Make nuestra casa better

You want to make it easier for people on this site to dismiss things they dislike out of hand? You want to make it easier for people to express negativity without articulating their reasoning?

I really appreciate new ideas, but this one feels precisely backward. And I normally don't contribute anything to the conversation around here, but I guess I'm doing it now.

This feels so ironic to me that my shoes just came untied.

 

I actually really appreciate you starting this thread. It's important.

I have a hypothetical scenario that may sound argumentative. I don't mean it to be. I'm curious, and I want to explore this.

Here's the situation:
1) someone writes an opinion that person A disagrees with.
2) Person A presses the "you're nuts" button, and it's reflected that person A thinks the post is wrong/crazy.

From a holistic point of view, how has the site been improved? Is it better because person A gets to release tension by pressing a button?

 

that button would probably lead to less bannings as a person can just press the button rather than respond with "you suck moose cock" for example. this in turn would lead to less thread derailments as poster accused of sucking moose cock would not have to defend his/herself. it would really streamline quite a few threads .

 

That reminds me, I've been meaning to ask for a "you suck moose cock" button.

 

So basically you're saying, "It's asking too much for people to simply ignore things. People will naturally become angry and combative, and you must provide an outlet that won't disrupt the conversation. Instead of posting, they will be satisfied by pressing a button. This is good because it will prevent them from being banned. Because we don't want them banned."

My concern is that we already have a COLOSSAL problem on this site -- and in society at large -- with how easy it is to make and express snap judgments. At least "You suck moose cock" is colorful.

Pressing a button does nothing but release a little tension and help one feel a little more secure in their sense of self.

Edit: sorry if I'm getting a little heavy. It's that kind of day.

 

more bannings means less chance at an original thought, so yes it would be good for the board. also have you read this board, particularly this time of year. its nothing but anger and combat, why not provide a simple outlet if it will cut down on the side battles? you've been around as long as i have, when we had the trash talking forum there was far less derailment in the topic threads. why?because it was an outlet for the frustration and anger. so yes, now that you made me think about it some more, a "you suck moose cock" button would be a good idea.

 

And putting people in jail prevents them -- temporarily -- from potentially doing good deeds on the outside.

No doubt about that. But I'm not sure it's a persuasive argument.

 

oh boy, this is just a thread about improving the board man, don't get too deep with it.

 

But... lol. What??

You're saying fewer bans is a fundamentally sound way to improve the board. Because the banned people might have something good to say.

And I'm saying, Yeah, just like a criminal might do something good if they're not sent to jail.

That's too deep? It's perfectly analogous. I don't really care about who gets banned or why. I only care about improving the board. I'm suggesting that your idea doesn't hold water. In a rather simple way, I might add.

 

yea, comparing posters to criminals that can't live within the rules of society is really stretching it.

 

Actually, it's perfectly analogous. Perfectly. Please don't be offended. I'm not casting judgment on criminals or people who get banned. Actually, I've been handcuffed and arrested but never banned.

Here's what I'm saying: we have a banning system here. Presumably, it's to enforce a certain standard. You may think it's too harsh. That's fine.

But to argue that fewer bans is a fundamentally good thing is the same thing as saying that we're putting too many people in jail. That also MAY be a good argument. But you have to explain why.

The basis for your argument -- that good things may result if banned posters aren't banned -- is not a sound argument. It totally disregards why we have a banning system to begin with.

(edit: I should add that my arrest did not stem from anything righteous or noble. It was entirely stupid and warranted arrest. While I was in jail (for one night), I was unable to help any old ladies across the street. Which I might have done! I'm a nice guy. But in retrospect, I deserved to be in jail. I deserved a time out to think about my stupidity, and how I might do a little better in the future.

Again... PERFECTLY analogous.)

 

I can never get on board with the idea of banning viewpoints that we don't agree with. The best way to handle that is with a) dealing with it in a civilized manner or b) ignoring it completely.

When you get in the business of treating an irrational viewpoint as if it's serious is when you have a problem.

Trolling only works when you are stupid. I'm more of a fan of banning people who engage with trolls than I am of banning trolls

Edit: junc should always be banned. He is too good of a troll

 

Uh... me neither. I might have missed it if someone suggested that. The banning process in general doesn't interest me that much. It's an unpleasant necessity, like any disciplinary system.

I'm more interested in the dislike button, and whether it makes the board better or worse. For me, it reinforces the worst in us.

 

The alternative now is a non-sequitur of a response along the lines of "You can't see you're wrong because you are a Mongolian dwarf" which brings us through every Mongolian insult known to man and eventually to what wine to serve with hickory smoked yak. At least the button would not promote such tangential, at best, arguments.

 

But if they're locked up here they may have more time in the real world to cause havoc by emulating Subway Jared, or even worse, that percentage of priests who...

 

I would suggest you guys bring these ideas up with Petro at your earliest convenience. We're always looking at ways to make the TGG.com experience better.

 

Stokes is really banned Cman74? I won't start about Champ, but everybody knows who kicked 3 fgs in SB III. I say amnesty for Stokes, Cman 78...haven't you ever thrown fish back?

 

Well, Stokes being banned was not my handiwork. He's not permabanned so look for him to be back. This is what happens when warnings are ignored Matt. And to answer your question.. I definitely have thrown fish back. NJDNR doesn't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to short or out of season fish. They have Glocks prominently displayed just in case there's some misunderstanding as they can legally seize your fishing gear and your car/truck. Just not a good idea as those Officers don't f'k around.

One last thing.. I would simply suggest that in the future, layoff Champ and his eternal quest to break the 47 year old curse of "not winning the SB". Put the guy on ignore if you can't stomach yet another "Woody hasn't blah blah blah" thread.

 

Understood but comedic gold we all couldn't pass on, calling yourself Ira from Staten Island and not knowing who kicked the 3 fgs Inthe only sb we ever played in...