Aaaaaaaallll-righty then.
TOL Snapshot: Inside the Numbers
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
I see you're a literalist.
glorydaz
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
I see you're a literalist.
Maybe. I was thinking I was a comedian. :idunno:
That line is funny when you think about it as a commentary on itself.
We don't need to talk at all, but when we do it's often helpful to use an analogy as a means to remove the clutter and see a principle in play removed from the particular expression that has people at odds.
Or, it's just an illustration that rules don't exist in a vacuum...unless they're rules about vacuums, but that's just common sense.
Garamond?
No, it's just the regular font.
lain:There's a thin line between complaining about the weather and being a weatherman.
Last edited:
Aaaand you've reverted to making no sense.That line is funny when you think about it as a commentary on itself.
We don't need to talk at all, but when we do it's often helpful to use an analogy as a means to remove the clutter and see a principle in play removed from the particular expression that has people at odds.
Or, it's just an illustration that rules don't exist in a vacuum...unless they're rules about vacuums, but that's just common sense.
Garamond?
No, it's just the regular font.
There's a thin line between complaining about the weather and being a weatherman.
Want to try again?
I presented clear ideas. If you disagree with them, explain why you think they're wrong.
Last edited:
I probably just typed too fast for you.
lain:Why?
Then you should feel completely satisfied with your effort...like mowing grass.
Why? I was here to present my ideas. That's about it. After that I had a little fun with the repartee until your eyes crossed, or your fingers.
One of those.
It's called a conversation.
You characterized our newest mod thus:
I reply:
If implementation of the letter begets bad things, the rules are at fault, not the mod.
People are not justified in appealing to the "spirit" if they disrespect the "letter."
However,
Is not a sensible response. If you disagree, explain your position.
Or keep waffling. :idunno:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's true. You're covered.I also said I'd start teasing you if you didn't stop whining.
"If implementation of the letter begets bad things, the rules are at fault, not the mod."
'Could be a 'false dilemma /dichotomy' though. :idunno:
I don't see how.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yeah, and in my own case it wasn't the enforcing of a bad rule, it was a wrong diagnosis. I was incorrectly condemned. I don't question the rule, I just 100% reject that I am guilty of breaking it.
Although it is possible for a bad mod to deliberately do bad by knowingly enforcing bad rules, that isn't what happened with me.
Sure.
I think this latest "dive into the numbers" by a guy who admits he doesn't know much about statistics is saying pretty much the same thing.
Where I come from, teams have to adjust to the referee. I tell my players, if the ref gets something wrong, tell him once in a calm and concise manner in a situation where you don't have to get back on defense.
Or we could all await the amazing revelations from the guy who appointed himself the complaints department.
My position is that I mostly resist conversations with you because you do this sort of thing... For instance, while I wrote "It's one argument" in response, I went on, immediately, to do a good bit more in addressing my point:
So my response rejects the notion that the problem is with the rule. "It's one argument," is essentially a "maybe" before the "maybe not" of "But..." and the differing, alternative position that follows.
I'd have to start doing that at some point to keep doing it at any, and you'll have to demonstrate it at some point to be taken seriously at any.
No, that's part of your old attempt to confuse your confusion with an admission by me. It's why you state but won't quote. And another reason why I treat you lightly, when I spend time with you. You're too driven by the grudges you nurse and the nonsense you proffer from that will almost always overwhelm whatever salient points you might have to bring to the table. It's mostly a matter of how quickly.
I'm sensing the parrot routine will surface here.
Well, you had the obsequious department covered thoroughly enough, so illustrating a different understanding seemed a bit more interesting, you know, conversationally speaking.Or we could all await the amazing revelations from the guy who appointed himself the complaints department.
Last edited:
Exactly — you keep pushing your case. Your case has been challenged.
You don't respond to challenges by restating your talking points. Not in a sensible discussion.
In a rational discussion, you respect opposition viewpoints and if you disagree, explain why you think they are wrong.
That's what I do: I quote you and lay out exactly what I think is wrong with your idea and explain why.
But you're too driven by the grudges you nurse and the nonsense you proffer from that will almost always overwhelm whatever salient points you might have to bring to the table.
Want to try again? Arguing over who said what and when is really boring.
This discussion is about the record of our newest mod.
Last edited:
I set it out differently because you didn't meet it the first time. You tried to wave off an analogy meant to illustrate the principle by saying we don't need to consider it. Well, you weren't really considering it in any form.
I responded to your challenge. It's not my fault you don't want to see it. Here it is again:
You wrote "If implementation of the letter begets bad things, the rules are at fault, not the mod.
People are not justified in appealing to the "spirit" if they disrespect the "letter."
In my answer to the first point I addressed the idea that we have two essential choices in writing a law. We can attempt to cobble one that addresses every possible exception and desired outcome, or we can write all law and rule subject to a measure of discretion in analysis and provide a system that is in place to address any abuse of that discretion. That protects us from the unintended bad things that would go hand in hand with a letter of the law only reading. If the mod has discretion and doesn't exercise it then he is responsible for the needless harm that results, though what I've actually said about JR is that he was heavy handed in complaining and he's heavy handed in his exercise of power. He's consistent, but I hope he learns to mitigate more over time, for his sake as much as TOL's.
On the second point/sentence, it's not argument, only you declaring what people aren't justified in doing, which is nothing more than feeling as it sits.
Thanks for the parroting part, but a more honest effort would credit me for the words you misused.
I don't have to "meet" your ideas; I disagree with them, no matter how many ways you describe them.
We don't need another explanation of what you believe. We understand. We don't need the analogy when we can just look at the rules we have at TOL.
:yawn:
I responded to your defense. It's not my fault you don't want to see it. Here it is again:
| This is an expression of the great revelation of the nature of the law, ie, it can never solve our problems. However, this does not address the issue: What would make good letters for TOL's "guidelines"? |
What you do is not conversation, it's to argue about who said what and when. It's really boring.
A more honest effort would credit me for the words you misused.
Then I don't have to consider yours, only present what I believe puts them in an inferior context, which I did.
We? :chuckle: You never really addressed the argument you didn't like the first time or the analogy that made the point in, I think, a clearer fashion. You just made a couple of declarations that aren't supported by an argument of parts, aren't true as an operation of logic, prima facie.
So there you go.
That's not addressing the argument. It's doubling down on your unsupported assumption about the letter (a thing I addressed in the absurdity of trying to fashion rules that didn't require a measure of discretion) and asking for a thing I don't believe is possible for the reason given prior.
That's why I made fun of it instead.
That's a really funny way to complain about having your misrepresentations examined...What you tend to do is declare "truths" you doubtless believe but which are not in evidence, then demand a measure of respect and attention they don't engender on their own.
Like that. You may believe it, but you'll never demonstrate it and likely won't fashion an argument around it.
We know. You only care about what you believe.
What argument? :idunno:
What argument?
They're called opinions.
Feel free to ask if you want to know where I got mine.
:AMR:
Nobody said rules don't require discretion.
Are you just making this up as you go?
:yawn:
:yawn:
Meanwhile, nobody knows what anybody is talking about any more.
We? How many of you are in there?
That's just another declaration that shouldn't mean much to me and doesn't.
If you don't understand that much you must only be reading your posts, which would explain a great deal.
Then either you don't understand my argument or you have no real objection to it.
Either way it's not helping you much.
Meanwhile, I started this thread a long time ago to take a look at numbers now and again. I revisited it recently to set out this:
It's been a while since I looked at anything around here by the numbers...but after more than a few complaints about a feeling that infractions were on an all time high I decided to take a look at it.
Okay, so let's start with Jan. - Mar. last year.
January - 60 posts were reported and 15 Mod actions were taken. That's 25% of the reports acted upon.
February - 75 posts were reported and 21 Mod actions were taken. That's 28% of the reports acted upon.
March - 49 posts were reported and 13 Mod actions were taken. That's 27% of the reports acted upon.
Now let's compare it to the same period this year.
January - 133 posts were reported and 18 Mod actions were taken. That's 13.5% of the reports acted upon.
February - 75 posts were reported and 16 Mod actions were taken. That's 21% of the reports acted upon.
March - 59 posts were reported and 38 Mod actions were taken. That's 64% of the reports acted upon.
So the first couple of months were relatively low in terms of mod action, but exploded in March.
The reason is pretty simple, the elevation of JR to mod status. Sherman's 11 actions were about on par with her performance from the prior year. JR added some 27 actions, from warnings to bans. That would be on the high side all by itself.
Now to be fair, JR is being consistent with his perspective as a poster prior. He was one of the most prolific reporters of posts and has become, in short order, one of the most prolific penalizers of posts in TOL history.
We can argue over whether that helps or hinders. I was mostly wanting to look at and answer the question of whether or not it was a few grumblers or an empirical reality.
Answered in the affirmative. And so far, in April, there have been 14 reports and an equal number of mod actions, at least when I last looked.
It's been a while since I looked at anything around here by the numbers...but after more than a few complaints about a feeling that infractions were on an all time high I decided to take a look at it.
Okay, so let's start with Jan. - Mar. last year.
January - 60 posts were reported and 15 Mod actions were taken. That's 25% of the reports acted upon.
February - 75 posts were reported and 21 Mod actions were taken. That's 28% of the reports acted upon.
March - 49 posts were reported and 13 Mod actions were taken. That's 27% of the reports acted upon.
Now let's compare it to the same period this year.
January - 133 posts were reported and 18 Mod actions were taken. That's 13.5% of the reports acted upon.
February - 75 posts were reported and 16 Mod actions were taken. That's 21% of the reports acted upon.
March - 59 posts were reported and 38 Mod actions were taken. That's 64% of the reports acted upon.
So the first couple of months were relatively low in terms of mod action, but exploded in March.
The reason is pretty simple, the elevation of JR to mod status. Sherman's 11 actions were about on par with her performance from the prior year. JR added some 27 actions, from warnings to bans. That would be on the high side all by itself.
Now to be fair, JR is being consistent with his perspective as a poster prior. He was one of the most prolific reporters of posts and has become, in short order, one of the most prolific penalizers of posts in TOL history.
We can argue over whether that helps or hinders. I was mostly wanting to look at and answer the question of whether or not it was a few grumblers or an empirical reality.
Answered in the affirmative. And so far, in April, there have been 14 reports and an equal number of mod actions, at least when I last looked.