|
lifetime supply of Pocky posted:I think ~13 pages ago or so, I also advocated for the perma-purging of the gun ghouls who brigade into dnd in the wake of mass shooting horrors. If we can't ban them we should ban the discussion as a whole. There's precedent, I/P discussion was banned for a few years
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 04:59 |
|
|
twodot posted:No, gently caress you, answer the question. Do you want to have a conversation with someone who has uncritically adopted the doctrine of the Catholic Church and how do you imagine that conversation would go? "I believe in the doctrine of the Catholic Church" "Ok, well that doctrine is dumb and wrong" "Nonetheless I believe in that doctrine and literally no evidence that could possibly exist will ever change my mind"? This happened like five years ago and it was rhe best thread on the forum
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
To be clear: I don't want to create a ~safe space~ for conservatives and chuds. Quite the opposite in fact, I'd like a space where we can be vigorously and mutually unsafe (with our words) with each other within certain behavioral boundaries. It'll be a hot mess, but the forum is necessarily going to be messy where its a forum at all because *looks outside at explosive poverty, injustice and immiseration*WampaLord posted:If someone has honest good faith questions about a topic like gender dysphoria, I trust the mods judgement to allow that kind of posting to continue unabated. If it shifts into transphobia, time for the ban hammer. In broad strokes I generally agree with this which is why I personally think the best change isn't a "rule change" as such to eliminate my forums enemies, but a style guide to contain words I'm gonna get mad at and which will make other people mad at least, and a structural revision of the entire point of D&D's purpose as a forum at most drastic because right now its basically tweets and passive-aggressive report abuse. twodot posted:If you write a good bright line, people dancing up to it isn't bad though. Like "No insults" is a bright line I can understand and apply when writing posts, and if people dance up to line while still not posting insults, then it still has achieved the goal of no insults. "Insults are ok, unless a mod thinks they are bad, and then you will be punished somehow" means I get to pick between just treating it exactly like a bright line, or get, from my perspective, randomly punished because I don't have a copy of every mod running in my head to advise me on what insults are "bad enough". Exactly this, yes. e; BENGHAZI 2 posted:This happened like five years ago and it was rhe best thread on the forum I'd quibble over "best" but generally: also yes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:. Look, in hindsight that was a masterful troll job, if he had managed to take it on the road it would have been TT 2.0
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:This is probably broader than the current thread topic, but I've seen a bunch of sentiments to this extent in QCS before too, and it seems real lovely. It basically amounts to, "yeah sometimes mods are abusive assholes, oh well what can you do?" Not accusing you personally here, it just sucks rear end if the response from other mods or admins to mods or IK's doing obviously lovely things is just shrugging their shoulders. It's fine in CSPAM even though it sort of goes against the "more relaxed than DnD" thing in the forum description but it's found its place filling the void left by LF so you should kinda expect that sort of thing there.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Look, in hindsight that was a masterful troll job, if he had managed to take it on the road it would have been TT 2.0 lets just say i have strong suspicions how getfiscal was filling out his Posting Diet before his twitter blew up.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, gently caress you, answer the question. Do you want to have a conversation with someone who has uncritically adopted the doctrine of the Catholic Church and how do you imagine that conversation would go? "I believe in the doctrine of the Catholic Church" "Ok, well that doctrine is dumb and wrong" "Nonetheless I believe in that doctrine and literally no evidence that could possibly exist will ever change my mind"? Or, if I was having fun with it, I would dunk on what I saw as the inherent contradictions in their position and move on with my life. I don't know if you remember Eripsa/Reality Apologist's threads, but if you do, tell me it wasn't at least a little fun talking to someone who genuinely believed something truly bonkers and out there, and wasn't afraid to discuss it. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:36 on May 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
I dont know anything about mnoba but after seeing that ban reason and seeing how LK acts around the forums I'm not inclined to believe the protestations of "oh it was because of his post history" Also, if your first reaction to seeing someone post an opinion you disagree with is to insult them or go mining through their post history like a fat communist Inspector Gadget then you are one of the problems with D&D and not them. Greater punishments for going off topic in any particular thread would be a good thing. PPJ has been doing that with the Venezuela thread and it's helped quiet things down in there a bit because some of the serial threadshitters are spending more time on probation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, if I was serious about it, I would try and guide them to an understanding of the harms caused banning abortion, and from there to an understanding that perhaps allowing some form of abortion leads to a world that more fully enables humans to live the complete lives that God wants for them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:I don't have a problem with bonkers beliefs, but there needs to be a fundamental agreement on the structure of reality and evidentiary standards or there is just no conversation to be had. Treating "God told me the one true abortion policy" like it's a real position worthy of engaging does a disservice to everyone involved. If you're arguing with someone and you ask why and they say because bible you can always just say ok then and move on, though?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:lets just say i have strong suspicions how getfiscal was filling out his Posting Diet before his twitter blew up. No Hepburn avatar, wasn't him.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Except that the mod team isn't willing to say where that line is or how they're going to make those decisions. Will it be fool_of_sound's overly broad definition that encompasses standardized testing? Will it change depending on how angry people are at the news cycle or who is minding the mod queue? I don't know, but I don't think it's fair to say that posters should have to pay $10 (more if they have Plat or an av) to find out where the line is this week, or learn to modify their behavior from probations if the rule they broke is "you know what you did." In general, when someone gets a probe with a "you know what you did" message, they do indeed have at least some idea of what they did. If they really can't figure it out, they're free to lurk more until they manage to figure out what they did wrong. Sure, that sounds mean, but let's step back for a second here. I'm contesting the very idea that the repeat offenders who spend more time on probation than off it really just don't know what the rules are. I mean, plenty of us manage to handle our day-to-day posting without getting probed a couple times a month. And it's not like the mods hand out anything more than slaps on the wrist for the first dozen or so offenses. If you're getting a ban, then either you've stepped way over the line, or you have a very long history of rule violations. I see rap sheets with entries like "Racism. User loses posting privileges for 1 day" all the time, so clearly there isn't a problem with people being slammed with racism bans out of nowhere. Ultimately, this goes back to what I was saying before about how we posters need to clean up our own acts and think about how to better contribute to D&D, rather than blaming everything on the mods who have to clean up after our garbage. Instead of arguing "well, what exactly do you mean by 'racism' anyway", can we just assume the mods are halfway reasonable people? Because no matter what the rules say, every mod action comes down to their discretion anyway. If a line seems a bit vague, that's just more encouragement to keep your distance from that line, rather than tiptoeing right up to it and then getting mad if you stumble or the line shifts in the wind.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:I dont know anything about mnoba but after seeing that ban reason and seeing how LK acts around the forums I'm not inclined to believe the protestations of "oh it was because of his post history" "Cradling mnoba, the nazi, in my arms, that these vicious blows fall upon my body rather than his" why exactly should we be sad a nazi got banned? and seeing that someone's post history has a bunch of nazi poo poo in it is in fact a very good reason to ban someone for being a nazi! if he didn't want to get banned perhaps he should've tried to not be a nazi.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
axeil posted:"Cradling mnoba, the nazi, in my arms, that these vicious blows fall upon my body rather than his" personally I looked up mnoba's history because I thought "is this guy actually a nazi, given his nazi avatar and his refusal to even respond to questions about his nazi avatar?" and that history confirmed he'd already been given far more chances than any reasonable person could expect
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
AGGGGH BEES posted:I dont know anything about mnoba but after seeing that ban reason and seeing how LK acts around the forums I'm not inclined to believe the protestations of "oh it was because of his post history" Mnoba was a long time garbage poster who liked to smugly post right wing email forward tier nonsense intermingled with benign stuff to encourage calm hitler.jpg type reactions from other posters. He routinely generated a ton of reports as well. That, and yes, I am willing to say that if you still support Donald Trump in 2019, you are garbage. Sorry. We can debate on if people who did support him, past tense, have learned their lesson, but Mnoba is the poster child for “toes the exact line he feels he can get away with while inciting a bunch of drama” and I was glad he finally publicly declared something actually really lovely. If you don’t think supporting Trump, present tense, is actually pretty loving bad in 2019, on top of being a long term garbage poster in general, I’m sorry you are also bad. But handwringing about how I didn’t write a novel of a ban reason for you when you can just go read his posts is asinine.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That, and yes, I am willing to say that if you still support Donald Trump in 2019, you are garbage. Sorry. We can debate on if people who did support him, past tense, have learned their lesson, but Mnoba is the poster child for “toes the exact line he feels he can get away with while inciting a bunch of drama” and I was glad he finally publicly declared something actually really lovely. So you'll be formalizing this into a "no Trump supporters" rule, then?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So you'll be formalizing this into a "no Trump supporters" rule, then? You seem awfully concerned about that, I wonder why. And that isn’t a decision I would make unilaterally, but Mnoba was not terribly subtle about his political affiliations or broader ideology, he just toed the line on saying it out loud.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:So you'll be formalizing this into a "no Trump supporters" rule, then? Why bother making a subset of the "don't be a racist" rule imo
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You seem awfully concerned about that, I wonder why. I've pointed out several times that I didn't vote for Trump and changed my party affiliation the day after the "both sides" presser, but why let actual facts supercede a smug punch down? Anyway, what he actually said "out loud" was that he supports Trump. I think it's fair to ask if this is a bannable offense or not. Can you clarify, please.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I've pointed out several times that I didn't vote for Trump and changed my party affiliation the day after the "both sides" presser, but why let actual facts supercede a smug punch down? Yeah so you would not fall under the "people who support him in 2019" banner, why are you wringing your hands about this
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Why bother making a subset of the "don't be a racist" rule imo Can you be a trump supporter and not be racist?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I've pointed out several times that I didn't vote for Trump and changed my party affiliation the day after the "both sides" presser, but why let actual facts supercede a smug punch down? Presently, no. I banned Mnoba because he’s awful and that was the most convenient post. He generated about 25 reports that day. If he were a regular bad poster I probably would’ve given him a week. You’ll note I didn’t even give him a perma. He just has to pay the bad poster tax. I recall banning you and telling you to gently caress off, and yet curiously here you are and I have no plans to punish you. Partly because you are nominally a better poster now. Also you are correct about the ableist ban message, in that it is bad. Though I do not possess the power to change it, nor indeed do I know if we can without breaking the forums.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Thank you for at least looking into the ban pic.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
"cspam is the place where disparate folk can go to learn and talk about the issues of the day in a collegial atmosphere which assumes good faith and punishes minimally" is not the takeaway i expected from this thread, but i sincerely respect the newly-articulated clarity of vision.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:"cspam is the place where disparate folk can go to learn and talk about the issues of the day in a collegial atmosphere which assumes good faith and punishes minimally" is not the takeaway i expected from this thread, but i sincerely respect the newly-articulated clarity of vision. LF effort threads were always infinitely better than D&D "discussions"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Thank you for at least looking into the ban pic. So I asked and apparently it’s been brought up before and the problem is that changing it requires “a SQL query on ZDR's part to edit the leper's colony” which I don’t know what that means but there are a variety of technical and practical reasons why that can’t happen atm.  Note: I do not know what an “SQL query to edit the leper’s colony” means I just am reporting verbatim what I was told.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Can you be a trump supporter and not be racist? Yeah it's absolutely possible to support an administration that devotes a lot of it's time and energy to being insanely racist and xenophobic without being racist yourself but uh that Venn diagram is a slightly blurry circle so forgive me for assuming that if you like the racists you are one
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Joke response dang I didn't realize Davis "on paper I'm a huge white nationalist. On paper" Aurini was a poster here
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:LF effort threads were always infinitely better than D&D "discussions" I agree, its just a sign of how far we've come--or perhaps gone--that even D&D's mods are admitting it at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Can you be a trump supporter and not be racist? I got in a lot of trouble with some friends of mine for asking this question out loud in a restaurant in a red state in 2016. They were worried someone would mess with our food. The answer then, as now, was "in theory, yes, if you are profoundly ignorant. In effect, though, no, not really, because you're giving effect to racism."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I got in a lot of trouble with some friends of mine for asking this question out loud in a restaurant in a red state in 2016. They were worried someone would mess with our food. I also think there's a distinction to be made here between random voter 473 from vumblefuck Tennessee who thinks about politics once every four years and someone actively defending the policies of the administration on the something awful comedy forums for the dead and gay on the internet You, internet poster arguing that actually the Muslim ban is good, do not get the fig leaf of not really knowing what's happening besides what filters through to you and not being really engaged
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Quite the opposite in fact, I'd like a space where we can be vigorously and mutually unsafe (with our words) with each other within certain behavioral boundaries. That type of conversation carries the risk that the participants might have parts of thier identity changed by the conversation. It's only possible between individuals (knowingly or not) that are willing to take that risk. Conversation like that are a threat to the self. And I think the report spam abuse ( and the conversation meta gaming and trolling) is a symptom of fear of that potential threat. The tweets are a different thing, that's a stylistic cultural / language change happening in the wider culture, filtering down to here.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 04:30
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Yeah it's absolutely possible to support an administration that devotes a lot of it's time and energy to being insanely racist and xenophobic without being racist yourself but uh that Venn diagram is a slightly blurry circle so forgive me for assuming that if you like the racists you are one The problem is this thinking can be easily extrapolated to political figures beyond Trump. Is it possible to support Biden given his prior history and not be racist/xenophobic? Or even if he is perceived to represent maintaining a level of status quo is that itself could be considered racist or xenophobic? This same thing can be extended to any individual policy as well. Is it racist to not support illegal immigration or open borders because presumably the majority of immigrants would not be white? Is it misogynistic to oppose abortion in any way simply because it's women that personally undergo the procedure? There's nothing wrong with having DND cater to a specific worldview. It's a paid forum and everyone is free not to read or participate and go elsewhere. Just say that though and acknowledge the end result will likely result in the range of acceptable opinions will continue to be narrowed given the nature of who's not probed/banned at any given time for any given reason. That isn't "fair" to those pushed out and creates an echo chamber for those that remain, but if that's what posters/mods want then why dwell on it? D&D is one of many, many places to post about politics and has zero real world influence.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Is it misogynistic to oppose abortion in any way simply because it's women that personally undergo the procedure? Yes This specific example came up like two pages aho my guy
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:D&D is one of many, many places to post about politics and has zero real world influence. Despite this forum being both dead and gay, this is an arguable point. More than one writer for a mass media outlet reads and posts here.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
I don't mean to obfuscate the obvious issue of poisonous posters ruining serious / general-use threads, but I would like to point out that if the new rules are to include hard clauses like no advocating dumb things ever, we couldn't have the comedic threads like Eripsa's "social media but it's used for a fascist dystopia". Confining aggressively stupid posters to their own threads could be a work-around for this, the libertarian thread's history has a lot of jrod idiocy where among other things he defended slavery-advocates, but so long as it remained in the libertarian thread where everyone else just mocked him, it made for funny reading. Or if aggressively stupid posting is meant to go to c-spam from now on, I guess that works too 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 06:43
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Yes Yes, but the point is you're making assumptions about the underlying motivations or desired outcome of those that hold this position. I don't think most people that oppose third trimester abortion without medical need are doing so because they dislike women and want to make their lives worse. They want to avoid aborting a viable fetus (of any sex!) because they find it morally objectionable. If the argument is that this position could potentially result in negative outcomes for a woman and is therefore misogynistic, you could make that same argument in regards to essentially every policy that has disparate effects by race, gender, region, class, etc. Moderating allowable policy based on expected outcomes is impossible unless there's uniform agreement on the outcome or even whether that outcome is ideal. Unoriginal Name posted:Despite this forum being both dead and gay, this is an arguable point. More than one writer for a mass media outlet reads and posts here. It doesn't really matter if one writer or even a few writers read or post here. No one is writing widely read think pieces about supporting/lamenting the progression of D&D from Ron Paul chat in the 2000's to its current form in 2019. If D&D ceased to exist tomorrow it'd get far less coverage than Free Republic, pol, TheDonald, Breitbart comments, etc. Trump would have been banned 100x over if his tweets were posts and he's the president -- the forum isn't trying to cater to a broad audience or a full range of views nor does it necessarily have to.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 06:49
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Moderating allowable policy based on expected outcomes is impossible unless there's uniform agreement on the outcome or even whether that outcome is ideal. Nope, again, the entire system relies on moderation discretion. Uniform agreement is literally impossible when dealing with hundreds of different posters. The unspoken side of this argument that you are making with your dismissals of "the forums aren't the real world" is that the forums can actually cause harm in the real world. If a minority poster has to read a bigoted post attacking them, that causes actual harm to that poster, a small amount but harm nonetheless. That's why one of the rules is no bigotry. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 06:57 on May 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Moderating allowable policy based on expected outcomes is impossible unless there's uniform agreement on the outcome or even whether that outcome is ideal. Pretty sure the mods can agree with themselves on what they believe the expected outcome is. They do not need you to agree with their belief.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 04:59 |
|
WampaLord posted:Nope, again, the entire system relies on moderation discretion. Uniform agreement is literally impossible when dealing with hundreds of different posters. Yes, and moderator discretion depends on who the moderators are and how/if they come to a consensus on any decision. I don't think it's unfair to say that the moderators here aren't as ideological diverse as the country, the democratic party, or lefty/progressive subgroups of the democratic party. That's fine enough if that's space people wish to create, but it'd be helpful if there were clear arguments that were off limits rather than trying to police underlying motivations and intent which is inherently subjective and unknowable. If people find those explicit rules too restrictive then they're free to go elsewhere. It's really just whether people want to debate and discuss among 100 people with narrower views or 1000 people with wider views or whatever. Chances are anyone that perceives they're being personally attacked/harmed due to content in a forum like D&D is going to find that to be the case nearly anywhere else. D&D already has an opt-in policy, a relatively narrow range of tolerated views, and strict moderation. That's true today and was largely true of D&D 5-10 years ago relative to where the public discourse was at that point in time. What is the better alternative other than twitter where you can choose to only follow specific people or facebook groups with personal invitations where every individual has moderation power?
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2019 07:42
|
|