|
CommieGIR and I were butting heads over something and one page later they asked people to stop posting on that topic (I did). Later on they retroactively probed me for breaking that rule (I hadn’t), and when I asked via PM I was told “I retroactively probed you because several people reported your post”. CommieGIR has proven repeatedly they don’t have the emotional maturity to either separate or properly communicate “posting hat” vs “mod hat”. One of those hats should be off the table.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:CommieGIR and I were butting heads over something and one page later they asked people to stop posting on that topic (I did). Later on they retroactively probed me for breaking that rule (I hadn’t), and when I asked via PM I was told “I retroactively probed you because several people reported your post”. Your complaining about a probe from November?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 09:54
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:CommieGIR and I were butting heads over something and one page later they asked people to stop posting on that topic (I did). Later on they retroactively probed me for breaking that rule (I hadn’t), and when I asked via PM I was told “I retroactively probed you because several people reported your post”. I agree with this 100% and brought it up the last time. They seem nice enough but do not show the characteristics and cool head that is required of the job, which should be pretty clear from the fact that they have had to be put on probation for other moderators because of their highly reactive handling of situations. It seems like a bad thing to do to someone to keep expecting them to hold this responsibility. I personally like them more than other mods, but that has no bearing on whether they make a good one. Many people are saying this and it keeps coming up. This behavior seems unlikely to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The cycle of China thread discussions often is: To be fair, step 2 ends up being a long drawn out argument and then someone walks in and goes "why the gently caress is every post on this page about whether America suppressed Fred Hamptons free speech by murdering him?" It's reasonable to not want that to happen in the China thread, but it also seems unavoidable as long as there's a crowd of people badly overextending themselves to declare China the Most Evil Country and doggedly refusing to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 13:02
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The cycle of China thread discussions often is: Oftentimes the 'uniquely' is something not initially argued, but read in via step 2. Which would be strawmanning, not whattaboutism, but ends up in the same place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
The employment of the term whataboutism dates back to the cold war, and came out of British intelligence agencies, and is frequently deployment in the service of supporting saber-rattling rhetoric, not just against China but against many East Asian nations that don't "play nice" with American international interests. I don't participate in the China thread for that specific reason, and I think it's a disingenuous way of turning a question of "and what moral authority does the US have to condemn China's concentration camps when we're operating our very own at our southern border" into "hey everybody, look at this poster who loves Xi Jpeg. The idea that an individual or group that engages in monstrous, genocidal behavior shouldn't be criticizing another person or group committing the same atrocity from a position of moral authority is as old as time itself - a theme that's repeated in both the Bible and the Quran, just as a sampling of the prevalence among pre-cold war ideologies (Matthew 7, Luke 6, Surat al-Baqara, 44) There are probably better ways to say that criticism of the US is outside of the scope of any particular discussion than reciting memos and talking points straight out of the western imperialist cold war playbook, and it just falls into the trap of doing an argument from fallacy - just because a criticism of the US contains a fallacy, that doesn't invalidate the criticism - if the criticism is unfounded then that should be repudiated rather than psuedointellectually going 'nuh uh that's a whataboutism!'
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
I find myself posting less, but that's probably a good thing. Moderation seems like it has been going well. I still feel the current events thread gets filled up with pages and pages of posts that have very little directly to do with current events that would be better in their own thread. It seems to have become a general discussion thread and not a curated news and information thread with relevant discussion. Keep up the good work!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Just because a criticism of the US contains a fallacy, that doesn't invalidate the criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
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. The why doesn't matter to me, just that it was done
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:Whether it was done for personal reasons or for the ease of it, the action of hiding away a legitimate complaint of sexual misconduct by one of the two parties candidates is the issue Ah. I understand a bit better, then. I wasn't really familiar with the whole issue other than what's been said in this thread. I just went and read the whole post the line is from, as well as the followups. GJB and FoS claim their intent wasn't to obscure the topic by moving it to another thread. Though, splitting threads in practice does tend to reduce the overall posting rate in at least one of them. So it would seem what GJB did wrong was insensitivity and a lapse of judgement he shared with FoS (both of whom agreed how they handled the situation wasn't ideal). If GJB shows a pattern of poor judgement that would give me pause, but I would need more than one incident before I considered asking him to step down. I would also prefer they be post-change, because my concern is how well he can mod the current D&D, not how he mods in other contexts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 20:57
|
|
|
I think moderation has been pretty good, I appreciate Koos for responding pretty swiftly to my DMs or my Reports. I also appreciate what is generally a more consistent moderation policy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Feedback: this post shouldn't have been probedsome plague rats posted:This is an absolute parody of D&D moderation Also: probing that post while ignoring the previous two seems inconsistent. (none should have been probed)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Feedback: this post shouldn't have been probed Perhaps. While there's a feedback thread I'd prefer feedback to go here, but on the other hand Fritz's post was quite ridiculous and it would feel strange if no one was allowed to point that out. The boy is very enthusiastic about modding correctly, sometimes so much so that it makes one want to say "bless his heart."
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
that the biggest issue is 'were some sixers overzealous' (yeah a bit) is a good sign overall for how dnd moderation is generally going
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:To be fair, step 2 ends up being a long drawn out argument and then someone walks in and goes "why the gently caress is every post on this page about whether America suppressed Fred Hamptons free speech by murdering him?" I think the problem here is the unstated assumption that if a comparison is going to be made it is only possible for it to be to the US. Which, yep, means every other page the thread derails into arguments about American politics which really loving sucks for those of us who just want to discuss what's happening in China. As someone who's been on the receiving end of both extremes of bad faith arguing in the China thread, I'd like to tentatively purpose two possible rules: 1) No discussing US policy/history/social conditions unless they interact with China or are directly involved in a current news story. I know this seems draconian but at this stage I honestly don't see a way to prevent the thread constantly devolving into arguments about the US otherwise. Note: this still allows for comparison, just not the typical, lazy option of comparison to the US specifically. 2) No jumping straight to Xinjiang/Hong Kong/Tiananmen every time anything that could be construed as remotely positive about China is posted. It should be possible to look at poo poo China does and occasionally think it's a good idea (like jailing business leaders who lie about emissions) without immediately being accused of supporting genocide. I honestly think those two rules, or something similar, would clear up a lot of the issues people have with the thread. Daduzi fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Get Rid of the White Noise What do you think the tolerance should be for white-noise posts, vague accusations, one-liners etc that don't add much to a discussion? Obviously I'm not saying there should be a minimum word count for posts or anything. My impression is this is mostly an issue in CE, though less so this month. That thread can get pretty chat-y with a lot of low-content posting. What constitutes a white-noise or low-content post? When should mods act? Instant 6er on sight? Issue a reminder/warning and then probes if it continues? Let occasional low-content posts slide but if it becomes a pattern for a user, take action? I'm genuinely curious to gauge peoples' thoughts on it. edit: I also don't intend for the above examples to be the only options, just throwing out ideas. Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Perhaps. While there's a feedback thread I'd prefer feedback to go here, but on the other hand Fritz's post was quite ridiculous and it would feel strange if no one was allowed to point that out. The boy is very enthusiastic about modding correctly, sometimes so much so that it makes one want to say "bless his heart." It's a baffling probe because it was clearly not intended to be feedback. Fritz is god's perfect special boy and should not change for anything, and since that's the second time in like a week that he's given me a weird, inexplicable probe my feedback is that he should step off my back
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:
This is the best of the options you gave but preferable would be "do nothing unless it actively derails a thread and makes it worse." If someone posts white noise or one liners and everyone just moves straight past it and the conversation carries on, it's not a moderation issue at all. No one is served well by robocop moderation in the rolling counter, "citizen you are guilty of posting [7] white noise posts, the legal limit is [5] white noise posts" style some plague rats fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Let occasional low-content posts slide but if it becomes a pattern for a user, take action? I think this makes sense, but I do recognize it's a burden on the mods to keep track of that sort of thing. I don't expect you to keep a notebook of white noise posters and make tally marks every time someone says something inane and give them a sixer when they hit 5. I think it's reasonable, at least to start with, to just use your judgement and if your brain senses a pattern, take action. If you shut down every post that's not full-throated debate, you seriously hamper discussion because quick asides and comments are sometimes necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
My observation on the Chinathread is that the situation in Xinjiang only actually comes up when someone decides to do a driveby 'nothing happened you can't prove anything happened' post, and that seems to happen suspiciously around the time when someone (usually Ronya) has just done a high-quality post on some new analysis or policy trend. The result is that the thread gets sucked back into a 3-4 page groundhog day recital of the same ground until a few sixer's get handed out, the interesting post gets lost and the interesting poster gets a bit less willing to post. To take that observation to the wider forum isse: 'We don't moderate positions' might be a thing, but I think the best and longest running threads on the forums have been the ones which have been willing to constructively enforce a policy of 'we've had this discussion and unless you have something new to say, shut up and go away'. There's a big difference between enforcing groupthink and having threads stuck in an endless cycle of white noise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I'd be interested to hear from Willa or anyone else on the above points which I don't think have been discussed much itt. Here's my two cents on the matter. White noise: It's pretty subjective on what is or isn't white noise but I do think it'd be good to clamp down on the sort of posts Willa outlined about hypothetical posting. I don't think it should be outright banned or even penalized all that harshly but imo the folks that only wanna post about dumb poo poo some rightwing media personality says or may hypothetically say should be encouraged to post about it in the threads dedicated to that (unless it's relevant to something in the news, of course). Vague accusations: These days I'm seeing that sort of thing get challenged more often, usually someone responding to the person in question to say something like "Who specifically is saying this?" and then the poster making the accusation ignores that post. Good that people are pushing back on those kinds of vague posts but it's something that does need a mod to step in. IMO if they ignore it and keep posting then they should be asked to give specifics and if they refuse to then obliterate them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:The cycle of China thread discussions often is: lol yea. fart simpson says high internal support for china's government is likely true because of the massive material improvement to their citizen's lives. braindance is essentially brushing that off with a platitude that it's actually because "states are very good at convincing people of a particular narrative" (aka propaganda). fart simpson posted:i dont find it hard to believe. material conditions have improved massively year on year for a very long time. most people i talk to have a general sense of "even if this thing isnt good, i trust the government wont let it get too bad" which is just an observation of mine and not quantified BrainDance posted:... my post is pointing out that you can apply this standard to any state, it doesn't invalidate fart simpson's point about improved material conditions. i honestly don't get why i got probed for this crepeface posted:So if the people support the government, it can only be because it's so good at propaganda?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:My observation on the Chinathread is that the situation in Xinjiang only actually comes up when someone decides to do a driveby 'nothing happened you can't prove anything happened' post, and that seems to happen suspiciously around the time when someone (usually Ronya) has just done a high-quality post on some new analysis or policy trend. The result is that the thread gets sucked back into a 3-4 page groundhog day recital of the same ground until a few sixer's get handed out, the interesting post gets lost and the interesting poster gets a bit less willing to post. If your feeling is that xinjiang is only used by bad-faith china-lovers to rile people up, then perhaps a no-discussing-xinjiang policy would be fruitful for the thread, given that the topic has certainly been done to death. I suspect that many people would be upset about that, and it would not be the people you seem to suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:This is the best of the options you gave but preferable would be "do nothing unless it actively derails a thread and makes it worse." If someone posts white noise or one liners and everyone just moves straight past it and the conversation carries on, it's not a moderation issue at all. No one is served well by robocop moderation in the rolling counter, "citizen you are guilty of posting [7] white noise posts, the legal limit is [5] white noise posts" style the style thing really sticks out to me. like this guy constantly makes the same point about COVID lockdowns not working because melbourne's didn't work despite people showing him specific things they messed up but he still wants to hammer it so badly that he misreads a question about the national response. i tell him: crepeface posted:hey dumbass, we know you still believe that lockdowns don't work because victoria hosed theirs up despite a million people telling you how they were flawed over and over, but modernmajorgeneral is talking about australia, not just melbourne. feds/NSW definitely brought it on themselves and then hosed over everyone else i thought my post calling him a dumbass was pretty mild. i pointed out his pet issue caused him to misread the question and got a "you're right but you're being too mean" probe. he constantly says disproven dumb stuff but because he uses the style of a "serious" post, calling him out on it in anything than an utterly polite tones gets a probe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 02:40
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:What constitutes a white-noise or low-content post? When should mods act? Instant 6er on sight? Issue a reminder/warning and then probes if it continues? Let occasional low-content posts slide but if it becomes a pattern for a user, take action? I'm genuinely curious to gauge peoples' thoughts on it. Whatever it is, just be consistent. There are so many white-noise shitposts that go completely unpunished while others are aggressively prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 02:46
|
|
|
^^^ This too.Fritz the Horse posted:I'd be interested to hear from Willa or anyone else on the above points which I don't think have been discussed much itt. I'm fine with letting the "what will freepers do?" posts slide if that's the general consensus (I mean, they're irritating & boring but not harmful), but I think those accusatory-toward-no-one-in-particular strawman posts are lovely & harmful to discourse. eta: I agree with srice 100 percent: Srice posted:Here's my two cents on the matter. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
alright i was told to come here so let me state my beefDiscendo Vox posted:It's a really basic trolling tactic that gives the abuser control of the thread. A non-sequitur comparison to something out of scope, coupled with misrepresentations (usually obvious ones) that shift blame and the scope of discussion to the other entity (usually the US). Because other people don't want to let the misrepresentation stand, they wind up shifting to address the misrepresentation. In this way, the abuser's lies control the scope of the thread. MikeC posted:This is just fake outrage. "Abuser" is the correct term to apply to Whataboutists MikeC posted:Oxford dictionary: this is an INSANELY lovely weaponization and minimization of the terms abuse and abuser. there is ABSOLUTELY NOT a power disparity in online forums remotely analogous to the one present between abuser and victim, and to see it invoked this way is not just loving rude as hell, its also deeply offensive to victims of abuse! like maybe its my own history with abuse, but this poo poo makes me see red. A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:25
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:alright i was told to come here so let me state my beef holy poo poo and the guy telling the OP to go outside is probed? wtf edit: i always thought the "merriam webster's dictionary defines" was a joke, but i've seen it twice in d&d in the last month or so now. crepeface fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:alright i was told to come here so let me state my beef You get to redefine what the word abuse means now? edit: I mean it makes sense right? Any time your position is attacked. Just redefine the word to something so ambigious and implies it means something else so you don't have to deal with it. Just like how Authoritarianism derail happened MikeC fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
MikeC posted:You get to redefine what the word abuse means now? I've got to agree with stink that your usage of the word is pretty gross and inappropriate tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
MikeC posted:You get to redefine what the word abuse means now? This is just unbelievably hosed up and lovely and if you don't get hit for thinking like this and then posting it where people can read it then it's time to clear out all the mods and get some news ones
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
I'm as sick of whatabboutism as the next person, but trolling on an internet forum ain't abuse. It's pretty easy to just not engage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:alright i was told to come here so let me state my beef I dislike DV as much as anyone but his use of the word is completey in-line with the stuffy dictionary definition provided and fits his general posting style as well. If I would like to see less of anything from normal posters, it's these sorts of attempts to turn pretty harmless offenses into huge deals that are causing real harm and action must be taken, blah blah blah. It's all so boring and people never let this poo poo go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
abuser has a pretty specific loving meaning
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I dislike DV as much as anyone but his use of theq word is completey in-line with the stuffy dictionary definition provided and fits his general posting style as well. Idk if it's offensive or whatnot but calling people itt abusers and trolls seems like flagrantly violating multiple DnD posting rules like assuming good faith and not posting about posters. He's been regularly shitposting in a thread under constant moderator supervision yet somehow never seems to catch even a 6er.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:alright i was told to come here so let me state my beef Since it's a dictionary definition Vox is allowed to use the term that way, and since he's so, erm, particular about things I don't even think he's intentionally using it to evoke what it does. But I do wish he would stop lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
'Abuse' is an extremely loaded term, and applying it to posts you disagree with on the internet is tantamount to calling speeding an 'abuse' of transit infrastructure - just because a usage of it technically conforms to the broad dictionary definition doesn't mean it's an appropriate term to deploy in every situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
MikeC wasn't the OP. Discendo Vox was the OP, and his post could charitably be interpreted as using abuser in the sense of "abuse of control" or "abuse of power", not physical and emotional abuse. I could see it going either way. Which itself is a suggestion for D&D: use the principle of charity with your fellow posters. Give their posts the benefit of the doubt, or at least be considerate when expressing that doubt. This principle isn't just about word choice, but this exchange is illustrative. For example, it would have been over far more quickly and smoothly if the response was "Your use of the word 'abuser' is possibly insensitive to people who have been victims of abuse. Can you choose a different word next time?" Noting that big flaming stink appears to have experienced abuse, their angry response is also understandable. Again, the right thing to do isn't to escalate in response to them, it's something like "Maybe my word choice was poor. Here's what I really meant, using different language."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Smeef posted:
Dv is literally doing the opposite in that very post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Smeef posted:MikeC wasn't the OP. Discendo Vox was the OP, and his post could charitably be interpreted as using abuser in the sense of "abuse of control" or "abuse of power", not physical and emotional abuse. I could see it going either way. Yes, I wouldn't mind saying something to him like "your use of abuser is in line with its definition, but it has a connotation, particularly to the sort of demographics that post here, which is very distracting and not your intent, so I can't force you to stop but would ask you to choose something else."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2022 04:16
|
|