Note: The thread currently has a limit of one post every two hours for non-mod users. Currently, this is hard-coded by the admins, but there are plans to give mods the ability to toggle it without admin intervention. After mods are given the ability to do that, the time limit may be further reduced or removed entirely.
This thread is for discussing the following topics:
- Questions and clarifications about the site's rules and policies pertaining to wiki editing, forum posting, trope launching, and so on.
- If you have an idea for a thread on another part of the forums but aren't sure if creating it would be allowed, feel free to ask here.
This thread is not for any of the following:
- Reporting complaints or concerns about specific moderation decisions (e.g. suspensions and thumps). Report these directly to the admins via the contact form
. Selecting "The Staff" sends your message to the admins only, without making it visible to moderators.
- Queries about thumps applied to your own forum posts, including contesting the validity of a thump. Reply to the relevant moderator via PM for these matters.
- Ban appeals (use the "Edit Banned" thread
in this forum).
- Reporting problems or requesting moderator action in the wiki or forums (use Ask The Tropers or Hollersnote or specialized threads such as "Locked Pages"
).
- Queries about locked On-Topic Conversations (OTC) threads or banned discussion topics. OTC has its own moderation discussion thread here
, and the latest statement on the locked US Politics thread
and other banned OTC topics is here
. Bluntly, when certain OTC threads and topics have repeatedly caused problems, we're not going to provide forum space to discuss them again until the moderation toolkit is equipped to handle those conversations.
- Cut List challenges and queries (they have their own thread here
).
- Requests for changes to the site's code or discussion about such changes, as mods cannot change the code; only the admins can do that. Please direct tech requests to Query Bugs or Tech Wishlist (for bug reports and suggestions for feature additions/changes, respectively), and take other tech-related discussion to the Changelog thread
.
- Crowner actions. Please use the holler function instead.
- Discussion about changing or implementing policies. Please use Wiki Talk for that. (Asking whether it's OK to make a specific thread is acceptable; using this thread in place of such a thread is not.)
- Asking about the whereabouts of inactive mods (or other inactive users) before they return, if they return at all. Use the Absent people thread
for discussing inactive users.
Posts that use this thread in place of the sections listed in the bulleted list above are off-topic.
We're aware that the Edit Banned thread has a Non-Indicative Name, due to it also covering non-editing suspensions. We're not sure whether the name for that thread can even be edited without breaking the special coding that keeps posting restricted to mods and suspended users, so we're leaving it alone for now, because better safe than sorry.
(Edited Mar 28 2024, adding bullet about OTC and amending layout a little)
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 11th 2024 at 3:20:25 AM
Rather the other way around. Nobody was saying anything like that, but Fighteer seems to be very set on the idea that that's what everyone is suggesting.
He also earlier today walked into the thread and, entirely unprompted, threw an insult at anti-capitalist people. And then spent an entire discussion trying to act as if he was the one being attacked.
This being the second time he's gone into that thread and acted as such.
Edited by OdysseusOfGaming on May 17th 2021 at 6:08:00 AM
I wholeheartly support Odysseus in stating his description is, indeed, the case.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."Quoting Misiael:
It's difficult to read that as coming from a pacifist.
My musician pageLink to the Fighteer's comment that I mentioned.
It's a rebuttal to Fighteer claiming that the conflict in question had no effect on capitalism. It is not a defense of that being a common practice.
Edited by OdysseusOfGaming on May 17th 2021 at 6:10:40 AM
Though, since I don't want to come across as bad-faith, I do want to admit my biases, and the abundance of antivaxers and anti-maskers the past year has soured my already-unfavorable opinion of anarchists, of which several individual tropers in the thread have admitted to being. So, perhaps I am viewing through tinted lenses.
My musician pageAlso same user, different post
:
The argument was always clearly not advocating for lopped off heads, just that progress does require strong action. It was Fighteer who came out of the gate accusing everyone with a negative opinion on capitalism on the thread of being a bomb throwing terrorist. Aside from his first post calling users "Quixotic", he has also called the "edgy
" and dismissively told them to "go read history
" (implicitly calling everybody ignorant) after being told he was factually incorrect in his assumption.
This has been largely one-way traffic.
Edited by Gaon on May 17th 2021 at 2:17:31 AM
"All you Fascists bound to lose."It does seem like Fighteer went in with a bone to pick.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesThis post
does not sound like it's in good faith to me.
But I do agree it's getting heated regardless and probably should move on. I'm not saying Fighter isn't saying poor stuff too, but the poor posting is not just on his end. I do feel he tends to get heated around the topic. Maybe a break isn't a bad idea?
Shadow?I wrote that post in the specific intention of pointing out how the argument I'm referencing did not make sense in the discussion. I wasn't actually accusing Fighteer of having that opinion, although I probably should have tagged it something to make that more clear. That is indeed on me.
Ah. Yeah, I can see why it sounds more confusing than you meant it to.
Though yeah, as of the latest post, Fighteer is right that he can't really say "let's discuss this somewhere else" if it's still on-topic. He isn't acting as a mod in any case here and is solely talking as a regular user among this forum. I dunno if bringing him up as a regular troper(and not moderation-related stuff) is entirely appropriate for this particular thread. It does say "moderation" not "moderators", which are two very different contexts. It might not be a bad idea to simply holler some posts and let the rest of the moderation discuss any issues proper. Favorites won't be played here either way, so I'm not worried.
But that's just my suggestion, if I'm understanding the purpose behind this thread right. And if so, perhaps we've hit a lot of off-topic posts quite often since this was talking a lot about a Moderator who isn't doing any moderating in context.
Shadow?I brought it up more with the intention of the thread as a whole being looked at (probably by one of the less invested mods), though I'll admit the difference in size of the sides may have made me more worried than I needed to be.
My musician pageI wasn't referring to that particular set of posts alone.
Just that I may be misunderstanding the purpose behind this thread(that it's about the Staff and their actions as a whole, not just moderation-related actions).
Shadow?From my point of view, the only problem here today is that Fighteer, for reasons I am not aware of, went to the thread of an openly anti-capitalist youtuber, a thread that consists mostly of people who on some level agree with what that youtuber is saying, and, upon seeing a video whose primary focus is on transphobia, decided to take a potshot at anti-capitalist people, entirely unprompted. And then proceeded to be annoyed and hostile at the fact that people felt bothered by this.
And that's coming off the heels of a similar incident that was also reported here
not two weeks ago, in which Fighteer also became very hostile in that thread over the same subject of anti-capitalism, and which culminated in Fighteer feeling the need to remind a troper in particular, as well as the entire thread, that he was a moderator and that said troper had "gotten into trouble before", over a disagreement that most certainly did not call for such an action.
The rest of the thread has been remarkably calm otherwise. The last time any trouble was had was during the matter with reddit and Gamestop, and that was far from restricted to the Jim Sterling thread. People there mostly just have discussions on whatever Sterling is talking about, which yes, generally includes anti-capitalist sentiments, but never anything violent or of any similar sentiment.
As Odysseus has put it, I think Fighteer is the main cause of the disruption in the thread by all metrics of logic and attempting to frame the problem as "both sides were at fault" is a mischaracterization. The rest of the thread was guilty of, at most, dogpiling (and engaging with, rather than summarily ignoring, his points). But everyone was polite, certainly far more polite than Fighteer calling essentially every anti-capitlaist on the thread "quixotic" and "edgy", as well as implicitly calling everybody morons with his "Read a history book".
He did not abuse his mod powers this time, of course, as nobody in the thread accused him of such the discussion here. In fact nobody in the thread brought up the discussion (rather external observer shiny did, in a bit of well-intentioned over-zealousness). What happened was just a user disrupted the thread due his own biases, continuously insulting other thread regulars in the process in quite a rude fashion, escalating the debate in the process. It just so happened that user was a mod called Fighteer.
I, for one, have hollered the posts in which I saw some (thump-worthy) snide behavior from his part, so it's in the hands of the moderation now.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."He's been active on that thread for a long time. It's not unprompted. He's just... being on-topic(though I agree the potshots are uncalled for, of course). The thing is, he disagrees with an anti-capitalism stance and always has. Albeit, again, that wasn't the right way to go about it(obviously), but it didn't come out of nowhere.
He's just replying to the videos as normal(in a poor way, as noted a bit ago), but it didn't come out of nowhere. So you have a point about the impoliteness, but it's not some random thing he went onto the thread for. He's a normal member of the topic, and the capitalism stuff in general. You have a bit of an inaccurate view of the full situation.
That said, this sounds again, like a normal troper being a bit rude anyway. Not a random person coming onto the thread to project. In the end, it'd be more of a case of removing capitalism from the thread in general if needed, despite it being on-topic, if the subject alone is an issue. Fighteer being more polite is still clearly a good idea on its own too. They're separate issues here, mind you.
Shadow?The matter I'm regarding as unprompted was the start of the capitalism talk when regarding this video (which was not about that; it only mentioned the topic as a sarcastic bit before moving onto the real topic, which was transphobia) and the way it was made. Capitalism, as you said, is a frequent topic of the thread, and the mention of it alone would not have been unprompted. It was the timing and the manner that made it so.
And I would disagree with banning the topic from the thread, not only because that would vastly cripple any discussion of Jim Sterling's videos, but because most of the time, the debate regarding the topic is perfectly civil. Outside of special instances of hot topics like the reddit thing, these two events have been the only ones where the discussion escalated the way they did, and to the point they did. And even then, they escalated on Fighteer's side alone. The thread has been otherwise calm, even when people disagree over the matter.
The video didn't really focus on capitalism, which is why the discussion was unprompted (the video was about Jim Sterling's gender identity by and large). His commentary was a non-sequitur that, if it were not Fighteer, could easily have been assumed as a deliberate attempt to inflame.
It's not that anti-capitalism or the thread itself is a inflammatory topic. It's that one user seemingly cannot help himself but disrupt the thread in some fashion because of the topic. As far as I understand, site policy is that if a discussion is going peacefully and entirely within the confines of the rules in the forum except for one user who can't help but be snide, the party to blame is the offending user. And the user usually has two choices: A) stop being snide. B) stop frequenting the thread. I don't see why this case would be an exception.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."I actually see a lot of dogpiling, some inproper responses to other users(not just from Fighteer), and what is clearly a favorable subject that only one person gets dogpiled on for even talking about it. Fighteer definitely was unprompted for bringing it up in an inflaming manner. He was not unprompted by talking about it when it's a consistent subject. His politeness is absolutely an issue.
...So why did I see multiple impolite responses too. That's just as disruptive and easily holler-worthy. It takes two to tangle. This isn't a single side of the coin anymore. This is a clearly heated subject among multiple people, and one is admittedly a bit more of an issue than the others.
There's really nothing more to say on that. I'm unconvinced this is simply Fighteer's fault and that there isn't another issue at hand. Thus, it's better I just leave off the subject beyond this since I'm seeing no evidence that only one person should be blamed for the entire situation.
(To clarify, I say this as a mod of multiple areas of the internet. There's only one case where a single person is the issue. They are disruptive and everybody replies respectively the entire time. If it's not that case, then all who break the rules need to be looked at. Nobody gets off scot-free for their behavior just cause someone was "worse". That's not how I ever will see things. You either were doing something poorly or you weren't. That's everybody's responsibility to be civil. No matter who starts a fight, anybody who gets heated is responsible for their own behavior).
And yeah, I'm going to leave the subject off there. Whether the moderation agrees with my stance doesn't really matter either. That's just my opinion on it, and something I only enforce where I own a server/forum/whatever. Just like others, it's my responsibility for how I act in those situations, for better or worse. I'm fairly lax in some ways, but I prefer to try and keep a neutral but fair stance in these regards. And responsibility is where I treat it as the most fair possible. You could also view it as nobody should get special privileges anyway in this particular context. Besides, it's been made clear Moderators can get thumped/etc. for their own behavior and while they are held to a higher standard, they aren't allowed to "break the rules" either. In fact, even a previous Admin has been thumped before, for this very reason. And I agree Fighteer is a core problem here too. Just not the only problem.
Shadow?Because, as mentioned before, this was not the first instance of Fighteer becoming hostile on the rest of the thread over this subject. I'll grant that this could have been handled more gracefully by people on the thread, myself included, but that does not excuse the fact that the entire argument started because Fighteer went into the thread knowing people's opinions, and still decided to open with an inflammatory, almost provocatory comment that was not related to the video that was the matter at hand. That is the issue at hand, and there is no other behind it. There is no other problem.
At most, what one can blame the entire rest of the thread for was not reacting well to provocation. And even then everyone else was ultimately polite, if occasionally sarcastic about the discussion. In most cases I've seen in this site, that would get Fighteer a thump, and the rest of the thread would at most be reprimanded for responding and told to not respond the next time.
Edited by OdysseusOfGaming on May 17th 2021 at 9:18:33 AM
You're missing the point here.
You don't dogpile on users. Period. It creates an unhealthy and uncivil atmosphere. That should've never happened. Polite responses are the only correct way to do it. If you can't be polite, don't respond or holler. That's how it's supposed to be.
That, and you're ignoring that a lot of responses were blatantly impolite towards Fighteer as well. That shouldn't be tolerated any more than Fighteer's improper opening post. They're both in the wrong. As you admitted, you made a very poor post. You're not the only one who did so, but trying to shift the blame to one person doesn't fix anything. There's more to the issue than that. There should be no dogpiling. There should be no inflammatory or accusatory responses. There should be no impolite behavior period. That's on all to be responsible for, not just one user.
That's the point overall. It's on everyone to be responsible for their own actions. And the actions in that thread were poor on multiple users. This is an overall issue with multiple users on the thread, basically.
And no, you don't need a "thump" for that. If you can't respond politely, then that's entirely on the user for refusing to be polite. That is not somebody else's responsibility. It's pretty much a "don't take the bait" situation, if you will.
That said, that was an actual thing I needed to respond to, though it doesn't mean my stance is movable. Though I may have to respond to clarify it better(probably in bullet points), but I probably got it clear enough earlier? I dunno. I'm not going to try to shift blame onto one user, though. That doesn't fit the context of what happened whatsoever.
Edited by Irene on May 17th 2021 at 7:36:35 AM
Shadow?And yet here you are, acting as if an entire thread should be blamed for an user who went hostile on that thread for the second time. You're shifting the blame yourself, trying to claim that an entire thread being at worst sarcastic or pointing out someone was out of line is equal to one user going into that thread and taking a gratuitous potshot are both equally reprehensible, for reasons I cannot fathom.
The matter here is simple. One user, who had already been hostile on this subject once before, made a provocation, which was rebuffed in a polite manner, at which point said user went hostile, and so other people in the thread joined in rebuffing him.
If you can't see the problem with that scenario then frankly I have nothing else to add to this.
So I null edited a page because it was in the middle of an Edit War and told the tropers (politely) to take their contested examples to the Discussion page.
(I wasn't part of the edit war, but it's on this page, which is one of the most Edit War prone pages on the site.)
Turns out I shouldn't have done that.
Uh... whoops?
(genuinely no idea that I shouldn't have done this, since I know that you use Discussion pages, PM, or ATT to resolve edit wars, and I thought that leaving a note in the history would work
.)
Mods have mentioned before that there shouldn’t be ANY conversation in Edit reasons, even things like reminders to go to Discussion. I don’t remember exactly when it was, but it was on ATT on an unrelated query.
That’s the only reason why I said it. Asking them to take it to the Discussion page via P Ms is easier, plus it’s harder for people to overlook P Ms than the edit history.

Is it just me or are the posters in the Jim Sterling thread (in New Media) getting rather heated? It's looking to me disturbingly close to calling for violent uprising, if "close" isn't being too loose a descriptor.
My musician page