|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Bloodthirsty posts have been probated and ridiculed the few times they have happened. Can you post an example of one that didn't get handled? It's not like I'm cataloguing them, and it could just as well have been the gbs thread. I'll keep an eye out.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:Again, I don't remember Dang, maybe D&D should have mods that care enough to remember things that happened in the very recent past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:They're not, and have never been. You're welcome to quote any such posts I, son of a Russian mother, have somehow missed for a retroactive special. At a risk of coming off as obnoxious, I’ll bump this into the fresh page for Arrhythmia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:At a risk of coming off as obnoxious, I’ll bump this into the fresh page for Arrhythmia. Thanks, I would have missed it otherwise, lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Dang, maybe D&D should have mods that care enough to remember things that happened in the very recent past. I remember that I probated him, and while he was on probation he was permabanned. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect me to remember the exact duration of a probe over a week ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I remember that I probated him, and while he was on probation he was permabanned. I don't believe it's reasonable to expect me to remember the exact duration of a probe over a week ago. Well if you can't be bothered to remember the forum rules of a forum you moderate, then this certainly does seem like an unreasonable request in that context. It doesn't change my assumption of "this isn't a serious issue for you" and it's a serious issue for a lot of other people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Gentleman, when you're my age, you will look back and realize that my memory was actually incredible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Dang, maybe D&D should have mods that care enough to remember things that happened in the very recent past. while Koos could answer these questions by googling up trollologist's rapsheet, so could... you? https://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php?userid=161325 placeholdered a day before perma by fritz, for a day I didn't follow the thread saga all that closely but iirc mod conspiracy response was reasonably prompt on the two ultimately permabanned folks
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:while Koos could answer these questions by googling up trollologist's rapsheet, so could... you? Placeholder by a completely different mod. Koos gave him a probe something like two weeks prior. So Koos had nothing to do with his perma. E: Sorry, I did the research and Koos' probe was two months prior, not two weeks. I apologize for my poor detective work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Placeholder by a completely different mod. Koos gave him a probe something like two weeks prior. So Koos had nothing to do with his perma. Yep, looks like it was one of my other mods after I'd gone to bed. So that provides some information for the person earlier who was wondering about my mods acting in that thread rather than me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Yep, looks like it was one of my other mods after I'd gone to bed. So that provides some information for the person earlier who was wondering about my mods acting in that thread rather than me. Do you sleep 23 hours a day or something? They didn't just make the one post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:It's not like I'm cataloguing them, and it could just as well have been the gbs thread. I'll keep an eye out. I probate for those in GBS too btw. Report em if you see em
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do you sleep 23 hours a day or something? They didn't just make the one post. I'm not sure why I was sleeping at those hours, but I do distinctly remember waking up to find Trollologist had made those posts (not a pleasant experience), and I hadn't posted between the one before that and the next day. It may have been that I was doing something the rest of the day rather than falling asleep immediately. That could make sense depending on what day of the week it was. Anyway, I feel we're getting into territory that's less about moderation and more about me personally. And with all due respect, it seems as though you have a certain conclusion about me that isn't accurate and you're grasping a bit to try and demonstrate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
koos is old and sleeps a lot
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
The conclusion I have is that you don't care all that much about trans people and do care very much about D&D being a place where anyone can say anything they want so long as they make it "debatable" and I would like to point to your own posts saying that you do want people to post things that are heinous so that we can do the emotional labor of rebutting those repugnant views. VVVV What they said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:46
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I'm not sure why I was sleeping at those hours, but I do distinctly remember waking up to find Trollologist had made those posts (not a pleasant experience), and I hadn't posted between the one before that and the next day. It may have been that I was doing something the rest of the day rather than falling asleep immediately. That could make sense depending on what day of the week it was. Anyway, I feel we're getting into territory that's less about moderation and more about me personally. And with all due respect, it seems as though you have a certain conclusion about me that isn't accurate and you're grasping a bit to try and demonstrate. I think people are upset that you seem to moderate people who are upset at bigots faster and more harshly than those who are upset by them. And that you largely seem okay with bigotry as long as it follows decorum. Those combined give people, at the most charitable, the reading that you are so insulated from bigotry that it's largely an academic exercise for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
Any time Koos isn't posting he's asleep in a big armchair with a newspaper over his face
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:@cinci zoo sniper Edit: though there's plenty of instances of being okay with Russian civilians suffering hardship, or wishing violence on Russian soldiers
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
This isn't really a debate thread or anything, but this last page of people trading one-liners with Koos is a pretty good example of bad discussion. There isn't any clarity of communication, to the point where the two sides are repeatedly getting confused about what they're even responding to. People keep failing to be specific about what they're referring to, make little to no effort to back up what they're saying, and appear to be prioritizing pithy burns and insults over establishing mutual understanding. Rather than this endless back-and-forth of one-line posts, I feel like this whole thing could get covered a lot faster if people just took a couple minutes to write up something a little more clear. We're not running under Twitter rules here, there's no character limit. Spending half an hour back and forth trying to determine by argument who exactly gave probations and when is entirely pointless when, as Greyjoybastard pointed out, anyone could just go click the "Rap Sheet" button and answer the question in like five seconds. Socratic questioning is an argument style that isn't particularly well-suited to internet forums, and usually just amounts to pointlessly wasting everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
Personally, I would like to see the question of whether moderator can safely consume at least five pounds of human excrement to be more thoroughly explored. And if that question provokes an emotional response in you, I would request that you read this fairly succinct point that was posted elsewhere: quote:Sharkie's point went completely over his head - koos recognizes this as just someone bringing up a topic as an excuse to attack mods, because he is a mod; he does not recognize the same thing happening to trans people because he is not a trans person. he is risen fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I think people are upset that you seem to moderate people who are upset at bigots faster and more harshly than those who are upset by them. And that you largely seem okay with bigotry as long as it follows decorum. Well, I disagree because of the extra space I was giving people upset by transphobia in the trans athletes thread, which I mentioned earlier, as well as the fact that I think posts that appear bigoted ought to be scrutinized more heavily, as I state in the rules. But we might be going in circles on this point. Who What Now posted:The conclusion I have is that you don't care all that much about trans people and do care very much about D&D being a place where anyone can say anything they want so long as they make it "debatable" and I would like to point to your own posts saying that you do want people to post things that are heinous so that we can do the emotional labor of rebutting those repugnant views. As I said, I'm reconsidering moderating positions. The question I'll probably leave the thread on is how exactly to do it. What positions (or how to determine them), how to mitigate other factors this creates like insinuations, interrogations, and false positives; and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I've read quite a bit of that thread and it's hard for me to recall instances of wishing violence on Russian civilians. Both of those kinds of posts are not entirely prohibited, correct. I try to moderate the more egregious instances of such posts, however - slurs, bizarre graphic descriptions, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
is koos the new corsair?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:As I said, I'm reconsidering moderating positions. The question I'll probably leave the thread on is how exactly to do it. What positions (or how to determine them), how to mitigate other factors this creates like insinuations, interrogations, and false positives; and so on. Thank goodness you're going to maybe possibly reconsider how much bigotry is too much. Gonna give it a really thunking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Thank goodness you're going to maybe possibly reconsider how much bigotry is too much. Gonna give it a really thunking. Your posts are absolutely exhausting to read. Is that what you were going for
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
My impression is that there are two primary topics being discussed: 1 -- the merits of continuing the "don't moderate positions" policy with respect to viewpoints used to justify bigotry 2 -- within the framework of the current policy, is moderation being applied effectively (citing a specific instance) The following seems relevant to (1): Koos Group posted:As I said, I'm reconsidering moderating positions, so it isn't necessary to say things like this. The question I'll probably leave the thread on is how exactly to do it. What positions (or how to determine them), how to mitigate other factors this creates like insinuations, interrogations, and false positives; and so on. I think the danger cited of moderating positions has been framed in terms of the tendency to steer opposing viewpoints in the direction of a forbidden position. But I'm having a hard time thinking of a clear cut example of how someone could abuse this in the transphobia / trans athletes test case. As far as how to choose which positions are off limits, why not just start with the one that has proven to be problematic and go from there?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Thank you. Being "exposed to calm Hitler" (incredible phrase) is an unfortunate consequence of posting on a debate forum, anyone who doesn't want to encounter lovely debate tactics can post in every other thread on the forum. The two people sending PMs were immediately permabanned, so I'm not sure what else could be done there short of trying to moderate pre-crime? I don't think anything that happened has made this an "unsafe space" in any way, and I can't imagine what the moderation solution would be, having a big list of positions you're not allowed to take? then you're playing whack-a-mole as people try and bait each other into taking them. Banning people from "sealioning" and "calm hitlering"? What would that even look like? I'd argue it's the opposite, like I said make more explicit warnings that this is a place where moderation expects you to be exposed to a certain amount of bigotry for the purpose of showing people how to argue against bigots. It might piss people off but it's also the truth and then people can decide if they want to post in D&D or not. I personally think it will lead to less posting but it will lead to less contentious posting as well because the unhappy will leave and the mod team will get the D&D they're currently working towards but not explicitly lining out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I'd argue it's the opposite, like I said make more explicit warnings that this is a place where moderation expects you to be exposed to a certain amount of bigotry for the purpose of showing people how to argue against bigots. It might piss people off but it's also the truth and then people can decide if they want to post in D&D or not. I personally think it will lead to less posting but it will lead to less contentious posting as well because the unhappy will leave and the mod team will get the D&D they're currently working towards but not explicitly lining out. This actually seems like a really good solution. It's got my vote
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I think the danger cited of moderating positions has been framed in terms of the tendency to steer opposing viewpoints in the direction of a forbidden position. But I'm having a hard time thinking of a clear cut example of how someone could abuse this in the transphobia / trans athletes test case. Very easy. Let’s say that the global conversation about trans athletes moves to some new accepted position. You take that, go find your posting enemy in an appropriate thread, and start some “what do you think about X” spiel. The objective here is to get them to cast doubt on this new position as a plausible premise, preferably disagree with it in stronger terms. Once that happens you just dump supporting material for it into the thread, declare them a transphobe, and chances are some bystander without the full context of your conversation will take the bait as well. At that point either your target concedes and has thus been mauled to your satisfaction, or they double down for posting culture reasons and you can murder by cop them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:This actually seems like a really good solution. It's got my vote That would be great for a specific thread. As a standard for the entire sub forum it sucks to have the community grant even that amount of legitimacy to such beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:That would be great for a specific thread. As a standard for the entire sub forum it sucks to have the community grant even that amount of legitimacy to such beliefs.  let bad moderation kill the community by being honest
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Very easy. Let’s say that the global conversation about trans athletes moves to some new accepted position. You take that, go find your posting enemy in an appropriate thread, and start some “what do you think about X” spiel. The objective here is to get them to cast doubt on this new position as a plausible premise, preferably disagree with it in stronger terms. Once that happens you just dump supporting material for it into the thread, declare them a transphobe, and chances are some bystander without the full context of your conversation will take the bait as well. At that point either your target concedes and has thus been mauled to your satisfaction, or they double down for posting culture reasons and you can murder by cop them. what
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Very easy. Let’s say that the global conversation about trans athletes moves to some new accepted position. You take that, go find your posting enemy in an appropriate thread, and start some “what do you think about X” spiel. The objective here is to get them to cast doubt on this new position as a plausible premise, preferably disagree with it in stronger terms. Once that happens you just dump supporting material for it into the thread, declare them a transphobe, and chances are some bystander without the full context of your conversation will take the bait as well. At that point either your target concedes and has thus been mauled to your satisfaction, or they double down for posting culture reasons and you can murder by cop them. I understand this as a general framework for attack, what I mean is in the specific case of transphobia I'm having a hard time understanding how that vector would not be incredibly hard to practically utilize without it being extremely obvious. Baiting someone into an opposing political view or something like that is one thing. Baiting someone into outing themselves as transphobic is a bit harder presumably. And since the whole premise of this is that the topic is off limits, as someone trying to bait a posting enemy on an incredibly obvious front, you'd also be exposing yourself for punishment. speng31b fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 01:26
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Very easy. Let’s say that the global conversation about trans athletes moves to some new accepted position. You take that, go find your posting enemy in an appropriate thread, and start some “what do you think about X” spiel. The objective here is to get them to cast doubt on this new position as a plausible premise, preferably disagree with it in stronger terms. Once that happens you just dump supporting material for it into the thread, declare them a transphobe, and chances are some bystander without the full context of your conversation will take the bait as well. At that point either your target concedes and has thus been mauled to your satisfaction, or they double down for posting culture reasons and you can murder by cop them. can you point to an example of this happening in the past? because i genuinely do not understand what risk you are pointing to
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I understand this as a general framework for attack, what I mean is in the specific case of transphobia I'm having a hard time understanding how that vector would not be incredibly hard to practically utilize without it being extremely obvious. Baiting someone into an opposing political view or something like that is one thing. Baiting someone into outing themselves as transphobic is a bit harder presumably. I mean, you wouldn't be trying to get them to say “I am a transphobe”, you just want them to say something that could a transphobe could also be reasonably expected to say, which obviously works better with something new. You get to that point, and ideally have them double down by virtue of yourself being annoying or having someone jump into dogpile. If mods are intervening only at that point, they will need to 1) waste their time on retracing your antics to figure out what happened, and 2) deal the poster who not only has affirmed their punishment-worthy position, but also likely has someone baying for their blood. Sure, it takes a certain kind of goon to get owned like that, but I don't think I need to convince you that there's an abundance of temper on SA. Goons ddox other goons for just posting about US politics, what is there to say about trying your luck with owning a posting enemy of yours sous vide. I'm not saying that everyone did post like this back when it was possible, to be clear. I'm just saying that it is really annoying to post around goons trying to fish for poo poo. Cease to Hope posted:can you point to an example of this happening in the past? because i genuinely do not understand what risk you are pointing to No, I don't have a good recollection of individual posts stretching years back, except for that guy who claimed to have stuffed drugs inside his dick before rollerblading. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
I do recall the general phenomenon Cinci is talking about happening before I came on as mod. It wasn't about trans issues in particular, but I would see it not only lurking D&D, but in reports. That's what I mean by "interrogations and false positives" in the things I'd want to mitigate with a new position moderation policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I mean, you wouldn't be trying to get them to say “I am a transphobe”, you just want them to say something that could a transphobe could also be reasonably expected to say, which obviously works better with something new. You get to that point, and ideally have them double down by virtue of being annoying or having some jump into dogpile. If mods are intervening only at that point, they will need to 1) waste their time on retracing your antics to figure out what happened, and 2) deal the poster who not only has affirmed their punishment-worthy position, but also likely has someone baying for their blood. Okay, I mean, I won't deny that it's technically possible... but I think this example strains credulity a lot given the specific test case of transphobia. Given a set of all possible off limit topics, baiting people will undoubtedly be a problem in certain cases (and has been in the past; I recall this too) ... but the mechanics of posters illegitimately tricking others into outing their transphobic adjacent views without themselves falling into the forbidden topic in a more obvious way first seems kinda like, ehhh. To be clear, the reason I'm asking about this case specifically is that I don't think anyone here is endorsing a generalized framework for banning discussion on any possible topic, so you don't need to apply the discussion of countermeasures in a way that accounts for every possible topic either. speng31b fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Apr 25, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Well, I disagree because of the extra space I was giving people upset by transphobia in the trans athletes thread, which I mentioned earlier, as well as the fact that I think posts that appear bigoted ought to be scrutinized more heavily, as I state in the rules. But we might be going in circles on this point.. Its going around in circles because you don't want to listen, you're just restating your premise. I'd hazard that's why you don't consider transphobes doing the same shtick as bad faith, because you don't recognize that you do the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Agreed (and I say that as someone who has often recently been on the receiving end of 6-hour probations from you!) I feel like there's a frequent misunderstanding of what constitutes "bad faith" posting. The fact that someone posts in a thread knowing that other people will get mad at them (or that they want to whine to others in a more casual context where it won't get them probated) does not mean that their posting is in bad faith. Here's what usually happens - someone goes to read a thread, and they get mad about the things others are saying (or otherwise feel a strong need to respond). The fact that they make a post knowing it runs against the grain of what many/most others in the thread believe (or also post in another thread where they might complain about this) does not make it bad faith! This is a sort of a reasoning that inevitable leads threads to homogenize (because the greater portion of people who share a particular opinion, the more people who disagree will be perceived as "trying to stir poo poo up" - since they'll be aware that their post is going to make others mad). "Bad faith" generally implies that 1. a person is only posting to rile people up and/or 2. they don't actually believe what they're saying. Neither are true in most of these cases. A person might post while knowing that their posting will rile people up, but that isn't the same thing as doing it with the specific intent of trolling. While I have never posted in the D&D Ukraine thread (and generally don't post much in D&D these days), this is largely because when I read threads I often feel a strong urge to reply to things that I think are bad/wrong. If I had less impulse control (or was less adverse to making people mad, which is generally not something I enjoy), in all honesty I'd probably post more similarly to the people who you're describing and then complain about others posting things that I think are frustrating/dumb in C-SPAM. At no point in this process would I actually be dishonest, though. People are always going to have strong opinions about other people, especially on a forum like SA where people have been posting for many years. It makes sense for moderation to crack down on people directly insulting/complaining about people within threads (because it's bad for any sort of discussion), but I don't see the problem in people being more direct about how they feel in other forums/threads. It's not like this stuff is secret; people know when other people dislike them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:No, I don't have a good recollection of individual posts stretching years back, except for that guy who claimed to have stuffed drugs inside his dick before rollerblading. I don't necessarily mean a quote, just an example of the phenomenon in practice. Even just a hypothetical one would work. I'm still unclear on the hazard you're trying to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2022 03:02
|
|