|
Raenir Salazar posted:I feel that the suggestion to ban conservative view points is just opening pandora's box by giving ammo to the posters with the most extreme viewpoints to redefine moderate views as "conservative" in order to demand mod enforcement action on beliefs or positions they disagree with. Conservatives disappeared because their ideology has drifted into fantasy land and they couldn't make coherent arguments in support of their positions. They're more than welcome any time they can.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:I wrote this in a mod discussion the other day and while it's a social-media-wide phenomenon, SA definitely isn't escaping its effects. I disagree with your view that this is not a community and if someone spent several hours a day at their favorite restaurant, it would be a much more unusual thing than someone spending many hours every day here. You’re setting up a caricatured idea of the forums being a place to hate women but that’s not what the vast, vast majority of people here use the forum for. I don’t know anywhere else on the World Wide Web where people have been coming daily for 20+ years. Do you think an online community is a possibility at all, for any sort of web forum, discussion platform, or social media? What would you call this group if not a community? I mean I’ve been a regular at a restaurant before but that usually entailed going on 2-3 times a week for an hour or so, and that didn’t last more than a couple of years. I’m more strongly attached to the Something Awful community than most things in my life simply because of having to move around a lot. I know more about the personal lives of people here than I know about most of by good friends IRL. Do you guys get invited to days-long discussions at your fave restaurants about how they should be run? I get that it can be tiring to moderate this community but I don’t understand why you’d agree to do this for a community you don’t believe is real and which you appear at best to be indifferent to, if not resentful toward. It’s ok for people to care about things they spend hours a day on. At the risk of outing myself as a weirdo who cares about things, I feel love for this place and the people here. I wouldn’t come back if I hated it. I’ve found more genuine understanding here than anywhere else in my life. mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:I disagree with your view that this is not a community and if someone spent several hours a day at their favorite restaurant, it would be a much more unusual thing than someone spending many hours every day here. To be clear that post is about social media on the whole, not specifically the SA forums. But that's the thing: I love SA, and it's one of my favorite places to hang out and post about things. I've met friends who I do have personal relationships with via the forums. That's great. The forums are valuable and I volunteer to help with them because I want to maintain that. I don't think that's the same thing as a community, any more than the twitch chat for a popular steamer is. Despite spending a lot of time in D&D I don't personally know the posters here beyond our intersecting interests. I don't know about the people behind the posts more or less at all, which means that I have a warped and limited view of who they are, and that stuff frequently leads to weird little cults of personality or grudges that I don't think would happen if social media represented a more complete picture of who posters are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:This is the second time now you've just straight slapfight insulted posters. Skyl3lazer posted:I have a question/mod feedback, why was this post probated? Hey so are either of these things going to get addressed by any mod or admin in the thread or are they just gonna get ignored and swept under the rug so things can keep going right back to the way they were? Because stuff like this is why people have a problem with D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I have a question/mod feedback, why was this post probated? I'm not a mod, but I recognize TwoQuestions to be a particularly notorious doomposter. They constantly post articles and tweets and then misrepresent what is happening. If you look at the quoted post, the article is about Manchin and Sanders arguing about something behind closed doors. TwoQuestions, though, decided to spin it as "bill is dead", which was a dumb take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I feel that the suggestion to ban conservative view points is just opening pandora's box by giving ammo to the posters with the most extreme viewpoints to redefine moderate views as "conservative" in order to demand mod enforcement action on beliefs or positions they disagree with. People who call themselves "moderate" are actually conservative. Sorry. And conservatives have never ever had a good point. That question was answered a long time ago. And people like you will never agree to any solution because you've made it very clear that you like to disagree for the sake of disagreeing so you can post tons of words that make you seem smarter than you really are. To tie this to the thread topic, this is one kind of posting we really don't need here. I don't even care if this dude makes long posts. I want people whose obvious primary motivation for posting is to constantly slightly disagree with everything just so they can post more to be punished for it with way more than a sixer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Pamela Springstein posted:Would like to know more about this since the thread isnt focused on CG anymore. has Ralph read this thread? I've been reading it and discussing it (when I have the time) with the other mods and admins, but as Commie noted, I have a lot going on behind the scenes right now so I'm focusing my energies elsewhere for the time being. Anyways, regarding that specific probation. I submitted the longer probation almost a week ago. Sometimes the admins approve things right away, sometimes they will approve longer probations days if not a week later because they too have their own poo poo to deal with that isn't related to the forums. That poster in particular has a history of posting "We're doomed" takes and not much else, plus this isn't even the first time they've been ramped for it. Even if that poster didn't have a history of doomer takes, link dropping and just adding "bills dead" without much else context isn't really keeping in line with providing context whenever you drop tweets or article links. Also I think this has may have been pointed out, but if not, forum bans aren't issued solely on the judgement of one mod. There is a consensus when it's done. Thread bans aren't as strict, but more often than not, mods will raise the possibility with other mods to see if there are any objections. Many threadbans and even forumbans have ended up not happening at all because some members of the mod team felt they weren't warranted. I'll add to that, I generally agree with some of the posts in here that they aren't very effective in some cases, and that there needs to be a better structure for how they are managed and as well as codified steps to reversing them. Also with regards to someone complaining about PMing me and my responses to them, kinda weird that they left out the part where they came in guns hot with abuse and then later made comments questioning my mental health and that of other mods (not just DnD mods either) because we dared probate them for their lovely posts  I respond to pretty much every PM I get so long as it's not pure strain garbage or abuse being thrown in my direction. Usually if someone comes in hot but are otherwise just frustrated by a mod action and aren't actively trying to be an abusive dickhead, I do try to engage with them in a reasonable and respectful manner because I do recognize there's another person on the other side of the conversation. But there have been a few times where people send me a PM to be nothing more but a raging rear end in a top hat and I've fired back. As another mod or admin once put it, we're not required to put up with that poo poo from anyone in PMs. We're volunteers, and even if we weren't, I'm pretty sure Jeff wouldn't tell us that we have to smile and put up with people being abusive shitheads in our inboxes because they or one of their friends ate a sixer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I'm not a mod, but I recognize TwoQuestions to be a particularly notorious doomposter. They constantly post articles and tweets and then misrepresent what is happening. I will totally admit I don't follow this poster and know a deep history (beyond reading the past modded posts), but I'm not sure why "dumb take" would be 3+threadban warning. Also, the poster was (possibly/apparently) correct, which makes it seem less like a dumb take and more like a take that was just outside the consensus. They're clearly giving their opinion on the story based on the article, not trying to present the tweet/article as proving the deadness. Also, again a lot of the previous posts weren't really anything special or actionable to my thought. If there's a clear explanation or something I'm missing, I'd be satisfied. I've been very sincere during this entire round of feedback, because it feels to me like if nothing changes this time, I probably won't bother trying again. I was an avid D&D reader and sometimes poster (especially the politoons thread) from like 2012-2018. I'll admit as well that the questions *are* leading, because I strongly suspect there isn't a good answer to them. I'd have been less curious about the probe if it was old, but this was literally last night on a two day old post. It exactly covers the type of stuff already under the microscope in this thread and QCS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
I don't know currently if its still the rule to not really respond to people; if it is I apologize as I'd like to respond.Elephant Ambush posted:People who call themselves "moderate" are actually conservative. Sorry. And conservatives have never ever had a good point. That question was answered a long time ago. But if they never had a good point, it should be easy to defend your position with words, and to attack their position with those words and it should be equally clear to the audience who is the most right. If you want a place to just essentially quote-retweet an effort post with "lol" that's what twitter is for; can't you just not engage? Otherwise it just seems like you're grasping at straws to find the most trivial fig leafs to dismiss someone's argument that they spent time and effort into crafting without any effort because you believe your opinion is inherently self-evidently right that you do not feel that there is a need to defend it. Like it doesn't matter if some poster here doesn't seem to "agree" with you on some solution, no one here is implementing policy; what happens in Washington DC will happen regardless of whatever consensus you force to happen here. If they don't agree either keep arguing with the hopes of getting them to see it your way or just drop it, why codify nastiness towards people you just have disagreements with?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
I think the Sherman tag is just an amazing example of the awful attitude in d&d. The same argument for many other historical figures wouldn't fly. You'd rightfully laugh out Hitler the artist, wernher von braun the scientist, Andrew Jackson, Revolutionary war hero. Pro-chairman Xi and no one is allowed to mention the genocide and it's called disingenuous if they do, I'm sure d&d would love that. But the Sherman tag is the one thing that arbitrarily gets a pass of "It's not about his genocide, it's about his actions during the war" which mind you was also horrific. It's just a great example of the hypocritical lovely attitude in d&d that assumes all disagreement comes from a disingenuous place. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
Is the idea that the bill is dead completely out of bounds? It seems like a very real possibility, and yet that analysis is perceived as trolling because it is something the in-group, which includes the mods, do not believe. "doomerism" is just a pejorative for a set of beliefs that you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Is the idea that the bill is dead completely out of bounds? It seems like a very real possibility, and yet that analysis is perceived as trolling because it is something the in-group, which includes the mods, do not believe. "doomerism" is just a pejorative for a set of beliefs that you don't like. It was three words with very little context. It wasn't: "Here's a list of reasons I think this means the bill is dead for sure" it was just a steaming twitter post and "Bill is dead". Is that really the engagement you want? The bill may effectively be dead, Willa has a lot of good posts to that exact effect. But just outright saying "bill is dead" with no clear reason to believe it is....something else. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
still lolin' about how "oh, little baby can't stand up to some 'light' condescension from everyone they engage with here? toughen up scrub" is official D&D mod guidance apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Is the idea that the bill is dead completely out of bounds? It seems like a very real possibility, and yet that analysis is perceived as trolling because it is something the in-group, which includes the mods, do not believe. "doomerism" is just a pejorative for a set of beliefs that you don't like. Maybe because it's not dead? You could make an argument about why you think it's likely that the reconciliation bill will die and the ramifications of it - i.e. put some effort into analyzing the situation and why it will turn out as you expect. Posting "It's dead, lol" is just shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It was three words with very little context. It wasn't: "Here's a list of reasons I think this means the bill is dead for sure" it was just a steaming twitter post and "Bill is dead". Is that really the engagement you want? 1) handsome Ralph's justification for the probe focused on the perspective, not the length, and to that end 2) there is absolutely zero chance "bill is alive" with a Twitter link by a member of the in-group would have gotten probated in the same context
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
Cloaked posted:still lolin' about how "oh, little baby can't stand up to some 'light' condescension from everyone they engage with here? toughen up scrub" is official D&D mod guidance apparently. That's a common opinion around here though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:1) handsome Ralph's justification for the probe focused on the perspective, not the length, and to that end This is a good point, we should probe people for dropping takes like that too. But the idea that it invalidates someone, who was more than likely just trying to stir the pot with a three word post, probably also needed to be give a sixer. Especially if they have a history of doing that over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is a good point, we should probe people for dropping takes like that too. But the idea that it invalidates someone, who was more than likely just trying to stir the pot with a three word post, probably also needed to be give a sixer. Especially if they have a history of doing that over and over again. The rules being applied or not applied based on clique and ideology is the entire reason this forum is more of a chat crew than a debate forum fostering a variety of perspectives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I feel that the suggestion to ban conservative view points is just opening pandora's box by giving ammo to the posters with the most extreme viewpoints to redefine moderate views as "conservative" in order to demand mod enforcement action on beliefs or positions they disagree with. There's a pervasive with-us-or-against-us vibe to a lot of posts in USNews due to the feelings of helplessness, dread, and anger about the world around them. It's essentially a way to rationalize the aggroposting going around. Some may not want to participate, but because they agree with the feelings, they don't call it out. Just a couple posts later, here's an example in this very thread: Elephant Ambush posted:People who call themselves "moderate" are actually conservative. Sorry. And conservatives have never ever had a good point. That question was answered a long time ago. For some people, there's really no room for any differences of opinion. The reason they so loudly proclaim that people are being banned because they are posting against the ideology of the thread is because they, themselves, want their ideology to be dominant and all others to be silenced. I've asked before, "who has been banned purely due to ideology", but no one has answered. It's really no different from right wingers screaming about CRT in their public schools when there's no evidence for it at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
Can confirm that I disagree with Ralph fairly often, but all of my PM interactions with him have been civil, even if I do come in annoyed and hot, for what that's worth. And he probates me a lot it's not like we're friends or something. May not have been everyone's experience, but just from my experience even if he doesn't really like you, you get a calm explanation of his action as long as your PM is like halfway civil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This is a good point, we should probe people for dropping takes like that too. But the idea that it invalidates someone, who was more than likely just trying to stir the pot with a three word post, probably also needed to be give a sixer. Especially if they have a history of doing that over and over again. Ok but what if you just simply didnt take any action on that post? What is the negative outcome to the forum? People are either going to reply to it or they aren't going to reply to it. Can you look back at your last few probes and just ask yourself this. Is this action improving the forum? If yes, is this action going to make a change to prevent this infraction from happening again? If you're doing it because you get 40 reports every time someone posts a link to twitter, that probably means you should have a conversation with the people who simply can't just scroll past it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Anyways, regarding that specific probation. I submitted the longer probation almost a week ago. Sometimes the admins approve things right away, sometimes they will approve longer probations days if not a week later because they too have their own poo poo to deal with that isn't related to the forums. This answers the timing part, thanks. Handsome Ralph posted:That poster in particular has a history of posting "We're doomed" takes and not much else, plus this isn't even the first time they've been ramped for it. Even if that poster didn't have a history of doomer takes, link dropping and just adding "bills dead" without much else context isn't really keeping in line with providing context whenever you drop tweets or article links. This reads to me like two reasons. The first being that it was a low-content post in reply to the tweet. I get wanting to make people put more effort in to describing/quoting stuff they link, and think it's a good idea. I also agree that this poster didn't do that verbosely enough given that the article itself wasn't directly an announcement of the bill's failure. The second reason though is the one I take issue with. If this poster honestly believes, and I think they do, that they should be pessimistic over the state of the world for various reasons, why is that actionable? This particular probation wasn't even "we're doomed!", it was just saying that one bill wouldn't pass! That's hardly chicken little-ing about the collapse of society. It's a purely ideological probation based on the fact that you, as well as the mod team if the threadban threat was a group decision, think that actually things are going pretty well and this person is just too negative. It isn't "genocide denial," racism, doxxing, or harassment of some other user. Many people have totally valid reasons to be pessimistic, but rather than have a discussion on that (which the thread started to do!), a mod stepped in. It's not like the negativity isn't supportable by evidence that even the most optimistic D&D-er would consider reliable. Why shouldn't that discussion be allowed? Handsome Ralph posted:Also I think this has may have been pointed out, but if not, forum bans aren't issued solely on the judgement of one mod. There is a consensus when it's done. Thread bans aren't as strict, but more often than not, mods will raise the possibility with other mods to see if there are any objections. Many threadbans and even forumbans have ended up not happening at all because some members of the mod team felt they weren't warranted. This is just a side note on thread/forum bans, but if it requires all this consensus and yet still doesn't have a reliable way to track and check who is "banned" from what thread/forum then it's absolutely a failing on the part of the mod team. A single google doc or sticky thread would have taken care of that even if no on-site tools exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
The ideas is the rules are going to be re-written entirely to allow that level of understanding, with this feedback being the cornerstone of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Doin something you've been ramped for already is a dangerous game anywhere on these boards. Doin it in such a way that everybody's first thought is that Bill Clinton died only for them to realize it's a low effort post with just a link and nothing else, double danger. "Doomposting" as a thing and as an actionable thing are two separate beasts, imho, but both worth reconsidering stuff on. It's on my "Thing To Mull Over From Feedback Thread" list. I don't think this one is a particularly good example to analyze tho because by the looks of it it's also a good example of how hard it can be to actually earn a thread/forum ban (also on list)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
My feedback is that D&D mods would benefit from de-escalation skills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think the Sherman tag is just an amazing example of the awful attitude in d&d. The same argument for many other historical figures wouldn't fly. You'd rightfully laugh out Hitler the artist, wernher von braun the scientist, Andrew Jackson, Revolutionary war hero. Pro-chairman Xi and no one is allowed to mention the genocide and it's called disingenuous if they do, I'm sure d&d would love that. But the Sherman tag is the one thing that arbitrarily gets a pass of "It's not about his genocide, it's about his actions during the war" which mind you was also horrific. It's just a great example of the hypocritical lovely attitude in d&d that assumes all disagreement comes from a disingenuous place. Dude, he's had that gangtag for ages, and SUDDENLY it's SUPER OFFENSIVE when we're in the middle of a pile-on? It's really hard to take that poo poo seriously, and it's also hard to take your constant pleas for  seriously when you called me an idiot in QCS for liking a popular rock album.Also, has nobody mentioned Stalin gangtags yet? 'Cause I wouldn't accuse somebody with that gangtag of loving the Ukrainian famine and act all aggrieved, because that's loving stupid. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:If you're doing it because you get 40 reports every time someone posts a link to twitter, that probably means you should have a conversation with the people who simply can't just scroll past it. Each post can only be reported once
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It was three words with very little context. It wasn't: "Here's a list of reasons I think this means the bill is dead for sure" it was just a steaming twitter post and "Bill is dead". Is that really the engagement you want? It's the type of "engagement" that is completely acceptable when other posters do it. Just from the last few pages of that same thread: FlamingLiberal posted:Welp Judakel posted:https://twitter.com/alexanderbolton/status/1453484060714709003 Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The phrase "we are close to a deal" must summon a phantom that resets your entire progress on negotiations. marshmonkey posted:Local Billionaire against billionaire tax, a thread: WebDO posted:NBC News: Biden expected to meet with House Democrats, push progressives to pass infrastructure bill. None of these posts are more substantial than the one that got 3 days of probation and a "final warning" before a threadban. And to be clear I don't think there's anything wrong with any of them, but you can go to any random page of that thread and probably find at least one post with similarly little original content beyond a link/tweet that went without punishment so this is obviously not a rule that is evenly applied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:It's the type of "engagement" that is completely acceptable when other posters do it. Just from the last few pages of that same thread: 10/22/21 posted:Bill's dead 10/14/21 posted:So she's still got her suicide vest strapped on, she'll blow up the party before agreeing to something the Progressives demand. 9/28/2021 posted:Reconciliation bi is dead, they'll likely have to use it just to raise the debt ceiling, and they'll blame progressives for it. 9/26/2021 posted:So Biden is even more toast than he was? 9/20/2021 posted:The only people breathing a word about the reconciliation bill are nerds like us and hard-right blogs. 9/19/2021 posted:So both bills are still dead. And also the (type of) post that TwoQuestions makes all the time that made me put them on ignore: 8/20/2-21 posted:Any news about the infrastructure plan, or is Congress still on recess? TwoQuestions posted:Any news on the infrastructure/reconcilliation bills? Has Manchin or Sienma or a cadre of House blue dogs decided to go out in a blaze of political glory by stopping those bills? TwoQuestions posted:So how long do we have until the debt ceiling is breached, and how long until shutdown? TwoQuestions posted:So is the debt ceiling stuff in the reconciliation bill, or are both in the infrastructure bill? TwoQuestions posted:Is Sienma still hard against a reconciliation bill, or has there been any noise from her? As far as mod feedback goes, I find the latter sort of posts much more annoying than the doom and gloom wailing. The one-two punch of any "Any news?" and "We're doomed" is kind of funny though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Those people in Useful Distraction's examples wrote more or less complete thoughts at least, not a thought-fragment like 'bill is dead'
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Dude, he's had that gangtag for ages, and SUDDENLY it's SUPER OFFENSIVE when we're in the middle of a pile-on? It's really hard to take that poo poo seriously, and it's also hard to take your constant pleas for It's not a plea for decorum it's pointing out that the go to attitude in d&d, and a big problem with it, is the attitude that any criticism or disagreement is insincere and you've mostly met it by telling me I'm insincere. It's consistent I'll give you that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:None of these posts are more substantial than the one that got 3 days of probation and a "final warning" before a threadban. And to be clear I don't think there's anything wrong with any of them, but you can go to any random page of that thread and probably find at least one post with similarly little original content beyond a link/tweet that went without punishment so this is obviously not a rule that is evenly applied. 2. The post would never justify more than a sixer anyway, the three days is for a pattern of behavior That said, we should probably lighten up on "doomposters", if they're being sincere (or could reasonably be perceived as sincere, since we're not mind readers). I think it's usually the kind of thing that posters can handle on its own - like what does probating the post accomplish that LT2012 or somebody else saying "no, it's not dead" doesn't? Stuff that's "lightly annoying" can probably be let go. It's not like TwoQuestions is dominating USNews with that stuff; they make relatively few posts, even if they all have a similar tone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Those people wrote more or less complete thoughts at least, not a thought-fragment like 'bill is dead' I don’t get why thought fragments shouldn’t be allowed because you don’t think they contribute anything. It’s a thread where people post unfunny band names (the bottom of the web forum barrel, together with chats about tipping and list your pet peeves). It’s fine if not every single thing has a message you can discern. mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:I don’t get why thought fragments shouldn’t be allowed because you don’t think they contribute anything. It’s a thread where people post unfunny band names (the bottom of the web forum barrel, together with chats about tipping and list your pet peeves). It’s fine if not every single thing has a message you can discern. Again, also a fair point: where do we draw the line and say "Okay back on topic" while also doing what we're supposed to be, making jokes in a comedy forum with some debate and discussion. I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Doin something you've been ramped for already is a dangerous game anywhere on these boards. Okay in order not to be probated I'll try to respond in a more substantive way than "what" but what on earth are you talking about, not a single person in that thread thought this. The discussion afterwards was about the bill in question, the link was clearly not about Clinton dying, nobody quoted that poster with this completely bizarre objection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:It's the type of "engagement" that is completely acceptable when other posters do it. Just from the last few pages of that same thread: None of these posts are equivalent examples. They are complete thoughts, provide commentary on what is being linked, and don't misrepresent the poster's opinion as the contents of what is linked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, also a fair point: where do we draw the line and say "Okay back on topic" while also doing what we're supposed to be, making jokes in a comedy forum with some debate and discussion. Do you need to draw any lines at all? The thread will get back on 'topic' as soon as there's something people want to talk about more than band names or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:Do you need to draw any lines at all? The thread will get back on 'topic' as soon as there's something people want to talk about more than band names or whatever. How often have you posted here on weekends? Because its not usually that self-correcting. In fact we've started doing exactly what you've said a lot on weekends, and I'll fully admin sometime it does work. But not always. Breakfast chat is a good example that didn't self correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Doin something you've been ramped for already is a dangerous game anywhere on these boards. imo it's fine to be pessimistic it crosses into Doomposting when either: a) someone has adopted a position where they just constantly post totally unsupported one-liners with zero backing and nothing to discuss, and largely refuses to engage with any evidence to the contrary, conspiracy theorist-style b) they do it all the loving time so that people have to talk their little freakout down to some degree of calmness basically every time they post there is definitely an issue with people submerging themselves in poo poo that makes them miserable, on purpose, and then complaining to the forums about how miserable they are take this recent example quote:Right wing media hit me hard today, gonna take a break from listening to it for a while. Woke up to hear Fox News excited that Youngkin has tied McAuliffe in the polls (well, one poll) and I'm pretty worried he's going to win. Even if it's one poll and they chose it purely because it's favorable to him, the fact that they're able to pull even a single poll now that shows Youngkin tied worries the hell out of me. Everyone always said that the CRT scare wouldn't last, that it would fade away like every other right wing talking point, but I feel like this is proof that it had staying power and worst of all that it worked. "help, I'm watching Hannity every day, and now I'm starting to feel like the far right is victorious and unbeatable" people rightfully told them to log off from politics for a while, and that's a piece of advice that people should heed more frequently in general here
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:None of these posts are equivalent examples. They are complete thoughts, provide commentary on what is being linked, and don't misrepresent the poster's opinion as the contents of what is linked. And yet the "bad" post resulted in a bunch of genuine discussion, more than some of these examples even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:36
|
|
