|
Main Paineframe posted:honestly I'm struggling not to laugh when people claim that having a separate cop thread is somehow smothering the issue. the Cops On The Beat threads were an iconic part of old D&D, and along with HidingFromGoro's prison threads, they were a major factor in turning a lot of budding SA lefties against the boys in blue Instead of struggling not to laugh, you could possibly read what I said which was 1) Not a "claim that having a separate cop thread is somehow smothering the issue" 2) An example of a larger problem where the cop thread was only an example so try again.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:How do you know this? Seems to me because those are the people who actually move to an existing/new thread on the subject when it's pointed out, and while they clearly do exist they're not usually enough to sustain high activity there for long. Though there might be a third category of people who want to have in-depth discussion but only conditional that the whole gang is there, not just the people interested in the details of the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:There's a much, much higher ratio of cases where the CIA made some poo poo up about what a country was doing than there is of women making up rape accusations. Yes when you travel to the magical world of make-believe you can just attribute anything you don't like to the CIA and then declare it false. That's so much more pleasant than actually engaging with the real suffering of real people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:anyway it probably deserves a real effortpost but I am very interested in How Do You Solve A Problem Like Usnews and every solution we've tried so far hasn't worked GreyjoyBastard posted:That's a huge part of the apparently insoluble problem with uspol/usnews really. The pendulum swings between "megathreads suck, they're impossible to keep up with" and "splitting off threads kills discussion" (we are here). fool of sound posted:I want more people to participate in non-USNews discussion and am willing to experiment to make that happen. The things I'm not willing to do are: This somewhat ventures outside of D&D feedback, and I will remind people that I am more or less an outsider when it comes to D&D so feel free to take this feedback with a grain of salt, but personally I still think the best solution would be found outside of that D&D box. The USNews thread should be retired in favor of a Current Events forum. People from all over the site could come together to discuss the news, argue with each other about that news or their interpretations thereof, whatever, and you would no longer have to come up with weird rules to try to make the "entire forum worth of news crammed into a single thread" model work against all sense and all odds. For example, you wouldn't have to make sweeping rules about what topics can/cannot be discussed in that single news thread because each thread could be its own news topic. You wouldn't have to worry about losing posters or be accused of suppressing discussion by trying to split topics off since they're already separate. Discovery of new news would be handled by simply opening the forum (filter by newest thread); people could discuss each article for as long as it interests them without any concept of derailing discussions of unrelated news. I don't have anything against the USNews thread itself or the people who post in it/read it; the single-thread concept is just flawed to begin with. Edit: slight rephrasing
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I understand the point you are making here, because I don't like the 'lesser harm' argument myself, but looking at it in terms of moderation, how should a poster be allowed to respond to the question "How could you vote for Joe Biden in the face of the Reade accusations"? As far as I see it, there are really only three options: I'd like to make a very fact based argument here for some standards on how to weigh greater good arguments if people make them. The idea that it's a contest between 2 people is a false dichotomy. Yes, I know the immediate response is that third parties are unelectable so they don't count and you can't act like they're in the race. Which is true! Absolutely. However, there was polling showing a good number of Biden voters believed Tara and still voted for Biden. You can see it here https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2020/5/7/21247933/tara-reade-allegations-biden-poll-numbers-trump and here https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/498309-poll-majority-of-voters-believe-tara-reade-but-say-it-will-not-impact-their%3famp And even if you didn't believe her you still knew what was going on. https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/497222-poll-77-percent-of-voters-familiar-with-the-sexual-assault%3famp I have not done the math and my gut says if that group of Democrats and independents who believed the allegations and didn't change their Biden vote went to a 3rd it probably wouldn't be a win for the 3rd party. But it would still be a major change in American politics and a rejection of the Democrats as they are. It's also impossible to really predict what a wildly different reaction to the allegations could of done to help legitimatize other parties if people reacted differently. Instead not only did we not get that we got news articles like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opinion/tara-reade-joe-biden-vote.html My point in all of this being that if the greater good argument is invoked it should have to pass the bar of the fact that we are not locked into two parties. We do have options even if those options look like short term peril we can not be sure. Humans are myopic. Ignoring that we have more than two choices when those two choices are both credibly accused of rape is rape culture. It's not encouraging it or being for it. But it's existing in it and if you then argue for why it was ok you're apologizing for it. If you invoke that argument and do not like being treated like a rape apologist than you need to be able to argue why that's not what you're doing. People shouldn't be dicks in D&D but your beliefs should get you labeled, that's a part of politics. I also just want to be incredibly clear, I'm not disagreeing about the greater good argument. I also honestly believe it's the best argument to make it you're going to make an argument for voting for Biden. I just also believe it's not judged to a high enough standard in D&D when we get into what is and isn't rape apology. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Doesn't matter if they do or do not do it intentionally, the result is the same. I was being sarcastic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:I was being sarcastic. I know. And I said it doesn't matter because the result is the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Our - or at least my - decisions were bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Yes when you travel to the magical world of make-believe you can just attribute anything you don't like to the CIA and then declare it false. That's so much more pleasant than actually engaging with the real suffering of real people. I mean, I just talked about doing soul-searching over buying into Obama's treatment of Libya, but go to town, man. Easily my favorite part of D&D is constantly being treated as the real biased, unfeeling, bad faith one here. 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. Honestly, I feel somewhat to blame here because I was one of the people you contacted and I think I was the one who said, "I'm okay with people saying they don't think Biden is a rapist as long as they don't mention or smear Reade." A lot of people, including other survivors, probably wouldn't agree to my advice, but as I mentioned in the QCS thread, I believe it or not try to be careful about how much I impose my experiences on others and don't want to speak with any "total authority" on the matter. I did want more conversation to occur than just, "Moratorium on this subject at all," and that became what happened, though I'm unsure how much mods could've affected that. There've been multiple iterations of the #metoo thread, and the thread where people felt more comfortable talking about their doubts and insecurities about the case from the start was the one that still persisted and the one that had the better conversation. Clearly there needs to be some space to discuss this, while at the same time victims need to feel safe as well. I was contacted recently by a D&D mod who very respectfully asked me my thoughts again, and this time around, I went, "gently caress if I know, impossible situation to shake out." I doubt I'm the only one they contacted (I sure hope I'm not at least), and I thought what I advised would be the best compromise for the community, but it clearly hasn't. I think a big part of it is our media cycle destroys people's collective memories and many people, myself included, don't want Biden's sins forgotten like has been done so many times before. He had multiple accusations against him, more than one, and people have totally memory holed that the same way many, even the most well-meaning, have memory holed how many accusations Kavanaugh faced. It feels like a fight against the brutal nature of news cycles now just as much as society, and when people come into USPol and seemingly forget Biden was ever accused of anything, it feels like a failure has occurred. That's when people question the efficacy of the spinoff threads, etc. How to balance it out, I think, is something that ultimately has to come from group consensus because I don't think any one person has the perfect insight on how to deal with it. I've learned I sure haven't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
e: eh
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Yes when you travel to the magical world of make-believe you can just attribute anything you don't like to the CIA and then declare it false. That's so much more pleasant than actually engaging with the real suffering of real people. Great example of a bad D&D post right here, folks. Is this sort of sarcastic response really conducive to a conversation about... anything?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
i am the real biased I feeling bad faith one though
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:i am the real biased I feeling bad faith one though Depends who the mods rename this first. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
I feel like a big problem is how much D&D has moved from anyone actually giving their opinions on anything,no one actually states anything in an affirmative way, whole threads and whole post histories are people just saying what they don’t think without ever saying what they do believe. Like half of threads are just “post conservative hot take Twitter then caption it ‘heh’” and a ton of posters nominally say they are left wing but have never posted a single thing they actually think, just endless dunks saying other people are stupid. Like the cheat code is just never make an actual statement about anything then you can never be wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I understand the point you are making here, because I don't like the 'lesser harm' argument myself, but looking at it in terms of moderation, how should a poster be allowed to respond to the question "How could you vote for Joe Biden in the face of the Reade accusations"? As far as I see it, there are really only three options: It is debatable whether or not voting for Biden was the greater good(personally I don't think it is, but that's ultimately not important), but the more important issue, from what I can tell, is what kind of community does the moderation want to foster for D&D. You said you wanted a place where survivors would feel more comfortable being a part of and it seems like a good way to achieve that goal would be to not allow greater good justifications, at least when they are specifically about survivors' accusations. I believe that allowing those kinds of arguments is way more toxic than not allowing them and the results that would follow. Would it have a stifling effect on conversations? Maybe, but what kinds of conversations will it stifle? Are they the kinds of debates worth having? Is it worth allowing these conversations to happen if they have the effect of making survivors not want to be a part of this community? These are questions that the mods and the community should address together and I, personally, feel like the community would be a much better place without those justifications. I think it would be worth attempting. Nothing is set in stone and if it ends up having such a pacifying effect that no one wants to post here, then it can be undone. If I'm completely off-base here and no one else wants to do it, then obviously discard the idea, but something needs to change if you want to have a better culture for the community.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I mean, I just talked about doing soul-searching over buying into Obama's treatment of Libya, but go to town, man. Easily my favorite part of D&D is constantly being treated as the real biased, unfeeling, bad faith one here. The Libya that was already selling all its oil and natural gas to British Petroleum? Like whatever grand geopolitical strategy you're going to ascribe to everyone, Libya's about as economically exploited as it gets and Gaddafi was getting the money. Statistically Libya's no different from a random Middle Eastern petrostate, just moved to the west. That is unsurprising seeing where the oil and the money was going. But you feel things so who cares what that means for the people facing the actual consequences? Like I said before why are your feelings so much more important than what happened to them? 500 good dogs posted:Great example of a bad D&D post right here, folks. Is this sort of sarcastic response really conducive to a conversation about... anything? It's conducive to a conversation about how people who deny the reality of their abstract fantasies are contemptible scum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:39
|
|
|
astral posted:This somewhat ventures outside of D&D feedback, and I will remind people that I am more or less an outsider when it comes to D&D so feel free to take this feedback with a grain of salt, but personally I still think the best solution would be found outside of that D&D box. The USNews thread should be retired in favor of a Current Events forum. People from all over the site could come together to discuss the news, argue with each other about that news or their interpretations thereof, whatever, and you would no longer have to come up with weird rules to try to make the "entire forum worth of news crammed into a single thread" model work against all sense and all odds. For example, you wouldn't have to make sweeping rules about what topics can/cannot be discussed in that single news thread because each thread could be its own news topic. You wouldn't have to worry about losing posters or be accused of suppressing discussion by trying to split topics off since they're already separate. Discovery of new news would be handled by simply opening the forum (filter by newest thread); people could discuss each article for as long as it interests them without any concept of derailing discussions of unrelated news. I agree that a single thread concept is flawed, it's just fundamentally not what a forum is supposed to be, but I'm not sure I understand the change you're proposing. If it's a current events forum where each news article is its own thread, that's Fark or r/news, and it's also not in my mind at least what a forum is supposed to be. If it's a forum where there'd be a thread for, say, "immigration news" and a thread for "coronavirus news", isn't that what this forum already is, outside of USNews? Aside from, like, the maps and the flags thread, there's not much discussion of non-current events in D&D. I already gave this feedback earlier, but I think it's worth echoing: If USNews is a thread where a crew of regulars want to chat and have light discussion about politics, it doesn't need to be retired, it can just be moved to CCCC. In CCCC the crew can make their own rules, completely separate from the rules of D&D. They can discuss whatever they want, however they want, probate whoever they want if they post in the thread. Reports in that thread will go down (eventually) when the IKs can threadban on a whim. It will spur people who browse exclusively from their bookmarks to maybe come into the rest of the forum. It doesn't even need to have a BYOB stylesheet, some of the CCCC threads are set up to look grey. I know the previous experiment with no USPol failed, but I think part of that was that those posters who wanted USPol had nowhere to go and so lobbied and pushed hard to have it back. This lets them keep it, without it being a chokepoint for D&D discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:40
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I agree that a single thread concept is flawed, it's just fundamentally not what a forum is supposed to be, but I'm not sure I understand the change you're proposing. If it's a current events forum where each news article is its own thread, that's Fark or r/news, and it's also not in my mind at least what a forum is supposed to be. If it's a forum where there'd be a thread for, say, "immigration news" and a thread for "coronavirus news", isn't that what this forum already is, outside of USNews? Aside from, like, the maps and the flags thread, there's not much discussion of non-current events in D&D. i think the idea is someone would post a link to an article and the contents and pepole would talk about the article and if they wanetd to argue the bigger scope about it like ACAB then they'd hop on over to D&D to talk about how poo poo cops are Reveilled posted:r/news yeah but u wouldnt have to deal with talking to redditors or dealing with a poo poo voting system Korean Boomhauer fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The Libya that was already selling all its oil and natural gas to British Petroleum? Like whatever grand geopolitical strategy you're going to ascribe to everyone, Libya's about as economically exploited as it gets and Gaddafi was getting the money. Statistically Libya's no different from a random Middle Eastern petrostate, just moved to the west. That is unsurprising seeing where the oil and the money was going. But you feel things so who cares what that means for the people facing the actual consequences? Like I said before why are your feelings so much more important than what happened to them? In Anakin Skywalker voice: "Now this is D&D!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
Isn't dnd already 95% just a current events forum? until people started yelling about it, I hadn't actually heard someone take the d&d name as literal statement of purpose in like over a decade or something. it's just a place people go to talk about what's happening in the world. also there's the issue of who will mod it. This site already doesn't have enough mods for 2 politics forums, nor any ability to retain those that it has, much less enough for an inevitably conflict-filled 3rd forum. I don't think a current events forum is a bad idea per se, but a ton of the politics forums issues come directly out of there being multiple politics forums, which creates a ton of artificial friction and conflict and adding a 3rd one is just going to make that entire situation way worse. idk why there are even two, given that plenty of shitposting happens in dnd and plenty of effortposting happens in cspam and the actual ideological views of each are drat near a circle venn-diagram on a more specific note, even if you close it you just get another thread that de facto becomes the same thing as, for better or for worse, a large percentage of posters just want a generic topic thread to scroll through to catch up. idk what the solution to that is really Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 02:53
|
|
|
I forget, what were the issues with having a pure newsfeed thread (only posting tweets and links/excerpts of articles with little discussion) and a separate USNews chat/discussion thread? I know that was tried but I don't recall how well it worked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:02
|
|
|
it eventually died off because people just wanted to general us politics chat
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
Think of it like this: as far as forums moderation goes, should it be acceptable to call people who continue to play Blizzard game rape apologists? Blizzard is responsible for covering up abuse at least as egregious as Biden's (to our knowledge). It's not as though video games are an essential, and it's also not as though there aren't more alternatives than any given person could possibly play. A single person no longer paying a subscription for WoW for three months (or purchasing a full price game) has roughly the same impact on Activision-Blizzard's gross income that a single voter had on the national vote in 2020. Hell, the only positive impact of continuing to play is one person's enjoyment of their leisure time. The no-ethical-consumption-under-capitalism argument can easily be extended to participation in US Politics; any choice is likely to benefit at least one really awful person, and in turn create some amount of suffering. I personally only find the former argument compelling to a point: consumer choice does sometimes have some utilitarian impact, albeit a very small one, and I don't think political choice is all that different. That's why I'm amenable to a moral argument for voting third party of Biden, or to stop using Facebook, or any number of other things. But those are the results of my personal moral calculus, and as far as the role of the moderator goes, should we really disallow people who weigh the variables somewhat differently in their calculus? Should we allow invectives to be used against them for it? Like I said, this isn't only a D&D issue. I do think those discussions are worth having, to a point, because a respectful discussion of the relative impacts of protest voting vs voting for Biden hopefully allows all participants to take new information into account, better consider their calculus, and maybe even change their minds. That's an affirmative good, and part of the mission of D&D as a forum. Disallowing the conversations just means that pre-existing beliefs go unchallenged as the only place they can discuss issues like this is on Reddit or in some Discord where they can easily self-select into an echo chamber. My hope is that there is a way to have these sorts of conversations in a way that is considerate and respectful of survivors such that they are comfortable participating if they wish, or at least comfortable having them in the subforum. Maybe that's just a birdge too far though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I forget, what were the issues with having a pure newsfeed thread (only posting tweets and links/excerpts of articles with little discussion) and a separate USNews chat/discussion thread? I know that was tried but I don't recall how well it worked. What is the utility--or even the draw--of having a  thread that precludes responses?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The Libya that was already selling all its oil and natural gas to British Petroleum? Like whatever grand geopolitical strategy you're going to ascribe to everyone, Libya's about as economically exploited as it gets and Gaddafi was getting the money. Statistically Libya's no different from a random Middle Eastern petrostate, just moved to the west. That is unsurprising seeing where the oil and the money was going. But you feel things so who cares what that means for the people facing the actual consequences? Like I said before why are your feelings so much more important than what happened to them? if you actually give a poo poo about making D&D not the worst place on these dead gay forums this is a great example of most everything wrong with it. Someone says Obama's absolute destruction of Libya was a soul searching moment and in rolls some weird pedant freak to be all 'uh they did business with BP so it's actually fine that we blew them up so hard there's open air slave markets in the streets and the secretary of state responsible for it cackled like a cartoon witch about it on a TV interview, what do your feelings make it hard????' Like, you can cry about the bad other forum going 'lol look at this idiot' all day long but this place breeds some real sociopath poo poo in the name of defending a status quo that doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
it wasn't even the good pedantry where they were right but an rear end in a top hat, it was just pure 'they were a petrostate ergo you were an idiot to have your faith shaken in the guy who turned it into a smoking hole in the ground'. Real hosed up poo poo that gets treated as 'good faith' because they used fifty words to say 'womp womp'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:08
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:The Libya that was already selling all its oil and natural gas to British Petroleum? Like whatever grand geopolitical strategy you're going to ascribe to everyone, Libya's about as economically exploited as it gets and Gaddafi was getting the money. Statistically Libya's no different from a random Middle Eastern petrostate, just moved to the west. That is unsurprising seeing where the oil and the money was going. But you feel things so who cares what that means for the people facing the actual consequences? Like I said before why are your feelings so much more important than what happened to them? Stop being as rear end in a top hat to someone talking about their personal journey, this is your only warning. Behavior like this is exactly what this whole conversation is about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:11
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What is the utility--or even the draw--of having a Newsfeed. If I just want an aggregator of what's going on and I don't have a Twitter account following a bunch of journalists and such to aggregate and curate my own feed. Twitter sucks and I personally am not going to maintain an account there. That's just me though. USNews right now is okay for that but for every bit of news there are a few pages of chat and discussion I'm usually not super interested in. The signal to noise ratio is pretty poor. edit: USNews/USPol moves too fast for me to actually read it most of the time. I mostly skim. Again that's just me though. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Newsfeed. If I just want an aggregator of what's going on and I don't have a Twitter account following a bunch of journalists and such to aggregate and curate my own feed. Twitter sucks and I personally am not going to maintain an account there. That's just me though. If people want to give the no discussion newsfeed thing another shot they can I guess but the last one died a protracted death as only one person would regularly post things there and everyone else just hung out in USPol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If people want to give the no discussion newsfeed thing another shot they can I guess but the last one died a protracted death as only one person would regularly post things there and everyone else just hung out in USPol. The PPJ era, right? I mean, Discords often have news channels (relevant to whatever the server is) these days. I personally would prefer a pure newsfeed stickied thread where I could glance and see what's breaking, then hop to the discussion/chat thread if I had time and interest on commenting/discussing something. You might consider tossing up a poll to gauge interest in that option. Clearly there are a lot of posters that use USNews as-is, it's harder to gauge how many people would make use of and post in a separate newsfeed thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If people want to give the no discussion newsfeed thing another shot they can I guess but the last one died a protracted death as only one person would regularly post things there and everyone else just hung out in USPol. That was primarily because PPJ kind of elbowed everyone else out of the way and would post like 15 articles at once. I got to where I didn't bother looking for anything interesting to post because I figured PPJ would include it in his next drop whether I posted anything or not. It might work if people just posted 1 article at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
astral posted:This somewhat ventures outside of D&D feedback, and I will remind people that I am more or less an outsider when it comes to D&D so feel free to take this feedback with a grain of salt, but personally I still think the best solution would be found outside of that D&D box. The USNews thread should be retired in favor of a Current Events forum. People from all over the site could come together to discuss the news, argue with each other about that news or their interpretations thereof, whatever, and you would no longer have to come up with weird rules to try to make the "entire forum worth of news crammed into a single thread" model work against all sense and all odds. For example, you wouldn't have to make sweeping rules about what topics can/cannot be discussed in that single news thread because each thread could be its own news topic. You wouldn't have to worry about losing posters or be accused of suppressing discussion by trying to split topics off since they're already separate. Discovery of new news would be handled by simply opening the forum (filter by newest thread); people could discuss each article for as long as it interests them without any concept of derailing discussions of unrelated news. the thing where all US politics chat happens in one thread was never really on purpose. it organically happened on its own basically because people wanted it I never used to read the general politics threads in D&D because there were plenty of issue-specific or event-specific threads, and the general thread would just be a catchall for whatever random crap didn't really fit into any issue thread and wasn't really worth making a thread about. it still moved at a breakneck pace, but I don't know what people talked about there because every significant issue had its own thread anyway at one point a dedicated thread about Trump was created, because the sheer amount of content and scandals he produced meant there really was enough content for it. but then he became president of the united states of america, and people started justifying posting stuff about pretty much everything there because Trump was president and his administration was involved in so much stuff the same factor that got the media and social media obsessed with Trump - he generated so much controversy and wild content - drew a ton of people into the Trump thread. and while it was later broken up, dumping everything into one general thread had become a habit for people and the new USPol followed that habit. the issue threads were left abandoned and died off as part of the Twitterification of politics by the time the mods started actively trying to encourage people to make new threads for everything and leave the general thread for the random leftovers, a bunch of weird factional conflicts had spread up and saw USPol to be a crucial battleground in the wars for the heart and soul of D&D, so people refused to do so. they didn't want a nice visible place for everyone on the forums who had interest in a specific topic, they wanted to challenge the USPol posters specifically anyhow, this is a really longwinded way of saying that the only reason there's a single thread for all of US politics is because people absolutely refuse to post outside that one thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
100%, I go outside my bookmarks maybe once a month, and only to see if there any new threads on the first few pages to add to said bookmarks Expect for qcs. I check it out every couple of days because I think I hate myself?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
You might throw up a poll in USNews asking -I would read a pure Newsfeed thread -I would read and contribute articles/tweets to a pure Newsfeed thread -Nah and if you get a couple dozen people willing to contribute and a good number more wanting to read, try it out. I assume that response to this feedback thread is going to take a few weeks to percolate, imo no harm in gauging interest and if it's there, giving it a whirl. World Famous W posted:100%, I go outside my bookmarks maybe once a month, and only to see if there any new threads on the first few pages to add to said bookmarks yeah this is also something that's going to contribute to having one megathread. Posters may not glance at the actual forums page to see spinoff threads and then they don't get as much traffic as they otherwise might.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
I'm still very much concerned that going back to the old days where each new thing would get its own thread is no longer viable in the long term. Here's what I do when I want to check the forums: 1) I log in. 2) I click User Control Panel to see whether any of the threads I care about have new posts. 3) If I do, I choose a thread and read the new posts. 4) Eventually I get bored and do something else. Maybe, if I still want to read and discuss things before I move on to something else, I check the forum page, but this usually doesn't happen. And I'm sure I am not unique in this. This situation naturally favors megathreads over smaller threads on topics because megathreads are the first thing read and because any new thread, not being on the User Control Panel, and given that people don't always see the forum and skip straight to the thread, will not be seen by anyone who follows the workflow above. I suggested earlier in the year having a thread that links to new threads, but that really hasn't been used, possibly because people don't know the thread exists because its not in their User Control Panel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:I'm still very much concerned that going back to the old days where each new thing would get its own thread is no longer viable in the long term. Much the same for me. I check out the D&D forum page now and then, but few threads are all that interesting to me. Too many are just the same people calling each other names and I get enough of that in USNews. I don't need to see the same people saying the same stuff across six different threads.* * I'm sure that's not how those threads are most of the time, but when I've randomly sampled them they have been. It was enough that I didn't feel compelled to join in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
I get not wanting to moderate that but I think that means there's a decision to make with D&D. And I don't mean this as an attack, I think it's a decision you need to make to define the tone of D&D. Is it a place for serious discussion or is it a place where politics is equivalent to Blizzard games? Either is fine if that's what people want. But it's something you need to define otherwise you're going to be stuck in a weird situation where people are discussing serious topics but no one can get mad or remember what each other said about very serious things. I'm also not saying people can not defend themselves about their vote or why people voted for Biden. It's just obvious you need to put a container around the fight so you should define and you obviously already do. People who are too aggro get the boot no matter what. That's great for being a serious discussion place. But you also kick people for serious but real arguments that are marked as out of bounds. Which is fine but I think it leans heavy in one direction and I want to encourage you to think of the range of arguments when someone invokes the political duality in the US. A serious discussion forum is going to recognize it's false and laugh out arguments that don't reasonably tangle with it. And in a serious political discussion forum people are going to remember what you say and what you argue for. I'm not saying people should be dicks but it also shouldn't be forbidden to remind people what they said and what they've defended when relevant to discussions. Like I said it's not encouraging rape culture and I think the arguments rediculous but it's apologizing for it and that should be allowed to be acknowledged if it's a serious discussion forum. And if the idea is that D&D is a place where it's equivalent to fun games than sure do whatever but you need to but slap that up somewhere because no one gets that. And if the idea is that it's just USNews and everything else is serious because everyone else can keep their chill more often than just send USNews to CCCC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
I get why a dedicated news thread makes sense, but in practice it's a curated communal twitter feed. At some point I realized I was just reading PPJ's twitter feed, that I had deleted my own Twitter for a good reason, and stopped following the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 03:48
|
|
|
On the other hand there is a danger of defining too narrow a definition; I like that there are a variety of threads with different tones, rules, and content under the umbrella of a broad mission statement. I'm not sure why we can't have both more serious threads and less serious threads; the main thing about respectful discussion is the level of "seriousness" shouldn't change how you treat people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 04:27 |
|
|
Since conversation is still ongoing we're going to leave this open an extra day
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:15
|
|