Political Gamers forum gone

Right but you don't have to read threads if you don't want to do so.

But I still have to sift through the board to get to the threads I'm interested in. That's how forums work. If it becomes too cumbersome and annoying for me, I would rather not do it. Hence why I would rather not be around to do that.

Going to an internet forum should not be like going to work.

The difference now is that we're keeping political discussion to a minimum moving forward, so I don't foresee OT changing from the status quo.

Means more work for us😥

This company has been bought and sold more than Atari. It was bound to eventually have an owner that doesn’t want to mix entertainment with toxic politics.

Sift through the board.

I laughed.

First page of PG typically went back a month. First page of OT typically went back a month.

This place has been on life support for years. As I type this page 2 of SW goes back to 12 days ago.

So much sifting. Not.

Apparently your ideal internet forum is a dead forum.

@LJS9502_basic: pot meets kettle

@Stevo_the_gamer: I won’t cry over it, it’s much harder to argue because we apparently cannot use “sources” that aren’t defined to a certain standard like NYT or Washington Post, it all had to be a mainstream corporate source and no Fox News allowed which put the otherside a disadvantage. So, glad it got nuked

Even going by your very simplistic claim, with no additional factors, that would still mean 50% noisome screeching to 50% other stuff. And that would not even take into account individual thread activity; can you honestly say the non-screeching threads would be just as active and the screeching ones? Likely not. So they'll be relegated to further down the thread order. And that's still not even beginning to speculate on the effect of that pecking order to people who might want to make future non-screeching threads. That's just one of the additional factors I left out.

I hold zero - I repeat, zero - attachment to any internet forum or their activity rate. If they don't serve a purpose I'm looking for, I move on. And if it can't survive on its own user base, then it deserves to die, and again, I move on. Simple as that.

No one was prevented from using sources from anywhere unless they were illegal/inappropriate.

You had some who would scoff at the source or aimlessly copy/paste someone else's thoughts, but for the most part, you weren't prevented from using Fox News or whatever.

So following science is toeing the DNC line, got it

Meh, it was getting boring anyways.

Nonstop Culture Wars, Partisan Party Politics and a few people were even dismissing and mocking academic studies without even touching or understanding the methodology. System Wars is the main board here, and will probably always be so.

With, TOTK being as good as it is. I am more active here than I have been in a long time. Despite teh PG board being gone. All you need is a good game to get people discuss things on a gaming forum.

How long are Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom? I am a bit slow with playing through games.

I don't care what you want to read or participate in, nor should you care what interests me.

Logically your post was nonsense. And this one is just as much nonsense because any thread can be uninteresting to any one person and within any thread any number of posts can be garbo. SWs is a perfect example of this fact, it is the most active forum, and it is designed for screeching.

You are tilting at windmills with a spurious argument. One sifts through stuff whatever site one visits. Period. This site is not very active; therefore, there is little to sift through. Period. Dont open threads that dont interest you. Period. It really is that simple.

@Maroxad: The interesting topics tend to to come in waves. I was looking forward to discussing the impacts of the debt ceiling actions, whatever they may be.

Are you the pot or the kettle.

Hahaha Steve, I never knew you were so funny.

BotW is roughly as long as you make it, the world record is around 23 minutes. The first person to beat it beat it after 2 hours or so after the game released. A completionist run however, can take 200 hours.

ToTK has allegedly been beaten in around 90 minutes. We dunno how long a completionist run is, but we assume it is around 200 hours as well.

For sure, that is something I noticed too. I occationally tried stirring up discussions on more technical stuff. Like health, infrastructure, spending, non US elections and so on. Hopefully to try to stir up some interesting topics to discuss. Certainly beats discussing whatever culture wars is going on at the time.

I have made it clear from the beginning that I am speaking from personal user experience. Again, I hold zero attachment to any forum or their activity rate. If it doesn't serve a purpose I'm looking for, I'll just leave, as I already made clear from my "delete my bookmark and check out" comment.

I also never mentioned anything about opening threads - as I already admitted in a reply to LJS9502_basic, it's about the experience of browsing through the board itself, unless you found some mysterious technique of browsing a forum without reading the thread titles I don't know about. You also ignored where I said my experience using this forum could become "annoying" to me.

This entire line of argument has been, from the beginning, a response to someone questioning my personal user experience, which I'm simply doing my best to clarify. I apologise for holding my personal experience as the most important subject... ...in a reply post about my personal experience. I suppose I should be more considerate to other people's experiences in such posts? Or not? I dunno.

Dude it's not hard to just pick the threads that interest you.

Nonetheless, kudos on the Q quote!

This forum back in 2016-2017 was swamped with politics threads. I question SUD123456's claim that it was 50/50 politics to non-politics; for me it was more like 75/25, perhaps even 80/20. And the politics threads were vastly more active, which constantly pushed them to the top of the forum. At some point, I just gave up trying to find the non-politics threads, knowing nobody cared about them. It was also, as I said, annoying having to skim-read the screeching threads' titles just so I could move on to looking for the non-screeching ones. Felt like I wasted my brain cells even having to acknowledge their existence for a moment.

But again, speaking from personal user experience.

...How did that point go right over your head? My point was that you should already be accustom to political topics being made on the off-topic board since you've been around long enough to witness it. Assuming you visited this board pre-2016. Even back then, political topics never really dominated this board. Just a few topics that went the distance as far as post count, but not a huge quantity of topics themselves...

You know you're not being forced to open topics that you care so little about, right? If somehow political topics dominate the off-topic board (Which it shouldn't, PG hasn't really been that active lately), it's probably because there isn't a whole lot of off-topic discussion being made. Maybe you should help fix that problem instead of complaining about a nonissue?

@tocool340:

And my point was things changed. In 2016 politics suddenly became the hot topic of the day, pushing everything else down the order of attention in the forum. Between 2016-2017, the top dozen or so threads were all politics - they were the majority of the new threads being created and by far the most active, while nobody cared about the non-politics ones, which languished further down the board.

As I've already explained, no, I don't have to open the threads, but I still have to at least skim-read the thread titles just to find the threads I want, unless you found a technique to ascertain a thread's topic without reading their titles that I don't know about. I found the thread titles often annoying to read, and made me felt like I wasted my brain cells even acknowledging their existence for even a moment. I am under no obligation to subject myself to that annoyance.

I'm done complaining a long time ago. As I said in the original reply post you replied to, if this place becomes PG 2.0, I will simply leave. I have zero attachment to this forum; I have simply been elaborating my personal user experience which led me to that mindset.

@horgen: You keep trying to get me into a political debate, but I am not biting.

We both know you and your ilk were full of sh*t.

@robotlord: Already been discovered to be fake.

There was always some tongue in cheek to everything, for example, you'll never have to worry about explaining where you got your made-up metrics from!

Sorry, it's literally fake.

Lmao

Yeah guys, please don't disprove lies!

@kathaariancode: Yeah, this thread is proving.... Something, at any rate.

I can't believe I just got caught telling someone that their propaganda piece is wrong with cited proof. How will I live with myself?

@robotlord: It's ok to be wrong. Lord knows I've been. Just move on and maybe consider using New York Post and Fox News (the original publishers of this story, and the one cited in this thread) more skeptically.

If you leave your propaganda sites and follow actual factual reporting you'd know this. But nothing will convince someone of the truth if they can't handle the truth. And thanks @mattbbpl for posting a link which I see is going to ignored in favor of the lies. You can't make this stuff up.

Oh yeah. So it has.

We'll never be able to discuss this.

https://medium.com/@anthonybernardi/why-waking-up-early-is-rooted-in-white-supremacy-f487b04376f1

Robbed.

@uninspiredcup: But you can't wake up too late, that's white privilege. You have to wake up just at the right time.

Both the hotel against which the claims was made, and the individual/organization which made the claim.

But the claims soon began to unravel when the hotel showed proof that it was not housing homeless veterans and that no one was displaced when the migrants arrived.

...

Sharon Toney-Finch, a disabled veteran who founded the Yerik Israel Toney Foundation, said she was misguided in her initial understanding that veterans under her group’s care were moved from the hotel.

“For us not to confirm where they were kicked out of or removed from, that was YIT’s fault,” she said

No one is making this claim any longer. Those who made the claim have retracted it. And the target of the claim has shown proof that it couldn't have occurred.

Exactly what you're doing.

I am not touching the politics here because this is the off-topic forum. So I will quickly answer what seems to be your primary concern: How do we tell which is correct between two opposing views?

We can tell the validity of a source, by cross referencing it with other sources. We can also see if we can get to the primary sources themselves. Mattbbpl's post contains an actual quote from the primary source. If a story is only reported by a few outlets, you should be extremely skeptical, and treat the story as hearsay. Especially if the evidence in said stories is flimsy.

For scientific and academic sources we can look into the paper itself. Most importantly, the methodology. How was the experiment conducted, and consider what possible limitations come from that study. Then we can consider if other studies, have methodologies that get around that limitation but may have other limitation this study didn't have. Consider sample sizes too, the larger the sample sizes, the lower the risk for bias. We can also consider that some journals are more reputable than others. Science or Nature are far more reputable than some random journal from some diploma mill.

The wrong way to do things is to throw excuses around, as to why you can't provide counter-evidence. Alluding to that the researchers are biased, or have some conflict of interest without any actual evidence to demonstrate it as such, is not how you refute studies. If you cannot find a counter-study or other forms of counter-evidence you have an opportunity to learn something. Arguing that the world's intelligentsia have some agenda against you, is not a good position to take in an argument.

Love that almost instantly, regardless of removing the section, users from this section immediately found an excuse argue with each other around it rather than in it.

You're better than me Kakarot. You are the best.

@uninspiredcup: It's doomed to bleed into OT.

Hey now, that’s offensive, I am offended. Shame on you.

wait horgen has shame????

how is fox, nyp, not MSM?

I see, well then **** you Fandom.

if this thread is anything to go by, it's clearly for the best.

I'm seeing people talking about OANN, Newsmax, and Fox News as serious sources of information unironically. Yikes. How embarrassing.