|
Jazerus posted:i also bring it up because it's relevant today - d&d continues to have this modding style where the "thread consensus" is effectively protected because people who don't agree with it, by the very fact that they don't agree, are seen as trolling the people who do agree. personally i think this dynamic is bad. I think that this is a thing that happens and agree the dynamic isn't great and could do with something to shift it, with the caveat that there's a fair degree of people who post against a thread consensus, and then either refuse to contribute actual sources/content to back up their opinion or do provide something that turns out to be a decades old discredited fringe article and then when they get slammed for it complain that the thread 'isn't tolerating diversity of opinion'. e: some things are thread consensus because the discussion has been had, the issue in question is a generally accepted truth, and there isn't really anything more to say about it, and people are justified in getting annoyed at an interesting new discussion being derailed by someone bursting into the room to talk about how in their personal opinion the holocaust was exaggerated. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Oct 30, 2021 |
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
I think it is important that we all agree that words have meanings and I also think that posters refusing to say what they believe is a big red flag that they don't have anything meaningful to contribute and are just throwing up sand because they don't like the conclusion that the rest of the thread is coming to, and I don't think is pepsi ok was doing the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
The problem with demanding an set of explicitly precise and consistently enforced rules is that there is a group of 'just asking questions' trolls who will calibrate their trolling to walk right up to the line but be careful not to cross it (unless they get caught out). Ultimately this is a question of whether posts move a thread forwards or not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:Also clearly violates one of the D&D rules that clearly states "assume others are posting in good faith". The moderators should consider removing that from the rules list if it's not going to be enforced. This is an example of trying to rules lawyer. You get a starting assumption that others are posting in good faith. I don't think anyone interprets that rule to mean that once someone has a long history of making claims and not being able to back them up, or getting proven wrong and just not acknowledging it, that that presumption still applies to them (particularly if they make a post that looks on its face to be disruptive or a troll).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:I don't know the history of every poster, and I doubt I'm alone here, so maybe if someone is going to "assume bad faith" there should be an evidentiary requirement so it's clearly based off of a pattern and not just "I don't like the content of their post so they're obviously a troll". Or if it is the latter, at least be clear about it. Oh I don't think we need to go that far. Once someone has acquired a page worth of probes in the leper's colony for disrupting threads then mods should just forumban them for the clear pattern. Definitely shouldn't go down the road of encouraging posters to keep records of each other's posts to bring up as evidence of 'bad faith' for the obvious reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
'This forum will never be a calm debate space because of my white hot hatred for anyone an inch to the right of me' is one hell of a self-fulfilling prophecy. e: but I do think it basically hones in on the real problem
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 21:35
|
|