|
Gumball Gumption posted: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. We're gonna let an admin mull this over, but okay my bad if I misunderstood it was just in that context specifically.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:What's the official number of deaths according to D&D? I too, would like to know what the hive mind that people are always referring to thinks on matters. Can we speak with it? Gumball Gumption posted: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. Also the CSPAM hivemind. I have many questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I too, would like to know what the hive mind that people are always referring to thinks on matters. This is the kind of thing I think D&D should have less of. Answer for yourself if you like, or don't!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Ok I actually have a legit question regarding moderation. Yeah some clarity re: the above would be good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
As a non-voting communist I will take under my wings all who refuse to vote and protect them. This is my promise. If you refused to vote and are being yelled at about it, PM me. I will probably say you're being a whiner, but know you have a champion
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We're gonna let an admin mull this over, but okay my bad if I misunderstood it was just in that context specifically. I guess here is the easiest way to put it. If someone said they believe less than 10000 people died in Tianamen Square and they think the number is smaller and isn't a jackass about it how does that get handled? Because that's the number you'll find if you Google it's the number you'll see in recent news articles, and is also highly disputed like everything else with the death toll. There's a lot of grey between "nothing happened" and "none of the official accounts are actually factual" and that grey area is usually what people are talking about and what gets those accusations of genocide denial so I think it's worth figuring out and codifying when that grey turns into black and white in D&D so that people don't accidently end up there and so these cries of genocide denial can stop being used as a way to win arguments.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Denying atrocities will get you in trouble in much the same will that denying accusers will. I don’t really care that much about the Xinjiang discourse personally (and in fact I don’t think I’ve ever posted in any of the China/Eurasia threads), but I do think there is a difference in saying you expect to be presented with solid evidence of something like genocide, which by definition is happening to an entire group of people on a mass scale. As opposed to rape which almost as a rule is going to be an event that happens where there is no documentation or third party witnesses. Casting aspersions on a person claiming they were raped, which is essentially an unfalsifiable claim, is not analogous to questioning the credibility/source of accusations for something that is allegedly happening to a group of people en masse. And furthermore genocide is a pretty nebulous term that encompasses all kinds of behaviors from the straight up holocaust to much less severe types of oppression/discrimination. I think it should be fair to argue whether certain actions qualify as genocide - a flat rule against that type of argument being deemed genocide denial only serves to let ~~genocide denial~~ be used as a cudgel against posters I don’t like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I guess here is the easiest way to put it. If someone said they believe less than 10000 people died in Tianamen Square and they think the number is smaller and isn't a jackass about it how does that get handled? Because that's the number you'll find if you Google it's the number you'll see in recent news articles, and is also highly disputed like everything else with the death toll. There's a lot of grey between "nothing happened" and "none of the official accounts are actually factual" and that grey area is usually what people are talking about and what gets those accusations of genocide denial so I think it's worth figuring out and codifying when that grey turns into black and white in D&D so that people don't accidently end up there and so these cries of genocide denial can stop being used as a way to win arguments. I don't think Tianamen counts so much as a genocide, even a cultural genocide, more as an oppressive move. I like the earlier joke post from the thread: Just require everyone admit every country is likely involved in genocide in one for or another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I guess here is the easiest way to put it. If someone said they believe less than 10000 people died in Tianamen Square and they think the number is smaller and isn't a jackass about it how does that get handled? Because that's the number you'll find if you Google it's the number you'll see in recent news articles, and is also highly disputed like everything else with the death toll. There's a lot of grey between "nothing happened" and "none of the official accounts are actually factual" and that grey area is usually what people are talking about and what gets those accusations of genocide denial so I think it's worth figuring out and codifying when that grey turns into black and white in D&D so that people don't accidently end up there and so these cries of genocide denial can stop being used as a way to win arguments. Then it becomes a battle of sources. Source A says X, source B says Y. You then have to dive into what the sources are for your sources, and chasing the rabbit through the hole as far as it goes until you figure out why they're different. You also have to get into the political motivations behind why each source reports the number they do, which leads you to the Media thread which everyone loves to hate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Then it becomes a battle of sources. Source A says X, source B says Y. You then have to dive into what the sources are for your sources, and chasing the rabbit through the hole as far as it goes until you figure out why they're different. Having that conversation would by default require "genocide denial" to not be infractable, and probably would also involve some restraint from deploying "genocide denial" as a thought-terminating cliche.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Thread has gotten very productive and it would be a mistake to close it tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I guess here is the easiest way to put it. If someone said they believe less than 10000 people died in Tianamen Square and they think the number is smaller and isn't a jackass about it how does that get handled? Because that's the number you'll find if you Google it's the number you'll see in recent news articles, and is also highly disputed like everything else with the death toll. There's a lot of grey between "nothing happened" and "none of the official accounts are actually factual" and that grey area is usually what people are talking about and what gets those accusations of genocide denial so I think it's worth figuring out and codifying when that grey turns into black and white in D&D so that people don't accidently end up there and so these cries of genocide denial can stop being used as a way to win arguments. I agree but I don't get the whole appeal in general of putting a label on anything regardless. That's what stirs up so much drama around here because no one agrees what a "genocide" should be defined as, or what "supporting a rapist" means, etc.. Like it'd be better to ban the word "genocide" and just talk about the actual claims in Xinjiang instead of arguing nomenclature. Also, not too related but you'd be surprised how many people believe the tank man was run over by the tank and didn't just walk away...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I too, would like to know what the hive mind that people are always referring to thinks on matters. And seconding that this type of post is perfectly emblematic of the condescension that is rife within D&D and makes it a toxic place to post. Comments like this regularly go unchecked and then someone that understandably (at least in my mind) responds negatively ends up being the one that gets probed. If you really want to improve D&D then crackdown and ramp posters that are condescending assholes. It’s just as much aggro posting as coming in hot to call someone a rape apologist or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Pamela Springstein posted:Thread has gotten very productive and it would be a mistake to close it tonight. All things are malleable and no things are permanent. We still have hours yet. Live in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
I think ultimately any sort of debate on any sort of genocide needs to have a base line of "this line shall not be crossed" in the community. There's clear lines that we wouldn't allow being crossed for questioning or debate of Canadian residential schools, or the Holocaust, even though I'm sure there's some horrible, horrible papers and books that call into question the severity and fatalities of both of those. Xinjiang is more of a developing situation, and it's clearly much more difficult to say "anything that doesn't agree with X and Y is misinformation", particularly when sources are biased, but I think it's worthwhile to set some sort of baseline. Hopefully everyone can agree that we wouldn't accept someone saying "actually mass internment and re-educating muslims is good if you think about it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Ok I actually have a legit question regarding moderation. Gumball Gumption posted:I guess here is the easiest way to put it. If someone said they believe less than 10000 people died in Tianamen Square and they think the number is smaller and isn't a jackass about it how does that get handled? Because that's the number you'll find if you Google it's the number you'll see in recent news articles, and is also highly disputed like everything else with the death toll. There's a lot of grey between "nothing happened" and "none of the official accounts are actually factual" and that grey area is usually what people are talking about and what gets those accusations of genocide denial so I think it's worth figuring out and codifying when that grey turns into black and white in D&D so that people don't accidently end up there and so these cries of genocide denial can stop being used as a way to win arguments. agreed. it would be good if posters on here, many of whom aren't american, were allowed to discuss contentious foreign policy issues in terms beyond those set by the u.s. state department.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
enki42 posted:I think ultimately any sort of debate on any sort of genocide needs to have a base line of "this line shall not be crossed" in the community. There's clear lines that we wouldn't allow being crossed for questioning or debate of Canadian residential schools, or the Holocaust, even though I'm sure there's some horrible, horrible papers and books that call into question the severity and fatalities of both of those. certainly, but the danger here is that due to the moderation-enforced impermissibility of discussion previously, there has been ideological uniformity on this issue in the china thread, with outright contempt shown to people who do not hew to that line. if we are sincere about the desire to hold good faith discussion of the topic, then not only will posters have to know that they will not face retaliation from the moderators for bringing up the topic, they also must have confidence that they will not be completely acceptable targets for a variety of insults. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Pobrecito posted:And seconding that this type of post is perfectly emblematic of the condescension that is rife within D&D and makes it a toxic place to post. Comments like this regularly go unchecked and then someone that understandably (at least in my mind) responds negatively ends up being the one that gets probed. Talking about "what D&D thinks" and what "CSPAM thinks" or "this thread's opinoins on X" are all incredibly toxic behaviors that people use to cover their poo poo posting quality. If you have a problem with an opinion just address it, don't talk about how "USPOL thread opinion is that Nancy Pelosi is awesome  " or "Cspam wants to shoot anyone who isn't a tankie ".It's not condescension, I am loving tired of people going into political forums and propping up strawpeople to be their enemies because there aren't enough people who are actually their enemies to post about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I don't think Tianamen counts so much as a genocide, even a cultural genocide, more as an oppressive move. Yeah the terminology isn't right. But the general argument ends up applying to lots of things. People discussing the differing accounts on what's happening to the Uyghurs in China turns into genocide denial to attack enemies. People discussing that Joe Biden has credible rape allegations but they still feel they need to vote turns into rape apologists. I don't even really care if you guys set a line but it feels like for what you want you need one or you're going to get sucked back into the arguments. Deteriorata posted:Then it becomes a battle of sources. Source A says X, source B says Y. You then have to dive into what the sources are for your sources, and chasing the rabbit through the hole as far as it goes until you figure out why they're different. This would be great and what I'd love to see. I also don't think it actually happens very often here. And people just hate the media thread because trust in how D&D is run has hit a point where it's assumed by a lot of people the mods have a bias and are enforcing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
Pamela Springstein posted:Thread has gotten very productive and it would be a mistake to close it tonight. Same. It's take a week, but actual conversations about moderation policies are happening instead of just petty sniping which is also happening but a little is ok I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Debating the moral calculus (in threads where that is appropriate) is fine, calling them a rape apologist or worse, or trying to get them banned for it, is not. Similarly, calling someone who protest voted a racist who doesn't care about black people is also disallowed. I live in a pretty red state, I voted for Biden in 2020, and I feel like poo poo about it. I knew I would feel like poo poo about it before I did it and while I was doing it, of course. I did this because, just like every presidential election, the primary worked out to offer complete garbage choices from both major parties but there were credible reasons to believe that the republican nominee would successfully enact policies more immediately harmful to people I know and love. I am still not convinced this was an ethical course of action given the democratic party's complicity in/enthusiastic pursuit of policies which are indistinguishable in the long run, but it's what I did. If someone told me my vote was an act of rape apologia I do not know how I could honestly debate the claim. My decision amounted to "yes, the evidence suggests he is a rapist, but..." and for this specific accusation I don't see how it matters what follows that. I can certainly understand that your decision as a moderator might be that people cannot make this accusation because hearing it feels like poo poo in a way that most people aren't going to handle well, but it looks fairly cut and dry as a matter of fact. We could perhaps say that a person is not properly a rape apologist unless this is a pattern of behavior, but honestly, how many elections can I vote in before it looks like a pattern? Say we try to be very strict with our definitions and establish that we will not address the patterns, only the individual behaviors - is it acceptable for discourse to have someone say that my vote was rape apologia? It was, after all, me making the decision that "yes, the evidence suggests he is a rapist, but..." I do not think this accusation is going to be received much better in most scenarios and I am glad I don't have to make the decision about how to handle this topic. So how can we have the policy you're laying out here in a way that still respects the agreed upon facts of the world? We need to come up with a definition of rape apologia that carefully excludes voting for a rapist, I guess. Do you have one? Is it the one we're going to use to navigate this issue in the future? If so it seems important to lay it out openly. Or is there some other way to navigate this issue that I'm not seeing? This post sucks and I hate making it, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
While fos covered things pretty well, I'm still going to do a small followup on the history of readechat policy. It's a little bit interesting, it clarifies what we've tried, and if I'm very, very lucky it might persuade one (1) user that we're trying not to be shitmods, moderating is just hard sometimes. I had to check to make sure, but turns out I was IKed (as a general IK with a particular focus on the primary thread and uspol) two months or so before her accusations dropped, so turns out i was probably at least a little in the loop on the decision making. This is unfortunate because it means I can't just throw fos and paineframe under the bus. Contrary to popular belief, our initial modding position was "please don't be gross about it". Our threshold for using buttons was just... somewhat higher than the admins decided on. After things settled down, we, for the reasons fos and i enunciated, went with "everybody shut up about readechat". This was a clear, simple policy that made absolutely everyone involved angry. After a while, and with the impetus of Herstory who was a very good IK before he retired to spend more time with the path of exile thread, we opened the metoo thread. Our secret hope was that everyone would move on from Tara Reade (and indeed, the thread eventually largely did), but in the meantime our policy on doubting Reade was a more nuanced "don't be gross about it": you can doubt her, you can even state reasons for why, but they need to be either directly linked to the facts of the accusation or very compelling and direct credibility arguments. A hearty chunk of Reade nonbelievers declined to post about it because our line was unclear, which made nonbelievers very angry and any believers that noticed happy. Some level of nonbelief was legal, which made believers very angry and any nonbelievers that noticed happy. We had successfully completed a transition from a clear, low-effort policy that everyone hated to an unclear, high-effort policy that everyone hated. This persisted until approximately a week ago, and now we are hopefully at a clear-ish policy that is less terrible than the first two and will stick. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:20
|
|
|
Irony.or.Death posted:I live in a pretty red state, I voted for Biden in 2020, and I feel like poo poo about it. I knew I would feel like poo poo about it before I did it and while I was doing it, of course. I did this because, just like every presidential election, the primary worked out to offer complete garbage choices from both major parties but there were credible reasons to believe that the republican nominee would successfully enact policies more immediately harmful to people I know and love. I am still not convinced this was an ethical course of action given the democratic party's complicity in/enthusiastic pursuit of policies which are indistinguishable in the long run, but it's what I did. An easy cut to this gordian knot is that a forum's goal is not to model the universe with words but to be an enjoyable place to chat with others. Some people like arguing, and that's cool but the arguments have to at least continually seek out some sort of novelty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted: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. It's frequently impossible to somehow "prove someone wrong" when the problem with their reasoning (including how they determine the burden of proof) is that it's predicated on a bunch of contested assumptions. For example, let's say someone is making a claim based on a particular piece of reporting that includes a specific source without any actual hard proof (which is frequently the case). The side supporting the claim will generally demand the other side provide proof that the reporting is false, while the other side will demand proof that it is true (or that it even proves whatever their claim is). When it comes to political issues, this is the case more often than not. To the extent that "known facts" enter the equation, they're still usually only used as data points as part of some greater argument that it's impossible to directly prove or disprove (usually until there's the benefit of hindsight). Deteriorata posted:Then it becomes a battle of sources. Source A says X, source B says Y. You then have to dive into what the sources are for your sources, and chasing the rabbit through the hole as far as it goes until you figure out why they're different. That'd be great if people actually did that in good faith, but (as specifically seen in the media thread you mention) in practice people just point out the political motivations of the sources they disagree with and ignore the ones they agree with (or decide that they're disqualifying for the media they disagree with but not for the media they prefer). And even if you do that, it rarely leads to a "correct answer." It usually comes down to people choosing what to assume as their default understanding of the situation (and what they feel others have the burden of disproving). Willa Rogers posted:that's because you're doing "bad faith" "trolling" while "acting like an rear end in a top hat," according to the subjective judges & juries. This ties into the point I've repeatedly made about the fundamentally flawed way people (and specifically at least 2-3 of the mods) are gauging "bad faith"/"trolling." They're essentially using a reasoning that says "if you express an opinion that you know will make other people mad, you're trolling or posting in bad faith." But this is obviously a reasoning that effectively shuts out other viewpoints, with people having to filter their own views (or the way they express them) based upon the existing majority opinion (or the opinion shared by moderators I guess). The best example of this is the fact that someone could make the exact same posts in the succ zone thread and USNews and only be perceived as "acting like an rear end in a top hat" in the latter (with the reasoning that they should have known that their opinions would annoy/anger other posters in that context). In the same way as a liberal USNews poster has an understanding of politics that results in their casual chat being dismissive or mocking towards Republicans/Trump supporters, the same is true for leftists, only with the umbrella also encompassing Democrats/liberals. So there's a fundamental conflict between genuine views; just like a liberal USNews poster isn't posting in "bad faith" when they talk about disliking chuds, the same is true for some leftist who dislikes your average liberal. This is why the "why can't everyone just casually/politely discuss politics" stuff doesn't make any sense. "Casual/friendly politics chat" among liberals includes the understanding that Republicans are stupid and bad and that electing Democrats is important. It's only casual/friendly under the assumption that you're talking with people who share your worldview; a Republican likely wouldn't consider it to be casual and friendly. You'd obviously have a very hard time somehow enforcing a USNews thread where people weren't allowed to show contempt towards chuds. In the same way, "casual/friendly politics chat" among leftists includes beliefs that are dismissive/offensive towards Democrats/liberals. For some reason many people seem incapable of comprehending that someone could genuinely have such a perspective and aren't simply acting out of a desire to troll the libs (this is probably also why you have some people who believe the succ zone thread exists entirely as a staging ground for making attacks on D&D or something similarly bizarre - the idea that this could just be the normal way we talk about this stuff seems to be incomprehensible to them).
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Talking about "what D&D thinks" and what "CSPAM thinks" or "this thread's opinoins on X" are all incredibly toxic behaviors that people use to cover their poo poo posting quality. That's really not my point or what I'm trying to do, I just have no way of talking about the subs without generalizing and this post and CommieGIR's response to the chain it spawned are what got me here and what I want to call out. How are u posted:The Eurasia thread in cspam is chock full of 'just asking questions' about the Uighur genocide. I've seen some posts denying that the Tiananmen Square massacre happened as well. There are definitely safe spaces on the forums to ask those questions. 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. So it's again making a strawman, claiming they're horrible people denying base facts, the mod felt a need to point out those horrible people will still be punished, and oh whoops actually it's a lot more complicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:24
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:That's really not my point or what I'm trying to do, I just have no way of talking about the subs without generalizing and this post and CommieGIR's response to the chain it spawned are what got me here and what I want to call out. How Are U did exactly the thing I'm complaining about. "This thread is chock full of people" okay loving quote them
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is why the "why can't everyone just casually/politely discuss politics" stuff doesn't make any sense. "Casual/friendly politics chat" among liberals includes the understanding that Republicans are stupid and bad and that electing Democrats is important. It's only casual/friendly under the assumption that you're talking with people who share your worldview; a Republican likely wouldn't consider it to be casual and friendly. You'd obviously have a very hard time somehow enforcing a USNews thread where people weren't allowed to show contempt towards chuds. In the same way, "casual/friendly politics chat" among leftists includes beliefs that are dismissive/offensive towards Democrats/liberals. For some reason many people seem incapable of comprehending that someone could genuinely have such a perspective and aren't simply acting out of a desire to troll the libs (this is probably also why you have some people who believe the succ zone thread exists entirely as a staging ground for making attacks on D&D or something similarly bizarre - the idea that this could just be the normal way we talk about this stuff seems to be incomprehensible to them). Really great points (as well as presentation), and they're a good summary of the crux of the tension as well as of the underlying philosophies of how to control it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This ties into the point I've repeatedly made about the fundamentally flawed way people (and specifically at least 2-3 of the mods) are gauging "bad faith"/"trolling." They're essentially using a reasoning that says "if you express an opinion that you know will make other people mad, you're trolling or posting in bad faith." But this is obviously a reasoning that effectively shuts out other viewpoints, with people having to filter their own views (or the way they express them) based upon the existing majority opinion (or the opinion shared by moderators I guess). No clue how they're handled these days, but the thing I remember about "bad faith / trolling" probations is that they almost always started as reports with that as the only thing in the report reason about the post. Now some of those surely were people posting in bad faith or trolling. And some other non-zero amount were reports created to get people having a honest disagreement punished. So most of my time was spent parachuting into various threads and trying to piece together the context of a discussion that happened half a day ago to determine if people were arguing in bad faith or not, which is not a very easy thing to do, creating a lot of bad probes. Now, you could argue that the solution to this is to have more mods and a team of thread IKs so that there will often be someone around who knows the context of each thread. But isn't that what's already been done and people don't seem to think it's working? Again, I'm mostly ignorant about the current state of the forum, but I think Cefte's post is probably right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Our secret hope was that everyone would move on from Tara Reade I want to find a nice wordy D&D appropraite way to give constructive feedback to maybe achieve a simple lower signal-noise politics posting space that is friendly to leftist posters but you have Jeffery's backing so nothing is going to change anyway. Instead, I will post honestly: eat poo poo (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PERMABANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:42
|
|
|
"We had really hoped people would just stop talking about the woman who was raped by the democratic nominee - president" is definitely a stance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is why the "why can't everyone just casually/politely discuss politics" stuff doesn't make any sense. "Casual/friendly politics chat" among liberals includes the understanding that Republicans are stupid and bad and that electing Democrats is important. It's only casual/friendly under the assumption that you're talking with people who share your worldview; a Republican likely wouldn't consider it to be casual and friendly. You'd obviously have a very hard time somehow enforcing a USNews thread where people weren't allowed to show contempt towards chuds. In the same way, "casual/friendly politics chat" among leftists includes beliefs that are dismissive/offensive towards Democrats/liberals. For some reason many people seem incapable of comprehending that someone could genuinely have such a perspective and aren't simply acting out of a desire to troll the libs (this is probably also why you have some people who believe the succ zone thread exists entirely as a staging ground for making attacks on D&D or something similarly bizarre - the idea that this could just be the normal way we talk about this stuff seems to be incomprehensible to them). Politics should rarely be casual and friendly, it's important poo poo that matters and hurts people and kills people and tortures people. People should be allowed to be angry and upset and tone policing a politics forum just reinforces a faux-moderate status quo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While fos covered things pretty well, I'm still going to do a small followup on the history of readechat policy. It's a little bit interesting, it clarifies what we've tried, and if I'm very, very lucky it might persuade one (1) user that we're trying not to be shitmods, moderating is just hard sometimes. I will always personally hate Axeil for this post axeil posted:The same thing she had to gain from all her other lies: money. and all mods/iks that allowed this post to not be punished made a major mistake.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:"We had really hoped people would just stop talking about the woman who was raped by the democratic nominee - president" They don't break discussions off into seperate threads to kill them. You're crazy for thinking that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:They don't break discussions off into seperate threads to kill them. You're crazy for thinking that. Doesn't matter if they do or do not do it intentionally, the result is the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 23:59
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:After things settled down, we, for the reasons fos and i enunciated, went with "everybody shut up about readechat". This was a clear, simple policy that made absolutely everyone involved angry. Yeah, that "secret hope" was never a secret to anyone at all. Just a real mystery why anyone thinks D&D moderation has a strong partisan bias or backs rape apologia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Imagine if someone - anyone - had said that about one of the women trump raped. Im legitimately just posting this so you can think about how this sounds to survivors. We hope people will stop thinking about you, talking about you, acknowledging you. As a survivor its loving gutting to continually hear these sorts of statements. silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Many split off threads have had tons of content? Do you have an example of one that has failed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While fos covered things pretty well, I'm still going to do a small followup on the history of readechat policy. It's a little bit interesting, it clarifies what we've tried, and if I'm very, very lucky it might persuade one (1) user that we're trying not to be shitmods, moderating is just hard sometimes. I'll be clear, I'm happy with those "Reade nonbelievers" not being willing to post here. Same as I was happy "Ford nonbelievers" not feeling welcomed Also quote:Our secret hope was that everyone would move on from Tara Reade
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:Imagine if someone - anyone - had said that about one of the women trump raped. The entire D&D mod team should be replaced for this fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Many split off threads have had tons of content? Do you have an example of one that has failed? Some do, some don't. The police thread is a pretty good example. It's got a lot of content from a relatively small amount of posters who put in effort, and most of the rest of it pretty inactive. When people start discussing "defund the police" or "was this police execution justified" in the main USPol thread, you'll get 10 or so people actively posting and making opinions for about 5 pages, then a IK/mod asks them to take it to the cop thread, and zero people do. They just stop posting about cops. Effectively, this just killed a discussion. You can argue that is due to the laziness or disinterest of posters or whatever but the result is that police reform/abolition discussion is limited to a small containment area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:09
|
|