|
Mark me down as someone who appreciates a good one-liner or short post as well, or Tweets used to spur discussion. This idea that every post needs to be an “effort post” just seems like it’ll lock out everyone except the most longwinded posters, because “effort” always means “length” in these discussions. Lead out in cuffs posted:I have seen the issues with the US election thread, and it does seem to me that all the low-effort problem posters have NoJoe tags, while the posters who get probated are the ones who call them out. It’s amusing to me that both sides of the GE divide seem to believe the other side isn’t being moderated harshly enough in that thread. It’s not surprising, but it is amusing. Most people seem to believe the mods have an ideological bias, but I think it’s much more likely they just have real lives and aren’t interested enough in moderation to carefully parse every conversation. But I’d be interested in seeing better data on the topic. quote:doomposting I haven’t seen anyone in that thread “doomposting” for awhile now. Part of the problem with the “no naming posters” policy is that we can’t ask for actual examples of this, because I’m honestly curious what posts people think are “doomposting” in that thread. See also “nothing matters” and “nihilism,” all of which seems to be flung at posters who are critical of establishment politics in America pretty indiscriminately.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Back from football, Drew Brees is washed. Going to do my best to respond with that I am thinking. If there is something specific you want me to address, please signal boost it or ask me with a direct question. Discendo Vox posted:Moderators are going to have to be selected at least in part from people who are not presently active in DnD. They will also need to be able to commit to not weighing in with their personal positions on subjects of intense disagreement. Even setting actual bias aside, it's too easy for bad actors to use moderator posts and opinions as fuel to drive attacks on the people enforcing the rules. The new IKs can probably speak to this. I don't think picking mods from outside the community is a good idea. I understand the want for true neutral, but when you dont have context for things, you cant make good decisions. I think every mod and IK should be someone from the community that posts and reads along with everyone else. Now, just as another part of this, all reports are read by at least 1 mod and 1 admin. That is the bare minimum and usually it is more people. Issues are bumped up to the mod forum where all the mods can take a look and give opinions. This includes a lot of neutral people who don't read D&D giving opinions. It doesn't happen for every issue but anything questionable is discussed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
I've posted about this elsewhere, but I think the GE thread is uniquely toxic because people want different things out of it and those things are entirely irreconcilable - and I've been guilty of falling into that conflict. For some posters, the idea of voting for Biden is immoral, period, regardless of circumstance - and this first principle defines how they frame the discussion of the General Election. For them, its not enough that they're not voting for Biden, nobody else should be allowed to vote for Biden. For this group, the topic of should you support Biden or not in the general election is actually quite simple, in that any vote for Biden for any reason is equally immoral because of who Biden is, independent of circumstances. And this, then, necessitates approaching discussing the General Election in a particular way - and, of particular importance to this thread, how to reply to people who don't agree that any vote for Biden is immoral - which is the second group of posters, who want to talk about the General Election in general, or differences between the two candidates. I think that this divide is essentially poisonous to any sort of actual discussion, because what are you discussing? For one group, if anyone disagrees with you they're not only wrong, they're a monster. For the other group, not voting for Biden is hopelessly naive and childish.That's why we've incidents of sexual assault survivors being called rape apologists, which is just awful. And I'm not here to say that either approach or belief is wrong in and of itself, or wrong outside the confines of this forum (for example we don't have a thread in which people can debit the merits of supporting Trump), but in the context of D&D as it exists as a discussion forum it does create a toxic environment, because you're no longer discussing an issue where there is perceived space for disagreement, and it leads you to assume the worst about other posters (remember, they're not just wrong, they're immoral or childishly naive). But here's the rub -- I don't want any these people to stop posting in D&D, I just think we need to very upfront about what the purpose of a thread is. If the General Election thread isn't to actually discuss the election or have a meaningful discussion about the differences between the two candidates, then just be upfront about that - and don't call it the General Election thread, call it the "Referendum on Joe Biden and the Democratic Party" thread - or just merge it with the protest voting and electoralism thread, because that's what this discussion is actually about. This is especially problematic because people outside of D&D who are non-regular posters will sometimes venture in hoping to learn more about the election, read what the General Election thread is, and get shocked and step away. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
We've got C-SPAM and GBS for people who want lighthearted or low-content posting. D&D needs to have a distinct identity, a reason for existing rather than being just another version of six others. We don't need to appeal to everyone. Being the Efforpost/Seriouspost forum is appropriate for it. That doesn't mean no jokes and no fun, just a more technical and fact-based approach.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
Debate assumes an adversarial good faith format and I've yet to see a situation where it doesn't encourage anything but trash Ben Shapiro type posting. I think the political forum would benefit from taking an attitude of workshopping and teaching and looking to improve understanding rather than assuming there is a value in that adversarial engagement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:What makes you come to D&D to post, read and interact? What is it that keeps you coming back? I come here to defeat my posting enemies in glorious combat. I guess it would be nice to have some kind of xp tracker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:53
|
|
|
Zachack posted:On a technical side possibly more suited for qcs, the report system needs a major overhaul. Even just being able to see if a post has been reported from the thread would be a major improvement, and there are a lot of transparency problems with the current system that I think result in some negative posts going unreported and moderator actions appearing inconsistent. One idea, albeit with foreseeable drawbacks, would be making reports visible but anonymous to both illustrate what someone is asking to be punished and, by virtue of semi-visibility, be motivated to put some thought and effort into the report. There are some changes to reports planned. The ability for multiple people to report 1 post is a big one. Now, whoever gets there 1st gets the word in. It's then up to the mod to figure out what the gently caress. In the future, multiple people can all report something and add to it. The mod will be able to see what everyone says and make a better decision. Effort into reports is also a big thing I'd like to find a solution too. So many times someone just reports someone with the reason "BAD" and if it's not clear, you have to play detective to figure it out. There are a lot of things about the report system that can be improved and hopefully some of that will be soon. Zachack posted:Mods should feel free to forever banish people whose goal seems largely to make others feel worse - if their views have merit then someone else will surely come along to express them without endless venom, snideness, or passive aggressivity. And it doesn't even seem like some grand purge is needed, given that a single long probe can turn a thread from a slog into a pleasant-ish read. SA has decided that serious racists do not deserve a voice here - why should the extremely toxic receive any less? There has been a recent push from the admin team to let mods know if someone is a repeat offender and cannot learn, people can be thread banned and forum banned. There are so many cool people who make great amazing posts all around the forums but get into certain places and just cant find a voice that isn't toxic. Hopefully these type of things will let those people hang out in places they enjoy and not have to take away their ability to post everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:54
|
|
Athanatos posted:I don't think picking mods from outside the community is a good idea. I understand the want for true neutral, but when you dont have context for things, you cant make good decisions. I think every mod and IK should be someone from the community that posts and reads along with everyone else. Okay, how about the rest of my post.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I do feel we need to help encourage more high effort posting. I try to set an example but I will admit that sometimes I am too guilty of not doing enough. One easy thing to start doing is having a rule of looking to see if something was posted in the last 2 or 3 pages of a thread. I know in USPOL lately it has been particularly bad where the same thing will have been posted by different posters every 2 pages. I don't think it is a huge ask to have someone check the last couple of pages of the thread to see if something has been posted already, especially if it a current event thread effectively. Is this the same tweets and links being posted over and over or discussions being brought back up? I remember so long ago we had a link checker if something you were linking had been posted recently, you got a little message. It did not last long because of server drag and radium, but it was cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The end result is that D&D is going to continue to culturally shift from a debate forum to a fraternal forum, and there isn't anything that is going to change that. I have been reading D&D for years and years, since the mid-00s, and it was seemingly always in the midst of that "cultural shift from debate to fraternal" and posters always complained about it. The actual political stances of posters and topics of conversation aside, debate in mid-00s D&D was not really that meaningfully different from 2020 D&D except for a vastly higher tolerance for grammatical and punctuational looseness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
I honestly mostly dig DnD as it is. I don't have much history posting here, but I read a lot of these threads rigorously and I really enjoy the discussions - especially the super contentious ones. I assume when many folks here talk about toxicity they are referring to the GE thread and maybe the US pol threads? The one thing I would change here would be to use a time machine and tell somebody not to try to quarantine saying negative things about Joe Biden or the Democratic party machine to one thread. Doing so created an environment that generated a posting system that some folks seem to really loving hate - to the point of intimating that the people they argue with there should be banned from the site. As it stands, this particular problem has a shelf-life of three weeks, so I don't think it's worthwhile to act on it now (apart from not making a new quarantine threads in general). Isolating ideologically different posting groups does not help us develop our understandings and beliefs or our ability to articulate those. We already have the tools for handling when this goes off the rails. We have the general DnD rules and we have thread-specific rules so if somebody engages in "I'm not tooouchiiiing you"-grade bad faith arguments then that's how you deal with them. What we don't seem to have is enough person-hours of moderation to make sure that rules are consistently enforced, which lead to people being convinced that their group is being unfairly targeted. As far as what's good, why I read it, and why I started posting here at all again: I love the variety of opinions that can be backed up. I am constantly being educated when I'm here, and that's loving nice. Sorry that was kind of disjointed, I'm a bit off right now and I originally mistakenly had most of this in the ramping probations thread. Apologies for any confusion, friends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:I've posted about this elsewhere, but I think the GE thread is uniquely toxic because people want different things out of it and those things are entirely irreconcilable - and I've been guilty of falling into that conflict. For some posters, the idea of voting for Biden is immoral, period, regardless of circumstance - and this first principle defines how they frame the discussion of the General Election. For them, its not enough that they're not voting for Biden, nobody else should be allowed to vote for Biden. For this group, the topic of should you support Biden or not in the general election is actually quite simple, in that any vote for Biden for any reason is equally immoral because of who Biden is, independent of circumstances. And this, then, necessitates approaching discussing the General Election in a particular way - and, of particular importance to this thread, how to reply to people who don't agree that any vote for Biden is immoral - which is the second group of posters, who want to talk about the General Election in general, or differences between the two candidates. I think this is getting into "worst interpretation" when obviously they would prefer other people be persuaded that they are correct, agree, and do similarly is becoming "NO ONE IS ALLOWED", which contributes to the hostility. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 04:59
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:I've posted about this elsewhere, but I think the GE thread is uniquely toxic because people want different things out of it and those things are entirely irreconcilable - and I've been guilty of falling into that conflict. For some posters, the idea of voting for Biden is immoral, period, regardless of circumstance - and this first principle defines how they frame the discussion of the General Election. For them, its not enough that they're not voting for Biden, nobody else should be allowed to vote for Biden. For this group, the topic of should you support Biden or not in the general election is actually quite simple, in that any vote for Biden for any reason is equally immoral because of who Biden is, independent of circumstances. And this, then, necessitates approaching discussing the General Election in a particular way - and, of particular importance to this discussion, how to reply to people who don't agree that any vote for Biden is immoral - which is the second group of posters, who want to talk about the General Election in general, or differences between the two candidates. This is more or less a natural consequence of banning any discussion of Biden's policies and record from the main USPOL thread and exiling it to the General Election one, namely - it's where people go to talk about Joe Biden, and all discussion of Trump just takes place in USPOL since he basically is politics in this country. It'd also be completely impossible to disentangle what is a general election maneuver on Trump's part compared to what is just, normal day to day politicking, and even more so at this point. On the other hand, the General Election thread at this point has an effective end date of maybe a month from now depending on how long it takes to resolve to resolve the results of election night/court cases/whatever, at which point Biden will largely become USPOL in the same way Trump is. (Well, there's still the lame duck period and I'm assuming Biden wins, but you know what I mean) Discussion of Biden's moral character, positive and negative, and the failings thereof would presumably be allowed back into USPOL at that point, much as discussion of Trump is now, right? Or will it need its own containment thread then, too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I have seen the issues with the US election thread, and it does seem to me that all the low-effort problem posters have NoJoe tags, while the posters who get probated are the ones who call them out. I don't know what the ultimate solution is, but enforcing effortposts and cracking down on conspiracy theory-style doomposting might help. This is kind of funny to me because in the... two weeks?... I've had this tag I've gotten a handful of messages from D&D regulars asking me why I have it, they didn't think I'd associate myself with "that group", etc. Whether the reputation associated with the NoJoe tag is warranted or not it is a little strange that people so vehemently react to it. I don't hang out in the GE thread because I feel like the vibe there isn't really constructive to hashing out deeper issues around individual decision making with regards to electoral politics and the presidential election in general. It's mostly a lot of tail chasing last I saw and it is not surprising to me that people on both sides get huffy about it because we're all kind of stuck until election day comes and goes, and all that frustration has to go somewhere. Effort posting as a solution feels very subjective if implemented at an individual level. Creating structure that brings people up to speed on the most recent developments in a thread and then sets the foundation for their engagement (in threads where there's a very specific intent with regards to the discussion) might be a better alternative. What that looks like I'm not sure. Can posts be stickied in a thread so that they appear at the top of each page? Like a regularly updated signpost that gives people the lay of the land.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:01
|
|
|
I posted about this earlier in the thread, but I think probably the biggest problem in D&D other than there not being enough moderators and IKs is there is no sense of community. I really think this needs to be addressed ASAP - and there's lots of ways to do it. I was surprised to see some of the posters who I've argued the most with in the GE thread (including some who have called me out in QCS!) join in the book review roulette thread - and I'm glad of it! Here are some other ideas of things that I think would be good for community building: 1. Fun mod challenges with prizes (i.e. compose an epic poem to Joe Biden). 2. Trying to organize more contests/interactive events around big events we'll be liveposting during, i.e. debates - maybe like a debate bingo challenge with avatar or gang tag prizes. 3. Book groups and movie watching threads - why not have a thread where we watch a political-related movie or documentary every week and discuss it? Just because D&D is the "political" forum it also doesn't need to be the zero-loving-chill stressed to the max 24/7 forum either. Harold Fjord posted:I think this is getting into "worst interpretation" when obviously they would prefer other people be persuaded that they are correct, agree, and do similarly is becoming "NO ONE IS ALLOWED", which contributes to the hostility. Obviously we're talking about the extremes here - and lets be honest, its the extreme ends of the spectrum which are generating the reports and contributing to the toxicity (and its on both sides, people do troll the anti-Biden posters), but I do not feel the GE thread has space for "charitable disagreement" at all, i.e. if someone decides that despite the discussion they will vote for Biden because of whatever reason, the response isn't going to be "fair enough, I respect your decision." I instead feel the approach is "I know I am right and I will do my best to educate you, the incorrect person, of your wrongthink to bring you to the light." Also, ask yourself this: why do you want people who disagree with you to post there? Is it because you find value in their contributions and want to discuss the topic with them? Or is it because you want to essentially proselytize to them and convince them that you're wrong, and they're right? The disagreement is so fundamental that I don't know how you resolve it to have a reasonable discussion because it frames how you approach the topic in every sense. But maybe we don't need to resolve it - just be clear of what the purpose of thread is, and let that work out as it is. Athanatos posted:I read all of it. I didn't see anything that needed a large breakdown, but since you asked: Have you had a chance to read the threads discussed here? Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Okay, how about the rest of my post. I read all of it. I didn't see anything that needed a large breakdown, but since you asked: I think the first part sucks for those people. Anyone run out of a place for sharing opinions is not sustainable. I agree with your containment feelings. It's echo'd from other people, and I am forming a post on it and some other things for when I get a chance. Moderation can always be more consistent. It's hard sometimes because context matters, history matters, did the thread move on matters. I don't think there is ever a "This happened, that means This punishment" standard that can ever be set perfectly. Those are my thoughts as I'm re-reading your thread. If there is some specific question you want to drop I can try and answer it. A lot of the posts here I find myself nodding along with, or making a note of for other Mods/Admins. If I don't break down all of your post I'm sorry, but if asked something I will do my best to be open and honest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:I created the polls thread because I wanted a place to talk about polls and electoral strategy and I wasn’t able to do that in the GE thread - and apparently enough people also agree that they find that topic interesting because it’s a fairy busy thread and doesn’t seem to generate much drama or reports. I think that means the system works - and is probably some proof that smaller threads with a narrow focus are good. A lot of people have issues with "Megathreads." I think they have a place, but if there are topics that come up a lot, they can always be split off into their own thing. It's probably healthy for a Megathread to spawn other threads and should be encouraged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
eke out posted:it could be a fun thing that people could opt into when they're making threads, clearly state it in the OP and let mods enforce it. but, as you mention, it'd just add more poo poo for mods to do and I think establishing a baseline of "actually have enough mods to do all the poo poo that needs to be done" has to be the first priority before adding more work Yeah, I am back and forth on this. I don't think enforcing grammar rules is the answer, but there is something to be said for having to scroll past 8 posts of "lol" to get to someone writing something real good. It may not be the answer to have full effort posting, but it's something to think about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:10
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:I do hear a lot about Doom Posting, and Doomscrolling. Question for anyone, do you think a mod team should try and be arbiters of optimism in threads? What about if it gets to a point where someone is ONLY posting negative "we are all doomed" type things? Ugh; please don't do this. Both dailykos & democraticunderground have rules against doomposting (specifically: about the democratic party & nominee), and as a result both are sycophantic circle-jerks (but I repeat myself). What originally drew me to posting in D&D was its wide variety of opinion & high level of posting--a place in which I could make the libertarian case for single-payer in order to successfully convince a libertarian goon of its merit. That somewhat diminished in '08 with obamarama, and the few years thereafter in which it was haram to mention, say, the drawbacks of the Obama-Biden Grand Bargain (as my rap sheet attests). I got weary of pointing out that the then-nascent administration had no intention of passing a healthcare plan not rubber-stamped by industry lobbyists and, later, examining the deets of the ACA as enacted in a hostile arena & I left for greener posting pastures. The D&D of recent years has become a lot more readable, though I don't participate much bc of time. It sucks that uber-lefties have to be sequestered in order to create a safe space for those who can't bear to be challenged, and I'd prefer reading a general u.s. politics thread in which all viewpoints are aired & challenged, but calls for forums-wide censorship of views that make certain people's tummies hurt would be even worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:In addition to agreeing that dnd badly need more mods and Iks, I want to also add that one of the single biggest things that would help here is just people self policing more. The vast majority of what I have probated in my time as an IK is some low effort or aggressive poo poo that someone slammed out in 10 seconds and didn't give a second thought to. A huge amount of the aggressive white noise in DnD would be avoided just by people taking 5 seconds to proof read a post and asking 'does this add anything? am I being a dick?' and then deciding whether to close the window or to hit post. This is the kind of thing the Slow Mode is suppose to help. Just taking the 10 minutes to think about what you are typing next and the argument you want to make instead of just plowing in and firing off some attack. I know there was a Slow Mode Feedback thread in here. I hope everyone got to throw some good input it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
I'm going to try and keep my thoughts simple and to the point: Moderation of attitudes such as the alleged "doomposting" is always going to be controversial because the identification of "doomposting" is itself a subjective judgment. The question that d&d needs to resolve is if it's more manageable to take flak from those pushing for a more nonspecific definition of "doomposting" or those pushing for a more focused definition of "doomposting." One camp is going to walk away from any fundamental rule shift or amendment feeling slighted, and it's ultimately going to be the one that's easier for the mods and admins to buffer the blowback from.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Well maybe have the wording as "Put some thought into your posts". After all not every reply to a post needs to be a paragraph when it can be a sentence. It matters more if there is something worthwhile said. 6 is the lowest currently. (Well, you get a 15 minute probe if your thread is gassed, but it doesnt show on the Rap Sheet) Now that we are free of Lowtax, things can be improved and we have people who can code us stuff so different lengths are possible. I think different Slow Mode options would be better than shorter probations. That's just my opinion though, I am pretty hesitant to give probes and prefer warnings first. I don't really like the idea of a ton of super short probes for trying to drive a conversation. If other people think it would work well, I'm willing to hear it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Here are some other ideas of things that I think would be good for community building: I second these ideas as cool and fun, especially the book/movie club one. If D&D transitioned to a place where it's more fun to nerd out than rage out, I think that would be a useful pivot for the forum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:I didn't use the gangtag as a means to single out any posters as a principle (though there is a correlation, which let's be honest, is to be expected, even though someone shouldn't be judged solely on that), I merely used it as a general signifier of a subset of people who are, in essence arguing "Dems are not Left, ergo bad" and take it really loving far, and I used that specific label to put it in a context that someone reading this thread might be more likely to understand. Again, the triggering exchange to which I refer didn't even happen here so I'm drat sure not calling anyone out specifically, I merely used it as a jumping off point because it got me thinking about the issue that I do see, albeit more rarely now (without punishment at least) in USPOL for example. I fully understand and tried to make that clear in my post to you. I am sorry if I failed. It's just a thing I see a LOT around here. Assigning labels to people then going after that label.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
D&D debate club thunderdome where two posters are given oppositional positions on a ridiculous subject and are given three posts (argument, response, conclusion) to make their case. Voters determine the most compelling argument, which wins like a tag or av or something I don’t know
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:The opposite should be done with both GJB and Herstory. They are consistently arbitrary and petty in their probations, and have been consistently called out as such even though the team here desperately doesn't want to have any kind of conversation about it. MP in particular has gone on numerous probation tantrums over such callouts. I've found GJB to be decent and not really petty. His GE moderation seems fairly even-handed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
Just as another note here: The things I ask about or want more information on, I'm not going to be immediately put into effect in the rules or anything. Stuff like Effort Posts or Doomposting I mostly just want to get a feel for where everyone is at and see what people think about them. I'm mostly just spitballing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
In a perfect world we wouldn't have quarantine threads, but posters also need to accept that - within some limits - posters are going to have different opinions than than them and thats ok. Biden chat wasn't quarantined to the GE thread for no reason, it was quarantined because anytime someone would post a pro-Biden article a huge derail would break out either relitigating the Democratic primary or arguing that Joe Biden could never do anything good, ever. Its the same reason that two years ago "Dems bad" posting was also banned from USPol - because it lend to endless circular arguments which made the thread unreadable. Everyone needs to play nice in the sandbox! Athanatos posted:Just as another note here: In my eyes "doomposting" isn't disagreeing with a thread consensus or talking about how bad things are bad (because theres lots of bad things right now!), but a particular type of toxic, repetitive, hyperbolic posting that sucks the air out of a thread. I used a poll thread example earlier, but to elaborate in that context it'd be someone posting an elaborate fanfiction about soldiers storming ballot boxes and then refusing to engage with anyone explaining why that can't happen and doubling down on their original post. Or, to put it TFF terms, imagine Kwalimus turned to 11, but the Ravens are also 17-0 and winning by an average margin of 500 points, the Steelers have all been arrested and sent to a prison camp, and every time someone tries to point something out thats good to him or why his logic might not hold up he instead doubles down on how Lamar Jackson is actually a 6 year old toddler and theres no point in drawing breath anymore. I see it as a way to relieve stress by screaming in the void - which is ok sometimes, but isn't always appropriate for every thread, and (in my eyes) isn't particularly healthy for anyone to read. Another example is someone who is contrarian in a particular doomposting way to an absurd extent - you'll sometimes see this in a climate change discussion. Someone who replies to every post with "none of this matters, we're all hosed, hope is a lie and worthless." Or even takes it farther and adopts an anti-natalist, "having children is a crime and we should all kill ourselves" approach. Look at what happened after RBG died - people freaked out. And that's ok! But some of posts definitely crossed a line - and, credit where credit is due, the moderators did a great job keeping this under control. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I think the political forum would benefit from taking an attitude of workshopping and teaching and looking to improve understanding rather than assuming there is a value in that adversarial engagement. I think adversarial engagement is part of learning and teaching. Some of my first posts in D&D were some high school civics crap that got torn apart in no uncertain terms. It sucked and made me feel bad and also made me re-examine that position because I realized I really didn't have any sort of counterargument, and made me a lot more open-minded to the idea that what I had been taught might be wrong. Learning how to effectively critique or defend an assertion is useful, both as a rhetorical skill and because the sort of competition and emotional investment of the debate encourages learning more about the topic. Debate can be valuable even when it's unpleasant. The problem is that, for a number of people, the purpose of the debate is 'winning', defined not as actually convincing their opponent or learning something, but getting them to stop responding, by browbeating them, or prodding with snide, low effort counterarguments until they give up in frustration, or trying to get the mods to probate them. This is the kind of poo poo that I think really makes a thread go septic, when people, consciously or not, try to drive debate out of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:I don't think this kind of person should be allowed to post in D&D. It is honestly loving disgusting that the mods tolerate these people's presence and I can't understand why it's not banworthy. They got a week. I cropped out their name so I hope this doesn't count on breaking whatever rules about posting about specific people. I don't think this is the type of post that belongs in the thread. There are tons of amazingly worded posts that bring up issues like this without resorting to calling out specific people. Even cropped screenshots are still callouts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:
Right, that was what I generally was trying to articulate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:04
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:Just as another note here: You absolutely should consider putting into place rules about toxicity sometime soon because poo poo is going to get worse as the election gets near, and even worse than that after the election regardless of who wins. Toxicity really seems like it's one of the top complaints in this thread and I think that should be addressed sooner rather than later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
This post here I also think is not good for this thread. It's a lot of quoting other people and going after what THEY said instead of stating your own position. This thread is NOT for breaking others down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:I don't think this is the type of post that belongs in the thread. I think that when the mods allow these people to keep posting it really does a lot to make everyone think that they think this poo poo is okay as long as you don't openly say it in the wrong thread. It does a lot to undermine people's confidence in the mod staff if posters like that are still welcome on the board at all. It honestly seems pretty unacceptable and inexcusable to me, and I don't know any other way to bring this up without posting an example. If I say that the mods are tolerating rape apologia and allowing the worst possible people on the forums to keep posting after saying disgusting garbage without an example I'd just be ignored or asked for one anyways, wouldn't I? How should I have brought up the problem? Do you even agree that it's a problem or no or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:What you want is Twitter. This is the only place I post on the Internet outside of professional necessity and the majority of that posting is in D&D. From 2006 to sometime last year I wasn’t even posting under a pseudonym here, basically just my first name. I got online first in the late eighties when I was six and my online presence has whittled down to just this. Twitter is very much what I do not want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:12
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:
Not yet, no. So far I think the GE thread and USPOL are ones I will take a look at. On the other side, I'm looking forward to the President's Day Presidents Thread for Pontificating about Presidents thread since that is one lots of people have brought forth as being great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
As someone from outside D&D I come here mostly for the USPOL threads, since the news cycle in this country is constant and there’s always something new happening. I just lurk, but I read almost everything in my downtime at work and I’m a lot more informed because of it. Slow mode has made things noticeably better, I’ve seen way fewer shitposts because of it. I don’t think every post needs to be an effortpost, especially in a megathread like USPOL. The jokes are what make threads interesting and fun to read. You’re all doing great with what you were handed, and I’m looking forward to seeing how you can improve from here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Obviously we're talking about the extremes here - and lets be honest, its the extreme ends of the spectrum which are generating the reports and contributing to the toxicity (and its on both sides, people do troll the anti-Biden posters), but I do not feel the GE thread has space for "charitable disagreement" at all, i.e. if someone decides that despite the discussion they will vote for Biden because of whatever reason, the response isn't going to be "fair enough, I respect your decision." I instead feel the approach is "I know I am right and I will do my best to educate you, the incorrect person, of your wrongthink to bring you to the light." This is basically how I feel about the USPol thread at the moment and why, in my opinion, the GE thread has become the de-facto US politics thread in its place. The USPol thread is generally page after page about how dumb Trump is without any actual real discussion, which is primarily what I actually come to the forums for. In the past month we've had some pretty intense but incredibly productive discussions in the GE thread ranging from anarcho-syndicalism (and it's place in reforming US politics) to a pretty deep dive into how Chinese democracy, at the local level, has parallels to US local politics. There was also a fairly heated, but ultimately productive conversation about what economic anxiety really means and how it gets misused by basically every pundit out there. These discussions have been the kind of real meat that keeps me posting on these dusty old forums. I would basically say that the complaints you are making are pretty one-sided and reflect as much on the Liberal side of the current argument splitting the forums (and much of western society) as on the Socialist side. Plenty of people have stopped posting in the "main" USpol thread precisely because of the kind of "wrongthink" toxicity but from the other side of the coin and there have been plenty of incidents where someone takes it on themselves to launch a crusade into the GE thread to teach us all a lesson, when we'd rather just be getting on with discussions about the place for dialectical materialism in American society, or whatnot. I agree that the GE thread shouldn't be the venue for the above discussions but the USpol thread is also very much its own echo chamber so it seems like simply having two threads, one for Liberals and one for the Left, is the only way to go, really. I'd rather things were different but I don't think this divide is going away anytime soon, either here or in the outside world. One possible solution for the here and now could be a meeting-ground-type thread with exceptionally harsh rules around tone and personal attacks. That could possibly allow for some genuine dialogue across the gulf. Active Quasar fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Oct 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:I think that when the mods allow these people to keep posting it really does a lot to make everyone think that they think this poo poo is okay as long as you don't openly say it in the wrong thread. It does a lot to undermine people's confidence in the mod staff if posters like that are still welcome on the board at all. It honestly seems pretty unacceptable and inexcusable to me, and I don't know any other way to bring this up without posting an example. If I say that the mods are tolerating rape apologia and allowing the worst possible people on the forums to keep posting after saying disgusting garbage without an example I'd just be ignored or asked for one anyways, wouldn't I? How should I have brought up the problem? Nobody is being ignored in this thread. I am reading every single post so to claim you'd just be ignored is already lovely. If you wanted to cite specific people or examples I mentioned it in the OP: Drop me a PM. We are not doing Trial By thread in here, even for the worst of the worst shitbags that people can dig up. Classon Ave. Robot posted:Do you even agree that it's a problem or no or what? I did say in a previous post that consistent moderation is important. Awful people and people that cannot engage in a worth a poo poo manner with people should be met with very harsh punishments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:40 |
|
|
Kawalimus Owns, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2020 06:23
|
|