|
Greetings. Now that it's been a few weeks since D&D's moderation changed, I'd like some feedback. The main areas of interest are:
You can give feedback in one of three ways. The first is to simply post in the thread. The second, is to PM me your feedback and I'll share it with the other mods (unless you'd prefer I don't for some reason). The third is to post in this thread anonymously. To do this, send me what you'd like to be posted in the thread and I'll post it for you. It hopefully goes without saying that if you do this, don't then come and post in the thread normally to agree with yourself. There's not going to be any post timer or hard rule on number of posts as in the previous feedback thread. I would just ask that everyone keep in mind everyone who posts in or reads D&D has a stake in its future, so please don't drown out other posters' feedback by posting excessively about your own issue. D&D rules will be a bit relaxed for this thread since we're talking about personal opinions. However, I do ask that everyone still try to be respectful to other users, be honest in how you express your views, and try not to repeat something you've said in the thread already, which goes along with not monopolizing the thread. If you are forumbanned you unfortunately can't participate, but you may PM me to have your forumban reviewed if I haven't done so already. Currently there's no one who is both forumbanned and ineligible for review.
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
some plague rats posted:Here's a question about mod policy. I got probed a coupe days ago- it was a sixer so who cares but it raises some questions That one was a personal mistake on my part, as indicated in my followup. Koos Group posted:Sorry about that. I didn't realize the post actually did come off as gibberish, lol. Because the post was reported, I thought you were being willfully ignorant. That's what I would want to avoid with asking someone "what are you talking about," because usually you could ask for clarification on specific points instead. But as you showed, there are some cases where something is so wholly incomprehensible you honestly have no choice but to ask them to explain the whole thing again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I like the direction things are going, but I think moderators should either stay out of discussions or make it extremely clear when they're acting as a moderator and when they aren't. For example, commiegir recently posted this in response to petercat: I've been thinking about how exactly to deal with this, and there are a few options. Ideally I would just tell my mods, and I suppose Commie in particular, to be especially gentle when debating and watch for anything that could be interpreted as a threat. I could also make a rule for mods that they can never probate someone they're arguing with, which doesn't sound like a bad idea. The extreme solution would be forbidding mods from debating entirely, which I'd like to avoid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 04:33
|
|
|
exmarx posted:every d&d rule update is intended to make the american politics threads less awful, but the most recent set is the first i can remember being applied so mindlessly that it fucks up other regional threads. a probation for this incredibly mild post Demilitarized isn't a category I intend to invent, it's just a cheeky way of referring to something that already exists, which is lighter moderation for regional threads. This is because the members tend to know each other quite well, and there's socialization involved in addition to debating and discussing. This is also a good example of why its' good to have regional IKs, because there is some context that mods from other countries are likely to miss even if they're careful (as I seem to have in this case, as it was apparently meant less seriously than I thought). I actually had a cordial chat with bike tory after that probe, and they were in favor of just using a lighter touch on the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Yeah, that makes sense. It wasn't you who probated me though, so is this your personal take, or something that is agreed on by all the mods here? They're taking my lead at the moment, so that would be the policy. It will come down to some individual judgement as many of these things do, on whether someone is being willfully ignorant or not, but we should be better equipped to handle this somewhat specific circumstance in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I don't want to retype my thoughts as they are succinctly found in these two posts in the China thread. If D&D is supposed to be separate from CSPAM in a meaningful way, I think the issues I raised need to be looked at. My main takeaway from this is you would like the bad faith rule enforced for false claims about what a source says, and I would very much like it to be as well. If you see another instance of this behavior, please report it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:Yes this, it’s impossible to do consistently. Here’s a recent example: I spoke with Fritz after the incident you're referring to and concluded that it if a thread is veering toward a topic that's unlikely to bear fruit, rather than trying to head off the conversation it would be better to just give a reminder/warning that posts should be insightful and not common talking points or basic political rhetoric. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jan 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Catpetter1981 posted:The poster who posted these grotesque pieces of ahistoricism has not been probated or even mildly chided for them. Does this mean that genocide denialism is, after all, permitted in D&D? Positions aren't moderated in D&D. In those cases, it looks as though he's leaving open a lot of room for his position to be attacked with opposing evidence, so that's what I would have recommended there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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). 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. Good stuff, thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 05:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Since China thread moderation has been the most contentious issue in this round of feedback, I suppose I should address how I plan to go forward with it before the thread closes later today. Like my first post on the matter implies, I'll have the team moderate against the formal definition of whataboutism, since it's a form of failing to address an argument. As per my second post about it, we'll be moderating comparisons that are indirect and come out of nowhere. This is because such comparisons are a way of shifting the conversation to your own pet issue of US vs. China, which is not only stale but also tends to involve more pure political rhetoric than educational material or original thought. This does not mean you can't compare China to other countries. But the comparison should be direct, the way it's framed as a response should be logical, and ideally it should contain information that's not common knowledge or wouldn't occur to someone.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Do you want to go into detail what "D&D-think" is? Last I checked you were a top 3 poster in the most active thread in the forum. We must then assume that Willa loves D&D-think, and engages in it at a high level. Elephant Ambush posted:I also want to say to Koos personally that I didn't trust you at first when you were put in charge of D&D but FWIW I now believe that you're being genuine with all of us and that this isn't some long-term prank on us serious business posters like I originally thought. Thanks for doing your best to make the non-joke forum a better place for non-joke posters. Welcome. You weren't the only one who thought that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Get Rid of the Deadwood Forgot to mention, I'm planning to do this, leaving only the rules thread, the Politoons thread (because it's so beloved and immediately accessible), and the Debate Me thread since it's an index.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yes, the current event thread has become the general discussion thread with little actual discussion or debate of daily or weekly ongoing events. it's just what current topic are people arguing over in between a post every five pages about a current event that gets mostly ignored. Guess we slipped a little. I'll try to get it back on track.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 20:31
|
|
|
It's now an official rule that mods can't probate someone they're in an argument with, so combined with CGR's recognition that they should be careful with their tone, I'm optimistic this will be less of an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:This is a good start, but it doesn't prevent other mods from coming in and handing out probes to anyone being rude to their buddies. When mods involved in an argument say something like "I'll get some other mods to look over this" it comes across as "I want to probe you but that would violate the rules so I'll have someone else take a look because there's a good chance they'll think like me" Yes, I'm the Big Man and the other mods are following my lead currently. That's why I've been the main one responding.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:If moderation is only done by people outside of the discussion then that means only those who are completely unfamiliar with the thread will be moderating them. If it does end up getting in the way of moderation i can just reverse it. I do admit it could be viewed as a hard rule attempting to compensate for lack of community trust or mod judgement.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Thank you for the feedback, all. Even though I'm closing the thread my PMs are still open for any concerns you have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2022 01:54
|
|