The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

And you have named the sticky wicket onto which we step.

More random information: I am in no way criticizing the owner. I've never lost sight of who's money, time, and energy has made this place available.

Didn't take long for you two to get down voted, eh?

Oh, the pain! The shame of it all, I tellya!

I haven't seen what you describe, but I can easily concede that I don't see everything.

I'm not insisting, just wanted to be heard.

Just making this show on my list of things to read. A bookmark of sorts.

I guess the question is: what nurtures discussions? Censorship wouldn't. But I think higher standards can. I think if the moderators were judging not so much what a person is saying but judging whether this is making this a cool place to come, that would be ideal.

I know if I were to invite people to get in on discussions here, none of them would stay if there were no standards at all about racist comments or preaching neo-Nazi ideology, for example. But on the other hand, there's nothing like a neo-Nazi to make you turn and re-examine what you really believe. Some balance maybe?

I've heard "A2K is dying" off and on pretty much from the get-go, but I have
not taken it seriously until just now. By "dying off", do you mean that
there is less and less traffic?

I always preferred to err on the side of hearing people's thoughts and having a chance to address it rather than pushing corrupt views underground, and being blindsided by them after they've strengthened out of sight.

Personal preference in response to Tuna's thoughtful comment.

I agree. But sometimes that sort of thing is a cover for malice. They're just saying it because they want to hurt somebody's feelings. They aren't going to talk to you about what they really think.

Sure Robert, I can give examples.

There are a couple of opinions that a small group of vocal, and sometimes abusive members have decided that they can not accept on this site. When someone tries to express or defend these opinions, it invariable leads to abuse from a small number members. There seems to be a somewhat larger group that supports this.

I lean progressive, I have never voted for a non-Democrat in any national election. I strongly support same-sex marriage, a woman's right to choose, equal pay law, etc. etc. etc.

I also feel it is important to question every belief, even progressive beliefs, especially in a forum such is this. There has been several times were I have faced some pretty nasty personal attacks for questioning the progressive line.

I questioned the validity of science behind the rape prevalence studies. I believe that this is bogus science. I have never posted anything in support of rape, or against women. I simply suggested that the studies showing the "1 in 5" women are raped, a common political trope, are bogus and that that statistic a exagerrated.

From this, Setanta has repeatedly accused me of "beating women" and has on more then one occasion resorting to vulgar insults... calling me "f*cking idiot" more than once. Izzy was worse, often using vulgar personal attacks and one time attacking my children.

I am also technically an atheist (I don't believe in God). Yet I feel that atheists, such as Dawkins or Hitchens make atheism into an ideology. I have questioned such statements of atheism here.

This has gotten me quite a bit of vulgar abuse, again largely from Setanta and Izzy, but backed up by a group that has been called the "in-crowd". You will notice that vulgar abuse often gets very high thumb ratings.

My philosophy here has been that attacking an opinion or an argument is acceptable as part of debate. Attacking a person is not. I have held to this... I don't think there are any examples of me breaking this ideal (other than one exchange with IzzyThepush where he crossed the line and attacked my children).

I do believe that there is a core group that not only holds to a strong set of politically correct opinions (which I think is a good thing) but are willing to personally attack anyone who questions these opinions (which I think is bad).

If it would be helpful to you Robert, I can come up with links to the threads are examples of what I am talking about.

In my ideal world, civil discussion... being able to state an opinion respectfully and disagree without personal attacks is more important having the "correct" opinion.

I hope that the new changes support this. I heard what you said about engagement. Unfortunately I am not certain that civil discussion with people who have diverse viewpoints and engagement metrics have a positive correlation (and the Republican primary suggests otherwise).

I'm hoping that when the new groups function becomes available, you'll set up a group that is geared towards such civil discussion.

I'll certainly join your group if you do.

No, that is pretty steady. Fewer and fewer posts and active users.

If these are things you are asking moderators to do something about then yes, report specific posts.

Ok Robert, I will do that.

I am trying to self-relect... I believe there is a clear line between personal attacks, and attacking someones argument. And I would like to say that personal attacks are always bad, and that attacking an argument is always acceptable.

I do realize that things aren't always that clear... that sometimes when I attack an argument that I think is shaky, someone might see that as a personal attack.

As an example, I have argued that there is an "ideological narrative" (I have used exactly that term I think) that says that women are victims of male oppression... and that sometimes that narrative is accepted even when the facts don't match. I used the rape study as an example of this, I also feel that the Rolling Stone/UVA fiasco is a valid example.

I think this is valid point. However, I also understand that me saying that "ideological narrative" is behind the argument that another member is making might be construed as accusing another member as being "ideological".

The way I look at this is that I might say that this argument is "ideological" but that doesn't mean that the person is "ideological" in everything. It just means that that particular case is one example.

However, I understand that some people still take it seriously. I don't know where to draw the line. I do think that this type of argument should be part of an open discussion.

I am just acknowledging that sometimes things aren't simple.

I think it's important to remember the purpose of the rules. It's not just to foster the ideal debate but the right community tone.

So for example this notion is absolutely correct for debate, but not ideal for overall community tone. For example, saying someone is merely "kinda dumb" is an ad hominem but saying their argument "is the stupidest **** I have ever ******* heard and the most idiotic thing we'll ever see on a2k" is a more aggressive exchange.

So yes, in debate ad hominem are plain logical fallacies that hurt debate while using completely inappropriate tone about an argument is merely a tone issue and not a logical fallacy.

But the community rules are not just a "no logical fallacies" goal, it is also about setting the tone. In my younger A2K years I put way too much stock in the "attacking the idea vs attacking the person" justification, but ultimately that self-serving notion does nothing to justify whether or not my tone in attacking the idea is justified or not. Someone whose tone is acerbic when attacking the ideas is still violating the spirit of the community culture and it's goals (which might not be shared by all) of fostering a community with a tone that allows for it to remain vibrant and engaging (a tone that sets the community on a path to decline does all the freedom of speech ideals no boon when they become just abstract ideals with fewer users posting etc).



No, it is not. Ultimately trying to get it all covered top-down is the wrong approach. The blocking is what will enable the community to let it work out more of it's own problems.

Right now when people are abusive and harass others the users can basically just decide if they want to leave the community or tolerate it. The only tool the community has to help is to kick someone out or try to police their posts.

Once users can block those they like then the community can afford to manage less of this problem top-down and let most of the issues you raise be sorted out between members, if they have problems with each other they can block each other and we only have to step in when the issues affect the larger community.

Right now with no such tools each of these issues affect the larger community negatively. For this reason until there are those tools some of it will be dealt with top-down but most of the things you bring up are likely things that members will just have to deal with using blocking etc because there are always going to be conflicts and ways to work around rules to engage in the conflicts.

Ultimately though, most of these things are in the eyes of the beholder, and the blocking feature is like a per-user suspension tool. Right now we do not have this and our only options are suspend for all and some will like a choice and some will not, it is not going to do well at making everyone happy. But with blocking this is a per-user feature and the only people unhappy are ones who want to control what other people see (a serious case of miswanting).

God I love it the rebirth of the 1990's AOL

Are you gonna send me all those thin plastic coasters in the mail?

That would be Robert job to do and I remember the theory that dark matter is only the remains of all those thrown away AOL disks.

By the way I was just cleaning up my townhouse to rent and came across a few of those disks.

Geez Folks, we all need to get a grip. I don't know why Robert is making changes but I do know that sites need maintenance and updates from time to time. Technology is moving forward and its pointless to insist that Robert not change anything.

At the very least, something is going wrong or Robert wouldn't be trying to fix the site. I've been here since 2002, and over the years many interesting people have come and gone. Just in the last six months or so many A2K's abandoned this forum and exiled themselves to FaceBook. I can't possibly be the only one to notice how many absent members have logged in to say they look forward to a revived A2K.

Instead of worrying that your voice won't be heard why not welcome the changes. Robert said people will form communities/groups and monitor them. So if you hate Hillary Clinton, you can join a group where every one hates Hillary and no one will be disturbed by 'incrowd' folks.

Some of you may not have been old enough to read when NYT Abuzz was active. It was bedlam, no moderators and no standards. Eventually, the New York Times just shut it down. Thats when Robert created this site for all to visit and gab. A little later another individual began a forum called SeattleBuzz, it was active for a number of years and some of the A2K folks posted there until it just became too vile. Toward the end, only about 5 people were online at SB and it simply collapsed under its own weight.

I originally started on Abuzz, moved to SB and A2K and only post on A2K now. I know many folks find the game threads dull but there are about 5 to 8 folks who make it competitive and funny. Personally, I find the religious topics poisonous, people get nasty and I try to avoid those threads. Also, the threads where folks claim conservatives are apes or liberals are jerks aren't very satisfying. I just looked at my list of ignored users and it's three pages long. I don't choose to ignore someone because they disagree with me, usually its because they are completely profane, mock racial differences, have extremist views on faith or no faith, and I really don't want to read people's rationale on why child pornography is really not the same as violating children.

If we all take a deep breath, I think we can agree that Robert is not protecting his 'favorites', up until he last few days he probably never heard of any of us. Can't we just leave the man alone to work this out? I don't have the skills or inclination to create a discussion forum, and frankly even if I did I'd probably deep six it if members started berating me like we have seen on this thread.

So, for the time being I'm heading off to the humor threads and checking on old members over on FB. Oh, and before I end, I can honestly say that I have never reported anyone to the moderators.....one correction, I was treated once with physical violence and sexual assualt, I did report that. That member wasn't banned, he eventually got tired of the forum and just disappeared.