|
Useful Distraction posted:Okay in order not to be probated I'll try to respond in a more substantive way than "what" I apologize, I don't know if I'm misremembering or if it got edited out but I do remember at least one person posting that (tongue in cheek somewhat, as I was also being) and I personally definitely thought that. My second thought was "well at least it's not the worst kind of contextless link, the unembedded youtube link". It's not an objection because the reason for the probation is already laid out, this is just my take, my feedback if you will, a reading of the whys and wherefores of the forums
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
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. “Deteriorata” posted: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. But it wasn’t a suggestion, it was a statement from Jeffrey that conservative viewpoints as a whole aren’t welcome here. Which honestly, part of me is relieved to see actually stated because it sometimes feels like you’re taking crazy pills if you end up breaking right on any position. It’s still disappointing because the forum has changed my opinion on a bunch of things over the years, but if that’s the view from the top, it’s just tilting at windmills with no hope of change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:imo it's fine to be pessimistic Yeah, doomposting becomes indistinguishable from outright trolling, as they are non-factual low-content posts that disrupt the discussion in the thread. There are some posters who do it all the time, either because they can't help themselves or they are actually trolling. Regardless of the intent, the effect is the same and should be controlled. I can put them on my ignore list, but people still respond to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
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. Because there are a lot of people who don't post frequently in USNews and don't follow the nitty-gritty of the discussions in it, and instead just skim the thread once or twice a day for important highlights of the day and some associated commentary (hence the thread name, USNews). Posting a news article with a grossly misleading if not outright dumbass interpretation of what the article says lowers the reliability of the thread for those users. Unfunny band names, on the other hand, don't have that effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But it wasn’t a suggestion, it was a statement from Jeffrey that conservative viewpoints as a whole aren’t welcome here. quote:Serious feedback - codify Jeffrey’s comment in the QCS thread that conservative viewpoints aren’t allowed here into the actual rules at the top of the forum. Always seemed to be an unwritten rule, and it seems like the fairest thing for moderators and the community alike to just address openly. That kinda sounds like a suggestion to me about a change in D&D's rule; and I believe Jeffrey was speaking in terms of making an observation about the fact that if someone identifies as conservative and then posts conservative arguments they are running on a timer until they're either driven out or kicked out. Presumably plenty of conservatives do exist on the forums, they just don't post and D&D has been kinda worse for it as it just lead to infighting among people who agree on 90% of things. It also a bit problematic because clearly some part of the forum is offencive to people on different parts of the forums. Whether its GBS, FYAD, CSPAM, TFR, or ADTWR; drama between some combination of forums that isn't specifically D&D and CSPAM do happen with the sentiment being "This content that is normal in that community is offencive and should not be on these forums". Like I don't think Jeffrey is saying "Ban all Republicans", only that de facto they currently might as well be because they can't abide by all the other rules that already exist; which I believe there's a distinction between that and actually making it a rule. Because the minute you do make it a rule someone will absolutely weaponize it against mainstream Liberal beliefs; which has already happened: quote:People who call themselves "moderate" are actually conservative. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I apologize, I don't know if I'm misremembering or if it got edited out but I do remember at least one person posting that (tongue in cheek somewhat, as I was also being) and I personally definitely thought that. My second thought was "well at least it's not the worst kind of contextless link, the unembedded youtube link". It's not an objection because the reason for the probation is already laid out, this is just my take, my feedback if you will, a reading of the whys and wherefores of the forums Probably thinking of when Bill got admitted for septic shock from a UTI, which actually is one of the main reason elderly do die from an infection. UTI's are fairly common as we get older and welp the can kill ya fast
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
My compliments on your delightful if apocryphal avatar, goonsir.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That kinda sounds like a suggestion to me about a change in D&D's rule; and I believe Jeffrey was speaking in terms of making an observation about the fact that if someone identifies as conservative and then posts conservative arguments they are running on a timer until they're either driven out or kicked out. Presumably plenty of conservatives do exist on the forums, they just don't post and D&D has been kinda worse for it as it just lead to infighting among people who agree on 90% of things. Oh yeah, sorry I misunderstood you. Right, if this is the reality as stated by the owner, seems like a no brainer to update the rules to reflect that. Unless the fig leaf of “open debate” is still something that holds water here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted: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. So I think in this scenario it really matters what your intentions are in the debate. It's possible to run out the clock with rhetoric and I would be happy to see that slapped down quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Because the minute you do make it a rule someone will absolutely weaponize it against mainstream Liberal beliefs; which has already happened: It's an America-centric perspective but a very true one in that context. When the two "sides" in american politics are the fiscally and socially far-right republicans and the fiscally conservative, socially slightly-left-of-center democrats, a "moderate" between those two is a conservative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But it wasn’t a suggestion, it was a statement from Jeffrey that conservative viewpoints as a whole aren’t welcome here. Well there's been a few, usually one per politics thread, in AUSPOL, CANPOL, etc. But they've been gone for years. There's no rightwingers left I can think of. Pretty much everyone is left of center to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:But it wasn’t a suggestion, it was a statement from Jeffrey that conservative viewpoints as a whole aren’t welcome here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:So I think in this scenario it really matters what your intentions are in the debate. It's possible to run out the clock with rhetoric and I would be happy to see that slapped down quickly. How do you fix this with a rule, though? It seems like it's necessarily one of those "I know it when I see it" things, and there's always going to be some amount of conflict around cases like that. Edit: Yeah I think the idea that a 'common enemy' would fix things is kind of silly. Flying-PCP fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:In my mind that was more of a description of how things are and have been than firm a new policy - you don't see a lot of conservative opinions around here and I don't think an influx of them would make many people happier. It would make a lot of people very unhappy, and would have serious negative externalities that affect the rest of the site. I agree with you that acknowledging the situation is better than pretending otherwise. Sorry to disappoint. I think there's no need for a rule, it's not like we're being invaded by QAnon. You could simply point out that the forums have a definite tilt to the left and that conservatives may find it unwelcoming?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Because there are a lot of people who don't post frequently in USNews and don't follow the nitty-gritty of the discussions in it, and instead just skim the thread once or twice a day for important highlights of the day and some associated commentary (hence the thread name, USNews). Thanks, I disagree that it matters and the extent to what “grossly misleading” and “dumbass interpretation” are but I get a better sense of one explanation that isn’t entirely based on social dynamics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Oh yeah, sorry I misunderstood you. Right, if this is the reality as stated by the owner, seems like a no brainer to update the rules to reflect that. Unless the fig leaf of “open debate” is still something that holds water here. I am pretty sure the entire point of this feedback thread is how to best uphold the ideal of open honest debate. Like I don't think it helps the posters who feel far left views aren't allowed to make it easier to gatekeep what ideas are allowed. Jeffrey posted above what I think is meant to mean that acknowledging that something is the case is not the same thing as stating that it is a policy; which I don't think means we should be jumping to codify it; only to keep it in mind. The Shortest Path posted:It's an America-centric perspective but a very true one in that context. When the two "sides" in american politics are the fiscally and socially far-right republicans and the fiscally conservative, socially slightly-left-of-center democrats, a "moderate" between those two is a conservative. You shouldn't be able to try to box people into easily dismissed boxes when debating with them; that's all this is about. Bel Shazar posted:So I think in this scenario it really matters what your intentions are in the debate. It's possible to run out the clock with rhetoric and I would be happy to see that slapped down quickly. As long as peoples rhetoric is backed up by an elaborated argument that can be engaged with I'm not sure the problem that you speak of. If someone's rhetoric makes their argument unclear and obtuse that should be what moderation is for to ask people to better elucidate their arguments so others don't have to jump through hoops for "access" to their argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Looking through the D&D rules I found one that seemed out of place:quote:---Good discussion requires good information, something that is increasingly hard to come by in the age of 140 character non sequiturs and blogging grifters presenting as experts. Make an effort to vet your sources before you post them, and when you do make sure that you make clear the following: who is the source, what do they have to say, and why should they be considered valid. I don't think I've literally ever seen the bolded part done, so maybe it doesn't need to be a rule? Or maybe it just needs enforcement? Enforcement of this rule seems like a clear solution to the naked Twitter link posting, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
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. I once again ask you to think of these 2 things before taking any action. Is this action making the forum better? If yes, will this action help to prevent this issue coming up again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Okay but the criticisms you mention usually take the form of "how do you explain this, liberals I partially agree with this, but I do think there are certain situations were something resembling what you mention should be allowable. Posting something and just being like "heh, how does this make you feel" should be unacceptable, but I think that it should be acceptable to reference something someone said in the past and present some information/article in response to it. Like if someone claimed that something was or wasn't going to happen, and they ended up being wrong (but never acknowledged or addressed it), I think that it should be acceptable to confront people about that. How else are people supposed to change their minds, if you're not allowed to present them with evidence conflicting with their claims (and in politics, most claims usually consist of predictions/expectations about future events). Stuff like this is probably one of the most counter-productive things moderators have cracked down on. Currently, it's expected that all discussions exist in a void, independent of past events or statements (and if you bring up past statements, you're somehow hell-dumping or doxxing). But this is unreasonable. If you're attacking someone's worldview and way of thinking, it's necessary to be able to point out examples of their reasoning failing (and for them to have to explain/defend those examples). I would certainly be fine if someone did that to me (and if I did say something several months ago that conflicted with what I'm saying now, or that turned out to be false, it would be important and useful for someone to point this out to me). Part of the thing that's frustrating for us is that we'll see people saying stuff that is obviously wrong (like people being optimistic about the contents of the reconciliation bill), but by the time the event in question happens it will be considered unacceptable to "relitigate" it (by pointing out how people ended up being wrong). We see this stuff happen repeatedly. Another example is with immigration - it was always easy to predict that things would stay more or less the same under Biden, but a bunch of people claimed otherwise (or acted like it was ridiculous and cynical to have such an expectation), and it's treated as somehow being inappropriate/rear end in a top hat-ish to bring up the fact that peoples' understanding of politics lead them to a wrong conclusion. How is anyone supposed to actually confront anyone else's politics if they're not allowed to point out examples of it leading them to wrong conclusions? It would be fair if people did the same to us! Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I am curious, also, why those who abandoned D&D in favor of CSPAM keep coming back. Obviously they are welcome to. CSPAM, however, has thrown off its shackles and become a top-level forum. It too has plenty of threads for a variety of politics topics, and a much larger population of posters. Yet some of its denizens continue to reach for the pot of boiling water, so to speak, despite repeatedly being told by their pals not to. What is the point of continuing to post in D&D where the prevailing opinions and political stances frustrate the hell out of you? And if the goal is to expose yourself to differing opinions (which is actually commendable), why get insanely angry when that actually happens and why come to these feedback threads to complain about it? This is a fairly reasonable question. Speaking personally, the reason is that I sometimes enjoy having arguments about this stuff (if I just want to casually chat about it, I can do so in C-SPAM). In the past, it was more feasible to "safely" (avoiding moderator punishment) have arguments in threads with decent levels of activity, and there were a good number of people who both shared my perspective and disagreed with it. Over time this balance shifted (or the threads that still maintained some sort of balance became dramatically less active). If you want to argue about US politics in D&D, there aren't many options other than USNews. But USNews (like its predecessors) has far more people who will get mad at you for trying to argue stuff, and "having a bunch of people get mad at me (and possibly probate me)" isn't my idea of a good time. Honestly, I don't see why there can't just be a second "US politics" thread without the restrictions of USNews. Basically like how there was the "2020 election thread" and the "2020 election thread for polls and stuff" (that in practice was just "the election thread for USPol regulars"). People who want to actually argue could go to the new thread, and people who want to just casually chat with like-minded folks could go to USNews (and people would have less of an excuse for arguing in USNews due to the existence of the other thread - I think moderator action in USNews would be less controversial when there's a clear alternative in D&D people could have used instead). And as we saw from the "blow" thread, plenty of people from all sides would participate in such a thread. This solves the USNews regulars' complaint of "people making GBS threads up their thread," while also giving the people who want to argue an outlet. I'm sure it would generate reports, but mods could just ignore them (unless something particularly egregious happens).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:29
|
|
" or some variation of it, rather than any genuine effort on your part (the royal "you", not you specifically), which gets tedious and exhausting to deal with and inevitably results in flame wars.
|
quote:Oh yeah, sorry I misunderstood you. Right, if this is the reality as stated by the owner, seems like a no brainer to update the rules to reflect that. Unless the fig leaf of “open debate” is still something that holds water here. There's already been posts that have said that D&D is a right-wing forum, and that even the leftmost wings of mainstream parties in the US and Canada are far-right (i.e. AOC / Bernie, or the NDP in Canada). Explicitly making a rule that conservatives isn't allowed is inevitably going to lead to the worst of the grudgeposters constantly using it as a cudgel. enki42 fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I once again ask you to think of these 2 things before taking any action. Is asking people to stay on topic making the forums better? Probably, given that each topic in D&D is usually focused on a single point serious gaylord posted:If yes, will this action help to prevent this issue coming up again? No, it won't, and even inaction rarely does. Question: What about your probes? Did they stop you? Did you learn a lesson? If not, why not? Are you arguing that the actions taken against you for your posting were unfair or wrong? Did your posts make the forum better, ergo shouldn't have been probated? I know I deserved most of my probations, but I'm also not asking people to take a super macro approach to moderating a forum. This isn't to call you out, this is to ask if you took the same level of insight?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:In my mind that was more of a description of how things are and have been than a firm new policy - you don't see a lot of conservative opinions around here and I don't think an influx of them would make many people happier. It would make a lot of people very unhappy, and would have serious negative externalities that affect the rest of the site. I agree with you that acknowledging the situation is better than pretending otherwise. Sorry to disappoint. It’s cool, thanks for clarifying. I think “conservative” might be doing a bit of heavy lifting here - in my mind, some trumpist or chud tenets are polar opposites of real conservatism. But that’s probably too fine a distinction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
There isn't going to be a formal or informal ban on "conservatives", and I'm sure there are some floating around. There's not many tho, because the rest of the internet is far more friendly to being conservative on because it's monetized around conservative wants and desires. Or probably just as hostile depending on the particular ideology. It's probably a very hard thing to resist, so any remaining probably have Socialist-At-Thanksgiving syndrome where it's felt to be best to just set it aside and enjoy other aspects. There's been some notables even in CSPAM, but alas they all went insane and autobanned or got perma'd, probably because they got buttons. And of course there's the various migrations from SA after purges that became pretty reactionary. It's probably not easy to express conservative views here ngl, I recognize that. It's not easy to be a commie even in liberal circles either. There's always the risk of being seen as trolling too, so extra scrutiny. Post-2016 baby, we're all insane now, it's priced in. People don't like that if they just wanna post and chill. Jeff just sees things how they are and there's no sense in pretending otherwise, and maybe it's hostile but if it's any consolation, anarchists don't have it much easier here as of late. serious gaylord posted:I once again ask you to think of these 2 things before taking any action. These questions should be asked in opposite order, imho. Or maybe 1-2-1'. Gotta have a philosophy...gotta have a plan, even if the plan's gotta make room for volunteer staff and lots of unexpected stuff
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you want to argue about US politics in D&D, there aren't many options other than USNews. But USNews (like its predecessors) has far more people who will get mad at you for trying to argue stuff, and "having a bunch of people get mad at me (and possibly probate me)" isn't my idea of a good time. I wanna highlight this, because it's a pretty strong example of the cliquishness that's gone wild in D&D. The polls thread wasn't "the election thread for USPol regulars", it was a place where people could discuss actual day-to-day election news without getting bogged down in constant circular arguments about whether voting was a moral choice, endless relitigation of the 2016 primaries, breathless predictions of what 2024 would look like, and so on. The constant conflicts between supporters of various candidates made the election thread a pretty poor place for following the day-to-day news, and therefore the polling thread was created to hone in specifically on the progress and prognosis of the election itself without being drowned out by the larger ideological conflicts. Handwaving it away as nothing more than a chat thread or a group hangout isn't accurate, it's just being pointlessly dismissive toward a thread that you personally disliked. And sure, you're allowed to not like a thread - after all, the polls thread was created precisely because talking about the actual state of the 2020 election was less popular than debating the larger ideological and moral issues. But treating it as nothing more than a chat thread just because you didn't like the subject matter is just being dismissive to the point of denial, and a pretty good example of why I say there's no such thing as a D&D community. People can't even like talking about different things in this forum, they have to blame the existence of threads they're not interested in on forum cliques and make snide comments about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
Since it got brought up last page, pessimism is not necessarily doomposting. I can feel like the government has failed its people and has entered an unreversible gridlock and not feel 'doomed'. I still help my community around me, go to work, and live my life.  Just kind of tired of catchphrases that exist only to dismiss and shut down conversations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Since it got brought up last page, pessimism is not necessarily doomposting. I can feel like the government has failed its people and has entered an unreversible gridlock and not feel 'doomed'. I still help my community around me, go to work, and live my life. Yea at this point in almost all cases "doomer" literally just means "person who has any degree of pessimism at all about the future". I don't think it should be made into a dreaded illegal word, but it should be legal to bully anyone who uses the term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Just kind of tired of catchphrases that exist only to dismiss and shut down conversations. I definitely see accusations of doomerism weaponized in this way, but I think a lot of the source for it is that certain types of doomposting often shuts down or at least monopolizes discussion. For me, doomposting isn't just "I'm depressed about this", it's taking a piece of negative information and extrapolating it to the worst possible outcome, while refusing to acknowledge any information that is more positive. There's just no room to have a productive discussion with that outlook, where everything is bad all the time and if you think otherwise you're a fool, and any information you can provide is either compromised or similarly deluded. That's for sure not everyone accused of doomposting, but it does happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Since it got brought up last page, pessimism is not necessarily doomposting. I can feel like the government has failed its people and has entered an unreversible gridlock and not feel 'doomed'. I still help my community around me, go to work, and live my life. When it's the same conversation we've already had six hundred times, no one wants to do it again. You can feel that the government has failed its people and entered an unreversible gridlock without having it be the only thing you ever post about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:It’s cool, thanks for clarifying. I think “conservative” might be doing a bit of heavy lifting here - in my mind, some trumpist or chud tenets are polar opposites of real conservatism. But that’s probably too fine a distinction. The last person I can remember outside of you who expressed conservative beliefs was someone who couldn't stop saying disgusting racist poo poo and got banned for that, iirc. I can't remember their username but I think we banned them shortly after I began IK'ing in DND the first time around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:When it's the same conversation we've already had six hundred times, no one wants to do it again. Yeah some people want to actually discuss what's in various bills not be bombarded with "it doesn't matter what's in the bill climate change will kill us all, etc" every 3 posts, it just doesn't help anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:It's really no different from right wingers screaming about CRT in their public schools when there's no evidence for it at all. Do you really not see how obnoxious and inflammatory this sort of comparison is? The fact that people can get away with this sort of extremely-lightly-veiled "and this is why the person I'm quoting is actually a monster" posting, even in heavily moderated threads, is why uspol is a toxic waste dump. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Do you really not see how obnoxious and inflammatory this sort of comparison is? I am not meaning to just clap back at you for your post, but if I am being honest I find the way you are expressing your objection kind of obnoxious in and of itself. If there is a specific way that you find the OP's post "obnoxious and inflammatory" maybe you ought to just state it outright rather than asking the rest of us to try and guess what you are thinking. EDIT: Nevermind; your edit addresses my thoughts on this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I definitely see accusations of doomerism weaponized in this way, but I think a lot of the source for it is that certain types of doomposting often shuts down or at least monopolizes discussion. For me, doomposting isn't just "I'm depressed about this", it's taking a piece of negative information and extrapolating it to the worst possible outcome, while refusing to acknowledge any information that is more positive. There's just no room to have a productive discussion with that outlook, where everything is bad all the time and if you think otherwise you're a fool, and any information you can provide is either compromised or similarly deluded. Also if you're someone with a reasoned pessimistic outlook you can respond to accusations of doomerism with actual reasons why you're expressing an opinion based on evidence. The fact of doing so will differentiate you from "lmao we're all dead in 20 years" shitposters and more involved "This two percent poll shift over a week means Trump's gonna be crowned emperor in 2024 for sure!" apocalyptic prophets. You are not being branded by some foul life-ending slur because someone incorrectly slung a mild insult at you. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I definitely see accusations of doomerism weaponized in this way, but I think a lot of the source for it is that certain types of doomposting often shuts down or at least monopolizes discussion. For me, doomposting isn't just "I'm depressed about this", it's taking a piece of negative information and extrapolating it to the worst possible outcome, while refusing to acknowledge any information that is more positive. There's just no room to have a productive discussion with that outlook, where everything is bad all the time and if you think otherwise you're a fool, and any information you can provide is either compromised or similarly deluded. IIRC the other reason "doom posting" was made actionable was because of its negative mental health effects on posters. I.e. it feeds the catastrophizing of posters with anxiety/depression and creates a negative feedback loop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:When it's the same conversation we've already had six hundred times, no one wants to do it again. If the same conversation has been has been had a hundred times it certainly seems like someone wants to do it again quote:You can feel that the government has failed its people and entered an unreversible gridlock without having it be the only thing you ever post about. Why not? Is it not allowed to be the situation somene is most frustrated with? It seems like a lot of the arguments stem from this issue!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:IIRC the other reason "doom posting" was made actionable was because of its negative mental health effects on posters. It's technically a positive feedback loop in that it's self-reinforcing. The effects on mental health are negative. A negative feedback loop maintains something at a relatively constant level like a thermostat. Positive feedback is "spiral out of control." I know what you meant I'm just continuing the proud D&D tradition of internet pedantry 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
I mean I could name someone who I feel has passed the point of arzying (or was that term deemed no longer acceptable to use???) but I want to avoid posting about posters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
Cow Bell posted:If the same conversation has been has been had a hundred times it certainly seems like someone wants to do it again One single person. If it has already been hashed out in the thread I don't see any problem with the rest of the thread shutting it down. quote:Why not? Is it not allowed to be the situation somene is most frustrated with? It seems like a lot of the arguments stem from this issue! If they want to do that, it seems like that would be a good reason to start a new thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:It's technically a positive feedback loop in that it's self-reinforcing. The effects on mental health are negative. A negative feedback loop maintains something at a relatively constant level like a thermostat. Positive feedback is "spiral out of control." Yes, you are correct, I misspoke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:IIRC the other reason "doom posting" was made actionable was because of its negative mental health effects on posters. I'm sympathetic, but it's a politics forum. It's a hazard adults should already be aware of. It should not be a unexpected trigger to have people being negative about the news in the political news thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 20:44
|
|