|
Deteriorata posted:Ignore lists exist for a reason. No one is obligated to respond to an obvious troll. This is a completely wrongheaded reply. For one, it's genuine conviction. If you genuinely believe that Assad did nothing wrong, that undocumented immigrants are getting what they deserve, or that the US government is illegitimate and must be overthrown by force of arms (which isn't so much an abhorrent view as one just incompatible with posting on a US-based forum), you obviously cannot come out and clearly state your position. There are people who I know for a fact hold at least some of those beliefs posting in this thread right now; it's not a strictly hypothetical concern. For another, we're talking about mods handling the problem of conflicts caused by veiling one's beliefs. You can't expect all of D&D to have a perfectly curated ignore list of "trolls". Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Oct 30, 2021 |
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Yinlock posted:It's more of a disagreement about fighting fire with fire(or rather if playing by the rules is a good idea when your opponent just ignores them entirely) but yeah there's no reconciling that one. Positions don't have to be reconcilable in order to have an informative discussion. I generally assume that people have what they consider to be a compelling argument for their positions, and sharing those and critiquing one another's is beneficial even if no participant ends up changing their position. We're not developing public policy here, arguments on the SA forums have minimal to no real world impact, the focus is on the benefits of shared knowledge, discussion, and critique.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Considering how many people in this very thread were bragging because people ignored fancy pelosi I imagine quite a few But why does it matter if people were bragging that a troll was ignored? How does that affect the overall health of D&D threads or your experience on the forums?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
After the very level-headed and reasonable posts from user Koos Group and because they seem to represent a third-party to this circular argument, I would like to suggest that both D&D and CSPAM be made subforums of FYAD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:After the very level-headed and reasonable posts from user Koos Group and because they seem to represent a third-party to this circular argument, I would like to suggest that both D&D and CSPAM be made subforums of FYAD. i reported ur post for obvious trolling and bad faith 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:After the very level-headed and reasonable posts from user Koos Group and because they seem to represent a third-party to this circular argument, I would like to suggest that both D&D and CSPAM be made subforums of FYAD. I bet a lot of tensions would be eased just by having an anime tractor background
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 23:16
|
|
|
Just a heads up we will be closing this thread at like 11pm est tonight, since things appear to be wrapping up. We'll talk over them with the admins, post our impressions and plan of action, then reopen the thread for more comments at a later date.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
My deeply important thing to say to close out this thread is this: Raenir, I'm changing my, "Check out Fena: Pirate Princess because I don't know what to think of it," to, "Check out Fena: Pirate Princess because it's hilarious." If you like Fate, I imagine you'll have some patience for its goofiness. That is all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
I think a nice to have feature that could be implemented to somewhat alleviate to the "if a troll tolls under a bridge but no one is there to cross it, did the troll toll at all?" question might be to have visible only to mods in every post a couple of numbers: "This user is ignored by 361 users who have posted in this forum in the past 30 days. This post was not visible to 107 unique users who saw this post out of 809 users." With maybe the background colour of their posts turning a darker green the less people capable of seeing it don't see it but only to moderators so they know to keep on eye on them during the discussions they're in and not just scroll past them because no one is reporting them.Probably Magic posted:My deeply important thing to say to close out this thread is this: Raenir, I'm changing my, "Check out Fena: Pirate Princess because I don't know what to think of it," to, "Check out Fena: Pirate Princess because it's hilarious." If you like Fate, I imagine you'll have some patience for its goofiness. That is all. Thanks! If I have time, I started watching it but stopped because sometimes I'm afraid to commit to good shows because I'm afraid of that feeling of withdrawal I get when the show ends. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
I've seen some mods in this thread post that they think they're getting burned out. If that's true just quit and enjoy posting. This website isn't supposed to piss anyone off irl and make you angry. Maybe modship should be more rotational and something that anyone might get picked to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
hate myself already for comparing posting on the computer to things that actually matter, but i've been thinking some more about how d&d moderation currently doesn't benefit anyone other than rules-lawyering pedants who drive everyone else away. the trend over the past few years has been towards more specific rules, including ad hoc wordfilter ones that aren't even written down. at the same time, we've started seeing more and more enforcement of low-level breaches of those rules, as well as the introduction of a formalised 'ramping' system which results in harsher punishment for low-level breaches if a poster has done the same thing previously. this broken windows/three strikes law approach obviously creates a bunch more moderation work, which they've tried to address by appointing a series of truly mediocre iks, and promoting some of those iks to be mods. unfortunately, more mods doing more mod action currently just increases the workload – you've got to respond to more angry pms, deal with an increased number of reports (since people are seeing more examples of what counts as probateable), hate-read the qcs threads, explain why the punishment for x didn't match the punishment for y, etc. so, you've reached the point were no one else wants to volunteer to mod because they can see how much it'd suck to enforce the mess of rules you've created – and besides, you're never going to have enough to read and punish every worthy post in a timely way. any other functioning regulator would look at their resourcing constraints and decide to take a risk-based approach to enforcement: focus on actual harms, allow the regulated community to resolve minor issues without you, and accept that people are going to get away with some amount of low-level bad behaviour.  this nerd triangle shows how most people are basically rule-following, so you should focus on the tiny number at the red/pointy end. and if you're not sure where something sits, ask yourself whether the costs (getting yelled at, becoming burned out) outweigh the benefits of stopping someone from posting for a while. health and safety inspectors, financial regulators, professional bodies etc. make these trade-offs all the time, and they're overseeing stuff that's important. end note: this doesn't really address issue of mods disproportionately punishing posters who disagree with the american consensus of course, but it'd reduce the number of worthless probes overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:After the very level-headed and reasonable posts from user Koos Group and because they seem to represent a third-party to this circular argument, I would like to suggest that both D&D and CSPAM be made subforums of FYAD. hmm... i suspect both forums will learn to love being daddy koos' subs
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Following onto exmarx's point: This is how D&D has ended up in a place where the mods are simultaneously moderating too much and too little. There are too many little stupid useless rules, and enforcement of them is variously useless or actively obnoxious. On the other hand, big problems that do need serious enforcement aren't being handled because nobody trusts the mods and the mods aren't willing to go assert themselves on anything consequential.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
This is a suggestion for Jeffrey and astral rather than the mods but my idea is to implement a word filter changing "bad faith" to "pee pee poo poo" and "toxic" to "poo poo pee pee". Thanks and have a great Saturday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
permaban everyone that posts 10 paragraphs when 2 would more than suffice imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
I gave D&D a try for awhile, and eventually gave up and left. The biggest reason I stopped bothering was less the mods and more the posters. A few years back, I spent a great deal of time on trying to make an informative, useful OP about climate change that specifically called out things not to post, useful resources for people (including sources for further reading and arguing with their climate-denying uncle), then steering the thread into having the kind of discussion I'd like to see. The thread felt like it constantly had shitposts, extremely tedious arguments, and doomerism anyways. The attepted focus of the topic (local actions, activism, and information) was ignored. People often popped into the thread to ask about things that were covered in the OP. My favorite example was someone trying to be helpful by posting an article they thought was neat that I'd included in the OP something like two years prior. I guess moderators could have cracked down on it more, but they would have had to probate a hell of a lot of people. As it was, they did nail a few people for worthless posts, and it didn't change much. That thread wasn't the only example. I came at D&D with the idea that effort might be rewarded, funnily enough, inspired by those great effort posts I learned so much from in the LF days: If I was responding to an argument, I'm Joe-loving-nobody with no credentials you know about, so if I'm making a claim, I should back it up with evidence, including linked articles and highlighting the relevant quotes. Rarely, someone would respond in kind. The "debate" portion aside--most people aren't doing anything of the sort--the "discussion" part rarely was interesting either; my feeling isn't that people are coming here to build a better understanding of issues. These days, I sometimes check on a thread and I might as well have gone to Twitter dot com instead. A tiny minority of posts have anything interesting to say, and I get the sense of people talking with authority and expertise they don't actually have, rarely bothering to back up anything they say, but rather just assuming the person they're yelling at ought to know about some niche piece of history or news they know about. Again, I guess you could try to moderate to encourage reading comprehension, but corralling a bunch of cats would be easier. Sometimes moderation isn't great--there's certainly been some examples of bias, as people have already pointed out in this thread--but I don't really know that the biggest onus of change on these forums is on the unpaid moderators in the unenviable position of dealing with hot-headed arguments. Rather, people should become the posts they'd rather see. Maybe I'm in the minority in this, but I'd love to see more in-depth, well-sourced, interesting posts that seek to educate, test ideas, or come to better understandings, or take time to cultivate quality new sources and discussions of them. Ultimately, D&D will be what the community makes of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
Mods, admins and owners are responsible for the community they create, whether by action or inaction. It would be absurd to say that Facebook or 4chan aren’t a product of their moderation decisions and policies. DnD, and SA generally, can’t sustain a productive community if the users that abuse it aren’t removed. The difficulty of moderation that now exists is entirely the result of not consistently moderating or applying bans.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Oct 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I mean, the difference between "Dems should govern lawfully" and "Dems should ignore laws they don't like because that's the best way to wield political power" is quite irreconcilable, for example. And every time it comes up it results in flame wars and poo poo gets nasty. It's irreconcilable partially because it's an unknowable matter of opinion. Arguments that involve goons predicting the future often go badly, partly because it's inherently unfalsifiable and based heavily in beliefs, and partly because goons are unbelievably terrible at predicting the future in politics. But mostly it's because people get tilted trying to push harder and harder for their side, forget that they're posting on an internet forum rather than trying to convince a room full of Democratic leaders, and start being assholes. I love a good hypothetical, but people act like disagreeing with their political strategy ideas is as silly as denying that the sky is blue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 01:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's irreconcilable partially because it's an unknowable matter of opinion. Arguments that involve goons predicting the future often go badly, partly because it's inherently unfalsifiable and based heavily in beliefs, and partly because goons are unbelievably terrible at predicting the future in politics. Actually, predicting the future is inherently falsifiable  Though it may take a while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Actually, predicting the future is inherently falsifiable Not if the argument is what would have happened if the democrats had done X
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
This also depends on the specificity of the prediction. I discuss the use of policy counterfactuals as a way to wreck discussion in hirschman’s reactionary rhetorics in a post in the media crit thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
The whole liberal leftist divide brings up something for me which was the whole thought terminating cliche that got tossed around last year and there are posters who use liberal to great effect. We just saw two pages of it, I have labelled this or you liberal and then don't have to actually deal with the argument at hand or the discussion. It's basically a way to limit the discussion or not have to engage with someone. Tankie is obviously the other side to this when someone doesn't want to deal with a leftist point. I think if we are being honest the guiding light here needs to be, does this add to the conversation? So throwing out some smug, "imagine being a liberal and thinking X will save you." Doesn't add to the conversation and limits what we're talking about. I am not saying have a list of phrases, I am saying crack down harder on posts that are essentially white noise. Mooseontheloose fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Oct 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
the vast majority of uses of tankie in dnd are by people using it to, uh idk how to word it, project/paraphrase what they imagine other people are saying? it's not really a term that gets used in dnd that much, outside of those uses eg https://forums.somethingawful.com/query.php?action=results&qid=1635643838 not to say it never gets used here, but you usually only see it when someone posts really the most blistering takes about xinjiang (for comparison, tankies: 170 uses in 2 years || liberals: 420 uses in 2 months) Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Oct 31, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean tankie gets thrown around lightly here and there, but it's usually in D&D I've seen it applied something used specifically and explicitly for those who go to the loving mat for any authoritarian or imperialistic actor that isn't US-aligned and has ever painted itself with the thinnest veneer of leftism. And more to the point the label is almost always a smaller part of the conversation than the behavior itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:43
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Yeah, I mean tankie gets thrown around lightly here and there, but it's usually in D&D I've seen it applied something used specifically and explicitly for those who go to the loving mat for any authoritarian or imperialistic actor that isn't US-aligned and has ever painted itself with the thinnest veneer of leftism. And more to the point the label is almost always a smaller part of the conversation than the behavior itself. No, the point being made was that the term was used as a thought-terminating clause/epithet, in the same manner and effect that D&D is upset at getting called "liberals".
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Regarding left vs. liberal, it's worth noting that a large proportion of the active D&D USPol mods identify as communists. I'm not gonna name names or ask that all mods state their ideological identification, but two D&D mods have recently made explicit statements that they are communists and a third mod stated they were a non-voting swing-state nojoe. I think it would be fair to ask the current mod crew: do you believe that (pretty hard-) left viewpoints are well-represented on the USPol mod crew, and are they participating in major moderation decisions including response to this thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:No, the point being made was that the term was used as a thought-terminating clause/epithet, in the same manner and effect that D&D is upset at getting called "liberals". Oh yeah, hell no then,.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:53
|
|
|
Honestly I bet there are more people on the forums overall that would admit to being a Tankie vs a Liberal
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Honestly I bet there are more people on the forums overall that would admit to being a Tankie vs a Liberal We can solve all of this by requiring posters in D&D choose a gangtag first: tankie or liberal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Lots of people get really mad when told that the biased source they're quoting is just making up numbers to tell them what they want to hear. If you think the whole thing is a rigged game, maybe you shouldn't post here. Actual media analysis involves analyzing individual stories, not simply canonizing certain sources as unbiased and other sources as wrongthink. Let's take an example that's less contemporaneous (and ignore the weird libertarian milieu of old D&D): by the current Media Analysis thread standard, someone arguing that WMDs were a false pretext for invading Iraq would have been inherently arguing in bad faith, since reliable, trusted media sources (being fed information by a literal conspiracy of ex-military and government sources who were misrepresenting their agenda, though that wasn't known at the time) said it was likely true, and the expression of doubt were invariably from less mainstream sources. But I'm not just making an appeal to hindsight here, because at the time it was possible even through the fog of warmongering to pick apart the equivocation and lack of specific details from outlets like the New York Times. But again (NOTE TO MODERATORS AND IKS) doing things like drawing comparisons to the Gulf of Tonkin would have been, under this standard, shitposting and grounds for moderation. "Meet effort with effort" is never going to be (and probably shouldn't be) a completely equitable standard because there is, rightly so, a higher standard of effort to make an assertion the less mainstream it is. That makes sense (though of course I and others disagree with where the Overton window of D&D is right now). The problem is when someone makes a effortpost for something "outlandish" which is then met with glib dismissal. What usually happens then is the effortposter gets upset and will eventually break decorum, and be the only one to face discipline. It's like how school bullies are better at not drawing attention to themselves and get their victims punished for fighting back. It's not a great environment. e: Perhaps I'm being a bit too sarcastic here, but the "NOTE TO MODERATORS AND IKS" is from an actual post that was NOT made by a moderator, informing everyone that only sources that meet the standard established by the Media Literacy thread are valid. It did not result in a probation for backseat modding
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Honestly I bet there are more people on the forums overall that would admit to being a Tankie vs a Liberal the taintrunner saga drove the tankies underground because it was so utterly embarassing
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 02:59
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:the taintrunner saga drove the tankies underground because it was so utterly embarassing Taintrunner was very much a lib and I expect most D&D posters who self-identify as communists aren't much different
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
Liberal tankie here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Taintrunner was very much a lib and I expect most D&D posters who self-identify as communists aren't much different
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Liberal tankie here. send the tanks into the dprk daddy koos
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:06
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Taintrunner was very much a lib oh i mean obviously, what was embarassing was all of the actual stalinists desperate for the attention of taintrunner-senpai
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Actual media analysis involves analyzing individual stories, not simply canonizing certain sources as unbiased and other sources as wrongthink. Let's take an example that's less contemporaneous (and ignore the weird libertarian milieu of old D&D): by the current Media Analysis thread standard, someone arguing that WMDs were a false pretext for invading Iraq would have been inherently arguing in bad faith, since reliable, trusted media sources (being fed information by a literal conspiracy of ex-military and government sources who were misrepresenting their agenda, though that wasn't known at the time) said it was likely true, and the expression of doubt were invariably from less mainstream sources. But I'm not just making an appeal to hindsight here, because at the time it was possible even through the fog of warmongering to pick apart the equivocation and lack of specific details from outlets like the New York Times. But again (NOTE TO MODERATORS AND IKS) doing things like drawing comparisons to the Gulf of Tonkin would have been, under this standard, shitposting and grounds for moderation. As I recall, this issue was addressed in the thread. It probably doesn't need to be relitigated here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
HiroProtagonist posted:No, the point being made was that the term was used as a thought-terminating clause/epithet, in the same manner and effect that D&D is upset at getting called "liberals". If I wasn't clear, my point is that there are people who are using the term liberal to end discussion and not engage with what is being discussed, much like tankie is around here as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:As I recall, this issue was addressed in the thread. It probably doesn't need to be relitigated here. do you mind recounting how that issue was addressed for those of us that don't post in the thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Jazerus posted:oh i mean obviously, what was embarassing was all of the actual stalinists desperate for the attention of taintrunner-senpai Yeah fair, that was cringe as poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2021 03:10
|
|