Group Meta on Impasse and Agree to Disagree
Category: Meta for use by Perrie RA and moderators. Member meta goes into the group Metafied found on top tab
By: perrie-halpern • 3 years ago • 138 comments
Foreword
Here is a proposal to gracefully end bad exchanges without empowering ordinary members to infringe on the rights of others.
This proposal redefines Impasse so that it works very similar to how ‘Agree to Disagree’ currently works. Accordingly, ‘Agree to Disagree’ would no longer be needed. The reasoning is that ‘Impasse’ is an excellent word to use for this situation. ‘Agree to Disagree’ is both clumsy to type and is arguably corny. With this new definition of Impasse, ‘Agree to Disagree’ is obsolete.
Impasse
When two people (Amy and Bob) are engaged in a discussion and one of them (Amy) does not want to continue (for whatever reason), the easiest way to end the discussion is to simply NOT reply to Bob. Bob’s last comment ends the reply chain.
In most cases the discussion will naturally cease since Amy gave Bob the last word. When someone has the last word, they typically do not pile on.
What If Bob Continues?
If Bob continues the discussion by replying to an old comment by Amy, Amy can write a reply to Bob with “IMPASSE” as the only content. This now makes any further comment by Bob, in this thread, that directly or indirectly engages Amy to be flaggable as a violation of the Impasse rule.
A direct engagement would be a reply to one of Amy’s comments in the thread. An indirect engagement would be using other comments in the thread to discuss Amy or what she wrote in the thread.
Importantly, no other members are limited in any way by Amy and Bob’s spat.
Implementation
Once the Newstalkers forum understands how this works, most will not continue a discussion when their interlocutor goes silent. Not replying will naturally end the discussion. It is only if the interlocutor (in the example, this is Bob) continues that one even needs to issue an Impasse. Thus we should see more discussion simply ending naturally without even having to use moderation methods.
We will investigate automated methods to enforce Impasse to make it easier for moderators to enforce it when used. This might include a special log that registers all Impasses that have been issued. Also, when an Impasse is issued the system can remove the REPLY button for the interlocutors only. So in the example, both Amy and Bob would no longer see a REPLY button on any of the other’s comments in the thread thus making a direct reply impossible.
Proposed CoC Language For Impasse
Impasse
An Impasse may be called between two parties by one party posting a comment that has one and only one word: ‘IMPASSE’. This ends the discussion between the two parties in the thread. The Impasser will no longer be able to participate in the thread.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
So this is to clarify some slight changes in these policies since we are having difficulty with members being caught up in other members' 'Impasses'.
And there are those that will argue with it.. {chuckle}
Like me…
That is ridiculous. Agree to disagree is totally fine and reasonable. There is often disagreements about data itself and people of different belief systems or ideologies may not agree as to the data. Your proposal much like MBFC is nothing more than an attempt to shut off debate and silence those who disagree with you. Using agree to disagree is a reasonable way to end a stalemate on an issue amicably.
Now this makes a LOT more sense... And is common to how most think it is applied... should be much easier to understand and use if a software implementation could be effected...
I prefer to tell my interlocutor that I'm done. Then if they keep replying to me that shows who has to have the last word....always. And some other things, too. But I won't say because this is on the front page
No one is forcing anyone to use the 'Impasse" rule. If you want to fight on... please do, but be smart about not breaking the CoC.
I know no one is being forced to use it. Like I said, I would just rather run away from the entire seed than risk more humiliation
BTW TG, I have found myself using this approach lately too. There are some people who IMO are being so utterly ridiculous that there is just no point even giving them a response. It would just never end because they apparently do not care how ridiculous (or stupid) they look. Best to just leave and find someone who can behave like a thoughtful adult.
Exactly. They keep repeating themselves, ask the same questions over and over, deny that they are doing this and they know they are trolling. Best to walk away instead of trying your patience
Yeah there is no point trying to reason with the irrational. And certainly not those who do not care about honesty or their own credibility. (This I think I will never understand; just cannot wrap my head around why someone would willingly make themselves look stupid in order to 'win' an argument with theatrics.)
Walking away, when possible, might just be best.
I just stop talking to people. I have had on occasion, after I stopped replying, have them reply two or three times to try to get me to engage again...
There are some that think just having a last word means they 'won' somehow.
IMO it just makes them look foolish if they just have to have the last word
I'm watching a current conversation in which one member insists that another said something they didn't say, even quoting that member, but dishonestly ignoring the portion of the comment which negates what the first member claims was said. Repeated dishonesty (or stupidity). There is no rational discussion with those who are either willfully dishonest or stupid.
... and I see this happening at an increased rate. Things took a turn for the worse, IMO, when Trump lost and engaged in his Big Lie con job.
[deleted]
[deleted]
nyah, nyah, told you so... ↑ ↑
[deleted]
By the usual suspects too. Who'd a thunk it....
yeah, that makes sense ...
Do I need to explain my comment?
no thank you
Great, then we agree that my comment did indeed make sense!
Thanks!
impasse
Underpass.
You mean there are those who keep coming back for the last word, even after they lost the debate?
No kidding?
Of course that happens, but what I was describing are people who just start making shit up, deflecting, baffling-with-bullshit, going meta, going personal, strawman and in particular faux obtuseness (pretending to not comprehend a critical point).
There does not even need to be a debate for this to occur; mere disagreement on even a petty, irrelevant point can cause this.
Yes, believe it or not, some people will pounce on anything —no matter how petty or irrelevant— to show someone else to be wrong ... and they will do it even if they are actually wrong about the 'gotcha' they thought they found.
go figure, huh? /s
oh yeah...
you should utilize the flag function if you think a comment is violating the ToS/CoC.
I prefer "Woof!"
I was wondering what you meant by that.
[deleted]
I think your approach is best. You will often just not reply and thus leave your interlocutor having the last word. As long as s/he does not come back with a second or third last word, you would have no need to even use IMPASSE.
Hopefully more people will adopt your style.
I have routinely done that with one particular individual and routinely get told "You just have to have the last word!" just to be nasty.
Well, Ed, one individual who is absolutely notorious for insisting on having the last word (no matter how utterly petty and pointless) is also one who likes to claim their interlocutor is really the one demanding the last word (projection).
I agree it is difficult to do (I find it difficult to walk away when someone is engaging in intellectually dishonest tactics) but some people will simply never shut up.
IMO the proposed change to the 'impasse rule' is an improvement. I like it, anyway.
I'm certainly guilty of using the current rules the wrong way. So, I appreciate any clarification whether the rules are changed or not.
Hell, I still don't get what constitutes meta in the comments. They look like other comments that aren't meta.
Meta is talking about the site and how it functions (rules, functions on the site, etc.). This article is meta since we are discussing a change to a rule. Normally meta by members belongs in the 'Metfied" group, but when it comes from me and affects all of NT, it gets posted to the mainboard.
I like the meta flag, especially for use on the persecuted victims of NT.
I don't see any big change to the rule.
If you want to end debate on a certain subject with a certain individual, you post IMPASSE and nothing else.
The other person is not supposed to respond.
What is different?
The difference is that the IMPASSE only affects the two in the discussion. Everyone else can participate in the thread. And the two involved can continue in the thread but they cannot address each other in the thread (directly via REPLY or indirectly through comments to others).
It was unfair to have a long thread and have someone call IMPASSE and now everyone who replies even to other comments are for some reason violating an IMPASSE. To be crystal clear:
C ⇢ D: blah blah
A ⇢ B: blah blah
B ⇢ A: blah blah
A ⇢ B: IMPASSE
D ⇢ C: blah blah
It is unfair for D to be seen as violating the Impasse rule simply because D's reply to C caused D's comment to fall after an Impasse was called. The only members that should be affected are A and B. C and D have nothing to do with the Impasse.
So after the Impasse is called, B cannot reply to A and A cannot reply to B in this thread.
But Perrie is also encouraging the site to end discussion by simply not replying. So instead of issuing an IMPASSE with B, A could have simply not replied. This, like Impasse, gives B the last word. If B then goes for a second 'last word' (i.e. does not take the hint) then A still has the option to issue IMPASSE.
Because discussions often have significant time between replies, it is common for a reply to go unanswered. Thus by simply never coming back with a reply, the interlocutor will likely have moved on to other threads anyway.
One more thing to consider:
If one does not REPLY to a comment then there is nothing on your interlocutor's tracker that would encourage the interlocutor to return.
Usually meta involves talking about the site, the mods or particular members.
( I did not see Perrie's reply before writing this. )
So basically the agree to disagree and impasse have merged and impasse no longer locks the whole thread just stops any exchange between the two.
Yup! One rule, no confusion. No interference with other discussions on the thread.
crap, and to think I could have been hamstringing the comment counters for the last 5 years. pffft.
There needs to be more of this. There are a handful of people who love to go for Impasse right away, even when it’s not necessary. I would guess about 99% of the time, if you’re sick of talking to someone, you can just stop talking to them and that will be the end of it.
And that is the recommendation ... to just not reply. IMPASSE then becomes a tool one can use if the other person writes a second or third last word comment. Properly done, IMPASSE will rarely need to be used.
It is very difficult to simply not REPLY in many cases. I personally am trying to do this more nowadays and I find it difficult to do.
In fact I just now held my nose and chose to not reply to a comment intended to simply attack. This is particularly bizarre because we actually agree and I have clearly stated the agreement but my interlocutor still attempts to stir up trouble.
Not easy (for me). But I am experimenting.
It is difficult. Take it from a perpetual know-it-all and all around Big Mouth. But it so satisfying leaving an unproductive conversation
LOL your self-deprecating description does not at all correlate with your social media interactions and I have many years of data on that.
Thank-you. But in real life I can be exactly those things...especially when I've had a few
Ha. I get sappy.
any questions on why I stopped drinking years ago? I didn't think so...
I get happy.
I use ethanol to lubricate my keyboard.
Sometimes when one member quits the discussion, somebody then says "crickets"
This is true, charger, and then the other person says 'Impasse" and a ticket will be handed out if they do it again.
I'll assume that impasse end runs can also be flagged...
Of course one way to mitigate that is to simply end the discussion with IMPASSE. It is best if just stopping would cease all activity, but if one is dealing with an individual who is likely to launch 'crickets' the exchange can go like this.
Amy: blah blah
Bob: blah blah
Amy: IMPASSE
Any reply by Bob to Amy (or any further reply to Bob by Amy) now violates the IMPASSE rule.
Maybe some threads will look like the example:
NT1: "Mike Lindell proved Trump won the 2020 election."
NT2: "That's BS."
NT1: "The Democraps rigged it."
NT2: "Impasse."
NT1: "Trump won!"
NT2: "IMPASSE!"
NT1: " YOUR A LIBRAL MORAN!!! TRUMP WON!!!!!!!! "
NT2: " IMPASSE! "
NT1: " You don't get the last word libtard. TRUMP WON BIG!!!! "
So, yeah, the "Impasse function" may still allow for some extremely intellectual exchanges.
I hope the "impasse function" will be replaced by the "fuck off function" in the future.
Before you censor this comment; ask yourself this question: "Is this META?"
But you are still correct. Those extremely logical, thoughtful, adult exchanges will still exist. Not everyone will use IMPASSE to stop them before they happen.
Ok, now you've raised in my mind the idea of making "Impasse" mandatory after the 3rd or 4th slapfighting comment. It would surely make my job easier.
Just kidding. Mostly.
I wish we had the means for software to determine slap-fighting comments. I have considered AI technologies to allow the system to learn and then detect such tones, but that is just too heavyweight (and expensive) for this site.
But we could make a moderator function where the moderator imposes a lock on a discussion. A discussion (for this purpose) is a sequence of replies between two individuals within a single thread. Right now you can lock threads which locks all discussions in the thread. If you could lock a single discussion you could leave the thread alone and basically just stop the two slap-fighters from replying to each other in the thread (or, alternatively, lock just those two out of the thread entirely — probably better).
That would be wonderful.
So many otherwise good discussions are spoiled by just a few people who can't carry on a civil conversation.
Maybe not kidding? LOL!
What I'd like is the ability to knock the slap-fighter's heads together until they see stars
, but TiG's idea will suffice. I suppose.
I found that using [deleted] always helped me to promote those types of conversations.
My mother did that shit with my sister and I. Hense, I have a pretty hard head. Knock away...
can I help?
How about a function to scramble all comments in a slap-fight exchange into incoherent gibberish?
We'll take turns.
In many cases, I'm not sure the "before" and "after" would look any different.
Don't we have enough seeded articles like that already?
Aren't a lot of conversations gibberish already?
I have actually used the fuck off function.
Any ideas for how a CoC compliant "fuck off" function might work? I see plenty of perfectly sound uses for it.
Was it effective?
Did it get flagged and censored?
Better get an NFT or whatever and start selling that one!
Of course. It was worth it though.
I have created my own fuck off function. I ignore them. It drives them crazy. I laugh...
OMG!!! I have got to keep that one!
in the interest of expediency, I've found that the following epitaphs work pretty well at ending conversations in real life. I'll abbreviate them here.
gfy, foad, stfu, gf gfymt
Stop making me have to figure things out damnit! Haha
I got 1 and 3.
Same. I'm about to don a hazmat suit and check out Urban Dictionary.
gfy = go fuck yourself
foad = fuck off and die
stfu = shut the fuck up
gf = get fucked
gfymt = go fuck your mother thumper, or any "t" word... ie: twit, teabag, trumpster etc, etc...
... my apologies to the hyper-sensitive and religiously handicapped.
Thanks for translating.
thanks for not giving me a ticket for translating.
I wasn't trying to get you in trouble...honest....
no worries brother, after 5+ years here, I can see where I'm stepping.
plus, haven't you heard? I'm teachers pet and never get any tickets. I operate with total impunity. /s
You forgot to include esad.
I had a secretary many years ago who used that abbreviation quite effectively, and often.
I was waiting for a translation to appear. I had to look it up.
Eat Shit and Die?
WOW, come back after a little while and see how this turned into a wonderful expression of love and kindness in discussing how to make the board better...
Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside...
I think it was an excellent decision to put it on the front page for the world to see the love and concern for others being expressed here...
Great job!!!!
Thanx!
I've got a few ideas on how to make this board better with a couple of clicks.
I'm sure... (with all due respect as well)
{chuckle}
So Bob's buddy can take up where Bob left off and add another two comments to make Amy uncomfortable before that can be stopped, and on and on. Sounds like Amy is going to have a very bad day and Bob is going to have a big laugh. This is an improvement?
You raise a valid point.
I agree, I think Impasse should stop the thread. If AtD is too cumbersome then change it. Just say Disagree and let that be that.
I'd agree, if "impasse" didn't have the potential to stifle discussion when misused. Some folks are calling "impasse" after very few comments - the exchange has not been long, and is often not especially heated, but one person ends all discussion, and that's not right.
I see what you're saying, someone shutting the entire thread down based on relatively few comments. Perhaps basing the ability to call Impasse relative to the number of posts in a thread?
Nevermind..
I can see both sides of this. I think Perrie is trying to make a compromise.
Same. I don't think "impasse" was a bad rule, but I think it was abused, and that abuse needs to be addressed.
And what about locking the thread?
That punishes the people not involved.
Perhaps a pile-on by the "impassed" person's pals should be flagged for violation of "impasse".
No
So you are in a thread that you enjoy and Amy and Bob have a discussion in that same thread. Amy issues an Impasse. You come back later via your tracker and REPLY to a comment earlier in the thread (this is the normal case scenario). You comment is posted below the Impasse.
Now you are violating the Impasse rule.
Further, why would it be fair for a person on a thread to take an action that affects your user experience? In particular, do we really want to allow a malicious member to call an Impasse and shut down everyone in the thread?
Good point but the mods would need to see that this pile on is indeed going after the issuer of the Impasse. That is, the 'pals' certainly are free to continue to talk about the thread's subject matter but should not be indirectly debating the issuer.
Quite a judgment call, but I can see cases where this might be used. There is no way to 100% prevent people from cleverly working around the intent of any rule.
Been there, done that, was called a coward, a communist, unfair, biased, a totalitarian etc.
You cannot please everyone all the time
Truer words were never spoken.
Agreed, that would do the trick.
And some you can NEVER please.
Hi, I know it's been 4 days but I have an answer to the indirect or direct piles after someone has issued an impasse. Flag the comment and tell the mod in the blank box what happened. Explain as best you can in as few words as possible then very carefully negotiate your mouse to "Request Moderator Review". Sometime it's a pain in the ass but it works
Agreed. The phrase 'violation of impasse' would be good to include.
that would be helpful
Well since Amy and Bob are the members effected by the IMPASSE, why not change it to no more replies to anything Amy or Bob posted.
Is there a way for their posts to be made invisible as if they are on 'ignore'?
It is possible, but it that really desirable? If you issue an Impasse to someone who just will not STFU and is engaging in ridiculous tactics that you are tired of dealing with, do you want to remove yourself from the thread?
On the flip side, if someone issues an Impasse on you simply because they have lost the argument, do you want their Impasse to now limit your ability to interact with others in the thread?
Generally speaking, Perrie is trying to minimize the number of tools that can be weaponized by malicious members while providing tools to help well-intended members mitigate hostility (and nonsense).
If Amy knows that Bob is the type who must have the second or third last word, then Amy can simply end the discussion with IMPASSE. If she does that then any further comment from Bob directed at Amy is a violation of the Impasse rule.
The suggestion is for Amy to simply not respond to Bob. But if Amy knows Bob to be one where that does not work then Amy can simply post her last comment as IMPASSE.
I'm confused. It was indicated that Amy must not answer Bob rather than post IMPASSE, but now you are saying that she CAN post IMPASSE in reply to Bob's last comment. The mods will not necessarily be aware of Amy's thought processes in that regard, so it becomes a judgement call on the part of the mods to determine Amy's previous experiences with Bob.
As well, I agree with Sandy, that anyone who picks up and carries on Bob's train with Amy, whether or not an IMPASSE was posted by her, should be put in the same shoes as Bob and dealt with as Bob would have been, including her being able to post an immediate IMPASSE on that person if she had not done so for Bob. In a circumstance a while ago someone took up the train of another when I had posted an IMPASSE and was penalized with an IMPASSE offence by Perrie for having done so.
Nothing states the Amy must not post IMPASSE. It is recommended that Amy just give Bob the last word by simply not REPLYing. But Amy certainly has the option to simply post IMPASSE and move on. This makes sense if she knows Bob is the type to keep piling on (second and third 'last word').
One clear advantage of just not REPLYing is that we do not litter the site with IMPASSE (use it only when needed). Another advantage is that by not REPLYing there is no entry on Bob's tracker. He will have nothing inviting him back to the exchange.
Okay, well since some of what I post is considered controversial to some others' way of thinking I have had to use IMPASSE now and then to stop the antagonism, and I know it may expose me to being called a coward, but it's better than continuing an ongoing confrontation.
Hopefully the site can set the notion that IMPASSE is not cowardly but rather an attempt to not further pollute the site with less-than-thoughtful content.
some people go to great lengths to get around a rule
... and that is where the mods are the last resort even with software enforcement of Impasse. Someone can still indirectly engage after an Impasse by referencing the Impasser in another comment. Mods would have to judge this.
Please Perrie, can I/we have some beta meta?
No. You are stuck with the same stuff that I am, LOL!