|
Volkerball posted:he claimed his posting enemies have designs on the mass murder of internet marxoteens because i made a snipe about him not being humane. a very textbook dnd mod these days sure, but thats only because he's ~ideologically correct~ I mean no, that is not what you said. In fact this is maybe a really good illustration of how people in D&D apparently are clueless to how they actually come off in arguments (and I guess I'm guilty of this as well). Cause if you really think that you said he wasn't being humane then you should refresh your memory: Volkerball posted:Don't try to pretend there's a human being behind your godawful cynical screeds lol. Perhaps the key to improving D&D is all of us regulars trying to be better instead of holding out in the hope that if we just appoint one more mod maybe things will get better. D&D will only improve if the people posting in it improve.
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
I'd third Fritz. The President's thread is a bright spot of detailed research and well-sourced information.
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
Maybe we should put the discussion of a new mod on ice until the discussion of a new set of rules is finished. It feels like half the problem with D&D right now is that everyone is just hoping that a new mod will come in and finally see the wisdom of banning all their posting enemies. The forum is over reliant on mods to maintain order as it is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Speaking in business terms, it needs to be an outside hire, if any. Time to remod fishmech
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I mean no, that is not what you said. In fact this is maybe a really good illustration of how people in D&D apparently are clueless to how they actually come off in arguments (and I guess I'm guilty of this as well). Cause if you really think that you said he wasn't being humane then you should refresh your memory: Definitely posted that with a machete in my hand. I treat a discussion with the exact amount of seriousness it warrants. I do post seriously and have civil, good discussions. I've posted a ton of info over the years in the Middle East thread that fit into the talking points being used by people all over the political spectrum because that info was important and relevant regardless of who's ideology it benefited. But when I'm getting swarmed with people claiming I support the Iraq war (I don't), I support a war with Iran (I don't), or I just mindlessly support the US foreign policy establishment (I don't), I'm not gonna pretend I'm having a rational discussion with normal, civil people.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Definitely posted that with a machete in my hand. I treat a discussion with the exact amount of seriousness it warrants. I do post seriously and have civil, good discussions. I've posted a ton of info over the years in the Middle East thread that fit into the talking points being used by people all over the political spectrum because that info was important and relevant regardless of who's ideology it benefited. But when I'm getting swarmed with people claiming I support the Iraq war (I don't), I support a war with Iran (I don't), or I just mindlessly support the US foreign policy establishment (I don't), I'm not gonna pretend I'm having a rational discussion with normal, civil people. So here's the thing. I more or less think the same of myself. The problem is that leaving it up to every individual D&D poster to decide when it becomes acceptable to drop any pretense of decourm and just start flaming the other side is a big part of how D&D ended up with the toxic gridlock that it's currently experiencing. Even in cases where it is totally justified to flame another poster the result is to degrade the overall quality of the forums. This is something we're all guilty of to a greater or lesser extent. I think the only way D&D would really realistically improve would be if a bunch of us actually decided to trust the mods to consistently punish that behaviour. And that would partially require a leap of faith on our parts, a willingness to start over and hope that a new set of rules and a new commitment from regular posters might actually lead to a bit of a culture shift. Basically, posters like yourself and myself would have to resist the urge to flame other people whenever we feel personally justified in doing so, because even if we're in the right in that individual situation we're still making the forums worse overall. This is sort of a tragedy of the commons situation in my mind, where each of us being our own judge about when to be rude or when to be nice has resulted in a downward spiral of nastiness. I think to solve it we all need to mutually agree to cede some of our current power to the mods. Let them be the arbiters of bad posting. I don't know if that'd be a perfect solution and I think some amount of aggression in arguments is good and keeps things spirited, but obviously right now D&D is at an unsustainable level of saltiness and I can't imagine how much worse things could get as the next election draws closer. And just to emphasize that I think it really is possible for us all to be better, I wanna make a proposition to you Volkerball. If you'll agree to join me then why don't we both toxx right here and now that for the entire month of May neither of us will make any personal attacks on anyone else in D&D?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Maybe we should put the discussion of a new mod on ice until the discussion of a new set of rules is finished. It feels like half the problem with D&D right now is that everyone is just hoping that a new mod will come in and finally see the wisdom of banning all their posting enemies. The forum is over reliant on mods to maintain order as it is. this is because most of the posters are unwilling to change their behavior. looking to mods/rules to fix things is because they have much more power than us all saying "let's be nice to each other". it's a good sentiment but: a) the entire subforum isn't reading this thread b) there are posters here who have the goal of being mean to other people so they won't abide by this standard c) "be nice" is a fairly subjective standard and there can be disagreements about what is/is not nice d) "be nice" is also not an acceptable solution when you have people who are fundamentally posting in bad faith and trying to derail or warp the discussion to their benefit i'm not saying a goal of everyone trying to be nice/respectful to each other is bad or worthless, but it's only part of the picture. without some sort of enforcement mechanism there's no way to incentivize the change. it's a tragedy of the commons problem basically.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
I'd support Fritz too even though I don't post much and mostly lurk.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
axeil posted:this is because most of the posters are unwilling to change their behavior. looking to mods/rules to fix things is because they have much more power than us all saying "let's be nice to each other". it's a good sentiment but: If those of us who actually want a better place to discuss and argue things could self impose a slightly higher standard of posting then it would make it much easier for the mods to identify and remove the genuine problem users and actual trolls.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
I think d&d needs a lot more mods than just one more and that the admins need to take a hard stance against any blue stars that violate d&d rules, even lightly. In any (normal) hierarchical structure it's expected that those with power set the standard by behaving to that standard (even if that fails so often) so it's always depressing to see blue stars making poorly thought out sweeping statements, nothing matters-ing, and just generally engaging in lovely behavior. Leadership sets the tone, and an explicit rule against attacking blue stars (mod sass) means they are leaders. FAU admitted in qcs that his former employment encouraged a toxic "win at all costs" behavior, and I do think that guided a lot of his posting in d&d, but he's said he's trying to change that thinking and I think any rules or future mods should examine that shift. There's always a lot of talk about how the subforums have their own cultures and mods are reflections of that but the at times confusing moderation and mod behavior makes d&ds naturally volatile culture get even more heated, not less. The only other options I can think of offhand would be to go full secret police with anonymous mods or to eliminate any rules except for things that would reasonably result in law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I think d&d needs a lot more mods than just one more and that the admins need to take a hard stance against any blue stars that violate d&d rules, even lightly. In any (normal) hierarchical structure it's expected that those with power set the standard by behaving to that standard (even if that fails so often) so it's always depressing to see blue stars making poorly thought out sweeping statements, nothing matters-ing, and just generally engaging in lovely behavior. Leadership sets the tone, and an explicit rule against attacking blue stars (mod sass) means they are leaders. Zachack nails it. I'm sorry, but half the problem with D&D is mods (whether of D&D or other forums is irrelevant, they still have the mod marker next to their username) causing problems in threads. Many times they get away with it. These are terrible things.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Speaking in business terms, it needs to be an outside hire, if any. IMO, what we need to destroy is the constant attempts by people to destroy their posting enemies. Most of the problems in D&D are problems it's long had and always will have, but the stupid vendetta garbage has really been on the rise lately. And that does bleed into mod selection and mod choices. Because on the one hand, as much as I like our current slate of mods, they're just completely overwhelmed by the sheer amount of garbage D&Ders manage to create in this forum. But on the other hand, the people who see every disagreement as a sign of bad faith and make it their goal in life to drive out their posting enemies tend to extend that same behavior to screaming about every mod action they disagree with. When poster A eats a probe for doing something on page X, and poster B doing the same thing goes unpunished on page X+5, that's typically just a case of the mods not seeing the second post or being offline when it happened...but there's a better-than-even chance that the people who dislike poster B will be shouting about it for weeks, citing it as evidence of a vast mod conspiracy to collide with poster B to take over the forum. And then a month later, poster B will get probed while poster A goes unpunished, and the same thing plays out all over again with the roles reversed. Every single mod decision is taken personally by someone, and no imperfection or humanity is permitted to them. The same people who think that their petty arguments in some random SA thread are actually important are sure to believe that modding is a deadly serious activity and that a single perceived inconsistency in the allocation of sixers should be punished by purging the entire mod team. No matter what rules we make, a handful of people are never going to be able to police every single bad post in this high-activity forum. More mods may help, but moderation will never be 100% perfect, and I think there's a tendency among many D&D posters to immediately assume malice on the part of the mods any time they disagree with a decision. I suspect that's where many of the people demanding clearer rules or fixed bright-line tests are coming from, but no matter how clear we make the rules, we're still not governed by omniscient modbots who are continuously monitoring every single post in every single thread. There's going to be mod decisions you're going to feel are not completely consistent, and it'd be nice if we didn't immediately assume malice every time something slips through the cracks. After all, a lot of the time, the people who are actively engaged in a thread can't even manage to keep track of what their fellow debaters are talking about; it shouldn't be surprising when mods miss things sometimes. Ideally, we wouldn't even need moderators. Their main role is as janitors who are mostly here to clean up after us when we poo poo on the floor, jam both hands into the pile, and start flinging it at each other. I've reluctantly accepted that D&D is never going to be clean of poop-slinging, and that the forum will quickly become unusable if we don't have mods cleaning up after our poop festivals. But when we start following them around with tape measures and stopwatches, carefully measuring to see if they clean up both sides of the poop fight with equal speed and thoroughness, I start to wonder if we're not misplacing our priorities - after all, the mods aren't the ones spreading the poo poo in the first place. Consistent and thorough cleanup is important to keep D&D from becoming completely intolerable, but the attitude that leads people to hold grudges against mods because of a misplaced sixer three months ago is the same kind of attitude that leads to the creation of most of the mess in the first place. Of course, I'm not saying there should be no oversight whatsoever, since there have been plenty of cases of biased mods in the past. But some of the D&D whine threads in QCS have alleged a conspiracy among the mod teams of multiple forums (with admin approval and participation) to banish particular posting cohorts or ideological stretches from the forums, and I feel like that's a pretty clear sign that people's bias detectors are way too oversensitive. Especially since most of the people hurling accusations of bias tend to be dwell in glass houses. Again, no matter what rules we put into place or who we appoint to the mod team, there are always going to be cases of two people doing the same thing and only one getting probated. If we can't accept that happening sometimes, then all this talk is going absolutely nowhere. And before someone brings it up, no, I wouldn't extend that same courtesy or benefit of the doubt to cops. But cops loving murder people. Mods give people six hour posting vacations. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:in addition to discussion of the tentative rules i'm also fielding suggestions for an additional mod here. do not nominate yourself. SuperMechaGodzilla
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
The risk that comes with creating more mods is that every mod necessarily has their own perspective, their own idiosyncrasies, their own personal idea of what is good or bad posting. As things stand people are already complaining that the mods aren't entirely consistent in the application of probations and bans. If we don't find a way to address that perception of inconsistency then adding more mods will probably just exacerbate the problem. As things stand you'll have situations where one mod will see a user posting a certain way and not probate them, then later a different mod will come in and punish that same post that the last mod was fine with. The result can be a sense that all mod actions are arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Zachack posted:. I half jokingly said that if I was ever made mod I would pony up ten bucks for an account that would rotate through forum denizens and have mod powers and nobody would ever know who was posting alongside them and, hell, The second idea was that but give it to everyone and make everyone the secret cop and watch the chaos unfold
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:
Now we're talking! Give literally everyone in D&D the power to give out 6 hour probations. "Every Man an Idiot King"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Now we're talking! Give literally everyone in D&D the power to give out 6 hour probations. Institute Liberum Veto.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Okay I'm changing my vote to Main Paineframe, he made some excellent points. I'm a swing voter! 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
I'd be good with Fritz. I'd also nominate Friendbot2000. I don't know why, just get "good poster" vibes. Not that I really relish nominating people, given how lovely modding looks to be given the folks you have to deal with. Case in point: Helsing posted:The risk that comes with creating more mods is that every mod necessarily has their own perspective, their own idiosyncrasies, their own personal idea of what is good or bad posting. As things stand people are already complaining that the mods aren't entirely consistent in the application of probations and bans. If we don't find a way to address that perception of inconsistency then adding more mods will probably just exacerbate the problem. As things stand you'll have situations where one mod will see a user posting a certain way and not probate them, then later a different mod will come in and punish that same post that the last mod was fine with. The result can be a sense that all mod actions are arbitrary. We don't have AI mods yet capable of ObjectiveModding_2.0. Until we do, the chance of seemingly arbitrary decisions due to imperfect bias management among mods is a minor side effect of the necessary act of human beings moderating other human beings. The inconsistency is not ideal, but there is not a method of remedying it that doesn't result in a shittier system with more convoluted rules and arbitration and whatnot, when all that's effectively bitched about is a 6/12/24 hour vacation from posting.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Pander posted:
Sorry, I guess I should have made this more explicit in my last post. I don't actually object to how D&D is being modded right now, I think it's working pretty well, and insofar as there are problems in D&D they are being caused by external political changes, not a failure by the mods team. However, there have been a lot of complaints recently about mods being arbitrary and unfair and clearly some people don't consider the current mods to be doing a legitimate job. I'm saying is that just adding a bunch more mods isn't going to solve the problem people currently say they have with mods not being consistent enough.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:IMO, what we need to destroy is the constant attempts by people to destroy their posting enemies. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:53 on May 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
More mods won't necessarily fix consistency (although increasing numbers does increase the odds of them learning from each other), but it would address the sheer quantity problem where clearly obvious bad posting can go unaddressed for too long. Theres probably a "too many mods" point but we aren't there yet, and not enough mods exacerbates the claims of bias because one biased mod carries so much power. Many mods won't solve the conspiracy claims that Main Painframe described, but it might reduce the claims that Mod X has a specific grudge against Poster Y when Poster Y starts eating larger probes from Mods Z, #, and ¥. And if a mod actually does have a bias in favor of certain posters/beliefs then increasing the number should decrease protections for those groups (unless it's a necessary protection in which case that should be stated for all posters to understand). Finally, more mods in general should reduce the potential for Us vs Them thinking by mods and increase transparency. I work for a very top-light entity and it has real problems in information moving and wagon-circling that probably wouldn't be nearly as bad if moving up wasn't seen so much as both an incredible accomplishment and a lonely tower.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Squalid fool_of_sound posted:Main paineframe These are good too. And so is Fritz.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Also consider ignoring us more. When a reporting slap fight breaks out , don't nessisarily give it attention. Part of why it happens is that people seem to feel it works.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Also consider ignoring us more. When a reporting slap fight breaks out , don't nessisarily give it attention. Part of why it happens is that people seem to feel it works. Related to this, it would be nice to get feedback on your reports. I try to report stuff if I see it but I'm never sure if I'm tilting at windmills or if these are good/legit reports. Of course, I imagine given the volume of reports getting feedback is realistic, but it might help cut down on the volume if, after a report gets misc'd or otherwise not acted upon the reporter got a heads up or if a report lead to action they got a message confirming the report was correct/helped. That would help cut down on erroneous reports and hopefully increase the overall report quality.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Sometimes a very small amount of feedback can make huge difference too. Import hazardous to the US is like 60-70 % improperly secured. Outbound is like 10%. The feedback from a very, very, small number of people causes that difference. I guess what I'm saying is don't underestimate what even a tiny feedback loop can accomplish. But it has to be persistent and consistent.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Maybe we should put the discussion of a new mod on ice until the discussion of a new set of rules is finished. It feels like half the problem with D&D right now is that everyone is just hoping that a new mod will come in and finally see the wisdom of banning all their posting enemies. The forum is over reliant on mods to maintain order as it is. Your belief is that rules without mods will...enforce themselves?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Your belief is that rules without mods will...enforce themselves? No admins or mods only shitposting.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
re-mod Koalas in here, if she'll take it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Your belief is that rules without mods will...enforce themselves? Helsing posted:If those of us who actually want a better place to discuss and argue things could self impose a slightly higher standard of posting then it would make it much easier for the mods to identify and remove the genuine problem users and actual trolls.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:When poster A eats a probe for doing something on page X, and poster B doing the same thing goes unpunished on page X+5, that's typically just a case of the mods not seeing the second post or being offline when it happened...but there's a better-than-even chance that the people who dislike poster B will be shouting about it for weeks, citing it as evidence of a vast mod conspiracy to collide with poster B to take over the forum. And then a month later, poster B will get probed while poster A goes unpunished, and the same thing plays out all over again with the roles reversed. Main Paineframe posted:Every single mod decision is taken personally by someone, and no imperfection or humanity is permitted to them. The same people who think that their petty arguments in some random SA thread are actually important are sure to believe that modding is a deadly serious activity and that a single perceived inconsistency in the allocation of sixers should be punished by purging the entire mod team. No matter what rules we make, a handful of people are never going to be able to police every single bad post in this high-activity forum. More mods may help, but moderation will never be 100% perfect, and I think there's a tendency among many D&D posters to immediately assume malice on the part of the mods any time they disagree with a decision. I suspect that's where many of the people demanding clearer rules or fixed bright-line tests are coming from, but no matter how clear we make the rules, we're still not governed by omniscient modbots who are continuously monitoring every single post in every single thread. There's going to be mod decisions you're going to feel are not completely consistent, and it'd be nice if we didn't immediately assume malice every time something slips through the cracks. After all, a lot of the time, the people who are actively engaged in a thread can't even manage to keep track of what their fellow debaters are talking about; it shouldn't be surprising when mods miss things sometimes. Masking posters' names in the mod queue is impractical for a number of reasons, but the mod team should at least commit to handling each case in identical a manner as possible. Unoriginal Name posted:Contrary viewpoint: No. The mods making personal calls to probate you means the forums are functioning correctly.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Okay... can you explain what you find particularly offensive about my posting so we can discuss whether or not there ought to be a rule against it? You believe contrary viewpoints are necessary to the health of discussion. You didn't say anything about the nature of my arguments used to support such viewpoints. It's almost like there should judgement calls made about our standards of argumentation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Bright line rules are meant to alleviate exactly this problem of perceived unfairness. If, every time someone used an ad hom attack, they got a time out, irrespective of how "justified" their feelings were, there would be no question of fairness. A catchall rule reinforces this problem, because it allows every mod's individual biases to guide what they think constitutes "lovely posting." If you reported the same poster six times for posting variations on "eat poo poo, fascist/tankie" and it never gets dealt with, how seriously would you take subsequently being probated for "bad posting?" I've been in that exact situation, and I didn't make a big deal about it because I don't need every single post I dislike to be punished, even if they're genuinely rule-breaking posts. When I report stuff, it's usually to draw mod attention to a trend - one lovely post tends to beget another lovely post, which pisses off someone else and leads them to make more lovely posts, and so on until discussion as a whole breaks down. As long as a mod comes in to drop a "cut it out" post to clog up the D&D toilet before the whole thread spirals down the drain, I'm happy with the result, so I'm not going to go comb over the last few pages of the thread to make sure everyone got a probe that I thought deserved a probe. If I got probed, I'll just go do something else for six hours, like read an informative thread I've fallen behind on, or load up a videogame, or play with my dog, or do some actual work at my job for a change. There's plenty of real injustice in the world for me to get angry about, I don't need to blow my top over a sixer. And I'm certainly not going to go try to spitefully poo poo all over a forum I otherwise enjoy just because I wasn't 100% happy with a particular moderator decision. Even if I'm annoyed and want to blow off some steam for whatever reason, I can just call people dumbasses in C-SPAM for a while.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
I'm not in favor of new mods anymore. I am in favor of more idiot kings. If it were technically feasible, I'd like to see thread creators automatically made idiot kings of their own thread.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:If it were technically feasible, I'd like to see thread creators automatically made idiot kings of their own thread. This here might solve everything straight up or make multiple competing threads for each topic.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
until the report button is made available to non plat make it allowed in the rules to tell nazi punks to gently caress off
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
also anyone advocating for lesser rules or "freedom of debate" rules are nazis, fyi see: facepunch as a solid example for how not banning nazis trying to """debate""" can swing a forum from left leaning to being another festering hive for nazis
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Literally nobody is advocating for allowing nazis to post at all, much less give them a 'fair' debate, happy to help.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 09:21 |
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:This here might solve everything straight up or make multiple competing threads for each topic. it would be more egalitarian at least. would be worth a shot, but i suspect not possible in radium code. If it is, might require mods to do it manually.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 00:57
|
|
