|
i'd like to put forward a framework for thinking big-picture about this subforum:
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 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. CommieGIR posted:The Whitehouse is also not calling the mass incarceration at the border genocide, but effectively that is what is happening. Are you guys really going to define everything by whether or not the White House calls it that, or based on what it actually appears to be? CommieGIR posted:"The Mass Detentions are happening, but its a media slant" bro you have a gang tag celebrating a genocide perpetrator lol. shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 08:07
|
|
Hmmmmm, sure let's not use the word genocide, but this is literally a crime against humanity that aligns WITH genocide.
|
CommieGIR posted:No offense, but I suspect arguing that "The reprisals for Tianamen Square are debatable" and "Mass Incarceration for Uighurs is HELPING them" are going to be extremely controversial opinions regardless of rules changes. So just be aware. to be clear, does 'controversial' mean 'punishable regardless of rules changes'? not clear why you made this post otherwise, since disagreeing with others' opinions sometimes is to be expected in the debate and discussion forum.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Ok I actually have a legit question regarding moderation. Gumball Gumption posted:I guess here is the easiest way to put it. If someone said they believe less than 10000 people died in Tianamen Square and they think the number is smaller and isn't a jackass about it how does that get handled? Because that's the number you'll find if you Google it's the number you'll see in recent news articles, and is also highly disputed like everything else with the death toll. There's a lot of grey between "nothing happened" and "none of the official accounts are actually factual" and that grey area is usually what people are talking about and what gets those accusations of genocide denial so I think it's worth figuring out and codifying when that grey turns into black and white in D&D so that people don't accidently end up there and so these cries of genocide denial can stop being used as a way to win arguments. agreed. it would be good if posters on here, many of whom aren't american, were allowed to discuss contentious foreign policy issues in terms beyond those set by the u.s. state department.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
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
|
|