|
fool of sound posted:I spent approximately 2 minutes writing my refutation. It really isn't hard, and it doesn't have to be a full effortpost like atomickrabs or sneeze of the decade made. All I ask is "this is an awful opinion, and here is why".
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
The downside is that there's never really even an attempted segue. If someone says, "blah blah the homeless should be turned into butter", that's obviously a dumb and bad stance, but it begs the more interesting question: when did the homeless become a significant target, and in what communities does anti-homeless sentiment dominate, and why? Do we think it will increase or decrease, and why? Etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
Pick posted:The downside is that there's never really even an attempted segue. If someone says, "blah blah the homeless should be turned into butter", that's obviously a dumb and bad stance, but it begs the more interesting question: when did the homeless become a significant target, and in what communities does anti-homeless sentiment dominate, and why? Do we think it will increase or decrease, and why? Etc. Gonna be really honest; if I’m talking about the Census and someone comes in saying the “Homeless aren’t people”, I don’t want to derail to “why do some people think this?”, I just want them out for an obviously bad opinion. I think most times discussion is good but that particular poster was not going to improve with a hearty debate and it was kinda obvious imo. Sometimes those segues would work, I just think in that particular situation it would be more annoying than useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
Pick posted:
Wouldn't that be like asking the snake oil salesmen about how good snake oil is for all your problems? Of course they are going to say it's good, thats what their income and self worth are tied up in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
ianmacdo posted:Wouldn't that be like asking the snake oil salesmen about how good snake oil is for all your problems? This is the politics form, we spent most of our time discussing why people act against their own self interest or the self interest of their community. One of the best videos that got shared around different parts of the subforum recently was explaining that the flat earth people became Q anon people, which most people here would not intuit because we are not really connected to those communities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 06:09
|
|
|
I have come to believe that there's a small handful of posters who have essentially earned themselves a D&D-wide permanent ban. this previously got mired in talk about total number of probes, which we can't use as a guideline due to so many of those probes being circumspect residuals from now-disgraced mods and admins. instead, it's just a practical test of "is this person one of Those Guys where they appear permanently insufferable and it's hard not to admit the forum would be better in way too many ways if they vanished overnight"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:27
|
|
|
Kavros posted:instead, it's just a practical test of "is this person one of Those Guys where they appear permanently insufferable and it's hard not to admit the forum would be better in way too many ways if they vanished overnight" Okay but who is making this determination, exactly
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
I would like mods to put more thought into thread bans. In my opinion they almost solely make sense if it's the actual (topic of the) thread that a certain poster can't deal with, and they're perfectly reasonable in other threads. If it's actually just a case of that thread receiving the brunt of their attention because that's what they're interested in at the time, but they're not actually posting any worse than usual, then you're basically just telling them to go find another thread to poo poo up. Either a twin thread in C-SPAM, or one on a related topic in D&D. This has happened with 100% of the posters I'm aware have been thread banned, and it didn't improve their posting. Sure, it might work out, if they're a better fit for another thread or their bad posting was partially a result of the posting environment of their former hangout, I just think the mods should consider whether a poster is actually worth not just banning if you're considering a thread ban.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
Honestly DnD gets rightfully heated because we're all trying to fix a dying world where we, individually, don't have any power and are unsure how. I think ramping probs should be used sparingly and sixers should be handed out like candy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
FartingBedpost posted:Gonna be really honest; if I’m talking about the Census and someone comes in saying the “Homeless aren’t people”, I don’t want to derail to “why do some people think this?”, I just want them out for an obviously bad opinion. I'm fine with not using that particular poster(who probably was a Nazi) but the point I was making in the other thread is there's a lot of bad posting that adds nothing because people just want to poo poo and run. You can still say "gently caress you" and ALSO add some content. I'm fine with saying gently caress you to all sorts of people and opinions. Just add something, because it makes YOUR SIDE better. Like the stupid as gently caress "economists are all homeopaths" edgelord poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Suggestion: if a poster is sufficiently ramped that they are in danger of serious consequence, the shadow of the banhammer should hover over their posts, ready to fall at any moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Okay but who is making this determination, exactly Mods will have to, collectively, based off their documentation of reports and assessment of the problems in d&d.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Mods will have to, collectively, based off their documentation of reports and assessment of the problems in d&d. Okay but the mod team have said outright multiple times that they barely read threads so this would be reliant on reports. Seems like this idea would allow a situation where, for example, I can go through a thread, report a bunch of your posts and get you banned for being insufferable, look at all these reports, that's a bad guy! I also think it's important to bear in mind that before we start advocating for mods to ban people on the basis of their bad vibes that, for example, evilweasel was a mod and homex was an admin
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
The economist hate is especially wierd since there isn't a single economic orthodoxy that all economists agree on, so saying they're all full of poo poo is a non sequitur. In fact they're arguing all the time so there's no way to know what any one person's beliefs system is just because "economist." Like someone with a PhD in economics could be balls deep in Marxist theory, or a reactionary dildo, or anything in between. It's a label more about their topic of interest than their beliefs about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 12:35
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The economist hate is especially wierd since there isn't a single economic orthodoxy that all economists agree on, so saying they're all full of poo poo is a non sequitur. In fact they're arguing all the time so there's no way to know what any one person's beliefs system is just because "economist." Really, the question is 'should we ramp economists?'
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 13:01
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:Really, the question is 'should we ramp economists?' No, Dixon, we should have a zero tolerance policy for economists in this community. There are already plenty of online spaces where economists spread their wretched worldview - somethingawful need not be another. Ban+30 and banishment to pet island
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 14:12
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Okay but the mod team have said outright multiple times that they barely read threads so this would be reliant on reports. Seems like this idea would allow a situation where, for example, I can go through a thread, report a bunch of your posts and get you banned for being insufferable, look at all these reports, that's a bad guy! Not reading every single post is not the same as just behaving like a social media algorithm. They read enough of the surrounding posts to get context for the report. Nobody is impressed with your ability to twist what they said to do a heckin own on the mods because you think they suck. People need to stop making GBS threads up every feedback thread with this meta-polemics poo poo ffs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 14:18
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:No, Dixon, we should have a zero tolerance policy for economists in this community. There are already plenty of online spaces where economists spread their wretched worldview - somethingawful need not be another. Ban+30 and banishment to pet island Insurance workers are worse, yet we allow them...
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 15:22
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:Insurance workers are worse, yet we allow them... Agreed. The noble and heroic (possibly handsome?) pharmaceutical worker helps provide life saving therapies for patients only for the evil insurance worker to deny access.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Agreed. The noble and heroic (possibly handsome?) pharmaceutical worker helps provide life saving therapies for patients only for the evil insurance worker to deny access. Sorry. I mistook you for someone else. I thought you were one of the insurance ghouls that argued like hell against M4A. Don't worry, if we keep fighting, we'll get it someday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 15:58
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:Sorry. I mistook you for someone else. I thought you were one of the insurance ghouls that argued like hell against M4A. That's right, no rest for our shared enemies! *spray paints all economists r basterd on a garbage can* KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Oct 16, 2020 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:That's right, no rest for our shared enemies! *spray paints all economists r basterd on a garbage can* Because my original point was obviously too subtle, this isn't the economics thread. It's the ramp thread. Take your fight there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 16:26
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:Because my original point was obviously too subtle, this isn't the economics thread. It's the ramp thread. Take your fight there. Sorry, I didn't pick up on that. My opinion on ramping is there's really no reason for probations in D&D to be any less than 3 days. 6 or 12 hour probations are pointless and people will just pick up where they left off after taking a nap. It's really not the end of the world to be unable to share your favorite tweets and scorching takes on somethingawful for a few days. Might actually make people think twice about making inflammatory posts. Also per the bonkers closed QCS thread there may also be positive mental health benefits for some.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
I agree that sixers are mostly pointless and that a minimum of a day seems more appropriate if you're really trying to reduce the amount of cheerleading, dogpiling, sniping, and other low-effort garbage
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 18:52
|
|
|
The more I think about this, the more I feel the moderation could use something in-between making a warning post, which injects themselves in the conversation and ultimately contributes to white noise, and issuing small probations. Some kind of clear signal that a dogpile/derail/white noise influx needs to stop and anyone continuing will face a substantial penalty, but in a way that does not interfere with the conversation. I guess what I'm saying is: Warning -> 1-3 day probation, but with warnings being something that can be doled out aggressively. Aramis fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Oct 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
Aramis posted:The more I think about this, the more I feel the moderation could use something between making a warning post, injecting themselves in the conversation, and ultimately contributing to white noise, and issuing small probations. Yeah this makes sense. I've seen IKs and mods just hop into a thread and be all "settle down, beavises" and that seems to work. I think the cool zone thread was getting lame once and the IK just said "anybody still posting about this two pages from now gets a bonkin". I think that lets people get it out of their systems while also establishing that it's done and making a specific line in the sand about when and where the probes happen. I think this would be a better strategy, and one easier to apply fairly, than ramps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
I think this is a good idea, too
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
copy posted:Yeah this makes sense. I've seen IKs and mods just hop into a thread and be all "settle down, beavises" and that seems to work. I think the cool zone thread was getting lame once and the IK just said "anybody still posting about this two pages from now gets a bonkin". I think that lets people get it out of their systems while also establishing that it's done and making a specific line in the sand about when and where the probes happen. I think this would be a better strategy, and one easier to apply fairly, than ramps. The two page scream is fun as hell, too, cause sometimes, you just get het up, you gotta raise hell. And you get to. For 2 pages. Rolling the dice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
What about holding a vote of some sort on any of these various proposals? I also like the idea of various bans or not-bans being overturned by popular decision. That would seem to be moving in the direction of a more community led effort in how these forums are run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
I also agree with the idea that probes for actual punishments should be 1 day or more. Reserve sixers for poo poo like stopping dumb derails or cases where a mod comes in and says "all right, that's enough on that topic, let's move on." That's less "this guy broke a rule" and more "let's try to keep the discussion productive" and should be treated as such.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
whiggles posted:What about holding a vote of some sort on any of these various proposals? lol gently caress no
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
whiggles posted:What about holding a vote of some sort on any of these various proposals? Nah half the fun is that there's actual people in charge making decisions, often bad but fundamentally human Bans overturned by popular opinion leads to brigades and gaming the system and we already know there's a PM-organised "bad posters" list so getting enough wonks to overturn a ban+30 isn't gonna be super hard
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Okay but the mod team have said outright multiple times that they barely read threads so this would be reliant on reports. Seems like this idea would allow a situation where, for example, I can go through a thread, report a bunch of your posts and get you banned for being insufferable, look at all these reports, that's a bad guy! If someone is the type of poster where I can simply just go find posts in a thread lying about that will prompt bans immediately upon my reporting them, enough to be a tiresome pattern, there is something wrong with that poster unless there's something even worse wrong with the mods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 08:47
|
|
|
Kavros posted:unless there's something even worse wrong with the mods. I mean, yeah, clearly the picture being painted here is that the entire D&D mod team just needs to be replaced. Very useful feedback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:The economist hate is especially wierd since there isn't a single economic orthodoxy that all economists agree on, so saying they're all full of poo poo is a non sequitur. In fact they're arguing all the time so there's no way to know what any one person's beliefs system is just because "economist." Its actually extremely unlikely that someone with a PhD in 'Economics' specifically is 'balls deep in Marxist theory', but I agree with the general point that it isn't particularly useful to dismiss all economics and economists out of hand even as someone who holds the left perspective that 'Econonics' as constructed within the western academy is by and large post hoc rationalization of the political economic brutality of oligarchs. Which is to say that I think its o.k. if the mods decide to curtail poo poo post dismissal of entire topics vs. shitpost dismissal of obviously disgusting and harmful positions which shouldn't be curtailed. I do think there is a pattern of people pushing back on specific assertions being conflated with wholesale rejection of entire schoola of thought. This happened to me recently when someone who it seems like I basically agree with said 'the green revolution saved us from starving' which is false, we hashed it out and I was ultimately satisfied that I understood their position and that they didn't actually stand by that initial assertion. In the process though people attributed all sorts of wierd positions to me as though I was making sweeping claims about food systems and not specifically pushing back on that one claim. Don't really think anything can be done about it and specifically given the political climate globally I think you're SOL if you want people to 'take a breath and assume good faith' all the time. Another example was I pushed back on Jayxon's claim that 'economists only get a bad rap because the bad ones get press' unlike the good ones who are bankers and teachers, which is a goofy opinion and not at all the foundation of the left critique of Economics. Their response was to say that I thought economics was phrenology and it wasn't the thread to discuss it. Personally I feel the mods/iks in general default to neoliberal wisdom as their baseline for 'is this acceptable discourse or is this out of hand' which is why axiomatically left posting is often taken as disruptive poo poo posting while someone saying homeless people don't add value and therefore aren't people is worth interrogating. Crumbskull fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Oct 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Its actually extremely unlikely that someone with a PhD in 'Economics' specifically is 'balls deep in Marxist theory', but I agree with the general point that it isn't particularly useful to dismiss all economics and economists out of hand even as someone who holds the left perspective that 'Econonics' as constructed within the western academy is by and large post hoc rationalization of the political economic brutality of oligarchs. Some are, some aren't. It doesn't make it not a real social science. But this is still a more nuanced discussion of economists than uninterrupted or Class Ave wanted to have. quote:Another example was I pushed back on Jayxon's claim that 'economists only get a bad rap because the bad ones get press' unlike the good ones who are bankers and teachers, which is a goofy opinion and not at all the foundation of the left critique of Economics. Their response was to say that I thought economics was phrenology and it wasn't the thread to discuss it. Personally I feel the mods/iks in general default to neoliberal wisdom as their baseline for 'is this acceptable discourse or is this out of hand' which is why axiomatically left posting is often taken as disruptive poo poo posting while someone saying homeless people don't add value and therefore aren't people is worth interrogating. Because this is the third thread where someone's tried to poo poo on the entire profession of economics without it being even remotely the topic of the thread. You can, *right now* go start a thread bout whether Economics is pseudoscience or not. And have a real conversation about it, but that's not what you, uninterrupted, or Class Ave want to do. You want to just repeat your affirmation that economics is fake and then move on because it's an assertion that you don't want to bother challenging. I'm aware of the foundations of the left critique of economics, I AM A LEFTIST. I hate banks. But the point is most of the people think that all economists are crank liars that have batshit theories are because most of the economics they've ever seen are ones that make their living off of politics and rubber stamping awful poo poo. While there's entire parts of economics that are based in bad neoliberal theory that doesn't track to data or human behavior, that's a different problem and not what people are talking about. Most people's familiarity with economics begins and ends with ECON 101 that they had to take in undergrad, if that. Maybe they've heard about Friedman, Hayak, Von Mises etc via internet libertarians. Or various Fed Chairmen which are basically avatars of Wall St. Yes the banker economists are supporting evil structures, and aren't Marxists. That doesn't mean that the entire thing is pseudoscience. History is as a social science is full of white supremacists. Does that mean history isn't real? No, it means it has serious problems(it used to be even worse). I support a drastically higher minimum wage. I know that the argument that it kills jobs is based in bullshit and not at all true. I know that because of the huge amount of studies done by economists that prove that. I also know there's about 4 or so studies done by more or less the same small group of economists that says that minimum wage is awful and a job-killer. And those are far more cited in politics than the majority of studies that say it's not true. That's because of capitalism, because there's money involved, economics that supports capitalism is giving outsized influence. All of this is an actual nuanced conversation that isn't "economics is homeopathy" as a drive-by in a thread about viruses or moderation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Yea, I wasn't aware that this was already an ongoing unproductive conversation on the board and didn't view your comment in that light. I understand why you responded the way you did now. I still think its annoying that you can drive by with 'economics is good actually' in an unrelated thread and I can't respond 'actually its bad' but I get your position. For the record obviously I think economic phenomena and systems are a legitimate object of study and I agree that 'Economics is horseshit' isn't accurate or productive position to take (although, who could blame you for taking it). Again, I specifically think 'teachers and bankers' is a really BAD example of 'good, legitimate economists' as those are both majore sites of reproduction for the dominant (harmful) neolib/neoclassical economic ideology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Yea, I wasn't aware that this was already an ongoing unproductive conversation on the board and didn't view your comment in that light. I understand why you responded the way you did now. I still think its annoying that you can drive by with 'economics is good actually' in an unrelated thread and I can't respond 'actually its bad' but I get your position. I don't think economics is good, and that's not in any post I have made. It's mostly bad. But that's part of what I'm saying. People do dismissive content-less shitposts in unrelated threads and place anyone who disagrees with them into the "holds opposite views" container, so they can justify aggressively posting about them as a justified enemy. quote:For the record obviously I think economic phenomena and systems are a legitimate object of study and I agree that 'Economics is horseshit' isn't accurate or productive position to take (although, who could blame you for taking it). Again, I specifically think 'teachers and bankers' is a really BAD example of 'good, legitimate economists' as those are both majore sites of reproduction for the dominant (harmful) neolib/neoclassical economic ideology. Sure they are, and some aren't. I didn't give a nuanced response to an un-nuanced shitpost in a loving epidemiology thread because it that's a stupid loving derail. There's economics to be talked about pandemic threads but "actually they're all fakers and liars" isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Imo we are both guilty of the same crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Imo we are both guilty of the same crime. Sure we are. I thought you were one of the original people making GBS threads on it in the Athanatos thread, and you're not. That's uninterrupted and Classon Ave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2020 22:33
|
|