|
Oh nvm then
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 07:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:That thread was not posted in good faith. It was a satire thread meant to demonstrate a point about D&D's moderation, not one meant to foster discussion about real world issues. This is untrue. I cited sources and everything. I honestly wanted to debate and discuss it. If people don't think mods can consume five pounds of excrement, they should be free to "see why exactly that's wrong," with that argument, through debating and discussing it. Kind of weird that the official Debate & Discussion mods' position is that this is a good place to discuss whether black people have brains that make them fit for slavery, and that it's important to allow that discussion. So just to be clear, that is a welcome topic to debate here. But "how much human poop can mods eat" is not? Or should I have formatted that thread in a different way? Is there a way I could have made a thread for that topic that was in good faith, or is it forever verboten? Unlike arguments for enslaving black people, which I have at this point been repeatedly reassured are welcome here. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Lowering the threshold for bad faith is something I've thought about a lot, but it seems very difficult to do fairly because of how it involves intent and specific positions. I would welcome more discussion in this thread about this topic. I just want to point out that the recent declaration in in the CE thread that we should be operating under the assumption that everyone fundamentally agrees without people having to state whether they actually agree or not opens the door to bad faith posting. Differences in degrees and differences in critique are differences in position. Flattening that to "well, you both fundamentally agree" isn't an avenue for widening discussion, but narrowing it. We have an example of this in the trans thread everyone is discussing, where one poster refused to actually state their position (presumably because it was very unpopular), and criticism of that poster / other poster's attempts to figure out what that poster's position was were met with "Ah, but we all agree that we should support trans people." But they didn't agree - one poster tried to obfuscate their disagreement, and then others used that obfuscation to try to limit the discussion by implying that we "know" that everyone agrees and therefore trying to suss out actual positions was the real bad faith posting. I don't think any positions should be assumed of other posters. If we want people to know our position, we should be required to post it. I can see why this post was made - it's encouragement to see us as part of the same community - but "you all agree" isn't what makes us a community, it's where we post. To that end, the moderators should follow the sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and be more active in trying to solve individual beefs through mediation and reconciliation rather than broadly sweeping thread pronouncements: Abu’l-Darda’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) posted:The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Shall I not tell you something that is better than the status of (voluntary) fasting, prayer and charity?” They said: “Yes.” He said: “Reconciling in a case of discord, for the evil of discord is the shaver.” Al-Tirmidhi posted:It was narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is the shaver, and I do not say that it shaves hair, but that it shaves (i.e., destroys) religious commitment.” Mormon Star Wars fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 07:52
|
|
|
Absolutely incredible watching posters who are rightfully upset about the shitshow that was the moderation in my transgender athletics thread getting insta-probed while "have you considered that maybe transgender people are too safe" guy is just sitting there.Colonel Cool posted:There's so many places on the rest of the forums that are extremely supportive places trans people can go to feel comfortable. I don't think D&D needs to be that place. Just absolutely unreal. PS GEE DOES LETS CHECK THE loving RAP SHEET AND SEE WHAT IS IN THERE I HOPE IT'S NOT TRANSPHOBIA Colonel Cool posted:more like trans women are BITCHES OH drat WELL MAYBE IT'S IRONIC BECAUSE IF YOU SAY YOUR BIGOTRY IS IRONIC IT'S 100% COOL gently caress you and gently caress you for the probation I'm about to get because I'm mad about bigotry instead of politely posting bigotry you unreal fuckfaces
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:00
|
|
|
Just generally want to chime in and say that whever your justification might be for it I really do not think that this approach of just probating everyone upset about transphobic poo poo because of some rules lawyery crap is improving the forum any, and frankly it also makes me highly suspicious of the supposedly "position neutral" moderation. Really don't see how anyone could have faith in the mod team if this is what you're gonna be like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:03
|
|
|
Oh you want honest and direct feedback (per sharkie's probe reason)? Fix this poo poo now. It sucks and you suck until you fix it. Permaban transhpobes. You think that might cause people to think twice before asking a question about transgender issues? loving good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Just generally want to chime in and say that whever your justification might be for it I really do not think that this approach of just probating everyone upset about transphobic poo poo because of some rules lawyery crap is improving the forum any, and frankly it also makes me highly suspicious of the supposedly "position neutral" moderation. Really don't see how anyone could have faith in the mod team if this is what you're gonna be like. Yeah this is what I’m seeing from the outside. It looks like textbook tone policing
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:06
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Oh you want honest and direct feedback (per sharkie's probe reason)? Not an emptyquote. I'm packing for a flight right now but still feel this is important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:31
|
|
|
If you want to have "debate" on topics like trans rights then the thing about debate is: only one of the positions is actually right. So if you want a debate about it, that is going to necessitate allowing people to be wrong, and given the nature of the subject, a lot of them are going to be extremely, disgustingly wrong and probably willingly so, to a greater or lesser degree. I, therefore, would suggest that this means that this is not a subject there should be "debate" on, because that necessarily is going to create a hostile environment for trans posters, who I think quite rightly do not wish to share a posting space with people who do not respect them. There is probably room for people to ask questions but the tone, I think, should be more of someone asking the answer to a maths question, where if you start arguing that you just don't feel like 2+2=4 then you just get laughed at. A lot of the people I most enjoy sharing a space with on this website are trans and so to be perfectly frank, if faced with a choice between them having the most welcoming environment possible and debate bros having their god given right to be wrong on the internet defended by the moderation team, I am going to choose the former. We've been having plenty of interesting arguments in the LGBTQIA+ thread that do not necessitate even entertaining the possibility that trans people constitute a threat to society or are somehow wrong about their own nature, I do not think those are positions that need to be given space to air, however "contentious" the issue might be among some sections of society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:34
|
|
|
reading this and instinctively yelling TELL A JOKE at my computer
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:36
|
|
|
I'd like to head an argument I've seen before off at the gate as early as possible. Which is "we can't ban everyone for all transphobia because some people make genuine minor mistakes and just need education to not do those mistakes again. I mean, everyone makes mistakes?" Technically, anyone who does a transphobia is a transphobe. So, the person who thought correct terminology was to post "biological males" instead of "trans women" was been transphobic, and was, academically, a transphobe. But nobody is calling for them to be permabanned for that transphobia. When were talking about transphobes, here, were specifically talking about people who are egregiously engaging in transphobia. The colloquial meaning, not the academic one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 09:53
|
|
|
Although if you keep doing that while offering some heartfelt justification as to why you think it is necessary to keep doing that, that should still get you the boot, out of the thread or out of the forum. I don't greatly care why someone does what they do if them doing it is causing problems for better posters. People can be wrong in good faith, but it should not be incumbent on everyone else to put up with the burden of them being wrong, especially not on subjects like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 10:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Although if you keep doing that while offering some heartfelt justification as to why you think it is necessary to keep doing that, that should still get you the boot, out of the thread or out of the forum. I don't greatly care why someone does what they do if them doing it is causing problems for better posters. People can be wrong in good faith, but it should not be incumbent on everyone else to put up with the burden of them being wrong, especially not on subjects like this. 100% agree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 10:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you want to have "debate" on topics like trans rights then the thing about debate is: only one of the positions is actually right. The LGBTQIA+ thread has been going really well. One part of this discussion imo is how moderation could handle that thread better/differently than the trans athletes thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 10:07
|
|
|
debate and discussion has been the most readable it's been in half a decade. which is still "would not recommend political junkies to read it, even if held at gun point" same people starting the same poo poo they've been doing forever, only with occasional six hour timeouts instead of "completely unpunished" and clearly this is the point in which we will convince transphobes and genocide denialists and authoritarians in Well Reasoned High School Debate Club. also whats the paradox of tolerance 1) give the poster with 35 probations in the first quarter of 2022 more than a quarter of a day off for probation number 36. i fully understand that the main problem is that the site owner sees bans on people with five page rapsheets as verboten because people being disallowed to post on this website takes money out of his investment, but stuff like weeklong and month long probes are still there 2) "you should not exist as a person" is not the type of thing you put up for debate, jesus christ Craig K fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 10:16
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:The LGBTQIA+ thread has been going really well. One part of this discussion imo is how moderation could handle that thread better/differently than the trans athletes thread. Not probating a bunch of the contributors because they are critical of your moderation in the feedback thread, would be a good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 10:20
|
|
|
Varinn posted:The reason those rules suck is that you're the only person who's semi-obligated to read the entire thread. So of COURSE poo poo seems boring to you, because you're probably the person reading the thread the most (as IK). 99% of other posters can't keep up, and so they dip in when they can, and have the conversations relevant to their interests. Being told that people who aren't you had this conversation 100 pages ago, and that the IK is tired of reading it, is extremely lame. Most of the people regularly posting and following that thread are sick as poo poo of those topics cinci listed though. The thread is genuinely a lot better when there aren't multiple pages long derails about someone insisting NATO/the US is at fault or about how bad C-SPAM is, which was stuff that regularly happened early in the thread. As a sidenote, the Ukraine-thread differs quite a lot from most threads on the forum in that it appears a significant amount of regulars posting in it are from Europe (maybe even a majority right now?), and a whole bunch of them are from nations bordering Russia. It definitely has a different vibe to it from other Ukraine-threads on the forums because of that, as pretty much every European poster has some sort of emotional attachment to the events. It will also automatically lead to most of these posters, especially ones from countries bordering Russia and who have been hosed with by Russia before, to not have any real desire to try to understand viewpoints like "this is the US's/Nato's fault". Like I'm a Finn, and whenever I see that argument prop up, it instantly makes me think less of the person making it. Its quite often attached into complete ignorance about the fact that nations in Europe might genuinely want to be a part of Nato for the genuine threat they feel like Russia represents. People living thousands of miles away poo poo posting about events that cause real, genuine worry is both annoying and infuriating, and I seriously doubt I'm the only european poster that sees it that way. This also applies to some Americans posting stupidly loving bloodthirsty posts by the way, and I wish those kind of posts got tagged a bit more consistently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 10:34
|
|
|
Varinn posted:The reason those rules suck is that you're the only person who's semi-obligated to read the entire thread. So of COURSE poo poo seems boring to you, because you're probably the person reading the thread the most (as IK). 99% of other posters can't keep up, and so they dip in when they can, and have the conversations relevant to their interests. Being told that people who aren't you had this conversation 100 pages ago, and that the IK is tired of reading it, is extremely lame. I agree that that these rules are fundamentally lame, don’t get me wrong. I just also believe that they benefit posters, since they arguably halve the volume of reading one would otherwise do to keep up with the thread, at an expense of only somewhat restricting a few topics that add nothing to the function the thread ought serve. On the posters dipping in, it’s a delicate issue if its own. To be fully clear, I think it is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone to have read the entire thread thoroughly. At the same time, the rules stipulate that posts should be “funny, informative, or interesting” and that they shouldn’t “repeat a very common talking point”. I think it would do good for posters to earnestly ask themselves if they’re in the clear of this, and perhaps use search before they have a serious argument about something that isn’t part of the news cycle of the last couple of days. I say “serious” since I seldom make any topic-based enforcement decisions in response to brief exchanges. As for Despera, I’m certain Fritz will be happy to help. Moderation ultimately is a subjective thing, and I’m unable to adopt someone else’s sense of humour. I could go full rationality golem and start plowing through Calibanibals of this world as well, sure, but that would harm the thread much more than me tolerating a poster some may find annoying. Edit: SpiritOfLenin posted:As a sidenote, the Ukraine-thread differs quite a lot from most threads on the forum in that it appears a significant amount of regulars posting in it are from Europe (maybe even a majority right now?), The majority for sure. We also easily have 2-3 dozens of goons with themselves, their family members, or friends being bombed by Russians - and that doesn’t include lurkers. This demographic is the sole reason why I have elaborate shock content tagging rules that I go at non-trivial lengths for to enforce. When people post all those 40 minute YouTube videos or 50 paragraph articles, I actually try to go and check them for violent footage or gore even when I don’t personally care at all about their content, for example. Edit 2: SpiritOfLenin posted:This also applies to some Americans posting stupidly loving bloodthirsty posts by the way, and I wish those kind of posts got tagged a bit more consistently. This is a fairly broad category of posts, so I’d appreciate if you can bring a few more specific examples forward to discuss if something could and should be done about them. Moderating bloodlusting is something I try doing, but I think that it’s difficult to do so without moderating positions, and that it’s entirely reasonable for posters, especially those from Europe, to wish for sound defeat of Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Consequently, current unwritten rules around that focus on calls for violence against individuals or civilians, ethnic slurs, suicide “recommendations”, and elaborate descriptions of violence or war crimes that someone should do. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 10:47
|
|
|
The theory that allowing for a degree of rope when someone brings up even horrible poo poo so that horrible poo poo can be debunked because education is one of the benefits this forum is hoped to provide to its readers, and so the person who's sharing it, if earnestly misguided, might be change their ways is a noble idea. The Trans Athlete thread saw blatantly bad faith transphobes abuse the intent behind that theory to hurt people via targeted harassment and having their bigotry platformed. When that kind of thing happens then either the idea needs to be re-evaluated or the holes in the policies intended to make that idea happen need to be fixed. The moderation staff needs to ask itself if preserving that notion of D&D as educational resource quashing even the most vile theses is worth the potential harm, like a university needs to ask itself if it's really worth hosting some Holocaust Denier just so they can have their History Chair clown on him. If you decide it IS worth the potential harm, you also need to take the steps to make sure that harm is minimized. Start by lowering the bad faith floor, whatever that ends up looking like. Then be willing to be more decisive in enforcement if lines get crossed. The poster who linked their Phrenology diatribe doesn't need to be allowed to keep spewing bile while their racist poo poo gets debunked, give them a multi-day probe first and ask questions later. If they were just an ignorant idiot and didn't mean to hurt anybody, a long probe might actually let the fact that they did sink in. Or they won't come back, in which case no great loss. EDIT: Also the rule that you can't cite to people's statement cross-forum or in their rap sheet to help prove their statements are obvious bad faith is a stupid one. Nix it. Either that or ban helldumping across all forums because allowing threads which only exist to mock people on other forums (especially when there's so many examples of people baiting out helldump content) while also making it punishable on D&D to point out people's statements on other forums for an actual constructive purpose is nonsense. Sanguinia fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Absolutely incredible watching posters who are rightfully upset about the shitshow that was the moderation in my transgender athletics thread getting insta-probed while "have you considered that maybe transgender people are too safe" guy is just sitting there. You set the thread up to fail. Your OP was just the word YES in an attractive graphic. Later, you said… (emphasis added) Jaxyon posted:You're right, this isn't a debate. I have a bunch of citations that I was prepared to bust out if needed, but literally nobody ever got even close to that level. I already stated earlier in the thread what my intention was: You kicked up a transphobic hornet’s nest on purpose. By your description, you came in looking for a fight. Did you check with the mod team that they were prepared to handle the fallout? Did you have any reason to think they were in a good spot to read the dog whistles etc? You could have done so much to raise the likelihood that it was a positive exchange. You could have framed it as a discussion and—instead of holding your citations in reserve—made a good OP. You could have laid out the basic terms and the state of the argument. You could have aimed it at the laws being passed in the US. You could have posted it in TMR instead of D&D. In order to out some transphobes and test the moderators, you set up a bunch of trans people to deal with more transphobia. That sucked. I wish you hadn’t done it. doingitwrong fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 12:00
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:The theory that allowing for a degree of rope when someone brings up even horrible poo poo so that horrible poo poo can be debunked because education is one of the benefits this forum is hoped to provide to its readers, and so the person who's sharing it, if earnestly misguided, might be change their ways is a noble idea. The Trans Athlete thread saw blatantly bad faith transphobes abuse the intent behind that theory to hurt people via targeted harassment and having their bigotry platformed. This is a better analogy than you might think because the holocaust denier doesn't actually care that the lib cuck nerd professor is clowning on him, the important thing is they're letting him stand up on the stage and speak his views in front of people in a way that gives him implied credibility. It's that old quote about anti-semites again. They know their arguments don't actually stand up to scrutiny, and will never let themselves actually get corned on a specific position if possible, and they don't care, because they are having fun, and people are paying attention to them. As soon as it's not fun anymore, they'll loftily signal that the time for debate is past, that they're done humouring their ideological foes. In general, it comes down to the D&D rules as enforced are extremely vulnerable to calm_hitler.jpg over and over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 12:19
|
|
|
Craig K posted:debate and discussion has been the most readable it's been in half a decade. which is still "would not recommend political junkies to read it, even if held at gun point" I spent a while writing and deleting a pile of words, and then here it is, already written by someone more capable than I am. The whole point of probations is to prevent further bad posts, and or to give someone a time out to consider what they have done. Bigoted poo poo is bigoted, and while I am slightly confident that someone being a bigoted racist or homophobe who is "just asking questions" will maybe get probated, I am not confident at all that someone who is being a bigot on trans stuff would. In fact, I am more confident that someone calling that bigotry out directly will get a probation, if anyone does, for posting about posting, or for not keeping a civil tone, or whatever. Which is literally some CalmHitler.jpg level poo poo. Someone being a bigot deserves to be told to gently caress off, straight up, and they don't need coddling as to why and how they are. You want my advice? Get some trans mods in who you can get a sanity check off of and go "is this bigoted poo poo or not?" or better yet, let them moderate said posts. I can assure you, you might not know all the dogwhistles, but they will. This neutral ground poo poo just leaves the door open for bigoted assholes to see themselves as having official sanction, because if other places would ban it, and we don't, we must be fine with it. Might not like to read that, and might not agree with it, but its true. You end up with some missing stair syndrome happening, and instead of fixing your broken-rear end stair, you end up with people who talk about how people get hurt on it getting punished for it. Other people see that poo poo, and go "well, I guess its cool to do" and join in. This forum has moved on a lot of its positions in the last 20 years. There are two slurs in the first page of the general forums rules, right at the bottom of the page, that I bet you I can't say in this thread under any circumstances. But 15 years ago one of them got a pass on context and the other was punctuation. We don't go around holding pogroms for furries, or calling people faggots, or doing most of the other bigoted poo poo that was bread and butter back in the day. Somehow, the forums have survived the lack of forums invasions launched. But trans posters getting poo poo on for calling out transphobic garbage? That still happens into the now, and its loving gross. Is the position here of the mod team (and more directly, Koos), that we should maybe roll back some of that stuff I mentioned and open it for debate and discussion, if it's sincere? If not, why not? And if not, why are trans rights not afforded the same shelter that the rest of this gets? After all, earlier here: Koos Group posted:
Because this here makes it sound like basically anything bigoted, if sincere enough in the eyes of the mod team, will get support as a thread. I made sure to nest the quotes here in full, so that I can't be accused of removing context. However, this all misses the point. Debate and Discussion isn't the subforum for any of this debunking poo poo regardless, though, because Ask/Tell already fulfils the purpose of "ask a question and get told an answer" on SA, two subforums down from here. If the mod team position is that trans rights exist and that trans women are women, then why waste your time dealing with reports and posters times with a thread in the wrong subforum? It can get an asked and answered debunking and we can be done with it. E: Also gently caress you Ghost Leviathan for mentioning CalmHitler before I could 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 12:23
|
|
|
Karatela posted:
Not sure about this idea, actually. Seems like bringing in a trans person specifically to act as as Arbiter of Transphobia is going to put them between the devil and the deep blue sea where they'll have to try and judge intent and either err on the side of caution and smack everything, becoming known as a bully and a crybaby who's stifling debate or let stuff slide and have people shrieking at them why did you allow this, you're not taking things seriously, doing real world harm, asking are you Blair White, etc You know what I've changed my mind, that sounds hilarious. I volunteer
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
If a thread deals with a minority issue, and minorities are telling you it's a cesspit, listen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:In order to out some transphobes and test the moderators, you set up a bunch of trans people to deal with more transphobia. That sucked. I wish you hadn’t done it. I think it's misguided to blame the OP. OPs don't have actual power to set or enforce rules. The people who do can lock the thread and edit the OP Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:If a thread deals with a minority issue, and minorities are telling you it's a cesspit, listen. While this is a useful rule of thumb, Miss Broccoli & Colonel Cool have both disclosed that they are trans women so the algorithm kind of breaks down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Absolutely incredible watching posters who are rightfully upset about the shitshow that was the moderation in my transgender athletics thread getting insta-probed while "have you considered that maybe transgender people are too safe" guy is just sitting there. While I don't think this thread is the appropriate venue for it, if you want to make the "Is Colonel Cool a Transphobe (YES)" thread then I'd be happy to school you in that one too. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Not sure about this idea, actually. Seems like bringing in a trans person specifically to act as as Arbiter of Transphobia is going to put them between the devil and the deep blue sea where they'll have to try and judge intent and either err on the side of caution and smack everything, becoming known as a bully and a crybaby who's stifling debate or let stuff slide and have people shrieking at them why did you allow this, you're not taking things seriously, doing real world harm, asking are you Blair White, etc The main issue I see having a trans mod or IK, is that there still is a fairly vocal group that would absolutely love to then attempt to dox them because they are trans. That would be my concern if I was asked to be a mod and I'm not trans. And we already have had several trans goons doxxed before by kiwifarms and harrassed, personally I would like to have someone familiar if we could. edit: look that fucker is a goddamn troll and hes doing the just asking question poo poo still. There is absolutely no room for debate on SA on if its ok to debate if trans folk have a right to exist, be open, and be safe and be who they are. Anyone that has an issue with that needs to be removed from this goddamn site and its one thing that I do feel fluffdaddy handled right by slamming people for it. Theres no reason that it needs debated or heaven forbid needs jeff to sign off, just loving slam a perma button and ask later (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) UCS Hellmaker fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:edit: look that fucker is a goddamn troll and hes doing the just asking question poo poo still. Which poster are you talking about here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:Which poster are you talking about here? not SPR but yes context is important, I meant the transphobe that wants dnd to be ok to debate if its ok for a trans person to exist
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:41
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:not SPR but yes context is important, I meant the transphobe that wants dnd to be ok to debate if its ok for a trans person to exist edit: to be clear I'm confused because colonel cool is a trans woman, and the context makes it seem like your talking about her. But your using the wrong pronouns, so I have no idea if your talking about someone else / accidentally misgendering her / intentionally misgendering her. Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
doingitwrong posted:You set the thread up to fail. Your OP was just the word YES in an attractive graphic. Later, you said… (emphasis added) This is right. You made a bait thread, got a couple people permaed (sweet) and then got everyone really mad and stressed, and Koos is next on the list I guess. Good job! I read that thread and the posting in there was loving terrible. lol Quotey fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
To approach this from another angle: you could just change the rule you arbitrarily adopted a few months ago. You should do this for two reasons: 1. Ideally forum moderation is reflective of the desires of the forum itself, and you have heard loud and clear from many D&D posters that they would like some limits on the types of questions which can be debated. 2. Your inability to find consensus around some controversial issues does not mean that you cannot find consensus around every controversial issue. You are letting a problem in the general prevent you from finding solutions in the particular. To make it even easier, this is how you could type it up: "To help encourage debate and discussion we do not generally moderate on the content of your argument, just how do you present it. There are a few exceptions to this rule, though, where we see there is no meaningful debate or discussion to had around issues, or where that debate is offensive to marginalized members of our community. Those topics include: the validity of trans rights, Holocaust denial, scientific arguments for racism, and gender equality. If you are concerned that your post may violate these rules, contact a moderator first."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
I only occasionally skim USCE these days, and about 95% of the “debate” that happens in it seems to be along the lines of “here is why this terrible thing that the GOP has done is actually the Dems’ fault” and “USA is the root cause of all evil in the world, because even when it isn’t directly involved, here’s my Well Reasoned Argument for why it created the conditions for it!” So basically, stuff you can expect to hear from edgy high-schoolers who try to get a rise out of others with their hot takes. Except these people are in their 30s or older, so make of that what you will. Most of the people who are educated, knowledgeable or insightful about law, politics, or any other subject discussed in the thread have left a long time ago, either because they got bullied or they read the room. Those remaining are probably either masochists or have too much free time to kill. Moderation has not been successful because mods have leaned way too much into the whole “positions are no longer moderated” thing. So you get a whole bunch of people calm-hitlering stuff like why Russia was actually right to invade Ukraine, and why China isn’t actually committing genocide, and those who call them out are probated on mere technicalities. GBS has way better and more effective moderation than D&D and that is shameful and embarrassing. When you post dumb hot takes there you get told to gently caress off, and if you continue then the mods make you. As a result GBS threads about current events are both fun and informative. Which is quite ironic if you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:I only occasionally skim USCE these days, and about 95% of the “debate” that happens in it seems to be along the lines of “here is why this terrible thing that the GOP has done is actually the Dems’ fault” and “USA is the root cause of all evil in the world, because even when it isn’t directly involved, here’s my Well Reasoned Argument for why it created the conditions for it!” Counterpoint, much of the debate seems to be posters who connect the dots to other issues being yelled at for not sufficiently yelling about how bad Republicans are, even though we all take this as a given, which is then characterized exactly like this. This is the worst posting and there's so drat much of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Counterpoint, much of the debate seems to be posters who connect the dots to other issues being yelled at for not sufficiently yelling about how bad Republicans are, even though we all take this as a given, which is then characterized exactly like this. Counterpoint: most D&D regulars agree that Dems are bad and ineffective at various issues as well. The difference is that the crowd I’m talking about stretch that to incredible heights, such as by suggesting that Dems should “fix” something despite having no power or authority or mechanisms for it, or by ignoring court orders, or by doing illegal things (because Republicans do it!), and so on. It’s not the disagreements that make USCE tedious. It’s posters who make serious effort to be disagreeable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 14:16
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think it's misguided to blame the OP. OPs don't have actual power to set or enforce rules. The people who do can lock the thread and edit the OP If you want the forum culture to improve, you have to think beyond “the volunteer janitors should clean up every mess we make.”
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Or more pertinently, see why exactly that's wrong, but yes. As you've seen in this thread, we're still trying to iron out what if any exceptions there should be to the rule of not moderating positions, and whether the good faith rules and interesting discussion rules might be expanded to pick up problematic cases instead. This is because there are, it seems, potential downsides to any approach. I believe it would help kickstart this whole 'ironing out' process if you would stop calling bigotry a position. Bigotry does not deserve the respect you are giving it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Upgrade posted:To make it even easier, this is how you could type it up: I agree with this post generally, but I'd quibble about the wording on the bolded part. "To help encourage debate and discussion we do not generally moderate on the content of your argument, just how do you present it. There are a few exceptions to this rule, though, where we see there is no meaningful debate or discussion to had around issues, or where the debate is been weaponized politically by the far right to organize violence against marginalized members of the community. Those topics include: the validity of trans rights, Holocaust denial, scientific arguments for racism, and gender equality. If you are concerned that your post may violate these rules, contact a moderator first." The problem isn't that marginalized members of the community are offended by these arguments. The problem is that these arguments are been used to harass and organize violence against marginalized members of the community. The offence is secondary to the root problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 14:30
|
|