Shared your thoughts on D&D - Thank you D&D posters.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Shared your thoughts on D&D - Thank you D&D posters.

«‹›21 »

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

fwiw, the 'marketplace of ideas' is an interesting concept in D&D, inasmuch as its probably better to let posters regulate the marketplace (by ignoring posts, not participating in threads, etc.) than the mods except in the most egregious instances (a literal Nazi goon). i'd rather mods focus more on disruptive behavior independent of ideology than (and we all seem to agree here) hunting down economists and banning them for Wrongthink

thank u for listening, god bless

Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Oct 19, 2020

# ? Oct 19, 2020 01:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 02:28

Unoriginal Name: Aug 1, 2006; by sebmojo

Hold mod elections and hold them to the rules in their decisions.

A mod who can punish at will regardless of any rules regarding discussion will not create an environment other than the one that mod wants. If you want a community based discussion, involve the community in choosing their mods and, ideally, creating the rules.

I would also like to point out that anyone currently probated has no voice in this discussion. And the current mod decisions are obviously problematic or we would not be having this thread.

# ? Oct 19, 2020 01:13

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Athanatos first I'd like to say thank you for making this thread. It's taken me a while to speak up because I wanted to read every post and I've really gotten a lot out of it. Hearing complaints from people I often disagree with (and those I often agree with) has made me think about how I can be more respectful to other posters and make this forum a better place. I'd encourage other people to read it all to, even the slapfights, if you haven't.

I read and post in D&D because it's one of the best places I've found to talk about politics with knowledgeable people who also like to talk politics, and while it's not perfect, I've learned a lot here over the years. I've decided not to bring up any complaints in this post, because while I have them, they've all been brought up by other people who have said them better than I could anyway. But I did want to highlight Cefte's suggestion that IKs and mods should be strongly discouraged against probating people they are directly debating with, because it really stifles discussion if people are worried a mod might punish them if they get mad during a debate. If you're debating someone and they're breaking the rules, take a step back and let another mod look at it and make the decision without the emotional involvement. I get that sometimes that's impractical, if someone's spamming the n-word or something, and needs to be put on a timeout right away. But if it's a judgment call, I think the risk of stifling debate is greater than the possibility that someone might make some questionably bad posts before another mod can look at it.

I would like to talk about some of the things I think are working well.

fool of sound and GreyjoyBastard are doing a great job and I appreciate the respectful way that they mod. If people question a modding decision in a thread, they don't just probe everyone who questions them and tell people to take it to PMs. They often make a thoughtful post addressing the objections and explaining the reasoning behind what they did. Obviously that doesn't mean everyone always agrees, but people objecting at least feel heard and respected and it tends to end derails over mod decisions pretty quickly. I'm not sure if the people who disagree follow up with PMs, but that kind of respectful public answer at least makes me feel like if I wanted to continue in PMs that they wouldn't be ignored. Imo refusing to explain mod decisions to a thread and punishing people for it tends to backfire as other people who would have been satisfied with an explanation start chiming in.

I also wanted to thank Seven Hundred Bee for his D&D reading list challenge. We used to have occasional challenges and games like that in D&D (like the Chuck Asay political cartoon photoshop challenge :love:

), and it's great to see another one. Or, considering the quality of many of the reading assignments, perhaps it's just an underhanded way to punish his posting enemies, but at least it's funny!

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 19, 2020

# ? Oct 19, 2020 01:36

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Athanatos posted:

Open again.

I'll answer anything asked directed at me. I want to layout what I'm working on and what I think will make it work:

1. Add more Mods and IKs. I dont have a number for you...but...a lot? This adds more people who can speak up for others and look into poo poo. This can possibly solve the "I cant talk to XXX Mod." You can go talk to YYY or ZZZ instead.

2. Let/encourage(?) Mods to be stricter with repeated asshats. Someone with a chain of 6ers probably has a bad time getting the clue. Now this comes with a HUGE context matters. Not every 6er is the same and not every long rap sheet is the same. This is where part 1 comes back. With a ton of Mods and IKs to ask and run stuff by, the problem people can be better located and discussed if it's someone who ACTUALLY needs hit/is a problem.

2.5. Reiterate with a lot of repeat words that: The first tool of a mod is to have a discussion. It's not just running in and probing right away and seeing where the chips fall. It's warning if needed, and be willing to have a back and forth too.

3. Tighten up the rules BUT let the Mod team feel free to do what they collectively decide is best for conversation flow. This will matter for those people who skirt the rules in a way that don't break anything, but do nothing but disrupt conversation.

Now, a lot of that is "Let the Mods find what is best" and my HOPE is, that with a huge Mod/IK team that will work. You wont have 1 person running wild because there are 10 other people behind them going "hold on, did you think about it this way"

This is why I've pushed so hard for you folks reading to give me names. People the community picked to watch the community. I think that's the most important part of adding mods.

I don't know. Maybe all that is terrible and wont work. I don't have all the answers, I don't have a playbook to follow. I'm sure I'll gently caress it up just like lots of others, but I'm willing to listen, eat my crow if I need to, and evaluate what I can do to help going forward.

Athanatos, I know I'm an insufferable pedantic rear end in a top hat, but I would genuinely like to thank you for this thread. Things were able to be discussed in a DnD context freely, even if things got spicy for a minute.

All that said, my only request would be to make sure that IK's are only assigned to threads that they participate in regularly. Seriously, who the gently caress wants to IK a thread in which they have no interest? They're going to do a lovely job because they aren't going to care about the thread. They're only going to moderate out of obligation, not because they give a poo poo about the topic and want the actual thread to be interesting and engaging.

# ? Oct 19, 2020 02:33

Lt. Danger: Dec 22, 2006; jolly good chaps we sure showed the hun

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

I just wanted to clarify my previous post, which you cite as saying "mocking bad posts and bad posters is a tradition of the forum".

I didn't have any particular post in mind when I wrote that - I was paraphrasing several posts that ran along those lines. not my intention to single any one post out

uninterrupted's post wasn't an exceptional act of bad, prejudical posting (against economics professors??) but a fairly standard populist/vulgar-leftist argument against neoliberal orthodoxy. even if we run uninterrupted out of town for being aggressive/self-righteous then there will be another goon ready to step in and argue the economics discipline has some unaddressed questions to answer. if we restrict the economics thread to prevent that then I suspect it will be a very quiet thread - there aren't that many experts on the forums and most goon engagement tends to be on the rudimentary level. Oakland Martini's biggest problem isn't threadshitting, it's having to probably carry the entire thread alone

again I'll note we've had historical examples of posters wanting to discuss particular topics in a hostile forum environment. who the posters are doesn't really change anything, the behaviours and outcomes remain the same. dare I say this is the marketplace of ideas in action - unfortunately insults, dogpiling, sniping and withdrawal are valid currency when it comes to social dynamics. mods can't compel positive engagement from posters no matter how many rules they have

# ? Oct 19, 2020 02:46

Athanatos: Jun 7, 2006; Est. 1967

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Athanatos, I know I'm an insufferable pedantic rear end in a top hat, but I would genuinely like to thank you for this thread. Things were able to be discussed in a DnD context freely, even if things got spicy for a minute.

All that said, my only request would be to make sure that IK's are only assigned to threads that they participate in regularly. Seriously, who the gently caress wants to IK a thread in which they have no interest? They're going to do a lovely job because they aren't going to care about the thread. They're only going to moderate out of obligation, not because they give a poo poo about the topic and want the actual thread to be interesting and engaging.

D&D is a large place with tons of different threads. Just because someone doesn't have posts in a thread doesn't mean they don't read it. (My millions of read threads in Games tells me that)

Unless I end up adding 1000 IKs, the are always going to be some threads that the Mod crew dont read. (Some threads run 100% fine on their own without some stinky mod!)

I am going to do my damned best to add people who cover a lot, and just because I add some now, doesn't stop me from adding some later if I missed gaps. This is just step one.

I agree with your point though. That's why I'm 100% committed to finding mods FROM the forum, not neutral outsiders that has been tossed around a few times.

# ? Oct 19, 2020 04:12

Spacewolf: May 19, 2014

One concern I have. A lot of non-US politics threads post often, sometimes for a good long while, in the language of the place, a brief skimming tells me (I'm not reading thousands of posts to check).

I don't think that's a bad thing, but it does seem, to me, to make it difficult if not impossible to mod? Like, unless you are really fluent in Mandarin, or Japanese, or French, or Finnish (or whatever language), how can you even be sure you're reading things correctly?

# ? Oct 19, 2020 19:05

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Athanatos posted:

D&D is a large place with tons of different threads. Just because someone doesn't have posts in a thread doesn't mean they don't read it. (My millions of read threads in Games tells me that)

Unless I end up adding 1000 IKs, the are always going to be some threads that the Mod crew dont read. (Some threads run 100% fine on their own without some stinky mod!)

I am going to do my damned best to add people who cover a lot, and just because I add some now, doesn't stop me from adding some later if I missed gaps. This is just step one.

I agree with your point though. That's why I'm 100% committed to finding mods FROM the forum, not neutral outsiders that has been tossed around a few times.

I appreciate the response.

I just wanted to point out that if a thread does require IK moderation then it probably has a large enough viewership pool to find a regular reader to keep the train on the tracks, so to speak.

It's very frustrating to watch threads with chronic issues going unaddressed because a solution requires significant context that only regular participation can provide. I guess lurking is fine, but it feels important to know a specific mod's relationship with the thread if they are going to be handling the keys.

# ? Oct 19, 2020 20:55

Athanatos: Jun 7, 2006; Est. 1967

Spacewolf posted:

One concern I have. A lot of non-US politics threads post often, sometimes for a good long while, in the language of the place, a brief skimming tells me (I'm not reading thousands of posts to check).

I don't think that's a bad thing, but it does seem, to me, to make it difficult if not impossible to mod? Like, unless you are really fluent in Mandarin, or Japanese, or French, or Finnish (or whatever language), how can you even be sure you're reading things correctly?

The best case in this case is we ask. We the reporter, ask posters I recognize. There isn't ever going to be a great way to do it unless we add an IK for each one. If they need one that's a possibility, but I've not heard anything negative from them before, they seem to be doing ok with me sticking my nose in.

# ? Oct 19, 2020 21:02

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

Spacewolf posted:

One concern I have. A lot of non-US politics threads post often, sometimes for a good long while, in the language of the place, a brief skimming tells me (I'm not reading thousands of posts to check).

I don't think that's a bad thing, but it does seem, to me, to make it difficult if not impossible to mod? Like, unless you are really fluent in Mandarin, or Japanese, or French, or Finnish (or whatever language), how can you even be sure you're reading things correctly?

We picked up a FinPol IK for that very reason, and I'm pretty sure Nenonen is the best IK in history cause we've had zero reports or PMs from the thread since they took it over. If any thread for non-US/Canadian politics wants an IK, just let us know and we'll do our best to get you one.

Generally though, only the EUpol thread every really has any issues, and it's still predominantly in English and I don't recall being asked to adjudicate on any non-English posts.

# ? Oct 19, 2020 22:03

RBA Starblade: Apr 28, 2008; Going Home.

Games Idiot Court Jester

Considering the current state of discourse around the US General Election, what's the plan for November 3 and onward?

# ? Oct 19, 2020 22:48

skeleton warrior: Nov 12, 2016

If it involves being sober, then truly the mods have the greatest burden of all.

# ? Oct 19, 2020 23:44

World Famous W: May 25, 2007; BAAAAAAAAAAAA

Burn the subforum to the ground as sacrifice is what I assume the post-election plans are

# ? Oct 19, 2020 23:55

Sharks Eat Bear: Dec 25, 2004

OwlFancier posted:

Depends on what they post, as a cop they are more likely to have mega lovely opinions about a lot of things and they might realistically annoy a lot of posters directly by posting their mega lovely opinions.

If the cop somehow doesn't believe any of the things you would expect a cop to believe and just... somehow happens to be one with the plan of leaving, then their being a cop isn't super relevant. Though if they wanted to post about horrible poo poo they did they should probably preface it with a disclaimer because otherwise that's likely to annoy people too.

Which I think feeds back into the earlier discussion, you have to rightly recognize that "I am a cop" is like, a mark against you, personally? And you have to work to make up for that if you're gonna lead with it. It might be possible for you to do that, but it's still something you have to do and I don't really think it's something you can prevent people from taking issue with if you don't put that extra effort in.

Yeah I'm on board with all this, and choosing cop as my hypothetical was probably a poor choice because it does require inventing a somewhat outlandish scenario under which we as a community might be amenable to hearing a cop's opinions.

But maybe in that sense it's the exception that proves the rule, so to speak -- I'm hard pressed to think of many other professions that would be as universally reviled and excluded here as cop, and for the sake of diversity I think it's in D&D's best interest to avoid taking an exclusionary approach as much as possible, so long as the posters aren't making bad posts. We may never have a perfect unassailable set of rules and criteria for determining good vs. bad posts, but it's pretty clear that "posting while being an econ professor" alone is insufficient for being a bad post.

Lt. Danger posted:

I didn't have any particular post in mind when I wrote that - I was paraphrasing several posts that ran along those lines. not my intention to single any one post out

Fair enough, apologies if I came across as defensive

quote:

uninterrupted's post wasn't an exceptional act of bad, prejudical posting (against economics professors??) but a fairly standard populist/vulgar-leftist argument against neoliberal orthodoxy. even if we run uninterrupted out of town for being aggressive/self-righteous then there will be another goon ready to step in and argue the economics discipline has some unaddressed questions to answer. if we restrict the economics thread to prevent that then I suspect it will be a very quiet thread - there aren't that many experts on the forums and most goon engagement tends to be on the rudimentary level. Oakland Martini's biggest problem isn't threadshitting, it's having to probably carry the entire thread alone

I think the problem is that uninterrupted and a handful of posters agreeing with them didn't argue about the unaddressed questions of econ, or anything even close to that. "Your profession is bunk, no better than a homeopath or cop, and I know you'll be incapable of posting about anything but subjugating the working class, so don't even bother posting at all".

I hesitate to bring up informal fallacies because it's kind of a clich� in internet debates, but this is a classic, glaringly obvious example of an ad hominem fallacy, and specifically of poisoning the well. I suspect that the standard leftist argument against neoliberal orthodoxy is actually directed at the field of economics in general, and I'm sure this forum would love to hear it and... debate and discuss it... I know I would!

But instead of actually getting a leftist argument, we got a fallacy, and maybe even more importantly, we got to see it play out in front of our eyes that the fallacy was automatically embraced by numerous posters due to ideological biases. IMO that's kind of antithetical to the idea of a debate forum in general, and specifically to D&D's stated purpose in the rules thread

And fwiw, I agree that uninterrupted's post and the aftermath wasn't necessarily exceptional, but rather that it was a poignant manifestation of one of D&D's main issues that I and others have complained about in this thread

quote:

again I'll note we've had historical examples of posters wanting to discuss particular topics in a hostile forum environment. who the posters are doesn't really change anything, the behaviours and outcomes remain the same. dare I say this is the marketplace of ideas in action - unfortunately insults, dogpiling, sniping and withdrawal are valid currency when it comes to social dynamics. mods can't compel positive engagement from posters no matter how many rules they have

I'm not sure I'm following this, so apologies if I'm missing the point -- but I'd argue that warnings & probes are pretty clear ways that mods can attempt to compel positive engagement, with bans being a last resort if there isn't an improvement? I think what I and others have advocated for is more willingness to use this last resort option when posters habitually display the type of bad posting that undermines the stated purpose of D&D (i.e. fallacious arguments, personal attacks, treating contentious assumptions as established facts, etc.)

# ? Oct 20, 2020 00:34

Crumbskull: Sep 13, 2005; The worker and the soil

Its also worth noting that when you say 'I actually study organizational development and...' then someone responds 'Org Dev is a fake idea for morons who do doo-doo in their diaper and then wear the diaper on their head and the doo-doo gets on in their hair but they like it actually'. The organizational development specialist can probably actually just disregard the post and not respond to that poster. Put another way, if you want to talk about specific applications of a field of knowledge in an appropriate threD you are not under any obligation to respond to people who want to problematize the entire topic of the thread in general.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 00:46

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Crumbskull posted:

Its also worth noting that when you say 'I actually study organizational development and...' then someone responds 'Org Dev is a fake idea for morons who do doo-doo in their diaper and then wear the diaper on their head and the doo-doo gets on in their hair but they like it actually'. The organizational development specialist can probably actually just disregard the post and not respond to that poster. Put another way, if you want to talk about specific applications of a field of knowledge in an appropriate threD you are not under any obligation to respond to people who want to problematize the entire topic of the thread in general.

That's entirely true, but the conversation was more about how a lot of people will just not bother to post when a lot of replies are "doo doo in their diaper" style of response, because it's the sign of a lovely forum culture and people don't have endless amounts of energy.

Like yeah you can ignore agro shitposters and you can also ignore transphobic posters and nazi posters.

But should we do something about them? Are they an issue in this forum?

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:08

Rappaport: Oct 2, 2013

fool of sound posted:

We picked up a FinPol IK for that very reason, and I'm pretty sure Nenonen is the best IK in history cause we've had zero reports or PMs from the thread since they took it over. If any thread for non-US/Canadian politics wants an IK, just let us know and we'll do our best to get you one.

Generally though, only the EUpol thread every really has any issues, and it's still predominantly in English and I don't recall being asked to adjudicate on any non-English posts.

For what it's worth, as a Finnish poster, Nenonen has been a good IK and the poo poo-posting in our little thread hasn't suffered at all as a consequence.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:11

Crumbskull: Sep 13, 2005; The worker and the soil

Jaxyon posted:

That's entirely true, but the conversation was more about how a lot of people will just not bother to post when a lot of replies are "doo doo in their diaper" style of response, because it's the sign of a lovely forum culture and people don't have endless amounts of energy.

Like yeah you can ignore agro shitposters and you can also ignore transphobic posters and nazi posters.

But should we do something about them? Are they an issue in this forum?

Personally I think that five to seven people responding 'Economics is a fake idea, collaborator.' once at the top of a discussion is more or less unavoidable in some instances and is probably not ruinous as long as the economist doesn't engage and the posters don't continue to contentlessly hound them. Speaking from my own perspective, a six hour probe is not enough of a stick to prevent me from emotionally making that post in cases where I believe someone has posted something fundamentally objectionable. But then, well, look at my avatar I guess.

To be clear, the second time someone says 'Economics is phreneology lol' they should be probed and the third time threadbanned, if they are only serving to grind all discussion to a halt by insisisting on challenging first principles rudely and without elaboration.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:23

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Crumbskull posted:

Personally I think that five to seven people responding 'Economics is a fake idea, collaborator.' once at the top of a discussion is more or less unavoidable in some instances and is probably not ruinous as long as the economist doesn't engage and the posters don't continue to contentlessly hound them. Speaking from my own perspective, a six hour probe is not enough of a stick to prevent me from emotionally making that post in cases where I believe someone has posted something fundamentally objectionable. But then, well, look at my avatar I guess.

To be clear, the second time someone says 'Economics is phreneology lol' they should be probed and the third time threadbanned, if they are only serving to grind all discussion to a halt by insisisting on challenging first principles rudely and without elaboration.

It's not about a specific subject. It's about the type of posting.

I'm even fine with "economics is a fake idea collaborator, here's why [link]"

Contentless shitposts are bad for the forum. And probably drive some good posters off. I stay and argue because it's a problem with my brain, but I think that most folks of a certain maturity level will just stop posting as often, or at all, and those are the people I'd like to hear from more.

And again, I'm talking content rather than tone.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:31

World Famous W: May 25, 2007; BAAAAAAAAAAAA

I've thought on it, and I'm going to post less and less angry. I still feel that anger, mind you, but I'll be less vocal about it to people also stuck in these shifty situations we all share.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:35

Lt. Danger: Dec 22, 2006; jolly good chaps we sure showed the hun

Sharks Eat Bear posted:

I'm not sure I'm following this, so apologies if I'm missing the point -- but I'd argue that warnings & probes are pretty clear ways that mods can attempt to compel positive engagement, with bans being a last resort if there isn't an improvement? I think what I and others have advocated for is more willingness to use this last resort option when posters habitually display the type of bad posting that undermines the stated purpose of D&D (i.e. fallacious arguments, personal attacks, treating contentious assumptions as established facts, etc.)

warnings and probes can only punish negative behaviour. this is important and necessary but it's also only indirectly helpful to encouraging good posts. you could have a forum where everyone follows the rules but every post is inconsequential white noise (not in itself bad, but also not the effortposts, threads of expert knowledge, reasoned debate and argument that we say we want to see here). it's why more mods/IKs, while being useful, won't by themselves make D&D a better forum

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:44

Crumbskull: Sep 13, 2005; The worker and the soil

Jaxyon posted:

It's not about a specific subject. It's about the type of posting.

I'm even fine with "economics is a fake idea collaborator, here's why [link]"

Contentless shitposts are bad for the forum. And probably drive some good posters off. I stay and argue because it's a problem with my brain, but I think that most folks of a certain maturity level will just stop posting as often, or at all, and those are the people I'd like to hear from more.

And again, I'm talking content rather than tone.

I was too, I'm saying I don't think a hard immediate probe on contentless vehement disagreement is necessary. If they keep vehemently disagreeing without content, then they should be removed from the thread and probably more quickly than they currently are. Personally I don't object to the tone of 'Thats a stupid as poo poo thing to think you loving idiot' either as long as it ends there or an actual discussion, that both parties actually want to have, follows it.

I also agree with the poster above and this thread has helped me remember why I've been posting on this board off and on for like eighteen years and wh I should probably stop being such a disruptive prick in threads whose discussion I'm enjoying, even if I happen to disagree with someone. I expect I'm not the only one whose back is up more than usual these days so its nice to be reminded to chill.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:45

BigFactory: Sep 17, 2002

Crumbskull posted:

I was too, I'm saying I don't think a hard immediate probe on contentless vehement disagreement is necessary. If they keep vehemently disagreeing without content, then they should be removed from the thread and probably more quickly than they currently are. Personally I don't object to the tone of 'Thats a stupid as poo poo thing to think you loving idiot' either as long as it ends there or an actual discussion, that both parties actually want to have, follows it.

Is a mod supposed to be counting how many times a particular poster says something purposefully inflammatory though? What happens if saying it the first time doesn�t lead to an actual discussion and just causes a slap fight?

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:52

Epicurius: Apr 10, 2010; College Slice

Crumbskull posted:

Personally I think that five to seven people responding 'Economics is a fake idea, collaborator.' once at the top of a discussion is more or less unavoidable in some instances and is probably not ruinous as long as the economist doesn't engage and the posters don't continue to contentlessly hound them. Speaking from my own perspective, a six hour probe is not enough of a stick to prevent me from emotionally making that post in cases where I believe someone has posted something fundamentally objectionable. But then, well, look at my avatar I guess.

That might be true, but I think expecting people to not engage with shitposts...well, it may happen, but I've seen enough times, both in D&D and elsewhere, that one trolling or insulting post is enough to derail a thread for a while. Beyond that, it's pretty disheartening for an economics professor (for instance) to come into a thread, and the first couple of responses he gets are just people insulting him and what he does for a living.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:52

Seven Hundred Bee: Nov 1, 2006

I think treating contentless white noise shitposts as a matter of course - and arguing that the real responsibility lies with posters not engaging with them - is taking entirely the wrong track on dealing with the problem. Most people don't want to have to wade through a whole bunch of contentless shitposts to post in a thread. That's not to say you shouldn't be allowed to debate the legitimacy or contributions of economics - that is totally fine! - but its not unfair to ask that posts doing so are better than "economists are garbage, first against the wall" in the forum that is ostensibly about debate and discussion.

Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Oct 20, 2020

# ? Oct 20, 2020 01:56

Crumbskull: Sep 13, 2005; The worker and the soil

BigFactory posted:

Is a mod supposed to be counting how many times a particular poster says something purposefully inflammatory though? What happens if saying it the first time doesn�t lead to an actual discussion and just causes a slap fight?

Probe, then threadban if they keep at it. Personally I don't support immediately probing those posts because I think it will contribute to the existing issue with mods making decisions about what is and isn't a permissably low content response due to the obvious wrongheadness of the post they are reacting to along ideological lines without realizing it. So, punish if it continues but allow people the outburst.

EDIT: In response to seven bee: Cards on the table, I'm sympathetic to the kind of disruptive post we are talking about obviously. But mostly because I think they stem from frustration over major epistemological/ideological disagreements that can't really be elaborated on or contested within the medium of a forums thread. If someone says for example 'neoliberalism, which is obviously good, tells us blah blah' and I respond with it 'Lol what no it isn't.' then I do think that the onus is at least in part on us as posters to recognize when engaging is not likely to lead to a fruitful discourse or when we aren't interested in having that kind of top level debate. That would be a good cultural shift for the board, in my opinion. Now, if I keep responding to that persons posts with 'Tell me more Francis Fukuyama' or, perhaps worse, by refusing to entertain what they are talking anout and insisting they debate the merits of neoliberalism as a whole then yeah someone shouks step in.

Crumbskull fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Oct 20, 2020

# ? Oct 20, 2020 02:16

Flying-PCP: Oct 2, 2005

Crumbskull posted:

Personally I think that five to seven people responding 'Economics is a fake idea, collaborator.' once at the top of a discussion is more or less unavoidable in some instances and is probably not ruinous as long as the economist doesn't engage and the posters don't continue to contentlessly hound them. Speaking from my own perspective, a six hour probe is not enough of a stick to prevent me from emotionally making that post in cases where I believe someone has posted something fundamentally objectionable. But then, well, look at my avatar I guess.

To be clear, the second time someone says 'Economics is phreneology lol' they should be probed and the third time threadbanned, if they are only serving to grind all discussion to a halt by insisisting on challenging first principles rudely and without elaboration.

No economics experts will post under these circumstances and you know it. I'm not that concerned about whether people knowledgeable about economics post here or not, but be realistic about the obvious outcome of what you're proposing.

Flying-PCP fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Oct 20, 2020

# ? Oct 20, 2020 02:27

Crumbskull: Sep 13, 2005; The worker and the soil

Flying-PCP posted:

No economics experts will post under these circumstances and you know it.

O.k., so what if someone says 'contemporary macroeconomists in my field say...' and my position is that conttmporary.macroenomics is, by and large, post hoc rationalization for a system of political economy that serves the ruling class by universalising the specific, contingent system they analyze out to immutable laws of exchange. I'm willing to concede that its probably not best for people to be calling eachother dumb fucks (despite being comfortable with that tenor personally) but I still believe that a significant part of the issue is not really in bad posters behaving badly but a side effect of a lack of shared values and beliefs that is basically unavoidable in a forum of this size.

Edit: Coming around on the idea of blanket prohibition on 'oh lmao yr a lawyer of course youd think thay' or else 'only an investment bro would defend this' or whatever posting where people extrapolate from position to identity.

Also, I believe I'm actually proposing something stricter and more actively curtailing these kinds of exchanges than is currently in place, as I am right now able to get away with baiting people non-specifically for holding positions I don't have the energy to interrogate into page long derails all the time, to the detriment of all.

EDIT 2: I feel like I've been slowly but surely making the case that I, personally, shoukd be banned from the sub so I'm going to back out and say 'whatever you fine people think is best suits me just fine' actually.

Crumbskull fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Oct 20, 2020

# ? Oct 20, 2020 02:33

Sharks Eat Bear: Dec 25, 2004

Crumbskull posted:

Edit: Coming around on the idea of blanket prohibition on 'oh lmao yr a lawyer of course youd think thay' or else 'only an investment bro would defend this' or whatever posting where people extrapolate from position to identity.

Also, I believe I'm actually proposing something stricter and more actively curtailing these kinds of exchanges than is currently in place, as I am right now able to get away with baiting people non-specifically for holding positions I don't have the energy to interrogate into page long derails all the time, to the detriment of all.

EDIT 2: I feel like I've been slowly but surely making the case that I, personally, shoukd be banned from the sub so I'm going to back out and say 'whatever you fine people think is best suits me just fine' actually.

This series of edits made me chuckle :cheers:

# ? Oct 20, 2020 03:00

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

We're talking about meeting zero-effort agro shitposts with increasingly harsh punishment but why don't we practice what we preach and put together a restorative justice model?

If you shitpost like that, you are warned, and if you continue, you have to put together a MLA formatted research paper either for or against your position(moderator/IK call on which side you take).

# ? Oct 20, 2020 04:51

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I feel like that is just an overly elaborate way to ban people.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 04:53

Crumbskull: Sep 13, 2005; The worker and the soil

Jaxyon posted:

We're talking about meeting zero-effort agro shitposts with increasingly harsh punishment but why don't we practice what we preach and put together a restorative justice model?

If you shitpost like that, you are warned, and if you continue, you have to put together a MLA formatted research paper either for or against your position(moderator/IK call on which side you take).

This actually wasn't that uncommon on here in the mid oughts.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 04:54

Unoriginal Name: Aug 1, 2006; by sebmojo

Jaxyon posted:

We're talking about meeting zero-effort agro shitposts with increasingly harsh punishment but why don't we practice what we preach and put together a restorative justice model?

If you shitpost like that, you are warned, and if you continue, you have to put together a MLA formatted research paper either for or against your position(moderator/IK call on which side you take).

historically, Thunderdome has been used when someone is just aggro about a position and refuses to actually defend it. put them in a cage match to see how devoted they really are

# ? Oct 20, 2020 04:58

ronya: Nov 8, 2010; I'm the normal one.

You hate ridden fucks will regret your words when you eventually grow up.

Peace.

There is a dedicated space for "D&D, but, like, with fewer rules man" and it's called C-SPAM, so somewhat stricter standards for D&D is not a death knell for :effort:

jeering from the peanut gallery

That being said I still maintain that this strict standard is not consistently enforceable to begin with. It's just too much damned work

# ? Oct 20, 2020 05:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

ronya posted:

There is a dedicated space for "D&D, but, like, with fewer rules man" and it's called C-SPAM, so somewhat stricter standards for D&D is not a death knell for jeering from the peanut gallery

That being said I still maintain that this strict standard is not consistently enforceable to begin with. It's just too much damned work

It becomes less work over time as the shitheads actually start getting perma'd or forumbanned. The "indirect" benefit of removing bad posters creates a space where good posting can actually happen. Norms shift, assholes leave and don't come back, and very slowly ~~nature is healing~~ new people enter the space and flourish under the new standards.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 05:45

Unoriginal Name: Aug 1, 2006; by sebmojo

Discendo Vox posted:

It becomes less work over time as the shitheads actually start getting perma'd or forumbanned. The "indirect" benefit of removing bad posters creates a space where good posting can actually happen. Norms shift, assholes leave and don't come back, and very slowly ~~nature is healing~~ new people enter the space and flourish under the new standards.

"The bannings will continue until morale improves"

# ? Oct 20, 2020 05:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Unoriginal Name posted:

"The bannings will continue until morale improves"

It's not a static population, and the bannings aren't universal.

# ? Oct 20, 2020 06:08

Roland Jones: Aug 18, 2011; by Nyc_Tattoo

I've written out some suggestions and critiques before and had some more I was trying to edit down before posting, but after some recent actions I'm just going to be blunt: This subforum is going to remain terrible as long as MPF and FOS (and probably Helsing too but I barely even see them doing anything) are running it. They are terrible at moderation, they blatantly, explicitly use their moderation power to enforce their personal ideology, and they have been making things worse and worse for months now with every supposed fix. They're not even honest with the rules they make; we're still getting frequent rape apologism regarding Tara Reade, just as bad as the stuff that made them write that "new rule", and it often goes unpunished despite reports or just gets a sixer. Meanwhile, now they're banning people from the whole subforum for making arguments they don't like. If they stay in power, things will never get better. They are the problem with D&D, and trying to talk around or avoid acknowledging that issue just ensures that nothing will actually change.

Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 11:58 on Oct 20, 2020

# ? Oct 20, 2020 11:53

KingNastidon: Jun 25, 2004

What is their personal ideology?

# ? Oct 20, 2020 12:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 02:28

moths: Aug 25, 2004; I would also still appreciate some danger.

A poster posted:

there was a fun game you could play with the trump supporters here, back before they made themselves scarce.
"When the senile segregationist says the things I want him to say, those are holy writ. When he says things I don't want him to say, those are just him trying to appeal to the rubes. He wouldn't lie to me, after all."

"He cares about me."

"Right?"

calling the thing that drives such people hope would be giving it too much dignity. it is a total, feudal abdication of personal moral agency and intellectual honesty. a defense mechanism for someone who has realized they, personally, are totally powerless, but is incapable of reconciling that awareness with the lifetime of children's entertainment that has taught them that if only they believe in their anointed savior hard enough, it'll all turn out fine in the end.

good thing you know you're smarter than them, huh.

after all, you'd -never- vote for someone who said he was going to build a wall to keep the filthy untermenschen out of the country, right

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Moderation posted:

Requested by Main Paineframe
Approved by Fluffdaddy

Consider yourself forum-banned from D&D as of now. We've been telling you for months to knock off the aggressiveness, the dismissiveness, the hostility, the trolling, and so on. Instead, it's gotten worse, to the point where half your posts are incomprehensible garbage because you're just piling layers of sarcasm and irony on top of each other in pursuit of sick burns. Enough is enough. If I see you in D&D again, I'm probing you on sight. User loses posting privileges for 3 days.

This is hugbox escalation. This is, in real time, how a forum goes from open discussion to brokering no dissent.

E: gently caress a slo-mo

An irregular D&D reader, how am I to know that?

I see an impassioned (and valid) take responded to with a semi-perma and a snarky mod comment. The end.

What message does that send?

In this exchange, the mod should have put the poster on Ignore. That's what it's for. But instead they put the poster on everyone's ignore explicitly because it's within their power.

moths fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Oct 20, 2020

# ? Oct 20, 2020 12:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Shared your thoughts on D&D - Thank you D&D posters.

«‹›21 »