|
Nix Panicus posted:As a worked example for the class, what would be the correct response you would give that indicates that, after consideration, I fully agree with the arguments made in response to my question so as to avoid white noise cheerleading? To avoid being probed for white noise cheerleading, you must offer more than simple agreement or disagreement, as per the rules. To be clear, you leaving had nothing to do with why you were probed. I wasn't aware that you had. It was because you were obfuscating your arguments and seemingly doing so to get people's goat, hence the probation reason.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:To avoid being probed for white noise cheerleading, you must offer more than simple agreement or disagreement, as per the rules. To be clear, you leaving had nothing to do with why you were probed. I wasn't aware that you had. It was because you were obfuscating your arguments and seemingly doing so to get people's goat, hence the probation reason. "Unwillingness to directly defend or concede point, general bad faith." How do you know I was unwilling to directly defend or concede the point if you hadnt assumed I had left and would not be posting further? How am I supposed to defend or concede a point while probed? Also, in what way was I obfuscating my argument? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you assume you knew what my true argument was? How did you validate that assumption? Further, you've already said that if I had conceded the point - which I was willing to do - it would have been interpreted as white noise cheerleading. So, again, could you provide an example of a post that would have satisfactorily resolved the line of inquiry to your satisfaction? Being the serious rules based forum demands higher levels of proof than just vibes, although I would be equally satisfied by an admission that the probe was ultimately vibes based as determined by the tenor of the thread. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:"Unwillingness to directly defend or concede point, general bad faith." Ah, I thought you were talking about your more recent probation. I don't remember the exact circumstances of the other one, but I think the "directly" part was key, as you were doing the satire on third parties or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Ah, I thought you were talking about your more recent probation. I don't remember the exact circumstances of the other one, but I think the "directly" part was key, as you were doing the satire on third parties or what have you. I was not doing a satire, I was sincere posting. I was *accused* of doing a satire, in bad faith, by other posters in the thread. I have mostly checked out of US politics and was legitimately curious as to how a young earth creationist took the speaker seat over anyone not that. I will admit to being bemused at the justifications given, because I genuinely did not think they would just come out and say that elected US representatives have less of an onus to strategically vote for the least bad candidate who can win than the average US citizen. That actually caught me off guard. Still, I was not being satirical, and the accusation of 'you were doing the satire on third parties or what have you' seems to be based entirely on vibes. If USCE is ruled by vibes and unstated assumptions of valid political positions thats fine. I largely post in CSPAM, I get that. But you and D&D posters like to position themselves as somehow 'better' than that and held to a higher standard. I see no evidence of this higher standard. D&D appears to be just CSPAM but for center right opinions. Unless of course you have something more concrete to refer to?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:I was not doing a satire, I was sincere posting. I was *accused* of doing a satire, in bad faith, by other posters in the thread. I don't position myself as "better" than C-SPAM. I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by vibes. Moderating bad faith means intuiting users' motivations sometimes, because it's about whether they're being dishonest (satirical, in this case). My understanding was that that was what you were doing. To be honest, that still appears to me to be what you were doing, particularly given the wording used in the two posts you were probated for, such as "quixotic" and "protest vote," how you didn't have any other candidates in mind, or how you did it during an ongoing discussion of voting strategies. But to be clear, you are telling me that making this point was not your intent?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I don't position myself as "better" than C-SPAM. I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by vibes. Moderating bad faith means intuiting users' motivations sometimes, because it's about whether they're being dishonest (satirical, in this case). My understanding was that that was what you were doing. To be honest, that still appears to me to be what you were doing, particularly given the wording used in the two posts you were probated for, such as "quixotic" and "protest vote," how you didn't have any other candidates in mind, or how you did it during an ongoing discussion of voting strategies. But to be clear, you are telling me that making this point was not your intent? Would you describe voting for Hakeem Jeffries to become Speaker of the House as anything except quixotic? It was quite literally adhering to idealism while being impractical and unrealistic. You enjoy words Koos, surely this doesnt elude you. And what else would a vote for a candidate who can't possibly win *be* except for a protest against the alternatives presented? Its a concise and accurate description of events. If it *also* seems satirical, I feel that says more about your interpretation of events than anything else. Did you, personally, find the arguments presented to be an obvious satire? Do you believe that I coordinated their responses ahead of time to concoct the perfect farce? As for not having any other candidates in mind, no, why would I? I don't keep up with who is in the House since, as I've said, I have largely checked out of US politics. I was hoping the USCE thread would know. Of course, the USCE thread gave the correct answer that it is not worth anyone's time or effort to sift through a pile of trash trying to find the least bad candidate. I agree whole heartedly with them, and have said many times that no one should feel obligated to vote for the least bad candidate. I did, as mentioned, post with the expectation that USCE believed voting was a more strategic endeavor. I will take responsibility for making that assumption; I was operating on good faith. Interestingly, in the brief course of the discussion Leon did lie over something trivially researched and disproven, but thats par for the course with Leon and I did not take any offense. As for what I mean by 'vibes', your entire reasoning here seems to be entirely based on intuition informed by the general rage and anger of the thread. Vibes. I thought D&D prided itself on being a more rigorous platform for discussion (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:41
|
|
|
selec posted:I can’t reconcile “trolling” and “posting in good faith” here, I kinda thought definitionally those two things are mutually exclusive. Sorry, that should have been "posting sincerely held beliefs," which I could have sworn was part of the rules but perhaps it changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:43
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:It is not accurate that I don't accept (here meaning agree with, consider, or act on) anything people are saying. Here is a sampling of times I have done so in this thread. quote:As defined in D&D rules, trolling does not mean specifically that a user does not believe what they're saying, but is instead about wanting to inflame rather than have a debate. So, if someone were to post something using the phrasing most likely to cause rancor, then leave, that would be considered trolling regardless of whether they believe the thing. Though it's grouped under bad faith even if they do believe it, as the dishonesty is not in presenting an idea they don't believe, but the implicit and false assertion that they are posting it to have a dialogue. Koos, I submitted a report to you back in August with over a dozen links showing the pattern of how this sort of situation happens and spirals out of control. You probated the original poster for a single day for hostility towards other posters and ignored that they made an argument in bad faith. If that's your standard, I don't see the point of reporting anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Would you describe voting for Hakeem Jeffries to become Speaker of the House as anything except quixotic? It was quite literally adhering to idealism while being impractical and unrealistic. You enjoy words Koos, surely this doesnt elude you. And what else would a vote for a candidate who can't possibly win *be* except for a protest against the alternatives presented? Its a concise and accurate description of events. If it *also* seems satirical, I feel that says more about your interpretation of events than anything else. Did you, personally, find the arguments presented to be an obvious satire? Do you believe that I coordinated their responses ahead of time to concoct the perfect farce? It genuinely seems to me as though you set out to make that point, yes. My intuition was not informed by other posters' reactions (you will notice that, in fact, I probed other posters for accusing you of trolling), but rather what I felt was the most reasonable interpretation given all of the context I had. You have stated in the past that you hold strategic voting in contempt, and during the course of a discussion about the utility of voting you came in and reversed that position, using common arguments of your opponents (with on-the-nose wording), in a way that demonstrates their hypocrisy, and does not really make much sense if taken at face value. I further believe you are lying to my face, and that this is not only a repeat of that sort of bad faith behavior, but an indication that intend to continue. As such, I am now going to forumban you. If I have read you wrongly, and you were sincere the whole time, may God have mercy on my soul, but I'm confident that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:It genuinely seems to me as though you set out to make that point, yes. My intuition was not informed by other posters' reactions (you will notice that, in fact, I probed other posters for accusing you of trolling), but rather what I felt was the most reasonable interpretation given all of the context I had. You have stated in the past that you hold strategic voting in contempt, and during the course of a discussion about the utility of voting you came in and reversed that position, using common arguments of your opponents (with on-the-nose wording), in a way that demonstrates their hypocrisy, and does not really make much sense if taken at face value. They've been sincere the whole time and it's hilarious that you've retreated to the D&D mod mainstay of forumbanning when you're losing the argument
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
cspam should be allowed to quote d&d posts cuz it's like the big piles of rotting trash bags on the sidewalk in nyc which are an important part of the vibe (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 05:46
|
|
|
Feedback thread goin' well!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
I think its quite illustrative of the problems with the forum at large actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
I don't think it's possible for rules meant to curtail trolling or deceit to require an objective view into the speaker's heart of hearts. I also don't think they can meaningfully exist if they are automatically bypassed by a doe-eyed assertion of innocent sincerity. It's as absurd as the "It's only bribery if the quid-pro-quo was in writing AND if the exchange involved cloth sacks with dollar signs printed on them" joke. Rules meant to curtail bad faith actors by nature have to have some level of "reasonable person" standard and thus will involve judgement calls of what is reasonable. Within that context, I think D&D's current moderation definitely isn't on the strict side. You've gotta lay out a lot of rope a lot of times before Koos hangs you with it and even small apologies seem to go a long way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 06:36
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Rules meant to curtail bad faith actors by nature have to have some level of "reasonable person" standard and thus will involve judgement calls of what is reasonable. lol wait yeah, when you put it that way, this is a bit of a trip because there is an outermost barrier of how far you can really actually push cynical potshots and leading questions under the cover of "this isn't trolling because I am genuine and sincere and I am intent on Unstifling the Discussion" (or some variety of the same) and boy howdy in the past it sure took serious work, just like months and months of dragging poo poo on, to even get to
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 06:43
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:They've been sincere the whole time and it's hilarious that you've retreated to the D&D mod mainstay of forumbanning when you're losing the argument To be fair, "If you don't admit that I'm right then I'm going to ban you for trolling" is pretty accurate in terms of what the most vocal D&D posters actually want, which has always been the biggest problem over the years. And there's no real way to satisfy that because there are too many "normal" posters who just want to keep up on current events and shoot the poo poo with each other a little bit without basing all of their self worth on how many internet arguments they think they've won, and enough of them would be put off posting here if D&D became the echo chamber that most of the "I demand the rules be enforced with an iron fist" posters actually want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 06:44
|
|
|
Seems like a reasonable description of the status quo would be that acceptable posting practice in D&D is enforced by the moderators, whereas acceptable posting practice in CSPAM is enforced by the posters. I think if you accept that status quo, the moderation of both forums is working as intended, and both sides are doing a pretty good job of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 08:02
|
|
|
the_steve posted:To be fair, "If you don't admit that I'm right then I'm going to ban you for trolling" is pretty accurate in terms of what the most vocal D&D posters actually want, which has always been the biggest problem over the years. The following might be considered as grudge-posting but I think it's topical for this thread, especially given the current topic and your post above in particular: I'm genuinely confused why you have been posting in D&D for years and continue to, considering you hold this subforum and its regulars (and mods) in such deep contempt: the_steve posted:That's the thing, they don't want to debate. They don't want their views to be challenged or scrutinized. They're perfectly happy with sticking to D&D where their enemies can be probed for disagreeing with them too hard. The ironic thing about the above bit is that you were actually an IK of USPOL at some point (as laughable as that is) and you used to do the exact type of poo poo that you're now "braying about", in your own words. You weren't quite as blatant and shameless about your abuse of your position as your fellow then-IK Majorian was (who was actually dumb enough to get caught openly taking orders/direction from the freaks over in succzone about which D&D poster to probate next), but it was very obvious to anyone who was actually watching that you would constantly give sixers to whoever dared disagree with him even slightly, and he did the same for you. So it is quite rich that you are now flinging these accusations and criticisms at the current cohort of mods and posters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
Stringent posted:Seems like a reasonable description of the status quo would be that acceptable posting practice in D&D is enforced by the moderators, whereas acceptable posting practice in CSPAM is enforced by the posters. That sounds about as meaningful as "The UK has subjects, America has citizens.  " Both forums have acceptable posting guidelines defined by policy both as written and as enforced, however much they differ or how an individual feels they should differ. Both are informed by what the posters will accept without leaving, and enforced enough that a lot of people have been shown the door with and without community consensus as a driving force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
Feedback UKMT is one of the best threads on this forum. Thank you for not fully bending it to D&D rules and allowing it to continue as it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 10:43
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Election Season Election quarantine + slow mode could be another option. Tai posted:Feedback
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 12:20
|
|
|
That forumban was just a one-off, we really do want your honest feedback here. *Cocks pistol*
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
Throwing my 2 cents, D&D is kind of meh. I guess it's better than in the past few years but I find it rather hostile and unproductive. It's quite clear that there is a large of group of folks that don't want things debated but only discussed with a fixed narrative. Sometimes even that discussion can be quite good but anyone with other perspectives aren't remotely welcome which is a problem. There's also a very real issue with harassment generated from CSPAM attacking specific posters they don't like and along with off-site social media encouraging it even further to the point where they are literally trying to get admins fired.  It's dumb and bad even for comedy site. Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Tai posted:Feedback we're number 1, yeah! Gucci Loafers posted:There's also a very real issue with harassment generated from CSPAM attacking specific posters they don't like and along with off-site social media encouraging it even further to the point where they are literally trying to get admins fired. how many secret discord are there and why can't i get an invite!? i post both places World Famous W fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Forumban the United States next, Koos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:The following might be considered as grudge-posting but I think it's topical for this thread, especially given the current topic and your post above in particular: I'm genuinely confused why you have been posting in D&D for years and continue to, considering you hold this subforum and its regulars (and mods) in such deep contempt: This does seem like a valid question, there's a whole group of posters that seem to hate D&D with a burning passion but cannot stop posting in and about it for years endlessly. I don't read feedback threads in other forums does Pet Island have a whole barrage of people coming in saying how much they hate it and constantly posting how it needs to be destroyed. Does the CSPAM feedback thread have a bunch of D&D regulars posting it about how much they don't like CSPAM? The whole deal just seems way too online.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
pet island will burn, along with anyone else who claims to love dogs more than I
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
You should leave this feedback thread open permanently and maybe close it every once in a while if it goes off topic. Private messaging a moderator is not a substitute. Many people want to give their feedback in a public forum so others can add on to their feedback and so they know that their feedback is at least being seen by someone. Leaving the thread open through the week is an improvement because many people don't even use the forums on the weekend though. Private messaging is also a premium feature and feedback should not be reserved for only premium users. Having a thread quarterly (was 3rd quarter skipped this year or am I missing it?) has everyone try to get all their opinions out at once which leads to more fighting and less results. Many problems would be solved better if they were dealt with sooner and with the events more recent in everyone's mind. gurragadon fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:You should leave this feedback thread open permanently and maybe close it every once in a while if it goes off topic. Private messaging a moderator is not a substitute. Many people want to give their feedback in a public forum so others can add on to their feedback and so they know that their feedback is at least being seen by someone. Leaving the thread open through the week is an improvement because many people don't even use the forums on the weekend though. Private messaging is also a premium feature and feedback should not be reserved for only premium users. Yeah the problem with PMs is others cannot see the reasoning/ruling behind various things which seems like how lurkers/posters find out about things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
I have some actual feedback to ask about!Thorn Wishes Talon posted:The ironic thing about the above bit is that you were actually an IK of USPOL at some point (as laughable as that is) and you used to do the exact type of poo poo that you're now "braying about", in your own words. You weren't quite as blatant and shameless about your abuse of your position as your fellow then-IK Majorian was (who was actually dumb enough to get caught openly taking orders/direction from the freaks over in succzone about which D&D poster to probate next), but it was very obvious to anyone who was actually watching that you would constantly give sixers to whoever dared disagree with him even slightly, and he did the same for you. So it is quite rich that you are now flinging these accusations and criticisms at the current cohort of mods and posters. I'm in an odd timezone (Japan), so this kind of post always confuses me. When these kinds of posts come up in the off hours when no D&D mods are around, it's easy to see them stay up for hours and assume this is a permitted tone of discourse. Like, without seeing whether this gets probed or not, I feel like I have no compass as to whether or not it's OK to reply in kind. So as actual feedback, could you put out some feelers for some more non-US timezone mods? Asia/ANZAC timezone in particular?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
Didn't even know this thread existed until now when someone mentioned it in the US thread. Glad you kept it open longer than your random unannounced weekend popup format. Feedbacks: 1. The random unannounced weekend popup format for feedback threads is dumb 2. Requiring an assumption of "good faith posting" is dumb, some people are just there to troll and everyone knows it. I don't mean instances where people have dumb opinions they truly believe but instead the ones where they're clearly playing stupid
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
3. Requiring mods to understand what "good faith posting" is versus trolling without posting examples is, "dumb".
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Didn't even know this thread existed until now when someone mentioned it in the US thread. Glad you kept it open longer than your random unannounced weekend popup format. Interestingly, this thread was previously announced in a different subforum for a completely different date, and then this thread was randomly opened this past weekend with no announcement and a very short feedback window: TheDisreputableDog posted:Small question: When will the next carefully-curated and neutered D&D feedback thread be opened for the smallest acceptable time window? Koos Group promised one “soon” in D&D Chat but that was more than a month ago. Koos Group posted:Will do it the weekend after next (the 10th to 12th). So I'll go ahead an chime in to agree that there needs to be more visible, more frequent, and longer periods of feedback for D&D. The current approach to feedback makes it seem like D&D moderators don't want feedback, or that they want feedback in forms that are easily brushed under the rug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
B B posted:So I'll go ahead an chime in to agree that there needs to be more visible, more frequent, and longer periods of feedback for D&D. The current approach to feedback makes it seem like D&D moderators don't want feedback, or that they want feedback in forms that are easily brushed under the rug. I agree. If these threads are going to be open only for the usual couple-few days each, they should be more frequent, at least monthly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
Stringent posted:I have some actual feedback to ask about! I'll defer to Koos about whether he's looking for more mods or TZ coverage, but I will say that this is a pretty blatant case of posting about posters, which is a D&D-wide rule because it just encourages bringing up old drama, as it did here. As far as what is or isn't acceptable, I'd encourage you to read the rules and  rather than relying on whether the person you're replying to has been probated. There is a long delay, even in well-covered timezones, between when a post is made and when (if ever) a report gets acted on. We're all volunteers as mods, and have jobs, friends, family, and weekend plans. Posts will often sit in the queue for hours, and sometimes even a day or two if we all happen to be busier than usual. We're also very reliant on reports, because it's not possible to read every post in every thread, and some threads have posts go unreported even if they're breaking the rules in one way or another.Obviously that's not an ideal situation, and there are IKs who do great work with specific threads and more mods would be great, but I don't think we'll ever be at the point where you should expect that someone you are currently in a discussion with is going to get hit with a probe in the moment. Baronash fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Obviously that's not an ideal situation, and there are IKs who do great work with specific threads and more mods would be great, but I don't think we'll ever be at the point where you should expect that someone you are currently in a discussion with is going to get hit with a probe in the moment. Well, that seems like an action item that could be acted upon?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'll defer to Koos about whether he's looking for more mods or TZ coverage, but I will say that this is a pretty blatant case of posting about posters, which is a D&D-wide rule because it just encourages bringing up old drama, as it did here. I think that's totally fair, for the record, and I promise I won't complain if I'm probated  . The only reason I posted it is because it does, in my opinion, make one question that particular poster's motives (along with the motives of several similar posters): they continue to post in this subforum despite greatly disliking basically everything about it, and then their "feedback" consists of accusing the mods of behaviors that they themselves demonstrated when they had mod powers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
imo forum wars or spite threads or whatever are the dumbest poo poo that only ever end in Helldump garbage and get a lot of people probed and banned. We're all posting on forums.somethingawful.com in the year of our lord 2024. Our collective dead gay glass house is pretty frail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
1. Please don't use the numbers of the rule broken in the rap sheet. I know it takes longer to type out "posting about posters" than Rule $ but it makes the rap sheet clearer to understand. 2. For the love of everything good and holy, ban the topic of generic electorism. If you want to bring it up in the specific context of, say, voting stratigically or not in the House Speaker debate seems reasonable but the endless *days* of rehashing "voting doesn't matter" loving sucks and is boring as hell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I think that's totally fair, for the record, and I promise I won't complain if I'm probated Sufficiently advanced lack of self awareness is indistinguishable from bad faith. The difference is whether they're lying to themselves and working from that premise, or just directly lying to others. I feel like sometimes people get overly fixated on whether a post is sincere rather than whether it's poo poo. If it's impossible to tell whether a person is bullshitting, or if they really do radically change their positions day to day with no reflection, or are just literally incapable of communicating through in any form besides hyperbole and sarcasm, the conclusion is still the same: it's a bad post. The electoralism debate is a great example of this: sincere or not, it's not just the same arguments every time, but pretty much entirely the same people. It's never novel or interesting except to newcomers and actively disrupts other conversations because you have to scroll past so much boring crap that people just check out of the thread for a while. The last iteration in USCE went on for nineteen pages before a mod shut it down. It could have been stopped after two without losing any actual positions. I don't care whether the posters are being sincere. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 17:22
|
|
