|
Koos Group posted:I have not accused anyone in this thread of acting in bad faith, and I believe the individuals who've said they're upset are upset. I also don't believe my rule set has had any terrible outcomes thus far. This is not true. 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. 
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
speng31b posted:What do people actually want from SA and D&D? At the risk of using the old forums cliche, at least for me, it's a (dead, etc) comedy forum. When I was more than a decade younger and also a stupid moron, SA was one thing. That's all well and good for you, but there are other people who do want discourse with a variety of viewpoints, and who want to educate others and be educated themselves. This difference is why there are a wide variety of boards here at SA for everyone to enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Koos, I want to try to explain it all in a different way so I have a question for you about how you view D&D right now and what you want. Do you think both of these statements are true (or at least you want them to be true if we're not meeting this standard right now): "D&D is a safe space for trans posters" and "D&D is a place where people with bigoted beliefs can speak about them respectfully without personally attacking anyone, in the hopes they'll be educated?"
Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
It kind of seems like there maybe just needs to be another split, if posters fundamentally differ on what they want from a debate forum. The problem there would be that you would get even more cross forum slapfights like what D&D and CSPAM currently have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:This is not true. Ah. A distinction I've always made is that the good faith rule applies to discussion, not moderation. It would be impossible for the rule against bad faith to enforced otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:That's all well and good for you, but there are other people who do want discourse with a variety of viewpoints, and who want to educate others and be educated themselves. This difference is why there are a wide variety of boards here at SA for everyone to enjoy. I think where this rubs me the wrong way is the undertone of condescension in the usage of "education" here. I don't not want to engage with transphobic content because I like being ignorant, and you saying that educating transphobes at the expense of what the posters here are telling you they want out of their experience is a "you" thing. In other words, compromising the purity of your posting vision in a specific way wouldn't bring the whole thing crashing down, and might make the experience incrementally better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Koos, I want to try to explain it all in a different way so I have a question for you about how you view D&D right now and what you want. Do you think both of these statements are true (or at least you want them to be true if we're not meeting this standard right now): "D&D is a safe space for trans posters" and D&D "is a place where people with bigoted beliefs can speak about them respectfully without personally attacking anyone, in the hopes they'll be educated?" Not exactly. The hope isn't just about educating bigots, but about educating others in how they can be dealt with and why their ideas are wrong. The part about being a safe space for trans posters is certainly true though, which is why we enforce general SA rules about directing hate at users.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Ah. A distinction I've always made is that the good faith rule applies to discussion, not moderation. It would be impossible for the rule against bad faith to enforced otherwise. You literally said that it DOES apply to moderation of bigotry. we have to assume that bigots aren't trolling and earnestly believe what they're saying, therefore, we can't assume bad faith on the part of bigots. So, you have a preferencial enforcement policy that gives leeway for bigots and allows you to punish people who criticize you in ways you don't like. This is disqualifying. Resign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Maybe it's an issue of only having one thread on the topics. Maybe posters can level up into other threads and trans posters can stay away from "baby bigots learn here" threads. This inevitably ends with the bigots going to the other threads Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I think where this rubs me the wrong way is the undertone of condescension in the usage of "education" here. I don't not want to engage with transphobic content because I like being ignorant, and you saying that educating transphobes at the expense of what the posters here are telling you they want out of their experience is a "you" thing. Apologies, I wasn't trying to imply that about you. What I mean is that the board's purpose is educational in general, and the education is meant to be a two-way street in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I have not accused anyone in this thread of acting in bad faith, and I believe the individuals who've said they're upset are upset. I also don't believe my rule set has had any terrible outcomes thus far. I think a good measure of a lot of the frustration you see on trans related issues is because you don't think there have been terrible outcomes. It comes across rather "What are you so angry about, the other half of your family lived!"-ish. I think your rule set works well for debates and the general disagreements people get into in threads. That it fails on existential questions related to minority groups should be an additional sign that such things should not be welcome in the discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:You literally said that it DOES apply to moderation of bigotry. we have to assume that bigots aren't trolling and earnestly believe what they're saying, therefore, we can't assume bad faith on the part of bigots. So, you have a preferencial enforcement policy that gives leeway for bigots and allows you to punish people who criticize you in ways you don't like. This is disqualifying. Resign. No, moderators don't need to assume bigots aren't trolling or acting in bad faith, and users don't need to assume that for the purpose of reports. It's likely that I haven't communicated this distinction well, since this has come up a few times before (in cases that had nothing to do with bigotry). Furthermore, there have been other criticisms of me in this thread I haven't liked, which are much more severe than what Sharkie was saying, and I have not punished. I punished him because he posted something dishonest, and I said specifically in the first post you need to be honest in how you present your feedback here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Apologies, I wasn't trying to imply that about you. What I mean is that the board's purpose is educational in general, and the education is meant to be a two-way street in general. In general I don't disagree, but I think you might consider particular exceptions (based on specific discussion about each) to the "don't moderate positions" rule based on the evidence at hand and the human feelings people in this thread are expressing / perspective of the audience you have agreed to be a moderator for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Not exactly. The hope isn't just about educating bigots, but about educating others in how they can be dealt with and why their ideas are wrong. The part about being a safe space for trans posters is certainly true though, which is why we enforce general SA rules about directing hate at users. Gotcha, ok, then I think those two things are fundamentally at odds and go against the average person's idea of being a safe space. Not everyone is going to want to post in a place where they have to be a living example for how to properly endure a bigot's arguments. If you want a safe space you either need to crack down on any bigotry harder to bring the place more in line with what people are expecting or put a big sign at the door explicitly saying if you're coming into D&D to you're going to be exposing yourself to this. Make it a safe space by very clearly outlining the ways that it is not a safe space so that people can better make a choice on if they want to post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:No, moderators don't need to assume bigots aren't trolling or acting in bad faith, and users don't need to assume that for the purpose of reports. It's likely that I haven't communicated this distinction well, since this has come up a few times before (in cases that had nothing to do with bigotry). Furthermore, there have been other criticisms of me in this thread I haven't liked, which are much more severe than what Sharkie was saying, and I have not punished. I punished him because he posted something dishonest, and I said specifically in the first post you need to be honest in how you present your feedback here. "what about all the criticisms I don't like that I haven't probated" is not a compelling argument nor is it proof that you lack a preference for allowing bigots to attack people's humanity and for punishing criticism of your policies. to clarify, Sharkie's entire point, which you completely missed, is that you don't care about attacks on minority groups unless you yourself personally are part of the targeted group. that's gross, it's privileged, and it's disqualifying. Your response to it demonstrated its accuracy. Resign. ram dass in hell fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:"what about all the criticisms I don't like that I haven't probated" is not a compelling argument nor is it proof that you lack a preference for allowing bigots to attack people's humanity and for punishing criticism of your policies. Punishing posters for criticizing my policies would defeat the purpose of a feedback thread. This is why I haven't done so. The only person you are offering as an example of me doing so is someone who was very clearly breaking one of the few rules the thread has.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I think a good measure of a lot of the frustration you see on trans related issues is because you don't think there have been terrible outcomes. It comes across rather "What are you so angry about, the other half of your family lived!"-ish. I don't believe it's an "other half of your family lived" situation, because the way the trans thread was handled ended up being virtually the same as it would have if there had been a rule against transphobia. Everyone clearly engaging in it was permabanned or threadbanned regardless. Your second point however, is well taken. speng31b posted:In general I don't disagree, but I think you might consider particular exceptions (based on specific discussion about each) to the "don't moderate positions" rule based on the evidence at hand and the human feelings people in this thread are expressing / perspective of the audience you have agreed to be a moderator for. I am considering them. I've been trying to figure out the details of how positions would be moderated if that were to become a policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:This is a minor point that doesn't change anything else. Koos has a problem with transgender people. Jeff cares more about the feelings of FYAD posters than he does trans posters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Feedback: fix the mod forum so decisions don't require weeks of debate and people writing up 2,000 word posts to get some minor thing changed. Active posters get made mods and then they fall off the face of the earth because the dumbass mod forum takes up so much mental energy and actual time to deal with and read and keep up on. From an outside perspective, it's the stupidest most dysfunctional way of running something I've ever seen. I'm not a moderating expert, but i'm pretty sure that having to deal with that poo poo to get anything done at all is the worst part of being a mod on here. It's doubly stupid because it makes decisions look arbitrary and no one involved in the discussion has the energy left to summarize the 50,000 words of posting that went into a decision. Also wrt the convo about 'can we allow people to argue literally any point?' no, you can't that's stupid, why would you even think that's a viable way to run a site. Even Reddit eventually figured out that's completely unworkable and leads to horrible things. There's only a couple sites that even try to get close to that and that's poo poo like 8chan or stormfront, and even those shitholes will still probably throw you out for making counter-normative arguments. On a related note, if yall gonna have threads on incredibly contentious subjects, you really need to just watch them like a hawk and, if necessary, close them when no one is around to keep an eye on them and probably give them IKs before they explode into massive conflagrations. cheers and good luck
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:08
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I don't believe it's an "other half of your family lived" situation, because the way the trans thread was handled ended up being virtually the same as it would have if there had been a rule against transphobia. Everyone clearly engaging in it was permabanned or threadbanned regardless. You are not just harboring bigots, you are yourself a bigot. This is disqualifying. Resign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
For any of the complaints I have currently, they exist in the context of having to acknowledge that D&D has ultimately never been better moderated or managed than it is now, across the entire length of time i've been active or semi-active. some functional or cohesive improvement strategy exists in ... uh, end-user form. The current problems and complaints cropping up seem to me to be a "breaking upwards" trend, one where a new and less dysfunctional management standard is applied and alleviates the previous baseline dysfunctionality, but a new less dysfunctional standard is still different, so it creates new and different (but less pressing or bad) complications to be complained about, so even if things are being improved overall, it can still feel depressingly "same poo poo as usual" from the ground level. Some of my previous feedback still feels relevant and suggests that for places which are still crawling with insufferability, the solution is that you ultimately have to just ... remove people. The inertia of "a perennial waterfall of sixers" evidently doesn't work for a place that needs the same level of attention that USCE does. You could test out a process where USCE gets regular seasonal purges and specific posters will get benched for the remainder of that season's USCE, but can resume as usual when we hit next season's CE. Pluck a few people out and see if things improve, and how they improve. Compare it against the default condition it returns to when the seasons change. If it takes too much work to do something like that, lower the effort threshold for just making a poster a not-poster in the areas which obviously need more not-posters. Is it difficult or mentally exhausting for a mod to do presently? I can't tell you from the outside, but it probably needs to be less that. There's other issues that aren't really a D&D problem but more just a condition that SA on a site-level management level appears genuinely to have no idea what to do with CSPAM and there's a lot of lag in understanding what it's morphed into over time. while it can be pretty actually hilarious when we're not watching things like entire subforums enacting 'mention not the name of the beast' trepidation as a protective compensatory policy, that's super not a D&D question and not something that is specific for D&D moderation to address. It's out of scope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Everyone clearly engaging in it was permabanned or threadbanned regardless. And you were against all of those decisions. At best you gave slaps on the wrist and you said the threadbanned person should have been able to troll for awhile longer before they got too annoying for you. Don't try and take an admin's decision over your head as your own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And you were against all of those decisions. At best you gave slaps on the wrist and you said the threadbanned person should have been able to troll for awhile longer before they got too annoying for you. Don't try and take an admin's decision over your head as your own. I'm not referring to Colonel Cool, who I don't believe was engaging in transphobia, but Internaut!, who I threadbanned myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:This is plainly false. This is probably also related to your earlier claim that "nothing terrible has happened as a result of my ruleset and enforcement yet". If there were rules against transphobia, that is a change to the environment of the subforum, which clearly have an affect on what is seen as and believed to be acceptable discourse. You don't seem to understand that this outcome is harmful. You don't seem to care that trans people see your forum as a place where they will be poo poo on and mods allow it, to the point of punishing the recipients of the abuse if they get too upset about the abuse being sanctioned by the website in the first place. You don't see this as a terrible outcome, because you claimed nothing terrible has happened. That is a bigoted belief, the belief that free space for bigoted and dehumanizing statements is a positive thing. jesus…..laid out like this, its undeniable. koos, theres only one thing you can do at this point. permaban yourself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
I don't see how anyone can believe the following statements simultaneously: 1. There are people in TYOOL 2022 on Something Awful--not the internet at large, this particular website--who are still on the fence about trans issues. It is D&D's job to provide a forum for people to post their skepticism and pseudoscience, because we have to take these people at their word that they're simply skeptical or uninformed, not bigots pretending be as such. To this end, D&D must let these people post things that are barely sourced and borderline offensive because doing otherwise is moderating a position, not behavior. This is healthy, because these self-proclaimed skeptics could potentially be swayed by honest debate and it will help D&D posters get practice in arguing against these positions. 2. Cross-posting takes from D&D and other forums into threads for the purpose of mockery is an abhorrent practice because it encourages posting in a way to get an emotional rise out of people who earnestly believe things. You have people in positions of power in this thread who believe that directly quoting other posters is more worthy of moderator and administrative action than taking positions that say that certain people--including those who post on this website--should not be allowed to live and exist like everyone else in the world. You have a moderation philosophy that encourages blatantly offensive things in the name of 'good faith and skepticism' and punishes people who point out that saying bigoted things is bigotry, no matter how many layers of irony it's under. It's one thing to post in bad faith and be coy about it, but attacking other posters is apparently even worse. The severity of the crime isn't what's actually said, it's whether there is plausible deniability or not. The Koos regime's moderation is ultimately just the atmosphere of D&D taken to its logical conclusion: Debates are not won by who is correct, debates are won by who better adheres to the rules. D&D's population is more than happy to endure any amount of literal and ham-handed application of the rules because the people they don't like are going to be punished more severely. It's no wonder that people are saying that D&D's moderation is the best it's been in years--the same people who always get punished are still getting punished, there's just a veneer of 'equality' because some people are also getting sixers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:This is plainly false. This is probably also related to your earlier claim that "nothing terrible has happened as a result of my ruleset and enforcement yet". If there were rules against transphobia, that is a change to the environment of the subforum, which clearly have an affect on what is seen as and believed to be acceptable discourse. You don't seem to understand that this outcome is harmful. You don't seem to care that trans people see your forum as a place where they will be poo poo on and mods allow it, to the point of punishing the recipients of the abuse if they get too upset about the abuse being sanctioned by the website in the first place. You don't see this as a terrible outcome, because you claimed nothing terrible has happened. That is a bigoted belief, the belief that free space for bigoted and dehumanizing statements is a positive thing. As I said, abuse aimed toward posters on the basis of race, sex, trans status, and so on, is against not only D&D's rules but the rules of the site. It is not allowed by any means, which is why Aginor was permabanned for it. As for whether a rule being in place would prevent the people who made the statements and were later punished from making the statements in the first place, I hadn't considered that. In this specific case I don't know that it would, as both of them thought they could get away with hiding their positions, and may not have thought of what they were saying as transphobic anyway and as a result still may have done the same in the thread. But more broadly I see your point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
It does feel like the lighter sentencing for most things is a lot fairer than the era of rampups and poo poo that stifled discussion in a ridiculous way by making people defending their points the target of an instant two week probe. A six hour probe cools things down and works better than hella long conversation ending probes as that just makes people give up even trying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I'm not referring to Colonel Cool, who I don't believe was engaging in transphobia, but Internaut!, who I threadbanned myself. Internaut! was saying the exact same things Colonel Cool was, that "biological males have no business competing athletically against biological females", CC's entire argument was that trans women have an advantage (that they could never actually point to and could only vaguely reference but had no actual evidence to support despite being asked multiple times). You have a massive blindspot for any sort of transphobia that isn't explicit and I'm not going to speculate as to why but the fact that you are is obvious to nearly every trans poster in this subforum and to posters at large.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted:I don't see how anyone can believe the following statements simultaneously: to be clear, you are offering tacit support for the practice of quoting posts from other forums for the purposes of mockery?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
Quotey posted:I don't think the people PMing Cool to thank her are bigots probably? I wonder why they're so fragile! I do not remember this. Where did this happen?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I am considering them. I've been trying to figure out the details of how positions would be moderated if that were to become a policy. That's good to hear and I appreciate it. Koos Group posted:As for whether a rule being in place would prevent the people who made the statements and were later punished from making the statements in the first place, I hadn't considered that. In this specific case I don't know that it would Presumably the entire premise of the thread would be off limits? Or do you still think a thread about whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete or not is valid under this hypothetical policy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I am considering them. I've been trying to figure out the details of how positions would be moderated if that were to become a policy. consider this test 'if i spout off about this after 6 beers in a 7-11, is someone likely to knock my teeth out'
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Presumably the entire premise of the thread would be off limits? Or do you still think a thread about whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete or not is valid under this hypothetical policy? Good question. The thread probably would not be allowed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
i have a legitimate philosophical interest in the concept of gender and wasnt just concern trolling or jaqing off or whatever catchphrase you want to use and i dont think it would be right to punish me for that. it wasnt right to try and draw out a discussion along those lines in a thread that ostensibly is about something different and much more specific where i dont really have more of a developed opinion than "generally speaking yeah." once again, mea culpa.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:consider this test 'if i spout off about this after 6 beers in a 7-11, is someone likely to knock my teeth out' thats a bad metric because then you could say all kinds of awful things about trans people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:consider this test 'if i spout off about this after 6 beers in a 7-11, is someone likely to knock my teeth out' Where do you live that the average customer of a 7-11 is trans positive and also prone to assault
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Yeah seriously, if anything that rule sounds like it'd effectively ban a lot of common leftist positions
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Yesterday at 7-11 a dude told me about how much crack he used to sell and how he didn't touch it anymore because it's a white person devil drug. He's pretty chill tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Good question. The thread probably would not be allowed. NOW you won't, but only AFTER you allowed it go on with minimal moderation and literal harassment, while the mod team was able to instantly make the decision on bad faith when it targetted them(sharkies post). This isn't a safe space for trans posters. There are shitposting facebook groups that give less slack to transphobic bigots. They respond to transphobes like you and your team responds to posts critical of yourselves. I like their priorities better. Follow their lead. Err on the side of moderating transphobia and other bigotry too harshly. Koos Group posted:As I said, abuse aimed toward posters on the basis of race, sex, trans status, and so on, is against not only D&D's rules but the rules of the site. It is not allowed by any means, which is why Aginor was permabanned for it. As for whether a rule being in place would prevent the people who made the statements and were later punished from making the statements in the first place, I hadn't considered that. In this specific case I don't know that it would, as both of them thought they could get away with hiding their positions, and may not have thought of what they were saying as transphobic anyway and as a result still may have done the same in the thread. But more broadly I see your point. No, hate speech only is against the rules of the site and not even very strongly: quote:I Hate Speech: Offensive terms such as "f****t" or "n****r" may or may not be bannable based on context of the sentence. If they were meant as humor with absolutely no offensive slurs meant, the user may not be banned or probated. This rule is completely, 100% subjective and is based on the mod reading the post at the time. Use at your own peril. Aginor was banned under the harassment policy, not any sort of bigotry policy, because the site doesn't have one. The hate speech policy is only tonal and allows for subjective moderation. All you have to do under the rules of the forum to be a successful bigot is not be open about it, not use slurs, and make a pretence of pretending to debate Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
speng31b posted:Where do you live that the average customer of a 7-11 is trans positive and also prone to assault oregon lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 23:08
|
|