>Lots of users have 'tism and truth-ettes so need help clearing out opportunists because that's how they are.
>please help, however you want to frame this as a rule or guideline or a reference to psychology of a portion of the community take your pick.
<bellow is me trying to put together something. Use of truth is short hand for what is true or factual statement that has deeper implications.
It's been four days since the 'new' rules being posted and some extra when 4dingus went down. It's at this times snapshot of a potential future is shown in /poner/ of what could occur in a future of the website.
A loss of /mlpol/ the site's culture and well not quite etiquette but generally acceptated standards of behavior.
/poner/ the tent city, and the rise in demoralization efforts.
Disruptions posters can't (in a timeline that doesn't surpass literal years of failed effort) deal with.
/poner/ isn't at this date and time with /mlpol/, but it is pony.
Politics and pony always so both have bloodied freedom from oddly mutual foes and forces. To be free to be able to have genuine discussion.
>wasteland of distracting rageposts while the (4ch) mods did nothing
Emotional baiting is the problem everytime and many that came from channel^4 have the right set of personality traits to tell them to fuck off no matter the effectiveness because truth deeply matters. Everysingle time.
Yes, this isn't a joke. It's why staff are who you are and that whole thing that occurred. The community is made of a highnumber of truth spewers who's psychological make up demand constructing the means to find truth.
Why? Because everywhere else has everyone else who doesn't get it, this is the place where truth and the means to find truth is found and poked at and tested.
Political, pony, 1ntr, games, paranormal, cyber, embetterment of mind and body and soul, anime, sports (random) and over arching website meta of qa.
Why bring this up here and now?
Truth spewers are bad at interpersonal management, aka being staff and can't (may not yet have the framework to ask correctly) put to words why rules and actions need to take place.
Rageposting is attempting and failing at fully clearing the ground work to build higher later, but that never occurs because it's always clearing the ground to build truth finding to uncaring others.
The initiators of ragebaiting don't care about truth in the same way truth spewers do, infact it's an added benefit to do so because it's easy to get (You)s or whatever other metric.
So yes truth spewers are essentially incapable of ignoring those sorts of things and attempts to alter this specific behavior end poorly due to natural design. The need to find truth.
It's why 3 and 4 through 9 of the old rules matter so much because they all are about seeking truth and having it so users and do so without being Charlie Browned by Lucy.
<Actually all the rules are in service to that goal.
So /poner/ and the ziggering, blue vs red, and sloppy AI postering.
The only one that is notable that isn't covered by what I said above is truth spewers vs truth spewers on which way is the best to accomplish the unsaid shared goal of finding truth.
Yes, finding truth in pony. The difference is in optimization of how to find truth, which can be debated.
The other two instances don't care about finding truth, initiating ragebaiting is the goal.
This isn't listen and believe sort of stuff. Past histories point that this is the case.
More to the point every truth spewer has a sort of calling of sorts which is the window of where truth is to be looked at.
Yet having a wider and interconnected data points show how to find truth better, which is ideal.
Point being for /mlpol/ to continue being /mlpol/ maintaining truth is the goal.
Which means opportunists needs a pimp hand, velvet or iron.
I don't want to see /mlpol/ and by extention /poner/ now to not be about truth and seeking there of and the friends it's done with.
/qa/ - Questions and Answers
Keeping the community together by giving you a voice
9 replies | 4 files | 6 UUIDs | Page 2
not my problem
>>9837
Please learn how to properly present your argument, this reads like a disjoined, unobjective stream-of-consciousness.
May you kindly consider rewriting your post?
Please learn how to properly present your argument, this reads like a disjoined, unobjective stream-of-consciousness.
May you kindly consider rewriting your post?
> May you kindly consider rewriting your post?
picrel for translation
picrel for translation
>>9840
Thanks, anon, but asking GPT to interpret the text misses the point.
I just want OP to stop being a faggot and learn to express their ideas properly.
Thanks, anon, but asking GPT to interpret the text misses the point.
I just want OP to stop being a faggot and learn to express their ideas properly.
>>9839
Anons that like this place have a psychological disposition to clear the way of obstacles no matter what in the pursuit of truth.
The way anons do stuff doesn't always work.
Some anons are psychologically highly compelled to ram their head into a brick wall. Nobody wants that because it doesn't work and like a distress signal other anons do the same thing. Causing wider disruption.
So I think I was asking what appropriate steps should be taken for user action transferring to staff action.
To not be dismissed because it looks retarded at first glance.
>>9840
That's not half bad. Wording seems a bit iffy and misses whatever late night special me was thinking.
Anons that like this place have a psychological disposition to clear the way of obstacles no matter what in the pursuit of truth.
The way anons do stuff doesn't always work.
Some anons are psychologically highly compelled to ram their head into a brick wall. Nobody wants that because it doesn't work and like a distress signal other anons do the same thing. Causing wider disruption.
So I think I was asking what appropriate steps should be taken for user action transferring to staff action.
To not be dismissed because it looks retarded at first glance.
>>9840
That's not half bad. Wording seems a bit iffy and misses whatever late night special me was thinking.
Nice new banner
>>9860
>To not be dismissed because it looks retarded at first glance.
Thank you!
That is a lot easier to follow and it is an important question/topic of discussion.
>Some anons are psychologically highly compelled to ram their head into a brick wall. Nobody wants that because it doesn't work and like a distress signal other anons do the same thing. Causing wider disruption.
>I was asking what appropriate steps should be taken for user action transferring to staff action.
That's what philosophy is for, identify errors in logic and concede points. There is a lot of paranoia and 'them vs us' mentality in the modern internet but I believe most anons here just 'hit their head against the wall' because they really are passionate about the topic at hand.
Passion is not bad per se, but raw passion may lead to posts striving from emotion rather than logic. I can't say what's the best way for user action to translate to staff action, but I must insist that every anon on this site at least tries to identify when they are thrashing an argument because of raw passion rather than logic.
The rules rewrite thread is a good example of what I'm talking about, everyone in there has one objective: Make the board as good as possible; But what we can see is a lot of conflict over what should be done, instead of logical and actually feasible propositions as to what we can and cannot do.
Someone evil would propose that we need a 'leader' to tell us what to do, but I'd say I hope for every anon in this site to be able to lead the way by themselves, and also led others lead when necessary.
>To not be dismissed because it looks retarded at first glance.
Thank you!
That is a lot easier to follow and it is an important question/topic of discussion.
>Some anons are psychologically highly compelled to ram their head into a brick wall. Nobody wants that because it doesn't work and like a distress signal other anons do the same thing. Causing wider disruption.
>I was asking what appropriate steps should be taken for user action transferring to staff action.
That's what philosophy is for, identify errors in logic and concede points. There is a lot of paranoia and 'them vs us' mentality in the modern internet but I believe most anons here just 'hit their head against the wall' because they really are passionate about the topic at hand.
Passion is not bad per se, but raw passion may lead to posts striving from emotion rather than logic. I can't say what's the best way for user action to translate to staff action, but I must insist that every anon on this site at least tries to identify when they are thrashing an argument because of raw passion rather than logic.
The rules rewrite thread is a good example of what I'm talking about, everyone in there has one objective: Make the board as good as possible; But what we can see is a lot of conflict over what should be done, instead of logical and actually feasible propositions as to what we can and cannot do.
Someone evil would propose that we need a 'leader' to tell us what to do, but I'd say I hope for every anon in this site to be able to lead the way by themselves, and also led others lead when necessary.