It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
It is what it is
Anarchy and self-regulation (eg. no SJW saying what I can say and what not; no butthurt people complaining and so on)

No sarcasm, no being evil ?

Man what a weird place the Internet has become, BBS-s need to come back.
Post edited March 08, 2016 by dewtech
avatar
Acriz: I wanted to read your OP, but I got lost in the slatestarcodex comment section.
Happens to me as well... :D
avatar
rtcvb32: snip
Those were examples of interminable arguments that happen to be common in GOG. I was not asking for answers to those questions. :) Sorry you thought otherwise.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: snip
See above. This is a meta post about how to handle these sorts of arguments. It was not an invitation to restart said arguments. Sorry for confusion...
Post edited March 08, 2016 by Brasas
avatar
Asbeau: It is what it is
It is what GOG has let it be.
avatar
Asbeau: It is what it is
avatar
rodrolliv: It is what GOG has let it be.
It is what we make it into. ;)
What kind of community this is varies wildly depending on which topic you're posting in and which subforum are you reading. You'll see a lot more dudebro behavior in places like The Witcher 3 subforum, Witcher 3 being a relatively new AAA title advertised by GOG codes which came with GPUs - they're generally pretty polite dudebros tho. You'll see dramas about giveaways in some topics in which people you've never even heard about keep posting and recognizing each other, you'll see people who are otherwise very calm, polite and reasonable losing their shit over politics.

So the answer is: What kind of community you get heavily depends on what kind of community you want and which discussions you participate in. Of course, it also depends on whether Crosmando is in his "Humble regretful" mode or "I'M GONNA CUT YOU!" mode :-P
low rated
avatar
QuickyBard: No one is telling you how to post, I'm thinking of it more as a suggestion, not a rule.
There is no such thing as suggestion, you either force someone to do something, or you do not.
avatar
QuickyBard: No one is telling you how to post, I'm thinking of it more as a suggestion, not a rule.
avatar
Crosmando: There is no such thing as suggestion, you either force someone to do something, or you do not.
You've obviously never seen The Manchurian Candidate. :P
avatar
Acriz: I wanted to read your OP, but I got lost in the slatestarcodex comment section.
Me too.

4th comment in that link of yours said it rather well:
The sickness of the Internet age is that we’ve started to think we deserve to be taken seriously about something without putting a third of our lives into it.
avatar
Brasas: ...snip
See above. This is a meta post about how to handle these sorts of arguments. It was not an invitation to restart said arguments. Sorry for confusion...
Ah, in which case your original post is not valid. For each of those points people will have, validly, view points on them. Restricting that is called censorship.
Anyone else got stuck at that article? I can't stop reading.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Ah, in which case your original post is not valid. For each of those points people will have, validly, view points on them. Restricting that is called censorship.
Can you kindly point out what specifically leads you to believe I advocated restricting discussions? :)
avatar
Nirth: Anyone else got stuck at that article? I can't stop reading.
:)
avatar
QuickyBard: No one is telling you how to post, I'm thinking of it more as a suggestion, not a rule.
avatar
Crosmando: There is no such thing as suggestion, you either force someone to do something, or you do not.
Some people would say that inside of the "not forcing" set there are gradations.
Gradations such as suggesting versus ignoring. It's not that black or white ;)
avatar
Fenixp: snip
This here is of course a substantial post. Thanks fenix

Now let's take it to the next level. Given the existence of different sets of preferences: A wants community to be X. B wants community to be Y. What kind of meta level "rules" help coexistence and avoiding "conflict" aka: interminable arguments.

My takeaways are in the OP. Others are welcome.
Post edited March 08, 2016 by Brasas
low rated
The way I see it, this community should be a welcoming community. We should be accepting of other users, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and a whole bunch of factors that are too numerous to enumerate in full here. In particular, we should not make posts that make certain classes of people uncomfortable.

In particular, if, say, Zoe Quinn were to make an account here and post, she should be respected like any other poster. It's OK to criticize her ideas, but we should not be making personal attacks on her. Similarly, it is OK to criticize the Feminist Frequency videos (but make sure you at least watch the video or read the transcript), but it is not OK to make personal attacks on the maker of those videos.

Also, there are some terms that, simply put, are offensive and should not be used. (Note, however, the use-mention distinction; It is OK to mention the words as long as you don't actually invoke the meaning of said words.)

Another thing: Downrating should only be done to posts that detract from the conversation, are offensive, or are otherwise problematic. In particular, disagreement with the context of the post is not a good enough reason to click the "-" button.
avatar
Brasas: ...snip

My takeaways are in the OP. Others are welcome.
The part after:
Here's the takeaways I see:

These are your opinions. They are not enforceable across the community otherwise it would be censorship, hence the original post is invalid.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: snip

These are your opinions. They are not enforceable across the community otherwise it would be censorship, hence the original post is invalid.
But where do you see me saying that those opinions of mine should be enforced? I have not, and that's why I don't see what you consider invalid...

I'm not advocating censorship. At most I'm advocating self-censorship aka: be tolerant and nice even if you feel otherwise.

Precisely because I do not agree with censorship, the change I want needs to come from convincing others like you that being nice and tolerant is better. ;)