Sensationalism in CAaSS

Got a problem? We may be able to fix it for you. Talk to us dammit.

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby Tesseracts » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:51 pm

I’m afraid you’re going to have to make things more clear to me Gis, or else I’m going to continue making guesses about what you’re getting at and you’re going to continue thinking I’m wrong about your intentions on purpose. I’m not certain what threads you mean, what behavior you object to, or what you expect to be done about it.
  • 7

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9595
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby Lindvaettr » Tue Jan 02, 2018 6:59 pm

Gis, this one post is going to be directed more or less directly at you. I won't make any more directed at you, since I have no desire to start any sort of fight and I have absolutely no personal issues with you. I simply want to explain what I've observed, and what I feel you either haven't noticed or haven't understood.

I haven't looked into the other threads being talked about, and I haven't reread every post word for word from the thread that started this, but other than Damiana personally targeting Sunny (which doesn't really seem like a personal attack, to my mind, but is a little more personal than I feel was warranted), what I predominantly see from Damiana (and SandTea) is what some might call obstinance. To me, it looks as if they've formed their opinions on the topic from the beginning, and are unwavering in that opinion even as more of the story revealed itself, and as others made what I think to be very good points. While I disagree with both Damiana and SandTea's opinions, and don't find their arguments particularly compelling, it's quite clear from the thread that there are quite a few supporters on both sides. Some users supported the "cops are the villains here" side. Others did not. There were some strong emotions present, but no one was trying to shut the other side down. All that was being expressed were varied, albeit some very strong, opinions.

Now, here's where I want to be straight with you, Gis. Until you started calling out "armchair criticism", there hadn't been anything I saw that was directly negative about another user's posts. I wouldn't go so far as to call "armchair criticism" an insult, or even a personal attack, per se, but given the context, it seems to me that you were using it less to say point out the flaws in their approach and suggest a different one, and more of a reason to dismiss their opinion entirely. You then continue later by directly calling SandTea "this idiot". No one else insulted anyone directly, in that thread, as far as I can see. Most of the posts were on topic until then, actually, and there was some reasonable discussion going on.

I do agree with you that there tends to be a lot of sensationalism on CASS, and I'd like to see that change (from users, not from mods). I also agree that there were attempts made in that thread to shut down discussion because of differing opinions, but to be honest, most of the attempts to shut down discussion seem like they came from you. Your posts were the most openly hostile, and you made the biggest personal attacks, even going so far as to dismiss the idea that you shouldn't have made those attacks and refuting the concept of taking the moral high ground.

You, as everyone, are free to post your own opinions, and that includes posting your opinions here as to whether or not threads and posts like those in question should be more heavily moderated. But just know that when you're talking about moderators cracking down on behavior like that, you're also calling for them to crack down on your own behavior, perhaps predominantly your own behavior.
  • 10

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby DamianaRaven » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:21 pm

Since we have to edit our posts instead of deleting them, here's this:

Image
  • 0

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby gisambards » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:11 pm

Tesseracts wrote:I’m afraid you’re going to have to make things more clear to me Gis, or else I’m going to continue making guesses about what you’re getting at and you’re going to continue thinking I’m wrong about your intentions on purpose. I’m not certain what threads you mean, what behavior you object to, or what you expect to be done about it.

1) The threads I'm referring to are those provided in the list by Crimson.
The complaint I've made is not limited to the one thread everyone keeps referring to.
http://thecommentsection.org/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10740

Here's the rest:

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10711
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10421
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10606
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10704

If you broaden the scope to stories about the justice system fucking up, the following count as well:

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10751
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10575
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10628
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=10635

Looking at all these threads together makes it easier to see what gisambards' objection is, I think. There's an awful lot of inflammatory rhetoric in the titles and opening posts, and some clickbaity "you won't believe what's in this video" language that obscures more than it informs. In short, I do see a legitimate problem there. Whether mod intervention is a good means of solving the problem is a separate question, of course.

2) The behaviour I am objecting to is primarily the inflammatory nature of the titles and OP of each thread, which I really don't think it's unreasonable to want discouraged. It would not be shutting down anyone's opinion - quite the opposite - and it is blatantly against guidelines. I am also concerned, however, by the fact that people who post on those threads with anything other than anti-police opinions are prone to being personally attacked.
3) All I want is for the staff to say officially that clickbait thread titles and sensationalised OPs that don't provide any actual information should be avoided. This is not unreasonable, it absolutely will not shut down anyone's opinion, and has been discussed before. The fact that you were considering locking the Trump thread just makes it even more bizarre to me that you refuse to recognise the issue here - why do the frequent contributors to that thread not merit the same robust defence of their right to actually express their opinions generally rationally that Damiana apparently gets for her right to repeatedly break the guidelines?


Re:Lind,
while it is frustrating that the focus continues to be on that one thread and on criticising me rather than actually looking at the issue, I disagree that my behaviour there was wrong anyway. Calling specific comments "armchair criticism" is a perfectly valid argument to make when one feels those comments are unrealistic. And yes, while I did refer to SandTea as an idiot, that was after they'd made it clear the only thing they were going to contribute to the thread was to repeatedly accuse me of wanting innocent people to get murdered (which apparently doesn't qualify as a direct insult). Irregardless, it's simply inaccurate to claim I was the only person being at all hostile, and I was only that after having to put up with the sort of thing I'm complaining about.
  • 0

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby IamNotCreepy » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:28 pm

gisambards wrote:3) All I want is for the staff to say officially that clickbait thread titles and sensationalised OPs that don't provide any actual information should be avoided. This is not unreasonable, it absolutely will not shut down anyone's opinion, and has been discussed before. The fact that you were considering locking the Trump thread just makes it even more bizarre to me that you refuse to recognise the issue here - why do the frequent contributors to that thread not merit the same robust defence of their right to actually express their opinions generally rationally that Damiana apparently gets for her right to repeatedly break the guidelines?


Staff has already said those things here.

1). Post Quality: Try to write posts that contribute to the forum in some way. This doesn’t mean every post needs to be a 1000 word essay, nor does it mean the same thing for every sub-forum on TCS. General forum-wide guidelines would mean that simple posts with one or two words, or just a smiley are to be avoided. If you want to say something like “I agree” a thumb does that nicely. At the least, write a few sentences on why you agree. These guidelines are especially important for posts made in Current Affairs And Serious Stuff and Loud Noises, where more reasoned and thought out posts are appreciated. In Until Someone Loses An Eye or The Social Cellar, the aim is fun and games, silliness is encouraged, and the one or two word guideline doesn't necessarily apply.


3). Specific Thread Titles: When creating a new thread, use a title that is specific and gives information about what the topic is going to be about. Avoid titles that are inflammatory or don't give any information about the topic.

Examples of bad thread titles:

Another Terrible Article
Man on the Internet is a Real Prick
Oh for Fuck's Sake!
What do you think of...

Examples of Good Thread Titles:

5 Baddass Military Heroes
So You Have A Hamster Stuck Up Your Ass (Bulchoz Kills It Again)
US Congress Goes On Strike

4). Thread OP (original post): When creating a new thread, the OP should set the tone for the discussion and provide introductory information about the topic. Please don’t just drop a link with no additional comments, if it's about an upcoming game or movie elaborate on why you're excited. If you want to have a debate or discussion about an idea, or an article, lead with your thoughts, and what it is you want to discuss.


Those are guidelines, not official rules, which can be found here.

If someone is posting things that don't fall under the guidelines, you can certainly make them aware of that, but you can't force people to post better things.
  • 5

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: The Yeast of Thought and Mind

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby Lindvaettr » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:47 pm

gisambards wrote:And yes, while I did refer to SandTea as an idiot, that was after they'd made it clear the only thing they were going to contribute to the thread was to repeatedly accuse me of wanting innocent people to get murdered (which apparently doesn't qualify as a direct insult).


I just read through all of SandTea's posts in that thread because I was sure that I'd missed something, since you're so certain (s)he called accused you of want innocent people to get murdered. I can't find anywhere that anyone accused anyone else of that, until you specifically said that you didn't want that. Please prove me wrong here with a quote or a link to the post. I'll happily reconsider what I said if it turns out I'm wrong, but for now it honestly seems to me like you're reading some implication into SandTea's posts that I am not reading at all.

gisambards wrote:Irregardless, it's simply inaccurate to claim I was the only person being at all hostile, and I was only that after having to put up with the sort of thing I'm complaining about.


You certainly weren't the only person being hostile. Several people in the thread were, but hostility isn't necessarily a problem. While I don't personally like the hostility, it's not one of the things I'm concerned about. Subjects like this are bound to generate some hostility, since people often have very different and very sensitive opinions on the topics. What I'm much more concerned about it how people deal with their hostile or angry feelings. It's perfectly fine, and even justified, to feel angry in threads like these. It's not justified to insult people.

You'll notice that I'm not calling you out specifically for any other the other issues I've expressed concern about, like making strawman arguments or taking others' arguments out of context. There was quite a bit of that from many people in that thread, on either side.

If there are insults or personal attacks from others that I missed in my readthrough, then consider my previous post to apply to them, as well. Insults and personal attacks are, to me, completely unacceptable and entirely unconstructive in a discussion regardless of who started it, or who said what first.
  • 4

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby Lindvaettr » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:05 pm

I want to emphasize, just to be fair to Gis (especially since I said I would only do the one post, and then responded with a second. Sorry about that), I do agree with him as far as the click-baity titles. I don't agree that mods need to get involved, or that the guidelines need to become rules, but I do think it's reasonable to reemphasize them.

Damiana, from one user to another, I do find many of your thread titles to often fall somewhere between being click-baity and being inflammatory. Seeing that you seem to actively seek out cases of police misconduct and potential police misconduct (not a bad thing to do, in itself), and post them individually to CASS sometimes much more frequently than new topics are being made by other users, it might be good practice to self-moderate your thread titles somewhat. While your own opinion on the matter may be very strong, please realize that the thread title itself really does set the tone, and if the topic of the thread appears to boil down to "Police are bad guys", users who are inclined to argue against that will feel like they're playing defense before they've even clicked on the thread.

If you were to ask my opinion (which you're under no obligation to), I'd say that you should make the thread titles as neutral as you can. For example, instead of "Police Instantly Kill Innocent Man Over Prank Call", perhaps consider something like "Innocent man killed by police in Call of Duty SWATing incident". While this both indicates that an innocent man was killed, and that he was killed by the police, it also informs the reader of what to expect in the topic, and doesn't immediately place the blame for the death on police immediately killing a prank caller. You may feel that that's what happened, but your own personal feelings are better left for the thread itself, not the title.

Note that I also have this problem with other threads. Since Tess brought up the Donald Trump thread, I'll say that "President Trump makes himself an even BIGGER asshole" is a horrible thread title, in my opinion, that much more than your thread explicitly sets the tone of the discussion to be "We already agree Trump is a big asshole, now here's a thread to post all the things you hate about him". That kind of title invites circlejerkery right from the get-go.
  • 5

User avatar
Lindvaettr
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:19 am
Location: Various, depending on time and day
Show rep
Title: Lord of the Dance

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby Marcuse » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:05 pm

1) The threads I'm referring to are those provided in the list by Crimson.
The complaint I've made is not limited to the one thread everyone keeps referring to.


Firstly, the thread this arose from is a microcosm of the rest of them. The decisions on the one thread can be easily extrapolated to the rest.

Secondly; number of reports made about these = 0. Number of PMs sent to moderators complaining of such threads (to my knowledge) = 0 Number of posts made where the fact the thread is clickbaity is used to shit on other users and denigrate their ability to argue = nigh beyond number.

The simple fact is that until this thread hit the fan, nobody was complaining to moderators about this. Pretending that this has been an issue for a ton of time and staff have ignored it when nobody has been complaining about it until now except as asides within threads where meta discussion of board policy is off topic. I don't know how strongly I need to say the words when you have a problem bring it to the attention of the people whose job it is to resolve those problems.

As they have stood prior to this, I have not seen this as evidence of a serious problem on the board. It's a quirk of how people choose to title threads and while we absolutely do recommend to title threads in a way that doesn't presuppose things, we also allow threads calling Trump an asshole, or saying Social Justice is insane, or calling people on the internet dumb. We do allow threads that express and opinion or encourage a certain response, and I don't see these as significantly different enough when the threads I mentioned are fine and nobody cares about them. Independent of a complaint, I wouldn't personally see reason to begin intervening in them.

2) The behaviour I am objecting to is primarily the inflammatory nature of the titles and OP of each thread, which I really don't think it's unreasonable to want discouraged. It would not be shutting down anyone's opinion - quite the opposite - and it is blatantly against guidelines. I am also concerned, however, by the fact that people who post on those threads with anything other than anti-police opinions are prone to being personally attacked.


It is discouraged already. If any user says to me "how should I go about titling threads?" I would suggest the same thing as in the guidelines. What you're asking for is moderators to intervene in discussions in order to tell some people, but not others, on a scale which nobody can decide on or is even talking about, that their thread title is wrong. I don't think we need moderators of bad posts. We don't need a hall either.

Additionally, I would be really careful about complaining about personal attacks. I don't think many people involved in that last discussion came off looking like reasoned debaters.

3) All I want is for the staff to say officially that clickbait thread titles and sensationalised OPs that don't provide any actual information should be avoided. This is not unreasonable, it absolutely will not shut down anyone's opinion, and has been discussed before. The fact that you were considering locking the Trump thread just makes it even more bizarre to me that you refuse to recognise the issue here - why do the frequent contributors to that thread not merit the same robust defence of their right to actually express their opinions generally rationally that Damiana apparently gets for her right to repeatedly break the guidelines?


What purpose would saying that "clickbait thread titles and sensationalised OPs that don't provide any actual information should be avoided" serve? Are you looking for a political statement here? That seems both hollow and useless, and given you've already bitterly complained that the guidelines don't have any force so they're useless, what would a statement do other than suit your personal desire to see the mod team back up your opinion about these thread titles?

At what point has any staff member said that any person in that thread should have their right to express their opinion restricted? The only thing we have done is ask people to stop being aggressive towards each other (the much denigrated calling for civility) and then locking the thread when certain people couldn't stop arguing when they'd been directly instructed to. What about that is restricting the opinion of anyone? The entire reason why I said people should use the ask a mod forum was to give this issue the opportunity to be voiced and to have a proper response that wasn't prematurely shut down because it was off topic for a thread about police shootings or whatever. I literally took your hand and showed you how to sound off about this. I'm unsure why you're saying that your right to express your opinion is being restricted when a staff member told you how to do it, and you did so, and have received a detailed response to that.

So again. I ask for some concrete proposals of what should be done about the issue of clickbaity titles, namely:

1. How should such titles be identified?
2. What should be done about such titles?
3. Why should moderation by the tool used to implement this?
4. What protects the user base from moderator abuse or restriction of speech?
  • 6

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby DamianaRaven » Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:36 pm

Lindvaettr wrote:If you were to ask my opinion (which you're under no obligation to), I'd say that you should make the thread titles as neutral as you can. For example, instead of "Police Instantly Kill Innocent Man Over Prank Call", perhaps consider something like "Innocent man killed by police in Call of Duty SWATing incident".


I don't consider that a "neutral" change because it shifts the action of the sentence to the victim instead of the people who acted. That man didn't get killed by police - the police killed him. The distinction is subtle, but important to me. I will do my very best to make future thread titles both truthful and informative, but I'm not going to spend even one second groping about for a "neutral" way of expressing myself so that apologists won't feel defensive or triggered. Perhaps someone would like to counter the negative atmosphere my threads have cast over CASS by posting positive stories of all the good cops we have out there, but that would admittedly require a LOT more effort than just shouting down anyone who criticizes the cowards and sadists among their ranks.
  • 0

Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby ghijkmnop » Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:27 pm

To be fair, the title to that specific thread implies that the police killed an innocent prank caller. "SWAT prank results in Manslaughter-by-Cop" might have been clearer...I think..? I dunno--never mind.
  • 5

Erogenous zones, I love you.
Without you, what would a poor boy do?
User avatar
ghijkmnop
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 8:22 am
Show rep
Title: Oldest member of TCS

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby aviel » Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:26 am

For the sake of trying to make the conversation more policy-oriented, I'm going to be specific. If I'm missing the point of the dispute here (I haven't spent much time in the relevant threads), let me know.

Marcuse wrote:1. How should such titles be identified?

Mods would identify titles that are reported by users, and in violation of the CAaSS guidelines, or the guidelines that IAmNotCreepy quoted.

2. What should be done about such titles?

Mods should talk to the original posters and work with them to fix them.

3. Why should moderation by the tool used to implement this?

Because the alternative tool to fix problematic user behavior is discussion from other users, but problematic titles or original posts set the tone of the discussion before it even occurs, and can make that discussion more difficult. Often, user discussion will be sufficient to solve the problem anyway, but not always. Additionally, the fact that we have guidelines means that the forum has taken a stance on how discussion should be conducted, so it's reasonable for people to expect that moderators will do something to try and keep discussion compliant with the guidelines.

4. What protects the user base from moderator abuse or restriction of speech?

Practically? Literally nothing, because this is a privately owned online forum without any real means of appeal. With or without rules, moderators could ban users or delete or edit their posts without reason or explanation, and there would be no guarantee of practical repercussions.

More formally though, they'd be confined by the bounds of the guidelines they're supposed to be enforcing. If the guidelines don't suppress speech, then moderators faithfully adhering to them shouldn't either.
  • 8

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
aviel
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby gisambards » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:18 am

Marcuse wrote:Firstly, the thread this arose from is a microcosm of the rest of them. The decisions on the one thread can be easily extrapolated to the rest.

That just doesn't work, and if anything just demonstrates how little effort you're putting into this. Most of those threads are better examples of what I'm complaining about.

Marcuse wrote:Secondly; number of reports made about these = 0. Number of PMs sent to moderators complaining of such threads (to my knowledge) = 0 Number of posts made where the fact the thread is clickbaity is used to shit on other users and denigrate their ability to argue = nigh beyond number.

Once again, attacking my character and motives so you don't have to address the issue. So are we supposed to raise it with the users themselves, or appeal to the mods? You've criticised me for both now.

Marcuse wrote:Pretending that this has been an issue for a ton of time and staff have ignored it when nobody has been complaining about it until now except as asides within threads where meta discussion of board policy is off topic. I don't know how strongly I need to say the words when you have a problem bring it to the attention of the people whose job it is to resolve those problems.

I've not claimed staff were ignoring it before. My problem is that both admins, who normally seem much more reasonable than this, are continuing to totally refuse to acknowledge what I'm actually complaining about. I have brought it to your attention, and you're still doing everything in your power to do fuck-all to actually respond to it.

Marcuse wrote:It's a quirk of how people choose to title threads and while we absolutely do recommend to title threads in a way that doesn't presuppose things, we also allow threads calling Trump an asshole, or saying Social Justice is insane, or calling people on the internet dumb.

And yet one of those threads was permanently locked, and Tess has considered doing the same to another, due to their potentially echo chamber nature.

Marcuse wrote:What you're asking for is moderators to intervene in discussions in order to tell some people, but not others, on a scale which nobody can decide on or is even talking about, that their thread title is wrong.

Once again, you're accusing me of targeting certain users, except now also saying I only want this moderation to be used on certain users. This is attacking my character for no obvious reason. If I think a rule should exist, I think it should apply to everyone.
I think it's pretty unfair to complain that I've not offered you any suggestions. As I say, you refuse to even recognise the issue and have mostly just been criticising me instead. Why the hell would I offer you suggestions if that's how I'm treated for raising the issue in the first place? You're not going to listen to them, and there's a good chance you'll just twist them to have a further go at me instead.
And it's frankly ridiculous you have the gall to make comparisons between what I want and the way PWoT is operated when you're a forum staff member doing everything you can to denigrate my character so that you can ignore my legitimate complaints about the behaviour of a user you like. You'd fit right in over there.

Additionally, I would be really careful about complaining about personal attacks. I don't think many people involved in that last discussion came off looking like reasoned debaters.

Bad behaviour on the part of someone complaining does not excuse bad behaviour on the part of the person they're complaining about.

At what point has any staff member said that any person in that thread should have their right to express their opinion restricted? The only thing we have done is ask people to stop being aggressive towards each other (the much denigrated calling for civility) and then locking the thread when certain people couldn't stop arguing when they'd been directly instructed to. What about that is restricting the opinion of anyone? The entire reason why I said people should use the ask a mod forum was to give this issue the opportunity to be voiced and to have a proper response that wasn't prematurely shut down because it was off topic for a thread about police shootings or whatever. I literally took your hand and showed you how to sound off about this. I'm unsure why you're saying that your right to express your opinion is being restricted when a staff member told you how to do it, and you did so, and have received a detailed response to that.

None of this bears any relation to what I wrote and what you actually quoted. What I said was:
"The fact that [staff] were considering locking the Trump thread just makes it even more bizarre to me that you refuse to recognise the issue here - why do the frequent contributors to that thread not merit the same robust defence of their right to actually express their opinions generally rationally that Damiana apparently gets for her right to repeatedly break the guidelines?"
And I stand by this. It seems to me deeply hypocritical, and is quite explicitly saying that the frequent posters on the Trump thread are not afforded the same privileges that apparently are to be given to Damiana - which I suppose we already knew, because people have complained about that title in the past and didn't have an admin pop up to dismiss their points with the minimum of thought and criticise them personally.
Regarding one point in particular, however:
I literally took your hand and showed you how to sound off about this. I'm unsure why you're saying that your right to express your opinion is being restricted when a staff member told you how to do it, and you did so, and have received a detailed response to that.

You have not responded to my complaints in a remotely reasonable way. You responded to me doing what you asked me to do by ignoring most of what I was saying (in some cases willfully - my complaint about a general trend of personal attacks on users apparently being dismissed because I insulted someone recently, and providing some lame excuse for why you're not going to look at more than one of the multiple threads my complaints are about), denigrating my character and questioning not just my motives but the motives of any user who also believes there's a problem - and worst of all you've done this while claiming to speak officially. So right now the only suggestion I am willing to offer is: you are really bad at this, and should quit. If this is how genuinely-intended complaints about behaviour are responded to, even the person being complained about wasn't in violation of anything, then this is just unacceptable.
  • 0

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby DamianaRaven » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:52 am

Everyone wrote:Damiana


My name is actually Jennifer, if anyone cares. Mrs. Trull is my formal designation and friends call me Jenna.
  • 0

Last edited by DamianaRaven on Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5978
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby Tesseracts » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:53 am

Gis, I don't see how pointing out the lack of reports is an attack on your character. You aren't supposed to do anything, you are free to make or not make reports as you see fit. I think he was just pointing out the lack of reports to refute the idea that staff are refusing to do anything. We can't refuse to confront an issue if we don't know it's an issue. I'm not trying to attack you and I guarantee Marcuse is not trying to either, even though you have clearly read his posts that way.
If you're upset that we interpreted your complaint to be about one thread, one opinion, or one person, consider that maybe that's how you actually come across. Attempting to address the point your making isn't an attack if it's what we actually believe your point is.

I brought up potentially locking the Trump thread because I was trying to show that I do understand that a hostile environment can be an issue. I almost never publicly talk about staff decisions which haven't been made yet, I made an exception this time in an effort at diplomacy. That only seems to have made you more mad though.
  • 5

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9595
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Sensationalism in CAaSS

Postby gisambards » Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:08 am

Tesseracts wrote:Gis, I don't see how pointing out the lack of reports is an attack on your character.

Marcuse wrote:number of reports made about these = 0. Number of PMs sent to moderators complaining of such threads (to my knowledge) = 0 Number of posts made where the fact the thread is clickbaity is used to shit on other users and denigrate their ability to argue = nigh beyond number.

I think the bolded part is clearly intended as one. What else could it possibly be? And this is not the only example of him saying things like this on this thread. It is has been made very clear that the official position, as far as Marcuse is concerned, is that my complaints are to be dismissed entirely because this is all coming from me having a personal grudge, which isn't true and which I find insulting.
If you're upset that we interpreted your complaint to be about one thread, one opinion, or one person, consider that maybe that's how you actually come across. Attempting to address the point your making isn't an attack if it's what we actually believe your point is.

None of these add up.
So far as threads goes, there's a post from Crimson fairly early on pointing this out and listing the other threads, which Marcuse directly acknowledged (to attack Crimson's motivations for doing it rather than address anything raised, of course). And he then quite explicitly said he's ignoring the other threads for a bullshit reason.
I cannot have made more clear at this point that this is not about disagreement with Damiana's opinion.
And it sets an extremely bad precedent if complaints are allowed to be dismissed because staff just assume (falsely, in this case) that there's some sort of personal issue behind the complaint.

I brought up potentially locking the Trump thread because I was trying to show that I do understand that a hostile environment can be an issue. I almost never publicly talk about staff decisions which haven't been made yet, I made an exception this time in an effort at diplomacy. That only seems to have made you more mad though.

Because it shows that you understand exactly where my complaint is coming from, which just makes the reaction more bizarre.
  • 0

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest