|
It seems as if the modships in their early days try to be chill and change what sucked about the last regime. Then they slowly realize the same thing as the last regime. Probations work as long as they keep getting worse. It's basically tantamount to jail time ever increasing to keep people down. I see it happen in threads where everyone involved in a slap fight is probed and sometimes people get probed just for posting at the same time or having a one line response to the slap fight. And I ask myself, is this really going to stop future slapfight and make these posters shape up? Or will they just drift on to the next debate or non SA thing to do. There's an ignore function for a reason and not allowing people to learn to debate each other is fundamentally a problem. "Debate better and civily" is what half the rules can be boiled down to at their basic idea. Sometimes watching these fights play out can show you what people do when they're under stress. If they break down to just personal attacks yeah I get it probe em. But if they continue to actually give effort even if sloppy and hostile, they"re probably in the process of learning and letting their argument be defeated will be better for all of us and less instant reaction to someone reporting another poster because they are losing just to get the argument ended. Or they disagree with the POSITION of the poster and don't want to get a probe themselves. So reporting becomes the expression of dismay with a posters position.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Just wanted to hop in and say that the moderation for D&D overall, expecially the USPol/USCE thread, is good overall. About my biggest complaint is I wish there was an explicit rule about explaining twitter sources, especially for having good justification to post a twitter rando who's making a subjective observation based on their "research". Thanks and keep up the good work, IK/admin team!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I'm not really "building a trampoline" here and if you don't like my example you're free to choose another one - I went with "what are the Democrats for?" because it's easily the most contentious issue that comes up, but it's not the only one. I think it's important to keep the conclusion-drawing part of it reined in, because drawing conclusions can easily become wild conjecture if you go too far. Even the most bizarre conspiracy theories usually start from facts and evidence, and then take giant leaps when drawing conclusions which ultimately bring their claims well beyond what the evidence actually supports. For example, Bush's intel agencies failed to detect the activities of the 9/11 hijackers, and Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Put those two together and add in a couple of logical leaps, and you get "Bush allowed 9/11 to happen" or even "Bush did 9/11". But even though adherents of those theories will claim they're just drawing conclusions from facts and evidence, a major aspect of their theories is completely unsupported. They're jumping well beyond what there's actually evidence for, filling in the holes with their own imagination - and often so effectively that they don't even realize they're doing it. It's not a matter of labels or social consensus. It's a matter of how far the conclusions get from the evidence, and how much conjecture has to be jammed into the holes in the theory to shore up the unsupported pieces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think it's important to keep the conclusion-drawing part of it reined in, because drawing conclusions can easily become wild conjecture if you go too far. Even the most bizarre conspiracy theories usually start from facts and evidence, and then take giant leaps when drawing conclusions which ultimately bring their claims well beyond what the evidence actually supports. I mean by this logic wouldn't going "the Saudis did 9/11 and bush used it as a justification to pacify a dictator that had nothing to do with it" Be just as wild a claim if we were acting on 2001-2004 logic? If someone came into a post 9/11 thread and made that post in today's rule set they'd be probed immediately and continue to try to formulate a theory would result in ramped probes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
studio mujahideen posted:The stale arguments rule is idiotic because it privileges gross, bad opinions. Because the only thing that triggers it is responding. You can express the same disgusting opinions however many times you want, but people only get to refute you once. As I said earlier ITT, that's basically the opposite of how I want the guideline to work. I'll add a clarification to the rules and make sure the mods understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Thank you for the feedback, all. It will be taken into consideration. I will at the very least be getting rid of the sloppy assertions rule and unstickying the Roe thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2022 04:52
|
|