TOL Snapshot: Inside the Numbers

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
This is a throwaway line typically used to diminish an idea a man doesn't like, but doesn't want to address.
That line is funny when you think about it as a commentary on itself.

We don't need to talk about the wording of rules from elsewhere; we have the ones under the spotlight.
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.

This is an expression of the great revelation of the nature of the law, ie, it can never solve our problems.
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.

However, this does not address the issue: What would make good letters for TOL's "guidelines"?
Garamond?

That's a bold claim. :think:
No, it's just the regular font. :plain:

Where I come from, the dude who complains about the ref gets made to wear the whistle. :up:
There's a thin line between complaining about the weather and being a weatherman.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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. :plain:


There's a thin line between complaining about the weather and being a weatherman.
Aaaand you've reverted to making no sense.

Want to try again?

I presented clear ideas. If you disagree with them, explain why you think they're wrong.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Aaaand you've reverted to making no sense.
I probably just typed too fast for you. :plain:

Want to try again?
Why?

I presented clear ideas.
Then you should feel completely satisfied with your effort...like mowing grass.

If you disagree with them, explain why you think they're wrong.
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.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

It's called a conversation.

You characterized our newest mod thus:

He was more of a letter than spirit reporter. I suspect either he'll learn to lean into the spirit of the thing more or it's going to be progressively quieter around here.
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,
It's one argument.

Is not a sensible response. If you disagree, explain your position.

Or keep waffling. :idunno:
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I also said I'd start teasing you if you didn't stop whining. :)
That's true. You're covered. :)

"If implementation of the letter begets bad things, the rules are at fault, not the mod."

'Could be a 'false dilemma /dichotomy' though. :idunno:
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I don't see how.
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.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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. :rolleyes:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You characterized our newest mod thus: "He was more of a letter than spirit reporter. I suspect either he'll learn to lean into the spirit of the thing more or it's going to be progressively quieter around here."

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, "It's one argument" Is not a sensible response. If you disagree, explain your position.
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:

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."
It's one argument. But maybe the rules have always been meant to be coupled with an understanding that the guy rushing his wife to the emergency room isn't the same as the guy seeing what his new Mustang will do for fun. That is, we can allow for discretion and mitigation and tend to, in part because the alternative is trying to imagine and write in every possible exception would turn the whole thing into an unworkable mess.

I'm not someone who has run afoul of either spirit or letter, have no personal reason to complain and I'm just noting that it's gotten problematic of late, historically so, and that the problem may well be found in the difference between what can be done and applying restraint on applying restraints.
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.

Or keep waffling.
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.

Sure. I think this latest "dive into the numbers" by a guy who admits he doesn't know much about statistics
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.

Or we could all await the amazing revelations from the guy who appointed himself the complaints department. :rolleyes:
Well, you had the obsequious department covered thoroughly enough, so illustrating a different understanding seemed a bit more interesting, you know, conversationally speaking.
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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:

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:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Exactly — you keep pushing your case.
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.

Your case has been challenged.
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.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I set it out differently because you didn't meet it the first time.
I don't have to "meet" your ideas; I disagree with them, no matter how many ways you describe them.

You tried to wave off an analogy meant to illustrate the principle by saying we don't need to consider it.
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.

Well, you weren't really considering it in any form.
: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.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I don't have to "meet" your ideas
Then I don't have to consider yours, only present what I believe puts them in an inferior context, which I did.

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.
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.

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"?
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.

What you do is not conversation, it's to argue about who said what and when. It's really boring.
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.

A more honest effort would credit me for the words you misused.
Like that. You may believe it, but you'll never demonstrate it and likely won't fashion an argument around it.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Then I don't have to consider yours, only present what I believe puts them in an inferior context, which I did.

We know. You only care about what you believe.

You never really addressed the argument.

What argument? :idunno:

That's not addressing the argument.
What argument?

It's doubling down on your unsupported assumption.
They're called opinions.

Feel free to ask if you want to know where I got mine.

A thing I addressed in the absurdity of trying to fashion rules that didn't require a measure of discretion.

:AMR:

Nobody said rules don't require discretion.

Are you just making this up as you go?

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.
:yawn:

Like that. You may believe it, but you'll never demonstrate it and likely won't fashion an argument around it.

:yawn:

Meanwhile, nobody knows what anybody is talking about any more.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
We? How many of you are in there?

You only care about what you believe.
That's just another declaration that shouldn't mean much to me and doesn't.

What argument?
If you don't understand that much you must only be reading your posts, which would explain a great deal.

Nobody said rules don't require discretion.
Then either you don't understand my argument or you have no real objection to it.

Either way it's not helping you much.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
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.
 
Top