|
Fancy Pelosi posted:As some have suspected, this is a re-reg troll account. This month, I've been posting in bad faith, I've posted lies, I've misrepresented sources (that were directly linked in my posts), I've sniped at other posters directly, I've said vile poo poo. Never caught a probe until I stepped out of D&D and posted the same way. It turns out that all of this stuff is 100% allowed in D&D as long as you post it all with a positive spin for the Democrats. Yesterday, multiple people got probated for pointing out that I was trolling. The problem with D&D moderation is that the mods are gigantic morons (they might be the stupidest posters on this forum) who are super easy to manipulate into punishing posting enemies, which is what the regulars do here to win arguments. This little experiment has made me wonder who else is doing long-form trolling in this subforum, because it's so easy. I suspect how are u. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3965530&pagenumber=946&perpage=40#post518204166 Thank you for you're service
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
thatfatkid posted:Actually allow debate and discussion. Disagreeing with sabre rattling propaganda isn't genocide denial, especially when the associated press and US don't even describe what's happening in xinjiang as genocide anymore. (bit hard to with the uyghur population actually growing and their life expectancy and quality of life improving) The fact this was probated for "doubl[ing] down on your sick beliefs" is absolutely the reason you shouldn't be a mod CommieGIR. Tons of people, even in the QCS thread, have given perfectly reasonable positions that you for some reason don't want to accept as within your overton window. Rather than engaging with posters that don't follow your mainstream (even if their posts seem targeted at annoying you!) you immediately rush to the mod buttons. This is exactly the behavior that makes me avoid D&D most of the time now, since who the gently caress knows what opinion you'll decide is sick and ding people for.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 13:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Ah yes, the "Mass Incarceration and forced integration is not Genocide" excuse. If you really want to defend that, go for it, but honestly I don't see a D&D or even a Political Forum where defending that is going to be acceptable or encouraged. Honestly I'm not going to go in to it here because you'll end up finding some reason to probate me, but the fact that the AP and whitehouse have both stopped calling it a genocide probably means the issue isn't as cut and dry as you want it to be. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Love that the feedback thread gets the attention of people that never post in D&D coming in to say how terrible D&D is. Have you considered part of the reason for this is that a lot of people want to post in the serious political forum, but either can't or don't feel comfortable doing so?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I think your making an excuse. Post all you want. Just don't be an rear end in a top hat or deny genocides. Like what kind of thin skin excuse do you have to have to be afraid of posting unless you're just a contentious rear end in a top hat with terrible opinions. Nah it's really not worth it considering I like posting in other forums too. Eating a probe here because I get mass reported for saying, for example, that Fancy Pelosi was an obvious troll and gimmick, makes me unable to talk about, idk, cool magic cards I have. So honestly? I'd rather post about the cool magic cards than try to engage with people who don't want to engage, they want to be right all the time and be told they're very smart for being just so correct on everything (Especially when those people are mods).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 14:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I'm not going to disagree with any of that, it seems accurate. My outlook on it is that those types of people have always been a part of D&D. At one point they were a plurality at best, but still not the majority of posters. It has probably reached a tipping point where the negativity overwhelms the good parts, and hence is dying. Mod choices aren't going to fix that. I tend to think that the moderation team has great leverage to shape the tone and conversation of a space, either through direct action or neglect. D&D is, to my mind, a place where it has been shaped towards what it is today by the moderators that came before, and the current mod team led it to the inevitable conclusion of a mod-action-as-discussion-ender mentality. In some ways it's not even the "fault" of the current mod team, they were selected because they aligned with the ideals of the people that came before. The only real solution is to admit the current environment isn't what's best for the people that make up the audience (note I did not say the community) and to clean house. Demod all of the current mods here, find new people interested in doing it (so long as they are unrelated to the current mod team), implement a saner set of rules and expectations, and accept that you're going to have a transitional period where you have some angry as hell regulars. The big secret though is that even if you lose regulars, it turns out that they were keeping out more people than they represented. The same thing happens in any environment that has a wider scope than its current community - from the grognards that keep women out of hobbies like MtG or wargaming, to lovely barflies that keep patrons away, to pony-obsessed weirdos that keep kids away. You or others may or may not like CSPAM posters, but the reason CSPAM so quickly outgrew D&D is because there was a lot of interest in politics, but not a lot of interest in D&D (despite it being "the politics forum"). CommieGIR posted:You got probed for it once. And it was a sixer. That's all it took for you to snap? How long have you been on somethingawful? It's called "an example." And, this may be shocking, but seeing people I agree with also eat nonsense probations doesn't encourage me to share my opinions. This isn't just talking about china or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think the big problem is how do we discuss the context of various states crimes against humanities within the context of a single thread: I.e. the derailment that both Canada's genocide against native children and China's mass incarceration caused in those threads. Because despite the need to discuss these things, in the context of discussing the ongoing political issues of each state is going to get easily drowned out by it. Why does it have to be a single thread? If these are complicated questions, why not give them space to breath? This is exactly the type of stuff I mean when I say the solutions to D&D's problems lie outside of the current mod team.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How? Open to suggestions for me and/or future mod teams. Most people don't want to dig through a thread to find the single topic they were trying to discuss, that's part of why we split out topics in USNews (since D&D is for the most part US Centric) If the biggest discussion re: Chinese politics is the Uyghur crisis, then this... CommieGIR posted:the derailment that both Canada's genocide against native children and China's mass incarceration caused in those threads ... is nonsense. How is it a derailment? It's the topic of discussion! If there is a flow of other news stories getting "drowned out", then it's up to that thread's regulars: does one of them start a new thread? Do they keep talking about it over other stories? If it's the former, then problem solved, no mods needed. Is it the latter? Then obviously the people in the thread don't think the other stories are actually getting "drowned out," they think they're less important. In fact, if someone disagreed with that, they could even make a thread for the other story. No mod action needed! It's ok if not every page of a thread contains every topic currently being discussed, nobody is going to be angry that someone quoted a story from a few pages back to ask a question or make a comment. Threads are just threads. It's ok if some are long and noisy, it's ok if some are short and don't get much interaction. That's part of what makes a forum an interesting social space, the stuff getting bumped a lot is the stuff that people want to talk the most about. As long as the environment makes people feel like they're allowed to post (be it a new thread or a reply), then they'll do so, and conversation will continue. It's when mods step in as mods to enforce their opinion on either a topic or structure of a thread that people stop doing that. Sometimes that's ok - for example, a "no spoilers" policy on a TV show thread. Doing this sort of thing haphazardly though will lead to decreased engagement, as people lose spaces to discuss things without having an outlet (a "spoiler thread", to continue the metaphore). If some spoilers are OK but others aren't, or even worse spoilers posted by some people are ok and others arent, and there's no spoiler thread because it got closed, if I have a spoiler question I'm just going to avoid posting rather than guess. When rules aren't enforced evenly (clearly isn't even as much of an issue!) then sure people will avoid posting, because they don't understand what's allowed. Even if the rules are clear, that will be the case with uneven enforcement. But, it's important to realize, that even a consistent moderation will have people that don't agree or want to deal with it. That can be ok - after all, a "no nazis" rule might annoy nazis, but you don't want them posting anyway. Right now part of the problem with this mod team is that the rules are enforced "evenly," but the rules aren't ones people want to engage with. Extremely importantly in fact, the rules aren't actually the ones posted in the rules thread up top, even if you don't realize it. Adding more mods or rules to the list won't address what it is people don't like about the forum. That's the reason I argue for a rebuild of D&D. Tinkering with the rules or adding or removing a mod isn't going to change the environment enough at this point. You talk about "most people," but "most people" have stopped posting here. Consider it's because that your (and other mods) ideas about "most people" aren't actually correct. There's more than one thing at fault for the current state of this forum. Disentangling all of them to try to make the most surgical and small change you can to fix all the problems is....unrealistic. Your own biases may even make it impossible. The boundaries of what D&D "should" be, according to the mod team here, are not aligned with what people who want serious political discussion on SA want. This is obvious, both through CSPAM's rise, and through D&D's own declining community. That's a lot of words about forums moderation! Skyl3lazer fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:The D&D threads I used to lurk were slowly replaced by the CSPAM equivalent -- to this day it still seems odd that I am better informed about COVID from CSPAM than D&D. This one is pretty straightforward, everyone that has actually been following the insane minutae of covid variants/etc (and been very correct on many predictions) has been called a doomer, blackpilled, etc, until they leave. Some of these people have very "extreme" reactions, to my thinking, but they're also very well informed about the facts. They left because the current Dem messaging is "covid is basically over," and the moderators probated along those lines. This is what I meant by "the rules of the forum aren't actually the ones in the sticky."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:That sure is a lot of words to call me a patholical liar, MSDOS. It's funny that you would call anyone pathological when you've spent the entire last year of your posting exclusively complaining about D&D in other forums. Don't post in this thread again. Sorry that this was three pages ago, but this is an absolutely embarrassing response to a legitimate criticism of the moderation of this forum. You literally set up this "pathological" strawman (something never said by the poster!) then ban them from the feedback thread for it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 03:16
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Just a hunch, but I think there are people who stopped posting in D&D for reasons other than, or even opposite of, those that have been presented by "outsiders" in this thread, but they're not posting in here, and certainly not posting over and over and over again to give the illusion of a consensus. I think a lot of them just stopped posting on SA altogether. Ah yes the "silent majority" of people that don't have an SA account, whose opinions should matter over people who are saying they want to post but feel unfairly treated so don't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
I have a question/mod feedback, why was this post probated? TwoQuestions posted:Bill's dead Why was it probated with a threat of a threadban? If the bill does die, as seems likely now, will the poster be unprobated or compensated or even apologized to? This was done at 11pm est last night, after days of discussion about how threadbans aren't the way to go. Repeatedly in fact this poster has been probated for "doomposting," and in none of them is rude or even particularly unrealistic. Was it just because you didn't agree with the posts? What rule was being broken, and is that rule evenly applied?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If I was doing so, I would've already hit you with a sixer. Surprisingly, I'm not. Are we expected to be gracious you aren't abusing your mod powers in this instance?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You quite literally just did. No, it's honestly the same argument you seem to miss about what people mean when they say voting for biden or trump also minimizes bad past behavior. You don't necessary endorse or agree with everything they did, but the (genocide/rape/racism/etc) obviously wasn't such a dealbreaker that you won't still (gangtag him/vote for him/idolize him/defend him). You just feel whatever the upside is, it's worth overlooking the past. Others may or may not agree, and everyone sets where the line is differently. That's why we debate and discuss it. e; Sorry I guess that was slapfighty, I'll drop it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I wonder how many people complaining about the Sherman gang tag have a Facebook account This is the second time now you've just straight slapfight insulted posters. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:A hit dog will holler Mod feedback: I don't understand why some people are getting threadbanned and probated for posting feedback but this poo poo is allowed. This is what I mean when I say moderation here is totally inconsistent and based on what "team" the mods think you're on. Hey JFY, this is the type of stuff! Right here in this thread! I said it like 20 pages ago! Skyl3lazer posted:When rules aren't enforced evenly (clearly isn't even as much of an issue!) then sure people will avoid posting, because they don't understand what's allowed. Even if the rules are clear, that will be the case with uneven enforcement. But, it's important to realize, that even a consistent moderation will have people that don't agree or want to deal with it. That can be ok - after all, a "no nazis" rule might annoy nazis, but you don't want them posting anyway. Right now part of the problem with this mod team is that the rules are enforced "evenly," but the rules aren't ones people want to engage with. Extremely importantly in fact, the rules aren't actually the ones posted in the rules thread up top, even if you don't realize it. Adding more mods or rules to the list won't address what it is people don't like about the forum. That's the reason I argue for a rebuild of D&D. Tinkering with the rules or adding or removing a mod isn't going to change the environment enough at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I'm not a mod, but I recognize TwoQuestions to be a particularly notorious doomposter. They constantly post articles and tweets and then misrepresent what is happening. I will totally admit I don't follow this poster and know a deep history (beyond reading the past modded posts), but I'm not sure why "dumb take" would be 3+threadban warning. Also, the poster was (possibly/apparently) correct, which makes it seem less like a dumb take and more like a take that was just outside the consensus. They're clearly giving their opinion on the story based on the article, not trying to present the tweet/article as proving the deadness. Also, again a lot of the previous posts weren't really anything special or actionable to my thought. If there's a clear explanation or something I'm missing, I'd be satisfied. I've been very sincere during this entire round of feedback, because it feels to me like if nothing changes this time, I probably won't bother trying again. I was an avid D&D reader and sometimes poster (especially the politoons thread) from like 2012-2018. I'll admit as well that the questions *are* leading, because I strongly suspect there isn't a good answer to them. I'd have been less curious about the probe if it was old, but this was literally last night on a two day old post. It exactly covers the type of stuff already under the microscope in this thread and QCS.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Anyways, regarding that specific probation. I submitted the longer probation almost a week ago. Sometimes the admins approve things right away, sometimes they will approve longer probations days if not a week later because they too have their own poo poo to deal with that isn't related to the forums. This answers the timing part, thanks. Handsome Ralph posted:That poster in particular has a history of posting "We're doomed" takes and not much else, plus this isn't even the first time they've been ramped for it. Even if that poster didn't have a history of doomer takes, link dropping and just adding "bills dead" without much else context isn't really keeping in line with providing context whenever you drop tweets or article links. This reads to me like two reasons. The first being that it was a low-content post in reply to the tweet. I get wanting to make people put more effort in to describing/quoting stuff they link, and think it's a good idea. I also agree that this poster didn't do that verbosely enough given that the article itself wasn't directly an announcement of the bill's failure. The second reason though is the one I take issue with. If this poster honestly believes, and I think they do, that they should be pessimistic over the state of the world for various reasons, why is that actionable? This particular probation wasn't even "we're doomed!", it was just saying that one bill wouldn't pass! That's hardly chicken little-ing about the collapse of society. It's a purely ideological probation based on the fact that you, as well as the mod team if the threadban threat was a group decision, think that actually things are going pretty well and this person is just too negative. It isn't "genocide denial," racism, doxxing, or harassment of some other user. Many people have totally valid reasons to be pessimistic, but rather than have a discussion on that (which the thread started to do!), a mod stepped in. It's not like the negativity isn't supportable by evidence that even the most optimistic D&D-er would consider reliable. Why shouldn't that discussion be allowed? Handsome Ralph posted:Also I think this has may have been pointed out, but if not, forum bans aren't issued solely on the judgement of one mod. There is a consensus when it's done. Thread bans aren't as strict, but more often than not, mods will raise the possibility with other mods to see if there are any objections. Many threadbans and even forumbans have ended up not happening at all because some members of the mod team felt they weren't warranted. This is just a side note on thread/forum bans, but if it requires all this consensus and yet still doesn't have a reliable way to track and check who is "banned" from what thread/forum then it's absolutely a failing on the part of the mod team. A single google doc or sticky thread would have taken care of that even if no on-site tools exist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again, also a fair point: where do we draw the line and say "Okay back on topic" while also doing what we're supposed to be, making jokes in a comedy forum with some debate and discussion. Do you need to draw any lines at all? The thread will get back on 'topic' as soon as there's something people want to talk about more than band names or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 18:34
|
|