|
If your answer is "lurk more" then it sounds like you agree with everything probably magic said, you just don't agree that it's a problem
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The answer to this is "lurk before posting." Get a feel for what the forum is like before you jump in. I'm indifferent, I could certainly live without them, I could live with the occasional one. (If it became obsessive, I'd hope the mods would crack down.) Like, I believe the criteria was, "If it's funny, I won't punish," which is where a lot of the forums are at... and then we're going to have the one forum that punishes for Onion tweets. I realize each forum conforms to their users, but also, over and over again, the forum has to conform a bit to the rest of the site as well. If it doesn't, well, there's going to be more QCS threads, and they're not all going to come from the rival politics forums. It's going to come across as overly exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:If your answer is "lurk more" then it sounds like you agree with everything probably magic said, you just don't agree that it's a problem Basically, yes. Rules define the posting space. People need to understand that before they jump in. If people are intimidated by the rules but find the posting interesting, they should just read for a while to get a feel for it. That tends to solve most of the issue. Changing the rules changes the posting space, and doesn't necessarily improve it for everyone already there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Clearly falling on deaf ears here, but the usual suspects coming out to say they want harsher punishment for their posting enemies is just exacerbating the problem this forum already has. The fact that the (increasingly long) list of forum/threadbanned folks' venn diagram does not include a single one of you clowns that posted rape apologia, and that are happily still posting away today and in this thread, is a damning indictment of the moderation of this forum. You can be a vile human being, just don't post rudely to the centrists, intermittently, or get ramped!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:Clearly falling on deaf ears here, but the usual suspects coming out to say they want harsher punishment for their posting enemies is just exacerbating the problem this forum already has. Did you miss this? fool of sound posted:Ok, all the mods and admins are in agreement that casting aspersions on accusers is unacceptable. In theory this has been the policy for almost two years now, but some stuff has slipped by, and we'll make an effort to be more vigilant about it. This isn't to say that this is an automatic permaban, but it's an automatic harsh probe and/or a ban. We can't stop people from believing this in their hearts, but we can stop them from posting about it. However this is an issue:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
enki42 posted:My impression of GE vs. Polliwonks was less Bernie supporters vs. Biden supporters. Bernie was probably pretty popular with both camps. It ranged from rejecting electoralism to Bernie as a compromise on the GE side, and ranged from Bernie supporters to Biden as a compromise in Polliwonks. It also was because literally there was no place to effectively talk about the campgain or the polling of any state. The ge thread was a trash fire that actively screamed at people attempting to discuss nuances and things related to what was going on. It was focused on ideology and not on anything substantial going on with the actual election at that point. Polliwonks had heavy rules that it wasn't going to be a second election thread and it stayed fairly consistent to only focusing on what was going on in the polls, the ground team (with many goons actively relaying stuff from their volunteering) and on what the possible route to victory or poll deficits were. The issue and idea that it was a separate Biden friendly zone is dumb, the regulars there wanted to talk reality and what was occuring not relitigate the same arguments infinitely or rehash Clinton hosed Bernie for the 1000th time. You effectively could not discuss anything in the ge thread because it was shouted down as worthless because Biden wasn't the candidate who would win and gently caress him he hosed over Bernie. An ideology thread honestly can't support factual discussion, especially when any attempt is drowned out by the current derail of people mad about some mod slight
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
While I think that is a good thing going forward, that does not change the fact that people who have already posted rape apologia are still here, and still will be here, unpunished. The message, to them, is simply don't post about the topic anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:While I think that is a good thing going forward, that does not change the fact that people who have already posted rape apologia are still here, and still will be here, unpunished. The message, to them, is simply don't post about the topic anymore. As stated, we failed on some of those, but a lot of them have been punished, and a lot of the worst offenders no longer post here of their own volition. Also as stated, impugning an accuser's character isn't an automatic permaban. People are allowed to return and post after serving their time provided they refrain from making the same mistakes repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I'm indifferent, I could certainly live without them, I could live with the occasional one. (If it became obsessive, I'd hope the mods would crack down.) Like, I believe the criteria was, "If it's funny, I won't punish," which is where a lot of the forums are at... and then we're going to have the one forum that punishes for Onion tweets. I realize each forum conforms to their users, but also, over and over again, the forum has to conform a bit to the rest of the site as well. If it doesn't, well, there's going to be more QCS threads, and they're not all going to come from the rival politics forums. It's going to come across as overly exclusive. I think your idea around "if it became obsessive" is where the rubber meets the road on this, though. Reality has been outpacing the Onion for years now, so (a) retweeting the Onion stopped being novel--let alone reliably funny--a long time ago, and (b) unless the mods want USNews to feature daily retweets of the Onion headlines (in multiple waves, no less, because some goons are going to miss the first iteration and yet still feel compelled to get in on that action), they kind of have to put their collective foot down. Aegis fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:While I think that is a good thing going forward, that does not change the fact that people who have already posted rape apologia are still here, and still will be here, unpunished. The message, to them, is simply don't post about the topic anymore. Yes but if we are treating it evenly, as that post requires: We'd also have to punch a whole bunch of people who accused many, many D&D posters of being rape apologists by voting for Biden. It makes more sense to reset the clock and treat it evenly than go back and start hitting people for their past actions. This also aligns to us wanting to possible reset thread/forumbans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes but if we are treating it evenly, as that post requires: We'd also have to punch a whole bunch of people who accused many, many D&D posters of being rape apologists by voting for Biden. It makes more sense to reset the clock and treat it evenly than go back and start hitting people for their past actions. Lol this literally turned my stomach, literally nausea inducing irl here. I'm sorry the job of keeping the space free of rape apologists is too difficult for you. Maybe if FoS asks a few dozen more times for assault survivors to write you some more essays on why and how what you're doing protects the worst and creepiest people and makes the forum a safe space for misogyny and rape culture, you'll finally understand. Here's hoping. E: really, you and the mod team in d&d general have been extremely consistent in the carelessness with which you handle one of the most sensitive topics. It makes it insanely difficult to extend the assumption of good faith to you guys, because when it's a topic that affects you directly it's the easiest thing in the world to get action taken on. When it's sexual assault you let people do whatever, and then you punish people for getting upset over it. Real sick. ram dass in hell fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:As stated, we failed on some of those, but a lot of them have been punished, and a lot of the worst offenders no longer post here of their own volition. Also as stated, impugning an accuser's character isn't an automatic permaban. People are allowed to return and post after serving their time provided they refrain from making the same mistakes repeatedly. Although I obviously want harsher punishments for this particular issue for various reasons, I understand what you are saying and don't disagree. However, one of the problems I see is the fact that these posters were never the ones that got thread or forum-banned. You cannot tell me that someone like VitalSigns, who is probably one of the best posters on this site, is worth kicking out over (and I'm choosing not to name names) people a-ok with rape as long as it's their guy doing it, just because they frequently disagree and get into arguments with certain posters. Which usually leads to very good discussion, no less!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:Although I obviously want harsher punishments for this particular issue for various reasons, I understand what you are saying and don't disagree. However, one of the problems I see is the fact that these posters were never the ones that got thread or forum-banned. You cannot tell me that someone like VitalSigns, who is probably one of the best posters on this site, is worth kicking out over (and I'm choosing not to name names) people a-ok with rape as long as it's their guy doing it, just because they frequently disagree and get into arguments with certain posters. Which usually leads to very good discussion, no less! VitalSigns wasn't kicked out though, he was told to take an extended break from USNews because imo it's better that he be allowed to post well in other threads than repeatedly get probations there. In any case, we're letting his threadban expire as of Monday. As for the others, you're probably right that posting something egregious about abuse should generally include a threadban from the MeToo thread at least.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:Lol this literally turned my stomach, literally nausea inducing irl here. I'm sorry the job of keeping the space free of rape apologists is too difficult for you. Maybe if FoS asks a few dozen more times for assault survivors to write you some more essays on why and how what you're doing protects the worst and creepiest people and makes the forum a safe space for misogyny and rape culture, you'll finally understand. Here's hoping. Ram Dass, you need to also understand: Its hard to take any of your criticism to heart given your history of throwing a blanket over D&D posters with statements like this: ram dass in hell posted:Many D&D posters are white supremacist fascists who cloak their white supremacist fascist leanings with a veneer of respectability composed of punctuation and word count to obscure the contortions they undergo to justify genocide, colonialism, rape apologia, and so on. Some of them are even reading this post right now! Stuff like this will be just as punishable as someone trying to deny Tara Reade's claims. That's what the change will be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ram Dass, you need to also understand: Its hard to take any of your criticism to heart given your history of throwing a blanket over D&D posters with statements like this: Are you serious? Rape denial in the metoo thread is on even footing with a mean remark in your stupid "blow" thread that hurt your feelings?? Beyond parody. I'm out, which will hopefully make you very happy. No need for a parting shot probe, I'm done here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Stuff like this will be just as punishable as someone trying to deny Tara Reade's claims. That's what the change will be.  ... why?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:
"Just as punishable" isn't quite right, but calling people rape apologists who are not, in fact, doing that is punishable. Like I said in my original post, acting in a way that benefits a powerful rapist isn't the same thing as supporting that person or their actions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Stuff like this will be just as punishable as someone trying to deny Tara Reade's claims. That's what the change will be. Does this mean it will be explicitly laid out what can and can't be posted here or is it just going to be more vague "don't be an rear end in a top hat" rules?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:One of the major issues with DnD moderation is the same issue we saw over the course of the last 5+ years with Twitter et al dealing with Trumpist bullshit. The old paradigm of staying completely ideologically neutral and only calling balls and strikes breaks down when people start deciding being an rear end in a top hat is part of their ideology. People can always make some sort of strained arguement about how some punished behavior is actually a matter of ideological difference, and as soon as that happens rejecting that arguement becomes taking an ideological stand. Your avatar speaks volumes about why you posted this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:
D&D is supposed to be about debating the words people post, not the people posting them. Ad hominems and appeals to emotion are rhetorical abuses that get in the way of meaningful discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:Does this mean it will be explicitly laid out what can and can't be posted here or is it just going to be more vague "don't be an rear end in a top hat" rules? I'm fine with enumerating "don't accuse people of heinous stuff unless you're very certain it's true and can prove it". I'm also 100% going to enumerate "don't smear abuse victims period".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Why was a post from the Blow thread used as an example of actionable content? Was the thread some sort of secret honeypot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Why was a post from the Blow thread used as an example of actionable content? Was the thread some sort of secret honeypot? The point there was more "we're not going to go back and action old posts".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
I don't think there's much use in trying to compare posters being threadbanned for violations of one rule and others not being banned for violating a different rule? If other people want to come up with some scale so we can scientifically determine that one rape-apology is half a genocide-denial or two posting-about-posters or five calling-the-mods-pedos, feel free.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Your avatar speaks volumes about why you posted this. OK, this time I am specifically clapping back at the poster: What was your purpose in making this post? Do you have a specific response to anything the OP said? If so, why not post that so we can discuss it (rather than just staring in stupefied wonder at your "sick burn")? If not, what major character defect or irresistable force of nature compelled you to mash the buttons and hit "post"? What did you think you were contributing to this thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:D&D is supposed to be about debating the words people post, not the people posting them. Ad hominems and appeals to emotion are rhetorical abuses that get in the way of meaningful discussion. So is calling people chuds no longer allowed
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So is calling people chuds no longer allowed Are there chuds posting here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Your avatar speaks volumes about why you posted this. Your responding to a sincere effort-post with a drive-by personal attack that doesn't address the content in any way speaks volumes about why you disagree with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Given that some posters have enough disposable income to spend more on avs than I've ever earned in a two week period, and enough disposable income to give away 10x that amount to other causes at the same time, I'd rather not see avs weaponized. Seems like a fast path to giving rich users an easy way to push out poor ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Stuff like this will be just as punishable as someone trying to deny Tara Reade's claims. That's what the change will be. Posting evil poo poo should cop a lot more punishment than posting aggro poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Kavros posted:This isn't new knowledge or even a truly post-2016 revelation. It existed beforehand and has no root cause in recent open radicalizations. And people maintaining online spaces have figured out that you have to make a choice between what you think is important. You can only choose efforts to artificially sustain an environment being 'welcoming' to conservative viewpoints, or you can choose efforts to keep an environment being actually inclusive. You can't do both. You also can't not choose; inaction forces an outcome one way or the other. I’ll address this part of your post as it’s the part directly relevant to forum moderation. First, anti-gay marriage arguments and the like already violate the bigotry D&D rule that already exists, full stop. Some issues are already considered settled, and in my opinion that’s a good thing. That still leaves a mountain of policies around economics, military use, energy, and tons of other topics that can be on the discussion table. Second, if you think excluding conservatives is the pathway towards inclusiveness towards women, immigrants, etc - I guess you haven’t been reading much of the forum in the past nine months? The idea’s been proven over and over again - many (possibly most?) on the left don’t actually care about inclusiveness or intersectionalism when the exigencies of power are involved. It’s fine to use those ideas like a club against their political enemies, but the hammer only swings in one direction. It’s bullshit, so please put that yoke on someone else. Finally, even if you’ve somehow arrived at the juvenile idea that “90% of the people who disagree with me are completely disingenuous”, why be on a debate forum at all? That sounds just plain boring and lifeless - the only real dissent would have to be strawmen imported from outside sources, the only “discussion” would be a weird competition around who can signal they’re more offended. In other words, what USNews has become.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Posting evil poo poo should cop a lot more punishment than posting aggro poo poo. Saying something like "If you voted for Joe Biden you support rape" is pretty evil poo poo, and shouldn't be tolerated. e: It's a cudgel that excises all nuance from the world, boiling morality down to some sort of binary choice between black and white. How are u fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ram Dass, you need to also understand: Its hard to take any of your criticism to heart given your history of throwing a blanket over D&D posters with statements like this: You really need to stop posting in this thread, it's incredibly embarrassing. We once again have a moderator: -Looking to dismiss a poster's feedback because of an ideological difference -Equating a poster making a tasteless comparison to posters actually doing rape apologia
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
FWIW I agree that accusing people of being rape apologists is not a great idea. It's completely unproveable, you can't read their mind, all it does is piss people off. Now, of course, you should be able to point out that something they said is rape apologia, which is not the same thing as accusing them of being an apologist. Since that's not an attack on the person, but rather on their words, it gives them the opportunity to admit fault and learn from it. If they choose not to take the opportunity, and react poorly, or have a clear pattern of saying such things, then that should be actionable. I hope that the mods don't plan to make the latter punishable. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:42
|
|
|
Cow Bell posted:You really need to stop posting in this thread, it's incredibly embarrassing. No. Cow Bell posted:-Looking to dismiss a poster's feedback because of an ideological difference Didn't dismiss their feedback? Simply pointed out that under the rule changes we're looking to apply, it would be going foreword rather than going through people's history to determine who needs to be banned/probated, and also pointed out that given their personal feelings about D&D posters expressed openly, they'd likely get hit as well. These are things that we have to flesh out, so might as well bring them up now. They are upset we are not going back in time to punish posters retroactively, which we will not be doing. Cow Bell posted:-Equating a poster making a tasteless comparison to posters actually doing rape apologia Their post specifically was in response to the idea in the blow zone that anybody who voted Democrat was a rape apologist. How should we deal with that in a thread? Throwing a big blanket over all dem voters or D&D posters versus a single person who was posting about Tara Reade is okay?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:It also was because literally there was no place to effectively talk about the campgain or the polling of any state. The ge thread was a trash fire that actively screamed at people attempting to discuss nuances and things related to what was going on. It was focused on ideology and not on anything substantial going on with the actual election at that point. Polliwonks had heavy rules that it wasn't going to be a second election thread and it stayed fairly consistent to only focusing on what was going on in the polls, the ground team (with many goons actively relaying stuff from their volunteering) and on what the possible route to victory or poll deficits were. See, I had literally the opposite experience. the polliwonks thread felt very detached from the realities of the election. It seemed incredibly focused on who was going to win, but not why winning was important. And that's fine, the horserace was fun to watch and different people are going to want different things from their election threads. I do disagree that ideologically aligned threads can't support a discussion. I'd argue that even the assertion that an ideological neutrality can exist at all is an ideologically charged statement. Removing political alignments from a political discussion is itself a political move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:47
|
|
|
How are u posted:Saying something like "If you voted for Joe Biden you support rape" is pretty evil poo poo, and shouldn't be tolerated. Nah, they're not equivalent. At the end of the day, saying that supporting a man credibly accused of rape is supporting rape is a reasonable stance to take. It may be impolite to point it out, or a distraction from the topic at hand - aggro posting - but it isn't an evil thing to do. And it's definitely not morally equivalent to making excuses for powerful rapists. Fister Roboto posted:FWIW I agree that accusing people of being rape apologists is not a great idea. It's completely unproveable, you can't read their mind, all it does is piss people off. You're right that people should probably say things like "what you are saying is hateful" and not "you are a hateful person," but it doesn't make that big a difference. Nobody is less offended by "what you are saying is rape apologia" than by "you are a rape apologist." The latter is obviously a consequence of the former. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Nah, they're not equivalent. At the end of the day, saying that supporting a man credibly accused of rape is supporting rape is a reasonable stance to take. It may be impolite to point it out, or a distraction from the topic at hand - aggro posting - but it isn't an evil thing to do. No its not. Because that's what has happened. It turns into a big slapfight over "Every dem voter is a rape apologist, therefore all of D&D is likely full of rape apologists and fascists" which is why we're in this problem to begin with. It does not result in any meaningful conversation or discussion, just an endless chum fest of who is worse than whom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
In general people should be mad that the democratic leadership and media pushed a rapist to the general election and made people feel like they had no other choice but to vote for a rapist. However in terms of something awful, what really pisses me off is people doing rape apologia like "oh she went to RT, she's just trying to get attention!" (ignoring that she specifically did ask for help from various news orgs who literally directly said "no, we wont go after Joe Biden at all") I could name names but that would be posting about posters and some of them are in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Now, of course, you should be able to point out that something they said is rape apologia, which is not the same thing as accusing them of being an apologist. Since that's not an attack on the person, but rather on their words, it gives them the opportunity to admit fault and learn from it. If they choose not to take the opportunity, and react poorly, or have a clear pattern of saying such things, then that should be actionable. Yeah posting "this kind of posting is harmful because X and you shouldn't post it" is fine and will remain fine, within the usual bound of reason. Honestly when approached civilly most people with oblige.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:55
|
|