|
Sedisp posted:Why not just have a timeout on the topic temporarily if it really is overriding all conversation for X amount of time instead of shunting the topic off to die? Why timeout at all? If you want to be community driven why should a popular topic getting a lot of discussion be quashed at all for things that people are less interested in talking about at the moment? Also, its a megathread, just chime in with your thoughts and see if anyone bites and wants to talk about that subject. The only reason I can see over killing a topic is if the moderation staff wants to designate it off limits. As well as this being the debate forum, people are arguing isn't really a reason to quash something. If you just want a chat thread, make a separate one just for chat like every other sub does.
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:So you're mad that people were nice to you? They seem to be adding to the list of reasons to consider that mods are playing to their faves or just like super dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ah, gotcha, my bad. Honest feedback: the media literacy thread would be far, far improved by elevating a voice other than condescendo vox, who teaches an analytical model that includes "whataboutism" as a fallacy (eg, the criticism of America is a nonsequiter in a conversation about how China/Russia might be treating the demographically overlapping groups - cultural or ethnic minorities whose populations are held together in tightly controlled aggregate facilities, say) and discussion-terminating "checkmate."
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How? Open to suggestions for me and/or future mod teams. Most people don't want to dig through a thread to find the single topic they were trying to discuss, that's part of why we split out topics in USNews (since D&D is for the most part US Centric) If the biggest discussion re: Chinese politics is the Uyghur crisis, then this... CommieGIR posted:the derailment that both Canada's genocide against native children and China's mass incarceration caused in those threads ... is nonsense. How is it a derailment? It's the topic of discussion! If there is a flow of other news stories getting "drowned out", then it's up to that thread's regulars: does one of them start a new thread? Do they keep talking about it over other stories? If it's the former, then problem solved, no mods needed. Is it the latter? Then obviously the people in the thread don't think the other stories are actually getting "drowned out," they think they're less important. In fact, if someone disagreed with that, they could even make a thread for the other story. No mod action needed! It's ok if not every page of a thread contains every topic currently being discussed, nobody is going to be angry that someone quoted a story from a few pages back to ask a question or make a comment. Threads are just threads. It's ok if some are long and noisy, it's ok if some are short and don't get much interaction. That's part of what makes a forum an interesting social space, the stuff getting bumped a lot is the stuff that people want to talk the most about. As long as the environment makes people feel like they're allowed to post (be it a new thread or a reply), then they'll do so, and conversation will continue. It's when mods step in as mods to enforce their opinion on either a topic or structure of a thread that people stop doing that. Sometimes that's ok - for example, a "no spoilers" policy on a TV show thread. Doing this sort of thing haphazardly though will lead to decreased engagement, as people lose spaces to discuss things without having an outlet (a "spoiler thread", to continue the metaphore). If some spoilers are OK but others aren't, or even worse spoilers posted by some people are ok and others arent, and there's no spoiler thread because it got closed, if I have a spoiler question I'm just going to avoid posting rather than guess. When rules aren't enforced evenly (clearly isn't even as much of an issue!) then sure people will avoid posting, because they don't understand what's allowed. Even if the rules are clear, that will be the case with uneven enforcement. But, it's important to realize, that even a consistent moderation will have people that don't agree or want to deal with it. That can be ok - after all, a "no nazis" rule might annoy nazis, but you don't want them posting anyway. Right now part of the problem with this mod team is that the rules are enforced "evenly," but the rules aren't ones people want to engage with. Extremely importantly in fact, the rules aren't actually the ones posted in the rules thread up top, even if you don't realize it. Adding more mods or rules to the list won't address what it is people don't like about the forum. That's the reason I argue for a rebuild of D&D. Tinkering with the rules or adding or removing a mod isn't going to change the environment enough at this point. You talk about "most people," but "most people" have stopped posting here. Consider it's because that your (and other mods) ideas about "most people" aren't actually correct. There's more than one thing at fault for the current state of this forum. Disentangling all of them to try to make the most surgical and small change you can to fix all the problems is....unrealistic. Your own biases may even make it impossible. The boundaries of what D&D "should" be, according to the mod team here, are not aligned with what people who want serious political discussion on SA want. This is obvious, both through CSPAM's rise, and through D&D's own declining community. That's a lot of words about forums moderation! Skyl3lazer fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:They seem to be adding to the list of reasons to consider that mods are playing to their faves or just like super dumb. "One of my posting buddies trolled the subforum for two months, and another one of my posting buddies bought vulgar, misogynistic red text for them because they thought they were sincere, and then the mods removed the vulgar, misogynistic red text, for free! This proves, uh, wait, what was I talking about?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:OK, let's call it "changing the subject" then? Is it not changing the subject to swerve from talking about Xinjiang to the US's wars or is there some substantial connection between the two? No one said that the US's wars aren't bad. But oh look, they used the 'W' word so they must be an imperialist shill, we'll just call them that and now we won the argument! JFC. It's not about "winning the argument" at all. My point is that heavyhanded moderating without even having the context to know that "the W word" has been and is used as a rhetorical device to avoid discussion of American crimes against humanity is not going to lead to fair and free discussion. If bringing up worse things that have been done and are being done by the government that I as a citizen supposedly have a voice in is Whataboutism, then literally all allowable discussion serves imperial interests by highlighting stories that make our global adversaries look bad and ignoring anything that reflects poorly on us. That's debate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
You know what would help this thread even more? If CG followed the first principle of facilitating discussion between those with power & those without: Shut Up & Listen if you belong to the former. This isn't the thread for him to throw his weight around, to argue about political topics, or to respond to every critique (however many) directed at him or dnd. Every time he allows his ego to mash those buttons in reply to someone giving a feedback or suggestion in the feedback/suggestion thread he buttresses the argument that he's incompetent to mod. If modding is NBD and he can take it or leave it as he says, he should leave it. Step down. We can throw him a going-away party like we do with toxic coworkers & say nice things that we don't mean. Thank You for Your Service but your time here is done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
I agree that mod participation in the thread should be throttled back a little bit, and be more general rather than responding point-by-point to specific complaints, because that inevitably ends up being stuck in the weeds and letting more important, general ideas about what needs to change get buried in hyper-specific crap like the "whataboutism" argument. e: More generally, CommieGIR also seems to like posting a lot, which is fine, but it's probably better for mods to try not to post in general. I think if you asked CG which he would rather do, he would rather post, which is fine, but maybe not compatible with being a mod - probably better to post basically never (like fos) or only intermittently and in a relatively non-interactive way like GJB. Mods posting, even if they do it reasonably, just seems to get people riled up, and I think it's fair to consider accepting a modsmanship as a semi-retirement from postermanship. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
It got us a new policy on american genocide denial so who can say if it's good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:"One of my posting buddies trolled the subforum for two months, and another one of my posting buddies bought vulgar, misogynistic red text for them because they thought they were sincere, and then the mods removed the vulgar, misogynistic red text, for free! This proves, uh, wait, what was I talking about?" One of us is really upset about all this apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:It's not about "winning the argument" at all. My point is that heavyhanded moderating without even having the context to know that "the W word" has been and is used as a rhetorical device to avoid discussion of American crimes against humanity is not going to lead to fair and free discussion. If bringing up worse things that have been done and are being done by the government that I as a citizen supposedly have a voice in is Whataboutism, then literally all allowable discussion serves imperial interests by highlighting stories that make our global adversaries look bad and ignoring anything that reflects poorly on us. That's debate? Sure, that's a little better. What this misses is that the original reason the term was tied to bad-faith argument to deflect from US crimes was that those arguments came from the US government, who would obviously have a compelling interest in avoiding any discussion of their own crimes and hypocrisy. You are employing this argument against a random forums poster, someone who is not in any overt way affiliated with the US government or responsible for their crimes. When you call "imperialism" and refuse to engage with their point instead of saying "well, I get why you might think that but here's how my point about the war in Afghanistan is relevant to the PRC's Xinjiang policy" then you're causing things to devolve into a slapfight intentionally or not. If you want to throw in an aside about how 'whataboutism' is a historically problematic term and does one's argument no favors, go nuts. e: clarified my wording a bit, apologies Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
The central problem with forcing people out to different threads is that those different threads are either dead or have an established position that is thoroughly hostile to the debate. I don't have any issue with something like the voting thread, because that discussion happens again and again in USPOL and fundamentally can not have a resolution, but the immigration thread pissed me off because that mostly just killed discussion about an ongoing crisis in US politics, and I saw enough bullshit probes come down that I decided it wasn't with participating in it and I'd prefer to just blow off steam in CSPAM. The China thread told everyone to just gently caress off and banned anyone who mentioned Zenz, and while I'm not wading into that thing because I'm in the more-genocide-than-not camp, it's still a bad way of dealing with it. This all stinks of people just not wanting to hear about it anymore because they just want to have a news feed of What Happened Today In Congress. That's what NYTimes.com is for, not USPOL.
BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:e: More generally, CommieGIR also seems to like posting a lot, which is fine, but it's probably better for mods to try not to post in general. I think if you asked CG which he would rather do, he would rather post, which is fine, but maybe not compatible with being a mod - probably better to post basically never (like fos) or only intermittently and in a relatively non-interactive way like GJB. Mods posting, even if they do it reasonably, just seems to get people riled up, and I think it's fair to consider accepting a modsmanship as a semi-retirement from postermanship. Maybe, a good point. I don't know, maybe that needs to be a requirement to be a mod.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is a loving hot take: USNews is a single threaded discussion that generally strays off topic. Some topics are strong enough to be moved to their own threads, and many of those threads are very successful. The idea that it makes "Mods uncomfortable" a loving stupid take. Shut down USNews so people have to either make new threads for everything or drive each other nuts with derails The attempt to put an end to USPol has obviously failed by now anyway, just like every other attempt. No matter what kind of new rules the thread is theoretically created with, the mods don't actually treat the new reformed thread any different from the old one, so it falls right back into the old USPol habits and behaviors. UCS Hellmaker posted:thatfatkid is dedicated to justify that china is not infact doing it but doesnt provide anything but feelings and denial, we ran off R. Guyovich for the same poo poo. Side note Bathtubcheese being pro bomb a loving country because they are traitors to china is just as loving ghoulish. Its funny as hell to me that Guyovich got run off the forums for posting "Bernie Sanders sucks because he's not left enough" and "China isn't committing genocide", both of which are now commonplace politics opinions here on SA Truly he was ahead of his time CommieGIR posted:Is anybody not in agreement that the mass incarceration of black Americans is basically genocide? I mean given that the US Justice system in general is steeped in White Supremacy oriented towards doing oppressive, genocide like things? you need to stop having political arguments with people in feedback threads it's dumb enough when everyone else does it, but it really elevates it to a whole new level when a mod does it if you wanna argue the definition of genocide, or whatever the hell is going on here, make a discussion thread for it. if you're just trying to convince people and are not going to believe that the Xinjiang stuff isn't genocide, then just make a rule for it there is actually no point in getting this deep in the political weeds with people in a metadiscussion
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
Over the last six months I have mostly stopped reading D&D, and instead following the CSpam versions of the 3 threads I used to read here, basically because I developed a sense that even though most threads here move a lot slower and have far less actual shitposting in them, the signal to noise ratio had gotten worse here with lots of cliquiness and infighting, and at least timewise this relates to the USPol thread breakup and more strict enforcement of what goes where. I don't really want to wade too deep into D&D vs cspam waters; more or less I like to have somewhere to read about up to date COVID and economic takes and be at least somewhat entertained at the same time, and D&D doesn't serve this purpose as well for me. My general belief is that emotionally vulnerable posts people make in CSpam tend to get treated with more empathy than they do here, which is, uh. That's quite a statement, and I would not have made it 2-3 years ago, nor assumed it would ever be a thing I might say.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
OK so I've gotten caught up in "reactive" posting myself here, which is not what this thread is supposed to be about, so sorry for that. I think the most important thing to come out of the QCS thread is that a lot of people seem to take the idea of "Debate and Discussion" very seriously, and some people do not. To the former group, it establishes not just that there should be concrete rules, but that the rules should allow for debates to be "won" or "lost". I'm not really sure how somebody would know whether they "won" or "lost" a debate, but apparently it's what some people have been trying to do - it's no wonder they've been frustrated. Things don't have to be a "liberal hugbox" but people need to be willing to accept disagreement. I seem to have this big "reputation" in D&D for whatever reason, but if you look at my profile, my post count is actually pretty low, because once I've said my piece I drop stuff, rather than chase somebody around in circles trying to prove that I've "bested" them. When the latter happens, things just tend to get nastier and nastier until inevitably a probation happens. Heated policy disagreements lead to personal disagreements - I think people need to be kinder about policy disagreements, because there's not really any being kind about a personal disagreement. I really like Fritz the Horse's suggestion of closing D&D and creating a "Current Events" subforum in GBS. It would be an opportunity for a tone shift and maybe bring in some new posters with a more fun attitude. I also think MPF might be right about elimating USNews, but I would also recommend giving a pretty wide berth to derails so that if a given thread gets hot it doesn't get snuffed out. We might have "mini" USNewses pop up from time to time, but ultimately there's no "main" thread which should drive engagement in a larger number of threads. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Shut down USNews so people have to either make new threads for everything or drive each other nuts with derails I agree with almost everything in this post but this is a bit one-directional with cause and effect when I think it's actually more of a feedback loop. Even though the new threads are always theoretically under a different set of rules, people either realize that on some level this is 'new USpol' or are subconsciously looking for a USpol thread to post in and act accordingly. The mods may try for a bit to keep the new course, but since they get way more vitriolic anger than thanks for trying to oppose the zeitgeist (and because they have other things to do in life) they end up picking their battles. Everyone looks at the result, says "this is leadership's fault!" and here we are. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Demod CommieGir because he obviously can't even stop himself from getting into a stupid argument and derailing the god drat feedback thread. This is embarassing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Cabbages and Kings posted:Over the last six months I have mostly stopped reading D&D, and instead following the CSpam versions of the 3 threads I used to read here, basically because I developed a sense that even though most threads here move a lot slower and have far less actual shitposting in them, the signal to noise ratio had gotten worse here with lots of cliquiness and infighting, and at least timewise this relates to the USPol thread breakup and more strict enforcement of what goes where. TBH I think that cspam is in the best place it or any similar forum have ever been in during the last 15 years. There's obviously some, uh, STANDOUT EXCEPTIONS. And if you miss the extremely fyad-lite days of the past I could see how it might not be your cup of tea. But something has happened that make people try to be entertaining to each other even when they're really mad and it makes the forum good. I'm pretty flippant about D&D's chances because I don't think that anybody really pushing a side hard here, actually cares whether D&D is entertaining or enjoyable to read, so it's always going to be a problem. Or perhaps they think disagreements are the primary obstacle to that, and eliminating disagreements by limiting the points of view expressable is some kind of solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
I think we need more people who say stuff like thisquote:CommieGIR also seems to like posting a lot, which is fine, but it's probably better for mods to try not to post in general. I think if you asked CG which he would rather do, he would rather post, which is fine, but maybe not compatible with being a mod - probably better to post basically never (like fos) or only intermittently and in a relatively non-interactive way like GJB. Mods posting, even if they do it reasonably, just seems to get people riled up, and I think it's fair to consider accepting a modsmanship as a semi-retirement from postermanship. and less people who say stuff like this quote:Demod CommieGir because he obviously can't even stop himself from getting into a stupid argument and derailing the god drat feedback thread. This is embarassing. The main difference isn't word count. Just stop trying to "own" people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
Any time a mod wants to address literally any grievances from the past few days would be great. Thus far we've had CG making GBS threads the floor for 2 days while gjb pops in to say that forum bans are bad and good and who knows, really? At this point it should be obvious to anyone that the moderation staff have run out of ideas because they keep backfiring and should either start in completely new directions or resign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I think we need more people who say stuff like this I'm not trying to "own" anyone. If a mod can't even follow the rules of a thread, they shouldn't be a mod. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Like just for point of reference, most long-running threads have 12-18 hour long derails periodically that have a long tail for a few days after that of people discussing it for a few posts at a time. That's normal. It's not actually a problem. It's even fun, you get to learn about the thread regulars in another context and build some sense of community. I can understand wanting to mitigate a rage spiral when it happens but chat threads here in D&D seem to be interested in pre-emptively stopping rage spirals by setting a hard time limit on individual topics. That's not how big threads are supposed to work and it makes the thread really stilted to read. The rule is if you want to talk about something else, don't bitch, talk about something else. Having two conversations at once is really annoying and the thread tends to jettison the less relevant one on its own eventually. Mods don't need to facilitate this process. Mods here see themselves as the framework through which conversations happen in and not as a giant hook that drags bad poo poo off stage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
At first I really hated CommieGIR because I thought all this aggro posting was prelude to him probating me, but he didn't and while he over-moderates now, it's not usually with the person he's arguing with (I could be wrong, this is strictly anecdotal observation) and now it kinda rules to see a moderator, who usually hide, just constantly go hard in the paint. It's like watching someone who's 6'2" in the NBA demand to be passed to in the post every time, you end up cheering for them even as you sigh every time they get swatted to kingdom come. But yes, the ideal moderator is someone who doesn't post that much. The ideal moderator is, in fact, someone not really known for their posting at all. They should be well-liked by everyone, seemingly innocuous, the essence of a groundskeeper, someone who smiles and waves at you while covered in grime and when they softly tell you to keep off the grass with their pitchfork twitching in their hand, you listen. Difficult to recruit from in this forum. Difficult to recruit a mod at all though because, even though I myself would like to see a clean house, the cerebral and not emotional part of my head knows why that won't happen: No one wants to mod this goddamn forum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:OK, let's call it "changing the subject" then? Is it not changing the subject to swerve from talking about Xinjiang to the US's wars or is there some substantial connection between the two? No one said that the US's wars aren't bad. But oh look, they used the 'W' word so they must be an imperialist shill, we'll just call them that and now we won the argument! JFC. I can't believe I'm saying this, but the forum might be well served by people actually typing a few more words for poo poo like this. Like, put your effort into expanding your thinking on the most "controversial" parts of your post, rather than just summing it all up in a word whose meaning there is no consensus on/is used to imply more than the facts can support. Like, take the whole genocide discussion. If some people use genocide to mean "Extermination camps" and others use it to mean "assimilationist policies backed by force", then it becomes really hard to argue the topic just using the word genocide. When C-SPAM had the discussion there were a lot of "Obviously it's not a genocide, there are no extermination camps" replies, with most of those switching to "Oh, I didn't realize the definition of genocide was a lot broader than that, yeah, not gonna fight anyone on that definition being applicable". Obviously it didn't convince everyone, but if you could get 80% of the posters who'd normally react poorly to your post to at least see your side if not agree with you, then that'd massively deescalate discussions. Hell, get one of them to see your point and acknowledge it, and others might be convinced to give your post another read. Another thing people can do in that vein is trying to ask people to clarify, perhaps giving a good faith shot at trying to interpret a post and asking if that is what they meant, rather than just going on the offensive. I feel like that's something that used to happen kind of regularly, and I certainly also had quite a bit of success with it. It also seems like something the mods might be able to facilitate, and is certainly a place where mods taking part in the discussion would be very natural. Killin_Like_Bronson posted:They seem to be adding to the list of reasons to consider that mods are playing to their faves or just like super dumb. Mellow Seas posted:I think the most important thing to come out of the QCS thread is that a lot of people seem to take the idea of "Debate and Discussion" very seriously, and some people do not. To the former group, it establishes not just that there should be concrete rules, but that the rules should allow for debates to be "won" or "lost". I'm not really sure how somebody would know whether they "won" or "lost" a debate, but apparently it's what some people have been trying to do - it's no wonder they've been frustrated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Also, USPol has always been dumb because even when I was a baby moderate who feared how leftist D&D was during the Obama years (absolute lol) I would come in to try and see what people's latest reactions were to the breaking news and be met with people's ongoing argument about some policy matter or another from two days ago. It's not a breaking news thread, it's now not a thread you can have in-depth discussion in unless it's Trump or it gets cordoned off to a separate thread entirely so now it's about handwriting or something weird half the time. It's just too broad a topic for a single thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:
It's why majorian ended up being such a lovely mod. He couldn't help but get into huge arguments and then end them with buttons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Discussion-type D&D regulars just sorta get rolled up into the latter group because the "competitive debaters" don't target them, but they probably have more in common with the discussion-type C-SPAM regulars when it comes to posting styles. I get salty with people because of personality issues, not because of policy issues, and I'm not really interested in having to-the-death debates about policy issues. I really just want to talk about the news, and I don't want people expressing schadenfreude at my expense. I don't really read CSPAM so this is an honest question - how do people who are, for lack of a better term, "pro-AOC and Bernie Sanders", get along with the posters who are constantly making GBS threads on them? How do you keep that disagreement from spiraling into hostility? Is one side dominant over the other? Does it come down, thread by thread, to just who can shout the loudest? Maybe part of the reason CSPAM works better than D&D is because there is no "one" megathread, and so people can go post in a thread that is more their speed. (I know that a lot of CSPAM hates the succzone thread, and a lot of the succzone thread hates most of CSPAM, for example.) In D&D, people feel like they're missing out on eyeballs if they're not posting in USNews, so everything ends up in there trying to please everybody and pleasing nobody.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
I just want to be clear that I don't have any personal beef with CG. I think he's a mostly OK poster, sometimes he makes bad arguments, sometimes he plays dumb about things, but whom amongst us etc etc. I've gotten in fights with him here and in GIP before, but nothing that stands out in my memory as being egregiously bad. But I still think he's a bad moderator for the reasons I've already stated (see my previous post on his reticence in dealing with rape apologists). Stepping down would make things better for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:we ran off R. Guyovich for the same poo poo and you were in the wrong back then as well now you can go back to sifting through some fat brit's google maps "analysis" of a mosque
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I get salty with people because of personality issues, not because of policy issues, and I'm not really interested in having to-the-death debates about policy issues. I really just want to talk about the news, and I don't want people expressing schadenfreude at my expense. I don't really read CSPAM so this is an honest question - how do people who are, for lack of a better term, "pro-AOC and Bernie Sanders", get along with the posters who are constantly making GBS threads on them? How do you keep that disagreement from spiraling into hostility? Is one side dominant over the other? Does it come down, thread by thread, to just who can shout the loudest? I mean yeah, D&D fights are obviously often about personality and wanting an audience and CSPAM's big "secret" is that they're more inclusive of different thoughts and ideas. You hit the nail on the head.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I mean yeah, D&D fights are obviously often about personality and wanting an audience and CSPAM's big "secret" is that they're more inclusive of different thoughts and ideas. You hit the nail on the head. Maybe this is asking a lot but could you maybe link an example of a discussion going well in CSPAM that you think would go poorly in D&D? If your answer is "gently caress off, go find one yourself" that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
There's a lot less 'shouting down' in CSPAM than you guys think. The only person I can think of in recent memory being 'run off' in the sense that people dogpile them is Kim Bong Chill, and that is an obvious gimmick account. Yeah, people are gonna post the newest thing that shows AOC or Bernie, with their spines completely shattered, bending to the whims of the democrats, despite their 'revolutionary' rhetoric. You can still post that you like them, it's not the end of the world. Some folks may lol at you, it's ok. Maybe y'all are thinking back to when Taintrunner was around calling everyone a rapist or whatever. It was tedious as hell for us too, let me tell you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:There's a lot less 'shouting down' in CSPAM than you guys think. The only person I can think of in recent memory being 'run off' in the sense that people dogpile them is Kim Bong Chill, and that is an obvious gimmick account. I think people who post in D&D are mostly people who don't like going out of their way to share their thoughts on something they care about and getting "lmao" (or 10 "lmaos") as a response. I think they're hardly unique in the world in that respect. I don't care if that makes us "soft" or loses us internet cred or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Maybe a good way to improve the whole "working the refs to win arguments" thing is... well, it has been said in the past that there are people who max out their number of daily reports here in D&D (and also in CSPAM but this is a thread for D&D moderation so please let's stick to the topic at hand). Maybe those people should be punished for it? Or in general, if a mod spots an instance of "ref working", or people reporting posts while actively engaged in an argument with those post(er)s, maybe punish that as well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Maybe this is asking a lot but could you maybe link an example of a discussion going well in CSPAM that you think would go poorly in D&D? If your answer is "gently caress off, go find one yourself" that's fine. Literally the entire forum. All the mega threads like doomsday econ, Trump thread, succ zone, even some of the smaller bits like the failing New York times or the anarchist thread. There's a reason why they're in Cspam and not DnD and that reason is the terrible mods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Literally the entire forum. All the mega threads like doomsday econ, Trump thread, succ zone, even some of the smaller bits like the failing New York times or the anarchist thread. There's a reason why they're in Cspam and not DnD and that reason is the terrible mods. Oh word people like the mods in CSPAM?  e: Sorry, snarky. The fact is I've read the succ thread (because my posts end up there sometimes!), I hate it and I think it's awful, I would never in a million years want to post there. Even if I did, it moves way too fast for me. So why do people who hate USNews and think it's awful want to post there so much? Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Like just for point of reference, most long-running threads have 12-18 hour long derails periodically that have a long tail for a few days after that of people discussing it for a few posts at a time. That's normal. It's not actually a problem. It's even fun, you get to learn about the thread regulars in another context and build some sense of community. I can understand wanting to mitigate a rage spiral when it happens but chat threads here in D&D seem to be interested in pre-emptively stopping rage spirals by setting a hard time limit on individual topics. That's not how big threads are supposed to work and it makes the thread really stilted to read. The rule is if you want to talk about something else, don't bitch, talk about something else. Having two conversations at once is really annoying and the thread tends to jettison the less relevant one on its own eventually. Mods don't need to facilitate this process. Yeah this is a really strange thing that happens in a lot of subforums, not just here. Who cares about derails? When the intended topic of a thread is broad it seems egotistical to want every conversation to cater to someone's specific whims. Derails will usually burn themselves out naturally either when a new topic of conversation comes up (as is often the case with a thread called US News, after all) or when it just dies out when the conversation organically moves on to something else. Whenever a derail I'm not interested in becomes the topic of a thread, I just peace outta the thread until something else pops up. It shouldn't be treated like a problem unless that's all people wanna talk about for days on end at which point yeah a separate thread would be better suited for whatever the derail is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I think people who post in D&D are mostly people who don't like going out of their way to share their thoughts on something they care about and getting "lmao" (or 10 "lmaos") as a response. I think they're hardly unique in the world in that respect. I don't care if that makes us "soft" or loses us internet cred or whatever. How would it be better to receive 10 heavily-sourced effort posts? Or more likely, 1 heavily-sourced effort post and 9 people kind of trying to do that, poorly? There's really only two possibilities here: "post lmao with more words and I promise not to get mad (i will get mad)" or "stop disagreeing with me, on the internet". And these are, shockingly, two very common brands of D&D posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Maybe this is asking a lot but could you maybe link an example of a discussion going well in CSPAM that you think would go poorly in D&D? If your answer is "gently caress off, go find one yourself" that's fine. The entire CSPAM paranormal thread. It's an interesting mix of true believers, people who are looking at paranormal things mostly from a sociological perspective, or don't believe but are interested. I do not think that thread would do well at all in D&D and would quickly become little people showing off how much they don't believe in dumb baby poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2021 16:54
|
|