Support NeoGAF

[Barsinister]

I have no idea who that guy is.

Very funny thread. It felt like Evilore unbanned him just so we could mess with him. Loved "No Man's Sky". Made twenty dollars on YouTube for his videos!

 

[Ornlu]

Very funny thread. It felt like Evilore unbanned him just so we could mess with him. Loved "No Man's Sky". Made twenty dollars on YouTube for his videos!

Oh yeah, I remember that. That was a funny one.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Very funny thread. It felt like Evilore unbanned him just so we could mess with him. Loved "No Man's Sky". Made twenty dollars on YouTube for his videos!

No, Fuck This. You Dont Just Get to Go Back To Normal

This is a great goddamn community, regardless of its flaws. I love every individual here, even if I wanna open-hand-smack some of them. Ive learned a lot here. About how to be a better man. More accepting of minorities, LGBT, Black, Women, etc etc. this game place has been my life for years...

www.neogaf.com

 

[Tesseract]

 

[Barsinister]

No, Fuck This. You Dont Just Get to Go Back To Normal

This is a great goddamn community, regardless of its flaws. I love every individual here, even if I wanna open-hand-smack some of them. Ive learned a lot here. About how to be a better man. More accepting of minorities, LGBT, Black, Women, etc etc. this game place has been my life for years...

www.neogaf.com

YES!! I haven't laughed that hard in a while. GAF at it's best and most vicious!

 

[Rentahamster]

Brap didn’t do that in terms of tone, but as someone else mentioned, he also tended to attack ideas and not the person (at least in my observation).

I found him amusing just the same, but he did have a tendency for name calling ( a lot of it in jest, I know, but you have to admit the tone was more aggressive than average, justified mocking and unjustified mocking aside). Just do a search for soyboy, cuck, bitch, or incel, and the results are multiple pages long with many of them being ad hominems attacking individuals.

As I've said before, I wouldn't have banned him, but my approach to moderation is more Mad Max than it is Driving Miss Daisy. What Faust wrote as justification was reasonable, by that standard, and while I generally agree with what you said too, it's also another version of "rules for thee but not for me", however justified you think your version is too.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

xbox chan is that you?

That is what I said over at the ban thread, wait did your post get moved?

Mike.

No, I posted here.

Because you can’t criticise something that hasn’t happened yet...? What are you talking about?

I mean you and Whitesnake were calling another user a coward because they were talking shit about brap. It's not the first time someone talked shit about a banned member in that thread.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I found him amusing just the same, but he did have a tendency for name calling ( a lot of it in jest, I know, but you have to admit the tone was more aggressive than average, justified mocking and unjustified mocking aside). Just do a search for soyboy, cuck, bitch, or incel, and the results are multiple pages long with many of them being ad hominems attacking individuals.

As I've said before, I wouldn't have banned him, but my approach to moderation is more Mad Max than it is Driving Miss Daisy. What Faust wrote as justification was reasonable, by that standard, and while I generally agree with what you said too, it's also another version of "rules for thee but not for me", however justified you think your version is too.

This is you now.

YES!! I haven't laughed that hard in a while. GAF at it's best and most vicious!

I totally forgot about this and Tess linking clown world lol

No, I posted here.


I mean you and Whitesnake were calling another user a coward because they were talking shit about brap. It's not the first time someone talked shit about a banned member in that thread.

Ah, alright sometimes my posts alone get dragged here or deleted from that other thread.

 

[Rentahamster]

This is you now.

A weeb? This is known.

 

[Mista]

^Example of someone whose opinion means nothing because no one knows who he is

Whats up with nobodies suddenly showing up? What makes it more funny that they think we actually give a shit

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

I mean, if we consider like four of Gaf‘s universally worst posters to be both a majority, and authority on the matter.

More than likely, most are just happy there’s one less obstacle to them shitting their politics, hot takes, and disingenuous arguing everywhere.

I know you consider brap a good friend so there's going to be some bias but what I'm saying is not everyone liked him, so there was bound to be some people expressing their approval of his ban.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

A weeb? This is known.

 

[-Arcadia-]

I know you consider brap a good friend so there's going to be some bias but what I'm saying is not everyone liked him, so there was bound to be some people expressing their approval of his ban.

We don’t even need to discuss bias. Anyone can hop into the Ban Review thread and see the skew for themselves. Overwhelmingly, people miss him. Overwhelmingly, the people that don’t miss him, and are offering hot takes on the matter, are the most disliked posters on the forum.

Which says something interesting, as a tangent.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Whats up with nobodies suddenly showing up? What makes it more funny that they think we actually give a shit

In this thread we criticize other posters for their bad behaviors

Remember: No hard feelings here just constructive criticism. If you get called out don't take it personally. Just opinions. The goal here is to let us have a better understanding of each other and improvement as a community 1. @MiyazakiHatesKojima Whenever I see your thread with the big...

www.neogaf.com

 

[Papa]

I found him amusing just the same, but he did have a tendency for name calling ( a lot of it in jest, I know, but you have to admit the tone was more aggressive than average, justified mocking and unjustified mocking aside). Just do a search for soyboy, cuck, bitch, or incel, and the results are multiple pages long with many of them being ad hominems attacking individuals.

As I've said before, I wouldn't have banned him, but my approach to moderation is more Mad Max than it is Driving Miss Daisy. What Faust wrote as justification was reasonable, by that standard, and while I generally agree with what you said too, it's also another version of "rules for thee but not for me", however justified you think your version is too.

Couldn’t help but laugh at the top result being this reply to my Holyshit thread:

Bye you cum guzzling, soy slurping, BBC loving, numale soyboy cuck.

I think you’re misunderstanding the meaning of the “rules for thee” saying. It suggests that there is an impermeable stratification of people in which the upper classes subject the lower classes to a different set of rules, i.e. a caste system with no social mobility. That’s not what I’m advocating for at all.

What I’m saying is that social hierarchies are natural and should in fact be encouraged so long as social mobility is not inhibited. Someone who signed up a week ago has to start at the bottom because no one knows where they stand yet. It’s in the interest of the group to be wary of the newcomer, especially so for us since there are “sleeper agents”. However, there should be no barriers to them fitting in and rising up the social hierarchy once they prove themselves. Just look at someone like Elektro Demon . Hasn’t been around long but is already pretty popular and gets a fair bit of slack with his threadmaking. Yes, the rules are applied differently based on your social standing, but there are no barriers inhibiting thee‘s social mobility. That’s how it should be, otherwise you end up in the disposability dystopia I described in my earlier post. That is simply not how humans socialise.

 

[-Arcadia-]

I found him amusing just the same, but he did have a tendency for name calling ( a lot of it in jest, I know, but you have to admit the tone was more aggressive than average, justified mocking and unjustified mocking aside). Just do a search for soyboy, cuck, bitch, or incel, and the results are multiple pages long with many of them being ad hominems attacking individuals.

As I've said before, I wouldn't have banned him, but my approach to moderation is more Mad Max than it is Driving Miss Daisy. What Faust wrote as justification was reasonable, by that standard, and while I generally agree with what you said too, it's also another version of "rules for thee but not for me", however justified you think your version is too.

Looking into context, you can see that this is typically banter, in-jokes, or deserved.

I don’t ever want to be on a Neogaf where those three uses of insults are no-no territory.

 

[nush]

5. Insert penis

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

TIL matt thinks of others as humans beans.

 

[Mista]

In this thread we criticize other posters for their bad behaviors

Remember: No hard feelings here just constructive criticism. If you get called out don't take it personally. Just opinions. The goal here is to let us have a better understanding of each other and improvement as a community 1. @MiyazakiHatesKojima Whenever I see your thread with the big...

www.neogaf.com

Who is this prick?

 

[Papa]

No, I posted here.


I mean you and Whitesnake were calling another user a coward because they were talking shit about brap. It's not the first time someone talked shit about a banned member in that thread.

I’ve always criticised people dancing on the graves of banned members, even when I didn’t like the banned member.

What are you even talking about? You seem to be suggesting that we should’ve been criticising them earlier for not criticising brap before he was banned. That’s circular logic.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Who is this prick?

Alt. Highly unlikely just someone bored. I hope it is the latter.

 

[thanosg]

Who is this prick?

sorry leaving you out

 

[Papa]

Guys, it’s a sleeper agent

Trump administration ended pandemic early-warning program to detect coronaviruses

What a disaster. We feared the worst back in late 2016 but the reality is worse than the worst scenario!! Besides China we need to hold every single member in the T-administration responsible for this action. Just call off the Nov election now it should be trails on how they repay us for all...

www.neogaf.com

 

[pennythoughts]

That’s a naive pipe dream. Long term members who are part of the community get more slack than newcomers who nobody knows yet. That’s how current GAF moderation generally appears to work. That’s how every (functional) community on the planet works. Families are the ultimate example of this. The black-and-white by-the-book rule-driven alternative where the rules are set in stone and context doesn’t matter is a dystopian nightmare where people are just disposable units who can be replaced at any time.

In exchange for the greater slack, long term members have a responsibility to set an example for the new members. Brap didn’t do that in terms of tone, but as someone else mentioned, he also tended to attack ideas and not the person (at least in my observation). His console warring shitposting generally had an underlying ironic self-awareness. He knew he was being a clown, but he was dragging himself down to the level of the idiots and beating them with experience. You don’t think that mockery had a discouraging effect on the idpol-inclined types he was mocking? @EviLore has essentially just beheaded the court jester.

Your Ree/old-GAF comparison is completely backwards btw. The villagers there are competing to get each other banned, not to keep them around. It’s exclusion vs inclusion.

We have a hierarchy in place for new accounts to establish themselves but we don't need to go any further for regular community members. In fact, I'd say Brap was already given an incredible amount of leniency giving his post history. If you don't think he didn't antagonize specific users rather than their ideas himself then I don't know what to say. He absolutely did routinely try to make things personal with individuals and has the rap sheet to prove it. Where someone like Brap differs from other shitposters is that they have the wisdom to know to tone it down here and there and contribute instead of never letting off. What seems to be shocking to most is the specific post that Brap landed his permanent ban on, not that it actually happened.

My comparison to the reasons for the exodus was apt. I'm not talking about how the mob itself acts, petitioning for exclusivity vs inclusivity, I'm talking about bending to the whims of the mob. Generally speaking you want leadership and a community that mostly see eye to eye but sometimes leaders have to make tough decisions, even ones that may initially be unpopular and if people start threatening to leave the community because one of their favorite posters got banned then fuck 'em.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

We don’t even need to discuss bias. Anyone can hop into the Ban Review thread and see the skew for themselves. Overwhelmingly, people miss him. Overwhelmingly, the people that don’t miss him, and are offering hot takes on the matter, are the most disliked posters on the forum.

Which says something interesting, as a tangent.

I mean, there's thelastword who I agree is a console fanboy but I think Claus said he didn't find brap funny and annoying because of his gaming controversy threads. Other people who may not like brap probably don't post as often so as I said to Elektro Demon I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say, like, 80 percent of NeoGAF will miss him. It's probably closer to 60/40 if you were to ask everyone.

Personally, I liked some of brap's posts when he was trying to be funny but I can understand why others might not like him, particularly when he is insulting others. But then I can't always tell if he's joking or not.

 

[Papa]

We have a hierarchy in place for new accounts to establish themselves but we don't need to go any further for regular community members. In fact, I'd say Brap was already given an incredible amount of leniency giving his post history. If you don't think he didn't antagonize specific users rather than their ideas himself then I don't know what to say. He absolutely did routinely try to make things personal with individuals and has the rap sheet to prove it. Where someone like Brap differs from other shitposters is that they have the wisdom to know to tone it down here and there and contribute instead of never letting off. What seems to be shocking to most is the specific post that Brap landed his permanent ban on, not that it actually happened.

My comparison to the reasons for the exodus was apt. I'm not talking about how the mob itself acts, petitioning for exclusivity vs inclusivity, I'm talking about bending to the whims of the mob. Generally speaking you want leadership and a community that mostly see eye to eye but sometimes leaders have to make tough decisions, even ones that may initially be unpopular and if people start threatening to leave the community because one of their favorite posters got banned then fuck 'em.

Where was this wisdom before he was banned?

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

I mean, there's thelastword who I agree is a console fanboy but I think Claus said he didn't find brap funny and annoying because of his gaming controversy threads. Other people who may not like brap probably don't post as often so as I said to Elektro Demon I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say, like, 80 percent of NeoGAF will miss him. It's probably closer to 60/40 if you were to ask everyone.

Personally, I liked some of brap's posts when he was trying to be funny but I can understand why others might not like him, particularly when he is insulting others. But then I can't always tell if he's joking or not.

Outside a cuck that isn't even worth mentioning directly, brap gave me more shit than anybody on this thread. He was harmless to me, it was bant. But I can see what you mean with others being butthurt over, what, buzzwords? I guess? Tess said this better than I did before on the ban thread. :/

 

[pennythoughts]

Where was this wisdom before he was banned?

it was contained in his moderation history but Brap is beholden to no man. he'll ride into internet forums Valhalla (otherwise known as 4chan).

 

[Papa]

Outside a cuck that isn't even worth mentioning directly, brap gave me more shit than anybody on this thread. He was harmless to me, it was bant. But I can see what you mean with others being butthurt over, what, buzzwords? I guess? Tess said this better than I did before on the ban thread. :/

That’s the thing — the vast majority of it was banter. Look at how he spoke to me and Melon. It was just as vitriolic as his worst console warring, but it was funny and we liked and encouraged it because it built camaraderie. The opinions of the external participants who weren’t in on the joke shouldn’t hold any weight, but that’s what a keyword search like “soyboy” does.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

it was contained in his moderation history but Brap is beholden to no man. he'll ride into internet forums Valhalla (otherwise known as 4chan).

That's a board not a forum.

 

[Rentahamster]

I think you’re misunderstanding the meaning of the “rules for thee” saying. It suggests that there is an impermeable stratification of people in which the upper classes subject the lower classes to a different set of rules, i.e. a caste system with no social mobility. That’s not what I’m advocating for at all.

I don't think I am. I understand what you mean by your version. I also happen to operate under that framework too. But at face value, this saying means that you're holding people to different standards based on *insert personal rationalizations here*, which is fine. Accumulate community virtue points and get cut some slack, sure. The thing is, that system you just advocated for is what we're already doing. We're not even arguing about the line, because mine is the same as yours.

According to Faust's post, and the ban message itself, that lovable retard got more slack and chances than most precisely because of his long term member status. We already operate under your ideal framework as you just laid out. But to use the family analogy, dad drew a line, and multiple chances didn't nudge the behavior in the desired direction. What is a head of household supposed to do when his authority is flaunted? We're not in charge, so we don't get to set that line, nor the punishment, though we are free to complain about both. The mods set a line, that had a lot of wiggle room already built in it due to his status and also according to the societal values you laid out, but he still crossed it and forced their hand.

 

[Papa]

I don't think I am. I understand what you mean by your version. I also happen to operate under that framework too. But at face value, this saying means that you're holding people to different standards based on *insert personal rationalizations here*, which is fine. Accumulate community virtue points and get cut some slack, sure. The thing is, that system you just advocated for is what we're already doing. We're not even arguing about the line, because mine is the same as yours.

According to Faust's post, and the ban message itself, that lovable retard got more slack and chances than most precisely because of his long term member status. We already operate under your ideal framework as you just laid out. But to use the family analogy, dad drew a line, and multiple chances didn't nudge the behavior in the desired direction. What is a head of household supposed to do when his authority is flaunted? We're not in charge, so we don't get to set that line, nor the punishment, though we are free to complain about both. The mods set a line, that had a lot of wiggle room already built in it due to his status and also according to the societal values you laid out, but he still crossed it and forced their hand.

I don’t like the dismissive “*insert personal rationalizations here*”. I think my argument was substantiated better than that.

To follow your analogy, the dad doesn’t kick his son out into the street. Instead, he keeps temporarily grounding him with longer and longer durations until he learns his lesson. Complete disowning isn’t on the table.

 

[Mista]

sorry leaving you out

Did you finish elementary school? That English is phenomenal

 

[Rentahamster]

Looking into context, you can see that this is typically banter, in-jokes, or deserved.

Yes, I know that.

lot of it in jest, I know . . . justified mocking and unjustified mocking aside

I don’t ever want to be on a Neogaf where those three uses of insults are no-no territory.

Neither do I. I do my fair share of shit talking too, but I think you'd agree that we all operate on a certain level of understanding about where that line is.

 

[Grand Theft Scratchy]

I’ve always criticised people dancing on the graves of banned members, even when I didn’t like the banned member.

What are you even talking about? You seem to be suggesting that we should’ve been criticising them earlier for not criticising brap before he was banned. That’s circular logic.

I'm saying it's only natural that brap would be criticized given the history of all of the "Good riddance" type posts in the ban thread. Maybe it should stop though, the dancing on people's graves. You're right that it's not a good look.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don’t like the dismissive “*insert personal rationalizations here*”. I think my argument was substantiated better than that.

You did, and they may be dismissive, but does that invalidate my underlying point? I don't think it does. Your rationalizations are similar to my own, so I don't have issue with that. What I am doing is framing the question in a way that points out we all have our individual pet reasons for bending the rules one way or the other and that at the end of the day we're all fine with some degree of preferential treatment, but we should be honest that that's what we're doing and also be clear on how far that goodwill extends.

To follow your analogy, the dad doesn’t kick his son out into the street. Instead, he keeps temporarily grounding him with longer and longer durations until he learns his lesson. Complete disowning isn’t on the table.

We already agreed on that point a page or two back. and yes, that is an available, valid, tool in the toolbox to reign in belligerent stepchildren.

 

[Papa]

You did, and they may be dismissive, but does that invalidate my underlying point? I don't think it does. Your rationalizations are similar to my own, so I don't have issue with that. What I am doing is framing the question in a way that points out we all have our individual pet reasons for bending the rules one way or the other and that at the end of the day we're all fine with some degree of preferential treatment, but we should be honest that that's what we're doing and also be clear on how far that goodwill extends.


We already agreed on that point a page or two back. and yes, that is an available, valid, tool in the toolbox to reign in belligerent stepchildren.

Err, maybe you misunderstand, but I'm not saying that brap shouldn't have been punished for the console warring garbage. My problem is with it being a fucking perm when there are clearly so many here in the community who are upset by it.

 

[Rentahamster]

Err, maybe you misunderstand, but I'm not saying that brap shouldn't have been punished for the console warring garbage.

That's not what I'm saying you're saying either. I'm addressing the rationalizations behind preferential treatment.

My problem is with it being a fucking perm when there are clearly so many here in the community who are upset by it.

We already agreed on that point.

 

[Papa]

That's not what I'm saying you're saying either. I'm addressing the rationalizations behind preferential treatment.

We already agreed on that point.

You're still misrepresenting what I'm saying, so no, we're not in agreement. You haven't addressed any rationalisations, just handwaved them.

 

[Rentahamster]

You're still misrepresenting what I'm saying, so no, we're not in agreement.

We're not in agreement that he shouldn't be permed and that a more preferable punishment would be longer bans?

 

[Papa]

We're not in agreement that he shouldn't be permed and that a more preferable punishment would be longer bans?

We're not in agreement on your misrepresentations/handwaving of my points. The working is more important than the conclusion.

 

[Melon]

me @ brap

 

[Rentahamster]

You haven't addressed any rationalisations, just handwaved them.

Yeah I did.

You laid out a set of standards and justifications for why we should employ special treatment.

I said it's a version of "rules for thee but not for me" ( a justification for special treatment),

You said it's not "rules for thee" according to your personal truth.

I said, yeah it is, don't kid yourself.


(And that while it's fine because we already operate that way, as you also acknowledge, we also need to be careful about how far we're willing to take it, and that the mods laid out how far they were willing to take it and enforced it accordingly which makes the decision reasonable, even if I disagree with the tool employed)

I also did address your rationalizations since I fully accepted your family circle rationalization and framed my hypotheticals around your framework as well.

 

[Tesseract]

re: state of gaf, i have almost no complaints

lore and the team are killing it, strong users are joining or returning, all trajectories look good

some wiggle room for permaban redemption would be nice; dead is forever

 

[Papa]

Yeah I did.

You laid out a set of standards and justifications for why we should employ special treatment.

I said it's a version of "rules for thee but not for me" ( a justification for special treatment),

You said it's not "rules for thee" according to your personal truth.

I said, yeah it is, don't kid yourself.


(And that while it's fine because we already operate that way, as you also acknowledge, we also need to be careful about how far we're willing to take it, and that the mods laid out how far they were willing to take it and enforced it accordingly which makes the decision reasonable, even if I disagree with the tool employed)

I also did address your rationalizations since I fully accepted your family circle rationalization and framed my hypotheticals around your framework as well.

You didn't address the justification, you just handwaved it and carried on as thought it was never said. You're misconstruing what I'm saying based on a misunderstanding of what "rules for thee" actually means.

 

[Rentahamster]

You didn't address the justification, you just handwaved it and carried on as thought it was never said.

How am I handwaving it if I already accepted your family analogy and also acknowledged that it's also similar to how I operate too?

You're misconstruing what I'm saying based on a misunderstanding of what "rules for thee" actually means.

What "rules for thee" means under your own personal truth. I'm taking the base saying at face value. You're adding caveats. It's the definition that I'm not accepting as valid. Your practice of it is is.

 

[Papa]

How am I handwaving it if I already accepted your family analogy and also acknowledged that it's also similar to how I operate too?


What "rules for thee" means under your own personal truth. I'm taking the base saying at face value. You're adding caveats. It's the definition that I'm not accepting as valid. Your practice of it is is.

no u

> admits to operating under own personal truth

> accuses me of operating under personal truth

 

[Rentahamster]

admits to operating under own personal truth

Which is how I recognize it and can define it honestly and recognize its parameters, which you are somehow uncomfortable with doing, even though we're operating on nearly the same premise.

 

[Papa]

Which is how I recognize it and can define it honestly and recognize its parameters, which you are somehow uncomfortable with doing, even though we're operating on nearly the same premise.

Not at all. You handwaved my explanation of "rules for thee", erroneously labelled it personal truth, and rammed in your own interpretation as the truth.

You're boring me.

 

[Nymphae]

I do like the idea some have put forth of just ever increasing temp ban lengths, perms just for extreme cases. If someone wants to continue being a problem under those rules, they'd eventually just end up more or less perming themself with continued ban length increases.