NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14327671&postcount=28

Seriously, wtf? The OP is so over-the-top obvious in its sarcastic ridiculing of both the notion of gay people eroding the "sanctity of marriage" and the notion that this economic crisis is caused by Jewish people hoarding money (they're always blamed in pecuniary issues and to juxtapose the two "evil" minorities' interests as conflicting. I at least found a bit humorous) that to claim it trolling when it's so... aneurysm-causingly obvious that it's satirical (and could scarcely have been made more obvious by big, blinking signs saying "Warning! Satire! Sarcasm! Beware! Jews don't actually do this, but homosexualists really do bring forth the apocalypse!") and meant to be in jest... I really am wont for words at this ruling, Kryozerkia. I really am. And disappointed. No wonder General is dying...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a nice Irish child stew to make. I got a lovely suggestion for it from an 18th century cooking pamphlet...

As someone who is 'half Jewish', I must add that I didn't find it offensive at all. If that means anything.

Fass, whether you meant it to be sarcastic or not is not what I'm interested in. Also, referring to heterosexuals as 'breeders' could yield unnecessary results and someone who may seriously believe you aren't joking could have replied to your remarks about Jews in a harsh way. Even if some people didn't find it offensive, making a title like "Those damned Jews" is not the way to win any brownie points.

The moral of the story is, since many people on NSG are mind-bogglingly incapable of recognising satire, satire is trolling.

The moral of the story is, since many people on NSG are mind-bogglingly incapable of recognising satire, satire is trolling.

You just need to do it right.

You just need to do it right.

It also helps when you dont have a history of trolling.

It also helps when you dont have a history of trolling.

Yay!

*wipes away a proud tear*

Someone out there ... understands!

It also helps when you dont have a history of trolling.

Good point...

Are you saying that someone like me, a member in good standing going on 2 years without even a single moderator warning could post the same thing he did and get away with it?

Good point...

Are you saying that someone like me, a member in good standing going on 2 years without even a single moderator warning could post the same thing he did and get away with it?

A poster's history is a circumstance affecting mod decisions. So are the probable intent of the thread, the tenor it develops, the other people reacting to it, the aspects discussed -- and even current events. All these, plus the (pretty broad) rules of the site, are in the mix.

So what I'm saying, as always with such hypotheticals, is this: it depends on the circumstances.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a nice Irish child stew to make. I got a lovely suggestion for it from an 18th century cooking pamphlet...

I once handed somebody that very 'pamphlet', thinking she'd find it an amusing bit of satire. She thought it was a serious suggestion and, needless to say, was horrified by it.

The moral is: something that's painfully obvious satire to you, might not be obvious satire to someone else. Sorry, but it's best if you start getting used to the idea.

A poster's history is a circumstance affecting mod decisions. So are the probable intent of the thread, the tenor it develops, the other people reacting to it, the aspects discussed -- and even current events. All these, plus the (pretty broad) rules of the site, are in the mix.

So what I'm saying, as always with such hypotheticals, is this: it depends on the circumstances.

I'm not defending Fass, or the thread in question - but if it indeed depends on the circumstances, does that not also take into account the poster? If the poster has a blatant history of satire on a particular subject (or indeed like Fass's well versed opinions on Christianity/homosexuality) should that not be taken into account when deciding what is and is not deemed satirical?

Are you saying that someone like me, a member in good standing going on 2 years without even a single moderator warning could post the same thing he did and get away with it?

I'm not a moderator, so I don't know about getting away with it, but from what I've seen, your posting history would definitely be taken into account. I still wouldn't post the same thing he did and expect to get away with it.

Well, the way it is, it depends on who's reading it, wether they think it should have been classed as trolling.

I would have, not that I don't think it's a load of satire, but in that it's being over-the-top is going to make somebody rise to the bait.

So, in that sense, yes, you were trolling, as thats what trolling is. Writing something so one-sided, you make someone react to it in a negative way.

You just need to do it right.
You mean, make it mind-bogglingly obvious? Doesn't that sort of negate the purpose of satire?
It also helps when you dont have a history of trolling. No no no, satire IS trolling, because people are too thick to get it. Keep up :p

I once handed somebody that very 'pamphlet', thinking she'd find it an amusing bit of satire. She thought it was a serious suggestion and, needless to say, was horrified by it. Yes, I've met people like this too. They made me sad. Although in every case I was able to explain satire to them, as well as the historical context, and while they still usually didn't find it as amusing as I do, they at least were able to understand it.

The moral is: something that's painfully obvious satire to you, might not be obvious satire to someone else. Sorry, but it's best if you start getting used to the idea.Do we really need to appeal to the lowest common denominator? The ones who lack the experience or ability to recognise satire? Are you actually suggesting we 'dumb it down' so no one accidentally gets offended by what should be painfully obvious as 'tongue-in-cheek'?

Do we really need to appeal to the lowest common denominator? The ones who lack the experience or ability to recognise satire? Are you actually suggesting we 'dumb it down' so no one accidentally gets offended by what should be painfully obvious as 'tongue-in-cheek'?

Kind of. This is the internet - they let just anyone in, you know? Besides, I've known some quite bright people who have very little sense of irony. That's no reason why they should be excluded from a debate.

Also, think of the mods - how do they tell what's satire and what's trolling?
Literally any troll could use the 'it was satire' excuse.

I think a note: 'Satire' in the OP title bar would do the trick. Yeah, it's silly and patronising. But it covers you from accusations of trolling, and needn't detract from the cleverness of the satirist.

Kind of. This is the internet - they let just anyone in, you know? Besides, I've known some quite bright people who have very little sense of irony. That's no reason why they should be excluded from a debate.

It is reason that they should be roundly mocked for acquiring an education that did not include irony. There is no "sense" of it. You're either exposed to it and understand it, or you're not and you don't. The way you put it, it's almost as though you believe that there's an "irony lobe" in the brain of all babies at birth, and that those who don't get it simply have atrophy in that area.

Also, think of the mods - how do they tell what's satire and what's trolling?
Literally any troll could use the 'it was satire' excuse.

Which parts of "context", "post history", and "Mod experience" did you not understand? Perhaps a new troll could get away with that every once in a while, but not anyone who's been here long enough to establish a post history. Hammurab was a gifted satirist. New Mitanni is a troll. Difference.

I think a note: 'Satire' in the OP title bar would do the trick. Yeah, it's silly and patronising. But it covers you from accusations of trolling, and needn't detract from the cleverness of the satirist.

Holy balls. You've taken a Monty Python gag (the flashing word "SATIRE" over an obvious sketch of it) and proposed it as a legitimate "solution". You're right about that label not detracting from the cleverness. Because it eviscerates the cleverness entirely.

Are we to mandate "just kidding" labels, too? How about ones that say "genuinely upset". Isn't that what smileys are for?

Do we really need to appeal to the lowest common denominator? The ones who lack the experience or ability to recognise satire? Are you actually suggesting we 'dumb it down' so no one accidentally gets offended by what should be painfully obvious as 'tongue-in-cheek'?

Satire usually gets a reasonable run in NSG - I don't think it's quite pandering.

I think it's a judgment call. If you've got a poster who has a history of trolling, and he/she posts a trolliciously satirical thread it can be debatable whether the satire or the trolling wins.

I had to read the OP a couple of times to work out what the intent was supposed to be - and even then I found it somewhat trollsome. Not everyone will read and re-read to make sure they've got the gist, and a satirical thread turns into a trollfest as everyone starts responding based on an interpretation.

I think Fass' history worked against him here, but I also think that there's nothing unreasonable about moderating a thread that immediately declines to lowest common denominator responses. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and it is reasonable to pour water on an unruly campfire, rather than spend all day stomping burning brush.

I'm not defending Fass, or the thread in question - but if it indeed depends on the circumstances, does that not also take into account the poster? If the poster has a blatant history of satire on a particular subject (or indeed like Fass's well versed opinions on Christianity/homosexuality) should that not be taken into account when deciding what is and is not deemed satirical?

Problem is, Fass has a history of actual trolling as well.

It is reason that they should be roundly mocked for acquiring an education that did not include irony. There is no "sense" of it. You're either exposed to it and understand it, or you're not and you don't.

Are you basing that claim on anything?


The way you put it, it's almost as though you believe that there's an "irony lobe" in the brain of all babies at birth, and that those who don't get it simply have atrophy in that area.

I don't know enough about the human brain to have a strong opinion about that. Do you?


Which parts of "context", "post history", and "Mod experience" did you not understand?

Useful, but not a solution in themselves. This very thread that you are posting in proves that. Unless you think Fass was being serious, of course.


Holy balls. You've taken a Monty Python gag (the flashing word "SATIRE" over an obvious sketch of it) and proposed it as a legitimate "solution".

Worked for them. If you have any better ideas, I'm open to them.


Are we to mandate "just kidding" labels, too? How about ones that say "genuinely upset". Isn't that what smileys are for?

No.

Satire gets it bite from being just a little dangerous to the satirist. You're not going to be executed, imprisoned, whipped or clapped in the stocks for using it on NS -- Max won't let us, dammit! -- but you risk having the thread closed and copping some form of infraction.

We do have some gifted satirists, and some elegantly sarky posters, and some delightful ironists and some pratfall comedians, and few of them have been able to avoid having that happen to them at one time or another, because they can't control another person's reaction to their work.

BTW, the solution won't save anyone, any more than would.

The topic's going to come up again, and we're all no doubt going to weigh in again, but I'm rounding off this particular debate with the standard litany of circumstances/judgment call.

Time to go wrap pressies/brood about lack of pressies/whatever else you do to celebrate whatever you call this season.