Bas

Making Christmas Merrier Donor 🎄
  • Content Count

    4267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5073 Brohoofs

Recent Profile Visitors

16836 profile views

About Bas

  • Rank
    Earth Pony
  • Birthday 07/26/1989

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

  • Best Pony
    Maud
  • Best Pony Race
  • Best Princess
    TreeGlow Flicker.
  • Best Secondary/Recurring Character
    Maud.
  • Best Season
    9

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Northern Germany
  • Personal Motto
    Old and bald.
  • Interests
    MLP (who would have guessed?), MTG, Boardgames, Computer/Console gaming, IT

Contact Methods

  • Discord Username
    Bas#0679
  • Discord Server
  • Fimfiction
    https://www.fimfiction.net/user/362410/Basinator - Will prob only post pretty rarely.
  • Steam ID
    https://steamcommunity.com/id/basnap/
  1. it is true that he responded in the beginning. If I remember correctly, it basically mostly came down about us disagreeing with credibility/accuracy of his sources. Is this accurate from your side as well? Doesn't this mean you would like to have a guideline/bar to exist as well? At the very least - I can totally understand your frustration, if I go from the POV that I am assuming my sources are correct, and people like never accept any that I post. But just because I can follow that emotionally, it doesn't result in these sources becoming any trustworthy however. But I am also thinking you are caught in some form of bubble: An environment, which can be social media, where such links and articles are posted - and if people do that often, you assume there must be something OK with them. But the environment is influenced by what kind of group that is in the first place, and videos (youtube), articles, sponsored posts are influenced heavily by what we like, in which groups we participate, what we look up and watch. It isn't objective. Now the question rises: How much is this whole thing an issue and how can it be solved, preferably with a solution that is fine by all parties?
  2. Per se correct. But the issue is that very opinionated and biased sources are taken for granted, everything written there as facts, and when someone comes up with evidence or other source that reject these, no reply is coming. Not a real example, but to show the point: Posting a link where Breitbart claiming there is no climatic change. But that's not a source any scientific person would ever use. So, when anyone comes up with more accepted source, the poster of the breitbart source does not reply, or simply be like Oh, but my source said so!!, despite the source is flawed to begin with. Don't use biased or opinionated sources as pure facts. That is way different from: Oh, I know CC is a thing, but I feel this BB article still holds some valid points on how it should be approached, and these are.... Accuracy. What is the point to even give any source if it holds no (or close to) accuracy at all? I could come up with the opinion that the earth is flat, and even likely find some very, very questionable sources about that. But what could be even debated about in such a discussion, when everyone can come up with anything without it having been proven in the slightest? Oh, I think the earth is flat because cucumbers don't have a curve. I can see that it puts quite some pressure if you demand an answer for something specific. I think however, if someone fails to answer something concrete, either the debate was repeating itself quite a lot, or there is no logically followed answer to it. If you are not replying at all even though people are answering to your posts - Are you even interested in debating at all? Because you simply aren't then. Check the handbook. Rules exist already. Problems can arise, and these need to be handled. Else; Why do we have any rules in there to begin with? I am not saying any source needs to be validated 100%, either by the poster or by a staffer, but a quick look and making some critical thoughts should be encouraged, and populist sources avoided when they are pretty clear. Or when a source is simply trying to denounce a side because they happen to be a political opponent, without even really putting anything to work with in there.
  3. Same here. Looks like peeing pegasi did have too much apple cider...
  4. The issue is really that there is no reply to anything that was written, whether either confirming one self was wrong, or saying why the points someone uses to attack the own opinion are not valid. Just no response at all. Not agreeing, TBH. The sources posted and not replying to any answers IS an issue, but I felt the DS was worse in the past in terms of how to treat each other - I want to admit here though, I might have been part of the problem back then. Instead of being monitored consistently - at least for the time being - might thought was rather an announcement, maybe a post in the rule/handbook, which sources - with examples - don't qualify as fact-giving and for a debate - For instance, breitbart-like ones. (We can prob both agree these are biased and not really known for telling the objective truth) At least in quantity, this has reached a new level meanwhile and has like becoming the norm. (About questionable sources) To clarify: I was not talking about stuff like "oh, that source might be a bit more leaning to the right or left", or biased, but rather sources that often come with holdless claims and putting facts aside that doesn't fit them, and this includes pretty extreme sources to either side. Maybe the worst of this is that the poster is simply taking everything given by the source as true, and then setting it as a baseline, instead of acknowledging (best in the post itself where the source it is posted) that IT IS biased but might still prove to be insightful in some way. I think instead of reporting - and revisiting as a staff member - a public announcement and statement would help to clarify of what is acceptable and what not, hopefully resulting in not having to do staff actions at all - I guess this is also less tiresome for mods. Basically a preventive solution. As far as I know, all parts relevant to this are in public forums. So everyone can make a judgement on what has been posted. If you feel there is any post that shows I am mistaken on this subject here, you can link and quote to them. You don't have the right to post whatever you want. That is shown clearly on the forums rules as well as the DS handbook especially - this rather reads like you are not willing to put a proper debate. Also, I am not sure what you got when I wrote the OP: What would have been the alternatives? Reporting each post of yours to the mod team? I doubt that's what you really would like to happen either. Instead I opted for an open debate whether my description of the situation is fitting in the first place, whether others agree or disagree, a place for you to defend your behaviour if you think it is fitting, whether the situation is a problem at all, and other people to give their inputs. You could almost say it is....a debate. Yes, I can totally understand you feel you were called out; and I dislike having to do that. Keep in mind this is just about the problem, not about seeking fights with you. Ignoring a problem won't end it. It will just put under a pressure in a bottle, and we know the MLP ep of how it ends. Focus on the point, not on the people. (Links to a specific comment:) And I'd argue and advocate that for some posts that basically almost have a "new topic" character similar rules might should count. It looks like the OP was formatted in a way that converted the comment links to links to the topics as a whole accidentally. You are allowed to put your stance in this topic here, that's what it is for as well. The whole topic isn't about putting you down, it is about discussion and (if it is one) solving a problem I perceive as one. Can you point out the exact two comments that are insulting you? Edit: If you feel insulted by replies, you likely dislike it is happening. So I wonder: Shouldn't it be in your interest as well to clarify the situation so that doesn't happen again in the future? Edit2: There are people who I pretty much disagree with in debates, such as @EpicEnergy, and very much so often. But the difference is we are talking and writing to each other, we go about pros and cons of points. We maybe even come down to values dissonating,but we are at least trying to grasp what the other is talking about and why. The point of a debate is to exchange opinions, not to convince others you are 100% correct and smarter than the rest of all of them.
  5. 1 - Sources themselves: Maybe it would be helpful to have a certain baseline for what qualifies as a trustworthy source, or rather, at least what certainly doesn't. I mean, it might be up for a debate how biased a source is allowed to be, but I often found sources citing false claims and facts that are pretty obvious, and at least one source recently was at least far-right extremistic on a level of breitbart and the like. Often populist, and it seems these sources - including youtube videos of populists or at least....simplifying people - are posted without being skeptical about them and them are taken for granted for the truth. 2 - Responding to correcting of sources: Similarly, but not quite the same, when such sources - or sources in general, if you prefer that phrase - are cited and posted, and people (Yes, including me, so call me out biased or whatever, IDC, make your own judgement) correct on them on claims and facts that are clearly wrong and proven so by other sources, the post(i?)er of the claim and source doesn't not even enter a debate about that, either admitting he/she/them was wrong or saying why that source is correct, no, instead every reply is ignored, and the next source of the same kind is posted shortly after. This is not about a single incident, it is about regularly repeated behaviour. It is a difference between not answering a question a single time (or a couple of times) or not answering any ever. This isn't unambiguous among debaters, I am not the only one feeling that way. https://mlpforums.com/topic/188574-do-you-think-that-trump-needs-to-be-impeached/?do=findComment&comment=5769411 https://mlpforums.com/topic/189649-violence-against-trump-supporters/?do=findComment&comment=5762975 At the very least...simply putting down questionable sources and not replying to anything directed at them is definitively NOT debating. Sorry if this sounds a bit name-shaming, but I feel it is fair to bring up, get input from others about the matter as well.
  6. Heh, imho the materia system is kinda frustrating, or rather: Less the system, but the nearly non-existent progression from non-boss fights. Good old times when I played this as a wc3 map, but I suck so super hard on it lol I even get pwned by easy bots hard.
  7. ^ IIRC gay or bi. <- Complicated. Guess pansexual with being like 90-10 would be fitting, albeit I care mostly about facial looks I guess (as in femine).
  8. Heh @Steve Piranha, I just watched that show (...almost anime?) as well!
  9. Guess the old one or remaster, not the remake? Where are you?
  10. Welcome to these very forums! You will surely fabulously fit in!
  11. Hey! Recently, there started some PL shorts (?) appearing. It looks to me these would fit nicely into the PL area - but I am confused myself whether this is some form of mini series (thinkg EQG mini series) or are meant to be PL itself. Also, PL could be moved to as a subsection of FiM I suppose, for now.
  12. Reactions: I feel it to be pretty useful to react to a post to show I have read it, but the current reactions somehow can easily make given one look differently. For instance, a brohoof esp. in DS would prob rather seen as agreeing rather than having a topic read. I wonder if an eye-ish reaction would work and help.
  13. Feeling any better? :rarity:

    1. Lucky Bolt

      Lucky Bolt

      Honestly no....but I'm used to it. :adorkable: Thanks for the concern, though!

    2. Bas

      Bas

      Want to chat about it? We all have our down phases from time to time.

  14. Press CTRL + F to search for the text passage in a boo....