|
So... somebody came in, posted incredibly anodyne poo poo nobody cared about, with a reg date that maybe everybody pretty sure it was a troll, comes back to “reveal” that they were a troll and actually the anodyne poo poo they posted was vile personal attacks. Here’s what they actually posted, draw your own conclusions: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3965530&userid=228557&perpage=40&pagenumber=1 Anyway since I only have one post, let VitalSigns back in USNews.
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
I think "is the 21st century treatment of blacks in America genocide" is a complicated question and answering it one way or another shouldn't be bannable. A lot of problems are complicated and we shouldn't proscribe "correct" answers to them. Now, if somebody says something terrible in the process of making an argument (something like "I think black people have it better in America!" or "all white people should be killed"), act on that, but like, these are matters of actual scholarly debate, and not something we should be shutting down discussion about. I also think "is [bad thing] [a given word for bad thing]" is the kind of idiotic argument we shouldn't be having, because semantic arguments are pretty much always a waste of time, and because that argument is pretty much always just used to paint your posting enemies as supporting [bad thing].
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Oh my God, my feedback is to do whatever the gently caress you have to to keep "debates" like this from happening. Who loving cares.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:They seem to be adding to the list of reasons to consider that mods are playing to their faves or just like super dumb. "One of my posting buddies trolled the subforum for two months, and another one of my posting buddies bought vulgar, misogynistic red text for them because they thought they were sincere, and then the mods removed the vulgar, misogynistic red text, for free! This proves, uh, wait, what was I talking about?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
I agree that mod participation in the thread should be throttled back a little bit, and be more general rather than responding point-by-point to specific complaints, because that inevitably ends up being stuck in the weeds and letting more important, general ideas about what needs to change get buried in hyper-specific crap like the "whataboutism" argument. e: More generally, CommieGIR also seems to like posting a lot, which is fine, but it's probably better for mods to try not to post in general. I think if you asked CG which he would rather do, he would rather post, which is fine, but maybe not compatible with being a mod - probably better to post basically never (like fos) or only intermittently and in a relatively non-interactive way like GJB. Mods posting, even if they do it reasonably, just seems to get people riled up, and I think it's fair to consider accepting a modsmanship as a semi-retirement from postermanship. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
OK so I've gotten caught up in "reactive" posting myself here, which is not what this thread is supposed to be about, so sorry for that. I think the most important thing to come out of the QCS thread is that a lot of people seem to take the idea of "Debate and Discussion" very seriously, and some people do not. To the former group, it establishes not just that there should be concrete rules, but that the rules should allow for debates to be "won" or "lost". I'm not really sure how somebody would know whether they "won" or "lost" a debate, but apparently it's what some people have been trying to do - it's no wonder they've been frustrated. Things don't have to be a "liberal hugbox" but people need to be willing to accept disagreement. I seem to have this big "reputation" in D&D for whatever reason, but if you look at my profile, my post count is actually pretty low, because once I've said my piece I drop stuff, rather than chase somebody around in circles trying to prove that I've "bested" them. When the latter happens, things just tend to get nastier and nastier until inevitably a probation happens. Heated policy disagreements lead to personal disagreements - I think people need to be kinder about policy disagreements, because there's not really any being kind about a personal disagreement. I really like Fritz the Horse's suggestion of closing D&D and creating a "Current Events" subforum in GBS. It would be an opportunity for a tone shift and maybe bring in some new posters with a more fun attitude. I also think MPF might be right about elimating USNews, but I would also recommend giving a pretty wide berth to derails so that if a given thread gets hot it doesn't get snuffed out. We might have "mini" USNewses pop up from time to time, but ultimately there's no "main" thread which should drive engagement in a larger number of threads. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
I think we need more people who say stuff like thisquote:CommieGIR also seems to like posting a lot, which is fine, but it's probably better for mods to try not to post in general. I think if you asked CG which he would rather do, he would rather post, which is fine, but maybe not compatible with being a mod - probably better to post basically never (like fos) or only intermittently and in a relatively non-interactive way like GJB. Mods posting, even if they do it reasonably, just seems to get people riled up, and I think it's fair to consider accepting a modsmanship as a semi-retirement from postermanship. and less people who say stuff like this quote:Demod CommieGir because he obviously can't even stop himself from getting into a stupid argument and derailing the god drat feedback thread. This is embarassing. The main difference isn't word count. Just stop trying to "own" people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Discussion-type D&D regulars just sorta get rolled up into the latter group because the "competitive debaters" don't target them, but they probably have more in common with the discussion-type C-SPAM regulars when it comes to posting styles. I get salty with people because of personality issues, not because of policy issues, and I'm not really interested in having to-the-death debates about policy issues. I really just want to talk about the news, and I don't want people expressing schadenfreude at my expense. I don't really read CSPAM so this is an honest question - how do people who are, for lack of a better term, "pro-AOC and Bernie Sanders", get along with the posters who are constantly making GBS threads on them? How do you keep that disagreement from spiraling into hostility? Is one side dominant over the other? Does it come down, thread by thread, to just who can shout the loudest? Maybe part of the reason CSPAM works better than D&D is because there is no "one" megathread, and so people can go post in a thread that is more their speed. (I know that a lot of CSPAM hates the succzone thread, and a lot of the succzone thread hates most of CSPAM, for example.) In D&D, people feel like they're missing out on eyeballs if they're not posting in USNews, so everything ends up in there trying to please everybody and pleasing nobody.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I mean yeah, D&D fights are obviously often about personality and wanting an audience and CSPAM's big "secret" is that they're more inclusive of different thoughts and ideas. You hit the nail on the head. Maybe this is asking a lot but could you maybe link an example of a discussion going well in CSPAM that you think would go poorly in D&D? If your answer is "gently caress off, go find one yourself" that's fine.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:There's a lot less 'shouting down' in CSPAM than you guys think. The only person I can think of in recent memory being 'run off' in the sense that people dogpile them is Kim Bong Chill, and that is an obvious gimmick account. I think people who post in D&D are mostly people who don't like going out of their way to share their thoughts on something they care about and getting "lmao" (or 10 "lmaos") as a response. I think they're hardly unique in the world in that respect. I don't care if that makes us "soft" or loses us internet cred or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Literally the entire forum. All the mega threads like doomsday econ, Trump thread, succ zone, even some of the smaller bits like the failing New York times or the anarchist thread. There's a reason why they're in Cspam and not DnD and that reason is the terrible mods. Oh word people like the mods in CSPAM?  e: Sorry, snarky. The fact is I've read the succ thread (because my posts end up there sometimes!), I hate it and I think it's awful, I would never in a million years want to post there. Even if I did, it moves way too fast for me. So why do people who hate USNews and think it's awful want to post there so much? Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:CSPAM has never told me that my actual beliefs were just me trolling so I'm a lot more willing to post in CSPAM. That's funny, because a lot of people have told me my actual beliefs are trolling the last few days. (The guy who made the post below me, too.) loquacious, you were a good poster when you posted in D&D (you're always welcome back!  ), so I'm not surprised you've taken a sensible, personable approach to posting in CSPAM; thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
People who prefer CSPAM to D&D, but still want to post here: what do you think D&D can do to incorporate the things you like about CSPAM while still maintaining its own identity as a distinct subforum? What should the differences between D&D and CSPAM be?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I do kind of feel that D&D's culture has shifted hard into Dem party loyalism as the #1 most important value. They are by no means unique in this; it's a troubling trend which has been on the rise my entire life, but it has taken hold so strongly that, for example, anyone questioning orthodoxy is assumed to be some type of insidious right-wing (or Russian) agent, or, as has been mentioned a lot already, just trolling, and that assumption has been baked into moderation policy. Like, some people are focused on "nobody in power is any good." Some people prefer to discuss "how do we keep the absolute worst people out of power?" Both things should be okay to talk about and I don't think people trying to discuss one should be loving with people trying to discuss the other. To be clear (this is a common misconception), there's nobody in D&D who doesn't criticize Democrats. We just openly want them to win elections, and we get sad when they don't. I think that's okay and I think there should be a space on this website to discuss things through that framing, because it's a very common political outlook here (and probably the lens through which a lot of SA users would prefer to discuss politics, going by, say, the GBS Trump thread.) Like, Willa complains that D&D is the "let's laugh at chuds" forum, and sometimes it is, but like, what if I want to laugh at chuds? Again, I feel like the problem is that people are taking D&D much more seriously than it deserves to be taken.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:People actually assuming good faith, people being disinclined to run to the mods, and pretty much no consequence for "losing" a discussion*. As Gumball Gumption said, posters in CSPAM generally just take you at your words, and since they're unlikely to run to the mods and there's no real consequence for "losing" a discussion, people can get to the point much faster and have more of a back-and forth flow to the discussion rather than trying to deliver a coup de grâce with every post. "People assuming good faith" isn't really something the moderators have control over (and I kind of reject the idea that people in CSPAM are any better than people in D&D about it, but whatever, not the point). I don't think there are consequences for "losing" a debate in D&D, either - plenty of people "lose" debates without getting probations all the time, you just have to be a good sport. So it seems like your main complaint is that the mods are too active - but if you remove the different moderation standards, what's left? What makes D&D different from CSPAM? When people give an answer to that question which is just, "it's worse, and everybody there is stupid, and they tattle to the lunch monitors" then they should just stop posting in D&D because I'm not really seeing what they're getting out of it that they're not getting out of CSPAM, except the ability to yell at some specific posters who won't do them the favor of going into their preferred space. Gumball Gumption posted:That all seems fine but the label should be fixed than. Call it the laughing at chuds sub instead of d&d. Hell I think an actual debate forum is a dumb and stupid idea and we would be better off of we were just honest they there's a politics forum for the far left and a politics forum for liberals but we should actually be honest about it. If you want a place to laugh at chuds and laugh at wrong think feel free, just call it that. It's honestly bizarre to me that anybody cares about the forum names at all; yes, change them, because I don't think anybody gives a poo poo. People want to have the kinds of discussions they want to have. I got my SA account for the political cartoons thread, which is pretty much explicitly a "laugh at chuds" thread, even though it's in "Debate and Discussion". If people are that hung up on the name, it's easier to change the name than create, I dunno, the only? functional, amicable debate space on the entire internet. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:People in usnews have claimed that others pointing out news that's less than celebratory toward Dems is trolling, toxic, a schtick, depresses Dem turnout, helps the GOP, reveals one as a Trump voter, and causes posters extreme mental distress. OK, well, gently caress 'em? Who cares? Literally almost everything you post in USNews is "less than celebratory towards Dems," you post in that thread a lot more than I do, and you get less probations than I do. Where's the problem?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
Sometimes it feels like when people say "the CSPAM thread about [x] is better" they're saying "the CSPAM thread about [x] has less posts that I disagree with." Or maybe it's more like, "when I see in a post in CSPAM I disagree with, I can respond with 'lmao', but D&D won't let me."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Finding a way to codify not making fun of posters even if it's really clever and civil and involves a lot of sources or whatever is kind of what has led D&D to this point. Have you considered that maybe people differ on what is "clever" and what is "civil"? And that maybe something that's "clever and civil" when directed at your posting enemies is just "being an rear end in a top hat" when it's coming from them? Like, I dunno, guys, maybe I'm just way off base, and I get that "This is SomethingAwful!" but I think people should not be trying to make other people feel bad when they post. Yes, that's about fee-fees, but so is "the mods gave me a sixer so gently caress this place", because there's no actual cost to being unable to post for six friggin' hours.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:The guy I quoted. It's in the post directly above the one you're responding to. Yes, I think people who are posting with the goal of making other people feel bad, and treat posting like a contest, are not the people I want to be talking about anything with. You got me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:23
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:And by contrast, deteriorata says you can do that as long as you put effort into it and are polite. These are two contradictory points of view, and I am pointing out the contradiction. Absolutely stunning that you can't even conceive of the idea of polite disagreement, and how it might foster a better posting atmosphere than trying to get owns. Stunning. You can say "I disagree with you and here's why" without saying "I disagree with you and you're a dumb piece of poo poo". PE clearly, expressly is bemoaning his inability to do the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Dude, you're all over the place. Done discussing this with you. Have a nice day 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
loquacius posted:The idea that it doesn't really matter what you say as long as you're polite about it is a big problem with American politics btw "It matters how you say things" is a different idea from "you can say anything if you say it right." If people in D&D actually had the hateful, right-wing opinions people pretend they do, your argument would have more relevance. Gumball Gumption posted:How are you this rude to other people without any self awareness? I wasn't being sarcastic, I saw that the discussion wasn't going anywhere and I sincerely hope he has a nice day.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
I think there are posters who post like dicks to be dicks and there are posters who post like dicks defensively. If you got rid of the former, the latter would pipe down. No I don't know how to tell the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Hey just pointing out that most Conservatives would also agree that America is genociding people right now, the unborn. So really just party-line liberals doing the denying. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I'll be real, I probably give out less probations because I've transitioned away from dealing with reports towards regularly reading the threads I'm interested in and moderating them directly. Moderating via reports sucks and is difficult, time consuming, and frustrating because they're lacking any context and when there are 40 reports a day minimum, at least 80% of them not worth bothering with, whichever mod is handling them tends to burn out towards the end of the list and starts making snap judgments. I've definitely done it plenty in the past. Would it be possible, in a subforum with post volume as low as D&D, to completely disable reports? Free up the mods' time, so they can spend more time following actual threads; if something really bad comes up people can PM a mod. Maybe not practical, just an idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:I used to read D&D often and occasionally post. I very rarely do now. heh What is the reward, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
bane mask golem posted:That's exactly what dozens of people said would happen in both this thread and the QCS thread: "Those examples were too long, so I didn't read them, but they also weren't comprehensive enough, so they didn't prove anything conclusive. No, even literal threats to send a poster to Buchenwald or rape or genocide denial. (didn't read those either) Anyway, nothing's wrong, so nothing will be changed- the mods should be harsher and punish people more, the best way to fix D&D is more and harsher mod actions. I'm certainly not going to put in a few hours of my time to pick 2-3 new mods, that's too much work. Anyway, I'm glad this was permanently resolved." Did it ever occur to you that maybe what you want to happen is not happening because a lot of other people don't want it to happen? Did you read the posts in this thread and in the QCS thread saying that people didn't want to deal with angry, antagonistic posting? Maybe the moderators have an obligation to consider those voices, too?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Even in a feedback thread it's all about "owning" people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
A big part of the problem seems to be that people just need to get the gently caress over getting probations. So many people who are saying "I stopped posting in D&D because my views weren't tolerated!" and then you look at their rap sheets and they've gotten like two probations in D&D ever. I thought we changed the purple box from "YOU'RE A HORRIBLE MONSTER" to "Take a break" to emphasize that no, a probation doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't mean you lost or got owned, it just means you can't post for a few hours.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Missing Donut posted:those who rated us too low on the NPS had burned bridges and were not interested in providing constructive feedback. hmmm
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I think it's fine to say that there's a range of behaviors that you can engage in even as you question a poster's priors and that some of them can be considered unacceptable and some of htem can be considered acceptable. But if you go through the posts by how are u and mellow seas in this thread, it's pretty clear that they do not want their priors interrogated. 30.5 Days posted:And I think that's a pretty clear indication that they are not interested in debate. So how are you going to have a forum that's about debate where they are among the most prolific posters?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Does D&D even have problems outside of the "chat thread" except for two narrow subjects that don't come up nearly as often as they've been mentioned in this thread? (one of which, the "genocide" question, I think has been dealt with in this thread in a way that most people seem to find agreeable)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I think if you posted a tweet that was a pic of the Democratic leadership and said 'name this band' when discussion was slow you would get a similar response. 100%. If people think "you can't say anything critical about Democrats in USNews/D&D" is true, then they don't read the forum, they read their buddies' gossip posting about the forum. They don't have useful feedback because they don't have accurate knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why do you think this? You can trivially check to see if what you say is true and you’d find you’re making poo poo up. What reason is there to take you seriously when you do that? Is it contributing to this thread at all? Are you asserting that you can't say critical things about Democrats in USNews or D&D in general? Or just saying that those people do read D&D, they've just reached a wildly inaccurate conclusion about it somehow? Like, it's a complete lie and it's been repeated over and over in the last thread and this one. What is your issue with the way I am attempting to correct it? e: Like, honestly, look at your posting and your rap sheet and my posting and my rap sheet. We are about as perfect as a case study as you can have that mods don't punish criticism of Democrats and do attempt to punish posting like a dick. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Oct 27, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:The instinct to correct wrongthink is not helpful to a thread soliciting feedback, IMO, and it’s emblematic of the problems of this subforum. It's not "wrongthink", it's just wrong. They are wrong. They are saying something factually incorrect. Saying "wrongthink" turns it into some kind of ideological struggle when it's actually just about what I see, with my eyes - a ton of criticism of Democrats in D&D, that is not (and - do I even have to say this? - shouldn't be) given probations. e: Relevant excerpt from the post below this one: Main Paineframe posted:If polls, past events, studies, or investigations don't line up with an assertion someone made based on their gut feeling and broad ideological stance, then as far as they're concerned, it's the gut feeling that's right and all of the hard evidence that's wrong. Hell, sometimes someone will make a claim that they themselves know isn't true - but they want it to be true, and they don't personally care about the ways in which it's verifiably not true, and according to them that's good enough. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Oct 27, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
Here's a dumb idea that would probably go horribly: Go, like, a month with no D&D mods. Maybe everything is just pretty cool and it's fine! (Probably not.) But what it would do, is give us an opportunity to see what the problems with our group dynamic really are, absent any outside interference. Then, we can evaluate what's going wrong, and what we might want that outside interference to look like. Mods will probably still need to exist in a technical sense, but in this scenario they could only give probes strictly to illegal/dangerous poo poo. I'm not saying "this is what I want" or anything, but maybe something to consider.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:They tried the no-mod-month in GBS years ago and it resulted in 5 years of GBS being completely overrun with awful superstar cliques, misanthropic assholes, and racists, until the admins progressively perma'd all of them and ran them off to offsites like Skullmund (which later collapsed into a pile of bigots). Yeaaaaah that makes sense. Sorry, I was literally on drugs when I thought of that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
Here’s a proposed D&D rule: you can’t say lmao or lol unless you are actually, physically laughing. This will be enforced via mandatory computer/phone camera monitoring, which will be done by AI. If you post lmao while the AI determines you are Mad, Actually, it’s an automated ban+30. This is a very serious suggestion. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 16:17
|
|