frankly the user in question violates the rules anyway since he constantly insults people. I found like two dozen posts of him calling people idiots, or morons, or dummy’s, or some other grade school insult just in the past week. I am much less concerned with insults than spam though. I don’t want him banned from the site I just don’t want to have to wade through his Facebook feed to read anything about politics
Can we limit a users threads?
Posts
Total:
81
-->
@zedvictor4
I notice quite a few arrogant egos in this thread.
We righties are just a bunch of cantankerous old men. To be expected
-->
@thett3
I don't see how you could be for removing their threads, if you're in favor of freedom of speech.I don’t view this as a freedom of speech thing at all. My issue with freedom of speech online has always been people getting censored simply for having an opinion that goes against a narrative, no matter how well reasoned or respectful they are. I don’t think telling a user that they can’t make the website their personal Facebook page in a way that destroys it for other users is a violation of any sort of valuable speech. That seems like the entire purpose of moderation
So, by making the website "their personal Facebook page", they're:
(1) Making threads that generate some levels of engagement, sometimes a lot
(2) Are generally lower quality than the average thread, but most are passable with some political argument being made
(3) Are about 2/3's of the 1st page for Politics thread (currently for Roosevelt's and Greyparrot's threads), which is noticeable but certainly not the only thing you can find there, especially considering the 2nd page is better
I just don't see the charge "spam" Or "destroy" being correct here. They're not flooding the Politics forums to the point you have to reach page 10 to find someone else's thread. They're not writing insults in every OP with the elaboration of "discuss". They're responding to posts in the threads and have relevant topics for the Politics forum.
I really think it's as simple as scroll until you find something worth responding to, if you don't like what they write. This isn't even mentioning that Rational 'thinnest skin' Madman seems to be okay with them, too, so that's saying something.
frankly the user in question violates the rules anyway since he constantly insults people. I found like two dozen posts of him calling people idiots, or morons, or dummy’s, or some other grade school insult just in the past week. I am much less concerned with insults than spam though. I don’t want him banned from the site I just don’t want to have to wade through his Facebook feed to read anything about politics
I think Roosevelt is one of the lowest quality posters we have on Dart, and the barrage of insults he levies is another issue independent of his thread creation (maybe that generates reason to delete his threads -- that's for the mods to decide). He's a political zealot who is more interested in defeating the right than having substantive discussion. I personally have him blocked and never read anything he writes. As a guess, I'd say he's 10% of the posts in the politics forum of recent, and maybe 30% of the threads. It's really not that hard to scroll past his contributions.
Nonetheless, even a low-quality poster like him should have a right to speak. He just won't find my ears as his audience :)
-->
@zedvictor4
I notice quite a few arrogant egos in this thread.
Be a real man and name them.
-->
@thett3
the low effort threads are a problem
please explain exactly how this is a "crisis" ?
-->
@thett3
making the block function remove the blocked user from the view of the blocker, would SOLVE "problems" like this
-->
@Avery
Nope, no personal attacks.
But I've fathered children so proven myself to be a real sperm producer.
Which is what a real man is in my opinion.
Though more to the point, assuming the influence and authority to limit another user's participation is a tad egotistical.
-->
@zedvictor4
Though more to the point, assuming the influence and authority to limit another user's participation is a tad egotistical.
All I did was ask a question about if there’s any appetite to address a user who everyone agrees is a net negative to the site and the answer appears to be no. If you think that’s egotistical just say so instead of being passive aggressive
-->
@3RU7AL
making the block function remove the blocked user from the view of the blocker, would SOLVE "problems" like this
It doesn’t solve the problem of making the website entirely unappealing to new users
-->
@Avery
It’s true I can just scroll past it and I will in the future. It’s just frustrating to see a once interesting forum devolve into very low effort propaganda posts. I’ll try to make more quality posts to counter the low effort ones
-->
@thett3
Nobody, no matter how unlikable to the majority, should be punished for being a personality type or carrying themselves in any way that the rules allow.
-->
@thett3
i wouldn't be opposed to a limit of 5 new topics per day, per category
-->
@RationalMadman
Do the rules allow for insulting other users in every other post?
-->
@thett3
I can tell you what your OP and this thread is designed to do:
Callout and insult 2 users that irritate you.
I can also tell you that if I had made this thread about popular users, I'd have been heavily punished unless it was specifically about moderation and the mods.
You are not usually so petty and toxic and honestly you are one of the last people I thought to see advocate killing activity on the site that's always borderline dead.
The answer to you is that only the toxicity is the issue and you should PM mods about the user. I am someone who has reported his posts, so I can say I am not a fan of the insulting.
-->
@RationalMadman
I can tell you what your OP and this thread is designed to do:Callout and insult 2 users that irritate you.I can also tell you that if I had made this thread about popular users, I'd have been heavily punished unless it was specifically about moderation and the mods.
Maybe you would be but that wouldn’t be fair if true. I see a problem, the forum clogged with extremely low effort posts, and am wondering if there’s a solution. It’s weird to have so many mods if they aren’t even going to try to control it. I’m not saying lay out the ban hammer but have they even talked to the guy?
You are not usually so petty and toxic and honestly you are one of the last people I thought to see advocate killing activity on the site that's always borderline dead.
It’s borderline dead BECAUSE you have to wade through so much low effort stuff to get to anything good! Why would anyone join it if all you see is vitriol! There are plenty of people here who can and have made quality contributions but the percentage of posts that are worthwhile keeps dropping
The answer to you is that only the toxicity is the issue and you should PM mods about the user. I am someone who has reported his posts, so I can say I am not a fan of the insulting
Fair enough, it definitely seems like I’m in the minority in this one in any case
-->
@3RU7AL
I like that you suggest solutions,
Though solutions still bit in brainstorm category.
-->
@thett3
It’s borderline dead BECAUSE you have to wade through so much low effort stuff to get to anything good! Why would anyone join it if all you see is vitriol!
I ran on this platform before, except I considered vitriol to be the actual vitriol like the abuse BrotherD was doing and perhaps some of what Roos is currently doing. The religion forum had users throwing around pedo claims on others and all kinds of shit, with BrotherD's specialty being absolute, unrelenting harassment even if blocked.
I had some support, definitely not from you. However, since then I have seen things clean/clear up. What is happening in the politics forum other than Roos' insults is overall good enough that most people into debating would go 'maybe' to joining, not 'hell no'.
If you think what's there is 'hell no' the dead abyss of you posting whatever rant you want as an OP once every 2-3 months is hardly gonna be carrying it enough. The fact is I agreed with my opposition that's why I dropped out. I always wanted activity above all else, assuming bullying activity was censored and it didn't get censored much at all that campaign phase and was a big issue.
I didn't care because honestly overall, any activity is better than no activity. There are people who find shitposting entertaining and fun, there's also people who like details ranty OPs and discussing things further. Your main flaw isn't just posting barely at all, it's replying barely at all inside of your threads and only doing so very selectively to people you feel either match you or are easy to speak against.
Every user has their flaws, that is literally a guarantee. If there was no GP and not Roosevelt, are you honestly telling me the subforum would fill with better? I doubt it.
-->
@RationalMadman
I think you’re right actually. I do wish the insulting other users would stop though
-->
@thett3
Yep, some good buzz words and phrases there.
But in my book, tolerance is a virtue and ignorance is bliss.
So be content with your own cognitive methodology, ignore data you don't wish to interact with and be tolerant of other people's individuality.
I would also dare to suggest, that you choose not to ignore probably because you enjoy not ignoring.
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope, no personal attacks.But I've fathered children so proven myself to be a real sperm producer.Which is what a real man is in my opinion.Though more to the point, assuming the influence and authority to limit another user's participation is a tad egotistical.
Any man can breed. Not every man is a real man, though. I certainly wouldn't want to be raised by a "real sperm producer" who pussyfoots around his insults with passive-aggressive jabs. That's what high-school girls do, not adult males.
So, "real sperm producer", what's it going to be?: are you going to tell us who you think is an "arrogant ego", or are you going to slink back to 347th viewing of Mean Girls?
By that logic,
Zarro/Avery/mgtowdemon/mesmer/Analsomething you were one of the the realest men of DART.
Your logic, not mine.