|
Given the posters who are furious about DnD moderation, it appears the mods are doing a great job and need to keep up the good work.
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Fancy Pelosi posted:Not to distract from CommieGIR's currently ongoing meltdown, but if all you brilliant mods knew I was trolling from the moment I showed up, why did one of you blank my redtext for free without me even asking? That's weird. So you're mad that people were nice to you?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Willa has 3 probes in the past 2 months and posts about 100 times a day in USNEWS, there was a ramp back in August over a series of shitposts none of that feels like constantly, it really feels like CSPAM have created their own echo chamber cinematic universe nonsense "D&D probes anyone who doesn't love the dems" and "people were forumbanned at the drop of the hat for not liking a dem" and spend their time raging over it. I think the solution to fixing D&D is to close the Succ thread so there stops being a thread that encourages cspammers to come argue with usnews for the purpose of trolling and farming quotes for their weird circlejerk thread. It feels a lot better to be a martyr for a cause than to admit you were a jerk and deserved to eat a probe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I know you're doing a bit here but you would absolutely lose your loving mind if people were encouraged to come into your playpen and tell you your opinions are poo poo to your face. And that's the fundamental disconnect here. You're more than welcome to come and express any opinion you like. Just do it politely and respectfully, and have some evidence to back up your points. If you just leap in with guns blazing, you'll get probed in a heartbeat. Not for your opinions, but for being a jerk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
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. If the point of your posting is to make people feel bad and not discuss the topic in question, then you're not actually being polite or respectful.
|
|
#
¿
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's a necessary condition for discussing contentious issues. Nobody learns anything from a poo poo-flinging screamfest. D&D is a place to discuss things with emotions in check. If people can't do that, they shouldn't post here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the real problem in USPol isn't the momentary derails like vapes or whatever. nobody really cares all that much about that poo poo, and they'll quickly drop it if something more interesting comes in And they seem to want to keep it in USNews because they want everyone to be forced to see their terrible opinions. If they actually wanted to discuss the matter seriously, they would be fine with a separate thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 23:19
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is Democrat party actually getting probed for being said? I've always seen it as more of something that gets other posters angry vs something the mods are handing out probes for. It was for a short time. Somebody used it, someone else pointed out that it was a right-wing meme and it was bad taste to signal-boost it. Then 20 trolls leapt out of the darkness and started using it constantly just to piss everyone off. Some probes were handed out for it, and the fad died.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"You are all a bunch of rape apologists" just ain't the quality posting you think it is. But maybe given the desire for us to be hands off, we can bring it back. Maybe that doesn't matter anymore. The Blow Zone was a bad idea that was incompatible with the nature of this forum. If people want a place to post like CSPAM, such a forum already exists. D&D should be its own thing, and if people don't like it they can just not post here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
Jimong5 posted:Do you think maybe the culture of D&D being super tedious might have something to do with it? That in those 7 years a combo of LF, GBS, and CSPAM have been must better outlets to read and post in? I generally don't post all that often anyway and mostly lurk but I read these forums pretty often since 2005. If you think D&D is super tedious, just don't post there. That's not very complicated. I'm baffled as to why you care so much and are so angry about it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I think it's completely reasonable to say that this is not the place for debate, but you can see from jeffrey's conclusions, posted above, that he wants to double down on this being a place for serious effortful politics posting. This is going to happen with, what, zero adversarial engagement between posters? You want a place with less friction. Like I said, that's fine. But that is contrary to what has been posted as the direction of D&D, by the owner of this site, just a page earlier. There's a lot more to politics and the D&D forum than the USNews thread. The USNews thread specifically is a bad place for a serious debate, because it is by design a light discussion news aggregation thread. There's plenty of serious debate to be had in other political threads.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
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. 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? OK, you keep conflating the USNews thread with the totality of D&D. Please clarify which one you are referring to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I am conflating D&D with the place where most of D&D's posts are stored. Fascinating. They are not the same thing. Please clarify which you wish to refer to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Because we had a huge-rear end QCS thread where one of the topics of discussion was the tension between debate and discussion, and then it was closed and a few days later jeffrey made a post where he said "ok the future of D&D is effortposting and debate" and now everyone's saying "no you don't get it, it's the same aimless sludge it always has been" USNews is a single thread, with a different set of rules specifically for that thread. It's fairly common on most forums. Are you new to the SA forums? Your reg date suggests you've been around long enough to know this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Chat threads in games is still subject to the rules and expectations of the games forum. It's also true in CSPAM and most of the recent anger at cspam has been a lot of people discovering very suddenly that some massive megathread was operating on a different, completely unacceptable, set of rules. But again, this isn't weird in the least. SA has had threads like that for years.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:anyway it probably deserves a real effortpost but I am very interested in How Do You Solve A Problem Like Usnews and every solution we've tried so far hasn't worked Minimize drive-by shitposting by 1) banning Twitters and 2) requiring all links to include a summary of the content so people can know what it is before they click it. Otherwise, clarify what you want the thread to be and enforce it. There's always going to be aggro shitheads who will be mad that they can't be aggro shitheads in D&D - you're never going to appease them so stop trying to. Whether thread/forum bans are the way to go or long-term probes + bans, you'll have to decide. They're the only tools you have to enforce order so use them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:this sounds absolutely miserable for mods to have to deal with other than the "make it so multiple people can report the same post" as fool of sound mentioned it might improve report review Yeah, the "lack of trust" seems to be primarily from disgruntled posters obsessively pissed about well-deserved probes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I don't feel like I really have a place in D&D, CSPAM or other places on SA. My ideology is saddled and reined in where most others aren't. Kaopectate takes care of trots.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 13:37
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I feel that the suggestion to ban conservative view points is just opening pandora's box by giving ammo to the posters with the most extreme viewpoints to redefine moderate views as "conservative" in order to demand mod enforcement action on beliefs or positions they disagree with. Conservatives disappeared because their ideology has drifted into fantasy land and they couldn't make coherent arguments in support of their positions. They're more than welcome any time they can.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Is the idea that the bill is dead completely out of bounds? It seems like a very real possibility, and yet that analysis is perceived as trolling because it is something the in-group, which includes the mods, do not believe. "doomerism" is just a pejorative for a set of beliefs that you don't like. Maybe because it's not dead? You could make an argument about why you think it's likely that the reconciliation bill will die and the ramifications of it - i.e. put some effort into analyzing the situation and why it will turn out as you expect. Posting "It's dead, lol" is just shitposting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:imo it's fine to be pessimistic Yeah, doomposting becomes indistinguishable from outright trolling, as they are non-factual low-content posts that disrupt the discussion in the thread. There are some posters who do it all the time, either because they can't help themselves or they are actually trolling. Regardless of the intent, the effect is the same and should be controlled. I can put them on my ignore list, but people still respond to them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Since it got brought up last page, pessimism is not necessarily doomposting. I can feel like the government has failed its people and has entered an unreversible gridlock and not feel 'doomed'. I still help my community around me, go to work, and live my life. When it's the same conversation we've already had six hundred times, no one wants to do it again. You can feel that the government has failed its people and entered an unreversible gridlock without having it be the only thing you ever post about.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:X is "santa claus's arrival". it's not any more realistic than the supposed doomposting Asserting that a hoped-for good thing can't possibly happen is kind of, um, doomerism in itself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:I genuinely can't imagine paying a thousand dollars for avatar changes that randomly gets reversed because a mod decided it wasn't funny enough. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:A hyperstrict forum doesn't work because the forums in general have drifted from that. I remember when I first started posting on this site, I was terrified of posting (probably a bit too much), and things were in full capitalization era, etc. The site evolves, and while I (again) have no problem with D&D being the effortpost forum, much more shitposting is expected to be forgiven now than it would've been in the past due to evolving relationships between the userbase/their expectations and the mod. Probably because the userbase is smaller, people have more places to shitpost than they did before, or something more elusive that I can't enunciate. Even the sports forums are loosening up on rival puns after years of that being the firmest line drawn in the sand. I think it's a slippery slope to say, "Anything but the strictest application of the rules will lead to CSPAM 2.0." The cure for most toxic cultures on this site was either looser and more diplomatic moderation or, if it wasn't something that could benefit from that, nuking the problem area from orbit, a la GBS 2.0. I think D&D is the only forum on the entire site whose user base is asking for more probations and, like, okay, if that's what the user base wants, but don't expect to get outsiders of any stripe, even the most innocuous Goons with Spoons poster, to join in any time soon because it'll feel like a time warp for them and not in a pleasant way. The answer to this is "lurk before posting." Get a feel for what the forum is like before you jump in. Any set of rules will be tolerated as long as they are useful rules that promote the desired posting atmosphere. The sports forums backing down on rivals puns is a great disappointment. It was in important tool for keeping discussions civil and minimizing shitposting. I guess they prefer more of that, now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:If your answer is "lurk more" then it sounds like you agree with everything probably magic said, you just don't agree that it's a problem Basically, yes. Rules define the posting space. People need to understand that before they jump in. If people are intimidated by the rules but find the posting interesting, they should just read for a while to get a feel for it. That tends to solve most of the issue. Changing the rules changes the posting space, and doesn't necessarily improve it for everyone already there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
500 good dogs posted:
D&D is supposed to be about debating the words people post, not the people posting them. Ad hominems and appeals to emotion are rhetorical abuses that get in the way of meaningful discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 16:57
|
|
... why?
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:To be totally frank with you, and without getting into an awkward/gross battle over the details here, you're misreading the use of authoritative language and dedicated interest in a topic as "expertise." It's an anonymous internet forum, nobody gets to come in with some magical force field of respect above anybody else, and every post should be taken at face value. It's one thing to suggest enforced rules of decorum and civility and limit harassment, which is quite fair; it's another thing entirely to expect moderators to be able to somehow assess and protect the "knowledgeable." That's the thing about arguing based on facts. If someone is full of it, you prove them wrong. You don't get to hand-wave them away or call them names.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 22:21
|
|
|
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. Then it becomes a battle of sources. Source A says X, source B says Y. You then have to dive into what the sources are for your sources, and chasing the rabbit through the hole as far as it goes until you figure out why they're different. You also have to get into the political motivations behind why each source reports the number they do, which leads you to the Media thread which everyone loves to hate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If people want to give the no discussion newsfeed thing another shot they can I guess but the last one died a protracted death as only one person would regularly post things there and everyone else just hung out in USPol. That was primarily because PPJ kind of elbowed everyone else out of the way and would post like 15 articles at once. I got to where I didn't bother looking for anything interesting to post because I figured PPJ would include it in his next drop whether I posted anything or not. It might work if people just posted 1 article at a time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:I'm still very much concerned that going back to the old days where each new thing would get its own thread is no longer viable in the long term. Much the same for me. I check out the D&D forum page now and then, but few threads are all that interesting to me. Too many are just the same people calling each other names and I get enough of that in USNews. I don't need to see the same people saying the same stuff across six different threads.* * I'm sure that's not how those threads are most of the time, but when I've randomly sampled them they have been. It was enough that I didn't feel compelled to join in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Without getting into that poster's bizarrely ahistorical takes on the innocence of the CIA, I think trying to equate (accusations of) rape apologia in this subforum with (accusations of) genocide denial is unnecessary because the more relevant comparison is Chinese genocide denial vs US genocide denial, specifically the concentration camps on our southern border that are unambiguous, documented fact Just to go full D&D for a moment, this is an excellent demonstration of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy. It gets used a lot around here these days. Specifically, China can be committing genocide and the US can be, too - and they both can be bad at the same time. Neither excuses the other. Whether or not China is committing genocide is completely orthogonal to whether or not the US is. We can talk about whether or not what China is doing qualifies as a genocide or not independent of anything else. Then we can talk about whether or not what the US is doing qualifies. We may decide that both, either, or neither qualifies. But neither one justifies or mitigates the other.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:What the gently caress are you talking about lol. My post was about how topics are moderated and punishment is applied. This seems like a textbook example of arguing with what you wish someone had said rather than what they actually said, which we're not supposed to do here You are correct. I misread your post and got a bit to high on my own farts. I'll STFU about the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 05:09
|
|
|
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. The main issue here is that people come into the USNews thread and post the exact same claim repeatedly. The first couple times, the thread takes it seriously and people come to a conclusion as to whether it's true/false valid/invalid or whatever. Then the same thing gets posted again and the collective eye-rolling begins. We really don't want to have the exact same argument yet again. Someone presents the conclusion that was reached the last time around in order to forestall the tedium, and then the thread gets accused of "groupthink" and being unwilling to discuss certain ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it seems to me that these are not issues which moderation helps in any way, and especially not moderation based on discerning whether a poster's opinion is genuine or fake. just posting your opinion sincerely should never be seen as trolling - even if some arch-conservative shitlord comes in and starts posting, they aren't trolling or posting in bad faith, they're just a shitlord. i mean this happens every time jrod comes to town - everyone knows that he's 100% sincere in his devotion to ron "kill you're parents" paul so he doesn't get hit for trolling or bad faith. Somebody who is following the thread knows what topics are being discussed and have been in the past. When it's the same person making the same debunked claim repeatedly, at some point they lose the presumption of good faith. Where that line is, I'll leave up to the mods but deliberately disrupting the thread with repeated nonsense claims is absolutely trolling.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:my instinct as a cspam poster is that you should all say "lmao gently caress off" to that person instead of relying on moderation, but that isn't very d&d. it may be true that within the context of d&d a mod needs to get involved in such a thing, at some point, but probably less often than they do now. also i think it's hard to come to an agreement on what "debunked" means - if someone posts a claim, and thread regulars respond with an NYT article that disagrees with the first poster's claim on like the basic premise of what facts are true or false, is that NYT article enough for you to say that the poster's claim is "debunked"? the NYT is very often wrong, you see, so the first poster could credibly say "well, but everything i said is still true, the NYT is wrong" and that is still a discussion that should be within the bounds of the rules! just because you have decided that the claim is debunked doesn't mean the other poster has to quit trying to provide evidence for that claim, although you're not obligated to pay attention to what they say if your mind is already made up of course. Yeah, that's why we have mods. "Lmao, gently caress off" is an inappropriate response around here. We have our own ways of doing things. We have the Media Analysis thread to help people evaluate the credibility of sources for the very reason you mention.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it seems to me that many people do not agree with that thread's methodology for evaluating source credibility, based on what i have read in this feedback thread, and that using it as an extension of the rules - "the media analysis thread agrees that this source is completely untrustworthy, so you must be trolling if you post an article from it" or the opposite - is not a very good idea. Lots of people get really mad when told that the biased source they're quoting is just making up numbers to tell them what they want to hear. If you think the whole thing is a rigged game, maybe you shouldn't post here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You also keep arguing against the inverse though, that people who express their world view can not earn labels that actually describe what those views are. It's also supposed to be irrelevant here, because you're expected to make a coherent argument that can stand on its own merits without resorting to labeling anything or anyone. If you argue that the Moon is made of green cheese, I'm going to disagree and it doesn't matter if you're a fascist or a Marxist. It's a false statement regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:You keep trying to make this about individual labels when the liberal/leftist divide is the heart of the problem with D&D. You really seem to want to pretend it is, anyway. I don't think there's many in D&D that actually care.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Well, there was no "intended message". It's not about debating definitions instead of facts. It should be pretty obvious that the poster's sole intent was to derail the thread by picking a fight using hyperbolic rhetoric that they knew would get replies, and it is something that happens very frequently in this forum, i.e. even when two sides are 95% in agreement about something, one side focuses on the remaining 5% only for the sake of "othering" their opponent. IMO this just comes down to intellectual laziness. Laying a sick burn on someone lets you feel like you've won an argument without actually putting forth any effort. The same with hyperbolic usage of loaded words. The intent is to derail the argument and befuddle your opponents so you can "win" without actually saying anything meaningful.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2021 20:24
|
|