|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'm not in favor of new mods anymore. I am in favor of more idiot kings. No more kings! We need Democracy in posting
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:This here might solve everything straight up or make multiple competing threads for each topic. no it wouldn't lol. megathreads are already little fiefdoms with their own cultures and you want that to be formalized?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Maybe allow the OP of a thread to also be IK for that thread. You'd be guaranteed to have someone with an interest in monitoring the thread also available to mod it, at least. If it got out of hand you could de-IK people? edit: It would make the personality of the thread very dependant on the OP of the thread but at least posters would know what they were getting into?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
I don't think the forums have the capability to even set per-thread IK's. Not sure but I'd be very surprised if it were possible.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Maybe allow the OP of a thread to also be IK for that thread. You'd be guaranteed to have someone with an interest in monitoring the thread also available to mod it, at least. If it got out of hand you could de-IK people? At that point why not just go to reddit? Part of the appeal of an old school debate forum like this one is the weird mixture of different personalities and opinions.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Helsing posted:At that point why not just go to reddit? Part of the appeal of an old school debate forum like this one is the weird mixture of different personalities and opinions. Gonna agree with helsing here. It'd also encourage redundant threads due to personality conflicts and people rushing to be OP on a topic to be IK. A few more mods or thread-specific IKs who are lurky and relatively neutral regarding those threads would be way better than Every OP an Idiot King.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Every OP an idiot king would silo the discussions here. I'm for more IKs, but i'd think they'd have to be mod chosen.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:At that point why not just go to reddit? Part of the appeal of an old school debate forum like this one is the weird mixture of different personalities and opinions. To me, D&D often only offers slightly different flavors of what are more or less the same opinions because anything deviant causes certain posters to lose their minds and swarm like angry bees. Creating IKs who can enforce thread-specific civics might make it possible to at least create some spaces where that doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:To me, D&D often only offers slightly different flavors of what are more or less the same opinions because anything deviant causes certain posters to lose their minds and swarm like angry bees. Creating IKs who can enforce thread-specific civics might make it possible to at least create some spaces where that doesn't happen. Having six different ideologically segregated threads on every topic is loving stupid and also the entire point of reddit.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Since apparently it's an unwritten rule anyways mabye you should actually add that saying "I'm voting for Trump" is bannable ps I'm voting for Trump (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:Since apparently it's an unwritten rule anyways mabye you should actually add that saying "I'm voting for Trump" is bannable Being a trump voter is not an auto ban but it correlates very highly with other behaviors which are bannable, such as being a jackass / racist / idiot / bad poster / white supremacist / etc.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Having six different ideologically segregated threads on every topic is loving stupid and also the entire point of reddit. Reddit threads are often more readable then SA threads. Let that sink in. =(
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Reddit threads are often more readable then SA threads. Let that sink in. =( I suggest you go there then? Cause hard disagree.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:Since apparently it's an unwritten rule anyways mabye you should actually add that saying "I'm voting for Trump" is bannable What is there to debate and discuss about "i'm voting for trump in 2020"?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Being a trump voter is not an auto ban If D&D banned people for being jackasses, idiots and bad posters consistently there'd be about 3 posters left
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
The best thing I can say for this thread is that it removes any doubt that the big complainers in QCS actually wanted anything other than to have all the opinions they dislike banned. This gets particularly blatant when you have people who don't even post in D&D and claim to despise the entire forum coming in to complain about the rules, but at least AGGGGH BEES has the balls to say the quiet part loud.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:Since apparently it's an unwritten rule anyways mabye you should actually add that saying "I'm voting for Trump" is bannable Voting for trump in 2020 means you are an absolute poo poo person so yeah, I'd support making it bannable because it would let us keep out poo poo people.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The best thing I can say for this thread is that it removes any doubt that the big complainers in QCS actually wanted anything other than to have all the opinions they dislike banned. This gets particularly blatant when you have people who don't even post in D&D and claim to despise the entire forum coming in to complain about the rules, but at least AGGGGH BEES has the balls to say the quiet part loud. The QCS threads have made it clear that far-left posters openly like that the forum feels unfair because they felt they were being picked on in the same way when other people were mods. The solution kinda feels like "Maybe the politics mods shouldn't be harsher on people who don't share their politics" but currently we're stuck on disagreeing on how to do that or if that's even the real problem. I agree that we have had lots of people come into the thread and post that they want entire sets of opinions blanket banned, which is ridiculous in a debate forum. Nevvy Z posted:What is there to debate and discuss about "i'm voting for trump in 2020"? If we're now above doing the simple work of telling people why we think they're wrong, the sentiment that we might as well be posting on Reddit is 100% accurate. But the move to having almost everything encapsulated into megathreads organized by continent has also helped move us toward that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:The QCS threads have made it clear that far-left posters openly like that the forum feels unfair because they felt they were being picked on in the same way when other people were mods. That's not at all what they showed. And if you're going to quote the one singular post I made about "feels lovely when it happens to your side" you can stop yourself right now. Those threads were filled with the actual discussion of the real problem, which was that "dems bad" chat was literally probateable because the USPOL crowd didn't want to hear honest criticism of their side and just wanted an echo chamber. eta: for the record, I don't want a USPOL thread that is only "dems bad" chat or where "dems good" chat is probated on site, I would like the forum called Debate and Discussion to be capable of Debating and Discussing things and not just outlawing them from the discourse WampaLord fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I agree that we have had lots of people come into the thread and post that they want entire sets of opinions blanket banned, which is ridiculous in a debate forum.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Just by saying racism isn't tolerated (and it shouldn't be) we've already agreed to a framework that makes entire sets of opinions banned. From there it's just a question of what other sorts of opinions don't merit any discussion. Except you have entire cadres of people running around declaring that anybody who disagrees with or criticizes them in anyway is automatically racist. It's like this "voting for Trump automatically makes you a bad person" crap. I suspect people posting that have never bothered actually talking to a Trump voter or asking why they voted for Trump. Same goes for the "if you don't like Hillary the only possible explanation is sexism" nonsense. It's impossible to have any kind of actual debate when "everybody that disagrees with me is an abhorrent monster that should be banned from everything forever" becomes an acceptable opinion to have or gets enshrined into the rules.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
You seriously think posters in here haven't interacted with trump voters in real life? That all of them managed to avoid knowing or being related to the 1/4 americans who voted for him? You think that a fuckton of posters in here haven't watched people they cared about turn into rabid fascists from right wing media poisoning? Literally every right winger I've ever seen in D&D has the same playbook: making snide comments and refusing to commit to their opinions, all the while toeing the line on anti-bigotry rules as closely as possible, then having a hissy fit in QCS when they finally get probated or banned.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:It's impossible to have any kind of actual debate when "everybody that disagrees with me is an abhorrent monster that should be banned from everything forever" becomes an acceptable opinion to have or gets enshrined into the rules.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
"But it's a discussion forum" I whine as I sit down with Nazis
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean I agree this is true, but it's also true that you can't have any kind of actual debate with abhorrent monsters, thus the ban on racists. We can have a discussion on what constitutes abhorrent monsters (and I would include literal Republicans on that list), but we can't pretend the abhorrent monsters don't exist. The larger issue on that front is that we're trying to have a discussion forum about politics when roughly a third of the nation's voters are explicitly horrible monsters who have no problem endorsing racism and white supremacy. Kids are getting thrown in cages. There are foreign nation states deliberately engineering large-scale poisoning of our discourse. It's not a zeitgeist which encourages calm dispassionate debate. We're basically trying to carve out a small oasis for reasoned discussion in the middle of a hate tornado. Basically everyone is on edge and exhausted and enraged. It's an inevitability.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Having six different ideologically segregated threads on every topic is loving stupid and also the entire point of reddit. Unlike reddit, we have moderators who can review the multiple topics and eliminate the ones with bad cultures, poorly performing IKs and so on, until only one topic remains with a good and trustworthy IK.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The larger issue on that front is that we're trying to have a discussion forum about politics when roughly a third of the nation's voters are explicitly horrible monsters who have no problem endorsing racism and white supremacy. Kids are getting thrown in cages. There are foreign nation states deliberately engineering large-scale poisoning of our discourse. Do you really think that this just started in 2016? Because that stuff has been going on for the last several presidents/congresses. Comments like this: Hieronymous Alloy posted:Being a trump voter is not an auto ban make it pretty obvious that only "correct" opinions are allowed. It seems like in DnD any criticizing of a certain side's politicians results in being called a trump supporter, followed by being accused of all the stuff you just posted. And I agree with bees. Just make it an official rule that only a certain point of view on politicians/politics is permissable here and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:It seems like in DnD any criticizing of a certain side's politicians results in being called a trump supporter It could not be more obvious you haven't read D&D in years lol
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Basically everyone is on edge and exhausted and enraged. It's an inevitability. This. Unrelated to that: WE ALL CAN LOOK AT POST HISTORIES AND RAP SHEETS SPACE TOASTER.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:It could not be more obvious you haven't read D&D in years lol Ouch. BrandorKP posted:
So? What have you found in your detailed search of my "POST HISTORIES AND RAP SHEETS" that is so damning? I think that kind of cheerleading/shutting down of discussion should be against the rules in DnD. Like, your first instinct when seeing someone post here is to try and find a GBS shitpost so you don't have to engage?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
axeil posted:Voting for trump in 2020 means you are an absolute poo poo person so yeah, I'd support making it bannable because it would let us keep out poo poo people.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:That's not at all what they showed. "that's not what it was about" *immediately confirms that's what it's about* And not directed at anyone in particular, yes we ban racists and such. Nothing wrong with that. After too many examples from the same poster in most cases, but we do it. But many posters ITT are going farther than that and shitposting that we need to ban people who criticize BLM and basically anyone not in the far-left hugbox. Name Change fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:And not directed at anyone in particular, yes we ban racists and such. Nothing wrong with that. After too many examples from the same poster in most cases, but we do it. But many posters ITT are going farther than that and shitposting that we need to ban people who criticize BLM and basically anyone not in the far-left hugbox. edit: I've been beating this drum and I'm going to keep on doing it. IF there was an active, thriving thread on "What has BLM done wrong!?" that wasn't obviously just racist, I would understand this concern, but there is no such thread, and unless there's someone who wants to stand up and say "I will champion the criticism of a Twitter hashtag that is in favor of black people not dying in a non-racist way" I don't see why anyone should care about the entirely theoretical downsides of banning that discussion. twodot fucked around with this message at 02:12 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:"that's not what it was about"  very substantive argument. We have proof of our claim, it was called the "Dems Bad Containment Thread"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:It could not be more obvious you haven't read D&D in years lol Yeah, no poo poo, the general slur around here these days is "liberal" and every politician is criticized pretty much endlessly (yes, even Bernie) Actual republicans are like rare endangered unicorns in these parts spacetoaster posted:
This is kinda silly because it's obvious that trump support by itself isn't enough to get people banned or else Mnoba's rap sheet would have been a lot shorter (because he would have been perma'd long long ago before he racked up his first page of offenses). I mean, I'm not a mod in this forum so I'm just speaking for myself here, but if we adopted the RPG Codex rules on trump support I wouldn't shed a single tear. But if by "only correct opinions are allowed" you mean "white supremacists get banned" then, like, that's not a problem. There are, unfortunately, plenty of other places where that poo poo is tolerated. If that's what you want go there. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:12 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, no poo poo, the general slur around here these days is "liberal" There's a reason I chose that Phil Ochs avatar.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:if by "only correct opinions are allowed" you mean "white supremacists get banned" then, like, that's not a problem. There are, unfortunately, plenty of other places where that poo poo is tolerated. If that's what you want go there. No, I do not think banning white supremacists/nazis is a problem. Nowhere in anything I've said was that ever intimated. This hyperbole that you can't help but spew is the kind of stuff I'd like to see the mods come down on hard in DnD.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Ok, then what are the 'incorrect" opinions you think should be allowed, but aren't? I mean, if you post pro-trump poo poo everyone's going to yell at you because he's a horrible monster person but that's a distinct issue from mod action. Public shaming of horrible opinions is how this place has always worked, it's never been a hugbox. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:37 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 03:33
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, then what are the 'incorrect" opinions you think should be allowed, but aren't? I don't really want to start posting individual probes/bans and arguing over them. But I do think that a more stringent enforcement, or maybe an update, for the No Cheerleading rule, and the No Low Effort Responses rule, would be a good idea. Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, if you post pro-trump poo poo everyone's going to yell at you because he's a horrible monster person but that's a distinct issue from mod action. Public shaming of horrible opinions is how this place has always worked, it's never been a hugbox. Well yeah, that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
spacetoaster posted:I don't really want to start posting individual probes/bans and arguing over them. twodot fucked around with this message at 03:47 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 03:44
|
|