|
Deteriorata posted:It was appropriate to respond and give him a chance to clarify just what the heck he was talking about. CGR gave him some rope to hang himself with, basically. How does replying with actual sources in a media criticism thread get you probated? What could that poster have said or done in response in order to avoid punishment? Do you think that mods giving him "some rope to hang himself with, basically" is a healthy policy for the forums?
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think that's a goofy argument to avoid engaging with the poster who doesn't like the CIA but it doesn't really matter because I think that exchange raises another D&D problem, why did people engage with that? Why did a mod engage with it instead of just bouncing it if it's agreed that it's pure idiocy? I agree with you that neither regular posters nor CommieGIR should have engaged with it. But the reason it should have been "bounced" isn't because it was "agreed" that it was pure idiocy, but because it went against the thread rules as laid out in its OP: fool of sound posted:This thread will be strictly moderated. To an even greater degree than most other threads, you are expected to read entire articles, think about them critically, and make thoughtful, earnest posts. Remember: bad articles aren't necessarily propaganda, and 'universal skepticism' is frequently just as intellectually lazy as credulity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It was appropriate to respond and give him a chance to clarify just what the heck he was talking about. CGR gave him some rope to hang himself with, basically. D&D doesn't work on a legal system, he doesn't need rope to hang himself you can do whatever you want. You should just be consistent and honest about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I agree with you that neither regular posters nor CommieGIR should have engaged with it. But the reason it should have been "bounced" isn't because it was "agreed" that it was pure idiocy, but because it went against the thread rules as laid out in its OP: Are you saying, as implied by your bold section, that the poster wasn't being earnest? How did you evaluate that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:How does replying with actual sources in a media criticism thread get you probated? What could that poster have said or done in response in order to avoid punishment? Do you think that mods giving him "some rope to hang himself with, basically" is a healthy policy for the forums? The thread was not about the CIA, his comments were irrelevant to the thread topic with the intent to derail the conversation and was obviously trolling. It is behavior we do not want around here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I agree with you that neither regular posters nor CommieGIR should have engaged with it. But the reason it should have been "bounced" isn't because it was "agreed" that it was pure idiocy, but because it went against the thread rules as laid out in its OP: That works too but that rule is not enforced consistently at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:Are you saying, as implied by your bold section, that the poster wasn't being earnest? How did you evaluate that? I already replied to this. And yes, what Deteriorata said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The thread was not about the CIA, his comments were irrelevant to the thread topic with the intent to derail the conversation and was obviously trolling. It is behavior we do not want around here. Thank you for answering one of my questions at least. I don't understand how your answer matches your post, though. Deteriorata posted:It was appropriate to respond and give him a chance to clarify just what the heck he was talking about. He was given an opportunity to respond, and yet responding by citing sources that agree with his claims was determined to be the rule-breaking infraction that warranted punishment?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:That works too but that rule is not enforced consistently at all. Yep, I agree with that. Lack of consistency in rule enforcement (especially in threads that are purportedly strictly moderated) is a major problem in D&D, as outlined in Discendo Vox's post a few pages back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The thread was not about the CIA, his comments were irrelevant to the thread topic with the intent to derail the conversation and was obviously trolling. It is behavior we do not want around here. do you not see how this is a profoundly corrosive assumption?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Again, it's totally fine for d&d to be for a certain audience like every other sub forum is but you need to be honest. Hell we have two wrestling forums to avoid arguments and put the spicy jokes in a containment zone. No one gives a gently caress if you constrain things in D&D if you're honest about it. But if you keep presenting one image but not enforcing rules in a way that matches that image people will keep being mad about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:Thank you for answering one of my questions at least. I don't understand how your answer matches your post, though. Yes, hammering him for one weird comment would be inappropriate, IMO. He should be given a chance to explain what he meant. When given the chance, he simply dug the hole deeper rather than explaining that he actually meant something more relevant to the topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
Do the mods consider it tribalism to label posters as trolls or bad faith based on past arguments and actions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Instead, it gets muddled by an argument over the definition of "intel agency", because the person who wanted to talk about the CIA's crimes distracted everyone by hyperbolically trying to redefine words instead of just loving talking about the CIA's crimes. That all goes back to the idea that people should be putting more effort into explaining their position, rather than just using shorthands whose meaning there's no consensus on. This goes for everyone, from people going "We agree on 90% of things, I'm a leftist too!" to "I'm a communist and you're all libs" actually explaining what their positions are. How is their ideal political system structured, and how do they believe we can get there (if we can), for starters. Those two questions alone would probably do a lot to clarify people's position. How do the mods feel about people asking those questions? Or should the question only be asked if it's strictly relevant to the discussion at hand?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
The problem with demanding an set of explicitly precise and consistently enforced rules is that there is a group of 'just asking questions' trolls who will calibrate their trolling to walk right up to the line but be careful not to cross it (unless they get caught out). Ultimately this is a question of whether posts move a thread forwards or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:do you not see how this is a profoundly corrosive assumption? Also clearly violates one of the D&D rules that clearly states "assume others are posting in good faith". The moderators should consider removing that from the rules list if it's not going to be enforced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:nobody tries to argue against the novel positions, though Well, if this happens, the probation should be upheld and the appeal shouldn't be taken seriously. Simple as. Gumball Gumption posted:Again, it's totally fine for d&d to be for a certain audience like every other sub forum is but you need to be honest. Hell we have two wrestling forums to avoid arguments and put the spicy jokes in a containment zone. No one gives a gently caress if you constrain things in D&D if you're honest about it. But if you keep presenting one image but not enforcing rules in a way that matches that image people will keep being mad about it. Depends on what audience. I already said I like gearing D&D toward people who are already fairly experienced in internet arguments and would enjoy something at a higher level that doesn't repeat so many things they've heard before. But I'm absolutely against tailoring it to any particular political group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah, trying to be strict with rules results in a bunch of "i'm not touching you" type posts like the 'CIA is not an intelligence organization' and then 'sources' even though the former is basically a twitter shitpost that can't really be proven or disproven the way it's explained. I've read the sources, they're not proof that that shitpost is an absolute truth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
Lot of "royal we" going on in this thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with demanding an set of explicitly precise and consistently enforced rules is that there is a group of 'just asking questions' trolls who will calibrate their trolling to walk right up to the line but be careful not to cross it (unless they get caught out). Ok, kick them and put in the rules that there's still going to be mod discretion and that's the end of it. It's still SA. I'm also not asking for an endless list of labrynthian rules. To make an analogy it's like if the blizzard forum in games was 99% threads about Bethesda and the mods were cool with it and randomly hostile at times to people discussing blizzard. That would frustrate people. It wouldn't frustrate people if the forum was the Bethesda zone. I think that's a big problem with D&D. Rules and enforcement don't match it's vision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The problem with demanding an set of explicitly precise and consistently enforced rules is that there is a group of 'just asking questions' trolls who will calibrate their trolling to walk right up to the line but be careful not to cross it (unless they get caught out). Yeah, rules-lawyering is an issue, as is strictly obeying the letter but not the spirit of the rules in question. At some point things will need to be left to moderator discretion — it's why the "catch-all" rule exists: fool of sound posted:---These rules are general guidelines, and the mods take a dim view of posters acting as though they are exhaustive. Bad posts are punishable on the Something Awful Forums. 500 good dogs posted:Also clearly violates one of the D&D rules that clearly states "assume others are posting in good faith". The moderators should consider removing that from the rules list if it's not going to be enforced. Well, that is already assumed. But at some point, the poster gives moderators sufficient reason to invalidate that assumption, and a probation is issued.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Well, if this happens, the probation should be upheld and the appeal shouldn't be taken seriously. Simple as. Yeah I'd be against that too though I think if you took a vote that would lose. But it really doesn't matter to me which direction it goes I just think something needs to be picked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Do the mods consider it tribalism to label posters as trolls or bad faith based on past arguments and actions? This is probably not a good thing to accuse someone of in an actual thread, particularly as a response to an argument they made. It's more something that should be reported and responded to normally. It may seem silly to take arguments at face value from someone who doesn't seem to be participating in good faith, but the rule exists because it's much better to err on that side than to err on the other side, similar to why we have "innocent until proven guilty."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The thread was not about the CIA, his comments were irrelevant to the thread topic with the intent to derail the conversation and was obviously trolling. It is behavior we do not want around here. That threads gets 1-2 pages of posts a week. Just, like, let the conversation happen. It will rerail eventually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Do the mods consider it tribalism to label posters as trolls or bad faith based on past arguments and actions? It certainly can be and often is in my experience. It's why the assume good faith rule exists, though it isn't enforced as consistantly as it should be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:Also clearly violates one of the D&D rules that clearly states "assume others are posting in good faith". The moderators should consider removing that from the rules list if it's not going to be enforced. This is an example of trying to rules lawyer. You get a starting assumption that others are posting in good faith. I don't think anyone interprets that rule to mean that once someone has a long history of making claims and not being able to back them up, or getting proven wrong and just not acknowledging it, that that presumption still applies to them (particularly if they make a post that looks on its face to be disruptive or a troll).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Well, that is already assumed. But at some point, the poster gives moderators sufficient reason to invalidate that assumption, and a probation is issued. If you look at the conversation where the post I quoted is from, you'd see that the my problem was with random posters, i.e. Deteriorate in this case, not following the rule. It wasn't about moderators deciding that a post is bad and should be punished, it's about the fundamental attitude by posters to dismiss someone/something as a "troll" or whatever which is in clear dissonance with that rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The thread was not about the CIA, his comments were irrelevant to the thread topic with the intent to derail the conversation and was obviously trolling. It is behavior we do not want around here. So the CIA's inherit bias towards covering up or advancing its own criminal activities shouldn't impugn on the quality of its intelligence as a source, but Snowden's self interest in making the democrats look bad should somehow impugn Wikileaks as a source. This is why the media analysis thread is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This is an example of trying to rules lawyer. You get a starting assumption that others are posting in good faith. I don't think anyone interprets that rule to mean that once someone has a long history of making claims and not being able to back them up, or getting proven wrong and just not acknowledging it, that that presumption still applies to them. I don't know the history of every poster, and I doubt I'm alone here, so maybe if someone is going to "assume bad faith" there should be an evidentiary requirement so it's clearly based off of a pattern and not just "I don't like the content of their post so they're obviously a troll". Or if it is the latter, at least be clear about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This is an example of trying to rules lawyer. You get a starting assumption that others are posting in good faith. I don't think anyone interprets that rule to mean that once someone has a long history of making claims and not being able to back them up, or getting proven wrong and just not acknowledging it, that that presumption still applies to them (particularly if they make a post that looks on its face to be disruptive or a troll). Yeah, for me it's a matter of taking people at face value until it's obvious they're not making honest arguments or don't believe what they're saying. Then I just break it off and make a note to avoid engaging with them in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Its not at odds with the rules to assume good faith to point out when bad faith happens in the appropriate context; the point of the rule is to not have people attempt to weaponize accusations of bad faith to win arguments; just as some people are also saying labels like liberal or leftist also shouldn't be likewise weaponized to score points. It isn't that you can never at any point think someone is not being earnest or honest in their position, nor is it I think universally the case you can never call out someone as being bad faith; but that the grounds for such thinking and claims should be considerable, not trivial, not flippant and easily prone to challenge, or obviously a result of NaCI. The job of moderators is to try to keep on eye for things so people with interesting but unpopular positions can get their chance to make their argument and people who are trolling get the boot without it derailing the thread. A Buttery Pastry posted:Like, I don't have a problem with "taking them seriously but not literally" in this case  Koos Group posted:Depends on what audience. I already said I like gearing D&D toward people who are already fairly experienced in internet arguments and would enjoy something at a higher level that doesn't repeat so many things they've heard before. But I'm absolutely against tailoring it to any particular political group. Part of the problem, either explicitly or implicitly, is that trying to make the forums "not cater to a specific group" has been in of itself criticized as being de facto favouring of liberal positions because it implies there is still a debate between capitalism and socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Part of the problem, either explicitly or implicitly, is that trying to make the forums "not cater to a specific group" has been in of itself criticized as being de facto favouring of liberal positions because it implies there is still a debate between capitalism and socialism. Alright, but if you'll forgive my language, that's stupid as hell and not something to seriously consider when discussing the future of the forum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Well, if this happens, the probation should be upheld and the appeal shouldn't be taken seriously. Simple as. Isn't this precisely how do the vast majority of appeals of dnd probations go? like out of every probation i gave, I think maybe one was overturned and one was reduced by like a day. one ban on a guy saying that canada's residential schools were comparably lethal to elite boarding schools was also overturned by an admin who even gave the guy a loving apology, but the admin was promptly yelled at and it was reinstated Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:I don't know the history of every poster, and I doubt I'm alone here, so maybe if someone is going to "assume bad faith" there should be an evidentiary requirement so it's clearly based off of a pattern and not just "I don't like the content of their post so they're obviously a troll". Or if it is the latter, at least be clear about it. Oh I don't think we need to go that far. Once someone has acquired a page worth of probes in the leper's colony for disrupting threads then mods should just forumban them for the clear pattern. Definitely shouldn't go down the road of encouraging posters to keep records of each other's posts to bring up as evidence of 'bad faith' for the obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, trying to be strict with rules results in a bunch of "i'm not touching you" type posts like the 'CIA is not an intelligence organization' and then 'sources' even though the former is basically a twitter shitpost that can't really be proven or disproven the way it's explained. I've read the sources, they're not proof that that shitpost is an absolute truth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Isn't this precisely how do the vast majority of appeals of dnd probations go? Not sure. Mr. Sound might have some insight on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Not sure. Mr. Sound might have some insight on that. all i know is I had a lot of probations disputed and like .2% of them were ever reduced or overturned btw on that note, a ton of the moderation actions that happen in dnd are in the context of the last page of a person's posting and noting that an action was for a sum of posts as opposed to purely for a one off post I think made things much clearer for everyone. imo mods could avoid a bunch of blowback by making a point of noting this more and much more explicitly. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
The CIA thing is interesting because the best places to discuss topics like that currently in practice tend not to be D&D or CSPAM, like LatwPiat's recent effort post in TFR is the kind of post that's not really possible or all that welcome by a vocal minority of posters in D&D, but in a completely different subforum these posts get made by passionate interested people and actual discussion that's really interesting can actually happen.Koos Group posted:Alright, but if you'll forgive my language, that's stupid as hell and not something to seriously consider when discussing the future of the forum. Right, but that's the argument that keeps happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:all i know is I had a lot of probations disputed and like .2% of them were ever reduced or overturned Yeah very few probations get overturned or denied, though I do reduce probation reasonably often either because I look back later and think I was overly harsh or because the person in question pm'd me and we talked through it in a positive way. It's still a small minority of probes though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
the "assume good faith" rule was because D&D has historically had a problem with rules-lawyers who declare that if someone is a troll or posting in bad faith, the rules of D&D should not apply to them, and therefore it's fine for everyone to just start shitposting and hurling insults at them nonstop who decides whether someone counts as a troll or not? usually that same rules-lawyer, who hurls the accusation at anyone they're mad at, to give themselves cover for going nuts on them "assume good faith" was a message to the self-declared faith judges who took it upon themselves to decide whether or not the rules applied to any particular post Koos Group posted:Well, if this happens, the probation should be upheld and the appeal shouldn't be taken seriously. Simple as. Koos Group posted:Alright, but if you'll forgive my language, that's stupid as hell and not something to seriously consider when discussing the future of the forum. i completely agree. but there's a fair number of people who disagree and they often show up in feedback threads, so it usually has to be discussed at least a little bit
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 21:22
|
|