I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 4 years 16 weeks
- View recent blog entries
- Karma value
|2 hours 34 min ago||One question||
Did people learn NOTHING from the whole State of the Site post the other day?
THIS DOES NOT CALL FOR NAME-CALLING DEBATE. KNOCK IT OFF.
|1 day 14 hours ago||FWIW||
JGB, LSA, and I ban way, WAY more people than Brian does. It's just that most of the people we nuke are newer members who get banned for more obvious offenses. Some guys are tougher calls that I'd defer to Brian. Take, for example, Section 1. He's a smart, articulate guy who doesn't go around calling people crap-tards. He generally doesn't break the rules. But all he does is get into debates. I wouldn't ban him, but if Brian banished him I wouldn't cry.
As for banning dissenting opinions, I'd look at it like a baseball manager arguing with an umpire. You get a certain amount of leeway, especially when the ump has an inkling that he was wrong. But at a certain point, when you've had your full say, and the ump says "that's enough," that's gotta be enough. Some people are incapable of going back to the dugout, and are therefore ejected. Besides, there has been a lot of dissent and very few bannings beyond the usual trolls.
M-W offered some great contributions. But you don't get judged by the best things you do, you get judged by the worst things you do. And in this case, I understand Brian's decision.
|1 day 19 hours ago||Maybe a dumb question||
Aren't physicists pretty confident in the existence of Hawking radiation? I could be completely wrong, but I was under the impression that it was relatively well agreed-upon.
|1 day 19 hours ago||Concern trolling||
"A typical formulation might involve the troll's invocation of a site's espoused ideals alongside a perceived example of hypocrisy (such as contrasting "we value free speech" with the banning of a "dissenter"), and with a call for some relevant reform by the troll. This reform will frequently be burdensome or silly - the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective." Surprisingly, there are people who spend so much time on the Internet that this is actually a thing they worry about.
One common tactic of concern trolls is the "a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are just as bad as each other, and so no one can think themselves "correct" but must engage in endless hedging and caveats. This preys on a willingness to debate critics and allow dissent; everyone wastes time discussing the matter and bending over backwards, so as not to appear intolerant of disagreement, all to the great amusement of the troll."
|1 day 20 hours ago||I didn't lock it||
But threads like that get locked when all of the usefulness has been squeezed out of them, and all that is left is bickering. They weren't trying to hide anything; the thread and the comments stayed up. Sometimes mods get tired of babysitting circular arguments, ya know?
Besides, the problem isn't individual complains. It's the people who constantly go back to the same complain-y wells over and over. Constructive criticism is fine in reasonable amounts. Concern trolling is less fine.
|1 day 20 hours ago||Funny thing is||
That was actually a bug, not a feature. The site would get overloaded and the servers would crash when horrible things happened. In the past, the Penn State game would have shut things down for an hour or two, but the new servers held strong and let everyone drop their IMMEDIATE HOT TAKES FIRE BORGES. One problem solved, a new problem created.
|1 day 20 hours ago||Wait...||
His mom is Derrick Rose?
|1 day 20 hours ago||Typo||
You misspelled "last month"
|1 day 21 hours ago||This.||
This. This. Thiiiiiiiiis.
It used to be SO much easier to moderate stuff; open thread, search for "-1"s, take required action.
|1 day 21 hours ago||What's that?||
Did someone hear something?
Okay. Must be my imagination.
|1 day 21 hours ago||I've considered it||
But I was afraid it would be a crossing-the-proton-pack-streams kind of thing where all moderation would vanish and the banished accounts would all come back and take over the city.
|1 day 21 hours ago||New accounts||
Nothing stops banned folks from creating new accounts. And most banned folks probably do. The reason being banned sucks is that Established Reputation Guy will usually get more attention/respect/credence than Just Created A New Account Guy. Plus, for people who just join to troll, it gets old creating new email addresses to register new accounts just to see them nuked.
|1 day 22 hours ago||tl;dr||
|2 days 3 hours ago||Not true||
The Ukraine is weak.
|2 days 20 hours ago||Nope nope nope||
The problem is you're trying make a he-said-she-said meet the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's REALLY FREEKING HARD. No one who entered the room after it started could testify as to the actions of the parties when they started having sex. The case is really, REALLY hard to make.
The legal system errs on the side of the defendant. And it does so for good reasons. But don't think for a MINUTE that the lack of charges speaks to anything beyond the ability to get a conviction.
|2 days 21 hours ago||You're probably right.||
I think I honestly overlooked the fact that they beat State, even if it was in South Bend
ED: also, thanks for the correction. I hate typpos. Their bad.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Voluntary intox||
is rarely a defense for general intent crimes like rape. If it's a specific intent crime (like larceny or burglary), voluntary intox can be used to argue that "I was way too hammered to form the intent to permenantly deprive you of that property." And even then, it's probably a last-resort argument.
|2 days 21 hours ago||So...||
This isn't step one in ANY BEST CASE SCENARIO.
|2 days 21 hours ago||Yes and no||
It's a circular argument. SUFFICIENT intoxication negates consent. But what is sufficient intoxication? Enough intoxication to remove the ability to consent.
There's a subjective component as well. If a victim is too drunk to consent, but offers 'consent' under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe she had the capacity to do so, that's not a crime.
It's a terrible area of law with terrible gray areas that destroy bunches of lives.
|2 days 22 hours ago||Gentle reminder:||
|3 days 18 hours ago||...||
This is a stupid post.
But you raise a good point.
But you suck.
DAMNIT the lettuce and tomato are on the outside and the bun is in the middle. How am I supposed to eat this compliment now?
|3 days 20 hours ago||(No subject)|
|3 days 20 hours ago||Oh my||
"Effort" and "desire," eh?
Tell us more.
|3 days 21 hours ago||Nope||
We only accept Stanley Nickels.
|4 days 21 hours ago||Since when||
Is embarassing the institution grounds for a suspension? That's tremendously arbitrary. Are we going to discipline Stauskas for the stank-face or the 3-goggles? What about Hart's "Little Brother" comment? What about when a player gives the "shhhhh" sign in a visiting stadium? What about a guy who commits a bonehead penalty on the field? Or a guy who just drops an f-bomb generally?
Punching a guy is dangerous. Flipping the bird is unseemly and unbecoming. The chasm between the two is vast.
|4 days 21 hours ago||Suggestion:|
|4 days 21 hours ago||Nah||
You're gonna start suspending people for flipping the bird? That's a "run stadium stairs until you can't feel your toes" kind of infraction.
|4 days 21 hours ago||You're wrong||
A bunch of people here spoke up in favor of a suspension for Lewan.
|4 days 22 hours ago||So, the question is||
WHY DOES JOHN FEINSTEIN LIKE WORLD HUNGER???
|5 days 20 hours ago||9 men.||