|
multijoe posted:going to expend my (1) posting in this thread token to say: lol
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
multijoe posted:going to expend my (∞) posting in this thread token to say: lol
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:No it's the conversation that 2-3 people want to have, while the other 100 regulars in USPol PM me 8 times and file collectively 30 reports about because they want to discuss breaking news in USNews, not vaping policy. But they’re clearly not discussing breaking news or they’d drown out the 2-3 people, and it is vanishingly unlikely any breaking new of import is actually happening or the 2-3 people would almost certainly drop the slightly off-topic discussion to engage with it. So it sounds like your actual problem is (taking your word at face value) a meaningfully large group of D&D regulars who have been trained and conditioned to expect they can control and dictate the flow of conversation to their precise liking via mod intervention at their behest?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
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. hmm so the mod who came in extremely aggressively and imposed new rules dictating people speak in exactly the manner they prefer (including only addressing posts to mods) is now issuing a threadban because they didn't like the content of a perfectly decorous post addressed to them, and misrepresenting both the contents of the post and how that poster behaves in other contexts to do so (a funny "response" to a self-invented charge of being a pathological liar!) this thread really is about the most concise microcosm of what is wrong with D&D moderation imaginable, and a perfect example of why the only rational response to these threads is an ever-increasing level of well-deserved mockery with each new iteration
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem is that doesn't seem to happen here as often. In fact most of the new threads were made by mods it seems like. Like I said: Its weird that nobody feels like they can open their own threads here. Why would that be at all weird? D&D is widely perceived as having mods who are heavy handed, capricious, ideologically driven, and serve the preferences of a subset of regulars who are keen to mass-report anything they don't like. Starting a thread is a much more attention-getting and "serious" undertaking than mere posting (can't autoban with a post!), so it should be no surprise that people are disinclined to start new threads. Meanwhile, most threads started by mods are not actually a natural result of a conversation hitting enough critical mass to deserve a spinoff, but because mods feel they need to intervene to remove a derail (the precise motivations are left as an exercise for the reader). Indeed, the very fact that the mods so frequently intervene (relative to other forums) in the most-read threads to dictate how conversations should be "properly" sequestered in fact almost certainly heavily reinforces those impressions/tendencies.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:What would even be the purpose of reporting a post in this thread lmao these sorts of threads are the only ones I ever report anyone in (aside from obviously illegal content that needs to get zapped ASAP) precisely because they're so high profile and because they tend to have mods talking a lot of talk about how they moderate and how reports should be used while also imposing arbitrary restrictions on the conversation and needing to at least make a pretense of consistency, so it's fun to both see how they conduct themselves (if, say, hypothetically a poster perceived as favored nearly immediately violates every part of the new rules they've just imposed), and to (presumably) elevate the new arbitrary rules to a place where other mods might then see that (again, purely hypothetically) a fellow mod had kramered into a thread and was aggressively threatening week-long probes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:After things settled down, we, for the reasons fos and i enunciated, went with "everybody shut up about readechat". This was a clear, simple policy that made absolutely everyone involved angry. Yeah, that "secret hope" was never a secret to anyone at all. Just a real mystery why anyone thinks D&D moderation has a strong partisan bias or backs rape apologia.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Some do, some don't. And certainly the mods know/think such splits kill conversations, since one of them just, y'know, admitted that they created a thread in a deliberate and considered attempt to do exactly that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:okay so no quote:After things settled down, we, for the reasons fos and i enunciated, went with "everybody shut up about readechat". This was a clear, simple policy that made absolutely everyone involved angry. quote:Our secret hope was that everyone would move on from Tara Reade Oh certainly no one intended anything as gauche as killing a conversation, they just wanted to sequester it away in a specific thread in the explicit hope that people would "move on" (certainly not a phrase with any unfortunate implications re: allegations of sexual impropriety involving Democratic presidents) And it would be wildly unfair to draw any unfavorable conclusions from things like: a. lack of previously established interest in a more in-depth conversation than could be accomplished in USPOL b. The impetus very clearly being the Reade accusations specifically c. All of this coming on the heels of what is acknowledged to be an explicit "shut up about Reade" policy
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 00:38
|
|