SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 10 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by kolie
whats up soylentils. any good meta discussion of soylent we care to have?
-- other than actual doxxing or CSAM etc don't flag posts here thx --
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Just because the message may never be received does not mean it is
not worth sending.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22, @02:20PM (2 children)
Your journal was posted for meta discussions, you do not get to set limits after the fact. Once again the arbitrary and hypocritical management of the site demonstrates the bias and abusive tyranny. Yes that sounds a bit hyperbolic, still true.
I've watched this same pattern of abusive nerds with a superiority complex many times and it is the worst with computer science buffs. I'm glad the site has attempted some better moderation of the toxic trolls, many of whom have left when the freeze peaches took their favorite toys away, but again the rules are applied haphazardly and with much bias. Story submissions are highly selective while allowing some real duds through, often with a certain bent.
These are simple facts. Sadly most users do not run into these issues so they believe it is just trolling. The same old problem with being too far off the normal distribution, or pushing back against the minor tyrannies of a discussion site. I for one am stupefied that TMB was the more principled one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kolie on Wednesday October 22, @04:08PM (1 child)
My point was not to set limits on meta-discussion. It was to observe that this specific thread was hijacked from its original topic. Productive conversation requires focus. When new, unrelated issues are raised, they derail the discussion at hand.
You are raising several serious concerns ("arbitrary... management," "haphazard... bias," "selective" submissions), but you are presenting them as "simple facts" when they are, so far, unsupported assertions.
Assertions are not a basis for discussion. Evidence is.
Instead of "rules are applied haphazardly," provide specific examples. Which rule? When and how was it applied with bias?
Instead of "Story submissions are highly selective," which submissions demonstrate this "bent"? What was accepted that you disagree with? What was rejected that you feel should have run?
Without specifics, these claims cannot be addressed; they are just noise. I cannot read between the lines to guess at the specific problem you are trying to highlight.
You mentioned TMB. That is the key point. TMB, regardless of his position, could articulate his thoughts and engage in earnest discussion.
Raging against "minor tyrannies" with broad, hyperbolic labels ("abusive nerds," "tyranny") is not productive. It doesn't foster change; it just invites conflict.
If you have legitimate points, lay them out. Provide the reasoning, the logic, and the examples. That is how you start a fruitful conversation.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22, @07:27PM
The ORIGINAL TOPIC was "stuff", Meta stuff. Hi-jacked by soylentils talking about meta stuff like censorship and editorial bias, and nerd tyranny. Or maybe just criticism that janrinok would rather not allow. And kolie is helping with this accusation? Sounds like he is placing limits on the meta-discussion, after all.