|
Pretty happy with the moderation so far, I agree with Willas suggestions too. I would add that it's probably not a good idea for anyone with mod powers to regularly get involved in arguments because it's a bad look.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
As a mostly lurker, I think the most destructive moderation tendency which led to most of the d&d problems has been "shitposts I agree with are fun, arguments I disagree with are illegal." The toxicity, insularity, and posts trying to goad their ideological enemies into saying some variety of illegal opinion all get exacerbated by that. Post koos regime, that's way, way down (though not gone), so that's very good. But, it seems to me that the non koos mods are going along with this not because they agree they shouldn't be banning wrong thought on sight, but just because they are afraid of koos or the admins. Still, it's a very positive trend overall imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Great, thank you! Also wanted to add: I didnt mean to single Fritz out, was just the most recent example I could find. I think the moderation has been pretty good, all told. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I understand your point of view completely and, unfortunately, moderation is always going to have a somewhat subjective element at play, depending on who views a report or sees a questionable post. This is one reason we've been utilizing the mod discord and team chat to bring things to the attention of other mods and admins if needed, which hopefully allows some conversation and some sort of informal consensus. And sometimes mods use their best judgment in a derail or if something is starting to get circular and people are getting more nasty to each other rather than waiting for a consensus. But I think communicating and collaborating on questionable results has resulted in more consistent and higher quality moderation. So tl;dr modding can be subjective but we are doing our best to improve and moderate consistently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:As a mostly lurker, I think the most destructive moderation tendency which led to most of the d&d problems has been "shitposts I agree with are fun, arguments I disagree with are illegal." The toxicity, insularity, and posts trying to goad their ideological enemies into saying some variety of illegal opinion all get exacerbated by that. That doesn't seem to be the case to me for two reasons. First, the newest mods were informed about what the changes would be before they were brought on, and were able to choose whether that was a D&D they'd like to be part of. Second, my impression in the mod forum from well before I was in charge was that some of the existing mods had a yearning for not moderating positions, but didn't feel it would be feasible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
We are eventually going to have to deal with the "we hid Reade chat cause we hoped people would move on" poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I'd just like to let fritz know they should chill with trying to police what is or is not on-topic. I recall them being particularly quick on the draw to demand posters drop something in the COVID and China thread from recent memory. Sounds more like you want a carte-blanche on more Whataboutism to poo poo up the China thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Sounds more like you want a carte-blanche on more Whataboutism to poo poo up the China thread. Why is whataboutism bad and why do you think it should it be proscribed? I wonder the same about what people call “doomism,” which people also seem eager to punish.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:We are eventually going to have to deal with the "we hid Reade chat cause we hoped people would move on" poo poo If by deal with it, you mean assess how the current rules apply to the subject, I would be happy to. You are free to discuss Tara Reade if you believe you have something new to say on the subject. Debaters are, likewise, allowed to take any stance on the veracity of her allegations, since positions aren't moderated. With that said, I don't expect it would be a very fruitful avenue of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:If by deal with it, you mean assess how the current rules apply to the subject, I would be happy to. You are free to discuss Tara Reade if you believe you have something new to say on the subject. Debaters are, likewise, allowed to take any stance on the veracity of her allegations, since positions aren't moderated. With that said, I don't expect it would be a very fruitful avenue of discussion. quote:Our secret hope was that everyone would move on from Tara Reade I have no trust any more of that mod. This is not something easily forgotten
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why is whataboutism bad and why do you think it should it be proscribed? Right, so. Whataboutism is a fallacy under a certain condition, and it's a rather subtle distinction. Say there are some posters who believe Switzerland is the best country, and others who believe Portugal is. If someone points out that Switzerland has legalized slavery in the Switzerland thread, and this is bad, and then a Switzerland fan comes in and says Portugal has it too, as though that means it isn't bad, that would be whataboutism. If someone were to say yes, it is bad, though Switzerland's greatest enemy Portugal also engages in it, so one can't choose the better among them on that issue alone, it wouldn't be whataboutism, because that's a reasonable argument. But even if it's not technically whataboutism, it can be contentious to bring up a different country than the one of subject. On the other hand, most SA posters are from Portugal, which is currently Switzerland's number one global rival, so how Portugal might compare is always a sort of elephant in the room when talking about Switzerland. So I suppose the most important thing would be to fully address what someone else is saying when arguing with them, and make sure the info you're posting is correct and in context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:No i mean the mod who said Okay, well, that's noted, but this feedback is meant to be about current moderation practices and issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Okay, well, that's noted, but this feedback is meant to be about current moderation practices and issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
I regularly click on dnd and see interesting posts, so something is working, gj. Also good to see the 'let me restate your position into something totally different from what you said, and then get angry about it for 20 posts' get shut down more consistently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I regularly click on dnd and see interesting posts, so something is working, gj. Also good to see the 'let me restate your position into something totally different from what you said, and then get angry about it for 20 posts' get shut down more consistently. Yeah, this has been a major issue for over a decade in this forum and it's great to see it being addressed. The modding situation has been like night and day since major changes were implemented. I actually see things like "misrepresenting other posters" and "being an rear end in a top hat" being probed on a regular basis as well. Please keep it up. It's also great that the folks actively modding here are actually reading what's going on. In fact, it's bound to happen that mods from time to time participate. I figure we just all agree that any subjective modding that happens comes from other mods and that pretty much solves any issues which may come up. You folks are already pretty clear on your expectations, you admit when you made a mistake or need to fine tune things and that's fine too since you're all human beings and volunteers. I haven't seen any major "what the gently caress was this mod thinking" type probes like in the past so yeh, great work! EDIT: The fact that this thread isn't 20 pages long with a bunch of folks just making things up is proof that things are improving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
My only real interaction with D&D is the COVID thread, it's a dumpster fire, don't know if that's new for you guys or no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:D&D seems a lot better now than it was just a few weeks ago, so good job Yep. The difference is significant. I don't post much in D&D (or in general), but I'm much more likely to participate in the CE thread now than I was a few weeks ago. BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:I think the CE thread is at it’s best when it’s loosely moderated and posters themselves determine where it leads. A semi-relevant derail every now and then isn’t something that warrants active intervention. I agree with this to some extent...but it obviously depends on the derail, and the overall "feel" (for want of a better term) of the conversation. I don't really give a poo poo if there's a derail about something interesting and somewhat related (or even not related at all, but I realize that's more personal and one thing that folks are trying to actively discourage). That being said, there are particular "black holes" of political conversation that have been beaten into a fine mist on these forums, and erring on the side of shutting them down (unless there's something seriously new being brought to the table) is the wise choice. Herstory Begins Now posted:Also good to see the 'let me restate your position into something totally different from what you said, and then get angry about it for 20 posts' get shut down more consistently. Holy poo poo this. It seems like folks who are often 90% in agreement on issues act like Lifelong Posting Enemies based on one or both of them constructing elaborate-yet-simplistic imaginary positions to be outraged by. This, IMO, was one of the most common precursors to pages of lovely slapfighting, and it's super nice to see it pointed out and discouraged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
nomad2020 posted:My only real interaction with D&D is the COVID thread, it's a dumpster fire, don't know if that's new for you guys or no. It's impossible to have a good covid thread for self-selecting reasons, because anyone who wants to spend their free time discussing covid is insane
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
Mods should need to peer review probations with people they are debating with. I'm sure it happens and I just don't realize it, but more than just asking another mod to probate someone without question, sometimes we all need a "dude your in the wrong here" to better self regulate our emotional responses. The fact that people are afraid of getting probed when a mod is arguing is not great. Y'all do good work, but knowing a probe is being looked at by a neutral person may coax those fears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Okay, well, that's noted, but this feedback is meant to be about current moderation practices and issues. Is it current moderation practice to give a pass to all posts by previous moderators
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Mods should need to peer review probations with people they are debating with. I'm sure it happens and I just don't realize it, but more than just asking another mod to probate someone without question, sometimes we all need a "dude your in the wrong here" to better self regulate our emotional responses. The fact that people are afraid of getting probed when a mod is arguing is not great. Y'all do good work, but knowing a probe is being looked at by a neutral person may coax those fears. I agree with this quite a bit and I can tell you that, particularly since Koos has come on, there has been a lot of this. I am usually very quick to pop in if something's getting heated in the Covid thread, for instance, and ask for a sanity check. I'll usually say, "hey, can you look at my posting in there and see if it's getting bad/top strong/too harsh etc." I will 100% own up to the fact that I was recently diagnosed with bipolar disorder and I have been actively trying not to step in as much when I'm know I'm on a downswing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Mods should need to peer review probations with people they are debating with. I'm sure it happens and I just don't realize it, but more than just asking another mod to probate someone without question, sometimes we all need a "dude your in the wrong here" to better self regulate our emotional responses. The fact that people are afraid of getting probed when a mod is arguing is not great. Y'all do good work, but knowing a probe is being looked at by a neutral person may coax those fears. It's worked that way since I've been here and I assume most of the time previously. Earlier this week another mod pinged the Discord channel asking for a second set of eyes on a series of posts and thought a specific poster might need a probation. I had a look and didn't think a probation was warranted, but I did participate in the thread for a bit. It's very common to get a second or third opinion on something before acting and afaict it's sort of an unwritten rule that you grab someone else to review if you're engaged in the discussion yourself. D&D moderation is a pretty collaborative process. edit: also, we have a pretty active team of six mods looking at the US politics threads and the number of reports is somewhat down as I understand it. The combination of having a pretty full bench and fewer reports means reports are getting looked at very closely and anything tricky involves several mods discussing it. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jan 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
We also tend to rope in other mods like CSPAM mods or Admins to look over possible conflicts of interests when doing probations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
Koos is the best mod this forum has had
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
AOCIA posted:Is it current moderation practice to give a pass to all posts by previous moderators No. The post doesn't seem to be disqualifying for modship. If I understand the situation correctly, it was perceived that he wanted conversation to move on because Reade chat was politically embarrassing for him, but the actual cause seems to be that it wasn't producing good discussion and was hellish to moderate. That fits much better with what I've seen of moderators' motivations in private spaces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
I'd say D&D is going in the right direction now, but there's still some ways to go. Ramped probations seemed to have mostly stopped, I'm guessing because the new rules kind of act as an excuse to turn over a new leaf. I'm hoping that more of the old rules come back just as a natural turn toward enforcing debate. I would have preferred a greater purge of D&D mods because I don't think all of them are effectively on board with this change, but also a lot of people don't want to mod D&D so I guess we're just stuck with them in the hope that they can change. No new stylesheet please. Also, more woozy sixers in Koos' rap sheet, funniest poo poo I've seen in a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:12
|
|
|
We've got a few mods, including myself, who get heated from time to time and love to fight and are huge communists or whatever. The system we have in place to ensure this doesn't result in abuse exists, but is opaque as a matter of course, unfortunately. For purposes of transparency, the normal way things work is that myself or Commie or Fritz or whoever will get all hootin and hollerin about something, and probably even before it becomes heated there has already been a request for other mods to put some eyes on the situation and advise and be the ones to distribute catjailings if necessary.. This, of course, includes mods themselves who can and have been probed and reprimanded for their behavior. We are just normal rear end posters when it comes down to it after all. I'd say one of the best things about Koos' reign that nobody has mentioned so far is how much more pleasant it has been to mod under it and how much easier it has been to actually get some more volunteers to help out. If things feel different now compared to a couple months ago it's worth giving some thought to how we have a half dozen active and empowered and not completely mentally devastated mods compared to the old ways of 3 or maybe 4 trying to deal with a few perennial wildfires
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
Thanks for all your responses, And as always, free piss flaps
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We also tend to rope in other mods like CSPAM mods or Admins to look over possible conflicts of interests when doing probations. This too, it's incredibly helpful to be able to ask CSPAM mods for their takes as well, particularly since there a fair number of posters who choose to participate in both subforums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:This too, it's incredibly helpful to be able to ask CSPAM mods for their takes as well, particularly since there a fair number of posters who choose to participate in both subforums. This is just the informal discord stuff to be clear, anything really big will be dropped into forums-wide channels so that mods and admins from all over can weigh in. The whole setup really is far more communal than I think anybody would guess
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I'd say D&D is going in the right direction now, but there's still some ways to go. Ramped probations seemed to have mostly stopped, I'm guessing because the new rules kind of act as an excuse to turn over a new leaf. I'm hoping that more of the old rules come back just as a natural turn toward enforcing debate. Ramped probations were a terrible idea and it's great to see them gone. My feedback is to never start doing them again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
D&D is already way better. Posting here no longer feels like a gamble as to how long it will take before you get probed for whatever flimsy pretense. Thanks Koos.some plague rats posted:Ramped probations were a terrible idea and it's great to see them gone. My feedback is to never start doing them again. Absolutely. An awful idea that never once worked. Pentecoastal Elites fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Sounds more like you want a carte-blanche on more Whataboutism to poo poo up the China thread. this isn't an ideological thing, I just think that threads generate better discussion when the subject is allowed to meander
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 03:06
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:this isn't an ideological thing, I just think that threads generate better discussion when the subject is allowed to meander Several China thread posters expressed concern that the thread often wandered into non-China topics, in particular discussion of the US (not necessarily whataboutism). The specific reason I've popped in to remind people to try and keep posts relevant to China is because several users said it was a problem. I don't think we've probated anyone for derails or off-topic posting and it's not been my intention to threaten that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Alright, if you think it's appropriate in the China thread, sure, but I was more commenting on your moderation style in general, especially in how it differs from your more laid-back posting style
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
Increasing punishments aren't technically off the table. I'd just like them to be used only when a poster's violations are willful. So far it's only happened to one individual, who was doing the exact same thing repeatedly and knowingly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why is whataboutism bad and why do you think it should it be proscribed? Because it's loving useless and serves no purpose other than to deflect and prevent discussion of the thread topic. It's creating an artificial requirement that before we discuss China, we must first discuss whether or not someone besides China did a a thing. This needs to be moderated strictly because it's to the point where every single discussion devolves into discussing domestic US issues by the end of the page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
The cycle of China thread discussions often is: 1) China is uniquely bad for doing this thing 2) that thing is not unique and in an international context not even unusual 3) mods, please ban all this whataboutism
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:No. The post doesn't seem to be disqualifying for modship. If I understand the situation correctly, it was perceived that he wanted conversation to move on because Reade chat was politically embarrassing for him, but the actual cause seems to be that it wasn't producing good discussion and was hellish to moderate. That fits much better with what I've seen of moderators' motivations in private spaces. He's defending a rapist OP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The cycle of China thread discussions often is: Perfect example here. It's implying discussing an ongoing crime against humanity isn't worth discussing. They are openly demonstrating the intent is to inhibit debate by minimizing mistreatment of a vulnerable population. No one has called Uighur oppression unique in history, it IS unusual and terrible as is every genocide whether cultural or not, and almost EVERY single time it's directed at someone who has no problem agreeing that the US has treated it's ethnic minorities terribly and in similar ways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Spoke Lee posted:Perfect example here. It's implying discussing an ongoing crime against humanity isn't worth discussing. They are openly demonstrating the intent is to inhibit debate by minimizing mistreatment of a vulnerable population. How does this follow at all? Where did BF do any of this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 07:12
|
|