Stringent posted:

as a show of solidarity with cpt_obvious i'm going to eat the probe for a forum banned poster posting out of turn. here's my post from qcs describing the grossly iniquitous moderation that constantly goes on in dnd.

ok i dug up a few examples for you to look at.

the first is a post that wasn't probated, but I PMd a mod about it and they said it was seen and thoroughly discussed. i bring this up just to establish a baseline of what's known to be acceptable dialogue by the dnd mods.

so, let's have a look at what isn't acceptable.

here's a week for making a (good) joke.

threadban

threadban

this was only a sixer, but the exchange is quite illustrative of the double standard they've got going in there

two weeks

forum ban

this is an *extremely* truncated list, it doesn't even start on the poo poo that goes on outside of uspol, but any more would be even more tedious for me to post and you to read. but i assure you that this is very much the norm for that forum and the mods' personal ideological biases are by far the governing moderation principle in dnd and have been for quite a while.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Rules change based on proposal from That Other Thread:

- One post per combat round is lifted.
- Do not attack other posters. Direct your poo poo to the mods.
- Do not quote other posters. Direct your poo poo to the mods.
- Do not get cute about the previous two.
- As always, do not be an rear end in a top hat.
- Forumbans still apply.
- Updating the OP is too much of a pain in the rear end on the phone, so I'll do it later.
- If this results in a total shitshow, we may alter the rules; "one post per 24 hours" seems plausible but we'll see.

GreyjoyBastard posted:

I did read your post in the other thread about this, and we may abolish that rule tomorrow.

StratGoatCom posted:

I do like the 'disable report button' idea - and if anyone uses URL fuckery to get past it, just give them a weeker for Forums Fuckery.

Jazerus posted:

hi i don't have much to say about d&d that i haven't already said in the QCS thread but i want to dispute this

the blow zone was good, it worked, you felt you had to close it because you were uncomfortable with people being angry at each other and also you were uncomfortable with the fact that at least one poster on the d&d "side" took their mask off and went full "tara reade is a liar", something which had to be pointed out to you and which you punished with a 6er, the probation type that isn't really a punishment. people were uncomfortable with your non-punishment and posted angrily at you. all of these things came together to make you feel that the blow zone was sufficiently uncivilized so as to require never opening it up again.

none of that is a law of nature. you didn't "have to" close it, but you did, because you didn't want to let the de facto "succ zone embassy" actually operate by succ zone rules in order to let folks work out their grievances. if the blow zone was a permanent weekly institution i think you would see the same pattern every week: level-headed discussions and people reaching out across the battle lines, mixed in with people arguing and laying out their grievances. that's what any "outlet" thread designed for people to work their anxiety and shitposting out in is going to look like. it's what the last incarnation of the blow zone looked like - don't minimize the reasonable discussions that were taking place over the whole weekend just because they were interspersed with the more heated stuff.

anyway basically the blow zone worked, if you were to continue it it would continue to work and would both let people slapfight in an isolated manner, and occasionally reveal the "bad apples" in d&d when they get baited into writing screeds about tara reade or whatever issue of the day is contentious. you may not be the mod that should shepherd the blow zone in the future, however, because you do not like angry discussions nor do you recognize/appropriately respond to the severity of situations where posters take their mask off and say nasty poo poo

CommieGIR posted:

And your inability to expect mods to be fallible humans who make mistakes is interesting.

ram dass in hell posted:

It sure was! Hey FoS, any plans to actually read the multiple effortposts made in response to your questions about sexual assault from yesterday, or is it another case of demanding effort from rape survivors to educate you and then ignoring their work and/or punishing them for it?

fool of sound posted:

I'm not going to unmask them in thread if they want to have an alt, but I also do know who they are and given that don't think that they should be hanging around the feedback thread on that alt.

fool of sound posted:

Going to break kayfabe for a moment to say that I'm not super interested in the trust or respect or opinions of posters that I think should be banned. If you have a problem with that complain to the admins.

fool of sound posted:

This is largely in regard to the people I've kicked out of this thread.

fool of sound posted:

Grooglon posted:

I've seen folks in this thread passionately argue both that D&D regulars need to learn how to deal with harsh tones AND D&D regulars need to stop posting with harsh tones. If we assume that the answer is not for D&D regs to always be nice while everyone else gets to always be mean, I'm not sure what the takeaway is here except that everyone has an opinion.

fool of sound posted:

Also only dnd and occasionally qcs tend to consistantly get enough reports to make the kludged system an issue. I think gbs had an issue with the cursed image thread throwing up a ton of "no image" reports but I think they've got people to cut thay out now.

fool of sound posted:

Lots of people are reporting posts in this thread even though every single D&D mod is reading it.

Jarmak posted:

None of these posts are equivalent examples. They are complete thoughts, provide commentary on what is being linked, and don't misrepresent the poster's opinion as the contents of what is linked.

quote:

---Good discussion requires good information, something that is increasingly hard to come by in the age of 140 character non sequiturs and blogging grifters presenting as experts. Make an effort to vet your sources before you post them, and when you do make sure that you make clear the following: who is the source, what do they have to say, and why should they be considered valid.

How are u posted:

Every offensive or rude avatar I've ever been given, I feel, has said a lot more about the buyer than about me. They don't bother me at all, but I do think mods across the forum should feel free to exercise their judgment for avs that are egregiously gross or offensive.

I turned avs off in 2014 and never looked back.

Telsa Cola posted:

I have no idea if this works, or if it is possible but it is also possible that other posters basically do the reverse you and drop a bunch of cash to reverse the avs, since I believe there are several resources out there that can show past avatars.

Deteriorata posted:

I would never pay a penny to reverse one, either. I've had a new av in mind for a couple months, but with 500 good dogs buying me a new one every few weeks I haven't bothered to waste the money.

CommieGIR posted:

Stuff like this will be just as punishable as someone trying to deny Tara Reade's claims. That's what the change will be.

VitalSigns posted:

I don't think anyone is calling for an "always believe accusers" rule, more of a rule against using rape culture bullshit arguments to dismiss accusers out of hand.

Pretty big difference between "I'm skeptical of this accusation of domestic abuse because the accuser claimed to have video evidence that they are now refusing to provide" and "I'm skeptical of this accusation of sexual assault because the accuser had a late rent check/the accuser might not have a bachelor's degree/Fox News is reporting on it/etc"

It's a pretty bright line imo

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.

1337JiveTurkey posted:

Yes when you travel to the magical world of make-believe you can just attribute anything you don't like to the CIA and then declare it false. That's so much more pleasant than actually engaging with the real suffering of real people.

Deteriorata posted:

It was appropriate to respond and give him a chance to clarify just what the heck he was talking about. CGR gave him some rope to hang himself with, basically.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

I agree with you that neither regular posters nor CommieGIR should have engaged with it. But the reason it should have been "bounced" isn't because it was "agreed" that it was pure idiocy, but because it went against the thread rules as laid out in its OP:

Deteriorata posted:

The thread was not about the CIA, his comments were irrelevant to the thread topic with the intent to derail the conversation and was obviously trolling. It is behavior we do not want around here.

Deteriorata posted:

It was appropriate to respond and give him a chance to clarify just what the heck he was talking about.

A big flaming stink posted:

do you not see how this is a profoundly corrosive assumption?

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Well, that is already assumed. But at some point, the poster gives moderators sufficient reason to invalidate that assumption, and a probation is issued.

Alchenar posted:

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.

Deteriorata posted:

The problem with ignore lists is that no one sees the stupid things the trolls say and they never get reported, so the mods think everyone is fine with it.

socialsecurity posted:

Considering how many people in this very thread were bragging because people ignored fancy pelosi I imagine quite a few

socialsecurity posted:

Honestly I bet there are more people on the forums overall that would admit to being a Tankie vs a Liberal

eSports Chaebol posted:

Perhaps the relevant snippets should be posted in the rules thread; if the Media Analysis thread is to act as a de facto rules thread, it seems a bit onerous to expect everyone to read the whole thing.

1337JiveTurkey posted:

If former C-SPAM superstar taintrunner is now a lib, that's about as much proof as you need that the labels are meaningless.

Mellow Seas posted:

Well hey, whatever the mods do I’m sure we’ll probably all be unhappy with it, and maybe it’ll help a little, or maybe it’ll make it a lot worse, and we’ll all still be miserable at the end. It’s a lot like the Democrats!

Let’s remember that we all share the strange affliction of giving a poo poo about this place and the discussion here, and try to share some sense of camaraderie about that. This thread sure was a thread.