Ban political/highly opinionated conversations from the shoutbox

[CreeperCry]

3 times now, in 3 days, have I seen the George Floyd conversation. 3 times now have I seen an argument that had to be ended each time by staff. Each time nobody is open to new ideas and it's simply annoying. It's just endless bickering over an important topic in the wrong place.

I feel like this should be further prevented with some sort of rule with a fairly high amount of warning points to ward people away from such conversations. It's not something you want to wake up and see.

I think this would make a lot of people happier.

 

[Orochimaru]

Orochimaru has a point.

Honestly, everyone's getting on me about "what a kid I am" and how I need to "grow up" but when given the facts and only the facts it would be beneficial to have it gone. I personally am just tired of the same mess over and over, where staff have had to intervene every time I have witnessed it.

Say what you will about me, that's what I think.[DOUBLEPOST=1590987526][/DOUBLEPOST]Orochimaru, yes, posts had not loaded at the time of sending.

That's just immature, if you have to stoop to the point of calling someone a kid in such a serious matter, when people try to have a serious conversation but some actual kid goes "buT bUT wAiT a MinUte thOugH nO onE cArEs abOut hiM kiD", they shouldn't have a single say in the conversation. If you're too immature to handle a serious problem, why the fuck comment go play fortnite or whatever kids do these days

EDIT: Plus, I've known about you since you reached like 100-200 posts on MCM and close around the time you joined the market, you handle the situations in when you give input. I wouldn't call you a kid just because you can behave like a good lil' human.

 

[CreeperCry]

Honestly, I'm not up for an argument right now over who's right or wrong, so I'm just gonna leave this thread be. Y'all can argue as much as you want, but it wastes too much time to be important to me.

 

[Larjd]

There's actually a rule covering the shoutbox in terms of long-winded, heated or flooding personal arguments.


Yesterday's argument was a very good example of a heated argument. And I'd think that comes under personal arguments.

Note: From a logical standpoint, arguments including political ones that go through all of the shoutbox prevent advertisements and friendly conversations. Several times I tried to start a conversation with someone else and no one replied because 2-3 people were arguing.

The wording used in rule 3.3 seems unclear to me; aren't all arguments 'personal' after all?

 

[Larjd]

we already have a rule in place for arguments and flame wars. this has nothing to do with discussions and debates where two or more parties can discuss an event with differing standpoints.

discussions do not necessarily have to lead to, or lead to arguments.

If discussions and debates are "where two or more parties can discuss an event with differing standpoints", then they necessarily imply an "argument", as per the definitions you've given. You may even consider them synonyms, for simplicity's sake.
Would that mean that rule 3.3 disallows discussions and debates in the chatbox? I presume that is not the intent, which is why its wording is confusing to me.
Switching "personal attacks" in place of "personal arguments" would ease my confusion. This would essentially create a duplicate of 1.6, though.

Formally, an argument is a set of premises and a conclusion. Colloquially, an argument is the exchange of diverging or opposite views.

 

[Larjd]

I disagree. Please read the definitions I have given. They are not synonyms because of the keywords heated and angry in the definition of argument. A discussion is neither heated nor angry. It is a simple debate on a topic between two or more parties with differing standpoints.

Yep, which is why "You may even consider them synonyms, for simplicity's sake." By that I was referring the essential part of the definition, don't find the second part essential to the definition, but I understand your point.

 

[Mick]

There's actually a rule covering the shoutbox in terms of long-winded, heated or flooding personal arguments.


Yesterday's argument was a very good example of a heated argument. And I'd think that comes under personal arguments.

Note: From a logical standpoint, arguments including political ones that go through all of the shoutbox prevent advertisements and friendly conversations. Several times I tried to start a conversation with someone else and no one replied because 2-3 people were arguing.

Indeed. We already do have rules against arguments about controversial topics.

Unfortunately we don't always have staff members around in chat, but if the content is reported then they can be handled at a later point.

Controversial topics always come up, and generally we try to move the conversation away from them rather than outright disallowing it. Our userbase has on occasion been able to have intelligent, sensible discussion and when that can happen it's always good but most of the time it doesn't end like that.

If someone's being a menace, any staff around will handle it and if not will handle it once it's been reported.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion