|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Liberal democracy has fatal flaws, most importantly its willingness to entertain the opinions of its enemies. Thanks for pointing out the obvoius. In light of this, if you’re going to defend it and its tenets, I strongly suggest that you should reevaluate your entire belief system and come to a more sensible conclusion. In any case there is plenty to debate and discuss within the intellectually and morally correct frame I’ve laid out above. Your frame wouldn't even allow anyone to have a conversation over whether or not intervening in Yugoslavia to curtail the Serbian genocide of Croats and Bosnians was justified, because you would immediately send one side of that conversation to the reeducation camps. People have plenty of threads to talk about such non-threatening disagreements such as which video game is cooler, I think they go to D&D to discuss more serious issues where disagreements are about serious consequences for other people.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Your frame wouldn't even allow anyone to have a conversation over whether or not intervening in Yugoslavia to curtail the Serbian genocide of Croats and Bosnians was justified, because you would immediately send one side of that conversation to the reeducation camps. People have plenty of threads to talk about such non-threatening disagreements such as which video game is cooler, I think they go to D&D to discuss more serious issues where disagreements are about serious consequences for other people. Go gently caress yourself, too, by the way. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:This is true, but it serves only to show how morally flawed the whole process is. There has been a couple instances of quite polite and not-outwardly-threatening sexists and racists tolerated in this forum, and the mere thought of it makes me retch. It should make you retch too. This is ludicrous. Morality has a rational framework. How else are you supposed to discern it, just a vote of unconsidered gut feelings?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:This is ludicrous. Morality has a rational framework. How else are you supposed to discern it, just a vote of unconsidered gut feelings? No one is capable of objective unbiased rationality outside of math proofs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No one is capable of objective unbiased rationality outside of math proofs. Thats not what rational argumentation means. It means examining beliefs and justifying them in a coherent and consistant way. It's not objective, it's applying logic to the subjective such that it can be something other than a battle of wills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
It should be fine for the OP of a thread to set of ground rules. It sounds a bit weird that a mod could enforce one poster’s made-up rules, but it’s an easy way to limit a discussion within some sort of settled space. For example, the climate change thread OP asked people to not criticize real world activism, to not come in and make the case that we’re all doomed so it’s pointless. Which is a case that can be made. Over in some other thread. Similarly, it’s sort of implied that debating if climate change is real is not welcome in that thread either. It should be okay to jump on people for fundamentally not agreeing to the basic premises that the rest of the discussion is based on. TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I know it's already generally understood, but I feel like there should be a codified rule about "posting about posting." It's a pretty common probation reason and there's nothing in the rules about it. A good idea. Condiv posted:To make things short, I guess I would say that if you want to reference or source something for an argument, you need to make clear what part of that reference or source is/feeds into your argument https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3874548&pagenumber=52&perpage=40#post492353075
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
posting while being a known creepy gun fucker in the 48 hours following mass shootings should get you perma'd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Less of a rule and more general notes on modding, the community, and standards: Some posters are absolute dogshit, living for toxicity and drama and making their posting enemies quake in fear. Others alternate between cogent contributions and thorough insufferability. Identifying them isn't some impossible task. We've seen them pop up in a Purge or two. Another useful compendium is a mere click away once you've entered the Posting Gloryhole. One's typing this post right now. Maybe, once these people have been identified, we can escalate punishment for continued worthlessness? When someone, thricebanned within this subforum for a track record of awfulness and owner of a rapsheet that speaks to his history of bigotry and misogyny, posts about how a black woman alleging sexual assault and racial discrimination got what she deserved... perhaps that merits more than a sixer or a week break? A purely hypothetical example, of course. It strikes me as odd that that the mods (and often, community at large!) have proven capable of identifying posters who make the forum worse and of removing them, and then just kind of shrug impotently when they return and carry on the exact same behavior that got them run in the first place. This isn't youtube, promoting fascism to kiddos because literally any increase in engagement means money--the spinal fundraiser confirms that this community is the only known entity that can fend off the American healthcare system, and these particular flavors of shitposters aren't helping. I get that modding is a mostly joyless and entirely thankless task, and I appreciate the effort that's built a community where forums and subforua can have wildly divergent tones and views and still coexist peacefully despite a ruleset so old that it has to mention warez and topics that range from GRRM to Star Wars to presidential primaries. I'm just asking for the lowest hanging of fruit: When someone is trash enough to earn "a reward for a long, illustrious career spent making this forum worse", we can skip straight to a month for future habitual cancerousness. You've put the kibosh on the drivethru window. You've banned Flaps from the brithread. You've successfully quarantined any allusion to primarychat. Surely, you can do this! I've got a hunch that'll do more to improve the posting environment than any new rules we manage to crowdsource.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
Here's an idea for a new rule: Moderators have to apologize if they gently caress up. hosed up a probation? Apologize to the goon. Closed a thread by accident? Apologize to the thread. and so on. I think apologies in general help smooth things over, it's better to learn from your mistakes than to say nothing or worse double down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Maybe, once these people have been identified, we can escalate punishment for continued worthlessness? When someone, thricebanned within this subforum for a track record of awfulness and owner of a rapsheet that speaks to his history of bigotry and misogyny, posts about how a black woman alleging sexual assault and racial discrimination got what she deserved... perhaps that merits more than a sixer or a week break? A purely hypothetical example, of course. There's some people posting who are so terrible that they've been put on probation multiple times a month every month for over a year, that's probably an indication that the probations aren't having the intended effect and in fact are only making things worse by giving those people constant attention
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
Yeah, I think most of us can agree that punishments for frequent re-offenders should probably be escalated. The whole point of a probation instead of a ban is to give you time to cool off and start posting better, if you come back and start doing the exact same behavior all over again the second it's over, that should probably just be an outright ban right there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Here's an idea for a new rule: Moderators have to apologize if they gently caress up. Do you have any evidence this wasn't already the case? I got probated recently for something that upset the mods, and I PM'd about it, and they were cool even though I think we still had a disagreement. I see no evidence that the mods are simply being capricious assholes who never admit fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
my dad posted:The only thing I remember seeing you post in threads I've read is a few years ago when you furthered racist Western propaganda and implied that everyone in Yugoslavia were bloodthirsty barbarians who were only kept in check from butchering one another by Tito. On the other hand, I've seen Lightning Knight take an actual stand for something and make rabidly xenophobic liberal shitweasels take a break from posting on Something Awful unlike certain previous mods, and he has consistently been stomping on bigoted shits and their oh so very rational and logical symphatizers. I'm a pretty good poster! You should follow my work more closely. I suggest adding this page to your bookmarks and checking it from time to time. Of course the search function lags by a month or so, so you won't have the freshest stuff. But it's still something. Anyway I don't specifically recall the posts you're referring to (from years ago? dang), but yeah there's no denying that Yugoslavia, one of the noblest endeavors of mankind in the last century, was brought down by one of the grossest ideologies to plague our world - nationalism. I apologize for painting the character of the people of Yugoslavia in such a way all these years ago, it must have been uninspired humor and it was wrong - know that my family ties to Yugoslavia actually make me irrationally love its people. Absurd Alhazred posted:Your frame wouldn't even allow anyone to have a conversation over whether or not intervening in Yugoslavia to curtail the Serbian genocide of Croats and Bosnians was justified, because you would immediately send one side of that conversation to the reeducation camps. People have plenty of threads to talk about such non-threatening disagreements such as which video game is cooler, I think they go to D&D to discuss more serious issues where disagreements are about serious consequences for other people. Let's not make any hypothesis on what the rules I suggest would have meant for the discussion of a conflict that happened some two decades ago, before the forums even existed. Let's look at the present: my frame would force all the posters in the Venezuela thread to self-crit, don't tell me it's a bad thing. fool_of_sound posted:Thats not what rational argumentation means. It means examining beliefs and justifying them in a coherent and consistant way. It's not objective, it's applying logic to the subjective such that it can be something other than a battle of wills.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 07:11
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I don't give two shits about the fact that fascist morality or bourgeois morality are built coherently and rationally. Their axioms are detestable, and so are their conclusions, so for this they should be excised. But these views certainly are not uncommon in the US or elsewhere, so it seems useful to be willing to address and dismantle those arguments in a general debate and discussion forum rather than seek to ban anyone who deviates from a fairly narrow (fringe?) worldview. "Bourgeois morality" runs the world, like it or not. Yes, you could draw a parallel with permitting [white] nationalism given its similar prevalence. But most people/outlets that promote those ideas seek to deny they're the primary motivations for their policies. It's okay to debate and discuss with people even if you find them or their views reprehensible. D&D is essentially practice for the real world, except people are generally smarter, better informed, and there's a higher standard for defending your claims. And it's good practice to be somewhat cordial here given that telling people elsewhere they're stupid and awful mostly hardens their stances Plus the range of acceptable and correct views have changed radically over the course of the 15-20 years that it's pretty short-sighted to ban or probe anyone that doesn't adhere to the consensus view at any given point in time.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
If you want a hugbox go make your own personal reddit, where you can ban anyone you want and make sure only the correct leftist thought is available. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 08:15
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Do you have any evidence this wasn't already the case? I was thinking back to when LK probated predicto for saying early on that the jussie smollett attack seemed suspicious. FAU admitted it was a mistake. I and a couple other goons called for an apology but got none.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Here's an idea for a new rule: Moderators have to apologize if they gently caress up. Absolutely not. Enjoy your ban.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 08:33
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:Absolutely not. Enjoy your ban. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
debate is valuable for refining an argument [the freaking dialectic] but worthless for actually countering fascism or whatever. the idea you can change lurkers' minds is kinda attractive, but i don't think there's any real evidence of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 09:48
|
|
|
exmarx posted:debate is valuable for refining an argument [the freaking dialectic] but worthless for actually countering fascism or whatever. the idea you can change lurkers' minds is kinda attractive, but i don't think there's any real evidence of it. The idea that any of us should expect that we're doing anything productive by posting here is I think kind of questionable. Speaking for myself, I post sometimes because I like talking about about serious or complex subjects in a more serious way than happens in C-SPAM. And I like reading arguments that are well thought out or, at least, clever. Being totally honset, I don't expect to change anybody's mind on much of anything. If I do then that's great, but I'm not expecting it and it's not why I post. IMO viewing D&D as a place to crusade against fascism or racism or any other ism a poster feels they have to utterly destroy and deny a platform to is one of the things that makes it such a lovely read right now. Not because fascism or racism or etc are ok, but because people tend to jump directly from "Huh here's this argument/poster I don't like/agree with" to "OMG MY ISM..." and instead of a debate there's pages of people shouting at and past eachother, which sucks to read and has to be a pain in the rear end to mod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Let's not make any hypothesis on what the rules I suggest would have meant for the discussion of a conflict that happened some two decades ago, before the forums even existed. Let's look at the present: my frame would force all the posters in the Venezuela thread to self-crit, don't tell me it's a bad thing. I don't accept your equivocation, no. I don't think the Venezuelan posters that have been gifting us with their time and effort as they share their views of the politics of their collapsing country for years should "self-crit" in the same way as low-info high-ideology assholes who come in to poo poo on the thread every time they can finally find an excuse to claim that something is America's fault there, making it unreadable and useless to anyone not so ideologically inclined. I don't think that's what would make that thread better. The time the thread was better was when I repeatedly probated the one guy who kept barging in with propaganda pieces and told him to stop posting there. But now there's at least half a dozen such posters, and they do not get sufficient time outs, and good posters who have actually contributed to that thread get probated as well, again, not actually improving that thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
Time and effort spent in the defense of the bourgeoisie or interventionism is doubly criminal - not just because it is in the service of obscene ideologies, but also because it ought to be better spent elsewhere. I have no respect for the fascist shitposter, but even less for the fascist effortposter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 14:48
|
|
|
I never understood why people treat a thread having a strong debate as a bad thing. Yes, it might mean you see arguments you don’t agree with and people might even repeat arguments that sound similar to you, but isn’t that what debate and discussion always is? (And of course, be sure your arguments sound repetitive to those that disagree with you.) Like the I/P thread is always more entertaining when someone actually defends the actions of Israel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
D&D is potentially educational entertainment with a real life risk of normalizing hazardous thoughts in real life. Please remember to be excellent to each other and properly maintain your guillotine so it operates efficiently and cleanly. If you have a rule you think should apply to the sub forum, please explain:
Rules are fundamentally about control and while we moved into a hell timeline a few years ago now, we can't really create perfect forum order, as tempting as that might seem. Personally the only rule I'd feel strongly about is "The Nazi is always wrong" Problem: white supremacy is on the rise Rule method: The paradox of tolerance starts at home Why it needs to be a rule: I'm not convinced it does, hence why i havent suggested it, if we need this rule, poo poo is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So specifically when someone comes in advocating say, market based solutions to things. I think they're probably advocating in good faith, but I also viscerally dislike that idea and think it is extremely stupid, but not necessarily trivially so. So I'm gonna proably respond contemptuous but with the basic amount of wordiness required to give some suggestions for why it's stupid. If someone does that in a thread where the consensus is that it's stupid however, it's probably gonna be more of a collective thread dunk. Who's served by trying to restrict it? The people who were actually trying to have a discussion in that thread - before it got swamped by lurkers and white noise bottom-feeders who've come out of hiding to mob the thread with insults because they've identified a piece of low-hanging fruit to take aim at. I don't care about one or two people being contemptuous. But it's never one or two people slinging insults. People who normally have nothing to say come out of the woodwork like roaches to join in on the dogpile. It takes over the entire thread, shutting out discussion through the sheer volume of spammy one-liner shitposts. And it's easier to just ban that completely than to impose some kind of arbitrary limit on how many people are allowed to be mean at once. Trabisnikof posted:I never understood why people treat a thread having a strong debate as a bad thing. Yes, it might mean you see arguments you don’t agree with and people might even repeat arguments that sound similar to you, but isn’t that what debate and discussion always is? (And of course, be sure your arguments sound repetitive to those that disagree with you.) The I/P thread used to get deluged by people accusing each other of being shills, plants, and straight-up agents of foreign governments. It got so bad that the subject was straight-up banned from D&D for multiple years. The reason it handles dissent so well these days is because the mods watched it with an iron fist when it was brought back, handing out probations like candy and keeping everyone on notice that the topic would be banned again if the discourse failed to improve. Since the mods weren't inclined to exercise restraint in a thread that had long been known for being troublesome, most of the troublemakers were quickly driven out, along with many of the white noise cheerleaders who contributed nothing except making GBS threads up the thread when arguments broke out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Also, on a completely unrelated note, can we please dial down the mega tweetdumps outside of the news threads? If I wanted to do a Twitter search for "politics" then I could do it myself. I don't need someone doing it and dumping twenty-plus totally unrelated tweets all at once in a single post with zero discussion whatsoever several times a day. If you want to post a tweet or two, or even a tweet thread, and then actually initiate a discussion on it, then that's great. If you're just playing human RSS feed and posting thirty random tweets you found interesting for the hell of it, then that's basically just spam as far as I'm concerned, and it's rare for more than a couple of them to spark discussion. It's annoying since I'm usually browsing on mobile so it takes a bit to scroll past it, and there's not really any reason to be doing these discussion-free newsdumps in discussion threads now that we have dedicated threads for posting just news with no discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also, on a completely unrelated note, can we please dial down the mega tweetdumps outside of the news threads? If I wanted to do a Twitter search for "politics" then I could do it myself. I don't need someone doing it and dumping twenty-plus totally unrelated tweets all at once in a single post with zero discussion whatsoever several times a day. At the very least if you're gonna post a tweet you should be required to actually say something about it, there's currently 2 people dumping 20 tweets at a time nearly every day in USPOL now, if I wanted to look at tweets with no discussion I'd be on twitter I mean the random animal tweets they post in them generate more discussion than any of the news tweets they're dumping, if the news ones are even acknowledged at all
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
I don't mind the tweet dumps so long as they're just in the us news thread. Seeing them x2 in both that thread and the USPOL thread is obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
I love PPJs and the other posters tweet dumps. They also drive some people here I like nuts. It seems like a forums culture gap. I also like well sourced effort post threads quite a lot. I think the limiting the number per post is a good idea. We also shouldn't let people quote the whole drat thing to respond to one tweet. It's a new thing and the etiquette around it is still pretty new too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Sekhmnet posted:I don't mind the tweet dumps so long as they're just in the us news thread. Seeing them x2 in both that thread and the USPOL thread is obnoxious. As a longtime enjoyer of the former Trump threads (RIP), I disagree. PPJs tweet dumps were either born there or at least widely celebrated there. And since, by whatever mysterious reasons, the trump thread was forced to become the USPOL thread, the USPOL thread is a natural fit for them. Also, that thread moves so fast, if PPJs tweet dumps chap your hide, you can probably just skip the page they're on and now you'll just be n-1 pages behind instead of n.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
lifetime supply of Pocky posted:As a longtime enjoyer of the former Trump threads (RIP), I disagree. PPJs tweet dumps were either born there or at least widely celebrated there. And since, by whatever mysterious reasons, the trump thread was forced to become the USPOL thread, the USPOL thread is a natural fit for them. I like the tweets I just think they should pick a thread. One or the other y'know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
The odd tweet dump is generally appreciated in UKMT also, usually helps drive some discussion and also means I don't have to read twitter myself because my brain would rot and fall out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Sekhmnet posted:I don't mind the tweet dumps so long as they're just in the us news thread. Seeing them x2 in both that thread and the USPOL thread is obnoxious. Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. There's an entire dedicated thread for discussion-less linkdumps, which was split off from USPol specifically to meet the demands of people who thought USPol was getting too much discussion in their news. There's no need to crosspost them into other threads as well. If someone sees a specific link in USNews that they want to discuss further, they can copy it over to USPol, but putting entire tweetdumps there just clogs up the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Most people are just posting tweets one at a time anyway and commenting on that because message boards are now several generations behind current Internet social media. As long as it is controlled I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I'd rather read a litany of tweets from good sources I probably didn't know about than read most of the rest of the current events white noise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
At the very least you should have to post some words with the tweet, not just dump it into a discussion with zero context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Sometimes the tweet itself is content relevant to the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Sometimes the tweet itself is content relevant to the discussion. Even saying something like "this seems relevant to the discussion" would be fine, I would just like less posts that are just a tweet and nothing else. This is a discussion forum, not Twitter. E: VVV Okay? Not sure what that has to do with anything. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Some of us don't use twitter outside of tweets posted by others here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Even saying something like "this seems relevant to the discussion" would be fine, I would just like less posts that are just a tweet and nothing else. If they're gonna post a tweet just let them. Forcing them to do some "not an empty quote" bullshit to get around a stupid rule is really pointless. Ifit's relevant to the topic then it'll be obviously so and they won't need to inform you. My vote is for continuing the tweet dumps in both threads. They're actually good in the USPol thread because they're about the only thing that will get them off of whatever Personal Anecdote About X Thing That Has Nothing To Do With Politics derail they're on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Maybe just fewer tweets per post
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2019 00:08
|
|