|
The "lmao gently caress off" approach works pretty well (even in D&D) when it's a single person against the overall consensus of the thread. Even then, anytime I've seen it in the canada C-SPAM thread it turns into a 5 page argument that ultimately ends in a probe anyway. When you have two "teams" that are more than a few people, I think derails go on indefinitely, there were periods longer than a week when the 2020 general election thread was exclusively about Obama's record as president.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Jazerus posted: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. Yeah, that's why we have mods. "Lmao, gently caress off" is an inappropriate response around here. We have our own ways of doing things. We have the Media Analysis thread to help people evaluate the credibility of sources for the very reason you mention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, that's why we have mods. "Lmao, gently caress off" is an inappropriate response around here. We have our own ways of doing things. We have the Media Analysis thread to help people evaluate the credibility of sources for the very reason you mention. it seems to me that many people do not agree with that thread's methodology for evaluating source credibility, based on what i have read in this feedback thread, and that using it as an extension of the rules - "the media analysis thread agrees that this source is completely untrustworthy, so you must be trolling if you post an article from it" or the opposite - is not a very good idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
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? It's not about berating people. It's about the moderation holding the greater good argument to high standards if it's invoked in D&D. If people berate people kick them out. If someone invokes the greater good argument on their own without being attacked than the moderation should hold them to a high standard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it seems to me that many people do not agree with that thread's methodology for evaluating source credibility, based on what i have read in this feedback thread, and that using it as an extension of the rules - "the media analysis thread agrees that this source is completely untrustworthy, so you must be trolling if you post an article from it" or the opposite - is not a very good idea. Lots of people get really mad when told that the biased source they're quoting is just making up numbers to tell them what they want to hear. If you think the whole thing is a rigged game, maybe you shouldn't post here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, that's why we have mods. "Lmao, gently caress off" is an inappropriate response around here. We have our own ways of doing things. We have the Media Analysis thread to help people evaluate the credibility of sources for the very reason you mention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Lots of people get really mad when told that the biased source they're quoting is just making up numbers to tell them what they want to hear. If you think the whole thing is a rigged game, maybe you shouldn't post here. Buddy, Discendo Vox didn't even mention Marshall McLuhan when AOC did one of those long Twitter posts that was literally titled the same as McLuhan's defining work in media criticism. That thread is a loving joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
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. This is a sentiment that's been echoed by many throughout this thread, so I hope that mods pay extra attention to it, instead of continuing to use "bad faith" as a blanket excuse to punish those with whom they disagree. socialsecurity posted: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. This, on the other hand, is a great example of shitposting that adds nothing to the conversation & instead feeds into victim narratives & forums wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:This is a sentiment that's been echoed by many throughout this thread, so I hope that mods pay extra attention to it, instead of continuing to use "bad faith" as a blanket excuse to punish those with whom they disagree. I mean it's the truth just look at someone like a big flaming stinks rap.sheet where he's been probed dozens of times for posting misleading tweet or articles that say the opposite of what he claims, why should we pretend that doesn't happen?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I mean it's the truth just look at someone like a big flaming stinks rap.sheet where he's been probed dozens of times for posting misleading tweet or articles that say the opposite of what he claims, why should we pretend that doesn't happen? What the hell, I am not remotely involved in this conversation??
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, that's why we have mods. "Lmao, gently caress off" is an inappropriate response around here. We have our own ways of doing things. We have the Media Analysis thread to help people evaluate the credibility of sources for the very reason you mention. my feedback would be to close that thread and ignore anyone who wants to use it as a set of rules or guidelines for anything - it's terrible, and discendo is not the god of media nor should he be deffered to as if he is. I'm 40, I don't want to be lectured to like a college student by people who think they're my betters - and for any litigation of that fact to be considered "settled" because the arguments happened ~ago~ and the whole thing is thus unapproachable by outsiders. just another fantastic example of everything wrong with this forum
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, that's why we have mods. "Lmao, gently caress off" is an inappropriate response around here. We have our own ways of doing things. Step back and interrogate this one - why? Like, if they accomplish the same purpose, is protecting yourself from reading "lmao" really worth the giant pile of extra work for moderators, eternally recurring metadiscussions, and community alienation that it is costing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
I am way better off not reading D&D than reading D&D so I've largely stopped. I lost patience for having things explained to me that I already know, being treated like I can't possibly hold opinions on things I have, and the whole tone policing leading to gamification(fishmeching / calm hitlering), amongst other things. I'd joke that coming into D&D as an outsider not in one of the existing communities is probably the closest a man can come to getting the genuine mansplaining experience. But this thread has been really negative and, I'm perfectly happy with the status quo where I just don't post / read this place(and I was white noise anyway, so no big loss), but here's some suggestions: * (requires a technical change) codify making the OP the IK of the thread, like in the forums code. * set a time limit on all threads, not just megathreads * focus moderation around abuse of IK buttons and more grooming the thread garden I believe this would encourage the creation of threads, gamify rushing to be the person to make the op of the new thread for megathreads when they expire, and get the userbase less hostile by reframing modification action to a more meta activity. A thousand moderation styles can bloom within a looser framework and people can vote with their feet. You can keep the big rules pretty basic. The people that want strict stuff can have it, etc. Oh and positive things: * I think Beetus is doing a good job in the covid thread, it's not to my taste but it's a good space * D&D has *several* strong communities (which is part of the problem, but also a great thing!) E: V I think the root is actually the consensus there should be ONE TRUE THREAD for everything, so that happens, the one thread dominates eyeballs, and now if you can't post there or fall outside the consensus you are BEING SILENCED - bad blood / etc. ensues. since you know, there's like 3-4 communities here and now they're in competition for the ONE THREAD - it's silly, because there's no shortage of threads, they're not GPUS! Buffer fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
The symptom is ideological moderation. The root cause is that conservatives, liberals, and leftists are all going to interpret bad faith, trolling, and harassment differently. D&D is overwhelmingly liberals who believe that the Democratic Party is a force for good. Leftists believe the opposite and criticize Democrats, which is interpreted as harassment, which is reported, which is moderated upon. These two groups hate each other and are going to fight. D&D can either be a "chill place for calm debate" or "inclusive of all political leanings" but not both. The whole reason this thread exists is because mods prefer the former over the latter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:The symptom is ideological moderation. The root cause is that conservatives, liberals, and leftists are all going to interpret bad faith, trolling, and harassment differently. I don't think that this is accurate, I think that posters rationalize being assholes by proclaiming that they're the true leftists and D&D is full of liberals .
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
D&D is overwhelmingly leftist, I'm on the left, the idea everyone in D&D is just a liberal tut-tut'ing leftists is a persistent myth. I don't really quite think there is a "hostile thread consensus" problem in USPol or D&D as a whole; most of the time if someone repeats something that other posters disagree with, they just disagree; usually politely; there tends to be more friction if its a talking point; I'm not quite sure what is expected but if someone obviously untrue or something that is more widely by the thread believed to be untrue but wrapped in some fig leaf of leftist theory like "The earth is flat and to believe otherwise is a lie told by capitalistic airliner companies" you are probably going to get more pushback in proportion to how obviously incredulous the claim is but anyone who is abusive about it is usually quickly slapped by the mods. If a lot of people disagree with you, a lot of people are going to voice their disagreement, with a more exasperated tone when its more of a talking point and less merely a misinformed opinion. The closest time there was a problem was the one time someone wanted to talk about ancient astronauts or UFOs in the Space Thread which I thought was an interesting conversation to read. Another example of a enforced cease fire is the de facto rule of "no relitigating the primaries" since it invariable becomes a slapfight between people who walk into a thread and state "The DNC rigged the primaries for Biden" and people who disagree with that assessment; a majority of people who tend to post in USPol disagree with that; the moderation deciding people should just drop it isn't in particularly protecting the thread consensus, but are doing so because the arguments about it quickly cease to be productive or civil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:D&D is overwhelmingly leftist, I'm on the left, the idea everyone in D&D is just a liberal tut-tut'ing leftists is a persistent myth. Could you actually expand on this? Because there is a 150 year history of conflict, both academic and in practice, between liberalism and leftism and I'm not sure if you are arguing that this conflict is a myth, that it doesn't apply to these forums, or if you are merely confusing the left end of liberalism with leftism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't really quite think there is a "hostile thread consensus" problem in USPol or D&D as a whole; most of the time if someone repeats something that other posters disagree with, they just disagree; usually politely; there tends to be more friction if its a talking point; I'm not quite sure what is expected but if someone obviously untrue or something that is more widely by the thread believed to be untrue but wrapped in some fig leaf of leftist theory like "The earth is flat and to believe otherwise is a lie told by capitalistic airliner companies" you are probably going to get more pushback in proportion to how obviously incredulous the claim is but anyone who is abusive about it is usually quickly slapped by the mods. If a lot of people disagree with you, a lot of people are going to voice their disagreement, with a more exasperated tone when its more of a talking point and less merely a misinformed opinion. I'm sorry, what? This doesn't really sound true about D&D at all, nor would I even really want it to be Polite Disagreement Land catering to inexhaustible repetition of controversial points by completely unswayable, fixated weirdos. "They just disagree, usually politely" sounds completely unlike how D&D is. I don't know how you could come to that description of D&D. Though, genuinely, I'm not really sure I even got it correctly that that's how you're describing this place. 90% of this paragraph is one sentence with four semicolons. It's really very hard to know what you mean without clarification?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:Could you actually expand on this? Because there is a 150 year history of conflict, both academic and in practice, between liberalism and leftism and I'm not sure if you are arguing that this conflict is a myth, that it doesn't apply to these forums, or if you are merely confusing the left end of liberalism with leftism. Not to put you specifically on the spot, but this sort of argument, arguments about the exact definitions of politically charged terms, have a serious tendency to overwhelm actual productive discussion in D&D. Is-this-iberal-or-leftist is a common one, but is-this-genocide-or-force-assimilation is also a favorite, as is is-this-neocolonialism-or-imperialism or is-this-bad-reporting-or-propaganda. Often, arguments about these loaded terms come down to forums tribalism, and thus become both vicious and pointless. I really wish people were more willing to change their word choice in favor of actually discussing the facts of the matter. It's not as though there aren't a ton of different flavors of liberals and leftists, and a poster describing the positions they hold is way more productive than arguing about what they're allowed to call their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:D&D is overwhelmingly leftist, I'm on the left, the idea everyone in D&D is just a liberal tut-tut'ing leftists is a persistent myth. is pepsi ok posted:Could you actually expand on this? Because there is a 150 year history of conflict, both academic and in practice, between liberalism and leftism and I'm not sure if you are arguing that this conflict is a myth, that it doesn't apply to these forums, or if you are merely confusing the left end of liberalism with leftism. fool of sound posted:Not to put you specifically on the spot, but this sort of argument, arguments about the exact definitions of politically charged terms, have a serious tendency to overwhelm actual productive discussion in D&D. Is-this-iberal-or-leftist is a common one, but is-this-genocide-or-force-assimilation is also a favorite, as is is-this-neocolonialism-or-imperialism or is-this-bad-reporting-or-propaganda. Often, arguments about these loaded terms come down to forums tribalism, and thus become both vicious and pointless. I really wish people were more willing to change their word choice in favor of actually discussing the facts of the matter. It's not as though there aren't a ton of different flavors of liberals and leftists, and a poster describing the positions they hold is way more productive than arguing about what they're allowed to call their beliefs. Do you see a difference between Raenir Salazar's argument and is pepsi ok's argument?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Do you see a difference between Raenir Salazar's argument and is pepsi ok's argument? Raenir is speaking to his experience in D&D, pepsi is taking issue with a particular part of it (which is fine in itself), and I am pointing out that I find arguments similar to pepsi's to be tedious and unproductivein this subforum in my experience as a mod? I'm not sure what you're trying to point out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Not to put you specifically on the spot, but this sort of argument, arguments about the exact definitions of politically charged terms, have a serious tendency to overwhelm actual productive discussion in D&D. Is-this-iberal-or-leftist is a common one, but is-this-genocide-or-force-assimilation is also a favorite, as is is-this-neocolonialism-or-imperialism or is-this-bad-reporting-or-propaganda. Often, arguments about these loaded terms come down to forums tribalism, and thus become both vicious and pointless. I really wish people were more willing to change their word choice in favor of actually discussing the facts of the matter. It's not as though there aren't a ton of different flavors of liberals and leftists, and a poster describing the positions they hold is way more productive than arguing about what they're allowed to call their beliefs. Insisting that the difference between liberalism and leftism is merely trivial, or that they are just tribal markers differentiating people who are largely alike in their beliefs is exactly why you cannot understand the nature of the problem here. I'm sorry but history did not end in the 90s and we are not living in the post-ideological fact based world that liberalism hoped to create. In fact, I think you can draw some pretty stark comparisons between 21st century liberal governance and how this board is run: in both cases the leaders insist that ideology only exists on the margins, and if we could just get the bad actors to play nice the problems would go away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Raenir is speaking to his experience in D&D, pepsi is taking issue with a particular part of it (which is fine in itself), and I am pointing out that I find arguments similar to pepsi's to be tedious and unproductivein this subforum in my experience as a mod? I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. I'm asking a question about your beliefs which you answered. Y'all are suspicious. You answered it and the answer helps me understand the sort of place you want D&D to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
I think it is important that we all agree that words have meanings and I also think that posters refusing to say what they believe is a big red flag that they don't have anything meaningful to contribute and are just throwing up sand because they don't like the conclusion that the rest of the thread is coming to, and I don't think is pepsi ok was doing the latter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Not to put you specifically on the spot, but this sort of argument, arguments about the exact definitions of politically charged terms, have a serious tendency to overwhelm actual productive discussion in D&D. Is-this-iberal-or-leftist is a common one, but is-this-genocide-or-force-assimilation is also a favorite, as is is-this-neocolonialism-or-imperialism or is-this-bad-reporting-or-propaganda. Often, arguments about these loaded terms come down to forums tribalism, and thus become both vicious and pointless. I really wish people were more willing to change their word choice in favor of actually discussing the facts of the matter. It's not as though there aren't a ton of different flavors of liberals and leftists, and a poster describing the positions they hold is way more productive than arguing about what they're allowed to call their beliefs. Liberalism attempting to co-opt leftism is a substantial point of contention within leftist spheres. There is a line of reasoning that the Democratic Party itself exists to defang and steal momentum from leftist causes. Agreeing on what terms mean is productive discussion, which is why Raenir Salazar saying "D&D is overwhelmingly leftist" needs to be addressed. Liberals are not leftists. Even Bernie/AOC/Dem Socialists are not leftists. And that they self-identify as leftists and socialists goes to my first point. Some are going to interpret this as pointless wheedling, but I guarantee nobody would be attempting to shut down this line of discussion if a conservative rolled in here and accused liberals of being communists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:Insisting that the difference between liberalism and leftism is merely trivial, or that they are just tribal markers differentiating people who are largely alike in their beliefs is exactly why you cannot understand the nature of the problem here. I'm sorry but history did not end in the 90s and we are not living in the post-ideological fact based world that liberalism hoped to create. In fact, I think you can draw some pretty stark comparisons between 21st century liberal governance and how this board is run: in both cases the leaders insist that ideology only exists on the margins, and if we could just get the bad actors to play nice the problems would go away. You're misunderstanding: my point isn't that no ideological differences exist, it's that a wide variety of thought exists and condensing that into simple definitions is nonsense and the reason the arguments go nowhere is because no two people have the exact same definition of where that definition begins and ends. That's why it's better to discuss the specific worldview and beliefs someone holds instead of what label they use, ie "when I say leftist, I mean rejection of capitalism" or "when i say leftist, I mean a dictatorship of the proletariat" or whatever
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:You're misunderstanding: my point isn't that no ideological differences exist, it's that a wide variety of thought exists and condensing that into simple definitions is nonsense and the reason the arguments go nowhere is because no two people have the exact same definition of where that definition begins and ends. That's why it's better to discuss the specific worldview and beliefs someone holds instead of what label they use. You also keep arguing against the inverse though, that people who express their world view can not earn labels that actually describe what those views are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You also keep arguing against the inverse though, that people who express their world view can not earn labels that actually describe what those views are. It's also supposed to be irrelevant here, because you're expected to make a coherent argument that can stand on its own merits without resorting to labeling anything or anyone. If you argue that the Moon is made of green cheese, I'm going to disagree and it doesn't matter if you're a fascist or a Marxist. It's a false statement regardless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You also keep arguing against the inverse though, that people who express their world view can not earn labels that actually describe what those views are. That's because arguing about the labels is invariably unproductive. If a social democrat wants to call their worldview leftist who the gently caress cares? Is that really any different than when a left-anarchist declares leninism to not be real leftism? Those arguments come down to dumb tribalism. Just define the term as you are using it ('rejects capitalism', 'socialism in one country' or whatever) and move on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:07
|
|
|
So if you express racist thought in D&D people can not call you a racist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So if you express racist thought in D&D people can not call you a racist? Consider not comparing behavior that causes actual harm and is punishable under the forum rules to if another poster is allowed to call themselves a leftist or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Conservative thought? Nativist thought? Hell if I say "I'm a marxist because of xyz" can people than say "Gumball is a marxist" in the future when I make arguments? I'm asking for you to explicitly define this poo poo and you're only able to answer in the negative. Or if there is no desire to explicitly define the rules than to be open and honest about that and just put a big sign saying hey D&D is a place where a lot of things will see you eat a probe or a ban without fully understanding why and to just accept it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
enki42 posted:The "lmao gently caress off" approach works pretty well (even in D&D) when it's a single person against the overall consensus of the thread. Popularity shouldn’t convey merit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Conservative thought? Nativist thought? Hell if I say "I'm a marxist because of xyz" can people than say "Gumball is a marxist" in the future when I make arguments? I'm asking for you to explicitly define this poo poo and you're only able to answer in the negative. My issue isn't if people want to call Raenir Salazar a liberal and he wants to call himself a leftist. Feel free. The problem is when the argument over which label is true overtakes whatever productive argument they are having about, say, welfare versus state capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
You keep trying to make this about individual labels when the liberal/leftist divide is the heart of the problem with D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:You keep trying to make this about individual labels when the liberal/leftist divide is the heart of the problem with D&D. You really seem to want to pretend it is, anyway. I don't think there's many in D&D that actually care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:You keep trying to make this about individual labels when the liberal/leftist divide is the heart of the problem with D&D. I agree, but not in the same way you think lol. The insistence on tribalism over actual discussion is the heart of the problem with D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Ok I've said my piece here. If the official stance of this forum is that ideology is actually just tribalism then have at it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:My issue isn't if people want to call Raenir Salazar a liberal and he wants to call himself a leftist. Feel free. The problem is when the argument over which label is true overtakes whatever productive argument they are having about, say, welfare versus state capitalism. It matters in the context of the argument. My point is "there are two factions here with conflicting ideologies that are hostile to one another" and his point was "We're all leftists, if someone is hostile its because they're an rear end in a top hat". It's an underhanded way of arguing for moderation against leftists because ultimately leftists, having no representation in the government, are going to be attacking those in power. Liberals can (and do) claim this as unwarranted hostility and argue for the leftists being moderated against.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Ok, just to understand the last bit of how you think about this, is it tribalism if someone in D&D refers to right wing supporters as Chuds?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 19:32
|
|