Peer Review: Feedback on the new D&D.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Peer Review: Feedback on the new D&D.

Smeef: Aug 15, 2003; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!; Pillbug

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Dv is literally doing the opposite in that very post.

Yeah, and the principle should apply for DV, too.

Of course, the weakness of the principle of charity is bad faith, so it's not a foolproof rule. It's a principle, and one that I think we're far from exhausting in D&D.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 04:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 17:32

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Koos Group posted:

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.

koos this is kind of a horseshit response

e:

Lib and let die posted:

'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.

this sums up my objection to relying on the dictionary definition of terms. the colloquial definition of the term, especially when used in conjunction with 'abuser' is so loaded that to hide being the dictionary is a farce.

and i hate to do the whole "my belonging to an aggrieved group gives my argument extra weight" schtick but i have been a victim of abuse, and it seriously loving pisses me off to see people trivialize abuse like this.

A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jan 31, 2022

# ? Jan 31, 2022 04:19

some plague rats: Jun 5, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Koos Group posted:

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.

Koos this is a pretty bad response. "Well he's technically correct so I can't actually stop him from doing something heinous!" is the kind of d&d moderation you'd make up as a cruel parody. It's desperately unhelpful and the kind of decision that is going to encourage awful shitheads to come in, gently caress up discussions and say things that are obviously going to rile other posters while maintaining a figleaf of "well, the dictionary says..." It's the kind of robotic, explain-to-the-trolls-why-they're-wrong moderating that made this place unbearable to post in the first place

# ? Jan 31, 2022 04:25

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

some plague rats posted:

Koos this is a pretty bad response. "Well he's technically correct so I can't actually stop him from doing something heinous!" is the kind of d&d moderation you'd make up as a cruel parody. It's desperately unhelpful and the kind of decision that is going to encourage awful shitheads to come in, gently caress up discussions and say things that are obviously going to rile other posters while maintaining a figleaf of "well, the dictionary says..." It's the kind of robotic, explain-to-the-trolls-why-they're-wrong moderating that made this place unbearable to post in the first place

I just Googled the word and the overwhelming definition in use is the one more familiar to you and I, so you're right, he should be stopped from using it the way he is, since it's loaded language and poor communication.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 04:29

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

A big flaming stink posted:

koos this is kind of a horseshit response

e:

this sums up my objection to relying on the dictionary definition of terms. the colloquial definition of the term, especially when used in conjunction with 'abuser' is so loaded that to hide being the dictionary is a farce.

and i hate to do the whole "my belonging to an aggrieved group gives my argument extra weight" schtick but i have been a victim of abuse, and it seriously loving pisses me off to see people trivialize abuse like this.

Yeah, even if you were doing a dictionary response, "I got a lot of abuse when I missed the winning shot" is pretty different from "My abuser". AFAIK, abuser is only used in a very specific way.

Using dictionary definitions is still stupid tho

# ? Jan 31, 2022 04:51

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

Koos, would it be accurate to say that the "dictionary rule" is largely meant to provide some sort of mutual framework with which to, well, define the terms of any given argument? If that's the case, it's certainly a noble goal, but overly broad definitions like those in a general purpose dictionary probably aren't always suited to complex and nuanced topics - I could, for example, use the Wikipedia definition of gaslighting to construct a (ridiculous) argument that the consistent and targeted misapplication of the term 'abuse' by one or more parties is an attempt to gaslight other posters into questioning if they indeed are some sort of abuser in much the same way that right-wing reactionaries make the argument that something isn't racist "because the dictionary definition of racism is lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..." when the outcome of any given right wing position would more harshly impact a given minority group (for an example, the idea that further defunding underperforming schools in poor urban areas isn't racist because "it's about test scores, not race!" doesn't hold up when you look at the larger demographics of poor, underperforming schools in say, Ft Lauderdale).

It's definitely for the best to have some sort of mutual framework of meaning, but I don't know how that gets managed for nuanced or loaded topics.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 04:57

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

Cpt_Obvious posted:

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.

Smeef posted:

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."

Koos Group posted:

I just Googled the word and the overwhelming definition in use is the one more familiar to you and I, so you're right, he should be stopped from using it the way he is, since it's loaded language and poor communication.

Except the context is very clear if you actually read the thread instead of taking isolated posts. He's posting right after *yet another* bout of Whataboutism when Terminal Autism https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521093439 and Neurolimtal https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521098251 tried to say that censorship is just the same in 'murica cuz they use soft power to ensure all movies are pro war, pro cop, etc etc and that censorship is effectively the same. Yet again I had to sit there and type a response to prove the blatant lie that took longer to vet than the baseless claim. This is exactly the type of thread making GBS threads I have talked about before. Constantly posting low content bullshit in the hopes no one takes the time to disprove it. It is an obvious misuse of posting to deflect criticism of China in the China thread.

Smeef's point on Stink's options is spot on. It very much feels like their goal is to take any language that could be misconstrued as offensive and say 'WE GOT HIM BOYS' and start an even wider derail - all in the effort to punish their posting enemies and not engage on the topic at hand - because they can't really defend their positions or be bothered to see if the other person's reply is valid or not. I am well beyond the point of "charity" here. It is the same people, using the same tactics, week after week.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:01

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

MikeC posted:

Except the context is very clear if you actually read the thread instead of taking isolated posts. He's posting right after *yet another* bout of Whataboutism when Terminal Autism https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521093439 and Neurolimtal https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521098251 tried to say that censorship is just the same in 'murica cuz they use soft power to ensure all movies are pro war, pro cop, etc etc and that censorship is effectively the same. Yet again I had to sit there and type a response to prove the blatant lie that took longer to vet than the baseless claim. This is exactly the type of thread making GBS threads I have talked about before. Constantly posting low content bullshit in the hopes no one takes the time to disprove it. It is an obvious misuse of posting to deflect criticism of China in the China thread.

Smeef's point on Stink's options is spot on. It very much feels like their goal is to take any language that could be misconstrued as offensive and say 'WE GOT HIM BOYS' and start an even wider derail - all in the effort to punish their posting enemies and not engage on the topic at hand - because they can't really defend their positions or be bothered to see if the other person's reply is valid or not. I am well beyond the point of "charity" here. It is the same people, using the same tactics, week after week.

gently caress you rear end in a top hat

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:03

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Idk why you included my post in that weird rant because I explicitly did not take offense to his use of that word.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:04

Smeef: Aug 15, 2003; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!; Pillbug

Ok, I�m going to make a bit of an effort post here. I�m not sure if these are specific rules so much as they are suggestions for posters in general to prevent threads from spiraling into poo poo.

First, it can be helpful to be clear about what the purpose of a post is, whether reading it or writing it. Maybe there are some other categories out there, but I see post content falling into a pretty limited number of categories:

Explaining, including arguing for a particular interpretation of something � could be history, current events, political behavior, etc.
Predicting, usually with some sort of rationale for that prediction
Making a normative argument � �X is bad. Y should be done.�
Venting � Sometimes people are just pissed off about poo poo and need to let off some steam. Personally I think it�s fine. But there are cases where I sense that posters are confusing their own venting for making an argument, or it spills over into a discussion that�s not really about what they�re angry about.
Having a laugh � This is still a comedy forum, and even if it�s not, lack of solemnity doesn�t mean lack of seriousness.
Sharing something interesting / not sure what to make of it yet � This easily gets into RSS feed for Twitter territory, but I do find that sometimes there are articles that I want to share even though I haven�t formulated a great interpretation yet and thus don�t have much to add to it.
Posting about posting � Generally annoying

I notice a lot of cases where discussion devolves because posts (during writing them or reading them) aren�t distinguishing between the above.

Second, it�s helpful to understand how you can be wrong or less effective in an argument. I�m basically taking all of this from memory from the book �How to Read a Book,� which everyone in D&D should read. (There are probably a lot of other good ideas to take from that book, too.)

Under-informed � You�ve got the facts right, but you don�t have enough of them, aren�t going deep enough, etc. This is very easy when discussing complex topics. No one is going to have all the information, so don�t feel be too upset when you learn something new.
Misinformed (related to the above) � Your facts are, in fact, not factual. This should be easy to correct, but there are occasionally extreme differences in what evidence is legitimate and not. I honestly am not sure what to do when arguments rely on incompatible bases of fact. And don�t be too defensive when you got a fact wrong� this is D&D, not JAMA. (That said, come on, do some Googling, check your sources, and qualify your claims before posting something you aren�t certain about.)
Illogical � You can have all the facts right and still be connecting them in the wrong way. This is where the logical fallacies that people complain about show up. Whataboutism gets mentioned a lot, but there are many others that are equally prevalent but less frequently identified. Unfortunately, I've met few people in life, much less on these forums, who are willing to admit when they've been illogical.
Big picture, completeness, and polish � Maybe these are three distinct things or overlap with the above, but they tie all the above together. A post can have all the facts straight and strong logic, but sometimes doesn�t really have an actual focus or argument. Or it doesn�t follow its argument the whole way through. Or it might be poorly written and hard to interpret. That doesn�t make it wrong, but it can undermine the post in some cases.

Finally, try to be good to your fellow goons.

Interpret posts charitably and give people the benefit of the doubt (though don�t be naive and fall for trolls or bad-faith posting).
Address the post; don�t attack the poster (which is a logical fallacy anyway). Even when the poster is making abhorrent claims, it�s far better for discussion to not resort to calling them a monster, etc. It just puts them in a defensive posture from which you�ll probably never convince them to exit.
Don�t go overboard when addressing select details in a post / remember the overall argument. So often there is a great post with one lovely sentence thrown in, and then that one lovely sentence become a multi-page derail that loses the original argument. When done in a positive way, though, this contributes to good meandering conversation.
Be a patient teacher and a patient, open-minded learner. No one is keeping score of the arguments you �win� in D&D. Personally, I think that the most you can hope for here is to improve yours or others� understanding and maybe have some fun doing it.
If you really just can�t engage constructively with a poster over and extended period, the Ignore List remains the most underrated feature on the forums.

Thank you, Dr. Hibbert. I rest my case.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:10

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Idk why you included my post in that weird rant because I explicitly did not take offense to his use of that word.

It was quoted because DV wasn't doing the typical poo poo posting that you claimed he was. He was directly involved in being the target of a Whataboutism post - hence his response about here

Discendo Vox posted:

How is it that we are once again making opposite-of-reality equivocations between "the West" and China in this thread?

To prove my point about 'gotcha-ism' that is being taken advantage of - regardless of what you think about DV's post or my belief the DV's choice of words was within the proper context - this guy comes in and tries to smear all other posters who might agree with anything I have said in the past via guilt by association.

Mirello posted:

lol, can I put this post in a museum? all the anti china posters itt, this is who you agree with. seriously, you guys make yourselves look totally ridiculous.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:13

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Daduzi posted:

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.

i don�t even think it�s trolling. there�s 2 or maybe 3 different �groups� of posters looking for different things from the china thread and who largely disagree on fundamental issues

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:13

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

MikeC posted:

Except the context is very clear if you actually read the thread instead of taking isolated posts. He's posting right after *yet another* bout of Whataboutism when Terminal Autism https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521093439 and Neurolimtal https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521098251 tried to say that censorship is just the same in 'murica cuz they use soft power to ensure all movies are pro war, pro cop, etc etc and that censorship is effectively the same. Yet again I had to sit there and type a response to prove the blatant lie that took longer to vet than the baseless claim. This is exactly the type of thread making GBS threads I have talked about before. Constantly posting low content bullshit in the hopes no one takes the time to disprove it. It is an obvious misuse of posting to deflect criticism of China in the China thread.

Smeef's point on Stink's options is spot on. It very much feels like their goal is to take any language that could be misconstrued as offensive and say 'WE GOT HIM BOYS' and start an even wider derail - all in the effort to punish their posting enemies and not engage on the topic at hand - because they can't really defend their positions or be bothered to see if the other person's reply is valid or not. I am well beyond the point of "charity" here. It is the same people, using the same tactics, week after week.

Or don't assume it's a conspiracy against you on something awful the comedy forum and be more charitable and chill.

Having really started to pay attention to D&D it feels like a majority of the arguments are pedantic arguments over definitions that could be solved by both sides going "when you mean X do you define it as ..." and generally not treating the thing like a blood feud.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:13

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

MikeC really doesn't have a leg to stand on about making other people spend inordinately long debunking basic facts when he's in the COVID thread making claims like "actually, hospital beds being at a critical tipping point isn't a big deal, ICU is what matters" and "healthcare worker burnout is an ongoing crisis that isn't being massively exacerbated by COVID".

crepeface fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Jan 31, 2022

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:15

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Lib and let die posted:

Koos, would it be accurate to say that the "dictionary rule" is largely meant to provide some sort of mutual framework with which to, well, define the terms of any given argument? If that's the case, it's certainly a noble goal, but overly broad definitions like those in a general purpose dictionary probably aren't always suited to complex and nuanced topics - I could, for example, use the Wikipedia definition of gaslighting to construct a (ridiculous) argument that the consistent and targeted misapplication of the term 'abuse' by one or more parties is an attempt to gaslight other posters into questioning if they indeed are some sort of abuser in much the same way that right-wing reactionaries make the argument that something isn't racist "because the dictionary definition of racism is lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..." when the outcome of any given right wing position would more harshly impact a given minority group (for an example, the idea that further defunding underperforming schools in poor urban areas isn't racist because "it's about test scores, not race!" doesn't hold up when you look at the larger demographics of poor, underperforming schools in say, Ft Lauderdale).

It's definitely for the best to have some sort of mutual framework of meaning, but I don't know how that gets managed for nuanced or loaded topics.

There are a few reasons for the rule, though it's more of a guideline since it's not in the rules, but rather a consequence of them. One is that as you say, we need a common standard because it's important to clarity of communication. Since D&D is meant to be educational, it should prepare you for argument and understanding in other areas, so I feel the standard should then be based on common usage, and this is what dictionaries at least attempt to describe. Some terms do have specialized uses, but dictionaries do usually list those so in those cases it comes down to common sense and which context it ought to be.

So that's where I jumped the gun a bit in saying Vox was justified by the rules in using "abuser" how he was. The point of the rules is to avoid imprecise language done in order to increase the emotional impact of what you're saying, and to reflect common usage, and Vox's use fails both of those.

The other reason to appeal to dictionaries and common usage is that particular political groups often develop idiosyncratic definitions of words that are convenient to their ideologies, as you note. So in order to have a fair playing field, a dictionary is as neutral an arbiter as any.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:16

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

MikeC posted:

Except the context is very clear if you actually read the thread instead of taking isolated posts. He's posting right after *yet another* bout of Whataboutism when Terminal Autism https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521093439 and Neurolimtal https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521098251 tried to say that censorship is just the same in 'murica cuz they use soft power to ensure all movies are pro war, pro cop, etc etc and that censorship is effectively the same. Yet again I had to sit there and type a response to prove the blatant lie that took longer to vet than the baseless claim. This is exactly the type of thread making GBS threads I have talked about before. Constantly posting low content bullshit in the hopes no one takes the time to disprove it. It is an obvious misuse of posting to deflect criticism of China in the China thread.

Your response was excellent, though I wouldn't call Neuroliminal's post a "lie," since it was mostly his opinion/model of soft power vs hard power, though it did appear to have exaggerations and omissions supporting it. This shows one of the reasons why I'm against moderating posts for being wrong or sloppy (unless they're willfully so), because your post refuting him was very informative and wouldn't have happened without his original.

This does bring also bring to mind another thought on whataboutism, that if comparisons are to happen they should at least be direct. If someone in the China thread says "China is doing bad thing X," then "yes, though it's not unique, since other countries including the US also do bad thing X" seems to be a much more constructive response than "well, the US does bad thing Y, which is just as bad."

Koos Group fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jan 31, 2022

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:31

MikeC: Jul 19, 2004; BITCH ASS NARC

e: you know what nevermind.

MikeC fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jan 31, 2022

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:33

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Smeef posted:

Ok, I�m going to make a bit of an effort post here. I�m not sure if these are specific rules so much as they are suggestions for posters in general to prevent threads from spiraling into poo poo.

First, it can be helpful to be clear about what the purpose of a post is, whether reading it or writing it. Maybe there are some other categories out there, but I see post content falling into a pretty limited number of categories:
Explaining, including arguing for a particular interpretation of something � could be history, current events, political behavior, etc.

Predicting, usually with some sort of rationale for that prediction

Making a normative argument � �X is bad. Y should be done.�

Venting � Sometimes people are just pissed off about poo poo and need to let off some steam. Personally I think it�s fine. But there are cases where I sense that posters are confusing their own venting for making an argument, or it spills over into a discussion that�s not really about what they�re angry about.

Having a laugh � This is still a comedy forum, and even if it�s not, lack of solemnity doesn�t mean lack of seriousness.

Sharing something interesting / not sure what to make of it yet � This easily gets into RSS feed for Twitter territory, but I do find that sometimes there are articles that I want to share even though I haven�t formulated a great interpretation yet and thus don�t have much to add to it.

Posting about posting � Generally annoying
I notice a lot of cases where discussion devolves because posts (during writing them or reading them) aren�t distinguishing between the above.

Second, it�s helpful to understand how you can be wrong or less effective in an argument. I�m basically taking all of this from memory from the book �How to Read a Book,� which everyone in D&D should read. (There are probably a lot of other good ideas to take from that book, too.)

Under-informed � You�ve got the facts right, but you don�t have enough of them, aren�t going deep enough, etc. This is very easy when discussing complex topics. No one is going to have all the information, so don�t feel be too upset when you learn something new.

Misinformed (related to the above) � Your facts are, in fact, not factual. This should be easy to correct, but there are occasionally extreme differences in what evidence is legitimate and not. I honestly am not sure what to do when arguments rely on incompatible bases of fact. And don�t be too defensive when you got a fact wrong� this is D&D, not JAMA. (That said, come on, do some Googling, check your sources, and qualify your claims before posting something you aren�t certain about.)

Illogical � You can have all the facts right and still be connecting them in the wrong way. This is where the logical fallacies that people complain about show up. Whataboutism gets mentioned a lot, but there are many others that are equally prevalent but less frequently identified. Unfortunately, I've met few people in life, much less on these forums, who are willing to admit when they've been illogical.

Big picture, completeness, and polish � Maybe these are three distinct things or overlap with the above, but they tie all the above together. A post can have all the facts straight and strong logic, but sometimes doesn�t really have an actual focus or argument. Or it doesn�t follow its argument the whole way through. Or it might be poorly written and hard to interpret. That doesn�t make it wrong, but it can undermine the post in some cases.
Finally, try to be good to your fellow goons.
Interpret posts charitably and give people the benefit of the doubt (though don�t be naive and fall for trolls or bad-faith posting).

Address the post; don�t attack the poster (which is a logical fallacy anyway). Even when the poster is making abhorrent claims, it�s far better for discussion to not resort to calling them a monster, etc. It just puts them in a defensive posture from which you�ll probably never convince them to exit.

Don�t go overboard when addressing select details in a post / remember the overall argument. So often there is a great post with one lovely sentence thrown in, and then that one lovely sentence become a multi-page derail that loses the original argument. When done in a positive way, though, this contributes to good meandering conversation.

Be a patient teacher and a patient, open-minded learner. No one is keeping score of the arguments you �win� in D&D. Personally, I think that the most you can hope for here is to improve yours or others� understanding and maybe have some fun doing it.

If you really just can�t engage constructively with a poster over and extended period, the Ignore List remains the most underrated feature on the forums.
Thank you, Dr. Hibbert. I rest my case.

Good stuff, thank you.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:41

Terminal autist: May 17, 2018; by vyelkin

It's probably fair to say I was doing a whataboutism but I think a lot of that stems from me being pretty stupid. I did just drop the subject because it was derailing the thread and I would also cosign Neuroliminal's post he conveyed my point much more eloquently.

That being said you're bound to draw a lot of comparisons between the US and China not only is the USA the frame of reference for a large percentage of us but as well it helps frame the actions of China against what has happened or accepted on an international level. The last time I checked the thread there was a whataboutism about Syria and a mod was participating in and I think it was a good post, again because it helps us contextualize and frame the reality.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 05:52

Horatius Bonar: Sep 8, 2011

crepeface posted:

MikeC really doesn't have a leg to stand on about making other people spend inordinately long debunking basic facts when he's in the COVID thread making claims like "actually, hospital beds being at a critical tipping point isn't a big deal, ICU is what matters" and "healthcare worker burnout is an ongoing crisis that isn't being massively exacerbated by COVID".

Is this post seriously a whataboutism about a poster complaining about whataboutism?

And they said irony was dead. poo poo.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:03

Cpt_Obvious: Jun 18, 2007

Horatius Bonar posted:

Is this post seriously a whataboutism about a poster complaining about whataboutism?

And they said irony was dead. poo poo.

lmao.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:05

crepeface: Nov 5, 2004; r*p*f*c*

Horatius Bonar posted:

Is this post seriously a whataboutism about a poster complaining about whataboutism?

And they said irony was dead. poo poo.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:11

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Koos Group posted:

Your response was excellent, though I wouldn't call Neuroliminal's post a "lie,"

yeah but this is one of the big problems with that thread in particular. there�s a group of posters in there who largely want the thread to be the bitch about china, supported by news articles thread, and another group that want it to be the discuss the role of china on the world stage thread, contextualized through the western perspective that all of us are familiar with. the former group has a few people who cry foul, bad faith, trolling, and lying when anyone else wants to do anything other than bitch

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:22

Fritz the Horse: Dec 26, 2019; ... of course!

fart simpson posted:

yeah but this is one of the big problems with that thread in particular. there�s a group of posters in there who largely want the thread to be the bitch about china, supported by news articles thread, and another group that want it to be the discuss the role of china on the world stage thread, contextualized through the western perspective that all of us are familiar with. the former group has a few people who cry foul, bad faith, trolling, and lying when anyone else wants to do anything other than bitch

idk if I necessarily agree with this characterization, but you're missing an important group: people actually in China (HK, Taiwan) or very familiar with internal Chinese politics who don't fit into any of the groups you describe. ronya is a good example of that but far from the only one.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:26

exmarx: Feb 18, 2012; The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

the term 'whataboutism' is worthless, since it generally just means 'pointing out hypocrisy' � if anything, it would be good if the people who use it reflected on why their criticism is determined by who the actor is, rather than the act itself!

Lib and let die posted:

'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.

agreed. it would be like calling dv a 'pervert' (one who has turned to a twisted sense of values or morals) because you find his views perverse or whatever.

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.

a mod shouldn't press the button on people they're debating with at all. it always comes across as incredibly petty, regardless of how clear a rule breach the post may have been.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:29

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Fritz the Horse posted:

idk if I necessarily agree with this characterization, but you're missing an important group: people actually in China (HK, Taiwan) or very familiar with internal Chinese politics who don't fit into any of the groups you describe. ronya is a good example of that but far from the only one.

Yeah we can't forget about the food chat crew.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:30

thatfatkid: Feb 20, 2011; by Azathoth

MikeC posted:

Except the context is very clear if you actually read the thread instead of taking isolated posts. He's posting right after *yet another* bout of Whataboutism when Terminal Autism https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521093439 and Neurolimtal https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521098251 tried to say that censorship is just the same in 'murica cuz they use soft power to ensure all movies are pro war, pro cop, etc etc and that censorship is effectively the same. Yet again I had to sit there and type a response to prove the blatant lie that took longer to vet than the baseless claim. This is exactly the type of thread making GBS threads I have talked about before. Constantly posting low content bullshit in the hopes no one takes the time to disprove it. It is an obvious misuse of posting to deflect criticism of China in the China thread.

Smeef's point on Stink's options is spot on. It very much feels like their goal is to take any language that could be misconstrued as offensive and say 'WE GOT HIM BOYS' and start an even wider derail - all in the effort to punish their posting enemies and not engage on the topic at hand - because they can't really defend their positions or be bothered to see if the other person's reply is valid or not. I am well beyond the point of "charity" here. It is the same people, using the same tactics, week after week.

You are a vile oval office

fart simpson posted:

yeah but this is one of the big problems with that thread in particular. there�s a group of posters in there who largely want the thread to be the bitch about china, supported by news articles thread, and another group that want it to be the discuss the role of china on the world stage thread, contextualized through the western perspective that all of us are familiar with. the former group has a few people who cry foul, bad faith, trolling, and lying when anyone else wants to do anything other than bitch

Very much this

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:41

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Fritz the Horse posted:

idk if I necessarily agree with this characterization, but you're missing an important group: people actually in China (HK, Taiwan) or very familiar with internal Chinese politics who don't fit into any of the groups you describe. ronya is a good example of that but far from the only one.

well i wasn�t trying to describe the whole thread, but rather the source of one of the biggest problems there. nobody seems to get angry at ronya

# ? Jan 31, 2022 06:42

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Will be closing the thread sometime on Monday, so I encourage anyone who hasn't given feedback yet to do so.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 07:23

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

A big flaming stink posted:

gently caress you rear end in a top hat

to elaborate, i responded like this because i feel like i go the extra mile to post in good faith, and I can recall multiple cases where i break with the more overt pro-prc faction in the thread to be even-handed.

and then mikeC replied to my post explaining that I feel like using terms like abuser is hosed up and as a victim of abuse it pisses me the hell off to see such a real harmful thing reduced to points-scoring in internet debates with

quote:

Smeef's point on Stink's options is spot on. It very much feels like their goal is to take any language that could be misconstrued as offensive and say 'WE GOT HIM BOYS' and start an even wider derail - all in the effort to punish their posting enemies and not engage on the topic at hand - because they can't really defend their positions or be bothered to see if the other person's reply is valid or not. I am well beyond the point of "charity" here. It is the same people, using the same tactics, week after week.

and it turns out my efforts to be even-handed don't amount to poo poo. nope, when i voice a genuine objection to seeing abuse trivialized like this, its "punishing my posting enemies" rather than being genuine. thats hosed up and it pisses me in particular off

# ? Jan 31, 2022 07:27

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

exmarx posted:

the term 'whataboutism' is worthless, since it generally just means 'pointing out hypocrisy' � if anything, it would be good if the people who use it reflected on why their criticism is determined by who the actor is, rather than the act itself!

Usually it's because that particular actor is the subject of the thread they're currently posting in.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 08:10

Spoke Lee: Dec 31, 2004; chairizard lol

exmarx posted:

the term 'whataboutism' is worthless, since it generally just means 'pointing out hypocrisy' � if anything, it would be good if the people who use it reflected on why their criticism is determined by who the actor is, rather than the act itself

Because it's just negating the purpose of the thread. 9 times out of 10 it's directed at someone who has no qualms admitting that the US government is terrible. The reason it's not being discussed is because what some other entity did doesn't change the reality of what is happening in Xinjiang as the biggest example. Where is the discussion expected to go after you have had the poster agree that all forms of genocide are bad if not back to the topic of the thread?

# ? Jan 31, 2022 08:11

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

MikeC posted:

and Neurolimtal https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466532&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=661#post521098251 tried to say that censorship is just the same in 'murica cuz they use soft power to ensure all movies are pro war, pro cop, etc etc and that censorship is effectively the same. Yet again I had to sit there and type a response to prove the blatant lie that took longer to vet than the baseless claim.

I wouldn't personally say "they gave a bullshit reason for firing Emily Wilder, and received epic clapback on twitter over it" is necessarily a thorough debunking, personally. As for accusations of disingenuity & intentionally mucking up threads, I actually opted not to respond precisely because it would have involved getting deep & dirty with the specifics of western soft influence that wouldn't have had much immediate & visible relation to China, as per Fritz' request. I don't believe the posters critical of China are bad-faith actors, I ask for the same in turn.

Daduzi posted:

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.

I think these two rules might help a fair amount in defusing complaints on both sides of the subject. I think posters can tolerate some negative takes without comparing & contrasting if it means some positive takes can be posted without quips about Xinjiang.

For what it's worth; there are four other China threads on the forum, covering negative news about China & food, travel information about China & food, goons in China & food, and positive news about China & Eastern European politics (food didnt seem to catch on as much there). The disharmonious thunderdome nature of the D&D thread, in-my-opinion, gives it purpose beyond aggregating the news portion of the other threads. I don't think theres a way to excise that tension without it becoming a dead thread once more.

All else I've got to say is that Koos is doing a decent job as D&D mod. I hope it doesn't burn him out.

Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Jan 31, 2022

# ? Jan 31, 2022 10:32

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Fritz the Horse posted:

idk if I necessarily agree with this characterization, but you're missing an important group: people actually in China (HK, Taiwan) or very familiar with internal Chinese politics who don't fit into any of the groups you describe. ronya is a good example of that but far from the only one.

And as per my earlier post, I think the reason D&D has a dearth of high quality threads compared to the niche interest subforums that actually discuss stuff in detail is that the people who know what they are talking about get drowned out by the people who either desperately want you to know how bad America is or who are just really really angry that someone else had another opinion on the internet.

Ultimately I think you have to just pick a group of posters that you think D&D is for, make that choice very clear, and then be pretty ruthless about enforcing that choice. I think the recent changes to moderation have been inching towards that, but you just have to take a leap and pick an identity for D&D.

e: ^^ I think very specifically for the China thread in D&D, one thing it really needs is to be closed and for someone to write a new OP that isn't very pre-Xi. If someone were willing and able to do that then it would be good opportunity to reset the tone of the thread and establish what it is for.

Alchenar fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Jan 31, 2022

# ? Jan 31, 2022 10:38

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Spoke Lee posted:

Because it's just negating the purpose of the thread. 9 times out of 10 it's directed at someone who has no qualms admitting that the US government is terrible. The reason it's not being discussed is because what some other entity did doesn't change the reality of what is happening in Xinjiang as the biggest example. Where is the discussion expected to go after you have had the poster agree that all forms of genocide are bad if not back to the topic of the thread?

Yeah, this is why the 'pointing out hypocrisy' is worthless- people posting in a forum thread aren't responsible for what the US does anyway, so pointing it out is basically just a massive dodge and attempt to scrub the thread of anything negative about China. "You don't have moral standing" is a bizarre way to argue on an internet forum, IMO. It's the bizarre oscillation between moral grandstanding and harsh realpolitik that gets on my nerves about a lot of the c-spam contingent's posting.

Alchenar posted:

And as per my earlier post, I think the reason D&D has a dearth of high quality threads compared to the niche interest subforums that actually discuss stuff in detail is that the people who know what they are talking about get drowned out by the people who either desperately want you to know how bad America is or who are just really really angry that someone else had another opinion on the internet.

Ultimately I think you have to just pick a group of posters that you think D&D is for, make that choice very clear, and then be pretty ruthless about enforcing that choice. I think the recent changes to moderation have been inching towards that, but you just have to take a leap and pick an identity for D&D.

e: ^^ I think very specifically for the China thread in D&D, one thing it really needs is to be closed and for someone to write a new OP that isn't very pre-Xi. If someone were willing and able to do that then it would be good opportunity to reset the tone of the thread and establish what it is for.

Yeah, i think you're gonna have to pick a lane with moderation here, people don't seem to be able to adjust their posting for moderation, so they're always going to complain about the oppression of getting probated for poo poo-posting.

Panzeh fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Jan 31, 2022

# ? Jan 31, 2022 10:49

some plague rats: Jun 5, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Panzeh posted:

Yeah, this is why the 'pointing out hypocrisy' is worthless- people posting in a forum thread aren't responsible for what the US does anyway, so pointing it out is basically just a massive dodge and attempt to scrub the thread of anything negative about China. "You don't have moral standing" is a bizarre way to argue on an internet forum, IMO. It's the bizarre oscillation between moral grandstanding and harsh realpolitik that gets on my nerves about a lot of the c-spam contingent's posting.

Why would people be doing this. What do you imagine is in it for them. Because it seems like you're saying "people posting things I disagree with don't actually believe them, they just have a sinister pro-prc agenda to push" which would not really be in the spirit of d&d, would it

# ? Jan 31, 2022 11:22

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

some plague rats posted:

Why would people be doing this. What do you imagine is in it for them. Because it seems like you're saying "people posting things I disagree with don't actually believe them, they just have a sinister pro-prc agenda to push" which would not really be in the spirit of d&d, would it

I'm sure they think they're fighting the anti-imperialist good fight in the D&D china thread of something awful dot com.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 11:27

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Panzeh posted:

I'm sure they think they're fighting the anti-imperialist good fight in the D&D china thread of something awful dot com.

why are you so sure of this, instead of just thinking there's people that disagree with you in d&d?

# ? Jan 31, 2022 11:36

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

fart simpson posted:

why are you so sure of this, instead of just thinking there's people that disagree with you in d&d?

Because it's a pattern that repeats itself over and over again? Everytime the Chinathread gets remotely close to discussing something interesting about China someone who hadn't been posting will on cue dash into the thread to drop a 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS THING AMERICA DOES?'

# ? Jan 31, 2022 11:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 30, 2024 17:32

fart simpson: Jul 2, 2005; DEATH TO AMERICA

Alchenar posted:

Because it's a pattern that repeats itself over and over again? Everytime the Chinathread gets remotely close to discussing something interesting about China someone who hadn't been posting will on cue dash into the thread to drop a 'BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS THING AMERICA DOES?'

ok, what do you think is happening?

# ? Jan 31, 2022 11:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Peer Review: Feedback on the new D&D.

«‹›6 »