|
I just wanna say that PMing mods over probes is not a helpful or useful endeavor. One time, I asked a mod about a probe for a DIFFERENT poster, and they gave me a week probe immediately. Edit: when I then asked about why I was receiving a week probe, I was met with silence. Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Oct 14, 2020 |
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
socialsecurity posted:How are you isn't the person who bragged about ignoring everyone in the discord. Also if someone is trolling a thread they should be banned without needing to try to bring off-site poo poo into it. You’re mistaken. Cpt_Obvious posted:Let's add some context:
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
I'd rather not just wrap up the thread, I'm sure there are more people who want to give input, but I am not really interested in reading pages and pages of "You said this" "No I mean that" "Well I read this." I am capable of reading posts on my own and don't need someone to jump to the defense of something if you feel someone is wrong about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:I've tried talking about this a couple times, but I do have a lot of frustration when people insist that theres only one "right" way to talk about something - and I think it makes it harder to post - D&D right now on some level is the "Debate me coward!" meme writ large. Several posters have already remarked that the rule to focus on polling in Polliwonks is transparently irregularly enforced - I don't think they're wrong there. At the same time, rigid enforcement of the topical scope would probably kill the thread too There should probably be a thread that is solely for left-liberal and not far-left takes on USPol (and I would say that there is space for that - hell, even for the left-wing perspectives, there should be space for approaches that are not Maoism-Third Worldism, that leftier-than-thou trump card of yore). The problem is in having such a thread, but pretending that it isn't. This both places a burden on moderators to keep having to make difficult decisions and leaves a trail of dissatisfied posters in its wake Gauging from feedback upthread here, there are left-wing posters who feel that D&D mods regularly persecute lonely left-wing voices and there are liberal posters who feel that it's swamped by the C-SPAM hordes who keep getting away with breaking rules in broad daylight, and somehow these are both true at the same time. I don't think it's fair, reasonable, or realistic to expect part-time volunteer moderation to keep up with this. Not with the offsites, the discords, the on-site off-site that is C-SPAM, etc. The football forum almost certainly doesn't have to deal with this kind of organized hostility, not unless the footie has gotten a lot more exciting lately
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I think that realistically speaking, tweets shouldn't just be posted without context and I think very few people would disagree with that. I do think that like all rules you can carve out exceptions for stuff like breaking news from legitimate sources. Nobody should be getting all their news from the forums, but I think a tweet from CNN about Trump's positive Covid diagnosis getting dropped in USPOL is fine because it's legit breaking news that everyone reading about US Politics should be aware of. Although ideally if someone drops the news like that they could just link the relevant source instead of a tweet. Again, this is where good moderation for the threads becomes very important, because someone has to decide what's a valid source, and what's big enough breaking news to justify dropping a link with little else in the post? This also comes with an expectation that people are generally reading at least the last few pages of a thread to catch up and make sure that the news hasn't already been posted and discussed. This is probably most important in the big, fast moving threads. I wanted to show support for this, especially the exception for important news. I feel like if someone jumps into a thread to say “Trump has Covid” there’s going to be a million questions as to where the source is, how do they know, etc. Dropping in that tweet from a known reporter or other trusted source immediately confirms that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:I'd rather not just wrap up the thread, I'm sure there are more people who want to give input, but I am not really interested in reading pages and pages of "You said this" "No I mean that" "Well I read this." I think that's fine, but at some point we are going to have to address the moderator bias in DnD, although nobody is willing to bring it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Although ideally if someone drops the news like that they could just link the relevant source instead of a tweet. I read the USPOL and Cool zone threads for American news that isn't reported over here, and unfortunately the relevant sources frequently aren't visible here either, because so many US sites refuse to adapt to our data privacy laws. So I appreciate tweets. Subsequent posters endlessly quoting the whole tweet, not so much, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I think that's fine, but at some point we are going to have to address the moderator bias in DnD, although nobody is willing to bring it up. there will never be a point moderators are unbiased, and any attempt to make them so is inherently doomed to failure. the best you can ask for is that they're not actively probating people for telling them they are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
ronya posted:Several posters have already remarked that the rule to focus on polling in Polliwonks is transparently irregularly enforced - I don't think they're wrong there. At the same time, rigid enforcement of the topical scope would probably kill the thread too I honestly think both cases can be true - and I think its thread and context dependent. In some threads you will get probated if you post "Is Joe Biden a pedophile?" and in some threads you won't. I don't think its because of ideological biases on the part of the moderators, i think its because threads have developed their own culture and standards, and moderators (particularly IKs) function to enforce those thread-specific standards. And I don't think that's a bad thing - I just think we need to be much more transparent about it. Like, if your complaint about USPol is that its a fast paced tweet dump where people can shout about Trump (and it 100% Is this most of the time, which I personally am ok with), why doesn't someone make a "no tweet, serious news discussion only" thread? Nobody will stop you, and maybe it'll turn out well! People in general need to be more ok in just creating a new thread where they can talk about a topic how they want to talk about it instead of demanding the existing threads change to accommodate them. And if it turns out nobody shares your particular favored approach, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:I've seen this brought up in the past before also. I'd love more opinions from this thread on it. I think there are two problems with the idea that you need to post something of your own along with a tweet/article. The first is that some people use D&D as their primary news source and you should be allowed to, at minimum, post a breaking newsworthy story without also providing commentary so that those people can be informed. The second is that, personally, I follow a lot of people on twitter that I generally agree with and who are more eloquent than me. If I find an article because one of these people tweeted a link to it with their commentary, and I agree with their commentary, does the thread really benefit from me stripping out the link so it's just the article, and saying poorly what they said well? Relatedly, some of these people are definitely "twitter nobodies". Ideally, I'd like it to be okay to post either breaking news or commentary you agree with, and if you're worried about one being interpreted as the other add a little thing to make it clear why you're posting what you're posting. If it ends up being a rule that you can't post tweets/articles without commentary I think the standard another poster proposed would be good, namely that the commentary should be accpetable as a standalone post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Marx Was A Lib posted:This is great! But it's not necessarily transparent. If we're expected to trust in the judgement of the moderation staff, then I would argue that it's worthwhile to see - publicly - where the mods err. Maybe in addition to being able to look at a user's rap sheet, we also get the ability to look at a mod's 'IAB' record - a link on their profile page to moderator decisions that have been overruled, overturned, or simply told "no, that's not an appropriate punishment for the infraction committed." I would like this expanded actually: there should be a way to see the "status" of reports we send, whether or not they were acted on, and how. If you report something, and a mod decides it is not actionable, they should be required to enter a reason as to why, and it should be publicly visible just like Leper's Colony. We need people to trust the system and the best way to establish that trust is with transparency and accountability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:I can hard agree with this and don't think it should be happening. If it is and someone sees it, PM me right away I'd like to know. I think he's onto something with this--that as mods/IKs the impulse should be "lurk mostly", especially in a place like D&D. It sucks, because the moderating teams are people who have opinions like everyone else--but with great power, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
USPol is just going to be a tweet-heavy thread, and thats fine (for the many reasons posted here), and the only change likely needed is that if you're posting a news story it should come from a verified account - i.e. not your random friends mom' who is tweeting that Chris Christie is in the ICU - but other than that leave it as is. If you want to have a place to discuss current events without tweets, make a new thread for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:I read the USPOL and Cool zone threads for American news that isn't reported over here, and unfortunately the relevant sources frequently aren't visible here either, because so many US sites refuse to adapt to our data privacy laws. So I appreciate tweets. Hey, this is really good feedback for me, a person in the US who participates primarily in US-based threads! There definitely needs to be some leeway given for meaningful stuff like that, although it does seem like mods and IKs need to be especially thorough about checking sources and making sure context is given because it does seem to be a trend that many tweets, whether the linked article is good or not, tend to be sensationalistic or misleading because you gotta get those likes and retweets. Which again, can be partially avoided if a tweet is paired with some sort of actual meaningful engagement with the news itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Yeah, but it's not just you in such a thread compact - there's you and the thread participants, but also the moderators who have to enforce it, and who have to take heat from users unhappy with their decisions Again: I don't think it's sustainable. If there must be tempting targets, one shouldn't support finicky judgment-call rules that are ostensibly neutral but subtle to enforce
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
I think trying to prohibit posting tweets and the calls for effort posts only are both missing the real problem. If you can make your point in 200 words instead of 2,000 you're a better writer. If a tweet is appropriate for the situation and doesn't need any commentary, then it should be fine. The posts should be good regardless of length or format, and we should instead be calling out lovely posts (even if long) and dumb tweets (even if there's plenty of commentary) -- which I think largely happens already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I think trying to prohibit posting tweets and the calls for effort posts only are both missing the real problem. If you can make your point in 200 words instead of 2,000 you're a better writer. If a tweet is appropriate for the situation and doesn't need any commentary, then it should be fine. The posts should be good regardless of length or format, and we should instead be calling out lovely posts (even if long) and dumb tweets (even if there's plenty of commentary) -- which I think largely happens already. To add to this, tweets are some of the newest forms of media so much so that they regularly end up on the evening news. In essence, they can be primary or secondary source s and their existence in our forums is a good thing because of how easily they fit into the format.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
Eminai posted:I think there are two problems with the idea that you need to post something of your own along with a tweet/article. You're telling me people can't find news without looking at D&D? If nobody explicitly posted a tweet that said RBG died, there would be people who had no other way to find that out? Obviously this is an extreme example, but the point is, major news spawns major discussion, minor news doesn't unless someone starts it. If you're introducing it to the thread, why not start the discussion? I can't help but think about this post a while back that perfectly illustrated to me what a problem this is. Someone posted a tweet that was just a video of a guy talking about a variety of things. I asked what we were supposed to be looking for or taking away from the video, and someone else just replied something like "wtf?" and then edited to quote me asking what the relevance was and said "lol." Nobody else made any remark toward that video, the person posting it never came back and gave any context, the guy saying wtf lol and me asking why we were being presented this was the only thing that happened. Did any of that need to happen? Did the guy who posted it feel good about it, or was he just dumping something from his own twitter feed into the thread and on to the next?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
As long as effort doesn't mean word count im down for effort posts. If I have to read a thousand word essay that could have been summed up into a single paragraph im skipping that posters posts for a minute afterwords. The threads I read can get backed up and when an overly verbose poster is right in the middle of a hundred or more posts, they will get skipped. Also, everyone read the political cartoon thread. It is the best thread here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:As long as effort doesn't mean word count im down for effort posts. If I have to read a thousand word essay that could have been summed up into a single paragraph im skipping that posters posts for a minute afterwords. Honestly I don't think anyone who laments lack of effort posts is speaking to length of the post. For me at least it's an issue with someone making a coherent arguement about why something is the case, especially when it's someone with subject matter knowledge who makes an effort to explain something, and it gets met with "Imagine believing [gross mischaracterization of the actual arguement] lol"
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
A couple of comments/reflections from an old-timer (I'm 37, been here since I was 16) who posts rarely but relies heavily on this forum for news:
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:I’m a tenured economics professor at one of the best universities in North America and I feel like I probably have some good expertise to contribute, but lots of active posters make it clear that economists are trash and aren't wanted. Note that I'm not at all whining about opposition to my sociopolitical views (I'm a leftist who really wanted Sanders to win, strongly advocate UHC and GND, etc. so I feel quite welcome on this dimension), but rather about irrational animosity towards my profession in general. I imagine there are lurkers in the military, politics, law, and other areas that could provide interesting perspectives on lots of issues but don't for similar reasons. I don’t think this can be laid at the feet of “bad posters” or whatever. Modern economics as taught at a academic level has been pretty thoroughly refuted in the last 30 year. Like their points of view might be “interesting” but I don’t want threads filled with drone bombers/prosecutors/cops/campaign goons talking about how they dutifully subjugate the working class, and probes or bans for pointing out they subjugate the working class. But maybe I’m alone in this ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:[*] More generally, I get the sense that there is a large mass of people like me who've been around forever and still read D&D heavily but no longer post. Should you take their views into account in addition to the views of active posters when deciding the direction the forum should take? I'm not sure, but it's worth considering if they make a significant contribution to SA's ad revenue. Making changes that benefit a core group of active posters but alienate the potentially larger mass of lurkers could come at an economic cost. New ownership is not keen on having ads, so any revenue is not a concern of mine. I'm not worried about keeping numbers up or anything, I just want people to be happy and enjoy posting places because SA is a cool thing I'd like to keep around for a long time. So yes, I am 100% interested in hearing people who lurk but don't post too. People who just read things are just as important to hear from as everyone else in my book.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:04
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:I don’t think this can be laid at the feet of “bad posters” or whatever. Modern economics as taught at a academic level has been pretty thoroughly refuted in the last 30 year. Must all threads must be free of taint, or is some localized blasphemy acceptable? If you would not be comfortable posting in the same thread that e.g. landlords/cops/etc post in, or not the same subforum, would expelling it to another subforum suffice? Genuine question here ronya fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:A couple of comments/reflections from an old-timer (I'm 37, been here since I was 16) who posts rarely but relies heavily on this forum for news: Speaking mostly for myself, but also I've seen the subject come up in the mods/iks discord and yeah DnD is very consciously intended to be as much a place for people to lurk as to post. I'm very curious to hear more feedback from lurkers because their experience absolutely is and should remain a real consideration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:I don’t think this can be laid at the feet of “bad posters” or whatever. Modern economics as taught at a academic level has been pretty thoroughly refuted in the last 30 year. What the gently caress? Way to immediately prove his point 6 minutes after he posted. "This guy gave his opinion, better get my post ready to attack modern economics in this 'ask about D&D thread." Am I reading this right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:What the gently caress? Way to immediately prove his point 6 minutes after he posted. Welcome to D&D in the year 2020  e: seriously tho, this is a great example of the type of posting that more belongs in C-SPAM rather than D&D. I don't think D&D should do this blanket-dismissal type stuff. How are u fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:What the gently caress? Way to immediately prove his point 6 minutes after he posted. Tying economists to cops is not the right track, IMO, but I don't think D&D would be particularly enriched by being more welcoming to economists posting their professional opinion, much like how The Goon Doctor wouldn't be enriched by being more welcome to homeopaths posting their professional opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Eminai posted:Tying economists to cops is not the right track, IMO, but I don't think D&D would be particularly enriched by being more welcoming to economists posting their professional opinion, much like how The Goon Doctor wouldn't be enriched by being more welcome to homeopaths posting their professional opinion. Economists and homeopaths are not equivalent. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
I think that this is a good example of a major problem; there is a group of posters that simply does not want to see posts that violate their ideological lens, and so they pre-emptively declare potentially competing views as "already debunked", "bad faith", "unenriching", and so on, even if they are from subject-matter experts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:What the gently caress? Way to immediately prove his point 6 minutes after he posted. Im not attacking anyone, simply pointing out economists are generally distrusted by everyone, not just here but most of the world. Should we police everyone who points out most people don’t think astrologers can actually see the future? Edit: and who is a subject matter expert is extremely ideologically focused, hence why it should be allowed to be debated. Would you trust someone in the marines stationed in iraq saying “yeah all the Iraqis are terrorists and we gotta wipe them out?” I mean the dude was in iraq. uninterrupted fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:What the gently caress? Way to immediately prove his point 6 minutes after he posted. I was getting ready to break a multiyear, 1 post sporadic lurking streak after a very, very long time as a regular to say that yes, that is exactly what happens in post-2016 D&D all the time and that is exactly why almost everyone with actual expertise has either left this forum to rot or is one step away from it, but I'm glad that for once a mod actually saw this and understood it for what it was. The only new part about it is that it didn't come from the half a dozen people with 150 probes for doing the same thing. Uninterrupted is not even one of the worst offenders. But if you want to fix this forum, start here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
You can start a landlord thread or a cop thread or an Ask A Real Economist thread in D&D but it will be torn to shreds in a matter of a few pages. God help that economist if they're from the Chicago School.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Eminai posted:Tying economists to cops is not the right track, IMO, but I don't think D&D would be particularly enriched by being more welcoming to economists posting their professional opinion, much like how The Goon Doctor wouldn't be enriched by being more welcome to homeopaths posting their professional opinion. D&D is for discussion of opinions? This, again seems to be proving his point. People might want to come in and have a discussion but once they post immediately 2 people attack them, not for the post they made, but for some label. This time it's economists. Are all economists banned from discussions in D&D? Am I completely reading this situation wrong? I'm over here trying to understand and hoping the 1st guy who did it comes back and explains. I feel like that deserves a week probation with the reason "Any time you think D&D has something wrong with it, click your rap sheet and read how you responded to someone just trying to give their opinion." But I'm holding off because I'm so stunned
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
Athanatos posted:What the gently caress? Way to immediately prove his point 6 minutes after he posted. This is exactly the type of posting many of us have been trying to say is prevalent in many of the threads anymore, someone refuses to do anything but attack someone because they want to be hostile and treat DND like cspam or fyad. Eminai posted:Tying economists to cops is not the right track, IMO, but I don't think D&D would be particularly enriched by being more welcoming to economists posting their professional opinion, much like how The Goon Doctor wouldn't be enriched by being more welcome to homeopaths posting their professional opinion. and this is the adhomins and strawman used to make it endlessly stupid to even respond. We drive out people that can provide any knowledge by attacking them for having experience that isnt twitter educated edit VVV This to is a major issue, Moneyball literally said that he cannot police a landlord thread because he doesn't want to have to babysit it if it gets raided by people that want to make any talk of being a landlord into being basically the devil. That should have been dealt with last year and hopefully we won't allow something like that to happen again. UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
The multiple-forum raid on BFC over the landlord thread was just over a year ago. Policy in BFC is still that the thread will not come back because C-SPAM will storm it until it dies Completely seriously - yes, I think there are a nontrivial numbers of users who would feel morally obliged, in that posting-as-praxis way, to cause as much disruption as possible in any thread that is too friendly to Enemy Classes. D&D doesn't have the mod resources to fight that, either Ultimately we must recognise that constraints on moderation exist and it's not fair to demand or expect infinite volunteer effort to defend The Rules of provocative threads ronya fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
It's pretty fun to talk about the Federal Reserve and macroeconomic policy in the USPol thread, since this is sort of the norm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
I don't personally agree with the sentiment expressed by forums poster uninterrupted, but there is a reason that d&d and AT are separate forums. It's cool and good that I can just hop over into the Religion Thread in AT and just read it if I have any real questions about dogma or scripture because I'm usually not the first person to ask, or read a bunch of air traffic controllers and assorted aerospace workers swapping stories in the ATC thread, but that kind of expertise doesn't necessarily have much overlap with discussions found in D&D. Like, for instance, the cop threads of yesteryear were full of the vilest, most disgusting posts by extremely terrible people talking about how the cops that did a drive by of Tamir Rice were just Doing Their Duty and had no moral or legal obligation to not magdump a 12 year old without even opening up a car door, because they were also cops. The expertise that they had wasn't insightful, it didn't lead to an increased understanding of any issue related to their profession, it just gave them more authority to throw around so they wouldn't get banned for saying really vile poo poo about police officers murdering children in broad daylight. Now I'm not saying that economists are somehow child murdering psychopaths, because that's ridiculous, but just having that kind of knowledge base isn't valuable by itself. Sure, you're probably better equipped to explain the mechanisms behind the trillion dollar money fire that disappeared in half an hour earlier this year, but having a political discussion in and around doomed attempts at bailouts doesn't require a tenured professorship and, in my view at least, in some ways would actively be hindered by it. If you have some technical expertise that is relevant, of course chime in, but there absolutely has been a period of D&D's history where it was just a big accreditation dick waving contest and it sucked and I would not like for the forum to devolve back into that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Wait uhh is there going to be a new rule where we have to pretend like economics is a real science? I don't think that's a very defensible position. A big problem is that the board as a whole knows that modern economics as a field is essentially the same thing as homoeopathy is to health science, but you sometimes get someone who doesn't and nobody wants to explain for the hundredth time why they're mistaken. There are some subjects that you need to do actual research on to really understand, and requiring or expecting everyone to do that research obviously isn't going to actually work. I don't know what the solution to that is. A board with a required reading list obviously isn't a viable idea. Classon Ave. Robot fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:12 |
|
|
uninterrupted posted:I don’t think this can be laid at the feet of “bad posters” or whatever. Modern economics as taught at a academic level has been pretty thoroughly refuted in the last 30 year. This is a great example of a terrible post that makes this forum worse. It dismisses an entire discipline as having no value and is functionally indistinguishable from the posts I see from CHUDs on facebook regularly. Also when discussed, I'd imagine I'll end up strawmanned as insufficiently leftist for not agreeing. I'm commie as gently caress. I also know a decent amount about economics because knowledge is not a bad thing and having the commentary of an ECON PhD is valuable as long as it's not Arthur Laffer. lol and there is another Classon Ave. Robot posted:Wait uhh is there going to be a new rule where we have to pretend like economics is a real science? I don't think that's a very defensible position. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Oct 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2020 23:32
|
|