Changes since Fandom bought us?

So what changes have the forums on this side of GameSpot changed since Fandom Bought us?

No politics... I think. Or maybe that change is older.

@horgen: Have we had any political board removed?

This website has changed hands many times in the last few years and gone through many regressive changes. It's basically a website for ads these days, with the community slowly being strangled to death. Honestly I'm only here because I'm old and don't like social media and this is quite literally the only place I post anything on lol.

I should probably get on Reddit or something...

Yeah, less than a year ago they closed the Political Gamers board.

They've allowed one or two threads in Off-Topic just so we can stay current and discuss it, but it really killed a lot of traffic here lol.

I mean, I get it; Political Gamers got pretty toxic, but I don't think it really got that bad. It was certainly a good place to have some fun, get into squabbles, and even gain some insight into other folks point of views. I miss it.

Big mistake to close it but, again, I get it; this is a gaming site.

I see.

Have we got any new community manager named DToast?

How could it not become toxic given the state of US politics?

Well you should have banned US citizens instead of closing it!

Geeeeez

What's changed is that everything has gotten worse. But then, that was already the trend, so from a different point of view nothing as changed. It's the GameSpot Fandom Paradox.

Hmmm, trying to use Search gives me "Unable to execute your query. Ensure that a valid subscription key has been set up for your instance.".

Is it broken or do I need to subscribe to use it?

Are you sure all of them are US citizens? :P

Just don't come to the Steam Forums. The whole place has been invaded by /btards over the past two years.

No politics unless it's Trump

Can't ban Trump as a topic, loose too much traffic lol

Interesting. I don't spend much time on Reddit but my experience with it has that it has always been pretty moderate. Then again when folks on "/r conservative" are talking about what a lost cause things are for them, I guess even that is liberal? We've sort of lost our zero-point, I'm afraid, to base these things off of lol.

Yeah I do get kind of tired talking about Trump when there are so many other people out there to talk about. But we can't now...

...just Trump 😋

TRUMP IS POLITICS

POLITICS IS TRUMP

Lol

For real tho, reddit is too liberal imo. When they banned the Donald sub.. was pretty much the nail in the coffin for most of the right to keep using reddit.

Basically r/conservative are your Lindsey gram enjoyers.. that's why they are crying constantly.. I'd imagine any conservatives trying to use Reddit to talk politics are anti trump. So yeah maybe not liberal.. but Reddit doesn't allow pro Trump content any more

I don't use reddit. Still more of a Usenet guy.

You're pretty shallow, you know?

@br0kenrabbit: I prefer blunt lol

I say shallow. You've only ever one general topic to discuss, and that's pretty much it.

Heaven forbid you ever find yourself discussing the dichotomy of Plato vs Aristotle, or the finer points of telescope design.

Nothing for you but lame speak (woke, libtards, sleepy joe, etc.) and licking Trumps left testicle.

Ban me, I don't care. This place died 10 years ago.

I read the republic and nicomachean ethics in philosophy 101 in undergrad.

Bringing up Plato or Aristotle in this context makes you come across as a douche.

True, so who cares

Dodge dodge dodge

The point is: you're a one trick pony. And it's not even a very good trick.

What's next

You going to flex on me that you read Adam's tounge by Derek Bickerton ?? Or that your a fan of Noam Chomsky?

By all means make a thread on the "finer points of telescope design" idgaf.

One trick pony? No tricks here I'm just shooting the shit

You're shooting ONE turd. That's all.

You're repetitive, argumentative and annoying.

For all you claim to know, you have a pretty narrow mind, aka 'shallow'.

You've never made it half-way up Graham's hierarchy. That's really all that needs to be said.

Again with the douchey philosophy references lol...

What's your favorite soup with a grilled cheese?

I say tomatoe

Graham's Hierarchy is not philosophy, lol.

Argument tool commonly used in philosophy and is where I learned about it.

L dude..

L

If your going to come at me as a psudo intellectual you need to keep doing what you are doing.

The more you post the more I think you've never even been to college.

And you say you took Philosophy in college? Fucking why? You didn't pick anything up. lol

Required elective credit in undergrad

And in what class do you think Graham's Hierarchy would be useful.. if not philosophy...

https://tafacorianthoughts.com/2022/04/01/an-initial-look-into-grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement/

This is an interesting and somewhat useful tool to help philosophy students (and people everywhere) to better understand the different levels of analysis (and fallacious thinking) that are possible. Moreover, though we would like to think that Logic is a tight, concise science, in light of the forthcoming observations, it makes sense that it isn’t and we often get sidetracked or distracted when engaging in philosophical analysis. My goal here is to explore the Hierarchy of Disagreement as initially depicted and understood by Graham.

1. Name Calling – Instead of engaging with the argument or the evidence that your opponent or critic puts forth, you resort to insulting the person and trying to make them feel ashamed, embarrassed, or degraded in some significant way. Perhaps if you make them feel awful enough, they will concede the debate or discussion and simply leave. Unfortunately for you, even if they do this, you have given up all pretenses of rationality. You are implicitly saying that you have no rational way of responding to what they said and you don’t even care about trying. To be blunt: this level of disagreement is both immature and inadequate.
2. Ad Hominem – Related to ‘Name Calling,’ an Ad Hominem attack is not only an informal logical fallacy, but also it is also meant as a tool for you to plunge the debate into chaos by emphasizing non-rational (i.e. emotional or psychologically manipulative) elements or buzzwords. The hope is that the audience, as well as your opponent, will focus more on your opponent’s character or reputation rather than their argument and its supporting evidence. Similar to ‘Name Calling,’ it is meant to shift the focus away from rationality and instead emphasize some emotional or psychological aspect so as to save face.
3. Responding to Tone – With this level of disagreement, it could very well be the case that you ultimately agree with what your opponent has to say, but you just believe that they could either word it better or modify their tone so as to be more inclusive/calming instead of antagonistic/hostile. Regardless, by responding only to the tone of your opponent, you are still not directly addressing their argument or the evidence that they use to defend it. By skimming the surface or only indirectly casting aspersions, you will never actually get to the core of a particular matter or phenomenon.
4. Contradiction – With contradiction, you are only asserting the opposite. You’re taking a definite stand, which is admirable, but with little to actually back up what you’re claiming, you don’t yet have anything to write home about. Perhaps if this is a situation in which the loudest or bravest voice wins you’ll do well. But all it takes is one well-aimed question to bring down your House of Cards. Be careful not to exaggerate or lie about the strength of your case, especially if you haven’t actually advanced any convincing arguments or supporting evidence…
5. Counterargument – It is only here, at the 5th level of GHoD, that philosophers (and you) actually acknowledge a sincere effort advanced by their opponent(s). A counterargument argues for a different or contradictory conclusion from the one advanced or defended by your opponent(s). The counterargument will address, either directly or indirectly, your opponent’s argument and supporting evidence. The counterargument will also provide alternative reasons and evidence for your alternative conclusion.
6. Refutation – Refutation seemingly goes further than ‘Counterargument’ by pinpointing or identifying some kind of elementary, comical, or factual error in your opponent’s argument or their supporting evidence. Identification of this error undermines both your opponent’s credibility as well as the strength or convincingness of their argument.
7. Refuting the Central Point – According to GHoD, this is the highest level of disagreement possible. This involves refuting your opponent’s key claims directly and unequivocally. Not only do you demolish their argument, but you also make their supporting evidence seem either unconvincing, incomplete, or downright irrelevant. It is the ‘total victory’ of philosophical debate.

In case you need a refresher

@br0kenrabbit: what was I even arguing with you about? Think you were calling me shallow and a "one trick pony" or something stupid lol

Graham only came up with it in 2008. I graduated college in 1998. I was introduce through his essay 'How to disagree' in a compendium about Social Structure and Social Responsibility. lol

That explains it, I went to college in 2010

Yeah. Shallow. You come here looking to argue about a singular issue and that's all you do. And not very well. I just read about 40 pages of you getting your ass handed to you. It was kinda embarrassing reading it.

Hey man I entertained your bullshit for like 8 replies, your Plato Aristotle and Graham's hierarchy. We argued about it. You satisfied? Lol

https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I think I've made my point.

I posted a link to Graham's article above. Why don't you read it and ask where you think you land on that pyramid with your posts on this forum.

I hope you're disappointed, because you should be.

Idaf about Graham's with you, you failed phase 1 in your first response to me

Case-in-point.

/🎤

bringing up Graham's hierarchy in the off topic section of a gaming forum makes it even funnier

Get a hotel room.

It feels like I've read this before...

I wish they would bring back community managers whose job it is to keep the community engaged and going.

Woh woh woh that's a classic combo dude; knock the philosophizer comments but don't throw out the grilled-cheese-tomato-soup combo like it's a negative.

lol better then the 1 user in politcal. that had a event that mod perm ban user for life.

Was trying to turn a negative into a positive there, don't get it twisted.