|
Somfin posted:You keep using this phrase- what do you mean when you say it? Well, I mean the basic dictionary definition: "convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic" But I think you're asking how I think it's manifest in D&D (not trying to be glib in saying that). I think the post I was replying to is a timely example -- my disagreement with Dixon Chisholm about the purpose of a debate forum apparently means that I'm insulated from the pains of US politics and have a desire to defend the status quo of American politics. I don't even really disagree with the underlying sentiment in their post, but they're so convinced of their viewpoint that it's apparently not I'm actually going to quote one of your posts from the GE thread (snipped but with link to full post), NOT as an example of self-righteousness, I thought this was an excellent post fwiw Somfin posted:If you believe, truly believe, that progressive causes are the right way forward, then you should not want conservatives to have any power, and you should want your representatives, who should hold the same views as you do, to fight cracking tooth and bloody, splintering nail against everything but your progressive causes, and should want them to be willing to do whatever they can physically- not legally, but physically- do to further those causes. You should want a 100% progressive everything made up exclusively of people who agree with you on all issues, because you should believe that they are the right way forward and anything else, any half measure or misstep or withdrawn attempt, is a failure and a compromise with your burning vision of how things should be. I feel like a lot of the self righteousness I see is when this mindset, which makes a lot of sense to me in the context of (US) politics, is applied to posting in D&D. I.e. we can excuse posting skullduggery so long as it's supporting progressive viewpoints. I know it's a cliché but posting isn't praxis and treating it as such undermines clarity of thought/argument.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. What about these probations do you disagree with specifically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
For one thing I think that perhaps people who have been forumbanned should perhaps be able to discuss the moderation of the forum given that, y'know, it affects them? I also don't really appreciate posts being just removed by moderators.Sharks Eat Bear posted:we can excuse posting skullduggery so long as it's supporting progressive viewpoints. I would call that "paying attention to the substance of the argument rather than the tone" OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
On the one hand, I think transparency is important and I’m interested in finding ways to have truly community-led forums instead of the arbitrary hierarchy that has typified them for most of internet history. And a forum populated by increasingly middle-aged professionals and busybodies with long posting careers should be able to do that without acting like the kids we were when the culture of most of the pre-social web was developed. On the other hand, I find taking this all so seriously very tiresome, and just broadly agree with MSDOS and other “mod minimalism” voices here. By this point, all of the participants in this conversation are everyday posters—let’s not forget that when these feedback threads were fresh, a lot of lurkers and occasional posters greeted the idea of serious problems with a shrug. I don’t think anything that has happened on D&D is worthy of this much discussion. I’m not going to bother resolving this contradiction! Let people post!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:For one thing I think that perhaps people who have been forumbanned should perhaps be able to discuss the moderation of the forum given that, y'know, it affects them? I also don't really appreciate posts being just removed by moderators. What’s the point of a forum ban if people who are banned still get to post as though they’re doing it in good faith? Why couldn’t they behave themselves before?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:What’s the point of a forum ban if people who are banned still get to post as though they’re doing it in good faith? Why couldn’t they behave themselves before? I am suggesting that at the very least the feedback thread should be exempt? Like who has more need to discuss the moderation than the people most subject to it? If you just don't want people to exist where you can see them at all then just perma them and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. i'm still trying to figure out how discussing the moderating team is expressly verboten in the moderation feedback thread as well as who exactly is the audience for it
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:For one thing I think that perhaps people who have been forumbanned should perhaps be able to discuss the moderation of the forum given that, y'know, it affects them? I also don't really appreciate posts being just removed by moderators. The only post that's been removed by mods is the one where somebody leaked part of somebody's real-life info. I don't think it was an intentional doxxing or it'd have been a lot more than a sixer, but it was still sensitive enough to cause concern that the image shouldn't have been left up!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
If anyone is wondering what this thread is for, I'd encourage you to review the OP. But if people have flat-out forgotten the subject of the thread, then I think it's pretty much run its course by now. Get your last words in (preferably without attacking each other or violating anyone's privacy), as I'll be closing it sometime soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Makes sense, Are we going to see the proposals or final decisions per Fos's earlier note?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
All I can say is I am pleased to see that the current moderation team is keeping up the traditions of the site.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
Sharks Eat Bear posted:Well, I mean the basic dictionary definition: "convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic" Cheers for engaging with this honestly. I'm glad some folks take short questions as actual questions rather than cover for some sort of snidely whiplash rhetorical trap, and I see where you're coming from now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
“Calling out specific people in threads is never appropriate” would be a great message to deliver to new IKs as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
Somfin posted: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. When someone has gotten banned from the entire subforum, it is probably long past the "allow them to gently caress up and learn" phase. It's into the territory of "this person's contributions are a drain on our limited resources and consistently make things here more ridiculous and bad, and they don't get better, so they basically have to go" – a situation I think has started to get recognized has happened enough that this is probably destined to be practice, and after it becomes commonplace the new concern is about its potential overuse or targeted clique sterilization. Despite potential problems, I think it's overdue – there's weird edge cases which are hard to work around like when someone's just weird anyplace rather than just in a certain subforum but there's always examples I keep thinking of like "man, Fishmech shoulda never needed the ftp porn thing to finally get it" I think they can get more compatible on their own time if they want or are able, then petition for re-entry, I just care about designing the practice to nullify any real benefit to be gained from the banned user pseudoflouncing – dropping hot turds after being removed
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If anyone is wondering what this thread is for, I'd encourage you to review the OP. But if people have flat-out forgotten the subject of the thread, then I think it's pretty much run its course by now. Get your last words in (preferably without attacking each other or violating anyone's privacy), as I'll be closing it sometime soon. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
You can buy a ramp that helps your dog get on the bed if it's getting old or has bad hips. 🐕
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:For one thing I think that perhaps people who have been forumbanned should perhaps be able to discuss the moderation of the forum given that, y'know, it affects them? I also don't really appreciate posts being just removed by moderators. the one I edited was an improperly cropped google hangouts chat, revealing part of the (possible) RL name of either the poster or someone he was talking to, and labeled as such efb edit: oh if you mean the "remove the offending posts of someone forumbanned", I agree, that's a bit much unless they're already so objectively bad it shouod be done anyway (goatse etc) Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
E: thread's closing, not worth it
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If anyone is wondering what this thread is for, I'd encourage you to review the OP. But if people have flat-out forgotten the subject of the thread, then I think it's pretty much run its course by now. Get your last words in (preferably without attacking each other or violating anyone's privacy), as I'll be closing it sometime soon. "Your suggestions have been taken on board. They will be thrown over the side once we leave harbour"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Thanks to everyone who provided valuable feedback for the first 14 pages of this thread and the people in the last 2 pages who demonstrated exactly why we're not going to have a general feedback thread or public referendums on posters. We're going to endeavour to ramp consistently and fairly against consistent offenders, documenting repeated offenses and warnings in probation reasons before giving long probations or thread/subforum bans. We want to keep posters in D&D and acknowledge that sometimes people are going to get out of line, and we have no intention of mindlessly enforcing ramps against people who are probated infrequently. In a few weeks, once things have calmed down from the election, we'll have another thread like this on another moderation topic tbd. Thanks again to the people who contributed your opinions; they really did help us develop general guidelines for how to improve the subforum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 00:22
|
|
