I am an adult!

anyone else reading this in there voices?

More please . I love your comics

neo4812 said:
anyone else reading this in there voices?

I except the 'I need an adult'. Gohan kind of took over that one.

Well...the first time.

Obviously not. He's an adult, after all.

i never knew how much i needed this till tonight

Wow. Someone actually thought Chowder was sexy. O_o;

I guess underaged fat kids are... wait. No their not. WTF?

Jerjercorn said:
I am an adult!

I bought those shirts just for the hell of it as well as "All Hail Princess Trunks."

please tell me their using more of those lines because I'd like to see. "yeah pity that ahahah (new arm, or instant boner), or you know what fuck power level, fuck super sayans, and fuck you kai cou ohhh. just to name a few.

Is anyone else a little put off by Panini's really weirdly shaped nose?

She wants Chowder's chowder.

DracosBlackwing said:
Wow. Someone actually thought Chowder was sexy. O_o;

I guess underaged fat kids are... wait. No their not. WTF?

this is exactly the issue the comic is meant to address, just you put in a dumb way.

saved your comment. downvote threshold is stupid

TwilightStormshi said:
this is exactly the issue the comic is meant to address, just you put in a dumb way.

saved your comment. downvote threshold is stupid

If he was more intelligent with his words... If only.

PunsAndBuns said:
If he was more intelligent with his words... If only.

YES. THANK you. this is exactly why voting on comments is a harmful mechanic. people canNOT be expected to express themselves well every time, yet people think they can judge everybody on the ideas they assume are being expressed because there's hardly body language on the internet and all the rules are built for top-down population control and insurrection prevention instead of empathetic discussion.

TwilightStormshi said:
YES. THANK you. this is exactly why voting on comments is a harmful mechanic. people canNOT be expected to express themselves well every time, yet people think they can judge everybody on the ideas they assume are being expressed because there's hardly body language on the internet and all the rules are built for top-down population control and insurrection prevention instead of empathetic discussion.

Gotta be careful with wording on here. Phrase something wrong and people get spooked and downvote. It's the same thing when I used to work security. I've found dumbing things down to be extremely efficient.

Using big words scares people, using complicated sentences scares people. All of it leading to downvotes simply because people hate what they dont understand.

Dumbing stuff down while a hard pill to swallow for smarter people is still the most efficient way to communicate.

I feel like Panini has a tad too much chub on. She was pretty much the complete reverse of Chowder in the show in most things, but everything else is pretty good. I mean, except for her nose, I always thought it was a little cat snoot without the cat holes, not a pointy thing.

Meanwhile, the stall vendor's just chillin' in the corner thinking "They don't HAVE to know I'm here, soooo..."

TwilightStormshi said:
people canNOT be expected to express themselves well every time

Certainly.
The idea that the voting system is necessarily a problem, rather than a thing which sometimes helps to identify bad communications for you, doesn't seem to follow from that.

Yes, I am judging commenters, quite possibly wrongly, because the comment system only supplies the text of their comment.
Removing the voting wouldn't eliminate that judgement, it would just remove the evidence of it.

all the rules are built for top-down population control and insurrection prevention instead of empathetic discussion.

The rules do not comment on voting. You vote how you think you should, barring obvious abuse patterns (mass downvoting all of a user's comments, for example; or use of alt accounts to get more than one vote.).

In practice the community seems to resolve this as something like:

• 0 : your comment is boring, mildly cringey or of no importance
• < -5 : your comment is noticeably cringey (including "pointing out" something that is demonstrably false as well as RP/sufficiently bad jokes) or you are a mod neutrally explaining the rules.
• > 5 : your comment is humorous, clever, or points out an obvious "truth" (maybe even an obvious truth) without being notably cringey.

for the 'moderate' vote counts (-4..+4), IMO a suitable interpretation is "results unclear, try again later".

savageorange said:
Certainly.
The idea that the voting system is necessarily a problem, rather than a thing which sometimes helps to identify bad communications for you, doesn't seem to follow from that.

Yes, I am judging commenters, quite possibly wrongly, because the comment system only supplies the text of their comment.
Removing the voting wouldn't eliminate that judgement, it would just remove the evidence of it.

The rules do not comment on voting. You vote how you think you should, barring obvious abuse patterns (mass downvoting all of a user's comments, for example; or use of alt accounts to get more than one vote.).

In practice the community seems to resolve this as something like:

• 0 : your comment is boring, mildly cringey or of no importance
• < -5 : your comment is noticeably cringey (including "pointing out" something that is demonstrably false as well as RP/sufficiently bad jokes) or you are a mod neutrally explaining the rules.
• > 5 : your comment is humorous, clever, or points out an obvious "truth" (maybe even an obvious truth) without being notably cringey.

for the 'moderate' vote counts (-4..+4), IMO a suitable interpretation is "results unclear, try again later".

In a perfect world sure. But then you get people who juat downvote to be dickbags regardless of comments. Then yoy get people who go through sonebodys profile to downvote all comments. Those are extremely common.

savageorange said:

PunsAndBuns said:

this is extremely interesting to me. it's not obvious to my head-in-the-clouds attitude that dumbing things down is the best way, and i personally have always struggled to dumb things down properly and failed because i've come from the wrong end of it to start with. so i believe that, as a rule of thumb, dumbing things down is effective at population control but not at conveying message.

there are certainly times when a direct approach is needed. but to treat everyone like they're constantly on the edge of blowing it doesn't only have the potential to focus people; it implies that the matter they're facing is life and death. and when it's obviously not, people blow it off or have knee-jerk reactions.

the voting buttons are evidence of opinion but also inherently stress people out, because they're so easy to press. exactly like people changing lanes on the freeway, i'd say. people who don't even mean to be trolls click because they feel something wrong inside, then everybody else misinterprets it because there's not enough information in a single integer to accurately judge opinion.

i'm not intending to blame people for having no empathy, although i'm sorely tempted to. i think nobody's at fault for this stupid mode of communication we're all using. hypertext takes too much responsibility and is too fun to browse properly. that having been said, i really love seeing people open up like this and take the extra effort. it warms my heart! (no sarcasm)

PunsAndBuns said:
In a perfect world sure.

No, that was distilled from my actual experience here -- it's not a prescription but a description. Eg. I don't think factual, neutral mod posts should be downvoted, but they often are.

Then yoy get people who go through sonebodys profile to downvote all comments. Those are extremely common.

This doesn't seem to be clearly against site rules, but the database tracks which comments you have downvoted (in order to prevent you from voting twice) -- so the information necessary to determine mass-downvoting is available. If you want this to be explicitly included in the rules I'd suggest reporting such behaviour when you see it.

(personally, I haven't ever seen anything that seemed to be definitely mass-downvoting. The closest was downvoting 'every comment made by X user on Y post' -- and again, it wasn't obvious that this was the correct explanation; brigading, aka multi-user organized ballot-stuffing, is semi-obvious in a voting system but exact votes of an individual user is not, AFAICS.)

TwilightStormshi said:

this is extremely interesting to me. it's not obvious to my head-in-the-clouds attitude that dumbing things down is the best way, and i personally have always struggled to dumb things down properly and failed because i've come from the wrong end of it to start with. so i believe that, as a rule of thumb, dumbing things down is effective at population control but not at conveying message.

TBH I think 'dumbing things down' may be an excessive version of something you would be well served to do anyway (when writing or speaking: eliminate unnecessary words, sentences and paragraphs. order your argument carefully. avoid compound sentences - because they are often ambiguous. be very conservative about what you assume people to know.)

there are certainly times when a direct approach is needed. but to treat everyone like they're constantly on the edge of blowing it doesn't only have the potential to focus people; it implies that the matter they're facing is life and death. and when it's obviously not, people blow it off or have knee-jerk reactions.

I'm not sure who this is addressed at. Who is treating people in such a way?

To be clear, I judged you for this comment ;). It's not a big deal. It's pretty hard not to. It's certainly not anything like life or death. It may not even be anything like stubbing your toe or feeling tired.

In any case, I don't see that it is particularly charitable or good to act as if I'm not judging you. It seems much more appropriate to be careful, specific and precise about my judgements, because then they will tend to contain useful information.

..

While it may be the case that voting inherently stresses people, it shouldn't be more than a minor stressor. If vote counts on the internet is more than a minor stressor for a particular person, I'd suggest they need to reexamine their priorities.

Personally I've found the concept of empathy to be too vague and thus open to abuse (tagging debates come to mind as an on-site example). Principle of Charity , aka steelmanning, seems more specific and actionable.

does this mean he put his dick in a panini oven?