Moderation Commentary Thread

[Ishan]

Not sure how many times you are going to ask this:

Whats a macros

A picture with text on it. It basically means no memes.

why are they bad?

They aren't conducive to any sort of rational (or non-spammy) discussion.

Because people tend to post just them after a while, as they find macros that reply to other macros.

Are they a link or picture?

Eg:

Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_macro

[m_1512]

Not to mention the fact, that not everyone would instantly understand the message or the joke.

[mishkin]

Yes, my first facepalm experience was traumatic ("what the hell does that mean?") (It was a triple facepalm, BTW)

[pannonian]

Animated ones are the worst, as they take up a load of bandwidth to say essentially nothing.

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

In that case they are splendid and funny so why not allow a picture to paint a thousand words.
I object to this anti macro image stance and forthwith hearby transmit my displeasure.

[m_1512]

In that case they are splendid and funny so why not allow a picture to paint a thousand words.

Because not everyone would gather the same thousands words from the picture which you do. Hence, misunderstandings.

I object to this anti macro image stance and forthwith hearby transmit my displeasure.

That's your opinion.

[pannonian]

In that case they are splendid and funny so why not allow a picture to paint a thousand words.

A thousand words takes up less bandwidth than a picture though. If we assume an average of 6 letters per word plus an additional space, that's 1000 x 7 characters, or just under 7 KB. Every image macro I've seen is over 7 KB in size.

[koultouras]

Sorry if asked before ....
I need to ask what is the definition
of an ''argumentum ad hominem''
perceived by the board
I happen to have a view on the matter , but i may be wrong.
Please mind to give me a short definition so for me to avoid mis-interpretations...

[Magicman2051]

Criticise the content of the post, not the nature of the poster.

[koultouras]

Criticise the content of the post, not the nature of the poster.

hmm....
in our last disagreement with the board i had been given this


as an example of ad hominem....
i am sure the last 2 are prohibited right?
Now i also happen to know how it was defined by Aristotle himself....
yet both the chart or what i know to be as ''ad hominem''
is not what you actually describe above....
is the chart at least for real as for ad hominem in TWC....??

[frozenprince]

Are you STILL on about being "persecuted"?

[koultouras]

Are you STILL on about being "persecuted"?

nope....why would i?
i just make a honest question....?
i may have judged someone wrongly so...i need clarification...
is that a lot to ask?

EDIT sorry i thought u meant the blue one here
but you obviously meant the red one, right?

Criticise the content of the post, not the nature of the poster.

is the red one ad hominem by definition in TWC?

[Magicman2051]

What I said directly corresponds to that chart.

Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.

Is equivalent to:

,not the nature of the poster

As.

Criticise the post

Is equivalent to anything above and including "Responding to tone".

[koultouras]

yup i just edited that....i thought you meant the blue one.
sorry
thank you mate for clarifying that!

[Magicman2051]

No problem.

That is my definition, and I can't speak for the moderation staff, but I think it is the accepted definition.

[Ishan]

The last 2 levels aren't allowed on TWC. That is ad hominem attacks and name-calling. Insulting others clause in the ToS provides proper ample means to deal with such things:

Insulting Others (1, 3, or 6 points)
Posts clearly insulting other board members, individually or as a group, directly or indirectly, are not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Name-calling ("You're an idiot", "You moron")
• Direct insults ("Screw you")
• Offensive orders ("Go kill yourself", "Shut up")
• Using threatening, harassing, defamatory, hate-speech, or libelous language
• Using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, handicap, nationality, or gender as a means of insult, either directly or implied
• Insinuations ("Are you stupid or something?") or insults towards family ("Your mom...")

Instead, members should criticize the post, not the poster. SEGA, the Creative Assembly, and related bodies are considered board members for this purpose, since some of them are. You can still criticize their games without insulting them personally.

This is strictly applied in D&D. But ToS isn't applied strictly in other areas, because the frequency of getting things personal in quite rare outside of D&D. However rude behaviour is something that exists and while this isn't encouraged it's still allowed. However if that's escalated to the point moderators consider it disruptive then they can step in and seize that as well.

Like say in the modding forums a modder releases a mod or something and provides a lot of historical info with it, the research, the reasons for making the things they are, the whole shebang. And if i go in there and say something like this:

Hi, very nice mod and thank you very much for releasing it. However i don't get this xyz part, what is this? I don't understand can someone explain please?

Then someone can respond in this manner and it won't be a ToS violation:

LOL are you ing serious? Read the damn thing FFS, everything is there, open your eyes and put some effort dammit. That's not much to ask from you now, is it?

^I won't delete something like this even though i consider it pointless, unhelpful and rude. If this escalates then his post will be definitely deleted but moderators usually don't intervene prematurely like this.

Now reason this is allowed is that we never know how things can develop or whether someone is intentionally trying to provoke someone. For all we know this example of conversation can also go like this later on:

I don't see a reason for why you would give such a rude response to me, i just wanted to understand modder's explanation.

LOL i didn't meant to upset you, sorry man, i just react sometimes like that when someone asks pointless questions without even reading the OP but seriously have you even read the para, before asking this? I think not. Read it and if you still don't get it then i will PM you.

Alright i will do this, thanks.

[koultouras]

thank you both....

[mishkin]

and this is a real example (and just an example) of how polite we are (even in Thema Devia/Your country Anthem thread) http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=554923)

Originally Posted by mishkin
Spain
1- No idea
2- Probably its about... nothing
3- It is a stupid anthem
4- Respectfully, I am not going to link that anthem.

Galicia
1- an excerpt from a poem (os pinos/Eduardo Pondal 1890)
2-Our ancestors, our landscape, the struggle against oppression
3- I like it, but "the best national anthem ever"? Only an american can say things like that

Originally Posted by someone else
With that kind of answer you frankly, dont even deserve to be here. Spain is ashamed of you. No wonder you only have like 3 medals.

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

Originally Posted by someone else
With that kind of answer you frankly, dont even deserve to be here. Spain is ashamed of you. No wonder you only have like 3 medals.

Polite?

[koultouras]

May i ask if this hypothetical case is received as ad hominem.

Person XYD states an argument of type 1
Person XYD is by person's DYX perception a [insert epithete] person
Thus XYD's argument of type1 is not to be accounted and thus debunked

Aristotle is the 1st to have made a definition as for "argumentum ad hominem" describes this situation as ad hominem falacy.
(it is just my obssesion with Aristotle in case you mind)