StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Can the moderators please, please, PLEASE institute a ban on "CONCESSION ACCEPTED," "POSTED WITHOUT COMMENT," and "TROLL!!!" posts? Maybe a custom title for those who break the ban, such as "Unable to create an original post?"



The rest of the board can see when someone is getting their ass kicked; we don't need some douche posting CONCESSION ACCEPTED to tell us this.

POSTED WITHOUT COMMENT - then don't fucking post

Cries of "TROLL!!!" They're just annoying; trolls are easy enough to spot without the peanut gallery or someone trying to be an Internet Tough Guy screeching "TROLL!!!"




Caveat - I'm sure I've posted each of the above at some point in my time here, but like a serial masturbator, I'm trying to stop. In any case, please feel free to ignore this thread, and instead go back to bitching about the Senate

I'll take this one in parts.

1. "Concession Accepted"
You object to someone bowing out of their side of the debate when they realize their positions are untenable with those words. Alright, what would you suggest someone do instead to honorably accept defeat in a debate?

2. "Posted Without Comment"
I can mostly agree with this one. However, what should people do instead? Posit questions they have as to the effects of said article being posted? Be required to post a mocking one-liner? What would you suggest?

3. "TROLL"
Ok...so what would you have them do or say instead? Have them post "You're a troll, because..." and enumerate the ways that they aren't adding to the thread? Just notify a mod via the Report Post feature? Ignore them?

I think he's referring to inane bullshit like this, where one poster goes through and points out everthing wrong with what one poster says, and then that poster goes and picks a little part of the post, usually the part where the first guy begins to get fed up with the other's bullshit, and then declares "Concession accepted" like a dribbling moron, while failing to address anything the other guy actually said.

Ryan Thunder wrote:I think he's referring to inane bullshit like this.

Ah - thank you for clarifying.

In that case, I'd personally vote for requiring one to actually show how what the other person said proves their point.

The original use of Concession Accepted on ASVS was limited to occasions where a person responded to a well-thought out post entirely with a string of logical fallacies, or with a post that directly contradicts they earlier position. It should not be used outside of those cases, ideally, but it has its use as an ironic indicator of when reasoned debate has obviously been abrogated by the other side.

rhoenix wrote:I'll take this one in parts.

1. "Concession Accepted"
You object to someone bowing out of their side of the debate when they realize their positions are untenable with those words. Alright, what would you suggest someone do instead to honorably accept defeat in a debate?

I think you have that backwards there dude.

2. "Posted Without Comment"
I can mostly agree with this one. However, what should people do instead? Posit questions they have as to the effects of said article being posted? Be required to post a mocking one-liner? What would you suggest?

Post your god damned opinion with the article. It wreaks of people looking to see which way the ball is going to bounce, and then come back in and say "YEAH!" along with the rest of the mob on the "winning" side. And if you honestly don't have the time to say something, then don't post the damn article until you do. It seems like people just want to be the first one to post a story sometimes for... whatever reason they imagine. It is not a fucking race.

3. "TROLL"
Ok...so what would you have them do or say instead? Have them post "You're a troll, because..." and enumerate the ways that they aren't adding to the thread? Just notify a mod via the Report Post feature? Ignore them?

This one, I don't really get either.

havokeff wrote:I think you have that backwards there dude.

Yeah, I did - thanks to Ryan Thunder, I amended in my next post.

havokeff wrote:Post your god damned opinion with the article. It wreaks of people looking to see which way the ball is going to bounce, and then come back in and say "YEAH!" along with the rest of the mob on the "winning" side. And if you honestly don't have the time to say something, then don't post the damn article until you do. It seems like people just want to be the first one to post a story sometimes for... whatever reason they imagine. It is not a fucking race.

I find nothing to disagree with here.

1) Agreed, though I would propose an exception for cases where the original rules would apply. Creationists being a good example. However the burden of proof in such cases rests with the defense...

2) Some things, like a german cannibal (there is this rolling 30 day period's reference...) or someone eating babies just does not warrant the hand-wringing, and is there purely for the sake of news. Those I think ought be an exception to such a ban.

3) some people are trolls. They should be rounded up and out in ca... er, I mean the HOS...

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Can the moderators please, please, PLEASE institute a ban on "CONCESSION ACCEPTED," "POSTED WITHOUT COMMENT," and "TROLL!!!" posts? Maybe a custom title for those who break the ban, such as "Unable to create an original post?"

First, even if this were a rule, I don't think violating it once or twice would be a serious enough offense to warrant a custom title. I thought those were reserved for genuine trolls, idiots, and assholes, not someone who made a spammy post or two. If we handed out titles for every slight infraction, I think they would start to lose their meaning.

The rest of the board can see when someone is getting their ass kicked; we don't need some douche posting CONCESSION ACCEPTED to tell us this.

What if someone says "I concede?" That would be a context where saying "concession accepted" could be seen as a polite way of ending the debate and graciously accepting victory. In other cases, well, what's wrong with rubbing it in some jackass troll's face when they lose? Admittedly, their are classier ways one could do it.

POSTED WITHOUT COMMENT - then don't fucking post

Sometimes people may have reasons for withholding comment (like simply being uncertain how to respond, or waiting to see what others have to say first). What I foresee is either more spammy one-line comments, or fewer interesting articles getting posted in News and Politics. Sure, it's not a particularily impressive thing to post, but is it really worth getting this upset about?

Cries of "TROLL!!!" They're just annoying; trolls are easy enough to spot without the peanut gallery or someone trying to be an Internet Tough Guy screeching "TROLL!!!"

True, but we don't punish everyone who states the obvious, do we?

Look, these kinds of things may be spammy, annoying one-liners, but going so far as titling people for doing this sort of thing occasionally hardly seems nessissary. Frankly, I think you're being way too up-tight and that doing this would simply increase tension on this board and waste moderator's time over something that's a mild irritant. Of course, if this kind of post was all someone ever did, that might be a problem, but if someone spent their whole time here posting spam, wouldn't they qualify for a good old-fasioned Village Idiot title?

Posted without comment is also for people who find an article others here could find interesting and it's worthy of discussion but the original poster could just not care about the subject. For example if the Hadron Collider found some new cosmic ray and I found the article about it first, my opinion would be in the area of not really giving a crap because it's not my field of interest but others here would jump right on it.

I don't see the fault in any of the comments.

Concession accepted is rarely used in a debate where people respect each other, and if they do not respect each other, what makes you think banning the use of that term has a positive impact on debate?

Posted without comment - I agree with Alyrium and Stormin.

Calling someone a troll - please. You might just ban any flaming at all if that is suddenly to be eliminated.

All these would be "Retarded Spambot" offenses.

^If they are used exclusively without a supporting argument, yeah. But the terms per se - I do not see how they are automatically offences.

Lads, these are all meant slightly tongue in cheek, and slightly serious. In any case, smoke a joint and stop harshing my mellow

With regard to cries of troll, i'm referring to it's use as a debate tactic, similar to how concession accepted is used. For example, two members are debating and one starts calling the other a troll. That's almost as lame as concession accepted

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Lads, these are all meant slightly tongue in cheek, and slightly serious. In any case, smoke a joint and stop harshing my mellow

Concession accepted.

Alyrium Denryle wrote: 2) Some things, like a german cannibal (there is this rolling 30 day period's reference...) or someone eating babies just does not warrant the hand-wringing, and is there purely for the sake of news. Those I think ought be an exception to such a ban.

I don't know. If you can't think of anything to add when you post an article, does it really need to be posted? I've seen a number of articles that I thought were neat and thought about passing along, but I couldn't think of anything that would really be worth discussing so decided not to post it.

General Zod wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote: 2) Some things, like a german cannibal (there is this rolling 30 day period's reference...) or someone eating babies just does not warrant the hand-wringing, and is there purely for the sake of news. Those I think ought be an exception to such a ban.

I don't know. If you can't think of anything to add when you post an article, does it really need to be posted? I've seen a number of articles that I thought were neat and thought about passing along, but I couldn't think of anything that would really be worth discussing so decided not to post it.

If someone like me, though, noticed that no article had yet gone up on say, breaking news in Palestine, and I felt that it should be posted, what should I do?

I don't feel qualified to comment on that because I haven't done the research, but the article is worthy of discussion. Why isn't "posted without comment" a legitimate option in that case?

CarsonPalmer wrote: If someone like me, though, noticed that no article had yet gone up on say, breaking news in Palestine, and I felt that it should be posted, what should I do?

I don't feel qualified to comment on that because I haven't done the research, but the article is worthy of discussion. Why isn't "posted without comment" a legitimate option in that case?

If you're not familiar enough with the situation to make a comment how can you make a judgment call that it's worth discussing? At the very least you can include questions about the situation that you want to know more about.

General Zod wrote:

CarsonPalmer wrote: If someone like me, though, noticed that no article had yet gone up on say, breaking news in Palestine, and I felt that it should be posted, what should I do?

I don't feel qualified to comment on that because I haven't done the research, but the article is worthy of discussion. Why isn't "posted without comment" a legitimate option in that case?

If you're not familiar enough with the situation to make a comment how can you make a judgment call that it's worth discussing? At the very least you can include questions about the situation that you want to know more about.

Just because you dont know a whole lot about the subject material, does not mean others wont. Additionally news is good for the sake of it being news. Many of us actually get most of our news (to good effect) from SDN itself. It saves combing through multiple sources.

"CONCESSION ACCEPTED" can at least be very funny if used effectively, although usually that's in the context of a larger post mocking the failed debater. The other two I agree with.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Just because you dont know a whole lot about the subject material, does not mean others wont.

Even if you're ignorant about the subject, you should be able to make some kind of comment about why you thought this was important, what it means to you, what questions it provokes that you'd like experts to weigh in on etc.

Many of us actually get most of our news (to good effect) from SDN itself. It saves combing through multiple sources.

That is rather sad. SDN is quite biased and extremely uneven in what news stories get a thread.

Alyrium Denryle wrote: Just because you dont know a whole lot about the subject material, does not mean others wont. Additionally news is good for the sake of it being news.

Hence "at least asking a question" about the article in question. Also, since this is supposed to be a discussion board, why should people post news for the sake of just being news?

Many of us actually get most of our news (to good effect) from SDN itself. It saves combing through multiple sources.

If everyone relied on SDN for their news nothing would ever get posted.

If someone's going to post something without comment, they should just say nothing. Put in the story and link then let people notice how cool it is. I do this sometimes when I find some news that is just plain cool or interesting that I think other people would want to read, but I don't want to waste everybody's time writing a line of "this is just cool." Actually typing out "posted without comment" is just annoying and should be discouraged.

Ok, as for my view on these three.

"Concession Accepted" - I don't see the harm here at all. Sorry, I just don't. If someone mis-uses it, they get promptly called on it in a thread anyway.

"Posted without comment" - If you don't have any particular thoughts about the article but just thought it was cool, I don't see anything wrong with just posting it, along with the link. Actually including "posted without comment" because you don't have anything to say about it is silly, and shouldn't be in any way a requirement.

"Troll" - ...I'm really trying and failing impressively to understand how this is a problem. I don't see the harm here.

Ryan Thunder wrote:I think he's referring to inane bullshit like this, where one poster goes through and points out everthing wrong with what one poster says, and then that poster goes and picks a little part of the post, usually the part where the first guy begins to get fed up with the other's bullshit, and then declares "Concession accepted" like a dribbling moron, while failing to address anything the other guy actually said.

Oh please.

Ender was caught in one pile of bullshit after another and was promptly owned, as he is every time he tangles with me. Then he did what he always does when he gets his nose rubbed in it: he whines that I broke rules which weren't broken, and then whines that the mods have a left-wing bias because they won't help him with his pathetic little vendetta. He's just a sore loser who knew he was owned again and tried to salvage some pride while pussying out.

He failed. He bailed. He lost.

Accepting his inadvertent concession was an act of mercy on my part.

Starglider wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Many of us actually get most of our news (to good effect) from SDN itself. It saves combing through multiple sources.

That is rather sad. SDN is quite biased and extremely uneven in what news stories get a thread.

Actually I have found SDN to be highly reliable as a source of information that hasn't yet made it on CNN. Sometimes I'll hear about something here days before I hear about it on TV. Plus you get some really obscure fringe stories here, and some really weired stories. I have used SDN repeatedly as a resource for researching school assignments (obviously following a link to a more "credible" source for the bibliography ).