socialsecurity posted:

Yeah and that's not the worst thing, probes aren't that big of a deal as long as they aren't like months long. Like I got probed yesterday or the day before for continuing a derail and I deserved it and probing me help get the thread back on track.

Discendo Vox posted:

It's sabotage because it is specifically deleterious to a factual, educational, falsifiable discussion, basic good faith discussion, not "philosopher king discourse." Even if we weren't able to identify patterns in those posts themselves as Raenir identified and as I've already articulated, we can still see your rapsheets. We know you are doing this on purpose.

Discendo Vox posted:

It's sabotage because it is specifically deleterious to a factual, educational, falsifiable discussion, basic good faith discussion, not "philosopher king discourse." Even if we weren't able to identify patterns in those posts themselves as Raenir identified and as I've already articulated, we can still see your rapsheets. We know you are doing this on purpose.

Discendo Vox posted:

Conversely, for the users who are breaking the rules deliberately to sabotage discussion or harass other users (like B B as mentioned earlier), short probations are explicitly not a disincentive because their goals are still being accomplished.

Discendo Vox posted:

As you can already see I am responding to and agreeing wuth extensively documented examples from Raenir Salazar. Also we can all still see y'all's rapsheets. The issue is not disagreement with consensus. The issue is making statements that are designed to sabotage discussion by shifting burdens, rendering falsification impossible, and repeatedly re-raising rebutted claims, actions that violate the rules and are not enforced on.

Discendo Vox posted:

Conversely, for the users who are breaking the rules deliberately to sabotage discussion or harass other users (like B B as mentioned earlier), short probations are explicitly not a disincentive because their goals are still being accomplished.

quote:

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).
…
A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates “evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.

socialsecurity posted:

This is true, some people are obsessive about loving with D&D and 6 hours is not a hurdle to that.

Probably Magic posted:

There's no "evidence" or "facts" supporting this viewpoint. It's not "novel" or "thought-provoking." I can find the same thing on reddit and the MSNBC.com comment section. Weirdly escapes scrutiny.

Valentin posted:

as someone who doesn't know any of the people involved, "WE CAN SEE YOUR RAPSHEETS" is infinitely more deleterious to assumptions of good faith than people posting their opinions repetitively or annoyingly. try blocking or simply ignoring them, if you think conversations involving them repeatedly end in a repetitive derail.

mawarannahr posted:

With this and other posts you are claiming there is a grand conspiracy to sabotage the subforum. I think you are getting a little heavy into the paranoid style:

More often I see you dragging the discussion down or trying to shut it down entirely. You can make interesting and informative posts -- I wish you would write more words about the FDA than chiding people.

Discendo Vox posted:

Also we can all still see y'all's rapsheets. The issue is not disagreement with consensus. The issue is making statements that are designed to sabotage discussion by shifting burdens, rendering falsification impossible, and repeatedly re-raising rebutted claims, actions that violate the rules and are not enforced on.

Discendo Vox posted:

You are misrepresenting my position; there doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy for there to be a group of users who enjoy Sartre's right to play. To wit, I am confident you know that I can't post more words about the FDA without being specifically harassed for doing so.

B B posted:

Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

In other food-related news, there's some more bad news about ultra-processed foods:

Hopefully we can see some more action in the future on the obvious dangers of ultra-processed foods.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

koolkal posted:

It's especially funny because DV has one of the longest rapsheets in D&D, stemming largely from probes IN D&D. If we're using rapsheets as a metric of poster worthiness, DV is one of the worst posters in all of D&D. Perhaps the worst over the past year.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

You have 80+ probations almost all of them for refusing to follow the rules of D&D.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

You have 80+ probations almost all of them for refusing to follow the rules of D&D.

koolkal posted:

It's especially funny because DV has one of the longest rapsheets in D&D, stemming largely from probes IN D&D. If we're using rapsheets as a metric of poster worthiness, DV is one of the worst posters in all of D&D. Perhaps the worst over the past year.

Fister Roboto posted:

You've got a way longer rapsheet for consistently being an abrasive rear end in a top hat than most of the people you're yelling at.

I maintain my position from the last thread that anyone who posts like DV but with a "no joe" tag would have been forum banned long ago.

Probably Magic posted:

What purpose. You have yet to explain this. I can tell you I argue with you not out of some amazing agenda but because you irritate me in a way that reminds me a bit of myself. Do you see how ridiculous this is though? The lengths of this paranoia?

mawarannahr posted:

With this and other posts you are claiming there is a grand conspiracy to sabotage the subforum. I think you are getting a little heavy into the paranoid style:

More often I see you dragging the discussion down or trying to shut it down entirely. You can make interesting and informative posts -- I wish you would write more words about the FDA than chiding people.

Raenir Salazar posted:

I'mma be blunt and say that while DV should've been clearer and said something like "We can tell your intent from looking either at the relevant LC entries on your rapsheet or your past posts on the subject that can be easily searched for." since lots of people can have rapsheets for irrelevant things such as joke probes; this is all not actually engaging with the point, and is deflecting from the substance of the matter at hand; that yes, it is possible to make a reasonable conclusion about someone's intentions, and conclude that the aggregate pattern of posting amounts to bad faith by looking at the history of posting in its proper context. These posts don't respond to this point.

For the lols? Some trolls are more dedicated to their craft and have more free time than others, it isn't complicated.

Valentin posted:

whatever makes this harassment is so Byzantine and tortured I can derive nothing meaningful from either the post or the probation. and again this is better solved by you blocking the poster you say is specifically targeting you, given that this targeting appears to start and end at responding to your posts.

e: like I can't emphasize enough how uninformative this is:

I can't even tell from context, because no one appears to reply to the post. What point is being made here? Sometimes people are lightly antagonistic towards you in easily ignorable ways?

Probably Magic posted:

Trolling isn't "sabotage," Raenir. He's also used the term "abuse" before. These are highly-charged words for at worst can be termed "harassment." This framing, by DV's own metrics, are designed to manipulate the reader. Why does he employ it then?

Raenir Salazar posted:

That DV was harassed in the past isn't in doubt and in context isn't hard to see the ways B B was deliberately trying to push DV's buttons and clearly DV is just using it as a recent example. No one replied because IIRC it got probed surprisingly quickly.

In general this is a good example of the mods doing their job, by correctly identify a attempt in context at bad faith trolling and responding adequately.

Probably Magic posted:

Trolling isn't "sabotage," Raenir. He's also used the term "abuse" before. These are highly-charged words for at worst can be termed "harassment." This framing, by DV's own metrics, are designed to manipulate the reader. Why does he employ it then?

OED def. for troll posted:

To post a deliberately erroneous or antagonistic message on a newsgroup or similar forum with the intention of eliciting a hostile or corrective response. Also transitive: to elicit such a response from (a person); to post messages of this type to (a newsgroup, etc.).

OED def. for sabotage posted:

to ruin, destroy, or disable deliberately and maliciously (frequently by indirect means).

Raenir Salazar posted:

That DV was harassed in the past isn't in doubt and in context isn't hard to see the ways B B was deliberately trying to push DV's buttons and clearly DV is just using it as a recent example. No one replied because IIRC it got probed surprisingly quickly.

Raenir Salazar posted:

Probably Magic posted:

"Teasing someone, much like terrorism, is designed to provoke a response."

Papercut posted:

Valentin posted:

I mean you can see from the rap sheet it got probed two days later. No one replied because it didn't matter, much like a one word dm reading "owned"

Esran posted:

Raenir Salazar posted:

Esran posted:

I have a passing familiarity with Majorian's posting, and I don't consider them to be usually employing the tactics you mention.

I think it is unrealistic to ask for moderators to take post history, and the prior discussion, posts and positions of a poster into account when dishing out probations, especially when the posts you point to as examples are so non-obviously problematic that you have to retreat to "ah, but it's not these posts specifically, you have to consider the posting history" when I ask why you're calling these posts "sealioning" or "just asking questions".

RBA Starblade posted:

Isn't the whole point of ramping probes that they take post history into account?

Esran posted:

Sure, but I would expect the probed post to be problematic.

Which the ones Raenir linked weren't.

I'd like moderators to not probe for completely normal posting, just because someone disagrees with the opinion being expressed or is holding a grudge from earlier.

The dreaded rapsheet should not prevent posters from countering arguments, asking for elaboration or simply disagreeing.

Esran posted:

I have a passing familiarity with Majorian's posting, and I don't consider them to be usually employing the tactics you mention.

I think it is unrealistic to ask for moderators to take post history, and the prior discussion, posts and positions of a poster into account when dishing out probations, especially when the posts you point to as examples are so non-obviously problematic that you have to retreat to "ah, but it's not these posts specifically, you have to consider the posting history" when I ask why you're calling these posts "sealioning" or "just asking questions".

I don't think after such a retreat you can honestly still claim that there's an "obvious undeniable pattern". It reads like you don't like this particular poster, and so when they make these perfectly normal arguments, it's bad faith JAQ'ing off, but if someone else had posted the same thing, it would be fine.

Raenir Salazar posted:

As a quick point I think the clearly delineated rules are a good thing at least from the perspective of helping posters clearly define and give context for when they report a post; so even if on one hand koos you decide that mods should have wider latitude for when to use their buttons, the written rules would still be good to have as more clearly and transparent guidelines for posters in general and to help posters when they communicate with mods.

So putting aside that it wasn't initially reported by anyone who posts in CSPAM, as a follow up to my earlier post I'm going to single you out here as you've specifically have been engaging in a pretty obvious pattern of sealioning. The thing your responding to here in this very post is a pretty good example of the kind of nitpicking you've been doing that seems designed to be a drag on discussion.

In particular posts like this, which are just insincere:

quote:

In short, I consequently don't need to explain Majorian's posts and why they're sea lioning

Raenir Salazar posted:

I'm not sure what you mean by retreat, my point and argument regarding Majorian's, and B B's, and to a lesser extent, Cpt_Obvious's posting still stands exactly as I said them.

You seem to have interpreted my explanation in a way that's at odds with the intention of my original post; I certainly never said "not these posts specifically", if I picked them out, its because they all on some level relevant to the point about there being a pattern, and every single one contributed in their own way, but to point out that they aren't by any means the full story and that the surrounding context is important for evaluating them.

Ultimately there's a few things happening here, (1) that you fundamentally misunderstood the argument and (2) and that your reaction here tells me there's no circumstance where you will, and consequently (3) that your intentions here are to try to muddy the waters by dragging out my post in obnoxious litigation from "what even is the meaning of sea lioning/jaq'ing off/etc" to "I demand you explain in meticulous detail why these posts are relevant, so I can then disagree point by point for every post, in which you then need to explain and refute those points in turn" forever; the irony would be hilarious if weren't so equally sad.

In short, I consequently don't need to explain Majorian's posts and why they're sea lioning, when your posts have subsequently served as a perfect self-describing walking definition of what it is and what the pattern is and why people do it. I couldn't have explained it any better than how you've provided a real in real time demonstration of it, thanks.

socialsecurity posted:

Yeah and that's not the worst thing, probes aren't that big of a deal as long as they aren't like months long. Like I got probed yesterday or the day before for continuing a derail and I deserved it and probing me help get the thread back on track.

Majorian posted:

None of my posts that you quoted are at all controversial.

quote:

There are two problems with throwing around the word "sabotage," as far as I can see: one, it assumes a degree of intentionality and premeditation that probably don't really exist when someone is posting an unpopular opinion among DnD regulars.

Two, there is already a word for that: trolling. Trolls are gonna troll. Probate or ban them when they're not funny or are saying bigoted things or whatever. Calling it sabotage makes you sound deranged because it projects a level of importance onto posting in these forums that, again, does not really exist.

quote:

No, I think you probably should if you're going to make the accusation.

Staluigi posted:

probably good news overall that metacommentary on d&d is getting so dreadfully repetitive or eyes-glazed-over'ing

kinda means there's not a lot of actual ongoing problems

Staluigi posted:

probably good news overall that metacommentary on d&d is getting so dreadfully repetitive or eyes-glazed-over'ing

kinda means there's not a lot of actual ongoing problems