|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:the vene thread right now - on the page before last and on the latest page - has a poster applauding the regime arming citizens so they can shoot protesters extrajudicially. regardless of your politics or your opinion on whats going on in the country, maybe it's not a great idea to cheer people being shot in the street. Yeah, you read the “so they can shoot protesters extrajudicially” part into his post.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
oh my god you loving nards stop talking about venezuela. if you want to make a rules suggestion based on what you've seen in the venezuela thread or elsewhere, use generic examples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:oh my god you loving nards stop talking about venezuela. if you want to make a rules suggestion based on what you've seen in the venezuela thread or elsewhere, use generic examples. if someone is just asking questions can we make an Alex Jones rule and pants them
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:I mean it's nice that you've never read this forum before and want to begin posting but...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 06:07
|
|
|
Some suggestions on additions: 1. "Don't attack posters, and don't take posts personally" - Nobody knows anything about you except what you post about yourself, and you don't know anything about anyone else except what they've posted about themselves. 2. Seriously, chill. Sometimes things discussed in D&D are high stakes in the real world. What are definitely not high stakes in any way are forum conversations on Somethingawful.com. Save righteous anger for activism if that's your thing and use the forum for rational and respectful debate. 3. Just because you're really passionate about something doesn't mean you're right, or that anyone else is wrong. If you think someone's wrong then use your words to tell people why instead of snarking. 4. The people disagreeing with you on this forum are almost certainly not literal Nazis. Don't call people Nazis. See rule 1. 5. If your post doesn't add something to the discussion, don't make it. And more things in that direction, I guess. I agree with exmarx that there are several different kinds of discussions that go on here and one set of rules is not going to fit for all of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
The rules shouldn't be used a tool to win internet arguements, would be a good rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
No sealioning
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Argue in good faith and assume others are also arguing in good faith. If they seem to be arguing in bad faith, don't get into an argument about their loving motives, just report them for trolling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
No sarcasm without adding /s at the end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
+SARCASM A /s will be sufficient, because nobody can possibly miss it. -SARCASM
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Ban all of my posting enemies and allow me and all my posting allies to do whatever the gently caress we want! April Fools 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Every other post must also contain a picture of a fat dog or you'll get a sixer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
People are going to have different views in the debate and discussion forum so if someone wants to overthrow a national government, and another person thinks that overthrowing governments is monsterous, a D&D poster will have to find a way to deal with both of those perspectives existing and having presence on a politics sub without melting down about "supporting genocide" or "supporting fascism" or whatever unless those things are very very very very very very very very very specifically being advocated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Some suggestions on additions: I like all of these rules. Yes, even #4. Willie Tomg posted:People are going to have different views in the debate and discussion forum so if someone wants to overthrow a national government, and another person thinks that overthrowing governments is monsterous, a D&D poster will have to find a way to deal with both of those perspectives existing and having presence on a politics sub without melting down about "supporting genocide" or "supporting fascism" or whatever unless those things are very very very very very very very very very specifically being advocated. This too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Some suggestions on additions: these are pretty good EdithUpwards posted:+SARCASM This would definitely break up "terminal irony" posting
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Half of those rules sound like a free pass to use tone arguments against anyone who shows any amount of caring about a topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Half of those rules sound like a free pass to use tone arguments against anyone who shows any amount of caring about a topic. "Hey dude could you keep it chill ITT" is not the same thing as saying "You must be wrong because you sound angry." One is maintaining a certain vibe conducive to discussion and the other is a tone argument. It's ok to expect people to be civil even when they're fired up about something. It's a forum. Folks can take a few minutes to check themselves before hitting the post button.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Half of those rules sound like a free pass to use tone arguments against anyone who shows any amount of caring about a topic. The tone in D&D on current events is typically very bad. Somehow goons get into a tizzy about posting about politics in the same way our relatives on Facebook do, but to even less overall effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
What's wrong with that? Like is there some benefit to discussion being "chill"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What's wrong with that? Like 95% fewer slapfights and dogpiles, and an overall higher level of discussion. edit: Not to mention a forum that is way more readable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
If you're the guy who has to moderate it yes  There's sortof a core issue with present-day political discussions in that we are in a tense time and people are quite justifiably furious. Everyone's keyed up and angry -- again, justifiably. The problem though is that when people are keyed up and tense it's a lot harder to have rational discussions. Because the brain's fight-or-flight response is already keyed up, people tend to assume the worst of whoever they're arguing against, leap to negative conclusions, etc. So trying to run a political discussion forum right now is kinda like trying to have a calm reasoned discussion while on a sinking ship. It's important to stay calm and stay rational because it helps you figure out the right answers, but it's also virtually impossible given the environment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
I'm not sure I agree given that I would suggest that simply shouting people down is expedient and if it is possible to dogpile a position that probably suggests it isn't worth discussing? Like if a whole thread responds by just yelling at someone that's kinda democracy in action? Hieronymous Alloy posted:If you're the guy who has to moderate it yes And in this case I would suggest that if the anger at some positions justified then how does it follow that you shouldn't express it? If a position is urgently reprehensible what is served by affording it equal footing? Do obivously objectionable positions need to be rationally refuted time and time again? That isn't something you can write a rule about, but I would suggest that collective reactions are how you enforce that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not sure I agree given that I would suggest that simply shouting people down is expedient and if it is possible to dogpile a position that probably suggests it isn't worth discussing? Yeah but you're also a terrible poster and part of the problem. ^See, don't do that. If dogpiling and shouting down and general incivility is allowed then eventually (like, much of D&D right now is already like this) it's going to crowd out anything else because people are absolutely not willing to be or maybe capable of being judiciously uncivil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:People are going to have different views in the debate and discussion forum so if someone wants to overthrow a national government, and another person thinks that overthrowing governments is monsterous, a D&D poster will have to find a way to deal with both of those perspectives existing and having presence on a politics sub without melting down about "supporting genocide" or "supporting fascism" or whatever unless those things are very very very very very very very very very specifically being advocated. Yeah this is a really good point. The community here does range widely. Performative outrage is not helpful and it's done intentionally to shut down conversations. But we should also should still be allowed to really be angry , even furiously angry at each other. Anger each other means we give a poo poo about the conversation. I feel like there is a lot of "I disagree so I'm reporting this post" going on. Is there a way to discourage that with a rule?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
I can't say I've ever found a DnD thread that was made worse by people being angry about the subject matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Maybe formalize a Thunderdome rule set and let OPs and mods more frequently pick to make their thread a Thunderdome, where the topic is narrowed and rules are strict in anticipation of aggressive posting on a hot button topic. That lets other threads take on the chat/current events feel. Like: Thunderdome Climate: Can we do anything? might let the other climate thread become more casual. Same for other hot button topics. I think the 2020 thread is a current working example of a much improved thread for an insanely hot topic. Obviously it’s still a report generator and a shitstorm, but it is a contained, readable, and engaged shitstorm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Performative outrage is not helpful and it's done intentionally to shut down conversations. You're assuming it's "performative" which is kind of a gross assumption to make. Like we're treading dangerously close to accusations of virtue signalling here. eta: Seriously imagine half of these rules being used to ban KM because she snipes back at someone who says something incredibly racist WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Apr 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yeah this is a really good point. The community here does range widely. Performative outrage is not helpful and it's done intentionally to shut down conversations. But we should also should still be allowed to really be angry , even furiously angry at each other. Anger each other means we give a poo poo about the conversation. I feel like there is a lot of "I disagree so I'm reporting this post" going on. Is there a way to discourage that with a rule? If we were talking in a bar or something we would all understand how this should work right away. It's ok to be invested in the conversation but when you start being the loud person who can't control themselves you get asked to leave because you still have to be appropriate no matter how much you care.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If we were talking in a bar or something we would all understand how this should work right away. It's ok to be invested in the conversation but when you start being the loud person who can't control themselves you get asked to leave because you still have to be appropriate no matter how much you care. The bar metaphor doesn’t really work because in a bar when you learn your friends are rabidly in disagreement over Israel you change the topic. Like if they’re using insults or all caps, the rules already cover punishing them, right? Like what’s the behavior that needs specific new rules?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
A forum is not a bar, though. You can't actually be loud on a forum unless you post in a larger font size. Necessarily the distinction is content, and if I, say, entirely unironically think the world would be 100% better if everyone with more than a million dollars in the bank exploded, I can express that either crudely or wordily, but the actual sentiment is the same. And on the subject of wealth inequality that's going to be my position so either I say that or it's impossible for me to argue in good faith. So are you suggesting moderating content you consider extreme or... what? It's a fairly extreme position and doubtless there are people who think exactly the opposite of that, and if we're both arguing in the same place then that's gonna be a pretty difficult discussion to keep civil? We are diametrically opposed on issues of literal life and death, how is that sort of discussion supposed to go?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You're assuming it's "performative" which is kind of a gross assumption to make. Like we're treading dangerously close to accusations of virtue signalling here. Most of the time it's real. And I'd prefer we continue to be allowed to be spitting mad at each other. It's one of the main reasons I like this place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Same, honestly. I don't think anyone's ever been mad at me insincerely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Most of the time it's real. And I'd prefer we continue to be allowed to be spitting mad at each other. It's one of the main reasons I like this place. We agree, I think a bit of anger and vulgarity is the reason we are all still on Something Awful to begin with, so this idea that all discussion must be beep-boop perfectly rational and not at all heated seems like it would change the discourse for the worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
WampaLord and Wateroverfire, maybe I can clarify some more. What I'm trying to say is: I occasionally have reply to posts the next day, because I've been made that angry here. I want to continue to be able to be made that angry here. That's worth protecting. The meta gaming of conversations threatens the ability of the forum to be able to tolerate that. Edit: I also don't know what the solution to this is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
And I again take the position that if a thread dogpiles a position that clearly indicates that the position is not appropriate for the discussion context of the thread. Working as intended, surely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
GBS posters only count for 3/5ths of a real poster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
I think in general, intent based rules are insanely hard to enforce. For enforcing day-to-day rules, they should be behavior based not intent based. Of course mods can drop the hammer on the real shitheads once they make their intent clear, but I think they already do that pretty well. E.g. How many avowed racists do we have left?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And I again take the position that if a thread dogpiles a position that clearly indicates that the position is not appropriate for the discussion context of the thread. Working as intended, surely? I always assumed dogpiling was posts like “owned” or “get out we hate you” rather than 10 people replying on-topic to a post. But yeah, on topic substantive replies should be allowed, even if someone already replied to the post before you did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
I mean if the entire thread tells you to  I feel like it should be assumed there is a reason and that it doesn't need articulating for the majority of the participants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean if the entire thread tells you to Yeah I disagree here. Posting isn’t a democracy, if they’re not breaking the rules, ignore them or don’t but why should they stop posting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2019 21:30
|
|