"PRBot II" (prbot2)
09/24/2013 at 03:31 • Filed to: ask oppo
1
20|
"PRBot II" (prbot2)
09/24/2013 at 03:31 • Filed to: ask oppo | 1
| 20 |
I'm only asking questions here. Is it odd that an Opponaut is being burned at the stake in a feature article for expressing their views without being rude, vulgar, or otherwise a big jerk?
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! expressed an opinion on our latest !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! without any cursing, name-calling, or leud suggestions. If you haven't read it, the article in question is !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on the Front Page. While I don't specifically agree with either side of the argument, I'm concerned over whether Jalopniks' powerful resources are best used when publicly shaming a commenter for expressing a unique viewpoint without being rude, vulgar, or otherwise deserving of the banhammer.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
What do you think, Oppo? Was this appropriate? I'm not going to take a concrete side of this issue, but I'd like to know what you guys think.
offroadkarter
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 02:41 |
|
I kind of agree with him to an extent, Jezebel really is a site just for women, I don't see jalopnik or deadspin being tailored for men just because their is a majority of men on it. It doesn't say "Jalopnik - cars - for men" .
I don't go on Jezebel or Gawker anyways, the comments section usually makes me facepalm. I just stick to jalopnik and oppo
Fred Smith
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 03:04 |
|
Oppo's rules do not apply to the front page because, despite the shared URLs, they are separate entities. Myself and the other admins set the rules here, Matt sets the rules there.
MtrRider Just Wants Doritos
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 03:13 |
|
The difference between Jezebel and Jalopnik (and most Gawker sites) is that Jezebel is targeted toward a demographic. Women, with a feminist bias. You can take that however you want. Jalopnik is targeted toward car enthusiasts, which can come in any size, shape or color. Problems arise whenever you try to label people, because while most people agree that Jez is a site of feminists, people's personal beliefs differ so widely that you can't group them together that easily.
|
PRBot II
> Fred Smith
09/24/2013 at 03:21 |
|
Makes sense. Thanks.
|
PRBot II
> Fred Smith
09/24/2013 at 03:25 |
|
Edit: I updated the post to not include Oppo rules.
Squid
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 04:56 |
|
Meh, Jezebel doesn't appeal to me at all, except for a quick laugh and then I feel unclean for even pointing my browser over there. . .
But I get why they did a shaming on the FP because the Gawker sites have to look out for their corporate siblings. . . Now only if they would take care of this horrid "Kinja" issue.
I rarely visit the FP now, and just visit Oppo. It is more fun here without the horrible troll wars.
Mikeado
> offroadkarter
09/24/2013 at 05:49 |
|
They weren't saying that Jalopnik or Deadspin's target demgraphic was men, just that they have a target demographic.
TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 06:06 |
|
I don't think it was appropriate, in fact I am kind of disappointed that it was done.
I don't like Jezebel because of the few times I've read the comments section on an article I mistakenly clicked on have made me cringe.
Matt Hardigree
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 08:11 |
|
I don't think we were calling Darkcode an "asshole," rather that PJ's first bit of advice was a good way to think of acting on the Internet if you don't want to seem like an asshole. You'll notice it was separated from the rest of the argument.
getchapopcorn
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 08:55 |
|
|
getchapopcorn
> Matt Hardigree
09/24/2013 at 09:29 |
|
I have to agree here, I don't feel like anyone was called an asshole; I see the article saying that the post is a good set of guidelines as to how one ought generally comport oneself on the internet.
Gamecat235
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 09:30 |
|
PJ is one of the most rational commenters we have on this site (jalopnik, including Oppo) and has a very interesting outlook on life. He can almost be thought of as Oppo's resident philosopher.
His approach here was very pragmatic, and in context, very respectful. I personally thought that featuring the comment as the COTD was basically a subtle way to acknowledge that the issue is more simple than Darkcode presented it initially. Jezebel specifically has the closest ties to Oppo of any site other than Jalopnik in terms of loyal readers and they have ridden out storms of change with us (as in co-existing, on the same forum, as a virtual life raft when commenting kind of broke during one of the transitions).
Kinja is going to make the walls between the different sites more thin. But, just so you know, we are already neighbors with Groupthink. A large handful of commenters there have author permissions on Oppo. And similarly, a handful of commenters here have author rights on Groupthink.
I think that PaulJones' comment and it's subsequent selection as COTD was predicated on everything above and more. It is very important that we recognize these things. We are in this together.
|
PRBot II
> Matt Hardigree
09/24/2013 at 10:22 |
|
Thanks Matt. I'm relieved to hear that Darkcode isn't being singled out. I honestly came away from the article feeling like he was. His "discriminative" comment seemed to be what set the issue in motion, and after reading last night's article I thought:
*whew* Good thing that wasn't my comment!
PJ's advice certainly is very well thought out, and articulated brilliantly. A gem on this site, for sure.
Justino6969
> PRBot II
09/24/2013 at 10:45 |
|
I think this is an open blog and that I didn't come here to get life lessons on etiquite from a journalist whom I have never met or spoken to. I'm with Tiny Toy Viper. You're not my teacher/parent/guardian, you don't get to tell me how to behave.
On the other side, I am not aware of such a thing, but if there were a code-of-conduct you had to sign to comment on this website, I could see a reminder of the rules, but not an all intensive article on the FP reprimanding someone because their vales are not in line with yours. (Contract-like obligation would kinda rule out burner accounts, though.)
|
Gamecat235
> Justino6969
09/24/2013 at 10:57 |
|
Your definition of "open" and mine may differ slightly. My approach to Oppo has always been one of inclusion and welcoming, and a generally open approach. However, there are rules, and moderators.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
That said, there are general terms and restrictions for Kinja. All sites have them. You are posting here because someone has allowed you to do so.
Here's a link to the
Kinja Terms of Use
. This is at the bottom of every page.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
|
Justino6969
> Gamecat235
09/24/2013 at 11:04 |
|
Yes there are a terms of use, but still not having to 'sign' anything. I have never read the terms of use, and i bet there are many other that haven't either. That being said, the rules still don't say anything about generally being a dick. (I just did a quick look through and tried searching for key words, and it says that you just are responsible for the consequences. Again, I may be wrong, and I should be wrong.)
|
Gamecat235
> Justino6969
09/24/2013 at 11:09 |
|
Nah, there aren't explicit rules, other than the don't be a dick on oppo, which isn't so much a rule as a guideline (and since authorship can be removed here, can be considered a rule).
Each site has it's own variations on the allowable content and interactions. Editors and staff are given a pretty long leash as to dictate how those play out. Also, when you created your account, or updated it to the current FB/Twitter/Burner you agreed to the TOU, even if you didn't read them.
This variation is what makes this place as awesome as it is. And allows each site to really feel like it's own microcosm.
Casper
> offroadkarter
09/24/2013 at 11:10 |
|
Agreed. Visiting the Jezebel or Gawker comments for pretty much any article results in my brain suffering damage due to the lack of logic. Many times after a single article my face becomes stuck like this...
pauljones
> Justino6969
09/24/2013 at 11:31 |
|
Like Gamecat235, I am also an Admin here. Also, like Gamecat235, I hold a similar approach. We hold a laissez-faire policy. We will only in the rarest of circumstances get involved, and more often than not, when we will generally elevate it to the core team of Gawker Network mods, as we are not specifically associated with Gawker Media in any way. Our role here is more to facilitate positive commenting, and diffuse the occasional little argument here and there.
That was the purpose of my response to Darkcode. There is simply too much interpretation that Jezebel is just a bunch of evil, illogical bitches, and that's just not even remotely true. It's true that there are some volatile commenters there, but there are also volatile commenters here as well. It comes with the territory. More often than not, conflict between Jezebel and Jalopnik is caused by immaturity and a narrow mindset; but just because conflict occurs, that doesn't mean that the commenters on either Jezebel or Jalopnik are neo-Nazi psychobitches or whatever other colorful terminology has been created to categorize them. It just means that there is a conflict, and a little patience and respect will go a long way towards fixing that.
Darkcode did not get called out for being an asshole; read Matt Hardigree's comment elsewhere in this very post.
As for the rules, there are such rules, as Gamecat235 pointed out to you in no uncertain terms. If you were unable to find that, take another read through the links that he provided you. No one, not Matt Hardigree, Andrew Collins, Gamecat235, or myself made any assertion that we were your teacher/parent/guardian. If we had, we might make you go look up how to spell "etiquette." Rather, it was simply a basic illustration on how to handle the internet better as a rule, and minimize the annoyance of irrational conflicts. I did not write what I did for the sake of it being used for illustrative purposes in a COTD; I had no control over that. Rather, I wrote it to address an individual's assertion that Jezebel is irrational and discriminatory, when, in fact, that's just not the case.
|
pauljones
> Gamecat235
09/24/2013 at 11:32 |
|
Thank you, sir. You beat me to it.