|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I sympathise with your concerns, but I would like to remind that the topic of my thread is current events in Russian war with Ukraine - it is meant to be a newsfeed with some nuance. The list of topics that are more likely to see the posts scrutinised from “boring posts” rule of D&D perspective is populated on the basis of having regular derails about them, and consists of the following topics: I understand your perspective. From the standpoint of someone coming into a thread without understanding the full history of why some of these topics have been historically difficult to moderate it just seems like a pretty lovely tradeoff to be honest. But I also don't have to moderate that thread, so I get it. And for the record I didn't mean to single out your thread; it's the latest example of this, but other long running or hot topic threads have had this same issue in the past, and I'm just not sure the default response of building up an increasingly elaborate set of rules about valid topics that are often applied subjectively is the greatest solution.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
speng31b posted:I understand your perspective. From the standpoint of someone coming into a thread without understanding the full history of why some of these topics have been historically difficult to moderate it just seems like a pretty lovely tradeoff to be honest. But I also don't have to moderate that thread, so I get it. I speculate that the long term, sustainable solution to this requires a posting culture change, and moving away from the megathread model. It should be a normal practice for complex topics to have multiple threads, where each thread clearly defines what it should be about - say, in D&D we have the current events thread for war in Ukraine, and a “WW3” escalation thread spun out of it. I’m sure this model has its own problems, but to me it seems like the most user friendly way to defuse heated threads about major topics. That said, the model could only work if posters would respect it, and would leave the attention they may or may not receive out of their calculus for posting decisions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
One thing that I thought was going to happen that hasn't happened was a monthly thread for CE. What ever happened to that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
Hi. I'm not a D&D poster so I don't know how useful my perspective is. I just stopped by earlier this week to talk in the trans sports thread because it's a topic that interests me. I don't know much about the culture of D&D and I'm making some assumptions on what I think a forum labeled "Debate and Discussion" should be like, so take my input with a grain of salt. That thread was a shitshow, but maybe trans issues are just uniquely hard for D&D to handle and all the other threads are just fine. If the end result is that trans topics are too sensitive to debate over there then so be it, but I think it'd be a shame. The moderation seemed baseline fine for what I'd want out of a place for debate. Probating people making no content posts, and resisting yielding to the mob that was no doubt baying for my blood, is all I really need out of moderation. Having some basic reading comprehension and the ability to correctly summarize my actual position was also noticed and appreciated. I don't particularly need or care about the probations on people personally attacking me, but the sort of people doing it tended to be extremely aggro no content posters anyway, so nothing much was lost. Beyond that baseline, I think there's the potential for moderation to improve the discussion, but it also seems much more effort intensive so I don't know how realistic it would be and I certainly wouldn't expect it from a volunteer mod team. This was my first time arguing in D&D, and it was wild. I didn't want to accuse anyone of being bad faith at the time (though I may have gently implied it a few times), because I didn't think it would help move anything in a more productive direction. But it definitely seemed like many of the people arguing with me there were arguing in bad faith. Some common themes were people constantly lying and saying I hadn't provided any evidence to support my position (I had, repeatedly). People repeatedly misunderstanding the purpose of a very basic question about their philosophical stance on a policy to the point where I had to assume they were doing it deliberately. And people wildly mischaracterizing my positions, to the point where several of them literally quoted me and cut off part of the sentence to make it seem like I'd said something other than what I did, and then attacking me over those mischaracterizations (credit to Koos for probating one of the people that misquoted me, but frankly I think it should have been a much longer punishment, that was outrageous). There were complaints about me going around in circles saying the same thing over and over. While I agree it was annoying, I also don't think it was my fault. When people refuse to engage beyond fighting tooth and nail over what I consider to be some very basic and non-controversial points then of course the discussion isn't going to go anywhere. I would have loved to have moved beyond those points and gone on to harder and more interesting topics based off of those initial points, but I couldn't, because I was bogged down with all of that useless bullshit. We need to be able to establish a basic shared reality before we can even really start to talk about anything more substantial. Lowering the bar on what counts as bad faith posting and doing more to enforce it seems like it'd vastly improve the conversation. But like I said, it seems much harder to accomplish, and I wouldn't blame anyone for not being able or willing to take that responsibility on. At the very least, an effort should be maintained to keep it as a place where people are able to argue with each other over contentious topics instead of letting it devolve in a circlejerk where people cry for posters who disagree with the majority opinion to be banned. There's lots of other places on the forums, and on the rest of the internet, if you don't want to talk to people who disagree with you
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 02:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:One thing that I thought was going to happen that hasn't happened was a monthly thread for CE. What ever happened to that? We switched to a quarterly because it wasn't really resulting in any sort of refresh of topics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I speculate that the long term, sustainable solution to this requires a posting culture change, and moving away from the megathread model. It should be a normal practice for complex topics to have multiple threads, where each thread clearly defines what it should be about - say, in D&D we have the current events thread for war in Ukraine, and a “WW3” escalation thread spun out of it. I’m sure this model has its own problems, but to me it seems like the most user friendly way to defuse heated threads about major topics. Yeah, maybe? I suspect that sub dividing hot topics into multiple threads would hit a wall pretty fast. A few threads is fine, but if you have half a dozen off limit topics on popular threads, I don't know that spinning up new threads in each case is realistic or would really result in better discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
  Fluffdaddy posted:While I think people shouldn't be permad or even banned for having bad or even somewhat vile opinions, the threshold is when you think it's acceptable to debate about a minority groups right to exist. There is nothing to debate and there is no nuance there. Fluffdaddy posted:I guess I come from the mindset that minorities are not here to educate their oppressors. That's a lot of unfair emotional labor. Shageletic posted:I think you need to drop the pretense that these forums and DnD (which I have been posting in since I registered, 2007) is an impersonal void bereft of all context other than the pure rational glint of one's own arguments. Dnd, and every sub-forum of SA, is a community. A community that sets standards. A community that polices itself. A community that seeks to foster an environment of tolerance and fun, with the two being absolutely interlinked. Koos and DND has major problems with "not moderating positions" meaning in practice the forums are a safe space to be a transphobe. Seems highly likely that Koos is one whether he realises it or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
He is one. It's bad. You shouldn't be in a position of authority Koos if you're not willing or able to see how your actions are deliberately cultivating a space for bigots. You thanked me for giving you the benefit of the doubt in that terrible thread and I absolutely can't at this point. The best I can say is that you're privileged and naive at best, which means you suck poo poo as a moderator because you allow bigots to talk circles around you and create an extremely hostile space. If it's on purpose, which is sure seems like it is, well that's a lot worse.
ram dass in hell fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
I will say Koos reference to studies in the first screenshot is not in reference to Blanchards academic publication. It's in reference to Col. Cool not being willing to engage with the fact her studies had several flaws at all and later admitted that she was playing devils advocate. Good Faith posting about trans people is "are trans women women ontologically" and incredibly flawed studies that don't say what the poster says they say, which they then use to build a hypothetical that is quite literally the prototypical transphobe on sports talking point. Ya forum allows questioning of minorities very existence Koos. ram dass in hell posted:He is one. It's bad. If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit where the glove is a artisnal bespoke piece.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:10
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Yeah, maybe? I suspect that sub dividing hot topics into multiple threads would hit a wall pretty fast. A few threads is fine, but if you have half a dozen off limit topics on popular threads, I don't know that spinning up new threads in each case is realistic or would really result in better discussion. It feels destructive, but let’s review the problem on the example of my thread. Early days thread was going 40-60 pages per day. Between reading, posting, and moderating - and I made a point in absorbing every single post made in the thread, it took me 6-10 hours per day. 3-5 hours of that was pure reading time - that’s the cost a poster would’ve been asked to pay for staying abreast of the conversation. Now, English is my 4th language, and I definitely do not pretend to be the fastest reader. For the sake of example, let’s assume that an average goon can consistently absorb 20 pages per hour. That’s still 2-3 hours. The next argument is then the viral nature of the topic, and the time it took for other threads on the war to become established. To keep numbers pretty, let’s say that “normal” post flow would’ve been half of what was seen, so 1-1.5 hours of daily reading for our spherical goon in vacuum. Under the assumption that a good discussion requires familiarity with the discussion so far, I think my case is reasonably clear by now. For most threads this would absolutely be overkill approach, but for a fast thread having multiple verbose topics compete for real estate does only degrade the quality of all ongoing discussions simultaneously. It also sucks to read something too fast for active posters to follow proper, because you’ll be seeing the same arguments playing out on repeat. Not sure about other big threads, but my thread would’ve managed with just 2 spin-offs for the most of it. I tried to make both of them happen naturally, and at least one of them did, but I think it would’ve generated less bad blood between various posters if there was an established practice to make them proactively. For something with tons of competing narratives, like an American election or something, this may very well not work. You’d have to probably go after raising the individual post quality really high, and I’m not sure that is compatible with the spirit of not moderating positions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
I think cinci zoo sniper has done a commendable job with the Ukraine thread. I might have some minor quibbles but overall they done good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:It's in reference to Col. Cool not being willing to engage with the fact her studies had several flaws at all and later admitted that she was playing devils advocate. Colonel Cool posted:People repeatedly misunderstanding the purpose of a very basic question about their philosophical stance on a policy to the point where I had to assume they were doing it deliberately. And people wildly mischaracterizing my positions
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
She didn't even engage with the criticisms of the studies that you yourself posted in immediate reply to them. She didnt even post her own ones. She used another posters studies that you yourself instantly looked at and went 'this is bullshit'. She also admitted she was posting as a devils advocate. Quite literally bad faith Doesnt adress Koos issues banning someone who wants to debate that trans women are women and that Koos said it's a good and real discussion to have either
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:She didn't even engage with the criticisms of the studies that you yourself posted in immediate reply to them. She didnt even post her own ones. She used another posters studies that you yourself instantly looked at and went 'this is bullshit'. She also admitted she was posting as a devils advocate. Quite literally bad faith Now you're mischaracterizing my stance
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
woozy pawsies posted:Now you're mischaracterizing my stance  This is what she would not engage with. Does not change she admitted she was playing devils advocate, or Koos comments about the situation, or Koos comments on Mycophobia's obviously heinous phobia. Miss Broccoli fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:22
|
|
|
This is a minor point that doesn't change anything else. Koos has a problem with transgender people. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Upgrade posted:I share this as someone who doesn't really post in CE/US Pol but reads the thread: there has been a lot of research about how social media favores negative vs. positive disengagement, and I've noticed that over the last few years the general US News/discussion thread has moved towards that same format. This isn't about praising Biden/not praising Biden (I don't care if you make it a rule that nobody is allowed to share happiness about anything Biden does), but about the thread in general. It sometimes seems that posts criticizing a subject are given far more leeway than those defending or praising it. Again, this is about any topic. If that's happening, it isn't my intention. I would like praise and criticism to be held to the same standards, which is that it's specific, supported, logically sound and fresh. whiggles posted:Rules on things like "no genocide denialism" is a lot trickier to implement than "no transphobia" due to the fact that some things are, in fact, not genocide, and the standard that must be reached to qualify something as "genocide" is going to vary from person to person. there are always going to be clear cut cases, but inevitably you will have an edge case, or a situation where the determining evidence of a genocide occurring is prone to misrepresentation by a group or government in order to advance their own agenda This touches on some of the reasons for my hesitation toward moderating positions. As you demonstrated with the case of genocide denialism, there can be controversy over what actually qualifies as a certain position. Though you intended it as a simpler example, "no transphobia," as you can see from the recent conversation, suffers from the same problem of disagreement over what constitutes transphobia. Miss Broccoli posted:Good Faith posting about trans people is "are trans women women ontologically" and incredibly flawed studies that don't say what the poster says they say, which they then use to build a hypothetical that is quite literally the prototypical transphobe on sports talking point. Mycophobia did not ask "are trans women women ontologically," and Colonel Cool's study did indeed say what she was claiming. As we found in our conversation you posted an excerpt from, you and I don't seem to be able to see eye to eye on the latter, but that is what I believe and in spite of my good faith effort to understand points to the contrary, it hasn't changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
literally the only response to you on this is a big fat "K". How many people need to tell you exactly this:quote:The best I can say is that you're privileged and naive at best, which means you suck poo poo as a moderator because you allow bigots to talk circles around you and create an extremely hostile space. If it's on purpose, which is sure seems like it is, well that's a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
What happens here is all the people like myself and the others in that thread who kept trying to be patient until they lose it with you will keep saying this until we get fed up and leave. That will leave only the posters who think What Even Is A Woman Anyway in response to "are trans women women" is a good debate and oops your forum is full of polite transphobes who confirm and massge your ego. You're clearly having a fragility moment here Koos. Thats the benefit of the doubt charitable interpretation of your actions. quote:I hate to pull this card, but I'm not trans, but I am a black man. And if I had to be present in a community where people can denigrate me at will based on my race until I made the effort to argue for the worth of my own person, then its no community I want to be a part of. And that is exactly why I am outraged on my behalf of my trans friends at what is happening here. This is a bad road man. Fluffdaddy posted:I guess I come from the mindset that minorities are not here to educate their oppressors. That's a lot of unfair emotional labor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We switched to a quarterly because it wasn't really resulting in any sort of refresh of topics. you're a loathsome piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We switched to a quarterly because it wasn't really resulting in any sort of refresh of topics. you're a loathsome piece of poo poo (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:47
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:What happens here is all the people like myself and the others in that thread who kept trying to be patient until they lose it with you will keep saying this until we get fed up and leave. That will leave only the posters who think What Even Is A Woman Anyway in response to "are trans women women" is a good debate and oops your forum is full of polite transphobes who confirm and massge your ego. This is a genuine question made in as good faith as I can possibly make it, so please try to read it that way. Can you not just not read or post in a thread debating trans issues if it bothers you? Look, I get it. Constantly feeling like your identity is under attack is exhausting. I totally appreciate that fact and don't fault anyone for not wanting to engage in Yet Another Round of Discourse around incredibly personal issues to you. That doesn't mean that there's no value in those discussions. There's so many places on the rest of the forums that are extremely supportive places trans people can go to feel comfortable. I don't think D&D needs to be that place. D&D should be a forum for discussing contentious issues. Trans people in sports is a major current political issue, and it deserves talking about. How we categorize gender and what it even means to be a woman is an interesting philosophical question, and being able to find satisfying answers to questions like that can only strengthen not only our own positions, but helps other people who might be viewing the thread come to better understand what's frankly a very confusing question too. Labeling any dissent on difficult questions transphobic and calling for it to be prohibited doesn't help anyone. I think everyone here can all agree that there's a line that shouldn't be crossed and should be a bannable offense, but these topics aren't over that line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
 Is this the position of the Debate and Discussion mod team? That Debate and Discussion is the place to go if you want to argue that the "cranial capacity" of black people makes them "suited for a life of servitude"? And if that's allowed, why was my thread about the stomach capacity of moderators (vis-à-vis the eating of excrement) deleted?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:50
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:This is a genuine question made in as good faith as I can possibly make it, so please try to read it that way. Can you not just not read or post in a thread debating trans issues if it bothers you? christ almighty. "dnd should be the forum where we debate whether women are women" you uh, just proved my point, lil ms devils advocate. E: Is your name Blaire White by chance? Miss Broccoli fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 05:53
|
|
|
"are trans women women like cis women are" \ "Well they arent cis women lol" - the man who beleives in AGP and totes has a trans friend, who is totes posting in Koos Gold Standard good faith \ "What does it even mean to be a women" - the same man who also beleives in AGP DND should allow uncomfortable conversations to take place in this sense literally means questioning whether trans people are the gender they say they are. How many people need to say this obviously creates a hostile atmosphere for trans people and acts as a magnet for the worst types of humans? Here is the Admins take on this: Fluffdaddy posted:While I think people shouldn't be permad or even banned for having bad or even somewhat vile opinions, the threshold is when you think it's acceptable to debate about a minority groups right to exist. There is nothing to debate and there is no nuance there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:03
|
|
|
you are the most hostile one here, and you continue to mischaracterize people, post things out of order and out of context. this is insane to read
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:06
|
|
|
woozy pawsies posted:you are the most hostile one here, and you continue to mischaracterize people, post things out of order and out of context. this is insane to read No, I'm just not polite to translucent shitheads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:Koos and DND has major problems with "not moderating positions" meaning in practice the forums are a safe space to be a transphobe. Seems highly likely that Koos is one whether he realises it or not. Taking my 'mods the cooking forum' hat off for a minute? There was openly bad faith posting in that thread that I can only assume went by as long as it did due to unfamiliarity with the usual talking points. My biggest frustration with the handling was a distinct impression that the enforcement of the present policy was focused on decorum rather than the issue, as Fluffdaddy pointed out, of the root of the argument being a minority of people's right to exist and the validity of their identitiy. Well represented in this thread by posting superstar Colonel Cool here feeling this is a safe space to argue that the forums need a place where transphobia is acceptable discourse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:11
|
|
|
Perhaps all the other minorities in the room who look at this, both in this thread, and in others, who go "the hell" should tell you we are better at seeing through the translucent muck with greater focus than you are. Again, another minorities take on it that is quite poignant. quote:I hate to pull this card, but I'm not trans, but I am a black man. And if I had to be present in a community where people can denigrate me at will based on my race until I made the effort to argue for the worth of my own person, then its no community I want to be a part of. And that is exactly why I am outraged on my behalf of my trans friends at what is happening here. This is a bad road man. This is what is happening. This is what debating what it even means to be a woman when the topic of trans women comes up is. It's questioning and debating whether or not trans people exist as who they say they are. The premise of that topic is transphobic and unsurprisingly it leads to the very worst posters champing at the bit to be polite bigots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Taking my 'mods the cooking forum' hat off for a minute? There was openly bad faith posting in that thread that I can only assume went by as long as it did due to unfamiliarity with the usual talking points. My biggest frustration with the handling was a distinct impression that the enforcement of the present policy was focused on decorum rather than the issue, as Fluffdaddy pointed out, of the root of the argument being a minority of people's right to exist and the validity of their identitiy. Can I ask if you are cis or trans? quote:Constantly feeling like your identity is under attack is exhausting. I totally appreciate that fact and don't fault anyone for not wanting to engage in Yet Another Round of Discourse around incredibly personal issues to you quote:There's so many places on the rest of the forums that are extremely supportive places trans people can go to feel comfortable. Here you have cool speaking down in a condescending manner and sneakily making an assumption that the only reason I could possibly care is that I'm an unreasonable hypervigilant trans person making a mistake, that this is not transphobia actually. quote:Well represented in this thread by posting superstar Colonel Cool here feeling this is a safe space to argue that the forums need a place where transphobia is acceptable discourse. It would be helpful for cis people who also see this, to speak up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:There's so many places on the rest of the forums that are extremely supportive places trans people can go to feel comfortable. I don't think D&D needs to be that place. Here we have someone arguing that transphobia is fine, actually. It's extremely bad and hosed up that this is allowed! Just to be clear though, how many other minority groups should this apply to? Is someone saying "Parts of the forums aren't racist" but "I don't think D&D needs to be that place?" an argument that mods consider to be good and acceptable in the Something Awful Debate & Discussion forum?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:38
|
|
|
Miss Broccoli posted:E: Is your name [a name] by chance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:38
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I sympathise with your concerns, but I would like to remind that the topic of my thread is current events in Russian war with Ukraine - it is meant to be a newsfeed with some nuance. The list of topics that are more likely to see the posts scrutinised from “boring posts” rule of D&D perspective is populated on the basis of having regular derails about them, and consists of the following topics: The reason those rules suck is that you're the only person who's semi-obligated to read the entire thread. So of COURSE poo poo seems boring to you, because you're probably the person reading the thread the most (as IK). 99% of other posters can't keep up, and so they dip in when they can, and have the conversations relevant to their interests. Being told that people who aren't you had this conversation 100 pages ago, and that the IK is tired of reading it, is extremely lame. Rules should be for the benefit of posters, not mods, generally. also for the love of god please force Despera to make a post that isn't two sentence contentless shitposting. going "well he makes ME laugh :]" is similarly designing a thread culture around your personal preferences, not what actually makes a D&D thread good
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:48
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
Or more pertinently, see why exactly that's wrong, but yes. As you've seen in this thread, we're still trying to iron out what if any exceptions there should be to the rule of not moderating positions, and whether the good faith rules and interesting discussion rules might be expanded to pick up problematic cases instead. This is because there are, it seems, potential downsides to any approach. Sharkie posted:And if that's allowed, why was my thread about the stomach capacity of moderators (vis-à-vis the eating of excrement) deleted? That thread was not posted in good faith. It was a satire thread meant to demonstrate a point about D&D's moderation, not one meant to foster discussion about real world issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:49
|
|
|
The trans athlete thread was a debacle, and a few structural mistakes exacerbated the problem. 1. Their was no OP to set forth clear rules + educate posters about basic trans ideas that have been widely censored from education systems. If this was in place, it would have filtered out alot of the lower intensity transphobia-from-ignorance that good faith but ignorant posters were making, while more clearly making it obvious when the violent transphobes were intentionally harassing the people they hated. As an example, ignorant people were repeatedly using the transphobic phrase "biological males", instead of just saying trans women. A proper OP would have helped these posters NOT be transphobic. A proper OP would also have helped catch the violent abuser transphobes earlier by removing their benefit of the doubt, reducing the amount of time they got to spend derailing the thread and abusing posters. 2. Their was no trans IK for a thread about an argument that's prime purpose in modern politics is to justify transphobia. Transphobia is hard to detect, and transphobes are constantly inventing new transphobic language and rhetorical tools to do transphobia. High intensity transphobes are going to be the first people to learn about new transphobia (they are developing it), trans people are going to be the second (they and their friends are going to be targeted by it first), and cis people are going to be last - your always going to learn about these tools second hand, or worse when you accidentally deploy them and a trans person calls you out. That's the nature of all forms of bigotry. You need trans mod representation in flashpoint threads to catch transphobia that will invisibly slide by you. You need it so that trans people don't have to spend huge amounts of effort explaining why transphobia is transphobia to you so that trolls and bad faith posters can get removed. The power dynamic in that thread was hosed up, and was why so many people were angry. As an example: Miss Broccoli posted:I want to ask why you feel the need to continue to refer to transgender women as biological men. Particularly after being (indirectly) called on it. In addition to this you seem to ignore all the evidence pointed your way about how in a huge, majority even, number of sports trans people don't have meaningfully unfair advantages that are impossible for their cis counterparts to achieve. mycophobia posted:well, they're not cis women mycophobia posted:the best i can imagine what people mean when they say "trans women are women" is that trans women should be treated the same as cis women. but maybe you mean something else, so I asked mycophobia posted:because im an idiot who cant keep his mouth shut my positions are that trans people should be treated the same as cis people, anyone should have mostly unfettered access to transitional care regardless of their reasoning for wanting to transition (not to imply that any particular reason would be necessarily invalid) and that my instinctual answer to the thread question at hand is Yes. What Mycophobia is actually annoyed at is miss broccoli's request for a poster to confirm that they deny transphobia's core premise that trans women aren't women. However, instead of responding to this in a good faith way, e.g: a reasonable good faith version of Mycophobia's post posted:I think it could be confusing to ask this poster, in this instance, "are trans women women". Any high intensity transphobe will quite happily lie in response to this question, and ignorant people won't understand the phrase without context. Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Or more pertinently, see why exactly that's wrong, but yes. As you've seen in this thread, we're still trying to iron out what if any exceptions there should be to the rule of not moderating positions, and whether the good faith rules and interesting discussion rules might be expanded to pick up problematic cases instead. This is because there are, it seems, potential downsides to any approach. The important thing here would just be to try and be transparent as possible about which positions on which issues are off limits. And then maybe have an occasional meta/feedback thread for people to discuss adjusting the boundaries one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 06:59
|
|
|
quote:There's so many places on the rest of the forums that are extremely supportive places trans people can go to feel comfortable. I don't think D&D needs to be that place. I always hate when these threads become about side issues because almost by design it never goes anywhere. Reading a recap of current posting blood feuds is exhausting, and usually pointless as people tend to misrepresent each other and not post receipts. But, A mirthless lol to this horrible post, what in the gently caress is wrong with you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 07:00
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I always hate when these threads become about side issues because almost by design it never goes anywhere. Reading a recap of current posting blood feuds is exhausting, and usually pointless as people tend to misrepresent each other and not post receipts. But, Yeah that sure sounds bad when you remove it from the context of the entire paragraph surrounding it? Come on
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 07:17
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I think realistically there are certain issues where you can't allow all positions, like bigotry/discrimination or genocide denial. It just doesn't work, some positions are too vile for reasonable people to not basically flip out. If someone comes in here and is like "oh yeah the Holocaust was GREAT, kill all the Jews!" I just don't think you can expect people to civilly engage such a person. 1. Its a wink wink nudge nudge to other nazi's that they can organize around you. 2. It's implicitly calling jewish people deliberate liars. 3. It's a coded rhetorical tool to harass and abuse jewish people while fitting into the rules of debate decorum. Most people arguing that the holocaust didn't happen don't actually believe that as they are nazi's and want another holocaust, its just a useful thing to argue as its a more decorum friendly version of arguing "jewish people are lying to you". Like, someone can come in and earnestly argue that clouds are sentient and their friends. This might be blatantly false, but saying "okay your allowed to argue this, and then when your requested for evidence you have to give evidence or else THEN your probated for bad faith" causes no harm. VS: Internaut! posted:Like Jimmy the Greek pointing out that African-Americans were bred for centuries to be big and strong, and this is why the NFL is full of African-Americans descended from slaves, while there's been like 3 Africans ever in the league not descended from African-American slaves? I'm not sure what social blowback people would face for this, but why should they? Unpalatable truths remain truths after all. Also on a more individual level, this post needs a probation pointing at it saying "note, logging the fact that you are a huge racist for future admins." Rob Filter fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Is attempted doxxing ban worthy? It seems like it should be. I think it's a reference to the arguments made in the thread. Blaire White is a right-wing youtube personality who's known for making up a story about how genderfluid powerlifter Janae Krovzaleski transitioned so she could win against cisgender female athletes despite her decision to continue to compete in the mens' division where she previously held world records.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2022 07:25
|
|