifically in AAVE.

 

[Fifth Element]

If someone thinks your custom title is transphobic, then blocking you without engaging with you is not a sign of cowardice or bad faith. Someone that makes pronoun jokes don't tend to be the type of people that trans people like to interact with.

And quoting the dictionary is always a good sign in discussions. /s

 

[SakanaSensei]

I would bet the context would make this sound at least a little less ridiculous, though you never know.

My main pont in responding, though, is to point out that there is no such thing as "proper English". English comes in many different forms and none of them have any more claim of being "proper" than any other form.

For example, it used to be pretty common for people to say that pronouncing "ask" as "acks" is not "proper English". Generally people now recognize that as a racist attitude, since that pronunciation is common specifically in AAVE.

As an English teacher for the past 10 years, several of which have been spent teaching the language abroad, it's become increasingly wild to me how much people define their own use of language as right and proper. Like, my Japanese students have a hard time with American English pronunciations, but they'd have a much easier time if what was standard in schools was British English. Why is that? Because my homeland garbles a lot of sounds! In the States, many people pronounce Ts as Ds, it almost feels like the letter O is pronounced "ah" more often than not, etc.

Language is fluid and suits the needs of those using it to communicate. To wield language as a cudgel to stop communication is antisocial behavior, period.

End of my TED talk. It is kind of disheartening to start a conversation on toxicity and antagonism and have it devolve into several fights, though.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

On the other hand, I dislike equally people who respond to a carefully constructed, fact-backed and illustrated argument with a 1 line dismissive answer. Equally frustrating are people who make 40 posts to reply to different posters when they could have made a single post, adressing sub-points of their argument in a single, cohesive answer if they had taken the time to gather their thoughts in an argumented and solid post (which would be strengthened by a a limit on the number of post per day in a given thread). Brevity isn't using few words, it's using no unnecessary word. Few quality discussions happens on twitter for a reason, especially on serious topic (I can imagine a 1-line answer to "do you prefer to use a mat to roll your dice on, or the table?" but not to "is it ethical not to cast Plant Growth over the field of the village where the inn you're sleeping in before getting your long rest?"). To each his own, I guess.

Replying to more than one post at a time, or doing much more than just Quote then Reply is nigh impossible if one uses a phone browser to engage in the forums.

I have about a 1.5"x2" square of visibility on the text I'm wrangling.

 

[MichaelSomething]

As far as I can tell, I have completely failed in my quest to become the most ignored user on Enworld! Looks like I'll have to pull out the big guns...

 

[AnotherGuy]

For example, it used to be pretty common for people to say that pronouncing "ask" as "acks" is not "proper English". Generally people now recognize that as a racist attitude, since that pronunciation is common specifically in AAVE.

I'm not from the US, whenever I saw that I thought it was some sort of new-age trend or something.