|
Raenir Salazar posted: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. So you don't want too narrow a definition but do want them to stick to a standard of how you treat people? I'm I misunderstanding? How would you define treating people than? You either need agreed on rules or acknowledgement it's Calvinball and you're going to get clipped. Really there's a whole spectrum of options from "Politics and video games are the same" to "This is dead serious" but D&D needs to find a way to define that. It could be a big message in the OP defining how serious the thread is and the tone allowed. It would be funny to base it on the terror alert scale though maybe less so for non Americans. But no one gets what D&D is and it needs to be figured out because it seems to range both ends of the spectrum and no one knows where they are. And again I think it's fine if D&D wants to be a goofy politics are fun place but you need to put that somewhere big and enforce it hard for a bit and people not interested will gently caress off or get kicked out. Again instead of assuming everyone who disagrees is raiding try to look at it as most of them being earnest and wandering into a place they're not wanted. And that's fine but put up the sign. And when you do you can set up rules howevet D&D wants.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
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? You know, this, and the last three posts in this thread of yours as well, are all equally just astonishingly bad. Like abjectly offensively bad. I could opine about the hypothetical intersection of users who justify creating open air slave markets like this here with those who attempt to excuse rape apologia by equating it to asking for evidence of genocide, as though these are exactly the same things with equal standing in any circumstance, but at that point I might as well start posting in D&D myself. Let me be extremely clear, the positions you espouse here as some kind of 'defense' in some form are another are not only transparent, but repugnant, and they are not the kind of defense you mean them to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:24
|
|
|
Without getting into that poster's bizarrely ahistorical takes on the innocence of the CIA, I think trying to equate (accusations of) rape apologia in this subforum with (accusations of) genocide denial is unnecessary because the more relevant comparison is Chinese genocide denial vs US genocide denial, specifically the concentration camps on our southern border that are unambiguous, documented fact If the standards of the former denial were applied to latter denial, you'd have to forumban several of the mods here themselves. If folks here want to go even harder on it, I don't really care, but those who carry water for the US government doing even worse poo poo to ethnic minorities as we speak should face the same punishment
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
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. Something like the era when GBS still had a ton of news articles. Something interesting happens? Someone posts a new thread with a link to the article, a copy of the article, if possible, and at least some kind of note about why the news is interesting, relevant, or funny on some level. That alone ought to put it a few levels above the listed websites. quote: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 imagine D&D would still be/have those things for more generalized (and/or more focused) debate/discussion about those topics, but if someone wanted to learn about or discuss some hot news they could stop in the current events forum. Herstory Begins Now posted: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. Again, outsider here, but my understanding is the USNews thread is the part that's specifically meant to be that. quote: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. While there assuredly would be political news included, it would not inherently be a forum for political discussion. Korean Boomhauer's summary was good: Korean Boomhauer posted: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 (though I'd amend it to say 'D&D and/or C-SPAM, as appropriate'). Herstory Begins Now posted: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 Ask people nicely not to do that since there'd be an entire forum for that exact thing? Or, as I believe was suggested previously, there could a case for a links-only thread to the Current Events forum. Main Paineframe posted: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 Part of that is why my suggestion was less of a D&D-specific feedback thing and a more general forums feedback thing: I'd like to see a Current Events forum that is not 'a side' in any stupid interforum wars, something not even particularly seen as a community on its own but more of a place anyone on the forums can chat about some hopefully-interesting news, and also that it would not be focused on politics. 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. One feature Jeffrey has mentioned that he wants is to bring back some means of 'subscribing' to forums, being able to easily see new threads in your user control panel that have been posted in those forums since your last visit. That would certainly aid in discoverability and convenience. There are some other alternatives worth considering, such as a list of X recently-posted threads in a given forum that could be displayed somewhere on that forum's list of topics. If people want to talk about those prospective features, I'll request they reply to any existing thread in the technical forum about that or make a new one if an old one doesn't exist; that way, we won't turn this D&D feedback thread into a feature request discussion thread.  Until some feature like the above exists, there might need to be be a change in habits by anyone wanting to keep up with the newest threads, though I will reiterate there could/would be room for a separate sort of RSS feed of a thread linking those new threads/articles to aid in discovery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Without getting into that poster's bizarrely ahistorical takes on the innocence of the CIA, I think trying to equate (accusations of) rape apologia in this subforum with (accusations of) genocide denial is unnecessary because the more relevant comparison is Chinese genocide denial vs US genocide denial, specifically the concentration camps on our southern border that are unambiguous, documented fact Just to go full D&D for a moment, this is an excellent demonstration of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. It gets used a lot around here these days. Specifically, China can be committing genocide and the US can be, too - and they both can be bad at the same time. Neither excuses the other. Whether or not China is committing genocide is completely orthogonal to whether or not the US is. We can talk about whether or not what China is doing qualifies as a genocide or not independent of anything else. Then we can talk about whether or not what the US is doing qualifies. We may decide that both, either, or neither qualifies. But neither one justifies or mitigates the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So you don't want too narrow a definition but do want them to stick to a standard of how you treat people? I'm I misunderstanding? How would you define treating people than? Any set of rules will get calvinballed; you're never going to have a set of rules so clear that you won't need moderators to make difficult calls. Which suggests to me that its a false choice to make in addition to being a completely unnecessary one. The idea that D&D needs to either be the serious or "unserious" forum, these are false choices. Like I feel that your "video games and politics are the same" is a unfair comparison, first of all because all art is political and video games are art so video games are works of political expression and are important vehicles for contextualizing modern political questions. Additionally the AAA video game industry as a whole and the kinds of games being made are litigating important political questions regarding social justice, like the fight for more inclusiveness in video games and more accessibility in gaming and gaming spaces. The alt-right exists on the internet as it does because of the ease they have in infiltrating hobby spaces which shapes the conversation. The mission statement or variations of it that's been posted a bunch of times seems pretty clear to me; don't be an rear end in a top hat; this is a place for discussion and not for winning an argument; people should be able to click on a thread on an arbitrary page and learn something new; many threads exist currently that's pretty close to this, the Space Thread for instance, the Energy Generation thread for another. And these threads and others exists along a spectrum of chillness to seriousness with mods intervening only somewhat. As I've suggested already I think the best way to foster an attitude where people Who Care About Things really want to get into the thick of it maybe the mods should just issue mod challenges for particularly contentious arguments for people to make a thunderdome debate thread to hash it out, winner gets a free AV. You can have forum whose atmosphere exists along a spectrum; because at its core the point of a discussion thread is the expectation of (a) interest, (b) effort, (c) knowledge. You can have discussion where as long as they have all three things can be chill to more stern, the key is people be respectful, to be tolerant of disagreement. And if you can't be tolerant, if you can't be respectful; then don't engage and move on. The problem isn't that there's people who exist in a space who want something "unserious" with those who are "serious", the contention seems to be the standard in which tolerance is to be set; where you seem to be suggesting that we decide whether to be intolerant of either serious discussion, or intolerant of unserious discussion and I think we should be tolerant of both.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Just to go full D&D for a moment, this is an excellent demonstration of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. It gets used a lot around here these days. I mean, it's not at all, because TIH wasn't trying to claim that accusations of Chinese Genocide in Xinjiang are false - he's claiming that if we're forum banning people for Chinese Genocide Denial then that same standard should be applied to American Genocide Denial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Just to go full D&D for a moment, this is an excellent demonstration of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. It gets used a lot around here these days. What the gently caress are you talking about lol. My post was about how topics are moderated and punishment is applied. This seems like a textbook example of arguing with what you wish someone had said rather than what they actually said, which we're not supposed to do here You're at least correct insofar as regardless of what China is currently doing, the US is definitely committing genocide against immigrants. I just hope that any procedures for punishing genocide denial as a generalized offense actually get applied to the US genocide because as it stands you can employ as many denialist tactics here as you want and you'll never get in trouble
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:What the gently caress are you talking about lol. My post was about how topics are moderated and punishment is applied. This seems like a textbook example of arguing with what you wish someone had said rather than what they actually said, which we're not supposed to do here You are correct. I misread your post and got a bit to high on my own farts. I'll STFU about the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 05:09
|
|
|
astral posted:Again, outsider here, but my understanding is the USNews thread is the part that's specifically meant to be that. yeah, i'm saying that in practice, it's a lot more muddled. astral posted:Ask people nicely not to do that since there'd be an entire forum for that exact thing? Or, as I believe was suggested previously, there could a case for a links-only thread to the Current Events forum. I don't come down particularly strongly on either side of the USnews thing personally, but just fyi trying to get uspol/news to be a certain thing or to not be another thing has absorbed a massive amount of moderator energy over like 6+ years for drat near zero recognizable impact. People have certainly been asked nicely and not-so-nicely over the years to keep from US posting absolutely everywhere and eh none of it has stuck. I'm not trying to poo poo on the idea, cuz I don't think it's a bad idea, but I completely do not see how a current events forums meaningfully differs from cspam or dnd, which both derive much of their traffic from people seeing a piece of news and coming to post it/about it in a thread (with a close second being people popping in to read a general thread to see what has been happening). De facto there are already two current events forums that already lack a clear delineation. Arguably even 3 of them if you include GBS, which often ends up with a thread for big events. Maybe the solution is indeed more forums that talk about politics, but without admins consistently (much less voluntarily) paying attention to the politics forums that already exist, it seems like it would just be adding another can of worms to inevitably explode when it is neglected
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Any set of rules will get calvinballed; you're never going to have a set of rules so clear that you won't need moderators to make difficult calls. Which suggests to me that its a false choice to make in addition to being a completely unnecessary one. You'll have to bring that up with FoS since they started that comparison. My larger point if that there either needs to be concrete rules or it's Calvinball and you tell people it is. Right not D&D says it's a serious discussion forum with rules and decorum but the actual enforcement is a mess and it's murky which comments get punishment and what steps over the line with tone. I also think serious/I serious and tone and respectfulness go together. If we're taking this seriously politics are something that control people's lives. We're talking about things that we all supposedly have a hand in steering that wildly impact people's lives and it needs to be accepted people will sometimes get hot about that and people will earnestly have opinions outside of the mainstream and might be defensive about it without disingenuously making people mad. Or D&D is a place like FoS described here fool of sound posted: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. Where it's believed at least in America that you have almost no real input and your choice is so meaningless that it barely matters and your culpability to any and all suffering is minimal. FoS implies here that politics are in some way unessential like video games. If that's the attitude there's fine but it should be put up somewhere because not everyone gets that and not everyone will want to engage with that and this helps keep those people out. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 05:47
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Where it's believed at least in America that you have almost no real input and your choice is so meaningless that it barely matters and your culpability to any and all suffering is minimal. FoS implies here that politics are in some way unessential like video games. If that's the attitude there's fine but it should be put up somewhere because not everyone gets that and not everyone will want to engage with that and this helps keep those people out. This is a frankly bizarre misreading to the point that I'm not sure how you could possibly arrive at it. The point of the comparison is that it's much easier to make an unambiguously good choice with regards to Blizzard games: you are personally losing little, there are tons of other options, you have the ability to make an equal of greater (though still individually minimal) impact via your action, and the actor has committed at least similarly awful sexual abuse. As moderation policy, if it is not acceptable to berate SA posters for continuing to pay for Blizzard products, then how is it possibly acceptable to berate them for making a much less clear-cut choice (potential to lose access to essentials/rights, few other options) about voting for Biden vs protest voting over Biden's sex crimes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:yeah, i'm saying that in practice, it's a lot more muddled. I'd like to once again emphasize that it would not be politically focused (though, by its nature, political news would be posted and discussed there). It would be a forum of a different nature and tone than D&D, C-SPAM, or modern GBS: think GBS 1.0. Ideally, it would capture the energy of people wanting to discuss specific topics without getting into the general sorts of discussion found in other topics in D&D or C-SPAM (or GBS). I don't know if all or even most of the news posting/reading energy lost or redirected when GBS 1.0 became GBS 2.0 could ever be recaptured; it's had eight years to slip away from us, but there is surely some amount of it still waiting for the return of a news-focused forum. Or maybe there isn't; who knows. It beats the heck out of most of the RSF suggestions I've seen, if nothing else. Where any of that relates to D&D (and this feedback thread) is that it might be able to capture a lot of that desire to discuss certain news topics and funnel it into a more reasonable and easier to manage format than the entire-forum-of-topics-in-a-single-thread model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 06:28
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You are correct. I misread your post and got a bit to high on my own farts. pls ban Deteriorata for breaking one of the most important rules of D&D: never admit you were wrong edit: astral posted:I'd like to once again emphasize that it would not be politically focused (though, by its nature, political news would be posted and discussed there). It would be a forum of a different nature and tone than D&D, C-SPAM, or modern GBS: think GBS 1.0. Ideally, it would capture the energy of people wanting to discuss specific topics without getting into the general sorts of discussion found in other topics in D&D or C-SPAM (or GBS). I don't know if all or even most of the news posting/reading energy lost or redirected when GBS 1.0 became GBS 2.0 could ever be recaptured; it's had eight years to slip away from us, but there is surely some amount of it still waiting for the return of a news-focused forum. Or maybe there isn't; who knows. It beats the heck out of most of the RSF suggestions I've seen, if nothing else. I think the problem with what you describe is structural. Because many users mostly check their bookmarked threads, this means a subforum with lots of threads on granular topics and individual news stories/articles is not going to be very active. Megathreads are largely an outcome of how the forums currently work. You've described some interesting additions that could encourage more users to pay attention to new/smaller threads in their subforums of choice but we don't have those yet. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is a frankly bizarre misreading to the point that I'm not sure how you could possibly arrive at it. The point of the comparison is that it's much easier to make an unambiguously good choice with regards to Blizzard games: you are personally losing little, there are tons of other options, you have the ability to make an equal of greater (though still individually minimal) impact via your action, and the actor has committed at least similarly awful sexual abuse. As moderation policy, if it is not acceptable to berate SA posters for continuing to pay for Blizzard products, then how is it possibly acceptable to berate them for making a much less clear-cut choice (potential to lose access to essentials/rights, few other options) about voting for Biden vs protest voting over Biden's sex crimes? Like to be clear here, the president is obviously vastly more important than which video game you play. Politics is important, but in the same way that there's limited to no ability to consume wholly ethically, and there's not way to divorce yourself from that system, you can't engage with US politics wholly morally, nor escape that fraught moral choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 06:33
|
|
|
astral posted:Something like the era when GBS still had a ton of news articles. Something interesting happens? Someone posts a new thread with a link to the article, a copy of the article, if possible, and at least some kind of note about why the news is interesting, relevant, or funny on some level. That alone ought to put it a few levels above the listed websites. I know theres still old old RSS feeds setup over a decade ago that I use to see new threads that are made, and its honestly the easiest way to see when a new thread is made. something similar as part of the forums would be nice because who knows how long that will work
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:00
|
|
|
A little thing off to the side with like "hey you read a lot of D&D, here's some new threads there" or "hey you read a lot of CSPAM have you considered logging off lmao owned" would be neat with the caveat that we're all ancient by internet standards and hate change so the UI implementation would be a challenge. It'd either have to be perfectly done or aggressively and intentionally bad, I'm not sure anybody would respect it otherwise
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:03
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:A little thing off to the side with like "hey you read a lot of D&D, here's some new threads there" or "hey you read a lot of CSPAM have you considered logging off lmao owned" would be neat with the caveat that we're all ancient by internet standards and hate change so the UI implementation would be a challenge. It'd either have to be perfectly done or aggressively and intentionally bad, I'm not sure anybody would respect it otherwise Naturally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:05
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:A little thing off to the side with like "hey you read a lot of D&D, here's some new threads there" or "hey you read a lot of CSPAM have you considered logging off lmao owned" would be neat with the caveat that we're all ancient by internet standards and hate change so the UI implementation would be a challenge. It'd either have to be perfectly done or aggressively and intentionally bad, I'm not sure anybody would respect it otherwise what's adbot doing these days?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:41
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:what's adbot doing these days? Literally my first thought. God I miss that bot
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:42
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Literally my first thought. God I miss that bot It would still be displaying grandmas to unregistered users if it were not blocked by most ad blocking lists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC81xie8UrM edit - has some lowtax as a product of its time ofc but i hope the thread can appreciate it on its artistic merits Epic High Five fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:45
|
|
|
astral posted:Naturally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 07:48
|
|
|
...have we managed to go the whole thread without mentioning that DnD was once.... CE? Because that was changed because things got too contentious in Current Events. Porque no los dos? A politics and philosophy and history forum, and one for the events of the day?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 08:08
|
|
|
Strep Vote posted:...have we managed to go the whole thread without mentioning that DnD was once.... CE? Because that was changed because things got too contentious in Current Events. Porque no los dos? A politics and philosophy and history forum, and one for the events of the day? It's come up a few times...i think the way forward for D&D even if it involves a rebranding is to learn from the past rather than imitate it tho,...just my opinion, so far at least
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 08:12
|
|
|
Strep Vote posted:...have we managed to go the whole thread without mentioning that DnD was once.... CE? Because that was changed because things got too contentious in Current Events. Porque no los dos? A politics and philosophy and history forum, and one for the events of the day? I did mention that, yes. CE was a spinoff from GBS after 9/11 and then later became D&D. My suggestion remains to rebrand D&D as Current Events with clear goals and vision for what Jeff/admins want this to be, make rules and guidelines based on that. Jeff has articulated a vision in the QCS thread, the question becomes "how specifically do we make this happen?" IMO fewer and harsher punishments with clear Leper's Colony entries as to why users were hit, plus simple clear goals for what this forum should be. Also consider moving the new Current Events under GBS or at least advertising the rebranding through forums-wide announcement. That way we might attract some users and perspectives who might not be plugged into politics 24/7 or have avoided D&D because it has a reputation as the tedious debate pedant forum. Which that should still be available, but "debate" by nature is adversarial and must have a winner. The current situation where mods are usually forced to "pick" winners and losers in a debate based on who first gets pissed off and probated leaves nobody happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 08:17
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:It's come up a few times...i think the way forward for D&D even if it involves a rebranding is to learn from the past rather than imitate it tho,...just my opinion, so far at least I agree, and it would take a major reorg of the site, which goes through life cycles of population explosion and loss. We're at an awkward stage right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 08:39
|
|
|
LGD posted:Oh certainly no one intended anything as gauche as killing a conversation, they just wanted to sequester it away in a specific thread in the explicit hope that people would "move on" (certainly not a phrase with any unfortunate implications re: allegations of sexual impropriety involving Democratic presidents) I think the mods need to just be honest about what motivates this stuff - a bad faith read of posters. No one is being fooled here; the mods (and others, but mods obviously being the relevant party here) thought people were only bringing up Reade to get one over on "posting enemies." They wanted people to stop talking about it because they perceived the situation as "a bunch of people using the situation to score points" and in a way that wasn't exactly making them or the political candidate they support look good, so they'd much rather it stop. I also think that "trying to own posting enemies" and "feeling genuine anger/disgust" are frequently conflated with one another. Characterizing things as the former just seems like a way to dismiss opinions without having to confront why someone might actually be feeling anger or disgust towards you. Like the attitude is "I know I'm a good person, so there's no way anyone would think poorly of me in good faith; they must just be trying to score points." It comes off as really arrogant. So even though I'm sure that the bad faith read is true sometimes (maybe even pretty frequently!), there are big downsides to making your decisions revolve around that, and it's a pretty bad look for moderation to transparently engage with forum users in bad faith while supposedly enforcing rules that punish posters for engaging in bad faith with each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 09:56
|
|
|
What is the moderation stance on whether the Chinese government is secretly sending terror squads to intimidate expats in California into forwarding perfidious Chinese goals? How different should it be from the moderation stance that MS-13 is terrorizing Mexican immigrants, or that Jews take orders from secret cabals to forward Israeli goals? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Cpt_Obvious fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
It'd be nice if someone could speak to why it feels like CommieGIR punished me for reporting a couple of posts. Lib and let die posted:Nothing says "don't use the report button" like eating what feels like a retaliatory probation for using the report button. Thanks for proving how unsuited you are for this volunteer job, CG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:A little thing off to the side with like "hey you read a lot of D&D, here's some new threads there" or "hey you read a lot of CSPAM have you considered logging off lmao owned" would be neat with the caveat that we're all ancient by internet standards and hate change so the UI implementation would be a challenge. It'd either have to be perfectly done or aggressively and intentionally bad, I'm not sure anybody would respect it otherwise Off to the side where/on what pages exactly? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you mean, but I don't really want to see thread titles about some horrible news things when I'm not willingly in the horrible news place. Maybe it's right for me to be forced to confront them anyway though, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted: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 there are two politics forums because in 2015, half of d&d discovered that they could post in the election RSF and none of the posters who play the refs could follow them effectively, because there were no refs to play to in Election Erection other than the lazy, ineffective, cowardly boostedc5. that half of d&d discovered that in the absence of posters like fishmech, you could actually just assume people were posting in good faith and not feel obligated to read their minds to discern whether they were "trolling" or whatever, and it turns out that that creates a much better environment for discussion, so Election Erection was preserved and renamed CSPAM. ofc cspam has other differences that are important and wouldn't necessarily survive a forum merger but the good faith/bad faith thing was a big part of it. this is also why people who post in both d&d and cspam tend to have complaints about the moderation here - mods here sometimes assume that if you post something (even a well-written non-insulting post) that makes a lot of people mad, you're just trolling or trying to own your posting enemies or whatever. in cspam we take people's posts at face value and have absolutely no interest in trying to read the tea leaves on intent - you are probated based on the content of your posts, nothing more or less. i bring this up because i've seen a lot of calls for merging cspam and d&d, but there is a lot of distance between the two in terms of style and atmosphere, not just ideology or effortposting vs shitposting i also bring it up because it's relevant today - d&d continues to have this modding style where the "thread consensus" is effectively protected because people who don't agree with it, by the very fact that they don't agree, are seen as trolling the people who do agree. personally i think this dynamic is bad. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 15:26
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:i also bring it up because it's relevant today - d&d continues to have this modding style where the "thread consensus" is effectively protected because people who don't agree with it, by the very fact that they don't agree, are seen as trolling the people who do agree. personally i think this dynamic is bad. I think that this is a thing that happens and agree the dynamic isn't great and could do with something to shift it, with the caveat that there's a fair degree of people who post against a thread consensus, and then either refuse to contribute actual sources/content to back up their opinion or do provide something that turns out to be a decades old discredited fringe article and then when they get slammed for it complain that the thread 'isn't tolerating diversity of opinion'. e: some things are thread consensus because the discussion has been had, the issue in question is a generally accepted truth, and there isn't really anything more to say about it, and people are justified in getting annoyed at an interesting new discussion being derailed by someone bursting into the room to talk about how in their personal opinion the holocaust was exaggerated. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I think that this is a thing that happens and agree the dynamic isn't great and could do with something to shift it, with the caveat that there's a fair degree of people who post against a thread consensus, and then either refuse to contribute actual sources/content to back up their opinion or do provide something that turns out to be a decades old discredited fringe article and then when they get slammed for it complain that the thread 'isn't tolerating diversity of opinion'. Yeah "disagreeing with the thread consensus" usually comes with a bullshit misleading Hill link or straight up no evidence at all, that's why it gets shot down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:i also bring it up because it's relevant today - d&d continues to have this modding style where the "thread consensus" is effectively protected because people who don't agree with it, by the very fact that they don't agree, are seen as trolling the people who do agree. personally i think this dynamic is bad. The main issue here is that people come into the USNews thread and post the exact same claim repeatedly. The first couple times, the thread takes it seriously and people come to a conclusion as to whether it's true/false valid/invalid or whatever. Then the same thing gets posted again and the collective eye-rolling begins. We really don't want to have the exact same argument yet again. Someone presents the conclusion that was reached the last time around in order to forestall the tedium, and then the thread gets accused of "groupthink" and being unwilling to discuss certain ideas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I think that this is a thing that happens and agree the dynamic isn't great and could do with something to shift it, with the caveat that there's a fair degree of people who post against a thread consensus, and then either refuse to contribute actual sources/content to back up their opinion or do provide something that turns out to be a decades old discredited fringe article and then when they get slammed for it complain that the thread 'isn't tolerating diversity of opinion'. Deteriorata posted:The main issue here is that people come into the USNews thread and post the exact same claim repeatedly. The first couple times, the thread takes it seriously and people come to a conclusion as to whether it's true/false valid/invalid or whatever. it seems to me that these are not issues which moderation helps in any way, and especially not moderation based on discerning whether a poster's opinion is genuine or fake. just posting your opinion sincerely should never be seen as trolling - even if some arch-conservative shitlord comes in and starts posting, they aren't trolling or posting in bad faith, they're just a shitlord. i mean this happens every time jrod comes to town - everyone knows that he's 100% sincere in his devotion to ron "kill you're parents" paul so he doesn't get hit for trolling or bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Off to the side where/on what pages exactly? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you mean, but I don't really want to see thread titles about some horrible news things when I'm not willingly in the horrible news place. Maybe it's right for me to be forced to confront them anyway though, I dunno. Control panel Like I said, wouldnt be easy
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it seems to me that these are not issues which moderation helps in any way, and especially not moderation based on discerning whether a poster's opinion is genuine or fake. just posting your opinion sincerely should never be seen as trolling - even if some arch-conservative shitlord comes in and starts posting, they aren't trolling or posting in bad faith, they're just a shitlord. i mean this happens every time jrod comes to town - everyone knows that he's 100% sincere in his devotion to ron "kill you're parents" paul so he doesn't get hit for trolling or bad faith. Somebody who is following the thread knows what topics are being discussed and have been in the past. When it's the same person making the same debunked claim repeatedly, at some point they lose the presumption of good faith. Where that line is, I'll leave up to the mods but deliberately disrupting the thread with repeated nonsense claims is absolutely trolling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Somebody who is following the thread knows what topics are being discussed and have been in the past. When it's the same person making the same debunked claim repeatedly, at some point they lose the presumption of good faith. Where that line is, I'll leave up to the mods but deliberately disrupting the thread with repeated nonsense claims is absolutely trolling. my instinct as a cspam poster is that you should all say "lmao gently caress off" to that person instead of relying on moderation, but that isn't very d&d. it may be true that within the context of d&d a mod needs to get involved in such a thing, at some point, but probably less often than they do now. also i think it's hard to come to an agreement on what "debunked" means - if someone posts a claim, and thread regulars respond with an NYT article that disagrees with the first poster's claim on like the basic premise of what facts are true or false, is that NYT article enough for you to say that the poster's claim is "debunked"? the NYT is very often wrong, you see, so the first poster could credibly say "well, but everything i said is still true, the NYT is wrong" and that is still a discussion that should be within the bounds of the rules! just because you have decided that the claim is debunked doesn't mean the other poster has to quit trying to provide evidence for that claim, although you're not obligated to pay attention to what they say if your mind is already made up of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:08
|
|