|
Stringent posted:oh yeah, i've been meaning to ask this. Not much at all tbh. Vox can be a verbose fellow at times, it's true, but in general they are one of those gifted posters that are generally good at keeping their posts inside the rules guidelines more often than not, most reports about Vox that I can remember not actioning on are ones that are too much on the subjective side for me to want to hit, and often rely on "well I don't like his tone!" But also, Vox does run afoul of us from time to time and he does get bopped when he gets out of line, same as anyone else here. Rest assured, big pms do not scare me. I will happily put on a Klingon opera and read some 9000 word screed if any of you feel the need to send wild pms at me.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:this sentiment would be far more cutting from someone not on record saying that actually, the Armenians deserved to be genocided by his forefathers, op Who here has not held terrible opinions at some point in their long and illustrious posting careers? “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:D&D is the forum where you think CSPAM is all Nazis and CSPAM is the forum where you think D&D is all Nazis. If you express the opposite opinion in the wrong one you're a sick freak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
Stringent posted:oh yeah, i've been meaning to ask this. Where do people keep getting this from? Vox gets probed all the time, more than you for certain, why is there a group of people seemingly obsessed with him getting punished and have seemed to create their own canon about him. Maybe we should somehow remove usernames from regular users for some threads and see how that goes, there are certain groups of posters obsessed with specific posters and it drags the thread down when they pop out of nowhere to troll their posting enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Where do people keep getting this from? Vox gets probed all the time, more than you for certain, why is there a group of people seemingly obsessed with him getting punished and have seemed to create their own canon about him. deffo, this worked great for 4chan
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Where do people keep getting this from? Vox gets probed all the time, more than you for certain, why is there a group of people seemingly obsessed with him getting punished and have seemed to create their own canon about him. Yeah, CSPAM’s obsession with DV is absolutely insane.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Maybe we should somehow remove usernames from regular users for some threads and see how that goes, there are certain groups of posters obsessed with specific posters and it drags the thread down when they pop out of nowhere to troll their posting enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
Anonymity in primary chat is a weird thing and affects communities in ways that are mostly predictable but still chaotic. The biggest effect it would have is make the meta-community (discord or whatever) much more powerful than the primary one. What I'm saying is, the results would be funny but I can in no way seriously recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
I've pretty much dropped out of USCE, but it's not really the moderation's fault. I've just accepted that US politics threads are going to be filled with extremely angry losers venting their anxiety all day in the most vitriolic manner possible with no real interest in whether the things they say are true, that no amount of moderation is going to change that, and that I'd rather shave my asscheeks with a woodchipper than continue to read what's essentially just a vent thread. IMO, everyone would be a lot happier with the fresh arguments rule if we just admitted that it's a conflict two groups of people in the general US threads: the people who want to talk about different things every day, and the people who have one or two specific issues/subjects that they want to endlessly debate. Those two groups constantly fight in the general US politics threads and it annoys basically everyone. The mods have (correctly, imo) decided that the general threads should be for the former group, and that the latter group can make dedicated threads for whatever they want to discuss instead of trying to constantly drag the general thread back to their one pet issue. But the mods won't say it because  , so instead they have to go on a roundabout story about subjectivity vs objectivity and the educational purpose of the forums and poo poo.To my knowledge (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the mods haven't been discouraging people from creating threads. It's just that people don't want to create threads, for reasons that really have nothing at all to do with the mods. Personally, I think it's time to drop the whole image push toward emphasizing the appearance that moderation is absolutely objective with clear and specific rules for every little thing. The mods have put a lot of work into it, and it hasn't changed a drat thing. The people who used to complain that the rules were too vague and the enforcement too inconsistent are still complaining about those exact same things, the people who used to get sixers all the time are still getting sixers all the time, and most of the people who used to be threadbanned from various threads have been re-threadbanned from those threads. The rules thread is one of the best jokes in D&D and people are still asking for it to be even more specific. All in all, the only real impact of the ultra-decorumed rules rewrite is that the Leper's Colony is now much more boring. The same people who hated the rules before still hated them, and the same people who broke the rules all the time before still break them. The whole push for optics doesn't appear to have made any impact, now that the new mod honeymoon period is over and everyone's back to their usual attitudes. Make Probe Messages Great Again!  some plague rats posted:It seems like there's a pretty fundamental conflict about what the mods here are trying to accomplish- is the idea to try and create quality debate, or just to punish every rule breach for it's own sake? Because you've now got a guy, the most active mod here, who from the outside seems to treat moderating like he's got a quota. Not "do these posts really interfere with the discussion" but "okay, that's a 2a, that's a 2.1.c, that can be a 1.1.1, that looks like a 3.1," the kind of broken windows approach to moderating that just makes it miserable to post here because any time you're discussing something there's a solid chance that you or the other person is going to get yanked out of the discussion with a big vaudeville hook for some ticky tacky rear end reason. LT 2012 is actually doing a good job because he seems to be leaning heavily towards not probating instead of "okay which rule should I probate this for". VitalSigns posted:Yeah I think putting the onus on posters to report all these rule violations is the wrong answer, especially when people disagree with the rule and don't want to get people probated for it just to make a point (sorry Leviathan Feels like these two posts answer each others' questions, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:21
|
|
)
|
Anonymous Poster A posted:I thought QCS was harsh on DND mod staff, but you DND feedback guys... Hoo boy, this is some wild vitrol I'm reading. I think the current mod staff are doing alright. It is just a shame this wasn't the crew when I was DNDing 1000 years ago, I would have liked it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:IMO, everyone would be a lot happier with the fresh arguments rule if we just admitted that it's a conflict two groups of people in the general US threads: the people who want to talk about different things every day, and the people who have one or two specific issues/subjects that they want to endlessly debate. Those two groups constantly fight in the general US politics threads and it annoys basically everyone. The problem with this take on the situation, IMO, is that the latter of the two groups you describe usually aren't harping on one issue or another just to be difficult or annoying. They're doing it because they want to debate a controversial or unsettled issue in the debate subforum. It seems to me that if the former group wants to post in a current events thread without someone trying to engage them in a debate, there are other subs with current events threads as well. Failing that, the mod team could do what's been suggested many times before and just rechristen the sub something like "current events," dropping the "debate" entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:IMO, everyone would be a lot happier with the fresh arguments rule if we just admitted that it's a conflict two groups of people in the general US threads: the people who want to talk about different things every day, and the people who have one or two specific issues/subjects that they want to endlessly debate. Those two groups constantly fight in the general US politics threads and it annoys basically everyone. If the former were my reasoning, I would have no problem saying it or incentive not to say it. The idea of D&D having an educational purpose is traditional according to the prior generation of mods, and accords with what I myself want from such a board. I'd ultimately just like a place where I can read more sophisticated analysis of relevant issues and events than elsewhere on the internet, where people are intellectually creative, where different ideologies are tested in-depth, and where common arguments are examined critically when there wouldn't be the time or good faith to do so elsewhere. In short, I'd like it to be interesting. Every guideline is geared toward that one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I've pretty much dropped out of USCE, but it's not really the moderation's fault. I've just accepted that US politics threads are going to be filled with extremely angry losers venting their anxiety all day in the most vitriolic manner possible with no real interest in whether the things they say are true, that no amount of moderation is going to change that, and that I'd rather shave my asscheeks with a woodchipper than continue to read what's essentially just a vent thread. I agree with this, also I take the stale arguments rule as a catchall "don't post like a tedious dickhead"-style rule the mods have for people who are being annoying assholes and making the thread miserable to read. Like most every feedback thread in the history of DnD this one is again dominated by worst posters complaining about the fact they keep getting probed for posting bad, with a small handful of weirdos machoistic enough to keep touching the hot stove because they don't want it to appear that's actually the consensus. I get pretty annoyed with CZSs decisions sometime, but even with it's flaws their iron-fisted rule is the only reason the DnD Ukraine thread is readable and should be considered a model for other threads. It's not an accident that makes them a target.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:If the former were my reasoning, I would have no problem saying it or incentive not to say it. The idea of D&D having an educational purpose is traditional according to the prior generation of mods, and accords with what I myself want from such a board. I'd ultimately just like a place where I can read more sophisticated analysis of relevant issues and events than elsewhere on the internet, where people are intellectually creative, where different ideologies are tested in-depth, and where common arguments are examined critically when there wouldn't be the time or good faith to do so elsewhere. In short, I'd like it to be interesting. Every guideline is geared toward that one way or another. Well, right now it's interesting, but mostly as a game of chance to figure out whether you'll be able to post here on some topic without eating a probe, or respond to someone espousing a bigoted viewpoint without eating a probe. To be fair I think the probes overwhelmingly target poo poo posts, but the net also catches people who are just trying to break into a topic, and whether that's a worthwhile tradeoff is a matter of perspective. I think you can probably figure out how to mostly post in between the lines, but by doing so the culture is pretty insular and I don't think I'd agree it raises the quality of discussions at the end of the day. speng31b fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I get pretty annoyed with CZSs decisions sometime, but even with it's flaws their iron-fisted rule is the only reason the DnD Ukraine thread is readable and should be considered a model for other threads. It's not an accident that makes them a target. i realize this is just an unavoidable part of the dnd zeitgheist and complaining about it isn't productive, but lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The problem with this take on the situation, IMO, is that the latter of the two groups you describe usually aren't harping on one issue or another just to be difficult or annoying. They're doing it because they want to debate a controversial or unsettled issue in the debate subforum. It seems to me that if the former group wants to post in a current events thread without someone trying to engage them in a debate, there are other subs with current events threads as well. Failing that, the mod team could do what's been suggested many times before and just rechristen the sub something like "current events," dropping the "debate" entirely. I don't see where your disagreement is other than not explaining why the latter group can't make a thread for a specific topic. D&d isn't a single current events thread, it's a subforum of threads,any of which can be used for debate or discussion, and I don't understand why someone who wants to focus on a single topic would want to constantly inject that topic into a thread seemingly meant for higher speed topic switching. It seems that person would be best served by creating a new thread complete with their own OP that clearly states their position and gives them a good "warehouse" to better bolster their argument with links and references.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Anyway, yes, making new threads for particular topics is encouraged. Although it's not really meant as a containment area, but more so the topic can be discussed in-depth and people can more easily see the sum of what's already been said about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Yeah, CSPAM’s obsession with DV is absolutely insane. What's cspam got to do with anything? This is D&D we're posting in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Stringent posted:oh yeah, i've been meaning to ask this. There are two posters who, if you probe them for any reason, are guaranteed to send an angry PM. Ironically they're usually on opposite sides of arguments. This response isn't taken into consideration at all, because it would be unfair to give them carte blanche just because they complain, and also unfair to punish them more harshly because they annoy us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I agree with this, also I take the stale arguments rule as a catchall "don't post like a tedious dickhead"-style rule the mods have for people who are being annoying assholes and making the thread miserable to read. All of the Ukraine threads on this site are disgustingly ghoulish, none of them should be used as an example of anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I don't see where your disagreement is other than not explaining why the latter group can't make a thread for a specific topic. D&d isn't a single current events thread, it's a subforum of threads,any of which can be used for debate or discussion, and I don't understand why someone who wants to focus on a single topic would want to constantly inject that topic into a thread seemingly meant for higher speed topic switching. It seems that person would be best served by creating a new thread complete with their own OP that clearly states their position and gives them a good "warehouse" to better bolster their argument with links and references. Koos Group posted:Anyway, yes, making new threads for particular topics is encouraged. Although it's not really meant as a containment area, but more so the topic can be discussed in-depth and people can more easily see the sum of what's already been said about it. The problem is, those threads often become containment zones, regardless of whether or not that is their original purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Well, right now it's interesting, but mostly as a game of chance to figure out whether you'll be able to post here on some topic without eating a probe, or respond to someone espousing a bigoted viewpoint without eating a probe. To be fair I think the probes overwhelmingly target poo poo posts, but the net also catches people who are just trying to break into a topic, and whether that's a worthwhile tradeoff is a matter of perspective. There is another side to all this. I started posting again in D&D this year after avoiding it for several years, and I'll agree with feeling unsure about what topics are okay, and individual threads feeling like a minefield. That can encourage people to just leave, or come in and make a post and get bopped and leave. But, if you're not one of those, it can also encourage new posters to spend a few days/weeks/months mostly lurking and gradually getting used to the tone of the board, and encourage them to spend time carefully weighing their arguments or whether they even need to make a post at all. If those things are priorities to the mod staff, then this environment actually makes sense. Like, OH NO, you have to actually consider whether your post is a bunch of poo poo before posting. Yeah, it's applied subjectively and unevenly but that's gonna happen when you have a human mod team staffed by volunteers. I think it's not as bad as it seems. The only change I'd argue is that if you're gonna admit that some infractions, like making jokes or stale arguments, are never going to cause enough harm to D&D to warrant bans, then they don't warrant probes, either. Koos said they'd generally only ban a decent poster if they really messed up. How about, you only punish people at all if they actually do something that causes a problem. If it's not a problem, why should it be against the rules? Am I taking what Koos said out of context, or does this make sense? Like... if someone can continually run up against the vague stale arguments rules, but never become such a big problem that it necessitates their removal from the board... doesn't that indicate that violation of that rule doesn't actually make a post harmful? And if it's not harmful, again, why would we need to regulate it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:There is another side to all this. I started posting again in D&D this year after avoiding it for several years, and I'll agree with feeling unsure about what topics are okay, and individual threads feeling like a minefield. That can encourage people to just leave, or come in and make a post and get bopped and leave. But, if you're not one of those, it can also encourage new posters to spend a few days/weeks/months mostly lurking and gradually getting used to the tone of the board, and encourage them to spend time carefully weighing their arguments or whether they even need to make a post at all. If those things are priorities to the mod staff, then this environment actually makes sense. Like, OH NO, you have to actually consider whether your post is a bunch of poo poo before posting. I don't recall saying that they'd never warrant bans actually. If every point you made in D&D was done so non-seriously so that you didn't feel obligated to defend it or present it rigorously; or, if you posted nothing but the same thing over and over, those could indeed lead to thread- or forumbans. I interpret your post as wondering why we need Rule II (always add to discussion) at all. If someone posts something that isn't hurting anyone, why take moderation action? Well, they don't cause direct harm to discussion in the same way as Rule I does, like calling your opponent a sonofabitch or lying about facts. But they do indeed cause a problem, which is dilution of interesting material. This makes the board less rewarding for lurkers, who must wade through the baloney, and for posters, whose creative and effortful posts are less likely to be seen due to being crowded out. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:the DnD Ukraine thread is readable and should be considered a model for other threads
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The problem is, those threads often become containment zones, regardless of whether or not that is their original purpose. If someone wants to debate a topic, and other people do not want to debate that topic, should that person (or persons) be able to force their will on others, particularly when other avenues are available?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Anyway, yes, making new threads for particular topics is encouraged. Although it's not really meant as a containment area, but more so the topic can be discussed in-depth and people can more easily see the sum of what's already been said about it. What do you mean by "containment area" here? I've always felt that it was a bit of an odd thing to bring up as a general argument against having issue-specific or event-specific threads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What do you mean by "containment area" here? I mean that it's not meant to be a place to have worse-quality or less-interesting discussion so that people in the general threads don't have to read it. I am not using it as an argument against issue-specific or event-specific threads, though. I'm in favor of them. I'm just saying that the same standards would still apply to them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I mean that it's not meant to be a place to have worse-quality or less-interesting discussion so that people in the general threads don't have to read it. I am not using it as an argument against issue-specific or event-specific threads, though. I'm in favor of them. I'm just saying that the same standards would still apply to them. I think this is a fair assessment of the potential downside of topic specific threads. My feedback then is that all (or at least most) threads in d&d should have an IK assigned from the start in order to ensure that those standards are actually applied. My experience in some other topic threads is that the standards consistently applied to big threads tend to get lax in those threads, further degrading discussion until they become havens for the most toxic posters. If you are concerned about a lack of IK volunteers, then my comedy suggestion is to gang press a poster into IK servitude with the penalty for abuse being permabanning and the reward for good IKing being some sort of nominal trinket, like an avatar change or archives or a "ban one posting enemy" card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:There is another side to all this. I started posting again in D&D this year after avoiding it for several years, and I'll agree with feeling unsure about what topics are okay, and individual threads feeling like a minefield. That can encourage people to just leave, or come in and make a post and get bopped and leave. But, if you're not one of those, it can also encourage new posters to spend a few days/weeks/months mostly lurking and gradually getting used to the tone of the board, and encourage them to spend time carefully weighing their arguments or whether they even need to make a post at all. If those things are priorities to the mod staff, then this environment actually makes sense. Like, OH NO, you have to actually consider whether your post is a bunch of poo poo before posting. Yeah, at the end of the day this is why I can only present my feedback here as one past-DnD poster's opinion of the current state. I think the arbitrary and heavy handed nature of the punishments, and the way they're designed to enforce insular and thread specific cultures, is not for me. But, if that's working as designed and a significant chunk of posters like that design, I can't argue against it in principle. All I can say is that it stops me, personally, from wanting to post in such an environment, and I don't find it enjoyable. I don't personally love the combo of "here's your probe for this post that I thought was boring or stale and didn't add to the discourse, but feel free to sincerely debate whether gay people are the plague horsemen or trans people deserve basic human dignity."
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:my feedback is anyone who says this should be laughed at Why not elaborate on why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
Zachack posted:If someone wants to debate a topic, and other people do not want to debate that topic, should that person (or persons) be able to force their will on others, particularly when other avenues are available? This is the issue. People don't want their pet issues put into topical threads because they know there's not enough interest to actually sustain them. So they want to be able to force it. I feel like this also has a high correlation with purple not actually wanting to discuss a topic, but rather yell at people about it, and those people aren't going to wander into those threads to be yelled at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
A more serious(?) suggestion that might make topic specific threads more likely to emerge: allow the OP to set certain parameters on the thread (after discussing with a mod) which are then out of the OPs control, such as slow-mode, white noise zero tolerance, "no fun allowed" posting. I think variations on this have happened before, usually in contentious topics, and sometimes that has resulted in in really good debate. Sometimes it also crashes and burns, though. So maybe look at what worked and what didn't. Did slow mode work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is the issue. People don't want their pet issues put into topical threads because they know there's not enough interest to actually sustain them. So they want to be able to force it. I don't think one can fairly describe topics like the Democratic Party's squelching of left-wing candidates and movements as people's "pet issues. This is especially true when clearly a lot of people do want to discuss those issues and feel like they are being discouraged from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think one can fairly describe topics like the Democratic Party's squelching of left-wing candidates and movements as people's "pet issues. This is especially true when clearly a lot of people do want to discuss those issues and feel like they are being discouraged from doing so. That's a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. See, to me it reads as one group of posters bringing up very valid points that challenge other posters' assumptions and declared values, and being told that actually no, they can't make those challenges outside of a quarantine thread. In other words, being discouraged from debating an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:See, to me it reads as one group of posters bringing up very valid points that challenge other posters' assumptions and declared values, and being told that actually no, they can't make those challenges outside of a quarantine thread. In other words, being discouraged from debating an issue. Not sure what’s the problem with creating a thread for a very valid and major issue, and letting all interested individuals participate in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:See, to me it reads as one group of posters bringing up very valid points that challenge other posters' assumptions and declared values, and being told that actually no, they can't make those challenges outside of a quarantine thread. In other words, being discouraged from debating an issue. But if so many people want to discuss it, as you said, surely there would be no problem getting an active thread going. Is the January 6th thread a containment thread? I don't think the people participating in it see it in that way. Why would a thread about leftism and democrats be any different?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is the issue. People don't want their pet issues put into topical threads because they know there's not enough interest to actually sustain them. So they want to be able to force it. Yeah some posters really just want to yell at certain other posters and force them to engage no matter what the thread is actually about, no matter how many times the exact same arguments are made. It's why I stopped reading USpol or whatever we call it now, I was looking for a place to read and discuss whatever the latest political happenings were but instead a handful people wanted to constantly argue about how the Dems suck because they aren't blackmailing manchin for the 100th time and become hostile at the idea of even discussing the contents of a bill and the such.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
But that's just not wanting to read views on current events that you disagree with. The failures of the Democratic Party are an ongoing current event of our times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 20:23
|
|
