Phosphorous_Rex
No bio...
User ID: 72
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
It's a small constraint, but it is allowing me to restrict your ability to interact not just with you but with other people.
I have brought up the option of responding to other people in those threads, which would mean no restrictions on interactions with anyone else at all.
As I understand it, under his model, if you block someone, they are warned that anything they write in reply to your posts had better not be an attempt to draw you into engagement, which includes passive-aggressive digs, baiting, subtexting, etc.
If a blocked person cannot see these responses at all, isn't it literally impossible to draw them into any sort of engagement? I don't think it can be to benefit the blocker. It sounds more like extra tone policing, so that you better not use this unfettered platform to get your punches in. On one hand, it seems to acknowledge that having this permanent unanswerable platform has its perils, but on the other it looks like a troll's hunting rules; after all, everything gets that much easier when the target can't respond.
You have only the option to control what you see and respond to, and ask the mods to enforce the rules.
I would ask you to consider what this sounds like from my perspective, coming from a mod. I know you all hold yourselves to high standards, and stricter when it comes to your own persons, but I'm sure you also know that people have different tolerances, and that those tolerances can change when you have no way to walk away from someone (and no, giving someone an unfettered platform over you in perpetuity is not walking away in my view) or put a stop to it. A normal user can only hope that you will enforce their view of the rules when someone is being needlessly antagonistic, but that's different when you're not a part of it. You can end up setting the floor awfully high here.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
A non-mod should have zero power to affect how another poster interacts with the forum.
The proposal already concedes that this isn't the case, it's in the text:
If they attempt to reply to your comment, it will include the note "This user has blocked you. You are still welcome to reply, but your replies will be held to a stricter standard of civility." This note is accurate and we will do so.
And it may be even stricter, from Zorba:
We might just need to write that to be even stricter; "if you want to reply, respond to their points in a way that doesn't directly address them". Or "that doesn't demand a response from them".
How will you police all this? But:
anything else would be allowing me to "punish" you.
Nobody has a monopoly on posts here, nobody is "punished" by not responding to something directly.
If you think they should have their posting privileges restricted, you need to report them and let the mods decide if action is warranted.
I don't think that people I block should have their posting restricted site-wide, I know where the report button is for that, I just want a way to figuratively walk away from them. Giving them a permanent platform to breath down my neck and directly reply to everything scot-free is the opposite. Are you going to step up your modding to compensate?
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
I should be more clear here, I am talking in informal and broad terms; I don't expect to find a group-written multi-page analysis of the effects of blocks on users, even if it would be neat to see. I'm just looking for some set of posts that anyone can link that show e.g. someone really shut down any dissent with blocks. Since the feature here is basically the same as Reddit, I would be happy to see it from there as well.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
You can do it easily by never responding to them.
Even if ShitHead2941 keeps following you and replying to every your post, what exactly is he "winning"?
Are you afraid that other mottizens will see that you never answer him and think that ShitHead2941 completely demolished you with facts and logic?
Several people, including the mods, have brought up weaponized blocking being used to get in the last word of an argument, so I don't think I'm going on out on a limb alone here to say it's a real thing that bad actors will try to use to their advantage. Ceding the last word completely wouldn't even require facts and logic then since, of course, there will be no response at all from them.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
This is the non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. The fact that you have blocked B should not mean that from now on, any thread you start on TheMotte is one that B cannot participate in.
The situation I see is that e.g. TracingWoodgrains brings up Mormonism and someone comes by to, within the bounds of the rules, semi-harass them about it; they brought up their own personal experiences there a lot, so someone would have many opportunities to bring out the soap box. Someone could get tired of rehashing arguments or always dealing with one abrasive person, and blocking them neatly cuts them out. But allowing someone acting badly to get a permanent last-word feature, no chance of a rebuttal, is not an appealing solution. It's like a troll's dream option.
I think there are better options to overcome some of the worst features of the Reddit blocking system. Options like making it clear when someone is blocking you, letting an existing reply override a block to avoid any last-word gambits, allowing a blocked person to see a blocker's posts, and allowing them to make replies some level removed from a blocker's post would solve the great majority of the issues people have brought up. It still wouldn't be perfect, but I don't know of any perfect solution.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
If you block someone, you're choosing to not defend or respond to their arguments.
That's a mischaracterization, my intent with a block is to opt out of conversations with someone. They're free to make their arguments with anyone else, to post them anywhere else.
Then C gained from reading A's argument, and B is free to block C if they want!
I'm not exactly looking to deal with someone I've blocked in perpetuity at second hand.
"How people work" in many senses, especially complex intellectual ones, is very contingent on intent and culture.
I'm a little confused with where you went, I meant that, mechanically, ignoring people manually takes some minor effort that only causes annoyance, like being approached on the street for various stupid stuff. Yeah, theoretically I can just ignore everyone who seems like they're trying to con me, but that requires me to observe and process who they are and what they're asking before I refuse them. In the same way, I can't just "look at a different part of the screen" for free, I have to observe and process and then look away.
but not looking at offensive text on a forum is a great way to not know what it its, and thus act less competently in relation to it in the future
Yeah, nah, I don't need to listen to the arguments of xXpuppykickerXx, I'm good in my views on animal cruelty, you are overrating the power of an obscure internet forum. They're free to make their arguments to everyone else though, go right on ahead, but I don't have the inclination to explain that I really do like puppies and don't want them kicked. I wouldn't even block them just for the username, but maybe if they made it their hobby horse here; I think that's a reasonable ask.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
I don't doubt that it was used as a weapon, I do remember some posts and discussion about it, this is not the first time Zorba has mentioned that they would like to change the blocking system. But the new system can be weaponized too, as an example, harassing someone (within the bounds of the rules) with the intent to drive them off or get blocked, which would cede any and all future discussions to them, a permanent "last word."
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
This really doesn't solve the problem I described at all. The conversation I'd like to have: [] You've now prevented this from happening.
I think there's a misunderstanding, that would absolutely work fine with the workaround I described. If B makes a reply to A, B would be unblocked for that entire thread from A. C replies to B, B can reply to C, or A, or D, anywhere in that thread.
This is only accessible to someone with programmatic access to the DB and the time to run a statistical analysis to identify such things.
I'm not much of a programmer, and I don't know how the site is built. I assume that the mods can get access to who has blocked whom, as they would need that anyway to know to apply the extra-civility rule. And I doubt if someone is seriously abusing the blocking that they would need a whole "statistical analysis" to find out, someone blocking everyone will show up with many more blocks than a normal user right?
The only cost I see is that when you bail on a conversation, others are allowed to continue it which might make you feel (self-)excluded. That seems like a negligible cost in my view.
The workaround just solves that completely. Everyone can continue the conversation. They can post about it too elsewhere.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
The cost is negligible: People who leave the discussion don't get to demand other people stop discussing, so preventing them isn't very valuable.
I think the cost will come in who participates on the site. I really don't have the inclination to go into discussions with xXpuppykickerXx, and blocking supports that. They can post anything they want anywhere else on the site. But this change seems like a troll's dream, they can always (civilly) harass someone and blocking them just cedes all discussions to them entirely and in perpetuity. Bad actors will weaponize anything.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
Generally the onus is on people who present an argument to present their reasoning and evidence for it, right? If I make an argument it's not your job to convince yourself that I'm right, but my job to present the evidence for my position. I can't link to future posts or the future state of the site, but it would be nice to see some existing set of posts pointed out that shows there is a serious problem. We know that there are flaws with the current blocking system, but there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, and the current one has not led to any catastrophe, plus there are ways to fix some of the worst problems with it. But I'm under no illusion that Zorba or the other mods have to convince me, personally, of anything; I hold no veto power here.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
That wasn't the way it worked on Reddit, especially after they changed how blocking worked, and people didn't know this until it happened to them.
I will submit to you my proposal that a reply overrides blocking for that thread, which neatly solves this issue.
They don't realise this, they then have to start a new post about "hey mods, what happened here?"
The straightforward solution here seems to be giving improved notification for blocking.
And A then gets to block B from participating in conversations with others, even if B is not directly interacting with A.
B can interact with any other conversation that wasn't originating with A. They can post about any topic, they can reply to anyone else's posts. And I have seen that, where someone gets blocked and posts about something they want to talk about. That's a rather weak weapon.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
If we allow the blocked user to reply to the blocker's comments - maybe the blocker will be a bit upset that holocaust deniers exist? They can't see the comment, so, who cares?
Let us consider an example then, A blocks B, A makes a post, B responds to it (hidden to A). Now A is stuck, others see the response but not them and they can't properly defend their post. What if A posts something, then C posts B's shitty argument that A has already dealt with and blocked B over; now they have to do it again? What was the point of the block then?
if you don't like /u/libertAryanPedonazi, you can just look at a different part of the screen when he shows up, if he isn't spamming or anything.
I don't work this way and I think most other people do not either. This is a theoretically possible but practically impossible ask. I don't habitually check usernames first, and I have no desire to manually sanitize a thread with perhaps thousands of comments every week. Blocking is a nice QoL feature for this.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
If you walk away, you don't get to enforce having the last word - the people left still get to discuss what you said, you just won't hear it anymore.
I will bring up my proposed solution of having a reply override the block feature to prevent any sort of last-word effect. This neatly solves that issue.
As for blocking any counterarguments, I can just point to my arguments elsewhere. Let's see the evidence of actual effect and some cost-benefit analysis.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
In the reddit implementation it prevents me - party C - from engaging with B in the current conversation.
As I have brought up in the quoted post, a logically straightforward workaround is to have blocking only prevent new replies in the future; the existence of a reply can override the blocking feature, so there is no possibility of getting in the last word. I agree that the Reddit implementation has flaws, but there are better ways to correct those flaws, IMO.
As for this weaponization, I will first say that although several people have brought it up I have yet to see any evidence that it has occurred, or that it has had a deleterious effect on the forum. And then, trollish behavior should be treated accordingly, no matter what form it takes, and someone blocking anyone who disagrees with them is surely leaving evidence in e.g. the number of blocked users. And even if this weaponization occurs, I don't see it worthwhile to bring in a new, worse block feature; a little intellectual hygiene goes a long way here. There are numerous ways for bad actors to influence conversation. Should we implement a ID verification system to prevent using alt accounts to prop up a bad argument? No, even if that is a failure mode the cost is not worth it. Let's see the cost-benefit analysis here.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
Let's not conflate blocking during a conversation with blocking against future conversations. There are ways to de-weaponize the former without affecting the latter; I suggested elsewhere that if someone has a reply to a post or comment, they can be effectively unblocked for that branch, which eliminates this last word effect.
exclude people from the community
I think this overstates what is happening, and substitutes "my comments" for "the community." A block doesn't restrict any conversations but one branch of a tree, one that is ultimately always going to be small in relation to the total community (I don't think anyone dominates conversations enough to subvert that). I see blocking as analogous to walking away from someone at a party. I haven't restricted their conversations with anyone else. Having them reply to me, extra scrutiny or not, undermines my opt out. A conversation should be snipped at my comment, or theirs, when blocked.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
The biggest part, in my opinion, is that blocking someone shouldn't inconvenience the person who's being blocked.
Can you explain more what burden or inconvenience is being put upon anyone here? How is it a burden if they can't see it? If I type up something and don't post it, have I burdened everyone here with... not seeing it?
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
For the first part, that seems like it just needs an exception to the rule: if someone has a reply to a comment, they can always comment even if they are blocked. No need to give permanent commenting power when blocked just to overcome this edge case that is inherently temporary.
For the second part, someone breaking the rules is the lowest on my list of reasons to block someone; the mods are generally good about warning or banning when this occurs, so the person either fixes their behavior or get removed. If that's the reason for the block feature, better just remove it entirely. But:
"BillyGoatz dared to contradict me that nine million witches were genocided". Hence, censorship.
If someone, as an example, brought up how one of their relatives was killed in the Holocaust and another user (civilly!) denied that it happened and tried to argue that their relative must have starved to death or died from some other cause, the first poster might block them. That, to me, feels fair, if they don't want to argue with them about it, or have them denying it if they bring it up again in the future, even in comments they can't see. And they may not want to deal with it at all, or have someone denying it in the comments. But I, personally, don't want to be in the business of judging whether someone's blocking is valid or not, and I don't think that it will be possible to enforce any validating for blocking. And I wouldn't see this as "censorship" as that person can still post anything they want on their own.
Phosphorous_Rex
1yr ago
Right now this site's block feature works much the same as Reddit's. But I want to change that, because it sucks.
I don't understand how in particular it sucks, although I'm sure there are reasons. But I can't see how allowing someone you've blocked to check your comments really is a better solution, and it seems worse. When I block someone because I feel that they are trollish, arguing in bad faith or for reprehensible views I don't want them building their own conversations on what I post; I blocked them for a reason! To give a concrete example, I've blocked the pedofascist, but if they will be able to read and respond to my posts there are certain topics I just won't post about then.
Phosphorous_Rex
2yr ago
New methods for actively meeting up do not compensate for the passive meetups that occur in a community. Making friends in realspace based on shared activities has been the human default, such as in school, university, work, church and social clubs, and the decline of e.g. church membership and the increase in online time is reflected in a decline in the average number of close friends and in social trust. Seeing lots of meetups online is a sign that there is a desire for community involvement that is not being satisfied in the same way that someone dying in the desert would really want to post about water.
Phosphorous_Rex
2yr ago
I am Catholic, although not the best one, but I can comment and try to answer some of your questions.
I really appreciate the tradition and longevity behind the institution, and it appeals to me to be a part of that.
This was for me one of the biggest reasons to become Catholic. It was not just a church but the church, that has been around in different form for 2000ish years and comes with tons of work from expert theologians who have stood the test of time. I think it's important to know that you're not alone, it's not all on you, when you're unsure or have doubts or just want to learn something new this is a community to turn to that has seen it all before. Aquinas alone has an excessive number of works, enough to satisfy most people's curiosity. It extends beyond scholarship though, the community exists everywhere now. Nearly every city in Europe has centuries-old churches, we have christian-based holidays in most Western countries, the influence of the church is pervasive and deeply ingrained in western culture, and most of that is Catholic or based on it. I think Catholicism is still flat-out the largest religious group in the world (depending on how you dice things).
I've been thinking maybe I should investigate rejoining the Catholic church (which as I understand it would entail going to some adult classes and getting confirmed, as well as getting my marriage recognized by the church)
If you have not been confirmed you will have to go through the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA). This is how I joined the church, and I helped with later classes, so if you have any particular questions about it you can DM me.
Phosphorous_Rex
2yr ago
Victoria 3 is coming out in a few days, and I've been conflicted about getting it. For those who aren't familiar, it's a Paradox Interactive game on the Victorian Era, running between 1836-1936, and similar in style to their many other strategy game offerings. I've always thought Victoria 2 was a fantastic game, especially for focusing so much on people, trade and the economy over warfare and painting the map your color. But in the last decade or so Paradox has changed their business model to a more DLC-focused model; while Hearts of Iron 3 released three expansion packs over the next few years and then was done, HOI4 has six now six years after it was released, and with no sign of stopping. Steam lists a total price for all the content of about $185. Stellaris is at $235 or so, while Europa Universalis 4, released in 2013, has a list longer than my screen can display in one go and is $230 while on a 50% off sale. This is all without the base game.
While I'm sympathetic to the fact that a company has to make money, and they are keeping their base game at about $50 and still updating the games, I'm also reaching the end of my rope with them. Their DLCs tend to be just not that great or interesting, they break mods or split the mod community, they result in this incredible buy-in problem and it oftentimes seems to be an excuse to release badly done content and fix it later. I've tried to stop supporting them, at least somewhat, and so I'm behind on DLCs in some games or have others without any. At this point though, I don't know if I should get Victoria 3 on release at all, as as I try to temper my excitement with the knowledge that it will almost certainly be a buggy and unfinished launch with many more dollars to spend in the coming years. But I'm curious to hear from others too; is anyone else as interested in it? Does it seem worth it?
Phosphorous_Rex
2yr ago
So if I understand correctly, I could theoretically be eligible for German citizenship by virtue of my male line ancestry stretching back to a defecting Hessian soldier during the American Revolution?
No, because Germany was not a state until 1871. There is a nice explanation on Reddit going through the various cutoffs.
It can extend back further than that though. About the furthest back one can go for the last ancestor is 1904; before 1914, every 10 years Germans abroad needed to register themselves at a consulate or lose their citizenship. This does mean that a male German born in e.g 1860 can emigrate in 1900 and have a child in 1904, who will then pass down citizenship to males to the current day, minus some potential complications aobut the post-2000 sunset law.
Phosphorous_Rex
2yr ago
Expatriates are foreign workers. They go to another country to work there, but will return home. An immigrant goes to stay.
The dictionary definition of expat is just "someone living in a foreign country," so of course all migrants are expats too! But the usage is separate. It's really a motte-and-bailey situation. The more neutral version of expat vs immigrant used is like you say, whether they intend to return home or not. Wikipedia though gives the note that expat is more commonly used for "educated professionals, skilled workers, or artists." That's the class divide rearing up: if you're a poor unskilled worker you get to be a low-status immigrant, but if you're a high-flying professional you're an expat. Oftentimes this directly translates into racism: if you're from a developed country (and white!) you're an expat, while if you're from Africa or Asia you're an immigrant no matter your profession. It's all status games, and it's interesting to see how it plays out.
No matter how many people speak English, you're still stuck in the English bubble. I know people who have lived in other countries for over a decade and still don't speak the language. It's sad, honestly.
The expat bubble is real! I would generalize it to more than English too, although as a lingua franca it might be the most common.
Phosphorous_Rex
2yr ago
I think that the Heimat and being German (or any other identity) is less about a current state and more about what could be called an attractor, i.e. it is not a single state to achieve but a point which one approaches. Germans have continuously changed, and each one has their own different identity. But languages, food, architecture, and even landscapes evolve over time; did the Germans of 1500 have less "German" cuisine than the ones today because they did not have the potato? I wouldn't say so; instead, the cuisine evolved over time, took in new items from the Columbian exchange and throughout remained German. This is easy when you are already in the attractor, as you evolve with it and all together, but if you're outside it's not trivial to get close enough to the attractor to latch on, especially when you have to leave another safe and comfortable one.
I don't think my upbringing was particularly German, the points of contact were minimal, and it's tough to describe the water you swim in anyway. But I think the American identity is particularly flexible and mutable, and makes it easy to have a secondary identity. I've sometimes thought of the American identity as being like white paint; if one mixes other colors together they tend towards brown, but mixing a color with white paint tends towards that color, and in the same way mixing the American identity with others is easier than mixing two other identities. And that preserved identity provides a Schelling point when fixing an identity out of all the myriad options; I was able to swap attractors a little easier than others then when it came time. It probably helps that I grew up in the Midwest.
I think language is one of the most important parts of the Heimat! My father grew up in a home that spoke mainly German, but by the time I came around most of that is lost. It's something I do wish I had taken, and now it feels like being separated from everyone else by a glass wall where I can mime the actions but I remain cut off. I should be learning German more and taking classes, but the akrasia is real. Still, I think that I am pushed more to learn German on my own than e.g. my wife, who has taken classes and done more formal work but speaks less than me. That heritage provides impetus, and a willingness to learn German qua German instead of German qua "the language I need to get around in this foreign land." It's funny that you bring up dialects, because when I travel around Germany now I definitely notice the accents and feel much more at home when I return and hear the accent change back!
I grew up in the Midwest, and the rolling green hills are just as present there; I try to spend plenty of time outdoors (is that not also a German thing?). When I first came to Germany it was for work, and when I eventually moved it was to the same location. Part of that is because the terrain matches so well. I also lived for a time in the American Southwest, and it was obviously different: dry sage fields as far as the eye can see, orange-red canyons, bare rocky mountains, etc. I liked it, but only some parts, and it was obviously not home. I do think it's interesting that the more Hispanic Southwest matches Spain while the more German Midwest matches Germany more. I do live in a city, and I would echo your sentiment about it being more artificial and globalized than the countryside, but it does ok; I still get to attend the Volksfeste in the local Platz.
I'll end with a note that my grandmother was from east of the Oder-Neisse line. My core Heimat from my family is completely gone, forever. There are things I find strange that the local Germans find normal and vice-versa. But identities can spread out too, so I take up the broader German identity while I build up a new one where I live. I'm sure my children will have a different Heimat than I do, but they'll always be caught in some of the same attractors.
That's true, but I think now that it is probably too weaponizable and abusable, even if in my idealized world it might be fine. Many people have brought it up as a big issue to them.
It's not completely unfettered, because the rules still apply and others can respond. But generally, if someone makes a confrontational reply or contests some point, and there's no response, it somewhat implies that they don't have a response to it. It cedes the last word to the blockee, which we know is a problem because people are abusing the block to get the last word in and that's bad. Someone can make the same contention in another post and it doesn't haven't quite the same effect, there is less of an onus to respond, this is just a phenomenon of the posting medium I think. It may not be seen by the blocker, but much of this arguing is also for bystanders, who will see a lack of a response.
Let me bite that bullet: yes. If that's unacceptable to you then it is what it is. It's just partly my opinion, ideals, and what I find acceptable, but I also do believe that it is the better of some not very great options. But who knows, maybe the crowdsourced moderation will empower you mods a hundred fold, and every troll will be struck from the site to much wailing and gnashing of teeth while peace and harmony reigns, and we will all laugh that we ever argued about how blocking should work.
More options
Context Copy link