Episode III spoilers forum: Acceptable behavior?

The following is a Public Service Announcement:
Common sights found at TheForce.net:

• Ad Hominem - "Attack the Person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
• Ad Hominem Tu Quoque - "You Too." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.
• Appeal to Authority - This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
• Appeal to Belief - This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.
• Appeal to Common Practice -
It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.[/li]
• Appeal to Consequences of a Belief - This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.
• Appeal to Emotion - This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true.
• Ad Baculum - "Appeal to Fear." This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.
• Appeal to Flattery - The basic idea behind this fallacy is that flattery is presented in the place of evidence for accepting a claim.
• Appeal to Novelty - "The Super Star Destroyer Length Attack." Appeal to Novelty is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is new.
• Appeal to Pity - An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument.
• Ad Populum - "Appeal to popularity." The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim.
• Appeal to Mockery - The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."
• Appeal to Spite - The Appeal to Spite Fallacy is a fallacy in which spite is substituted for evidence when an "argument" is made against a claim.
• Appeal to Tradition - Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done."
• Appeal to the Bandwagon - The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument."
• Begging the Question - Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
• Biased Sample - This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner.
• Appeal to Ignorance - this is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
• Circumstantial Ad Hominem - A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest.
• Composition - The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference.
• Cause and Effect - This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together.
• Division - The fallacy of Division is committe

 

Thankyou Genghis12

I bow to your superior knowledge of forum depravity.

 

Sam: One, it is bashing and contributes nothing to the discussion. So? The only place where that is addressed is the Senate.

No wonder I spend so much time in the Senate.

Do we come to message boards to vent ludicrous amounts of hatred on a fictional character, to call people ugly names (whether they are members of the board or not--I refer to Lucas), or do we come here to have discussions? I was under the impression that it was the latter. If it is not, I will find a more reasonable forum to post in. I see no need to come here for posts such as this:

"Anakin sux!"

"No he doesn't, and here's why..."

"Yes he does! He luks like one of the Backstreet Boyz! He kills innocent Tusken Raiders after his momma threw herself on their land!"

That goes in more circles than the teacups at Disney World. When people want to have a meaningful discussion regarding plot points, character development, spirituality, mythology, etc., I'll participate. Otherwise I'll find a different message board where the discussions aren't such a waste of time.

Two, if I express an opinion opposite that, I get flamed, accused of being a "mass murderer lover", only liking Anakin for his looks, and other various things. In that case, take it up with an Amd.

I tried. It didn't work.

Zidious:

I see them used all the time on the boards and I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed, just that it helps to recognise them for what they are.

Give me one reason why in the hell it should be allowed to insinuate that someone is stupid, or insinuate anything else insulting about another poster.

 

How often do you see posts declaring how great E3 is going to be

Ahh yes, the bane of bashers everywhere. Here's a newsflash: some of the people who come here are children. Yes, kids. And not just any kids, but kids who are enthusiastic about Star Wars. Which leads to my next point:

Why should I have to get a "negative response?"

The population of 3SA is a group of self selected Star Wars enthusiasts. What you are asking for is not a change in forum rules, but rather for a change in human behavior. It's not going to happen.

No one should be telling anyone to (again) "get lost."

I'd assume that is already against the rules.

Do you acknowledge that there's a problem with the way dissenters are being treated...

I see no dissenter-related problem. The 3SA is chock full of both positive and negative opinions. As just one example, see the thread started by DJSPYNLL whose title starts with , "Before the...".

-----------------------------

Yes, there is--for three reasons:

Three whole reasons, eh?

1) One, it is bashing and contributes nothing to the discussion.

It's not bashing. It's just an expression of an opinion. And whether it contributes anything or not can only be determined by it's context, which we don't have here. Again, your problem is that you are frustrated you can't suppress opinions you don't like.

2) Two, if I express an opinion opposite that, I get flamed, accused of being a "mass murderer lover", only liking Anakin for his looks, and other various things.

Even if your charge is accurate, that is not a problem with the original statement.

3) Three, if I had to back up my quote from George Lucas, people should have to back up this statement--and for anyone who wants to try, I've got plenty of counterarguments in my arsenal.

Again, this is not a problem with the original statement. Actually, based on the last part of your statement, it sounds like it could lead to a discussion of Anakin's character.

I tried. It didn't work.

And yet you insist there is no problem with the mods. How odd.

Do we come to message boards to vent ludicrous amounts of hatred on a fictional character...

It's not up to you to decide why people come here. Some of the examples you cite are indeed dumb and immature. However, your problem is that you want these comments suppressed. It's not going to happen.

Give me one reason why in the hell...

That's not my quote. It belongs to soitscometothis.

-----------------------------

...I made a serious proposal

It's a proposal that has zero chance of being implemented. It's not serious.

...about you guys over there closing the forum only to those who will have positive things to say about the movie.

The forum is filled with negative opinions. The overwhelming evidence is there in abundance for all to see. To think otherwise is pure fantasy.

 

Zidious: Now I understand why you have no problem with the posting style on the 3SA forums. You are being just as condescending, holier-than-thou and nasty as they are, and you think that if I get my way or make any progress here, you might lose your God-given right to be rude.

It's not bashing. It's just an expression of an opinion.

No, it's bashing for the sake of bashing. The intent of said post is to either make people mad or to launch shouts of "YES! YES!", not to launch a serious, thought-provoking discussion. Mature people know how to discuss issues rather than just taking potshots.

And whether it contributes anything or not can only be determined by it's context, which we don't have here.

I have seen this post in many forums, and the results of said post were as I outlined above. Never has that launched a serious discussion.

Again, your problem is that you are frustrated you can't suppress opinions you don't like.

No--I want to suppress their rude, mean, and nasty way of expressing it.

Even if your charge is accurate, that is not a problem with the original statement.

And yet you insist there is no problem with the mods. How odd.

See my first statement here. I do not appreciate being talked to like I am three years old, nor do I appreciate being called a liar.

As I said, I wonder if you're not worried that I might make some progress in taking away your right to post rudely.

The forum is filled with negative opinions. The overwhelming evidence is there in abundance for all to see. To think otherwise is pure fantasy.

Our viewpoint is just as good as yours, and to insist that we are living in "pure fantasy" because we don't see things the way you do is the height of arrogance.

 

Ahh yes, the bane of bashers everywhere. Here's a newsflash: some of the people who come here are children. Yes, kids. And not just any kids, but kids who are enthusiastic about Star Wars.

Not all of them are children. My point is, what's wrong with simply giving general impressions? Positive impressions are perfectly acceptable, so why aren't negative ones?

The population of 3SA is a group of self selected Star Wars enthusiasts. What you are asking for is not a change in forum rules, but rather for a change in human behavior. It's not going to happen.

So it's too much to ask to be shown some courtesy?

I'd assume that is already against the rules.

If it is, it's clearly not enforced.

I see no dissenter-related problem. The 3SA is chock full of both positive and negative opinions.

Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one. There are quite a few individuals who feel that the 3SA is a hostile place because of how dissenting opinion is being treated. That is a problem.

When I say something negative about a spoiler or some other detail about the film, I don't want to be told that I'm just a "whiner" or that I should find a different place to express my opinion. If someone wants to debate me, then that's fine. If they don't like hearing something critical about the film, they can just ignore me and not respond.

 

There are quite a few individuals who feel that the 3SA is a hostile place because....That is a problem

Not really no. The people who believe that are quite a small minority in comparasion to those who use the 3SA regularly and enjoy it.
If it was as rampant and huge a problem as you say, there would never be any new members there. Posting would constantly be on the decline etc.



This thread isn't littered with dozens and dozens of users with stories and consideration of this so called huge problem.
It's a few people who keep shouting their opinion over and over, without any real evidence of a blatent problem, or much of anything that really supports what they are saying.

 

It's a proposal that has zero chance of being implemented. It's not serious

Then may I suggest something more effective, like a flesh-eating virus?

The forum is filled with negative opinions

No, it's filled with negative, sadistic, and a few other words I can't say, little (and I do mean, LITTLE) minds.

But, I suppose it would be too frightening for those of little and frozen minds to think thoughts other than that which trickles through their brains. Pity...all doomed to remain two-dimensional creatures...

 

It's a few people who keep shouting their opinion over and over, without any real evidence of a blatent problem, or much of anything that really supports what they are saying.

How do the posts I quoted a few pages ago not constitute a problem?

 

Not really no. The people who believe that are quite a small minority in comparasion to those who use the 3SA regularly and enjoy it.

Oh, I see. So it doesn't matter that some of us here in this thread are regularly made to feel unwelcome in the 3SA? I guess our feelings don't matter. Well, I suppose that solves the issue then.

 

AG----sorry but 98% of those are not flames.





NA-That's overstating it just a bit don't you think? And yes it would matter if the "some" you referred to was actually more than like 8 of you. Again there are hundreds and hundreds of welcome regular users with new ones each day.


They or nothing can please all the people all the time.

 

AG----sorry but 98% of those are not flames.

100 percent of those were intentioned to insult me. How are they not flames?

Or do you think we should defend people's "right" to be mean, rude, and nasty?

And yes it would matter if the "some" you referred to was actually more than like 8 of you.

Not_Applicable: I guess that answers the question. We're not welcome in 3SA, and nobody gives a rat's ass what we think.

Nice boards.

 

I don't think I'm overstating it. What you're essentially saying is that because we're in a minority, it's acceptable for other members to be rude to us. It may not be a "rampant" problem, but that's little consolation to those of us who have to put up with unfriendly remarks just for sharing our opinions.

 

Again there are hundreds and hundreds of welcome regular users with new ones each day

How many users have come in there before, and perhaps after a few posts, never show up again? It's not how many users come through the doors, it's how many exit through those same doors. And one also has to account for how many users see how those with differing opinions are treated, then decide to keep their comments bland, so as not to draw similar criticism. Or stick only to threads where there is little or no room for active debate.

But of course, you see no problems, you're one of the blissfully uncaring members of the 3SA Banana Republic. Let nothing disturb the tainted tranquillity, right?

 

But of course, you see no problems, you're one of the blissfully uncaring members of the 3SA Banana Republic. Let nothing disturb the tainted tranquillity, right?



My two Republic ditaris: people who don't see a problem with 3SA, and are protesting against the complaints of those of us who do, are protesting our speaking out against their God-given right to rudeness.

 

Otherwise I'll find a different message board...

Is that a threat or a promise?

...and you think that if I get my way or make any progress here...

There's no chance of that!

Mature people know how to discuss issues...

Maturity is not a requirement of the TOS.

I wonder if you're not worried that I might make some progress in taking away your right to post rudely.

Yes, I lie awake at night shaking in fear.

------------------------------------------

My point is, what's wrong with simply giving general impressions?

I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised by the response.

If it is, it's clearly not enforced.

I'd suggest you ask a mod about it.

Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one.

There is no problem. Just because you think there is one doesn't mean there is one. In this thread, I have pointed out three different threads that demonstrate lively debate. And with certain spoilers, the positive and negative comments are balanced. A great example from the 2SA era was the spoiler about Yoda fighting with a lightsabre. There was massive uproar about that one, just as there is now with a few of the spoilers. There is active debate on both sides.

I guess our feelings don't matter.

Can't please everyone.

------------------------------------------

How many users have come in there before, and perhaps after a few posts, never show up again?

I don't know. Do you?

It's not how many users come through the doors, it's how many exit through those same doors.

And how many is that? You seem to be indicating that you know.

And one also has to account for how many users see how those with differing opinions are treated, then decide to keep their comments bland...

How many do this?

 

Zidious: Your turn to answer a question--why is it so important to you to defend the right to be rude, immature, mean and nasty?

Just because maturity isn't a requirement of the TOS doesn't mean that people shouldn't have to act mature, or act like decent human beings. What does it contribute to a message board to allow people to be nasty? So that people who are too dumb to get their thrills in other ways, and who have to avoid getting along with people in order to boost their own egos, can dominate?

Your own posts in this thread are getting nastier by the minute--turning into the same sort of thing I see in 3SA itself--which makes me think that you don't want to lose your divine right to be nasty to people who disagree with you.

What exactly would you lose by being required to be polite and respectful of other people's opinions?

Otherwise I'll find a different message board...

Is that a threat or a promise?

You'd like that, wouldn't you? Run off everyone who calls you on your lack of civility.

Sorry, I am more determined now not to give you the satisfaction.

 

AG, your case is very similar to what I"ve thrown at the Adms. about religion mocking. I was assuming it was their aim to offend me. My case got compltetely thrown out becasue,
1)There was no direct violation of the TOS. I was interpreting it like there was.
2)Everyone denied that it contained malicous intent.
3) the threads were deemed "humour" by the Mods.


Exact same situation here. I learned the hard way that interpretaion doesn't win any Comms arguments

 

I vaguely remember that thread of yours, Sam, and for the record, I don't think anyone should make fun of another religion--and you and I hardly share the same religious views. We should respect each other's views, however.

Anyway--if you'll look at my post a few pages back, you'll see the posts directed at me in 3SA--most of them didn't require interpretation. They were very obviously directed at me, as was Zidious' last post.

 

I'm just looking around the last page of posts or so... now, I'm not a frequent poster in 3SA, nor do I plan to be, but in reading these posts... where are the Moderators of 3SA in all this? Shouldn't they have an opinion on these matters? Especially the "I think this post is flaming"/"No, it's not flaming, what are you talking about"/"Yes, that IS flaming, it was intended to hurt my feelings, can't you see that" stuff.
In my opinion, there's a problem. Apparently, there's either a flaming problem, or there's enough people who THINK there's a flaming problem. In either case, I think there's A problem, and it should be addressed.

 

Sape has popped in a few times, Syntax...other than that, I'm not sure where they are.

 

Can I make a controversial comment here?


The Adms. gets heat for overmodding. they know that just a few moderators won't change the condition of the board if its gets down low enough. Merely banning everyone will just leave with an inactive site. So, the solution is to provide key communication between user/mod about the issues. Hence we have Comms.
Now, knowing that they get heat for overmodding, could it be that the standard for what is apprpriate/inappropriate has slipped somewhat? Or even worse, have the Adms. started toward a more "hands-off" approach, in favor of an active community? Just a thought.

 

I think you're right, Sam--but I don't think the solution is a good one.

The admins get heat for overmodding? So what? Try being a teacher sometimes--you think we don't get heat for discipline? You don't think we hear "It's not fair!" Big deal. It doesn't keep us from standing our ground. You can't relax the rules just because people don't like them.

 

I don't like it either. I would much rather have a handful of intelligent, respectful posters than a million flamers.

 

The point I was trying to make throughout this entire thread.

People are going to leave because their right to be rude has been taken away? Their loss. It's not the site's loss. The site will attract more people if the environment to post in is friendlier.