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  •  4 weeks ago  •  138 comments

Group Meta on Impasse and Agree to Disagree

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   With this new definition of Impasse, ‘Agree to Disagree’ is obsolete.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

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    4 weeks ago

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'. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    4 weeks ago

original

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  JBB @2    4 weeks ago

And there are those that will argue with it.. {chuckle}

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1    3 weeks ago

Like me…

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @2    3 weeks ago

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.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
3  Nowhere Man    4 weeks ago

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...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4  Trout Giggles    4 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    4 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    4 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.3    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.3    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @4.1.5    4 weeks ago

IMO it just makes them look foolish if they just have to have the last word

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
4.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.4    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.7    4 weeks ago

... 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.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.1.9  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.9    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.11  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    4 weeks ago

nyah, nyah, told you so... ↑ ↑

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.11    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.13  Dulay  replied to  devangelical @4.1.11    4 weeks ago

By the usual suspects too. Who'd a thunk it....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.12    4 weeks ago

yeah, that makes sense ...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.14    4 weeks ago
yeah, that makes sense ...

Do I need to explain my comment?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.17  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.15    4 weeks ago

no thank you

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1.17    4 weeks ago

Great, then we agree that my comment did indeed make sense!

Thanks!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.19  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.18    4 weeks ago

impasse

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
4.1.20  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @4.1.19    4 weeks ago
impasse

Underpass. jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
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.  

You mean there are those who keep coming back for the last word, even after they lost the debate?

No kidding?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.21    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.23  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.21    4 weeks ago
You mean there are those who keep coming back for the last word, even after they lost the debate?

go figure, huh? /s

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.24  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.20    4 weeks ago
Underpass.

oh yeah...

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
4.1.25  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.15    4 weeks ago

Meta deleted without prejudice, SP

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.26  devangelical  replied to  Kathleen @4.1.25    4 weeks ago

you should utilize the flag function if you think a comment is violating the ToS/CoC.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
4.1.27  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    4 weeks ago

I prefer "Woof!"

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @4.1.27    4 weeks ago

I was wondering what you meant by that.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.29  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.3    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
6  Paula Bartholomew    4 weeks ago

Hell, I still don't get what constitutes meta in the comments.  They look like other comments that aren't meta.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    4 weeks ago

I like the meta flag, especially for use on the persecuted victims of NT.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.1    4 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2  TᵢG  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6    4 weeks ago

Usually meta involves talking about the site, the mods or particular members.

( I did not see Perrie's reply before writing this. )

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7  Ender    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
7.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ender @7    4 weeks ago

Yup! One rule, no confusion. No interference with other discussions on the thread.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    4 weeks ago

crap, and to think I could have been hamstringing the comment counters for the last 5 years. pffft.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
8  Tacos!    4 weeks ago
the easiest way to end the discussion is to simply NOT reply

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @8    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

It is difficult. Take it from a perpetual know-it-all and all around Big Mouth. But it so satisfying leaving an unproductive conversation

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.2    4 weeks ago

LOL your self-deprecating description does not at all correlate with your social media interactions and I have many years of data on that.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.3    4 weeks ago

Thank-you. But in real life I can be exactly those things...especially when I've had a few

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

Ha.  I get sappy.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.4    4 weeks ago

any questions on why I stopped drinking years ago? I didn't think so...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
8.1.7  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ender @8.1.5    4 weeks ago
I get sappy.

I get happy.

I use ethanol to lubricate my keyboard.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
9  charger 383    4 weeks ago

Sometimes when one member quits the discussion, somebody then says "crickets" 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
9.1  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  charger 383 @9    4 weeks ago

This is true, charger, and then the other person says 'Impasse" and a ticket will be handed out if they do it again.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.1    4 weeks ago

I'll assume that impasse end runs can also be flagged...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.2  TᵢG  replied to  charger 383 @9    4 weeks ago

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.   

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
10  Kathleen    4 weeks ago

I usually say " Have a nice day" It's a nice way of saying "I am done".

If they reply after that, then they will be talking to themselves.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Sophomore Principal
10.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kathleen @10    3 weeks ago

Yep, or "Good day."

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
11  al Jizzerror    4 weeks ago

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?"

512

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1  TᵢG  replied to  al Jizzerror @11    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg     I think we can whip up some software that will make it impossible for the two interlocutors to reply to each other in the thread once an IMPASSE is issued.  

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.1    4 weeks ago

Just kidding.  Mostly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.1    4 weeks ago

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).

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.3    4 weeks ago

That would be wonderful.

So many otherwise good discussions are spoiled by just a few people who can't carry on a civil conversation.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.1.5  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.2    4 weeks ago

Maybe not kidding? LOL!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1.5    4 weeks ago

What I'd like is the ability to knock the slap-fighter's heads together until they see stars jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png , but TiG's idea will suffice.  I suppose.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.7  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    4 weeks ago
Those extremely logical, thoughtful, adult exchanges will still exist.

I found that using [deleted] always helped me to promote those types of conversations.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.8  Dulay  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.6    4 weeks ago

My mother did that shit with my sister and I. Hense, I have a pretty hard head. Knock away...

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
11.1.9  charger 383  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.6    4 weeks ago

can I help?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.1.6    4 weeks ago

How about a function to scramble all comments in a slap-fight exchange into incoherent gibberish?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  charger 383 @11.1.9    4 weeks ago

We'll take turns.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.10    4 weeks ago

In many cases, I'm not sure the "before" and "after" would look any different.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.1.13  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.10    4 weeks ago

Don't we have enough seeded articles like that already? 

 
 
 
Freefaller
PhD Participates
11.1.14  Freefaller  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.10    3 weeks ago
into incoherent gibberish?

Aren't a lot of conversations gibberish already?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.2  Ender  replied to  al Jizzerror @11    4 weeks ago

I have actually used the fuck off function.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @11.2    4 weeks ago

Any ideas for how a CoC compliant "fuck off" function might work?   I see plenty of perfectly sound uses for it.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
11.2.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ender @11.2    4 weeks ago
I have actually used the fuck off function.

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

Was it effective?

Did it get flagged and censored?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
11.2.3  al Jizzerror  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.1    4 weeks ago
Any ideas for how a CoC compliant "fuck off" function might work?

512

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
11.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.2.3    4 weeks ago

Better get an NFT or whatever and start selling that one!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.2.5  Ender  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.2.2    4 weeks ago

Of course. It was worth it though.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
11.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Ender @11.2    4 weeks ago

I have created my own fuck off function. I ignore them. It drives them crazy. I laugh...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
11.3  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  al Jizzerror @11    4 weeks ago

OMG!!! I have got to keep that one!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.4  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @11    4 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.4.1  Ender  replied to  devangelical @11.4    4 weeks ago

Stop making me have to figure things out damnit!  Haha

I got 1 and 3.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.4.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @11.4.1    4 weeks ago

Same.  I'm about to don a hazmat suit and check out Urban Dictionary.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.4.3  devangelical  replied to  Ender @11.4.1    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.4.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  devangelical @11.4.3    4 weeks ago

Thanks for translating.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.4.5  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.4.4    4 weeks ago

thanks for not giving me a ticket for translating.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
11.4.6  Ender  replied to  devangelical @11.4.5    4 weeks ago

I wasn't trying to get you in trouble...honest....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.4.7  devangelical  replied to  Ender @11.4.6    4 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
11.4.8  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @11.4.7    4 weeks ago

You forgot to include esad.  

I had a secretary many years ago who used that abbreviation quite effectively, and often.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
11.4.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gsquared @11.4.8    4 weeks ago
esad

I was waiting for a translation to appear.  I had to look it up.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.4.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @11.4.8    3 weeks ago

Eat Shit and Die?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12  Nowhere Man    4 weeks ago

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!!!!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
12.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Nowhere Man @12    4 weeks ago
Great job!!!!

Thanx!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Ender  replied to  al Jizzerror @12.1    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.2  devangelical  replied to  Nowhere Man @12    4 weeks ago

I've got a few ideas on how to make this board better with a couple of clicks.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
12.2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  devangelical @12.2    4 weeks ago

I'm sure... (with all due respect as well)

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
12.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Nowhere Man @12.2.1    4 weeks ago

{chuckle}

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago
"Importantly, no other members are limited in any way by Amy and Bob’s spat."

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?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
13.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13    4 weeks ago

You raise a valid point.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
13.1.1  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
13.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  GregTx @13.1.1    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
13.1.3  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1.2    4 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
13.1.4  GregTx  replied to  GregTx @13.1.3    4 weeks ago

Nevermind..

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
13.1.5  Ender  replied to  GregTx @13.1.4    4 weeks ago

I can see both sides of this. I think Perrie is trying to make a compromise.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
13.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @13.1.5    4 weeks ago

Same.  I don't think "impasse" was a bad rule, but I think it was abused, and that abuse needs to be addressed.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1    4 weeks ago

And what about locking the thread?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
13.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13.1.7    4 weeks ago

That punishes the people not involved.

Perhaps a pile-on by the "impassed" person's pals should be flagged for violation of "impasse".

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
13.1.9  GregTx  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1.8    4 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @13.1.1    4 weeks ago
I think Impasse should stop the thread.

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1.8    4 weeks ago
Perhaps a pile-on by the "impassed" person's pals should be flagged for violation of "impasse".

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.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
13.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13.1.7    4 weeks ago
And what about locking the thread?

Been there, done that, was called a coward, a communist, unfair, biased, a totalitarian etc.

You cannot please everyone all the time jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_72_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Principal
13.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Split Personality @13.1.12    4 weeks ago
You cannot please everyone all the time

Truer words were never spoken.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13.1.14  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1.8    4 weeks ago
Perhaps a pile-on by the "impassed" person's pals should be flagged for violation of "impasse".

Agreed, that would do the trick.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13.1.15  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Split Personality @13.1.12    4 weeks ago

And some you can NEVER please.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.11    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1.16    3 weeks ago

Agreed.   The phrase 'violation of impasse' would be good to include.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
13.1.18  charger 383  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1.16    3 weeks ago

that would be helpful

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
13.2  Dulay  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13    4 weeks ago

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'? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @13.2    4 weeks ago

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).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.3  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13    4 weeks ago
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?

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.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @13.3    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13.3.1    4 weeks ago
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. 

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.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @13.3.2    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
13.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13.3.3    4 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
14  charger 383    4 weeks ago

some people go to great lengths to get around a rule

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.1  TᵢG  replied to  charger 383 @14    4 weeks ago

... 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.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
15  Hallux    4 weeks ago

Please Perrie, can I/we have some beta meta?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Sophomore Expert
15.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  Hallux @15    4 weeks ago
can I/we have some beta meta?

512

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
16  author  Perrie Halpern R.A.    4 weeks ago

No. You are stuck with the same stuff that I am, LOL!

 
 

Who is online

CB
Gordy327


59 visitors