D&D Moderation Feedback Thread/Suggestion Box - READ THE RULES.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > D&D Moderation Feedback Thread/Suggestion Box - READ THE RULES.

«‹›47 »

thatfatkid: Feb 20, 2011; by Azathoth

socialsecurity posted:

Wait is denying the square happened a leftwing opinion?

The extent of state reprisals are debatable.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 10:35

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

That's an example of ideologically biased modding right there.

The rule is supposedly that you aren't allowed to accuse people of things and probes/threadbans/etc are justified on that basis, but notice how posts that align with US foreign policy arguments like "oh so you love the Taliban huh" are rarely if ever punished, including right here in a thread with 4+ mods reading it.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:28

Thorn Wishes Talon: Oct 18, 2014; by Fluffdaddy

Discendo Vox posted:

Here's what I've got time to write up atm.

Enforce the existing rules
DnD has rules, and they are mostly pretty good rules. In USNews, for example, people are supposed to contextualize their sources and read what they link- and bad faith is supposed to be reported. However, the rules are virtually never enforced. This lack of moderation in a remotely serious space invites, and indeed encourages, abuse. The abusive users are able to control the scope of discussion because they have no reason to change their behavior. Users are invited to respond, in good faith, to the abuse of others, no matter how persistent or virulent. Effort is met with deliberate misrepresentation and personal attacks. People who put forward more effort or provide information, and mods who attempt to create standards for moderation, are immediately and continuously attacked. Moderation is made difficult, and individual moderators get targeted for abuse, as part of a deliberate strategy to make moderation as difficult and unpleasant as possible. Users will, with a straight face, claim that discussion from a shared reality, or rejecting sources of misinformation, or any other basis for moderating arguments, is impossible, and intractable insulting conflict is the only possible state of affairs- and they will follow it up with every line of attack they can think of.
Recommendations:
Take those rules you've written up, number them, enforce them, and include which rule is violated in the reason. It will be very unpleasant for a period as a group of assholes try to find a way to get you to stop, but eventually you get to actually remove them and you won't feel like coming up with excuses to not read the queue.

Enforce rules consistently and do not guilt yourself out of moderating
Where efforts at moderation do occur, they are reactive and do not reflect an underlying shared set of goals. What's even worse is that they are sometimes reversed, or even apologized for, not because there was some error in the decision, but just because...the mod felt bad? It's as if you believe that your goal is to be popular with everyone, which is...really not a way moderation can ever work. When moderation decisions are reversed, they create a standard of permissibility for abuse, and invite further abuse along the same line. It's basically a giant red flashing sign saying "hey trolls, do this!". It immediately affects every other user in the thread, and worse, it also guarantees that future moderation on the same subject will be even more difficult. It permanently cedes the discussion to whomever gets the validation.
Recommendations:
In the same way that agreement was previously needed to implement some punishments, mod consensus should be required to reverse a probation. If you've just probated someone and feel guilty and want to apologize or otherwise equivocate, go take a walk or wash your hands or something. You've developed a deeply perverse relationship to your role.

Do not engage assholes
One strategy abusive users deploy is to notice when a mod opens up by participating in discussion and specifically make them as miserable as possible. They know the mod is invested in the subject, and that can be used to trip them up and get them to react in a way that can be used against them.
Recommendations:
Do not engage with assholes. Specifically bring other mods in, immediately, when it appears that users are either following you from thread to thread to start arguments, or attempting to get you to react on a particular subject.

For the love of god, ban abusive users
I believe the greatest underlying issue here is a failure to understand what banning bad users represents. The decision to ban an abusive user is not just about whether or not you remove that user from the forums. This is fundamentally the wrong way to understand the effects of your decisions. The choice is about whether you remove the abusive user, or, through your inaction, you remove all of the users that the abusive user will drive to leave the space- and all the users who are no longer interested in joining, because of the reputation it's developed.

Assholes are not going to stop being assholes because you verbally warn them or give them a probation. Tinkering with the number of threads, or creating spaces to "vent", or to contain or attract abusive users, does not work. Instead, as we've seen, they will socialize around and identify with their opposition to moderation. The long term effect of not banning users is that the forum has an active, semi-coordinated and absolutely rancid counterculture of abuse. If Jeffrey/admins/mods are unwilling to actually remove bad actors from the space, then any other moderation activity is doomed to failure.
Recommendations:
I think there have been some monthlong probes in this thread. That is an excellent start. How about you just keep using those, and more, from now on?
This should be a core moderation policy.

You are responsible for what the site is
This is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, a social media platform, and you're responsible for many of the same outcomes and issues that face the people who run 4chan or facebook. That's what the work entails. The difference is you have more personal control and the scale of the task can be far, far more manageable. It's true that the users in the community can define part of what SA is, but that is not an excuse to pretend that you are not the people with actual power over the forum. You are responsible for clearly delineating what it's for and what it does. You are not going to be able to escape responsibility for the results of your actions or inaction.
Recommendations:
The DnD mods should meet- like, maybe actually have a phone or discord voice call- and discuss issues and questions of how the forum should operate. This should happen whenever there's a significant issue, and any such call should actually lead to some kind of conclusion and plan of action. I know, this sounds like way too much work, but you're basically having to undo a deficit of moderation and planning that's now many, many years in the making. Once the basics are laid out, this sort of thing would be much less necessary.

Way back in another life I was a moderator on a (now defunct) forum that had a politics section, and I can unequivocally state that what you wrote here is really the only way to go about things if the desire is to have a space where informative, insightful and productive conversations can occur, even about the most controversial and divisive issues.

A moderation policy based on inclusiveness does not work, because it comes at the expense of everything else. In fact, moderation by its nature is about exclusion, i.e. clamping down on extreme and subversive tone, language and behavior that undermines discussion and banning users who insist on not moderating themselves despite repeated warnings. Trying to be inclusive while moderating results in the worst and most abusive users controlling every conversation because such users also tend to post very frequently, in a way that is incendiary and difficult to ignore, and their goal tends to be to hurt others. By their very nature, they target those who are their opposites and try to run them off the site; anyone who is an expert or might have deep knowledge in the subject matter, or even displays curiosity and generosity by going out of their way to try to fill gaps in their knowledge and then sharing what they learned with others, is a threat to such users. After all, if someone is explaining the reason why something works the way it does, rather than joining them in advocating for ignoring or abolishing that thing, they are a detractor and must be attacked.

This is not an abstract problem. For example, social media sites by and large suck rear end because of lax moderation � because the people in charge have determined that having a large number of users is more important than having high-quality users, that high engagement is what matters the most, etc. And they adopt and maintain these policies under the guise of free speech and inclusiveness, even if the result is basically the paradox of tolerance. It's also not a problem that SA is exempt from. You, Discendo Vox, have experienced it recently, when a bunch of abusive posters did not like your efforts with the Media Criticism thread and created a (now gassed) mock version of it in CSPAM out of sheer spite, and to this day continue to troll and try to derail the actual thread and spread doubt about your expertise in the subject matter ("they purport to be a professor of media analysis"). It's why certain users continue to post what they claim are personal details about your life from years and years ago. You aren't the only victim either: we have also seen this psycho behavior in other contexts, such as that one guy/gal who revealed that they are an economics professor and immediately got attacked for it. Similarly, the Covid thread has lost almost all of its experts because its IK has been adamantly refusing to moderate the conversation and enforce even the most basic and common sense rules, and gives ridiculous platitudes about inclusiveness when called out. The list goes on.

At the end of the day I don't care about someone's ideology or political alignment as long as they come into discussions in this forum (or in real life, for that matter) with an open mind, do simple things like vet their sources and post civilly, and adopt an attitude of humility when talking to someone who is more knowledgeable than them in the subject being discussed. I know that's a lot to ask when it's a broader topic like politics where the strength of one's convictions tends to be inversely proportional to their level of knowledge, but this type of culture can indeed become a reality with strict and consistent moderation, so long as it is backed by an alignment of purpose between mods, admins and Jeffrey. The latter two groups have said they don't like reading the politics forums and that's fine; it would be sufficient for them to simply trust the mods and support them when controversies arise (rather than looking for reasons to overturn the probations/bans they have issued).

Joementum posted:

I don't really read D&D threads any more so none of this affects me and you should all do whatever you think will work, but I wanted to chime in and say that this is the kind of thing I tried to do for about two years when I was a mod of this forum and I honestly don't think it will work. Expecting to turn an old comedy forum into a civil debate society is going to be very difficult, particularly when the people who you want to do all this work are volunteers scorned by most of the people posting here until they get burned out and/or doxxed.

After realizing I had much better ways to spend my free time than figuring out who was on the "wrong" side of an argument in the UKMT thread, my takeaway is that less is much, much more when it comes to rules and probations and I truly believe that this forum would be better off if you let a lot of stuff slide.

But it's probably also true that you and I want different things out of this site and I've already found ways to get what I want. Hope it all works out.

As Discendo Vox stated, the scorn and harassment is done on purpose to make all but the most lax of moderation efforts difficult if not impossible. It's why you weren't able to consistently do the things in the list despite wanting to, and it's why the two mods who are trying to consistently do them today (CommieGIR and Handsome Ralph) are repeatedly attacked with accusations of bias and more.

The answer is not to stop trying, though. It's for the admins and Jeffrey to support the moderators and their endeavors by coming down hard on the harassers. Said harassers will of course try real hard, in a coordinated fashion, to make the case that they are actually being prosecuted for their ideology (using catchphrases like "punishing posting enemies"), but it's important to recognize those efforts for what they really are: another attempt to undermine and abuse the forum and its regulars.

At the end of the day, a lot of us want a space where posts have informative and educational (and perhaps, god forbid, even humor) value, or help us gain more insight about topics we care about. Different opinions are fine, and even welcome, so long as one isn't a raging rear end in a top hat about them. If you want to insist on snidely calling that "decorum", be my guest.

Gumball Gumption posted:

If I thought it did I would say it did. Again, this is my main complaint with D&D that it's impossible to ever have what you say taken in earnest. It is always assumed there is a motive or a lie.

In many cases, the existence of an ulterior motive is incredibly clear and can be trivially proven, since those users tend to simultaneously post in one CSPAM thread or another and brag about having riled up D&D, or empty-quote posts from D&D in order to encourage others to do so (what we call "brigading"). Maybe you yourself don't partake in such behavior, but many of the people who have posted strong criticisms of D&D in this thread frequently do. To make matters worse, those who point out such instances are accused of attempting to incite forum war, which is profoundly ironic, to say the least.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:30

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

thatfatkid posted:

The extent of state reprisals are debatable.

No offense, but I suspect arguing that "The reprisals for Tianamen Square are debatable" and "Mass Incarceration for Uighurs is HELPING them" are going to be extremely controversial opinions regardless of rules changes. So just be aware.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:39

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

fool of sound posted:

Yeah, I agree that browbeating posters for protest voting or refraining to vote as a means of protest also has to be punishable in order for this to be equitable.

Honestly if this rule is codified (and fairly enforced) I think I'll be satisfied. The run up to the midterms is going to get pretty rough otherwise.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:41

Cefte: Sep 18, 2004; tranquil consciousness

After flipping a coin and it turning up tails, I'm posting again in a D&D feedback thread. I apologise for the length, it's even more tedious to write than it is to read.

Start at the head.

CommieGIR posted:

At the end of this whole thing, lemme be clear: The community owns D&D. Not the mods.

If the community says something needs to change, so be it. We will go over any recommendations with admins and enact whatever the community says will make D&D better.

This is not, and has never been true. D&D and the forums as a whole are owned by the admins. Back when Lowtax would drunkenly stumble into subforums once a year on a banning spree, people took their knocks and accepted it, because that was the consequence of logging on to someone else's platform, and while the names have changed, the principle is foundational. Digging deeper, the wider D&D community (lurkers, posters, lurking ex-posters) is immensely fractured, and everyone knows it, and it was a stone-cold guarantee when this thread was posted that at least three separate camps would sound the horn and roll up ready for some meta-discussion battle. With the best will in the world, and after six or seven feedback threads, if the community was capable of producing actionable consensus, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

OK, suggestions.

Reduce the gameable supply of moderation.
Evidence posted upthread shows that D&D is currently heavily moderated. I've argued three points consistently over the past year:

Every act of moderation in a divided community invites blowback.
Contextual moderation is harder for mods, not easier, and invites more blowback, not less.
At a given arbitrary level, more moderation reduces user-generated content (I dub this the 'Laffo' curve).

My suspicion is that D&D is currently on the top left of the Laffo curve, in terms of benefit against moderator effort.

That's partially because of the switch to thread-bans and short probations rather than long probations and actual bans. We've been made familiar with the positive arguments in favour of that moderation style - that it allows correction, rather than exclusion, that it preserves participation for people who are out of line in only one section of the site. On the other side, it does awful things:

It's less 'severe' than long probations or bans, so it can be dispensed casually, rather than according to unequivocal rules.
It has all the impact of 'chilling' discourse for posters who want to follow clear rules (you're a rule-breaking rear end in a top hat!), and none of the impact for posters who just want to troll (6 hours, who cares).
It increases the supply of moderation, thus encouraging posters to 'game' the system to get their posting enemies punished.

I suggest the deletion of the six-hour probation option from D&D. Anything that would receive a sixer isn't worth probating. Anything that's worth probating should receive an actual punishment - and there should be a lot fewer of those. I'd also do away with most threadbans, for identical reasons.

Moderation should be discourse and mod-independent.
That's not saying 'don't moderate'. That's saying, 'People should have as little basis to attribute an individual mod's moderation action to their personality as possible'.

This would imply, to me, less emphasis on context in moderation. Fewer rules that require in-depth analysis of the preceding twenty pages, and the poster's rapsheet, and the last six thread-specific rules that were produced because some posters weren't happy with the general tenor of the posting of some other posters, in some nebulous way. In the past year, we've had posters outright advocate whitelists of acceptable D&D sources, blacklists of 'unacceptable' state news organisations, and, apparently, in this thread, an off-site database of problematic posters.

These interventions aren't just unsustainable, they're really, really likely to lower the quality of community input. I'm not arguing against care in moderation, or in favour of some algorithmic cop-out like Twitter that bans literature and leaves Nazis standing. I'm pointing out that increasing the complexity of the inputs to moderation acts synergistically with individual interests and perceptions, and is a recipe for more accusations of bias, and worse, more perception of bias. The simpler the rule, the clearer the rule, the cleaner the implementation. If it takes an enunciation that some things are not going to be punished in D&D (fill in your preferred position here), then that's even more important to have in black and white than the list of things that are, because, again, the alternative is inequity of outcome. There exists another subforum where community consensus on viewpoint-opinionated moderation has reached a stable holding position. D&D is not that subforum.

This is a community, not an audience.
If it were an audience, then top-down management of discourse would be par for the course. If it were an audience, then people would accept dictation on the minutiae of topics of discussion without much quibble. If it were an audience, it may as well be Twitter, where if you're not a superstar or a blue tick, you're shouting into the void, and if it may as well be Twitter, then it may as well not exist.

Since it's a community, I'd urge that, within a very sparse set of predefined rules, mods and IKs should be keeping their hands off the bounds of discussion - apart from breakfast chat, which is an abomination. As I said above, admin intervention is damnum fatale, but also rare enough that it's historically bearable. That concerns peri-argument-probations, but also 'this discussion that I'm uncomfortable with is off-topic, go to a side-thread'. Being relegated to a side-thread is another flavour of thread-ban, and moreover, in most cases, the point wasn't to discuss that topic in isolation (because that's an entirely sterile line of discourse, e.g. here), but to riff off that topic in the context of the main discussion. What's the worst that can happen?

OK, yes, in a megathread, it's a problem - I fully accept that. They suck up the oxygen of attention, phone-browsers go straight to them, but conversely, they're so fast moving that derails cause real irritation. I don't think anyone would advocate closing them again - I suspect that would kill a goodly margin of traffic, which would harm the community. Maybe a slow titration of posting delay, until bored posters waiting for their next zinger decide to branch out into minithreads? Dependent on an understanding of the site infrastructure that I lack.

I've been re-reading Hunter S Thompson this week - Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail. A classic, of course, but a whole lot of resonance with D&D right now - disillusionment, official sources, rumour and leaks. Establishment and insurgents. I'm increasingly wary of attempts to place bounds on the discourse - but that might just be me.

Oh, one last suggestion - ban anyone who doesn't include a screenshot on Imgur in their link to a deleted twitter post. I'm tired of clicking empty dead links.

Cefte fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Oct 29, 2021

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:44

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

CommieGIR posted:

No offense, but I suspect arguing that "The reprisals for Tianamen Square are debatable" and "Mass Incarceration for Uighurs is HELPING them" are going to be extremely controversial opinions regardless of rules changes. So just be aware.

Does someone have the unedited tank man video handy?

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:48

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

Jaxyon posted:

It's a good opinion and post.

it was spurred by some of the same black-and-white-cartoon thinking we see in this thread ("vitalsigns supported taliban rape!") when it arose in the me-too thread.

and I think it's a clue to one of the bigger problems in dnd, inasmuch as "you're with us or against us" reflexive & reductionist thinking/posting tends to shut down opposing points of view when they're outside the narrow range of acceptable opinion that dominates liberal u.s. political discourse--or, as is common in dnd as well as outside of SA, equating the far right with the far left.

maybe it's a natural progression that arose from twitter burns and/or hyperpartisanship, but I think this forum, as well as the country at large, are worse off for it. I'd like to think most people outgrew the idea that everything comes down to Good Guys vs. Bad Guys by the time they're old enough to go to kindergarten, but I imagine that the political utility of distilling thought like a 3 yr old outweighs any damage to those who perpetuate it.

eta: Cefte wore it better.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Oct 29, 2021

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:49

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Does someone have the unedited tank man video handy?

what is the edited version?

asking that earnestly btw, I've literally never seen or heard of any major edited version of it because the original footage is sufficiently powerful in its own right.

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Oct 29, 2021

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:53

reignonyourparade: Nov 15, 2012

If you've gotta say "you are apologizing for rape" instead of "you are a rape apologist" even when someone is doing rape apologia, but not "you are doing genocide denial" instead of "you're a genocide denier" that seems a lot like the accusation more frequently made by the ingroup is being treated slightly lighter than the accusation more frequently made by those in the outgroup.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:55

How are u: May 19, 2005; by Azathoth

I am more than comfortable and onboard with telling people doing genocide denial "you are doing genocide denial". Then, if they continue the genocide denial after this is pointed out, they can properly be called a "genocide denier". That seems eminently reasonable to me.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:58

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

Willa Rogers posted:

it was spurred by some of the same black-and-white-cartoon thinking we see in this thread ("vitalsigns supported taliban rape!") when it arose in the me-too thread.

and I think it's a clue to one of the bigger problems in dnd, inasmuch as "you're with us or against us" reflexive & reductionist thinking/posting tends to shut down opposing points of view when they're outside the narrow range of acceptable opinion that dominates liberal u.s. political discourse--or, as is common in dnd as well as outside of SA, equating the far right with the far left.

maybe it's a natural progression that arose from twitter burns and/or hyperpartisanship, but I think this forum, as well as the country at large, are worse off for it. I'd like to think most people outgrew the idea that everything comes down to Good Guys vs. Bad Guys by the time they're old enough to go to kindergarten, but I imagine that the political utility of distilling thought like a 3 yr old outweighs any damage to those who perpetuate it.

How are you not doing the exact thing you are railing against here by putting everyone in D&D in some box.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 20:58

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

socialsecurity posted:

How are you not doing the exact thing you are railing against here by putting everyone in D&D in some box.

Because I'm not demanding that other posters mirror my views or demand that they leave because their views make me feel uncomfortable.

Like Lib & Let ~~Lib~~ Die, I enjoy reading a variety of views; they help shape my own. I enjoy arguing against some of those views; they help firm my own beliefs. I also am gratified when posters say I helped shape their own political beliefs, or helped them see a new angle on a topic, just as others have done to shape my own beliefs.

I don't call for harsher punishments of those with whom I merely disagree; I don't use blanket, amorphous, undefined metrics as reasons they need to leave this forum because it'd make me feel more comfortable to not be challenged in my views; and I don't pick out people & follow them from thread to thread to hound them or demand that they answer me according to their personal scale of What Constitutes Posting I Accept.

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Oct 29, 2021

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:08

thatfatkid: Feb 20, 2011; by Azathoth

CommieGIR posted:

No offense, but I suspect arguing that "The reprisals for Tianamen Square are debatable" and "Mass Incarceration for Uighurs is HELPING them" are going to be extremely controversial opinions regardless of rules changes. So just be aware.

Yes and?

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:09

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

out of curiosity, how zero-tolerance is the "believe accusers and don't cast aspersions on them" thing gonna be?

because there was definitely a lot of disbelieving the accusers against Alex Morse, Keith Ellison, and Anthony Fauci. and two of those three were later clearly proven to be politically-motivated false accusations, so it's not like people were wrong to disbelieve the accusations at first sight

but "believe accusers, unless you're absolutely positive that they're lying" doesn't really make much sense as a rule, so those should probably be treated with the same respect as the Tara Reade stuff until evidence comes out one way or the other

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:11

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

Main Paineframe posted:

so those should probably be treated with the same respect as the Tara Reade stuff until evidence comes out one way or the other

Yeah this is basically going to be the guiding principle I think. Even then there is probably some marginal stuff like the "elizabeth warren is a dominatrix" jacob wohl story that I dont think anyone really believed from the get go.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:14

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

I don't think anyone is calling for an "always believe accusers" rule, more of a rule against using rape culture bullshit arguments to dismiss accusers out of hand.

Pretty big difference between "I'm skeptical of this accusation of domestic abuse because the accuser claimed to have video evidence that they are now refusing to provide" and "I'm skeptical of this accusation of sexual assault because the accuser had a late rent check/the accuser might not have a bachelor's degree/Fox News is reporting on it/etc"

It's a pretty bright line imo

E: also saying "the accuser is refusing to show evidence they claimed to have" is not casting aspersions on anyone, it's just a fact, unlike calling the accuser a Russian agent, demanding to see her bachelor's degree ( :psyduck:

) and other irrelevancies that have gently caress all to do with the facts of what happened

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 29, 2021

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:19

Second Hand Meat Mouth: Sep 12, 2001

VitalSigns posted:

I don't think anyone is calling for an "always believe accusers" rule, more of a rule against using rape culture bullshit arguments to dismiss accusers out of hand.

Pretty big difference between "I'm skeptical of this accusation of domestic abuse because the accuser claimed to have video evidence that they are now refusing to provide" and "I'm skeptical of this accusation of sexual assault because the accuser had a late rent check/the accuser might not have a bachelor's degree/Fox News is reporting on it/etc"

It's a pretty bright line imo

I don't think either of those viewpoints should be acceptable.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:20

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

500 good dogs posted:

I don't think either of those viewpoints should be acceptable.

Ok I stand corrected I guess someone is calling for a rule for believing every single accusation

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:23

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

VitalSigns posted:

I don't think anyone is calling for an "always believe accusers" rule, more of a rule against using rape culture bullshit arguments to dismiss accusers out of hand.

Pretty big difference between "I'm skeptical of this accusation of domestic abuse because the accuser claimed to have video evidence that they are now refusing to provide" and "I'm skeptical of this accusation of sexual assault because the accuser had a late rent check/the accuser might not have a bachelor's degree/Fox News is reporting on it/etc"

It's a pretty bright line imo

E: also saying "the accuser is refusing to show evidence they claimed to have" is not casting aspersions on anyone, it's just a fact, unlike calling the accuser a Russian agent, demanding to see her bachelor's degree () and other irrelevancies that have gently caress all to do with the facts of what happened

I, for one, am not excited to try and carefully evaluate which reasons for disbelieving accusers are acceptable. This may be part of why I was on board with the bad, lazy "omg everyone just shut up about it" policy on Reade's accusations pre-metoo thread.

even with fos's stated position there's the wohl thing, but I think that position is about the best we're going to be able to do

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:25

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

GreyjoyBastard posted:

I, for one, am not excited to try and carefully evaluate which reasons for disbelieving accusers are acceptable. This may be part of why I was on board with the bad, lazy "omg everyone just shut up about it" policy on Reade's accusations pre-metoo thread.

Yeah I mean that's fair, if the decision is "I'm not qualified to evaluate the line so no doubting" that's certainly better than allowing all the nonsense attacks on Reade's character

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:27

silicone thrills: Jan 9, 2008; I paint things

The default should always be to believe, mostly because there's literally no benefit to accusing someone powerful at all. Its literally all life negatives so why the gently caress would anyone do it with out it being real.

Like literally just take Blaise Ford and Reade: Both of them were chased out of their own houses, feel very unsafe and are constantly harassed.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:29

Darkrenown: Jul 18, 2012; please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes

Kaedric posted:

Were you ok with the rapes that were going on under US occupation? Framing his posts as saying 'taliban good' as opposed to 'some of the locals prefer the taliban to the US' is a bit disingenuous. My guess is you're operating under the western (and, sad to say, totally normal) assumption that we were the 'good guys' in that war. We absolutely were not. The taliban are horrible monsters imo, but I'm glad our own horrible monsters are out of that country now.

No, I know the US (I'm not American) sucked in Afghanistan too. Biden isn't the first rapist president either. Even if you think the US was worse than the Taliban then it seems to match up fairly nicely to Trump being worse than Biden and yet both are rapists. If everyone supporting Biden is pro-rape then surely the same should go for people celebrating the Taliban's return to power?

But I'm not trying to make the point that Vitalsigns loves the Taliban and therefore loves rape, I was trying to make the point it's absurd in either case. I thought since you were holding up VS as "one of the greatest posters" then pointing out that the same kind of logic should condemn them might make you rethink it. I don't think VS was hyped for all the terrible things that will happen under the Taliban, and I don't think DnD people hoping Biden gets some good bills passed love Biden's rapey ways either.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:34

30.5 Days: Nov 19, 2006

I don't know how to characterize it in a way that's clear, but I think there's some kind of difference between "jacob wohl's mouth is moving so this is a lie" and "well I looked into and WHAT I THINK IS"

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:43

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

Alex Morse's accuser was believed, but he was intentionally vague (on advice from the mass party's lawyer) as to what he actually did, then it was revealed fairly quickly that the accusation was both innocuous (they matched on Tinder, he mentioned going to Pride) and that the accuser was angling for an internship at his opponent's office. The accusation, for whatever little existed, was believed, until it was proven to be inconsequential.

Keith Ellison's ex-girlfriend was also believed, up until she pushed to have records regarding his marriage to his ex-wife unsealed, which revealed that rather than being abuser, he had in fact suffered abuse as a result of her depression. As far as I'm aware coverage dropped after this incident; it is entirely possible that Karen Monahan was dragged from her bed by Ellison & she just had the misfortune of looking in a disastrously wrong place for proof, and I wouldn't fault anyone for believing her, and I'd consider it gross to actively go after her or imply that she's a republican puppet, russian puppet, Bad Horse Carer, Trouble With Landlords, etc.

Neither case, in my opinion, supports the idea that you shouldnt believe accusers, nor that it's alright to bring up their human faults in an effort to discredit them.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:44

exmarx: Feb 18, 2012; The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

CommieGIR posted:

No offense, but I suspect arguing that "The reprisals for Tianamen Square are debatable" and "Mass Incarceration for Uighurs is HELPING them" are going to be extremely controversial opinions regardless of rules changes. So just be aware.

to be clear, does 'controversial' mean 'punishable regardless of rules changes'? not clear why you made this post otherwise, since disagreeing with others' opinions sometimes is to be expected in the debate and discussion forum.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:46

Kaedric: Sep 5, 2000

Darkrenown posted:

No, I know the US (I'm not American) sucked in Afghanistan too. Biden isn't the first rapist president either. Even if you think the US was worse than the Taliban then it seems to match up fairly nicely to Trump being worse than Biden and yet both are rapists. If everyone supporting Biden is pro-rape then surely the same should go for people celebrating the Taliban's return to power?

But I'm not trying to make the point that Vitalsigns loves the Taliban and therefore loves rape, I was trying to make the point it's absurd in either case. I thought since you were holding up VS as "one of the greatest posters" then pointing out that the same kind of logic should condemn them might make you rethink it. I don't think VS was hyped for all the terrible things that will happen under the Taliban, and I don't think DnD people hoping Biden gets some good bills passed love Biden's rapey ways either.

I don't agree with voting for biden = pro-rape so I'm not sure what the purpose of your argument is

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:52

Elephant Ambush: Nov 13, 2012; ...We sholde spenden more time together. What sayest thou?; Nap Ghost

Cefte posted:

Seconding all this fwiw

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:53

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Willa Rogers posted:

it was spurred by some of the same black-and-white-cartoon thinking we see in this thread ("vitalsigns supported taliban rape!") when it arose in the me-too thread.

and I think it's a clue to one of the bigger problems in dnd, inasmuch as "you're with us or against us" reflexive & reductionist thinking/posting tends to shut down opposing points of view when they're outside the narrow range of acceptable opinion that dominates liberal u.s. political discourse--or, as is common in dnd as well as outside of SA, equating the far right with the far left.

maybe it's a natural progression that arose from twitter burns and/or hyperpartisanship, but I think this forum, as well as the country at large, are worse off for it. I'd like to think most people outgrew the idea that everything comes down to Good Guys vs. Bad Guys by the time they're old enough to go to kindergarten, but I imagine that the political utility of distilling thought like a 3 yr old outweighs any damage to those who perpetuate it.

Mostly agree, but it's a problem in both DnD and CSPAM.

People treat any disagreement as if it's a fullthroated support of the opposite viewpoint, and it crops up all the loving time and it's the most irritating thing, because discussions instantly become caricatures and any actual movement is impossible.

That and weird forum rivalry crap are the most irritating aspects of this forum right now for me.

Get rid of the dual politics forum situation, moderate less often but more severely, and I don't know what else

# ? Oct 29, 2021 21:55

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

As Discendo Vox stated, the scorn and harassment is done on purpose to make all but the most lax of moderation efforts difficult if not impossible. It's why you weren't able to consistently do the things in the list despite wanting to...

The answer is not to stop trying, though. It's for the admins and Jeffrey to support the moderators and their endeavors by coming down hard on the harassers. Said harassers will of course try real hard, in a coordinated fashion, to make the case that they are actually being prosecuted for their ideology (using catchphrases like "punishing posting enemies"), but it's important to recognize those efforts for what they really are: another attempt to undermine and abuse the forum and its regulars.

This doesn't match my (admittedly hazy) memory of modding D&D back in 2012/13. I had the full backing of the admin team (which was really just Ozma at the time, with Lowtax completely checked out) and the other guy who was an active mod then. We could and did try to crack down on stuff, particularly in certain threads like a tightly moderated gun control discussion. It didn't work and even the people who wanted the type of posting you're looking for hated it.

I didn't stop doing it because there was too much pushback from "harassers", but because it was a huge time suck for little gain. Most of our effort went to trying to figure out petty drama in the UK and Aus threads anyway.

Maybe times and people have changed and the mods are better now and it will really work this time. I'm just saying, having tried myself, I'm skeptical, but wish you luck.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:00

Darkrenown: Jul 18, 2012; please give me anything to talk about besides the fact that democrats are allowing millions of americans to be evicted from their homes

Kaedric posted:

I don't agree with voting for biden = pro-rape so I'm not sure what the purpose of your argument is

I thought that was the point of your conversation with How r u. If not, then disregard.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:10

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

exmarx posted:

to be clear, does 'controversial' mean 'punishable regardless of rules changes'? not clear why you made this post otherwise, since disagreeing with others' opinions sometimes is to be expected in the debate and discussion forum.

They are going to called out on it, is what I meant. Strongly.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:12

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

At the end of the day I don't care about someone's ideology or political alignment as long as they come into discussions in this forum (or in real life, for that matter) with an open mind, do simple things like vet their sources and post civilly, and adopt an attitude of humility when talking to someone who is more knowledgeable than them in the subject being discussed. I know that's a lot to ask when it's a broader topic like politics where the strength of one's convictions tends to be inversely proportional to their level of knowledge, but this type of culture can indeed become a reality with strict and consistent moderation, so long as it is backed by an alignment of purpose between mods, admins and Jeffrey.

To be totally frank with you, and without getting into an awkward/gross battle over the details here, you're misreading the use of authoritative language and dedicated interest in a topic as "expertise." It's an anonymous internet forum, nobody gets to come in with some magical force field of respect above anybody else, and every post should be taken at face value. It's one thing to suggest enforced rules of decorum and civility and limit harassment, which is quite fair; it's another thing entirely to expect moderators to be able to somehow assess and protect the "knowledgeable."

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:16

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

CommieGIR posted:

They are going to called out on it, is what I meant. Strongly.

What's the official number of deaths according to D&D? Because that's primarily the "genocide denial" that's being talked about. People discussing that the number of deaths is a very complicated figure to find the truth of.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:19

Deteriorata: Feb 6, 2005

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

To be totally frank with you, and without getting into an awkward/gross battle over the details here, you're misreading the use of authoritative language and dedicated interest in a topic as "expertise." It's an anonymous internet forum, nobody gets to come in with some magical force field of respect above anybody else, and every post should be taken at face value. It's one thing to suggest enforced rules of decorum and civility and limit harassment, which is quite fair; it's another thing entirely to expect moderators to be able to somehow assess and protect the "knowledgeable."

That's the thing about arguing based on facts. If someone is full of it, you prove them wrong. You don't get to hand-wave them away or call them names.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:21

World Famous W: May 25, 2007; BAAAAAAAAAAAA

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

To be totally frank with you, and without getting into an awkward/gross battle over the details here, you're misreading the use of authoritative language and dedicated interest in a topic as "expertise." It's an anonymous internet forum, nobody gets to come in with some magical force field of respect above anybody else, and every post should be taken at face value. It's one thing to suggest enforced rules of decorum and civility and limit harassment, which is quite fair; it's another thing entirely to expect moderators to be able to somehow assess and protect the "knowledgeable."

I would like to second this

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:24

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Gumball Gumption posted:

What's the official number of deaths according to D&D? Because that's primarily the "genocide denial" that's being talked about. People discussing that the number of deaths is a very complicated figure to find the truth of.

Number of deaths does not a genocide make, and that's a very poor way to classify genocide. And, within this context of rule discussion: Are you saying you disbelieve the people coming from Uighur communities saying this has happened, or people who were at Tianamen square who said it was cracked down on? And forced conversions/mass re-education is very much cultural genocide, even if mass death is not the primary end goal. Oppressing or erasing the cultural traces of a minority group, even if you do not kill them, is cultural genocide.

Where do we draw the line on who is believed or disbelieved when it comes to rape or genocide/mass persecution? Can we even answer that question fairly?

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 29, 2021

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:28

Kaedric: Sep 5, 2000

Darkrenown posted:

I thought that was the point of your conversation with How r u. If not, then disregard.

Looking at my previous post I can see how that would be confusing. In fact I do not disagree with what How Are U posted, but was instead, let's call it "shitposting", about his past as a rape apologist to contrast with his sudden 'concern' about people being called rape apologists just for voting for joe.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:28

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

CommieGIR posted:

Number of deaths does not a genocide make, and that's a very poor way to classify genocide. And, within this context of rule discussion: Are you saying you disbelieve the people coming from Uighur communities saying this has happened, or people who were at Tianamen square who said it was cracked down on? And forced conversions/mass re-education is very much cultural genocide, even if mass death is not the primary end goal. Oppressing or erasing the cultural traces of a minority group, even if you do not kill them, is cultural genocide.

Where do we draw the line on who is believed or disbelieved when it comes to rape or genocide/mass persecution? Can we even answer that question fairly?

No, my point is that when people talk about cspam denying genocide in Tianamen square what cspam was talking about was that the death toll is a very disputed number and it's tough to understand what an actual historical account is because everyone involved lied to benefit themselves.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 10:35

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Ok I actually have a legit question regarding moderation.

Is disputing that the actions of the PRC in Xinjiang constitute a genocide permissible in D&D, or even disputing the severity of the harmful actions that the PRC has undertaken in Xinjiang permissible?

If the answer to the above is yes, then is it acceptable for posters to call other posters who post such things (whether or not xinjiang is a genocide, how severe are the PRC's actions) to call them genocide deniers, tankies, or other epithets common in the china thread in D&D?

I'm trying to figure out to what extent ideological rigidity is enforced in debate and discussion, and if a good faith debate on controversial topics is permissible, or if discussion of this topic alone is considered beyond the pale.

# ? Oct 29, 2021 22:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > D&D Moderation Feedback Thread/Suggestion Box - READ THE RULES.

«‹›47 »