|
enki42 posted:If the entire admin and mod team is collectively against doing what you're saying, you really have two options - accept that nothing is going to change for this particular complaint, and get over it, or accept that nothing is going to change, and whichever place you're posting in might not be the place for you. "Just go form your own community!" is the social form of "just learn to code!" extremely bootstrappy and not offered in good faith, imo. Believe it or not, we criticize not because we hate these forums, but because we like them.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
Also meeting every critique posted in this thread with "well did you PM an admin about it?" if your response to a reply of "yes" is just going to be "well then I guess you're hosed" (even if that is, just pragmatically speaking, correct) seems disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Also meeting every critique posted in this thread with "well did you PM an admin about it?" if your response to a reply of "yes" is just going to be "well then I guess you're hosed" (even if that is, just pragmatically speaking, correct) seems disingenuous. I guess your last course of action in that case is to PM Jeffrey, whom you can think of as the supreme court. If he also disagrees, or ignores you, then I don't know what else you can expect. At the end of the day we cannot all get what we want, and due to the volunteer nature of moderation and forum administration, we have to be okay with the reality that some things may take a long time to resolve or fall through the cracks altogether. These forums, much like our system of government, is about compromise. Some users are okay with this, but it seems others aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
For what it's worth - as the newest IK, I want everyone to know that if you PM me about a problem, you can trust that I will take you seriously (as long as it's not patently ridiculous). If I agree with your complaint, I will do everything I can to see it redressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Also meeting every critique posted in this thread with "well did you PM an admin about it?" if your response to a reply of "yes" is just going to be "well then I guess you're hosed" (even if that is, just pragmatically speaking, correct) seems disingenuous. Public feedback threads are good venues for discussing wide-ranging general issues like "what should the rules be" or "should we implement a ramping policy" or "what kind of criteria should we use when choosing IKs". They are terrible venues for discussing individual posts, individual posters (including IKs or mods), individual probations, or individual PMs. Those are things that should be discussed privately. As far as I'm concerned, that's not up for debate. If there's a specific incident with an IK or mod that you have qualms about, the only way you're going to get that handled is by bringing it directly to someone with the right colored star.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Not singling anyone out here, but the one of the reasons bad mods are always saying take it it PMs, take it to PMs is because it essentially removes the ability for people to compare notes- if you see a mod make a bad decision in one of the threads you read (probing people for some made up thing like 'doomposting, only punishing one side of a valid argument, etc) and PM them about it, they're probably not going to respond with "oh yeah, I've been doing that all over the place". If you bring it up in public, people who don't read that thread are going to see it and can be like yeah, they did the same thing in this thread, what is going on\ Constantly telling people to take it to PMs makes sure that every decision a mod/IK makes is considered in a vacuum, unless you somehow read every single post in the forum
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Marx Was A Lib posted:Actively sowing aggression by "subtweeting" (for lack of a better term) posters that you have no intention of engaging with, and used the forums technology to automate your not engaging is trolling. This is an absurd point of view.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Public feedback threads are good venues for discussing wide-ranging general issues like "what should the rules be" or "should we implement a ramping policy" or "what kind of criteria should we use when choosing IKs". Our policy ideas are informed by individual interactions and experiences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
offsite, this is offsite, it doesn't count because it's on google hangouts mod edit: crop your google hangouts pictures better, or better yet, don't post them (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:This is an absurd point of view. This isn't a very helpful post. If you think someone's point of view is absurd, explain why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Not singling anyone out here, but the one of the reasons bad mods are always saying take it it PMs, take it to PMs is because it essentially removes the ability for people to compare notes- if you see a mod make a bad decision in one of the threads you read (probing people for some made up thing like 'doomposting, only punishing one side of a valid argument, etc) and PM them about it, they're probably not going to respond with "oh yeah, I've been doing that all over the place". If you bring it up in public, people who don't read that thread are going to see it and can be like yeah, they did the same thing in this thread, what is going on\ The lesson I learned recently is that if I have an issue with a mod decision, sending a PM/email to that mod is gonna be a total waste of time. Like you say, they are quite unlikely to admit they made a mistake. So you're better off PM'ing another mod (if it's a minor issue but still one that bothers you) or an admin (if it's a major issue like a pattern of power abuse).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Well the whole point of some people ignoring is that some folks don't want to see constant poo poo posting. It's a safe bet that most of the time when ignored people are being quoted, it's because someone else already quoted them. The person who had them on ignore couldn't help but see it. Responding to someone who you have on ignore who made a shitpost isn't trolling. I don't know why some people expect to be engaged with in an respectful way when they shitpost. If someone I have on ignore makes a post and it's decent, I'll engage, but I'll also read their response. I don't think a lot of folks do it differently. But to call it an act of aggression or trolling? Come on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Is the Serial Ignorer even posting in that thread anymore because it doesn't seem like it. Sure would make this an extra pointless derail if that was the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Well the whole point of some people ignoring is that some folks don't want to see constant poo poo posting. It's a safe bet that most of the time when ignored people are being quoted, it's because someone else already quoted them. The person who had them on ignore couldn't help but see it. and yet, this was the explicit characterization of the poster in question of his behavior, while bragging about how successfully he was winding up the dang libs. it's wild. fortunately paineframe stepped in to assure us that bragging about your epic trolls on the Island for Upset Rape Apologists wasn't something mods should treat seriously. favor to ask while I'm here- can I get my forumban formalized by someone other than paineframe? the mod team -probably- could have dodged some of this mess if you'd had any mod other than him pull the trigger on this one. when captain von "accusing a rape victim of making it up for money is kosher, calling that sickening rape apologia requires immediate probation" proclaims that offending his Posting Sensibilities is now verboten, the response is somewhat predictable. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:Emphasis mine. If the days of "gentlemanly" debate are over, then why bother posting on a debate forum? How do you reconcile this with the first sentences of D&D's rules? quote:The purpose of D&D is educational. Posters are encouraged to ask questions, share knowledge, learn new things, and speculate, discuss, and argue interpretations and ideas. The hope is that participation here will make posters better informed, develop more refined personal ideologies, be better able to argue their positions in real life, and find ways to put their positions into practice with real world activism. It feels like the vision being propagated by some is that D&D should become a mostly unmoderated forum where self-righteous yelling about how anyone who slightly disagrees with you is ghoulish and bloodthirsty is a valid posting style, which I think is orthogonal to D&D's rules as they're currently written, and to the idea of a debate forum in general. I read & post in D&D specifically because I want to avoid the (mostly unmoderated) self-righteous screeching that seems to dominate on Twitter and other discussion forums. That style is a very effective way to drown out people who disagree with you, which maybe is seen as a legitimate goal by those who adopt that style, but it's not educational and it's not persuasive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:Not singling anyone out here, but the one of the reasons bad mods are always saying take it it PMs, take it to PMs is because it essentially removes the ability for people to compare notes- if you see a mod make a bad decision in one of the threads you read (probing people for some made up thing like 'doomposting, only punishing one side of a valid argument, etc) and PM them about it, they're probably not going to respond with "oh yeah, I've been doing that all over the place". If you bring it up in public, people who don't read that thread are going to see it and can be like yeah, they did the same thing in this thread, what is going on\
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:
this mindset really only makes sense when people validate their online aggression by pretending that it has some impact on the world
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:this mindset really only makes sense when people validate their online aggression by pretending that it has some impact on the world Are you hoping for a response to this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:It feels like the vision being propagated by some is that D&D should become a mostly unmoderated forum where self-righteous yelling about how anyone who slightly disagrees with you is ghoulish and bloodthirsty is a valid posting style, which I think is orthogonal to D&D's rules as they're currently written, and to the idea of a debate forum in general. Oh but they've taken that back now I guess so it's fine  Anyway it's not too hard to blunt the impact of this bias a great deal, if you want to, however the mods here mostly don't think it's necessary. They don't think it's necessary because of this idea, as has been expressed by the mods here, that it is their job to guide the culture of the forums. I find that authoritarian, infantilizing, and disgusting. That said while we all will guide the culture of the forum to some degree, and should, the mods will necessarily have an outsized voice in that. Unlike e.g. Main Paineframe and fool of sound, I view that as an unavoidable consequence of the job, to be minimized as much as possible. They view it as a perk. That's quite arrogant, and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Can I advise that if a user is permanently banned across a specific subforum, any post they make in that forum from that point will result in any combination of: 1. The post is removed 2. The post is categorically responded to with a ban Otherwise you will have poo poo like this, where a subforum ban results in "it's almost like a permanent, but I still get to get the word in edgewise whether I think it's worth eating a sixer"
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Can I advise that if a user is permanently banned across a specific subforum, any post they make in that forum from that point will result in any combination of: Yeah I agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:If the days of "gentlemanly" debate are over, then why bother posting on a debate forum? How do you reconcile this with the first sentences of D&D's rules? If you are capable of calmly discussing US politics, you are insulated from the worst of it. As America continues to fall apart, the number of people affected on this forum will only increase. This will make genteel and abstract discussion more and more difficult, replacing civility with raw emotion. At some critical number of posters being savaged by capitalism, civility will go from the norm to an exception. This point is very soon. The screwdriver's slipping right now. The Devil Sphere is closing. How do I reconcile this with the rules? Mu. I reject the question. The rules as written don't change how people are reacting to the world around them. I'm sorry you're seeing more yelling and screeching about bloodlust and ghoulishness. America is a bloodthirsty ghoul of a nation. People are seeing it more and more. You're gonna have a tough time defending it. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Can I advise that if a user is permanently banned across a specific subforum, any post they make in that forum from that point will result in any combination of: A full ban? Not a 12 hr? Not a day? Not 3 days? A full ban? That's too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Public feedback threads are good venues for discussing wide-ranging general issues like "what should the rules be" or "should we implement a ramping policy" or "what kind of criteria should we use when choosing IKs". Why is this not up for debate? Did the debate already occur somewhere? If so, please link the thread in which the debate happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Can I advise that if a user is permanently banned across a specific subforum, any post they make in that forum from that point will result in any combination of: I've already explained my objections to forum bans in general, but if they have to be used it should be like "if you post in this forum we will probate you" not this ridiculous damnatio memoriae
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:That said while we all will guide the culture of the forum to some degree, and should, the mods will necessarily have an outsized voice in that. Unlike e.g. Main Paineframe and fool of sound, I view that as an unavoidable consequence of the job, to be minimized as much as possible. They view it as a perk. That's quite arrogant, and wrong. But I'm not a mod and I don't know the mods' minds. That's just how I see it and I could be wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Kavros posted:Can I advise that if a user is permanently banned across a specific subforum, any post they make in that forum from that point will result in any combination of: enraged_camel posted:Yeah I agree. I'm just gonna cut in here before someone else jumps in with "actually it should be a perma" (for reference to why I worry about this, take a look at the first page of this thread) and suggest that maybe, in the context of a discussion of ramping, that gently ramping punishment might actually be the correct option? After all, subforum bans are explicitly not permanent, they can be rescinded, and some folks need to touch a hot stove once or twice to learn not to. It's explicitly up to the moderation team to decide, and I actually think that these mods and IKs are gonna be okay. You have to have a goal in how you moderate a forum, and I'd like to think that a good debate subforum should be willing to extend a whole hell of a lot of olive branches and allow folks plenty of chances to stop loving things up. So far, that seems to be the team's goal, despite (and possibly because of) the cries for permanent punishment of forum enemies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I'm not a mod, and any mods should feel free to tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking about here, but I feel like you are reading far more deeply into the phrase "guiding the culture of the forums" than they intended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I'm just gonna cut in here before someone else jumps in with "actually it should be a perma" (for reference to why I worry about this, take a look at the first page of this thread) and suggest that maybe, in the context of a discussion of ramping, that gently ramping punishment might actually be the correct option? After all, subforum bans are explicitly not permanent, they can be rescinded, and some folks need to touch a hot stove once or twice to learn not to. It's explicitly up to the moderation team to decide, and I actually think that these mods and IKs are gonna be okay. No because the thread/subforum bans ARE the result of ramping in the first place. It makes no sense to start ramping from the bottom again as they violate those bans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
I think this is something where there doesn't need to be a hard and fast rule, and mods can use context. I think the first time someone posts after a forum ban, particularly in a thread where maybe there might be some uncertainty about whether it counts as participating in the forum can be responded with a 6 hour probe and a "don't do this again". If mods are willing to forum ban someone, I can't imagine they're going to let any posters still sniping and eating 6ers keep doing it for long at all. It's a problem that will solve itself, there's no need for special rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:No because the thread/subforum bans ARE the result of ramping in the first place. It makes no sense to start ramping from the bottom again as they violate those bans. It's not starting at the bottom. The bottom level of punishment isn't 'you get a sixer for any post you make'. On a unrelated note, I think we should threadban people who smear rape accusers. E:or at least be able to heckle them out without getting probed ourselves. Dixon Chisholm fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:No because the thread/subforum bans ARE the result of ramping in the first place. It makes no sense to start ramping from the bottom again as they violate those bans. Yes it does? A forum ban should mean "we will probate you every single time you post in this forum, regardless of content" not "we have decided you must pay to post here" especially when forum bans are a new thing and in theory??? could be overturned Dixon Chisholm posted:On a unrelated note, I think we should threadban who smear rape accusers. Yeah it seems like the regular bans did not have the desired effect
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:If you are capable of calmly discussing US politics, you are insulated from the worst of it. This isn’t true in the slightest. Experiencing trauma does not render someone an irrational mess that does nothing but lash out at others, repeatedly, over long periods of time. Furthermore, it doesn’t mean that anyone who is somehow able to put words and punctuation together in a meaningful way is somehow not suffering either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:No because the thread/subforum bans ARE the result of ramping in the first place. It makes no sense to start ramping from the bottom again as they violate those bans. The "remove the post" part is way past that, though. We don't even do that for banworthy posts, and only sometimes for permaworthy posts. That's messing with history, which is 100% against the entire point of the "heads on spikes, permanent rap sheets, we remember your sins" moderation approach that the forum is based on. If someone's been subforum banned and keeps posting through it, that can easily be ramped higher if it becomes an actual problem, but it's not an actual problem until it is. Crane Fist posted:Yes it does? A forum ban should mean "we will probate you every single time you post in this forum, regardless of content" not "we have decided you must pay to post here" especially when forum bans are a new thing and in theory??? could be overturned Also this, with "probate" possibly swapped out for "punish" to make it more open-ended. It's more "open season on this dipshit" rather than "we kick you out and memory hole your posting." Somfin fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Crane Fist posted:"we have decided you must pay to post here" I'm not sure what you mean here, I don't get the impression that the people who got forum banned would be able to blend in if they re-regged.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:I'm not sure what you mean here, I don't get the impression that the people who got forum banned would be able to blend in if they re-regged. You can pay $10 to get your original account back if you're banned, which was Kavros' proposal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
Dixon Chisholm posted:If you are capable of calmly discussing US politics, you are insulated from the worst of it. As America continues to fall apart, the number of people affected on this forum will only increase. This will make genteel and abstract discussion more and more difficult, replacing civility with raw emotion. At some critical number of posters being savaged by capitalism, civility will go from the norm to an exception. You can build up whatever strawman you want about any poster's insulation from the worst of US politics or desire to defend America, but it's telling that you're unable to address the question of what purpose a debate forum should serve, and how self-righteous yelling & screeching fits into that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:self-righteous You keep using this phrase- what do you mean when you say it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
I am against imposing a ban for threadban/forumban violations for similar reasons to the ones people are enunciating, but I'm agnostic on length of probation for them so for now that'll be
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
I have to say waking up to see a bunch of people being critical of the moderation team eating probations for it in the feedback thread is definitely making me feel inclined to trust the moderation team.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:52
|
|
