|
Internaut! posted:Biological males have no business competing athletically against biological females in any sport where the indisputable physical advantages of males is a factor, for example sprinting versus curling. Please refrain from disowning or preemptively expressing unwillingness to defend arguments you're making, particularly ones that are stated in strong terms like that.
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Internaut! posted:Don't forget muscle mass to go along with that huge skeleton. As Mischievous Mink said to you, muscle mass decreases when you lower testosterone, which is a requirement for trans athletes in women's sports. Do you dispute that assertion? Internaut! posted:After all the only reason anyone's even talking about MTF trans women playing women's sports is that we're seeing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again how absolutely middling male athletes transition as fully grown adults, and then utterly dominate women's sport. It sounds like you have many examples. Could you provide at least nine, since that was how many times you said "over"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
As a reminder, even when engaging with fraught topics or arguments that seem self-evidently wrong, rules of rigor and good argumentation still apply.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
Borscht posted:Nah. Couldn't give a poo poo about sports. Please don't answer questions with questions, and be careful to only make assertions you are willing to support or concede.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
Aginor posted:Can I ask how many of you are trans or transitioning? Just so I can get a read of the room? In general, one should refrain from asking personal questions of others in D&D, because it can be seen as attempting to dismiss their arguments based on who they are rather than the quality and evidence of what they're saying. The only exception is when they're talking about their own personal experience to support what they're saying.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I've read this entire thread, and noticed a similar pattern to when I have this discussion on social media: I would not like to foster that, which is why if someone refuses to provide evidence when challenged with counter-evidence, they'll be probed for bad faith. I've also thought about instituting a rule where controversial statements of fact need to be backed up in the same post in threads where it's called for, but that does preclude discussion that comes from refuting common unsupported statements. So there is some trade-off. The rule would also apply to everyone equally, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:That's cool! Thank you. What about poo poo like this: That user is being banned for that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
Please refrain from further posting about posters. If this person is someone who shouldn't be here, we'll handle it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:How many chances is this guy going to be given? That was the last one before a significant probe. Wanted to give him the opportunity to address all the counterarguments and my own questions or concede his position, and he blew it. Would have done something sooner but he posted right after I left last night.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:His first post is just blatant transphobia. Yes. As a reminder, positions aren't moderated in D&D. Posters are allowed to assert wrong or odious arguments, because correcting them can be educational, and for other practical reasons. You're also not normally required to be rigorous when putting an idea forth initially, only if you refuse to concede it, because this allows for speculation, questions, and readers being able to see sophisticated replies to common talking points that they might not normally. Figuring out whether a poor argument should be allowed because it might lead to better discussion is as much an art as a science though, and I probably gave Internaut too many chances.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Transphobia isn't an argument though? His first post was making an argument. Arguments can be poorly structured, wrong, emotionally driven, and harmful to society, because an argument is just an assertion meant to persuade. I'm not sure what you mean by non-positions, but bigotry in general is covered by the rule, yes. I'd like the thread to return to the topic at hand now that Internaut has been probed, so please direct further feedback to me via PMs, or wait until the feedback thread later this month.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:koos you realize how unsatisfying of a response this is, right? the guy was spewing open bigotry and you loving give him a single day probe? I'm not even talking about giving him an initial chance, the fact that he immediately doubled down into outright transphobia is reprehensible, and giving him a single day off is horseshit. A single day is the most a mod can give without queueing. I'm also giving him a longer probe with a note that he's threadbanned.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:This is the problem koos. Everyone knew this was coming, they could see it from their first post. Instead the OP was given the opportunity to repeat things that are both untrue and hateful. And in the interim, a completely separate transphobe was given the opportunity to do the same thing AND start harassing people. I get that you don't want to have to moderate positions, but there absolutely needs to be an exception for bigotry, no matter how politely and reasonably it's worded. Aginor wasn't given any particular opportunity. I probed him as soon as I saw what he was doing, and while he was on probation he was banned for harassment minutes after the admins knew that was occurring. How things happened wouldn't have been any different with stricter policies. As for making exceptions to the moderating positions rule, I understand why some might want that, but I have quite strong reasons why I think it should be adhered to absolutely. I'll post my rationale in the next feedback thread, or if you'd like it sooner than that I can PM it to you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:This isn't true. Certain debates like "do trans people deserve human rights" are allowed to exist. Other debates are not. I'm curious what you're referring to, in terms of which debates aren't allowed to exist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Hypothetically, could someone make a post arguing that the cranial capacity of black people made them suited for a life of servitude, as long as it was well reasoned and cited scholarly work? Would posters be expected to engage with them in good faith or choose to ignore them? Where is the line drawn if at all? The posts about trans people having HUGE SKELETONS that make them able to dominate sports aren't that much different. Someone could make a post like that, yes, and I think the debunking that would follow would be valuable, particularly as pseudoscientific racism has been on the rise in the last decade on the internet. Then if they repeated their claims without rigorously addressing the arguments made against them, which presumably they could not, they would be punished for bad faith. Nucleic Acids posted:If someone were to, say, argue that Caster Semenya’s higher than average rate of testosterone production meant she should be excluded from women’s events, or even further that her medals should be taken back, would that be allowed to exist? Yes. You could then rebut with what problems that view has, of which there seem to be many. ram dass in hell posted:I mean, do we really want to cultivate an environment where bigots feel like they aren't allowed to pop off with random unsupported dehumanizing bullshit targeting specific people they consider to be inferior? Stifling, if you ask me, a serious person. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. To begin, I would point out that personal attacks against posters are forbidden, and that goes doubly so for ones based on their race, sexuality, etc. If someone called you a slur in D&D, they would be getting more than the customary slap for rudeness to fellows. I don't believe my policy has had profoundly bad results yet, bearing in mind that what happened with Aginor would have played out almost exactly the same whether the policy were your preferred way or mine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:It has, though, you just don't perceive them to be profoundly bad, for some reason. And the rest is a hypothetical, you're assuming that the issue of bigots piling in with personal attacks is a force of nature like the weather rather than taking responsibility for the environment that you have authority over. We don't know what happened with Aginor or Internaut! would have played out exactly the same, that's your assumption. I think more highly of you than you seem to think of yourself - I still believe you can do better, while you seem to think this is how things must always be. I believe I see what you mean that a clearly indicated and forceful policy of the kind you're advocating may have deterred Aginor from even posting. That didn't occur to me. I just meant that once he had posted, it would have been handled the same under both.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Let's play it out: Under my policy, the racist poster would be punished harshly for the third post, as it's a blatant demonstration of bad faith. The exchange would also affect his forums reputation and probably lead to him being shunned from the community as a whole. In addition, the second post would demonstrate to readers how they might argue against similar racist ideas in the wild, or at least bolster them against being susceptible to those ideas. That's a general overview of the policy's intent. I've meant to point out that this policy has been in effect the entire time I've been moderating D&D, was advertised from the beginning, and has generally worked quite well. The forum has not been overrun by those with odious views or trolls, with Internaut being a single exception that should have more highly scrutinized because of the sensitivity of the subject. The Wicked ZOGA posted:Koos Poop Permaban queued.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:So people have three posts to say derogatory things about minorities? Clearly untrue sibboleths that have been debunked over and over again. I'm trying to drop all pretenses of sarcasm and humor here just to connect to you as another person. As Timeless Appeal said, are we going to have to deal with basic horse bullshit over and over? Well, if the response is this strong I don't have a choice but to reexamine the policy, since I'm a believer in listening to community feedback. And discouraging people from posting in D&D because of who they are, or having tiresome arguments that are played out as you say the examples would be, are the opposite of what I want.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2022 20:10
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The pituitary gland and hormones do exist and are not biotruths. Part of transitioning is changing those hormones in your body and we're talking one of the situations where it will actually matter and those sports are figuring out ways to figure out those divisions. Punching power seems as though it would be impossible to measure, since it would be up to the athletes to demonstrate it and they would of course pull their punches to qualify for a lower class.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Just Chamber posted:So trans woman is ok? Example sentence: "Trans women but not cis women" would be ok terminology? Yes, I believe trans woman is preferred over transwoman because the person is still a woman and trans is only a modifier.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli, please remember that we have a rule of assuming good faith, and this includes the assumption that other posters aren't hiding their views. This is both to create an environment of trust, and because the deep personal feelings of pseudonymous SA posters are not a subject with broad applicability in the world. If you have strong reason to believe someone is acting in bad faith, to the point where you don't feel comfortable or productive engaging them, you can report them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:A woman is a human being whose gender identity matches the social and culturally constructed identity of woman. We are a social species and fit ourselves into social groups. If that is not concrete enough for you I challenge you to do something far more simple and define a chair in a way that captures every single chair to the exclusion of all non chair objects. Myco appears to be treating the matter philosophically. Nothing they've said indicates any hostility toward anyone. I'm sympathetic to the posters who have pointed out that the central subject of the thread has a widely agreed-upon answer, and isn't likely to bear fruit with discussion, so I don't see anything wrong with anyone going off on tangents.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 06:16
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Mycophobia beleives in the blanchard typology and wrongly asserts that ist has not been debunked. Mycophobia is a rusted on hard out transphobe. Mycophobia was advocating that idea because a trans woman whom he's friends with convinced him of it. It's not evidence of malice toward trans people, nor have I found any context or contradictions that would indicate he has not been posting in good faith in this thread. This is why we have the rule about reporting suspected bad faith rather than trying to call it out in threads, because it can cause discussion to turn to an individual poster instead of an interesting subject, and sows mistrust. If you would like to discuss the matter further, please PM me, or if you would like to talk about the policy in public, there will be a D&D feedback thread on Friday.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2022 18:53
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Basically all you have said Cool is that something could happen based on "preliminary" data that itself says is useless, which you conveniently ignored. From there you have gone on to build a hypothetical situation based on data that does not say what it says it means. Thank you for reporting them rather than accusing them in thread, at least at first. I reviewed Colonel Cool's posts, and they appear to be making the argument that the evidence suggests a possibility of an advantage, not that it confirms with certainty there is an advantage, and they have been consistent in how they treat this position as well as responsive to challenges, so I don't believe they're posting in bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 08:40
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:its bad faith, and its inherently just to be an rear end in a top hat and say that trans athletes are using an advantage and its transphobic garbage. The op had it correct that this thread is a honeypot and people arguing that trans athletes inherently are cheating by using the actual medications needed to allow them to be themselves are disgusting. Col. Cool has not argued, as far as I can see, that trans people or cheating, and beyond that has not even made the case that we know definitively that they have an advantage. If you have a case using specific posts of theirs that they're acting in bad faith, please PM it to me. Jaxyon posted:Actually no they haven't been responsive to challenges, they keep trying to make some studies someone else posted, that are hardly conclusive, justify their continued hypothetical that represents an almost verbatim transphobic talking point framed as a hypothetical to conform to your rules lawyering. Reading through The Colonel's posts, they have never claimed the studies were conclusive, and this matches how they themselves treat an advantage as a possibility rather than a certainty.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
Sedisp posted:Hey Koos I got a wild idea for even the bare minimum of they're not really engaging. If there is a pretty direct question asked and the just asking questions guy refuses to ever engage with a pointed challenge on their position and instead immediately ignores it to focus on "pls dont insult me" maybe they aren't actually engaging? If you're referring to BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress, they were just probated for bad faith.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2022 15:45
|
|