|
Even if threads do have explicit biases, people shouldn't be assholes to anyone who isn't saying something genuinely vile as opposed to just 'wrong and dumb'. The term tone policing is really used inappropriately around here.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
You could remove all of YMB's probations from Paineframe and their rapsheet would still be well over a page of probations and bans for poo poo-stirring and trolling. This isn't one mod with a grudge or ideological disagreement, this is a well-recognized pattern of behavior. The fact that we had several posters in both this and the Athanatos thread all but calling out YMB by name should be proof enough that it isn't just the mods who were fed up with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:19
|
|
|
Classon Ave. Robot posted:Half of YMBs rap sheet is just nonsense probations based on nothing more than personal dislike from MPF, it's easy to cite a bunch of probations based on nonsense as a reason to ban someone if nobody can be bothered to actually pay attention to the context of the situation (a mod with a grudge). Could you post an example of a probation you think wasn't justified and was instead based on MPF taking out a grudge on YMB? I for one am very concerned that a moderator could be unfairly punishing a poster out of personal animus. I think this thread would really benefit from some examples - I think we can all benefit from shining a light on bad moderation. Maybe you could open a QCS thread instead if you think you might be unfairly targeted in D&D for your post by the moderators. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Oct 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:21
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Even if threads do have explicit biases, people shouldn't be assholes to anyone who isn't saying something genuinely vile as opposed to just 'wrong and dumb'. The term tone policing is really used inappropriately around here. Yeah, I feel like it's really easy to get hung up on the "left vs. liberal" dynamic when that's not really what the problem is. The problem is reflexive moral condemnation of any disagreement and sweeping generalizations of those that are disagreed with. (It's almost unbelievable how often people in D&D are told what they believe over their own protestations.) It just ends up framed as "left vs. liberal" because 1) political disagreement makes any conversation more heated and 2) the posters who are most strident about the utter immorality of their posting enemies' positions tend to end up on one side of that line. (From my perspective, anyway.) But I think the line itself is a red herring. There are also posters who are fairly assertive, if not aggressive about their views on both sides of that line who manage to not get probed very often, if at all, and people who are concerned about getting probated or ramped might look at those posters to see what they're doing "right" vs. what YMB did "wrong". (I think a large part of the answer is: pick your battles, and stick to threads where your viewpoint is more dominant/welcome, as A Buttery Pastry was alluding to a few posts up.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Even if threads do have explicit biases, people shouldn't be assholes to anyone who isn't saying something genuinely vile as opposed to just 'wrong and dumb'. The term tone policing is really used inappropriately around here. I basically agree, except that 'genuinely vile' is totally subjective. Like when I flipped out because someone said 'the green revolution saved us from starving' which, while a commonly held belief, is genuinely vile to my mind based on my research and participation in the food soveriegnty and antiglobalization movements. (It turns out that I actually basically agree with that poster re:food systems and they didn't really care stand behind that specific claim) But to a normal land grant school trained agronomist that claim would seem so obviously true and fine that my reaction would seem insane, toxic and unwarranted. Some of these issues are intractable unless there is a hard line 'no insults or cusses' rule, which would stymie and disrupt the dialogue in new and different ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Could you post an example of a probation you think wasn't justified and was instead based on MPF taking out a grudge on YMB? I for one am very concerned that a moderator could be unfairly punishing a poster out of personal animus. I think this thread would really benefit from some examples - I think we can all benefit from shining a light on bad moderation. If you were actually worried about this, you might bring it up in the thread not being policed by the D&D moderation team. I, personally, believe that actually discussing this will bring about further retribution from the mods for derailing this thread, which is ostensibly about ramping. As will any discussion of the performance of the moderation team for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:If you were actually worried about this, you might bring it up in the thread not being policed by the D&D moderation team. I, personally, believe that actually discussing this will bring about further retribution from the mods for derailing this thread, which is ostensibly about ramping. As will any discussion of the performance of the moderation team for that matter. hmm y'all accused one mod of having a special grudge and turns out he has issued less than half the probations that another mod has. but after y'all went out of your way to call him out in this thread, you have decided actually we can't talk about it? interesting strategy, let's see how it plays out
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:41
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:I basically agree, except that 'genuinely vile' is totally subjective. Like when I flipped out because someone said 'the green revolution saved us from starving' which, while a commonly held belief, is genuinely vile to my mind based on my research and participation in the food soveriegnty and antiglobalization movements. (It turns out that I actually basically agree with that poster re:food systems and they didn't really care stand behind that specific claim) But to a normal land grant school trained agronomist that claim would seem so obviously true and fine that my reaction would seem insane, toxic and unwarranted. Some of these issues are intractable unless there is a hard line 'no insults or cusses' rule, which would stymie and disrupt the dialogue in new and different ways. As said poster I think a good discussion wouldn't have been had if Crumbskull had been instantly probed for their brusque initial response. I think some emotion is fine when discussing deeply held beliefs and doesn't need to be slapped down unless it turns into shitflinging and name-calling. In the long run allowing posters to resolve differences between themselves is healthier for the forums than the mods inconsistently attempting to play peacekeeper and letting resentment build by whichever party felt wronged. Given what I've seen from the mods here both past and present I wouldn't trust a rapsheet of probes issued by them to be an objective indicator of a bad poster, either by style or content.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:43
|
|
|
eke out posted:hmm y'all accused one mod of having a special grudge and turns out he has issued less than half the probations that another mod has. I think you'll find (by actually reading) that I both explicitly avoiding naming mods AND I suggested that the other more appropriate thread should be used. So like, 11/10 reading comprehension
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
eke out posted:Interesting theory but I used the magic of control+f to discover
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Could you post an example of a probation you think wasn't justified and was instead based on MPF taking out a grudge on YMB? I for one am very concerned that a moderator could be unfairly punishing a poster out of personal animus. I think this thread would really benefit from some examples - I think we can all benefit from shining a light on bad moderation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:15
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, I feel like it's really easy to get hung up on the "left vs. liberal" dynamic when that's not really what the problem is. The problem is reflexive moral condemnation of any disagreement and sweeping generalizations of those that are disagreed with. (It's almost unbelievable how often people in D&D are told what they believe over their own protestations.) It just ends up framed as "left vs. liberal" because 1) political disagreement makes any conversation more heated and 2) the posters who are most strident about the utter immorality of their posting enemies' positions tend to end up on one side of that line. (From my perspective, anyway.) But I think the line itself is a red herring. The bolded is such a massive problem here and all it does is lead to a repetitive back and forth argument between the person who knows what they are trying to say and the other person who is trying to score points in a bad faith manner. It’s really just used in a way to shut down discussion without having to actually do the work of presenting an alternative point of view. Effort being met with no effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:20
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Yeah probably. It's not like MPF is the only mod that goes after his posting enemies and covers for his postin' buds - they all do that. MPF gets called out for it more I suppose, but they all do it. MPF is the one who issued the forum ban so we're talking about them. What is your proposed solution? Who would you nominate to be the new mods? Do they happen to have politics more or less similar to your own? Looking at my own rap sheet, I am certain FOS, MPF, and GJB hold a grudge against me for being a shitlib that can be more sympathetic to conservative viewpoints than most. I don't love the mods, but we must have an alternative to benchmark against.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The bolded is such a massive problem here and all it does is lead to a repetitive back and forth argument between the person who knows what they are trying to say and the other person who is trying to score points in a bad faith manner. This and the corollary of treating everyone who is contesting points with you as part of the same enemy faction (the aformentioned lib v left beinf a good example) e.g. 'you all' 'all you no joes' 'libs like you' etc. are definitely real issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:The bolded is such a massive problem here and all it does is lead to a repetitive back and forth argument between the person who knows what they are trying to say and the other person who is trying to score points in a bad faith manner. It is indeed a very common problem, but there are cases where "if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck" absolutely applies. Calling out people who dance around the pot is one of the only rhetorical device available against calm hitlering. However, it's almost always painfully clear which is which and this is a great example as to why discretionary moderation is not going away anytime soon. Aramis fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Oct 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:What is your proposed solution? Who would you nominate to be the new mods? Do they happen to have politics more or less similar to your own? We should have an equal number of mods from all four corners of the political compass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Maybe we should stop trying to create an ideology test for mods and instead establish a set of rules for minimizing negative interactions and judge a mod's performance by how well the forum is held to those rules. lol jk, spoonfeed me my hugbox forever daddy (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Yeah probably. It's not like MPF is the only mod that goes after his posting enemies and covers for his postin' buds - they all do that. MPF gets called out for it more I suppose, but they all do it. MPF is the one who issued the forum ban so we're talking about them. I'm not even saying that a mod can't have a grudge against a particular poster. But this idea that "the mods" all collectively have decided to pick on a person or group is ridiculous and unhelpful. A person making bad posts and getting probated for it often does not automatically mean "the mods" have a grudge against that person.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Yeah probably. It's not like MPF is the only mod that goes after his posting enemies and covers for his postin' buds - they all do that. MPF gets called out for it more I suppose, but they all do it. MPF is the one who issued the forum ban so we're talking about them. You only want to focus on MPF because hes literally the only mod that can tolerate the GE thread. When the underlying issue here is YMB was constantly probed in other threads where he continuously would go to be hostile and attack others. `` TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I'm not going to suggest that the mods are paragons of even-handed justice--they're humans and unpaid volunteers and they have biases like everyone else. But I'm really sick of aggrieved posters taking "well all the mods just act on grudges against their Posting Enemies" as an article of faith. That's literally what it is; there's no evidence that the mods have a grudge against particular posters beyond "this poster gets probated a lot and I think the mods disagree with them politically." This is an underlying issue, theres an us vs them dynamic that many posters want to use to justify actions. And treating the mods like cops and attacking every decision is just dumb and exhausting. Just because you get probed for a lovely goddamn post does not mean you were unjustly punished and targeted. Making everything about you being punished and oppressed is dumb as poo poo UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Oct 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Yeah, I feel like it's really easy to get hung up on the "left vs. liberal" dynamic when that's not really what the problem is. The problem is reflexive moral condemnation of any disagreement and sweeping generalizations of those that are disagreed with. (It's almost unbelievable how often people in D&D are told what they believe over their own protestations.) It just ends up framed as "left vs. liberal" because 1) political disagreement makes any conversation more heated and 2) the posters who are most strident about the utter immorality of their posting enemies' positions tend to end up on one side of that line. (From my perspective, anyway.) But I think the line itself is a red herring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:What is your proposed solution? Who would you nominate to be the new mods? Do they happen to have politics more or less similar to your own? That said: Crumbskull posted:We should have an equal number of mods from all four corners of the political compass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
As per my earlier point, I believe that some posters are just so habitually bad in their tone and engagement that you could agree with them a majority of the time and still have to accept that the way they choose to go about anything is just ... loving terrible. Not something you can work around forever, without either tossing them off the forum for months at a time or just getting rid of them entirely. YMB was just one of the clearer and more direct examples of someone like that — it was like some kind of bizarrely smug netherworld of layered irony that became progressively incomprehensible in its pursuit of arguing what someone else's point must actually be, to the point where you could write up a kind of a YMB post generator and marvel at its smug consistency. if you were to audit their probes, it's insufferable and intransigent. I think that any controversy over his banning is purely a product of the overall issue of how much of a garbage poster you could still actually effectually be like it was ok, but most people who've been paying attention to this realized that you could probably make the forum a much better place instantly by at least cutting him off permanently and saying "okay, the new bottom of the barrel is at least above this guy."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What does this actually entail? I don't think I've seen much if any of that, so it might be largely a USPOL issue? Because I can easily imagine the flip side to that, that being someone identifying as something that is completely at odds with their stated beliefs, and reacting negatively to people identifying those beliefs with another identity. Which would make sense as an issue in US threads in particular, given how far right people can be and still identify (or be identified) as leftists. Generally it'll go something along the lines of something like this. Apologies for the cartoonish nature of the hastily-concocted example, but I think it gets the point across: P1: "Although it's insufficient, I think the ACA has helped people and I think Biden's plans for expanding it would help people too." P2: "The ACA leaves people uninsured and it makes them pay a lot for insurance they might not even be able to use because of high deductibles, only M4A is good enough." P1: "Well, I support M4A, I voted for Bernie in the primary, I just think out of the options we have now, Biden's could have a positive effect." P3: "You don't support M4A if you're willing to vote for somebody who doesn't support M4A! You think poor people's lives are worth less! You're no better than a Republican!" And I mean, a lot of us had to deal with, during the primary, being told that it was simply inconceivable that we were actually Bernie supporters because we took issue with some statement like "Elizabeth Warren is a Reagan Republican" or "Joe Biden is a proven child molester". Stuff like that. (The GE thread right now is actually a paradise of civil discussion compared to the primary threads, which were pretty much the same level of hostility but with a half-dozen now-banned white noise shitposters roaming around as well.) It is probably mostly something that's been contained to primary/GE threads and the protest voting thread, which is why you haven't seen it much, although I'm pretty sure I've seen it a bit elsewhere. (And, of course, I take responsibility for my chronic inability to avoid the siren call of these slugfests. That's on me.) But even for stuff that's confined to the GE thread now, remember: when there's no more GE thread, that hostility going to spread out elsewhere, unless we start another containment thread, and I think most people in both feedback threads have been clear they don't want that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:53
|
|
|
Kavros posted:As per my earlier point, I believe that some posters are just so habitually bad in their tone and engagement that you could agree with them a majority of the time and still have to accept that the way they choose to go about anything is just ... loving terrible. Not something you can work around forever, without either tossing them off the forum for months at a time or just getting rid of them entirely. YMB was just one of the clearer and more direct examples of someone like that — it was like some kind of bizarrely smug netherworld of layered irony that became progressively incomprehensible in its pursuit of arguing what someone else's point must actually be, to the point where you could write up a kind of a YMB post generator and marvel at its smug consistency. if you were to audit their probes, it's insufferable and intransigent. I think that any controversy over his banning is purely a product of the overall issue of how much of a garbage poster you could still actually effectually be like it was ok, but most people who've been paying attention to this realized that you could probably make the forum a much better place instantly by at least cutting him off permanently and saying "okay, the new bottom of the barrel is at least above this guy." Yeah. And I think anyone else who posts like YMB, or worse than him/her, should receive the same punishment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
I have personally seen a much worse poster in terms of style and content *than YMB poo poo up a thread with nigh unreadable screeds and they didn't even get a sixer, and this is after a mod had warned them and supposedly gotten them to improve their posting. This pretense of solemnly banning the "worst" poster for the good of the forums rings hollow when in practice it looks like a way to finally settle aeons long grudges amongst Posting Enemies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What does this actually entail? I don't think I've seen much if any of that, so it might be largely a USPOL issue? Because I can easily imagine the flip side to that, that being someone identifying as something that is completely at odds with their stated beliefs, and reacting negatively to people identifying those beliefs with another identity. Which would make sense as an issue in US threads in particular, given how far right people can be and still identify (or be identified) as leftists. What do you mean “what does this entail”? It’s really clear in posts. Why are you making all these assumptions about USPOL and being far right when this issue has been around a whole lot longer than USPOL and has happened in threads that have nothing to do with politics? This tone and line of questioning happened in the last thread along these very same lines and it just resulted in the points of others being unfairly dismissed and ignored.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
I'm never going to pretend to know who wins the fabled award for Worst Poster. I don't care if it's YMB or not even by a country mile. I just know that whoever wins that award, moving forward, shouldn't be allowed to work that hard or build up that dense a resume at potentially winning it. There were posters that were just so much more incomprehensibly bad to me specifically because they managed to earn some sort of permission to say breathtakingly weird and horrific things about people of my ethnicity because it was a subject of Leftist Import. I don't particularly care about the order in which they eventually earned removal or get to be hypothetically ranked, I'm just glad that they're being sent away!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
witchy posted:I have personally seen a much worse poster in terms of style and content poo poo up a thread with nigh unreadable screeds and they didn't even get a sixer, and this is after a mod had warned them and supposedly gotten them to improve their posting. This pretense of solemnly banning the "worst" poster for the good of the forums rings hollow when in practice it looks like a way to finally settle aeons long grudges amongst Posting Enemies. I know who you are referring to, because said incident happened yesterday and I happened to be reading that particular thread. I agree that the user deserved a hefty probation for ignoring a mod warning and continuing to quote people's posts in single sentences and individual phrases and responding to those out of context. Doing that makes it very difficult to read their post while maintaining a cohesive line of reasoning and thought. However, the suggestion that their posting is "much worse" than YMB's is simply absurd, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:06
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I know who you are referring to, because said incident happened yesterday and I happened to be reading that particular thread. I agree that the user deserved a hefty probation for ignoring a mod warning and continuing to quote people's posts in single sentences and individual phrases and responding to those out of context. Doing that makes it very difficult to read their post while maintaining a cohesive line of reasoning and thought. However, the suggestion that their posting is "much worse" than YMB's is simply absurd, in my opinion. If you dug past the awful formatting, the content was pretty dire too. "Iran deserved worldwide hatred for converting to a theocracy" was pretty uh...yeah
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:10
|
|
|
Ramping is not actually a sound method of reigning in bad posting when the probations it is based on are applied selectively. And there is good reason to believe that they are being applied selectively from what I have seen. I don't know what is and isn't allowed re: examples so I'll leave it at that. If it is useful and allowed I do have concrete evidence. Personally I fall on the side of less strict moderation if possible, but if rules are being enforced they should be enforced evenly. E: As I have elaborated I would rather no one be banned, but if we're banning lovely posters we should be banning all the lovely posters regardless of if you agree with them or not. As a dnd neophyte I do not have enemies here and I do not think anyone considers me their enemy so that doesn't really factor in afaik 
witchy fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
witchy posted:I have personally seen a much worse poster in terms of style and content *than YMB poo poo up a thread with nigh unreadable screeds and they didn't even get a sixer, and this is after a mod had warned them and supposedly gotten them to improve their posting. This pretense of solemnly banning the "worst" poster for the good of the forums rings hollow when in practice it looks like a way to finally settle aeons long grudges amongst Posting Enemies. Are you saying YMB shouldn't have been banned or that he should, along with your own Posting Enemies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I know who you are referring to, because said incident happened yesterday and I happened to be reading that particular thread. I agree that the user deserved a hefty probation for ignoring a mod warning and continuing to quote people's posts in single sentences and individual phrases and responding to those out of context. Doing that makes it very difficult to read their post while maintaining a cohesive line of reasoning and thought. However, the suggestion that their posting is "much worse" than YMB's is simply absurd, in my opinion. They were using that horrific format style as an excuse to fill their posts with personal attacks and ignore actual points raised, because actually dealing with the posts was too much work for the moderation team. It's a frequent problem, probably exacerbated by the volume of posts and reports; if you make short, direct, punchy posts that hit their point early and don't waste folks' time, it's super easy for mods to accidentally identify them as low effort or shitposts, but if you waffle on and on and on you can stud out the middle of paragraphs with baseless accusations and ad hominem personal attacks and be fairly certain it'll slip through unless someone writes a full-scale explanatory PM to the moderation team. Ideally there should be enough moderators that mods have time to examine not just the post, in full, but the surrounding thread, including reply posts up the chain. Personally I've found that direct PMs to the mods have actually worked, but then I'm careful to keep my tone extremely civil and deferential. One thread I joined in a discussion and someone (who clearly has me on ignore but knows about me through other means) introduced me, based on other folks' mischaracterisations of what I was saying about New Zealand's covid response in another thread, as some fascist from New Zealand who therefore shouldn't be allowed to comment on American politics, and a whole heap of other posters in the thread piled on before I finally got it sorted out via PM and the original poster ate a punishment for lying about me. E: On ramping, I do agree that it can discourage behaviours to a certain extent, but I think that any explicitly ramped punishment should have to be explained with a post in the thread where the punishment was ramped, so that people can understand the decision to a greater degree. Somfin fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Oct 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why are you making all these assumptions about USPOL and being far right when this issue has been around a whole lot longer than USPOL and has happened in threads that have nothing to do with politics? Solkanar512 posted:What do you mean “what does this entail”? It’s really clear in posts. Mellow Seas posted:Generally it'll go something along the lines of something like this. Apologies for the cartoonish nature of the hastily-concocted example, but I think it gets the point across: If on the other hand you believe that everyone actually falls into your category, then acting against the obvious logic of that position vis-a-vis anything they claim to support is evidence that they don't support it at all, whether that is a "reformist democrat" just pretending to be for M4A or a "NoJoe" clearly being a Trump supporter. And obviously there are the assholes, who just want to poo poo on people and simply flavor it with ideological rhetoric, but I don't think they're quite as common as they might appear. Or conversely, people who claim to support a position because they think it makes them look better while none of their posting otherwise is congruent with that position. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Oct 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:See, this is sort of what I mean. It is basically "The Democrats can be reformed no matter which candidates we vote for" vs. "Voting for the lesser evil props up the Democratic establishment that exists to be controlled opposition". Now there are two positions a member of either of those groups can take. If they approach it as "I believe I'm right but I understand others truly believe otherwise" then the discussion becomes about convincing you that their meta-position is correct. There's no need to claim the other person doesn't support M4A, in fact, their support for M4A might be key to convincing them to join your "lesser evil is for suckers" group. This is actually a very, very, very good point: most (not all) of what is framed as "ideological disagreement" in D&D is not actually about preferred policy outcomes, it's about how to achieve those outcomes in a political environment that is hostile to them. Some people just get really upset that people disagree with them on that question. And some people really don't react well to having a strategic disagreement framed as a moral one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What does this actually entail? I don't think I've seen much if any of that, so it might be largely a USPOL issue? Because I can easily imagine the flip side to that, that being someone identifying as something that is completely at odds with their stated beliefs, and reacting negatively to people identifying those beliefs with another identity. Which would make sense as an issue in US threads in particular, given how far right people can be and still identify (or be identified) as leftists. I'd say the most common and simple example of this is "This thread thinks joe biden has a poopy butt and small feet" where someone doesn't want to engage with individual posters arguments so they argue with "the thread"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
I remember waaaay back when I first joined this forum I reported another poster for calling me a "bitch" and promptly received a message from a mod: "Not surprised that poster called you a bitch, since you clearly are one." Don't think I've bothered reporting anyone since. So I wish you guys all the luck in the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2020 22:51
|
|
|
E: dumb and unhelpful.
How are u fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
I'm noticing that maybe the reason clearly bad faith projoe posts in the GE don't get punished is that they seem not to be being reported. That would make moderation seem one sided. They aren't actually cops, you can report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm noticing that maybe the reason clearly bad faith projoe posts in the GE don't get punished is that they seem not to be being reported. That would make moderation seem one sided. Around the 100th time I saw a leftist poster catch a week probation (or caught one myself) for the exact same poo poo I had reported somebody for just a couple days before, I gave up. Probably others had a similar experience and if those posts aren't getting reported so much anymore, I'm confident that's why. I've said it a couple time already but it bears repeating: the problem is not the forum rules, it is not the forum infrastructure or the lack of it or the lack of means available for users to alert moderators of problems. It is the mods that are the problem. MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Oct 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
How are u posted:That's a good point, nothing could have possibly changed in the 13 years since then. It's the same mods modding, and none of us have grown as people either. This is not a good way to respond to someone who is telling you that they were harassed and ignored by moderation staff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2020 01:57
|
|