The D&D Partition Plan for USPol

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The D&D Partition Plan for USPol

QuoProQuid: Jan 12, 2012; Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Main Paineframe posted:

I find that serious discussions go a lot more smoothly when people just come out and clearly state what they mean in the first place, rather than erecting a maze of hyperbole and sarcasm that readers have to puzzle through first to guess at what the poster is actually trying to say.

That's especially true for D&D with its long tradition of expecting people to be able to back up the specifics of their claims - which is obviously hard to do when people avoid making specific claims in the first place, and then post sources that don't really back up their claims and aren't explained. There's a tremendous amount of slapfighting that results from people just deliberately leaving important parts of their posts unsaid.

it would be cool to probate and ban posters who repeatedly post nothing but "maze[s] of hyperbole and sarcasm" and lots of empty nihilism about how "nothing can change" and "[Party/Politician] are useless lol"

it's clear some people are only here to work out their poorly treated anger issues and make a lot of bad faith arguments to deal with their feelings of uselessness

E: I also agree with Cpt_Obvious about the dogpiling which never seems to get moderated.

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 20:20

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

At a certain point, we're going to have to address the bad faith dogpiles that never seem to be properly moderated. Comments like this:

Potato Salad posted:

Hey

Seek therapy. I don't know what kind of poo poo is driving your denial over the obvious, but something is going on and just get some help man okay?

stackofflapjacks posted:

Follow the well meaning advice and seek therapy you troglodyte.

Blind Rasputin posted:

I, for one, agree with Potato�s sentiment.

aas Bandit posted:

[Edited to not assume poo poo.]

axeil posted:

You're the loving dumbass who thought Zeno was a guy that didn't think he could walk across a room.

gently caress off you little Nazi defending piece of poo poo. You're worthless.

You are honestly one of the stupidest people I've ever seen. I don't know how you manage to breathe.

Were all made and directed towards a single poster (me) for the crime of (incorrectly) arguing the technical classification of the events of last night. None of them were moderated, and that leaves a clear message to posters that such things are ok to do. And this is an obvious pattern: Create a pedantic wedge and use it as a cudgel to attack your posting enemies. If you want to know why USPol is so toxic, it's partially because poo poo like this is allowed to happen.

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:28

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

^^^ the site's telling me those posts were already reported. Not sure if probes are incoming, but they should be

Cpt_Obvious posted:

There were people in the thread arguing that the cops weren't siding with Trump. If you go to the F the police thread, there are still people who argue against defunding the police.

Wanting to defund police, thinking police side with chuds in general, and thinking police are siding with the chuds on the Capitol thing today specifically are independent. You can agree with none, all three, just one, or any combination. Police siding with chud protestors at a different event on a different day suggests they're likely to do so on any other given day. But the photo literally being today would be a way stronger point. Otherwise you could have picked an example with a more dramatic picture from any of the zillion other times this poo poo has happened.

I don't think you were knowingly lying because I know you're not stupid, and would have realized you'd immediately get caught. But a fuckup like that combined with a claim that the problem is really pedants fixating on trivia while ignoring the crux of what was said in this, the thread for discussing what's wrong with discourse in USPOL, kinda needs to be underscored as an example.

So basically,

Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:

mostly its because someone being factually incorrect and refusing to cop to it is like catnip for combative goons, but also if i can just blatantly repost incorrect retweets from nobodies and then skate away on a cloud of "well it was rhetorical anyway, you get my drift, byeee" that is garbage tier discussion
...

Edit: Jesus, you responded to people calling today a coup with:

Cpt_Obvious posted:

The political faction must be entrenched though, otherwise it's a revolution.

If we consider Trump's refusal to activate the National Guard as an act of a military leader in support of toppling a government (which it technically is), then yah could see it as a coup.

You have no business telling people they're using semantics as a smokescreen. Holy poo poo.

Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:31

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

Cpt_Obvious posted:

At a certain point, we're going to have to address the bad faith dogpiles that never seem to be properly moderated. Comments like this:

Were all made and directed towards a single poster (me) for the crime of (incorrectly) arguing the technical classification of the events of last night. None of them were moderated, and that leaves a clear message to posters that such things are ok to do. And this is an obvious pattern: Create a pedantic wedge and use it as a cudgel to attack your posting enemies. If you want to know why USPol is so toxic, it's partially because poo poo like this is allowed to happen.

You definitely got dogpiled and some of those posts probably would've deservedly eaten probation at any other time when the thread was moving slower, but several posters - including me - were fairly upset that you were pedantically arguing over your incorrect definition of what is a coup during an actual coup while also not even knowing the facts of what happened. If you're going to confidently stake out and defend a contrarian position then make sure you're aware of the facts of the situation.

Its like you walked into the thread during a BLM protest and argued that the police wern't actually assaulting protesters because assault requires them to file forms beforehand to establish intent - and then getting upset when people told you buzz off.

Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:34

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

Cpt_Obvious posted:

At a certain point, we're going to have to address the bad faith dogpiles that never seem to be properly moderated. Comments like this:

Were all made and directed towards a single poster (me) for the crime of (incorrectly) arguing the technical classification of the events of last night. None of them were moderated, and that leaves a clear message to posters that such things are ok to do. And this is an obvious pattern: Create a pedantic wedge and use it as a cudgel to attack your posting enemies. If you want to know why USPol is so toxic, it's partially because poo poo like this is allowed to happen.

Honest question do you think this happens in a vacuum? Do you think everyone dogpiled you because of a single bad post or because of an entire history of bad faith nonsense posts that just stir poo poo up? Not saying everyone correcting you there was in the right maybe they went to far with it but you can't act like "oh I made a single bad post and now everyone hates me" is really what is happening there.

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:35

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Gerund posted:

I contend that Libertarianism is an inherently bad-faith ideology that has a chose-your-own-justification for whatever position they need to take on the day, until they get revealed that they really hate statutory law.

The problem is that (a) there's a wide swath of beliefs among "libertarianism" with beliefs that borrow widely from the left wing spectrum, particularly aspects very similar to anarcho-communism and (b) if you designate one belief system as inherently without redeeming value as we've actually seen eventually you start finding other ideologies and belief systems to designate as without value.

e:

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Oh on how did you type this without thinking "oh wait I forgot about Naziism"

It's disingenuous to suppose that the principle of objecting to the mob driving out wrongthink means welcoming nazi's.

Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:37

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

libertarians are totally welcome here, we have a whole thread for them, they just refuse to stay because every time they come they get completely owned

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:40

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

Raenir Salazar posted:

The problem is that (a) there's a wide swath of beliefs among "libertarianism" with beliefs that borrow widely from the left wing spectrum, particularly aspects very similar to anarcho-communism and (b) if you designate one belief system as inherently without redeeming value as we've actually seen eventually you start finding other ideologies and belief systems to designate as without value.

Oh come on how did you type this without thinking "oh wait I forgot about Naziism"

Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:41

Revelation 2-13: May 13, 2010; Pillbug

'Noted bad faith poster complains about bad faith posting' is pretty much spot on as an illustrative example of what's wrong with uspol. If the consistent bad faith posters were threadbanned, uspol would go from poo poo to great overnight. Although, this last day USPOL has been extremely good imo - and not just because noted bad faith poster was called out and dogpiled for their inane bad faith pedantry.

e: vvv I honestly expected the thread anti-posters to end up at a "it was just some smashed windows, the liberal east coast elites totally had it coming" eventually, but I didn't expect the downplaying to start ON THE DAY OF!

Revelation 2-13 fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:42

eke out: Feb 24, 2013

to be clear, this dude posted, on a day a coup attempt literally happened:

Cpt_Obvious posted:

They didn't hurt anyone. It's not a coup. All those casualties were caused by cops. I don't even think the rioters fired a shot.

there is an issue here, which is that people like cpt_obvious do not face more consistent moderation for their constant zero-effort posts intended to cause arguments

it is, however, extremely funny that he posted all the replies without the context of the absolutely idiotic and insulting posts he made that set them off, in hopes of getting those people probed for his bad faith poo poo that provoked the response

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:42

misguided rage: Jun 15, 2010; God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title

Cpt_Obvious posted:

At a certain point, we're going to have to address the bad faith dogpiles that never seem to be properly moderated. Comments like this:

Were all made and directed towards a single poster (me) for the crime of (incorrectly) arguing the technical classification of the events of last night. None of them were moderated, and that leaves a clear message to posters that such things are ok to do. And this is an obvious pattern: Create a pedantic wedge and use it as a cudgel to attack your posting enemies. If you want to know why USPol is so toxic, it's partially because poo poo like this is allowed to happen.

Those posts were made across the course of a few minutes in a thread that was moving at pages per minute at the time. Does it really count as a dogpile if a bunch of people independently decide to call you out on your bullshit?

A few of those should probably eat a probe for being needlessly antagonistic, but the thread saw something like 8000 posts since yesterday, "none of them were moderated" is just being whiny. Do you really expected the mods/IKs to have sorted through that by now?

misguided rage fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:45

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Raenir Salazar posted:

The problem is that (a) there's a wide swath of beliefs among "libertarianism" with beliefs that borrow widely from the left wing spectrum, particularly aspects very similar to anarcho-communism and (b) if you designate one belief system as inherently without redeeming value as we've actually seen eventually you start finding other ideologies and belief systems to designate as without value.

Someone else already hit you with the Nazi point on (b). The marketplace of ideas has no time for people who advocate for burning the market down.

On (a), I can have a really cool conversation with someone who labels themselves as Libertarian to start but then reveals what flavor of whatever they have, but anyone who tries to advocate for Libertarianism as an ideal is either deluded by the kayfabe or trying to delude me. Its a garbage ideology with no core thought but child porn.

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:46

UCS Hellmaker: Mar 29, 2008; Toilet Rascal

Tbh getting dogpiled really isn't a thing when there is consistent evidence someone literally reads the first line in wikipedia then acts like they are an expert in a field.

Repeatedly, across multiple fields, in many subjects. That everytime is proven wrong and never provides sourced evidence. Or provides evidence that literally contridicts the statement they claim throughout it.

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:48

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Gerund posted:

Someone else already hit you with the Nazi point on (b). The marketplace of ideas has no time for people who advocate for burning the market down.

On (a), I can have a really cool conversation with someone who labels themselves as Libertarian to start but then reveals what flavor of whatever they have, but anyone who tries to advocate for Libertarianism as an ideal is either deluded by the kayfabe or trying to delude me. Its a garbage ideology with no core thought but child porn.

As I wrote in my edit, I don't buy the idea that being tolerant of opposing view points means accepting or being tolerant of nazism. A nazi is incapable of expressing their beliefs without breaking the rules, a conservative can easily moderate how they express the vast majority of conservative beliefs without breaking any rules.

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:50

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

eke out posted:

to be clear, this dude posted, on a day a coup attempt literally happened:

there is an issue here, which is that people like cpt_obvious do not face more consistent moderation for their constant zero-effort posts intended to cause arguments

it is, however, extremely funny that he posted all the replies without the context of the absolutely idiotic and insulting posts he made that set them off, in hopes of getting those people probed for his bad faith poo poo that provoked the response

he's calling it a riot so the quibble about whether to call it a coup seems pretty part for the course in terms of pedantry. There were plenty of posts disagreeing with him that didn't get into really unnecessary personal attacks.

you're supposed to assume it's good faith, you can still assume he's an idiot

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:50

Owlspiracy: Nov 4, 2020

Harold Fjord posted:

he's calling it a riot so the quibble about whether to call it a coup seems pretty part for the course in terms of pedantry. There were plenty of posts disagreeing with him that didn't get into really unnecessary personal attacks.

you're supposed to assume it's good faith that doesn't mean you have to assume he isn't an idiot.

Some of the posts were over the line and if someone went back and hit some posters with probations I wouldn't complain, but this isa good segue into "does every post deserve a meaningful response". And to Cpt_Obvious' credit he admitted he was wrong, which is something more people should do. Not to pick on any person - but since this was brought up already - these were the posts that set it off:

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Nobody on the defending team was even injured.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Ffs it's not a coup, it's just a lovely riot that the cops let happen.

Coups necessarily involve a military overthrowing a civilian government. There was no military here.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Well, it usually involves a military anyway. And a whole lot more violence than 4 dead protestors all shot by the other side. Ffs, they were taking photos with the opposition.

Lib and let die posted:

This kind of mental health faux-concern is one of the most heinous things that happens in USPOL that almost never sees repercussions. If you are concerned with a poster's mental health, you have a report button, PMs, and mod and admin contact info in a stickied QCS post and the only reason for making a public plea like this is to play on damaging stigmas of mental health to own your posting enemies.

PS isn't the only one that does this, but it's the first example the good captain provided. There's a thread regular that requires the aid of a screen reader and you'd be run right the gently caress out if you told them to check their eyes, to me this kind of posting is no different.

I agree with this, and people trying to justify it with "well therapy isn't negative" were really reaching.

Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jan 7, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:53

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

Potato Salad posted:

Hey

Seek therapy.

This kind of mental health faux-concern is one of the most heinous things that happens in USPOL that almost never sees repercussions. If you are concerned with a poster's mental health, you have a report button, PMs, and mod and admin contact info in a stickied QCS post and the only reason for making a public plea like this is to play on damaging stigmas of mental health to own your posting enemies.

PS isn't the only one that does this, but it's the first example the good captain provided. There's a thread regular that requires the aid of a screen reader and you'd be run right the gently caress out if you told them to check their eyes, to me this kind of posting is no different.

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:55

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Raenir Salazar posted:

As I wrote in my edit, I don't buy the idea that being tolerant of opposing view points means accepting or being tolerant of nazism. A nazi is incapable of expressing their beliefs without breaking the rules, a conservative can easily moderate how they express the vast majority of conservative beliefs without breaking any rules.

ennnnnh the culture that is advocating for things that a nazi can't stand is what gets a nazi to flip out. Advocating that you shouldn't allow adults to groom/coerce children to be in sexual relationships is the same thing but for Libertarians.

# ? Jan 7, 2021 23:57

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Gerund posted:

ennnnnh the culture that is advocating for things that a nazi can't stand is what gets a nazi to flip out. Advocating that you shouldn't allow adults to groom/coerce children to be in sexual relationships is the same thing but for Libertarians.

I don't know what you're arguing here. It seems easy to me, to ban or chain probe people whose views when expressed break the rules like you describe, but you're still only describing an extreme minority of right-libertarians. I assume the vast majority don't have those views.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:02

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Blue Footed Booby posted:

^^^ the site's telling me those posts were already reported. Not sure if probes are incoming, but they should be

Right now the the report queue is maybe three times its usual length, and it looks like the reports from the time period during which those posts were made hasn't been covered by a mod yet. The report queue is essentially unusable on the mobile app and barely-usable on the mobile browser, so I can't go look for them till I'm off work. Also, this many reports would probably take me two hours to go through, so I'm probably not gonna rush straight to it the moment I get to my desktop.

I hope that contextualizes why a post going unprobed for a few minutes (or even a few hours) should not be taken as a sign that the post is moderator-approved - even if the moderator is active in threads.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:05

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Cpt_Obvious posted:

At a certain point, we're going to have to address the bad faith dogpiles that never seem to be properly moderated. Comments like this:

Were all made and directed towards a single poster (me) for the crime of (incorrectly) arguing the technical classification of the events of last night. None of them were moderated, and that leaves a clear message to posters that such things are ok to do. And this is an obvious pattern: Create a pedantic wedge and use it as a cudgel to attack your posting enemies. If you want to know why USPol is so toxic, it's partially because poo poo like this is allowed to happen.

Some of those posts hitting you last night were certainly over the top and deserve to be probed.

Completely independently of that fact, this is an example of people losing their patience with your constant shitposting during a time of high emotions. You have made a noticeable habit of coming into topics that you clearly do not understand and posting absolutely nonsensical poo poo in the most arrogant way possible. I don't mean "your opinion is bad" I mean you consistently get basic facts and fundamentals of the topic at hand wrong while starting a pissing match with anyone who points it out.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:07

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

Raenir Salazar posted:

...
It's disingenuous to suppose that the principle of objecting to the mob driving out wrongthink means welcoming nazi's.

I wasn't suggesting I think you want to tolerate nazis or that having that statement in the rules thread would somehow attract nazis. I'm saying I think it's useless as a guiding principle for moderation without a whole bunch more elaboration. As it is, the best I can figure is it's just "don't ban people just for disagreeing with you" phrased so it sounds like the slippery slope fallacy.

Main Paineframe posted:

Right now the the report queue is maybe three times its usual length, and it looks like the reports from the time period during which those posts were made hasn't been covered by a mod yet. The report queue is essentially unusable on the mobile app and barely-usable on the mobile browser, so I can't go look for them till I'm off work. Also, this many reports would probably take me two hours to go through, so I'm probably not gonna rush straight to it the moment I get to my desktop.

I hope that contextualizes why a post going unprobed for a few minutes (or even a few hours) should not be taken as a sign that the post is moderator-approved - even if the moderator is active in threads.

So what I'm hearing is we should take that dice moderation suggestion and automate it.

Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 8, 2021

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:08

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Main Paineframe posted:

Right now the the report queue is maybe three times its usual length, and it looks like the reports from the time period during which those posts were made hasn't been covered by a mod yet. The report queue is essentially unusable on the mobile app and barely-usable on the mobile browser, so I can't go look for them till I'm off work. Also, this many reports would probably take me two hours to go through, so I'm probably not gonna rush straight to it the moment I get to my desktop.

I hope that contextualizes why a post going unprobed for a few minutes (or even a few hours) should not be taken as a sign that the post is moderator-approved - even if the moderator is active in threads.

And as an addendum to this IKs don't see the report queue at all, so that especially goes for us. If I'm trying to catch up it's by quickly scrolling and hope I don't miss something, which can be exceedingly difficult when that starts getting into trying to play catch up with nearly a thousand new posts.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:09

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

Raenir Salazar posted:

I don't know what you're arguing here. It seems easy to me, to ban or chain probe people whose views when expressed break the rules like you describe, but you're still only describing an extreme minority of right-libertarians. I assume the vast majority don't have those views.

Buddy, you quoted me, I'm not the one putting on the cape for the reasonable capital-L Libertarian. Anyone can make good-faith argument if they don't have a garbage ideology backing it, it just so happens that Libertarianism is kayfabe cover for fools who want all the hedonist pleasures of capitalism without the restrictions of a state that makes capitalism possible. The good ones abandon the bullshit, the bad ones can't.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:13

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Slow mode is not a good way to deal with most of the thread issues being discussed. It is a great way to deal with a thread that is out of control because there's a loving coup happening. And other such high attention events

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:17

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

My point, to repeat is that a big problem is that as the ideological range of views narrowed to just "left" and "slightly leftier left" it's just resulted in the ire focusing on who happens to seem the most right of those who are left, left. CptObvious said this was "good" and I objected that this is in fact not good, I think you're own personal objections to some of those formerly available view points isn't relevant to that point.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:21

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Raenir Salazar posted:

My point, to repeat is that a big problem is that as the ideological range of views narrowed to just "left" and "slightly leftier left" it's just resulted in the ire focusing on who happens to seem the most right of those who are left, left. CptObvious said this was "good" and I objected that this is in fact not good, I think you're own personal objections to some of those formerly available view points isn't relevant to that point.

If you want those people who overrun the capital yesterday to be allowed to post in this forum that's on you. Frankly, I don't feel like arguing the age of consent and whether there is a secret "gay globalist agenda" controlling the world governments.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:28

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

Jarmak posted:

I don't mean "your opinion is bad" I mean you consistently get basic facts and fundamentals of the topic at hand wrong while starting a pissing match with anyone who points it out.

I think a lot of posters in USPOL have considerable difficulty differentiating "basic facts and fundamentals" from their own deeply held assumptions and opinions, but that might just be me.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:34

buglord: Jul 31, 2010; Cheating at a raffle? I sentence you to 1 year in jail! No! Two years! Three! Four! Five years! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!; Buglord

QuoProQuid posted:

lots of empty nihilism about how "nothing can change" and "[Party/Politician] are useless lol"

This is why I burn out from reading D&D every time I do. If I am optimistic about the most minor positive event, goons trip over themselves to smother any good feelings out.

Maybe it�s more than a USPol thing, but it�s the number one reason why I can�t stand that thread. Second is the Twitter embeds that assume I�m terminally online.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:43

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; Can't post for 2 hours!

Cpt_Obvious posted:

If you want those people who overrun the capital yesterday to be allowed to post in this forum that's on you.

I don't know that we allow nazis to post here currently.

Or that anyone said we should allow them to.

Are we doing that thing where we decide the person who is slightly disagreeing is actually supporting Nazis?

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:46

misguided rage: Jun 15, 2010; God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title

Stringent posted:

I think a lot of posters in USPOL have considerable difficulty differentiating "basic facts and fundamentals" from their own deeply held assumptions and opinions, but that might just be me.

Cpt_obvious has been probated repeatedly in the past for their reality-adjacent posting. In threads other than USPol, even!

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:46

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Cpt_Obvious posted:

If you want those people who overrun the capital yesterday to be allowed to post in this forum that's on you. Frankly, I don't feel like arguing the age of consent and whether there is a secret "gay globalist agenda" controlling the world governments.

At what point did Cpt_Obvious engage with anything I actually said?

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:54

Ither: Jan 30, 2010

Main Paineframe posted:

While I understand where you're coming from, a large portion of the trouble comes from the fact that many people are unwilling to accept that anyone could reasonably be working from different basic assumptions. The problem isn't so much the conflicting assumptions as it is a refusal to accept that it's really possible for there to be conflicting assumptions. A number of people refuse to just allow any space to disagree on some things - if they disagree on some thing that draws from some conflict in basic assumptions, they conclude that the person they disagree with is either obviously wrong or actively trolling, and therefore they continue to attack the point endlessly until someone gets probated or their target gets sick of it and leaves.

And generally, segregating ideological groups has been ineffective at dealing with that, because those people see it as the stupid biased mods creating a single Correct People Containment Zone for the one true ideology and a number of mod-sanctioned Bad Faith Sanctuaries where the obviously-wrong posters can surround themselves in endless fantasies to protect them from the hard truths.

This leads to two problems. First, people constantly jumping into other ideologies' threads to shitpost at the people they believe are obviously wrong. So much of the trouble that happens comes from people actively seeking out the groups they disagree with for the express purpose of picking a fight. Second, people are constantly mad at the mods for giving official sanction and protection to ideologies they disagree with, while the mods are overwhelmed with reports fighting about what exactly should or shouldn't be allowed in a given ideology's thread.

Personally, I don't think further ideological segregation would be a good path to follow.

I think the first issue would be solved by creating a third free for all thread that is moderation light. People can do all their fighting there.

People will always be angry at the mods, but ideological segregation would decrease the vitriol.

Epinephrine posted:

FOURTH, ideological sorting. I will admit to days when I am so exhausted with the rigid "if you disagree with me you are a capitalist pig / shitlib / fascist enabler" attitude of certain posters that I'd be willing to give them their own thread just to make it stop. However, I am strongly opposed to ideological sorting. Not only does it seem anathema to the spirit of D&D, we've already been ideologically sorting since well before the general election and it hasn't helped. First it was the General Election (GE) thread, and now it's the Marxism thread (pinned up until very recently) which was explicitly made to be a continuation of the GE thread. Beyond that, you have CSPAM's SuccZone which essentially serves the same purpose the GE thread did; in fact many of the USPOL and GE posters are also SuccZone posters. Point being, ideological sorting is not effective. All it has done is allowed a certain group of posters to wind each other up until it spills over to USPOL.

If the "spirit" of D&D isn't making people happy, then the "spirit" should be changed.

I believe the GE thread worked. Things got worse when it was closed.

I had no idea that the Marxism thread was meant to replace it. Did anyone else know?

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:57

Stringent: Dec 22, 2004; image text goes here

The solution to this is obvious and it's time for someone to step up and say it. Bring back Helldump.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 00:59

QuoProQuid: Jan 12, 2012; Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

"moderation-light thread" seems like a great way of encouraging absolute shitshows that will spill out into other threads and make D&D more toxic than it already is

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jan 8, 2021

# ? Jan 8, 2021 01:01

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

Ither posted:

I had no idea that the Marxism thread was meant to replace it. Did anyone else know?

I mean, it's not like you're likey going to get a lot of non-Marxists in the Marxist thread.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 01:03

Dixon Chisholm: Jan 2, 2020

fool of sound posted:

Reminder that this is not the place to prosecute posters you dislike, this include vaguebooking nonsense about "just ban the bad posters bing bang boom". That sort of thing isn't helpful. Feel free to let us know if you have any other concerns or suggestions for future feedback threads, but try to largely keep the thread on the current topic. Once this thread closes in a couple weeks, I'm planning on doing another feedback thread discussing tweets, sources, and how they are posted and discussed.

What happened with the paragraph?

E:

QuoProQuid posted:

"moderation-light thread" seems like a great way of encouraging absolute shitshows that will spill out into other threads and make D&D more toxic than it already is

D&D superstar Cefte spent a good deal of time making the case for a moderation light thread back in the last uspol feedback thread.

Dixon Chisholm fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jan 8, 2021

# ? Jan 8, 2021 01:06

NoDamage: Dec 2, 2000

Aruan posted:

You don't split the threads by topic, you split the threads by worldview, which is the status quo we had up until the GE thread was closed, and theres a consensus here that during that period USPol was much more readable. The bigger point is what everyone wants is to have more people be punished for awful, galaxy brained takes, but theres absolutely no consensus on what is and isn't a galaxy brained take. And without that, all you're left with is moderating about decorum (no posting about posters! no posting attacks! read your tweets!) instead of content.

It was more readable, but I think that is less because of any ideological split and more because USPOL was more substantially focused on discussion of daily news and less focused on certain hot-button topics that have a tendency to drown everything else out.

That is why, if there is going to be a split, I would strongly suggest that it be based on "current events" vs "general political debate" as opposed to ideology. (Also because segregating into ideological echo chambers where people only post in threads they agree with seems to defeat the point of a "debate and discussion" forum.)

I mean, I can't help but feel that 99% of the problems discussed herein could be fixed if people stopped re-interpreting their opponents posts in the least charitable and most absurd way possible in order to create an easy target to get a sick burn on. (That said, I have no idea how you would encourage that from a moderation standpoint.)

# ? Jan 8, 2021 01:26

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

misguided rage posted:

Cpt_obvious has been probated repeatedly in the past for their reality-adjacent posting. In threads other than USPol, even!

Let's not go singling people out and jumping on them here. This thread is more looking for systematic changes to USPol, not singling out individual users you don't like or pointing to single historical posts you thought should have been treated differently.

# ? Jan 8, 2021 01:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 20:20

Epinephrine: Nov 7, 2008

Ither posted:

I had no idea that the Marxism thread was meant to replace it. Did anyone else know?

It was started by a GE regular as the election ended and everyone that knew the GE thread (and the first Polliwonks thread) was set to expire when the November election concluded. IK Majorian signal boosted the thread as a place to continue the conversation just as GE closed [emphasis mine]:

Majorian posted:

With this in mind, I'd like to say that I genuinely think this has been a great thread. I know that's a weird thing to say, particularly given how much of a bad reputation it has, but I think that reputation is unfair. This thread brought together an incredibly diverse group of people who were fiercely passionate about left-wing politics, yet willing to be vulnerable and talk about why it matters so much to them personally. I genuinely believe the regulars here are the most brilliant people on Something Awful, and while that sounds like I'm damning with faint praise, I mean it as a compliment. I've learned so much from you folks, and I'm delighted that Cpt. Obvious and the rest of you are keeping the high-level intellectual discussion going in LeftPol. I look forward to posting in it now that the election is nearing its conclusion and I'm not so busy putting out fires.

Thanks for making this thread rule, everyone!

[EDIT: I can't blame you for not knowing about it. Polliwonks also suffered some attrition when it was closed and remade.]

# ? Jan 8, 2021 01:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The D&D Partition Plan for USPol

«‹›34 »