[Roosh]

Before Trump won, I announced that his victory would allow me to move away from politics and focus more on reviving a "masculine renaissance." This is happening in my life---I'm writing my new game book, have been putting out useful podcasts, and look forward to not following the news cycle as much. I also would like to commit more time to the forum.

Here are some points consider:

I have just updated the rules of the forum

You can view it by clicking here. I condensed the list into fewer rules. My concern is that too many rules made the forum stiffer in nature. I remember when the forum first opened and the only rule was "Don't be a dick" and we still functioned fine, though with more drama. More rules creates an authoritarian atmosphere that I want to avoid.

We're being too hard on newbies

The feedback I'm getting is that newbies are frightened to make their first post because of the "OP is a faggot" hazing that goes on. While that hazing can be humorous, the effect of this is that we discourage new men from joining our community.

Unless a newbie is deliberately trolling, it's time we be more helpful and hold the newbs hand until he gets it. Attacking him with funny memes means that there will be one less man who eventually becomes a valuable member, because remember that you were once a newbie too. If you want to haze a bit, make sure your hazing coincides with genuine aid. Otherwise, it's just needless bashing.

New threads versus master threads

The forum has developed a culture of having one thread for certain topics. The problem with this is that new and fresh insights can get buried, and it takes away some of the fun of creating a new thread to see if it has legs to stand on its own. As long as you understand that creating a new thread on a similar topics could drop down the page quickly with few replies, I don't want to discourage new thread creation.

We'll still want to avoid dupes on identical topics or articles, but the master thread phenomenon may result in barely no new threads being created at all if taken too far.

So that's all I wanted to mention. I think Trump's election will lighten up the forum a bit. Time will tell.

[TornadoByProxy]

Roosh:
I've found 3 official rules threads now. I post them when I see that a newb hasn't read them. But they seem hard for newbs to find.

RVF Rules Threads:
thread-3383.html
thread-13005.html
thread-54079.html

I really think you should have a top level forum above 'Main' called 'START HERE'. In there have the official rules pinned to the top.

I'm on mobile. Navigation might be easier on desktop. I don't know.

Edit: And I think rule #1 should that you can't post until you have read "Bang". So many newbs ask questions completely addressed in there.

[Roosh]

Those threads are obsolete. A new user will see the new rules when he registers and it's also on the sticky thread in the Game subforum.

[cascadecombo]

Quote:

The feedback I'm getting is that newbies are frightened to make their first post because of the "OP is a faggot" hazing that goes on. While that hazing can be humorous, the effect of this is that we discourage new men from joining our community.

I can't say I've seen anything as harsh as what you're saying here. There is relentless teasing when people make threads with zero posts and expect to be treated like special and unique snowflakes. Is it safe to assume this forum too will become a safe space? I always figured the introduction thread was a good place for newbies who don't wanna burst out on established posts. This is coming from moderating experience on another large forum.

[The Beast1]

I always viewed the hazing as a good thing. Most of the guys that got triggered by it would have ended up banned anyway (a la Littledark).

The guys that quickly reply back to their hazing in good spirits tend to stick around and continue to post high quality content.

[ScrapperTL]

(11-30-2016 10:51 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

I always viewed the hazing as a good thing. Most of the guys that got triggered by it would have ended up banned anyway (a la Littledark).

The guys that quickly reply back to their hazing in good spirits tend to stick around and continue to post high quality content.

As a relatively new member here (almost a year), this was my exact experience.
I'm glad I kept a thick skin, remained humble and tried my best to respect all of you as mentors.
This community has helped me grow mentally, physically and spiritually in mind-blowing ways that were unimaginable to me prior to joining.

I agree with Roosh that bringing the hazing down a notch (but only a single notch) could potentially be very beneficial.
As Red Pill Society grows and word spreads, this can only help our plight in the long run.

[C-Note]

I agree that the hazing of newbies has been unnecessarily severe. I cringe sometimes when I see how newbies are treated, especially in the newbie forum. The newbie forum doesn't seem to be as active as it was a couple of years ago, and I wonder if all the sarcastic and biting remarks that newbies often get to their questions might be part of the reason.

[Roosh]

There is no rule against telling newbs how to improve. Giving advice that goes along with a joke or soft insult is okay, but if you're just attacking newbs you don't like because they embarrassed themselves, this will be seen as attacking a member. If you cross the line, you will get a warning so you know where that line is.

[chakalaka]

It would be good if threads could merge when it´s the same topic or subject. I know this would probably need to be handled manually.

[Phoenix]

I only tear into new members when they're lazy needy losers. The last thing some of them need is being soft, understanding and nice. They already get that from their mommy or their leftist school teachers or shmuck friends.

Only we can provide that "fucking do the work, and tell us when you've done it, or piss off" service that they desperately need.

Sure it's fine the first time, "do this", "read this" etc. Then they just keep asking the same crap and dwelling and moaning about the same blather. A good strong STFU and demand for proof of action goes a long way.

[The Beast1]

(11-30-2016 11:34 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

There is no rule against telling newbs how to improve. Giving advice that goes along with a joke or soft insult is okay, but if you're just attacking newbs you don't like because they embarrassed themselves, this will be seen as attacking a member. If you cross the line, you will get a warning so you know where that line is.

To be fair Roosh, i'm not sure where that line is!

When you see it happen, can the mod team or yourself make a mention of it in the thread as it happens and dish out warnings as you and the team see fit?

I never saw the hazing as rough and more of the forum's own "antibodies" ensuring the high level of discourse is kept high level.

I certainly got a good razing in my early days for some rambunctious stuff I posted. It helped shape and calm down the angsty anger part of the red pill.

[Ethan Hunt]

Is hazing that common? There are plenty of troll posts where the OP does get busted but the newbie threads that seem genuine have great advice offered to them even if they language is perhaps not what they are used to.

Hazing as a right of passage, I can't say I've ever experienced it here. It is different to every user and is entirely dependent what the users desired outcome was.

Looking at my first post it was a mini data sheet in someone else's thread that never got the exposure it possibly deserved. I consumed some information here from one of the data sheets posted before joining and felt like I need to give back to the community and continued over the course of posting. Closest thing to being roasted, to the best of my knowledge, is a dupe thread I started and promptly abandoned, the two users who did reply were in fact very helpful.

The rules are very reasonable as it is and the hidden rules (ways of the forum) work very well. A little hazing or roasting here and there is harmless. Acts as a good filter to remove nonsense users. We all want the quality of posting to be as great as possible so filtering out those who do not add value is definitely beneficial to the community as a whole, even if it does include hazing.

My first post is found here if you are interested: thread-45741...#pid984374

[Captainstabbin]

Think most of the hazing is when noobs create a new thread as their first post and it's just a link to an article they liked on facebook.

[Roosh]

(11-30-2016 11:48 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I only tear into new members when they're lazy needy losers. The last thing some of them need is being soft, understanding and nice. They already get that from their mommy or their leftist school teachers or shmuck friends.

Only we can provide that "fucking do the work, and tell us when you've done it, or piss off" service that they desperately need.

Sure it's fine the first time, "do this", "read this" etc. Then they just keep asking the same crap and dwelling and moaning about the same blather. A good strong STFU and demand for proof of action goes a long way.

Tough love is fine, some guys need it.

(11-30-2016 01:01 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(11-30-2016 11:34 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

There is no rule against telling newbs how to improve. Giving advice that goes along with a joke or soft insult is okay, but if you're just attacking newbs you don't like because they embarrassed themselves, this will be seen as attacking a member. If you cross the line, you will get a warning so you know where that line is.

To be fair Roosh, i'm not sure where that line is!

When you see it happen, can the mod team or yourself make a mention of it in the thread as it happens and dish out warnings as you and the team see fit?

I don't think it will be a good idea to announce that a senior member was warned in response to how he treated a newb. It may cause him to lose face. If we see clear patterns that dictate a warnable offense, we'll share it. I want to be transparent as possible, but as of right now I don't see it as a big issue that will need a lot of public sharing.

[armenia4ever]

I avoided the hazing somehow when i first got on here. Just realized that.

[vinman]

(11-30-2016 08:27 PM)armenia4ever Wrote:  

I avoided the hazing somehow when i first got on here. Just realized that.

It's not too late. I could start shitting on you now....

[la bodhisattva]

(11-30-2016 08:27 PM)armenia4ever Wrote:  

I avoided the hazing somehow when i first got on here. Just realized that.

I did as well. I also think the best way to ease yourself into the community without souring your presence is to forget creating threads until you're better established. I'd also recommend reading the forum for a good while before actively participating. I was a daily reader of the forum and ROK for about six months before stepping out from the shadows. By then, you will have a good feel for the posters and more fully understand their intent should they haze you out of the gate.

[Cattle Rustler]

A good way to avoid getting hazed on...adding value! I lurked around my new account back in 2013 for a month, then my first post was updating a datasheet that was outdated. First couple of posts were just adding value and contributing. Then I started to think my mind or asking questions.

Although there are some funny "OP is a faggot" GIFs.

[Suits]

(11-30-2016 11:34 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

There is no rule against telling newbs how to improve. Giving advice that goes along with a joke or soft insult is okay, but if you're just attacking newbs you don't like because they embarrassed themselves, this will be seen as attacking a member. If you cross the line, you will get a warning so you know where that line is.

Roosh, can we still go all "welcome to the forum" on guys who start a new thread with a single link, an unrelated thread title, no description, and zero analysis and commentary?

[weambulance]

I kinda wish there was some kind of mandatory training powerpoint or video or something newbies had to watch before they were allowed to make threads. It could be 5 minutes long and it would probably solve most of the annoying new thread issues. The culture in this forum is unique in my experience, so we can't assume new people who have been on other forums or reddit for years will instantly grasp the difference.

On the other hand, when I joined I read the stickies. It's worth considering that people who can't be bothered to read the stickied rules or FAQs might not be people we want to stick around.

[I DIDN'T KILL MY WIFE]

I don't think the hazing is too harsh here. OP is called a faggot in the cases where he actually behaves like a faggot. You go on Misc and OP is ALWAYS a faggot, no matter if you made an empty post or posted a magnum opus datasheet.

Shit, people on here even calmly explain some rules and give pointers on how to improve. Now that's some luxury on internet forums

[Easy_C]

(11-29-2016 09:47 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

/The feedback I'm getting is that newbies are frightened to make their first post because of the "OP is a faggot" hazing that goes on. While that hazing can be humorous, the effect of this is that we discourage new men from joining our community.

Unless a newbie is deliberately trolling, it's time we be more helpful and hold the newbs hand until he gets it. Attacking him with funny memes means that there will be one less man who eventually becomes a valuable member, because remember that you were once a newbie too. If you want to haze a bit, make sure your hazing coincides with genuine aid. Otherwise, it's just needless bashing.

That said, I think we need to put a harsh spotlight on new members who show up and engage in known COINTEL tactics. Decent summary here: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.html?topic=99753.0

Quote:

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:

1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.

7) There is also a tendacy to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

We need to be especially careful now. I've noticed that the Pizzagate thread was immediately followed by an uptick of posters using these tactics both on the forum(one of whom posted in the pizzagate thread) and on the blog(one was accusing everyone of being "Russian trolls and got called out).

[The Beast1]

Honest question, is this a good example of hazing a newbie too much?
thread-54253.html

I genuinely would like to know where the line is.

[Phoenix]

(12-01-2016 04:38 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Honest question, is this a good example of hazing a newbie too much?
thread-54253.html

I genuinely would like to know where the line is.

Absolutely not. That guy was a complete fuckup wierdo. We don't want people like that poisoning our community well. I'm so surprised he didn't get banned when that Dr Kahn guy did. Read his rep list for a good laugh -- that's what I call a "community ban", as opposed to a mod ban.

[Dalaran1991]

Im genuinely glad that the forum, and maybe the members, could eventually return to our original mission.

Back in the day when I started out, the forum = game / newbie section for me, I didnt even know about the everything else section. And I think my life and game was much better and simpler that day. Now I check the politics thread every day and my mood has been growing darker and darker.

Plus, with the shift away from game, we haven't had a good troll in a while. Little Dark and Zebra game? Those were the good times. Fuck the renaissance of Western Civilization, Make RVF Great Again!