|
Greetings. It's time for this quarter's feedback thread. Here you can tell us your thoughts on how D&D is going, including answers to questions such as:
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. 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. 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.
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
woozy pawsies posted:You suck poo poo and gently caress you babboon fucker Noted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yeah, and even then some of the probes seem capricious That's because your post was reported, and the original wasn't. If it had been, I probably would have hit it. Willa Rogers posted:A lot of the probations are given pretty subjective reasons, which are still at times used as ideologic cudgels. Examples: Since almost all of those are reasons I myself have used in probations, I'll explain how they derive from the D&D rules. One thing I should have made more clear, and I've had to explain a few times privately, is what "personal posting" means. If you are an expert in a certain field and talking about your experience with it, that is valuable. If you have had something happens to you that shows how a general principle that's being talked about can work, or gives an exception to something that's supposed to be universal, that is valuable. If you make a post simply stating that you like or want something, that would be considered uninteresting because it's can't be generalized into knowledge anyone can use, and is solely about you. That's what I mean by overly personal posting. I'll try have more detailed probation reasons if this comes up again. Several others there, such as "same-oldery" and "things everyone knows already," are also running into D&D's rules against posts being interesting. As I say in the rules thread, if you post something that people will find repetitive and not giving them anything new to consider, that is a violation. This could include points that have been made recently here or very rudimentary arguments that you find everywhere online. As I say in the rules thread, this is indeed subjective, but I feel it's necessary to have discussion that users will consistently find worth reading. If I recall correctly, "undignified" was used for a post that was very hostile and making discussion more difficult in a way I felt was self-evident so it didn't require a detailed probation reason. For the others, it should be fairly clear which D&D rule they're referring to. I can promise you that my probations are made for the sake of discussion and argument quality and without regard to whether I agree with the point being made, because to do otherwise would be to undermine most of what I'm trying to do with D&D. Willa Rogers posted:Speaking of usual suspects, maybe once out of 20x the dude who compulsively backseat mods is probated after doing so, and I don't understand why that's the case. Backseat modding is not explicitly against the rules. While I'd prefer it be kept to a minimum, I don't probate for it unless someone continues doing it to the point of exhausting readers, they're focusing on a specific individual they could just report instead, or there's some other incidental problem. While meta-discussion isn't ideal in terms of how boring it is to readers that aren't interested in D&D's workings, I feel having small bursts of it between feedback threads every once in a while as a pressure release is fine, or at least better than the alternative of people becoming angrier because they're stymied.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Also to finally figure out what level of poo poo posting is allowed. Casual poo poo posting is happily allowed in that thread until some invisible line gets crossed or one group gets angry at the casual flippancy of another group while also wanting to do their own shitposting some times. Since shitposting doesn't add to discussion, it's against the rules by default. However, mods will defer punishment if we find it funny or completely harmless. So it's a specific instance of the general rule of SA that you can lightly break rules if it's funny or otherwise good. Gumball Gumption posted:Until anything is done about fanboy posting CE is going to be CE. In the same way we collectively laugh out anyone who would post about how Republicans and conservatives can do no wrong and can only be failed we need to kick out the same posting about any other political flavor. But, that's obviously tougher since we also have a contingent of USPol posters who see it as being a place where you cheerlead your beliefs and stomp out any criticism. I wholeheartedly agree that any organization or ideology should be fair game for criticism if it's relevant. However, people must also be allowed to defend organizations or ideologies if they see the need to as well. Not allowing that would be either some severe and stifling moderation of positions, or prevent discussion entirely, depending on how universal it was. The issue I see is just keeping it good faith over specific points - i.e., if someone makes a fair criticism of something you support that you can't meaningfully counter, you don't try to with some baloney out of a sense of obligation, and likewise if someone explains successfully why your criticism is unfair or doesn't apply, you gracefully accept this rather than saying something to the effect of "well still."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The one thing that could be improved is maybe lowering the threshold of bad faith posting, especially when it comes to topics that tend to bring out a lot of bigots. I don't really know if there's a formulaic way to lower that threshold, but I felt like probes should have happened a little sooner in that trans athlete thread. Lowering the threshold for bad faith is something I've thought about a lot, but it seems very difficult to do fairly because of how it involves intent and specific positions. I would welcome more discussion in this thread about this topic.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:US Pol is full of probes that don't often make sense and/or aren't explained at all. It's not even clear what the ground rules are anymore. The effort is meaningless because it hasn't discouraged any of the posting it is apparently meant to address. To be frank, I'm desperate enough to improve USCE that I would give a try to combining these things, by starting to hand out three day probes to posters that have been probed in USCE multiple times before, while also giving very detailed explanations of what rule they broke. Something similar was actually suggested by one of my mods. Sodomy Hussein posted:I'm also hopeful under newer moderation that feedback threads will be listened to, instead of ignored while the mods do what they were always going to do. I'm certainly reading every post in the thread and considering them, and am open to changes to policy if they're convincing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I am at a loss of how to fix this, but d&d has become an utterly terrible place to actually debate and discuss opposing positions. The Ukraine war thread is especially egregious, but this pattern extends far and wide. Unfortunately, you need to go to cspam to talk about opposing viewpoints, and sometimes I want a discussion that ain't shitposty. It's saddening and also a bit confusing to hear this, as I've gotten a lot of praise for how cinci handles the thread. Could you point to specific instances where opposing viewpoints were squashed for being such?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Koos, have you thought more about why people found extending good faith towards people advocating anti trans positions intolerable? Yes, and that's one of the reasons why the thread was closed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
Upgrade posted:I had a question about a probation: I saw you probated a poster for saying that they're happy about something the Biden administration did because it'll personally help them. Why is sharing has something effects you personally against the rules? Lived experienced, and how that lived experience shapes your viewpoint on events, seems to be central to any sort of debate. It's not giving us any new information. We were already aware that some people had been helped by the policy, and presumably those people were happy about it. It's part of a general de-emphasis on poster personalities in D&D, in favor of reliable sources and arguments. Also he said "Thank you, President Biden!" with the exclamation point and everything, which I found obnoxious, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Upgrade posted:Is there a blanket ban of sharing how a policy will positively or negatively impact you personally, because it can be assumed that any policy will impact people in general in positive and negative ways? It depends. If the policy affected you personally in a perverse or unexpected way, that would be interesting. Such as if a policy that was supposed to help you actually hurt you, or if a policy that helped you lead to something else changing in your life that also has political implications and was not the express intent of the policy. Or even if you gave us a biographical portrait for a case study of how this policy can affect someone given the rest of their life, even that could be interesting, despite being very personal. But simply saying "it did what it was designed to do and I like it/don't like it" does not seem interesting to people who don't know you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I believe it would help kickstart this whole 'ironing out' process if you would stop calling bigotry a position. Bigotry does not deserve the respect you are giving it. As I've said, I don't consider bigotry itself to be a position, but rather an enmity toward a group or groups of people. Because it's a personal feeling, it's not something that can be meaningfully debated. There are however specific positions that often accompany bigotry or are used as justifications for it, such as assertions about the group's members, and those are what can be countered and debunked. PT6A posted:As someone who avoids USCE as much as possible, it seems like a lot of rules and guidelines for D&D as a whole are being crafted with that specific thread in mind, with the end goal of making it marginally less terrible, but with the consequence of making a lot of other threads very bizarre and stupid. Perhaps. Gumball Gumption posted:Can I post a thread debating if the earth is round and will mods make sure to shut up anyone who's too mean about insisting that it is when I ask questions? I went to make sure D&D is safe for different opinions before I post it. I'm absolutely willing to listen to suggestions that the earth is round and isn't flat. We can compare data, I have a lot of data showing that the earth is probably flat that I'd love to discuss with other intellectuals, I just want to make sure decorum is up held and anyone who is too difficult about making their point is kicked out. To be perfectly honest, if we had a real flat Earther on the forums and they posted a thread in D&D, I would find it both entertaining to watch it be debunked and I think it could have some valuable educational material about astronomy, the history of science, and meta-discussion about how the phenomenon of modern flat Earthers came to be. I would not want anyone to ridicule the user in D&D itself, but would expect it to occur on other boards that hear about it and I don't have a problem with that. Gumball Gumption posted:Oh, would a thread about the Holomador make sure that no one will be called a genocide denier? In the context of that thread it would be a baseless accusation from people who have no interest in discussing the topic. There is still real scholarly debate about the intentionality of the famine, so this actually ends up being an example of how it would be tricky to enforce rules on positions such as genocide denialism. Gumball Gumption posted:The sub with multiple conservative mock threads already does this in practice but not policy which is really one of the big problems with D&D. Policy is very idealistic while actual practice is a lot more reasonable and puts a specific window on acceptable views. Things would be a lot less contentious if the sub was more honest about what views are and are not allowed. You've brought up what I see as the strongest argument against the non-moderation of positions, which is that it's simply too idealistic in what sort of material it hopes to produce. I'd like to make a separate post about my worries and considerations for everyone to respond to.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 16:44
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:It should be super easy to ban holocaust denial and scientific racism. I think that would be easier, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Agree 100% and I even posted that it seemed like a honey pot, and was not a good thread subject. Using that as the main metric for what discussion is allowed has a few problems. First, there are still positions with wide social acceptance that you probably would not want. For example, answering "no" to the question posed by the trans athletes thread is a position held by many people and regions in the United States. Second, it would preclude some leftist positions as well, as it's not generally socially acceptable in the US to say landlords should have the places they don't live in confiscated and nationalized, or that rioting is a better way to affect change than voting. Third, it seems like a formalization of "decorum," as they say, because it's circumscribing based on what's polite rather than what's morally or factually correct. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Apr 24, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:One thing I haven't seen brought up yet, even by the mods, was the "working the refs" problem previous iterations of D&D had. How do people feel that's going right now? Good points, and I haven't talked about one of my motivations for this, which has to do with my age. I've seen the whole transition from racism and other bigotries being acceptable to completely unacceptable. I've seen the passionate, righteous and intelligent arguments people made against these things when it was still necessary to do so, and that led to us winning culturally. But now that we have won, and equal rights is becoming an axiom, I fear some people might be forgetting the actual justifications for it. I don't believe moral and social progress is durable in the same way as technological progress, where we'll simply stay at the most sophisticated level we've reached because we have all the necessary knowledge; but rather it's something that we'll need to always be vigilant to maintain, because it involves human beings rather than physical laws. So, even if we understand that bigotry is wrong intuitively, or have at least been socially conditioned not to engage in it the same way one doesn't belch in public, I believe it's still useful to be educated on the arguments for why. This makes our ideas more resilient, when we have firm reasoning for them we can remind ourselves of. I believe the most robust way to do this is to look at actual bigoted ideas people are bandying about, along with the reasoning for them, because that leads to a full exploration of why they're wrong. So, I suppose that's my overall political reasoning for the rule. But, my higher concern than any of my politics is simply how interesting D&D's discussion is, so I'm of course willing to reconsider for that sake.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:One thing to keep in mind in particular is that the right has literally spent years developing arguments and dogwhistles that have the sound and appearance of respectability for use in debate and media spheres with liberals who give them endless benefit out of the doubt. This has ended up with the whole treasured debate sphere being overwhelmed by gish galloping crypto-nazis working the refs and using any opportunity to spread their beliefs to an audience regardless of whoever's declared the 'winner', hence why they throw massive tantrums at being deplatformed- because it's a tactic that works. Decorum is a weapon they use to get their enemies- progressives, leftists, and anyone not accepting tacit bigotry- labelled and silenced as irrational, unfair and manipulative, taking advantage of people who care about tone and not the content. Sarcastr0 posted:I'm all for a statement of values, as I said above. But having D&D include hunting for bigots in hiding seems a really bad idea. This is one of my major concerns with moderating positions. It's incentivizing people who have those positions to hide them, only making insinuations. In other words, acting in bad faith. This in turn makes it more justified for others to assume the people they're debating aren't acting in good faith, which will in all likelihood lead to suspicion of cases where someone is not acting in bad faith and does not believe any of the banned positions but is coming too close to them or making a point that could incidentally support them by accident. Before I came on, there was a phenomenon in D&D where people would ask a lot of leading questions in the hope of getting someone to admit to believing something that could run afoul of moderation, while the other person either tried to answer increasingly irrelevant questions honestly or did their best to continue hiding, if they did in fact believe something they were afraid could get them in hot water. It led to discussion that didn't add anything to the actual topic. One thing I'm grateful for is this seems to be rarer since I began modding, and I fear a backslide depending on how we handled banning positions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Agreed on the number nuance, I fully believe that people inside the problem threads overestimate it, myself including, and just speculate that people out of them are likely to underestimate it. It’s definitely a thread-level problem as well, rather than some grand conspiracy. I'm still in favor of threadbans and, in the cases where they're the best option, forumbans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's a really noble philosophy but I think it also highlights one of the huge problems with D&D, we love having noble philosophy that has nothing to do with what's actually going on in threads. In the same way D&D aims to be impartial and moderated in a way that's non-political the head admin also has a philosophy that's pushing them to curate certain discussions and push out others. It's the same way 99% of the time D&D is just the liberal politics zone and everyone is very happy with that but you can't call it the liberal politics zone because liberal politics adherrants believe that their politics are just the way of the world. What positions do you believe I'm pushing out?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I mean based on your philosophy you're pushing out people who think D&D isn't a place to educate bigots and think the only way to build a tolerant place for discussion is to push them out. There is counter belief that allowing any tolerance even in the effort of education is creating an intolerant atmosphere. I don't think I even land on either side of that argument, just that at some point you need to pick because you're not going to have a noble philosophy that pleases everyone and at some point you need to decide who the audience is for D&D. Ah, I was confused about what you mean by "push out."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So actually reading the rule around bigotry There is already a general rule about good faith, Mr. Gumption.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:When do you plan to start holding yourself to that rule, and assume the people claiming to be upset about the environment of transphobia you are deliberately cultivating are actually upset about the environment of transphobia you are deliberately cultivating? I have not accused anyone in this thread of acting in bad faith, and I believe the individuals who've said they're upset are upset. I also don't believe my rule set has had any terrible outcomes thus far.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Never take the bigot's side, even tacitly. Good faith rules don't require you to take the side of your opponent in any manner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
speng31b posted:What do people actually want from SA and D&D? At the risk of using the old forums cliche, at least for me, it's a (dead, etc) comedy forum. When I was more than a decade younger and also a stupid moron, SA was one thing. That's all well and good for you, but there are other people who do want discourse with a variety of viewpoints, and who want to educate others and be educated themselves. This difference is why there are a wide variety of boards here at SA for everyone to enjoy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:This is not true. Ah. A distinction I've always made is that the good faith rule applies to discussion, not moderation. It would be impossible for the rule against bad faith to enforced otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Koos, I want to try to explain it all in a different way so I have a question for you about how you view D&D right now and what you want. Do you think both of these statements are true (or at least you want them to be true if we're not meeting this standard right now): "D&D is a safe space for trans posters" and D&D "is a place where people with bigoted beliefs can speak about them respectfully without personally attacking anyone, in the hopes they'll be educated?" Not exactly. The hope isn't just about educating bigots, but about educating others in how they can be dealt with and why their ideas are wrong. The part about being a safe space for trans posters is certainly true though, which is why we enforce general SA rules about directing hate at users.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I think where this rubs me the wrong way is the undertone of condescension in the usage of "education" here. I don't not want to engage with transphobic content because I like being ignorant, and you saying that educating transphobes at the expense of what the posters here are telling you they want out of their experience is a "you" thing. Apologies, I wasn't trying to imply that about you. What I mean is that the board's purpose is educational in general, and the education is meant to be a two-way street in general.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:You literally said that it DOES apply to moderation of bigotry. we have to assume that bigots aren't trolling and earnestly believe what they're saying, therefore, we can't assume bad faith on the part of bigots. So, you have a preferencial enforcement policy that gives leeway for bigots and allows you to punish people who criticize you in ways you don't like. This is disqualifying. Resign. No, moderators don't need to assume bigots aren't trolling or acting in bad faith, and users don't need to assume that for the purpose of reports. It's likely that I haven't communicated this distinction well, since this has come up a few times before (in cases that had nothing to do with bigotry). Furthermore, there have been other criticisms of me in this thread I haven't liked, which are much more severe than what Sharkie was saying, and I have not punished. I punished him because he posted something dishonest, and I said specifically in the first post you need to be honest in how you present your feedback here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 21:54
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:"what about all the criticisms I don't like that I haven't probated" is not a compelling argument nor is it proof that you lack a preference for allowing bigots to attack people's humanity and for punishing criticism of your policies. Punishing posters for criticizing my policies would defeat the purpose of a feedback thread. This is why I haven't done so. The only person you are offering as an example of me doing so is someone who was very clearly breaking one of the few rules the thread has.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I think a good measure of a lot of the frustration you see on trans related issues is because you don't think there have been terrible outcomes. It comes across rather "What are you so angry about, the other half of your family lived!"-ish. I don't believe it's an "other half of your family lived" situation, because the way the trans thread was handled ended up being virtually the same as it would have if there had been a rule against transphobia. Everyone clearly engaging in it was permabanned or threadbanned regardless. Your second point however, is well taken. speng31b posted:In general I don't disagree, but I think you might consider particular exceptions (based on specific discussion about each) to the "don't moderate positions" rule based on the evidence at hand and the human feelings people in this thread are expressing / perspective of the audience you have agreed to be a moderator for. I am considering them. I've been trying to figure out the details of how positions would be moderated if that were to become a policy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And you were against all of those decisions. At best you gave slaps on the wrist and you said the threadbanned person should have been able to troll for awhile longer before they got too annoying for you. Don't try and take an admin's decision over your head as your own. I'm not referring to Colonel Cool, who I don't believe was engaging in transphobia, but Internaut!, who I threadbanned myself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
ram dass in hell posted:This is plainly false. This is probably also related to your earlier claim that "nothing terrible has happened as a result of my ruleset and enforcement yet". If there were rules against transphobia, that is a change to the environment of the subforum, which clearly have an affect on what is seen as and believed to be acceptable discourse. You don't seem to understand that this outcome is harmful. You don't seem to care that trans people see your forum as a place where they will be poo poo on and mods allow it, to the point of punishing the recipients of the abuse if they get too upset about the abuse being sanctioned by the website in the first place. You don't see this as a terrible outcome, because you claimed nothing terrible has happened. That is a bigoted belief, the belief that free space for bigoted and dehumanizing statements is a positive thing. As I said, abuse aimed toward posters on the basis of race, sex, trans status, and so on, is against not only D&D's rules but the rules of the site. It is not allowed by any means, which is why Aginor was permabanned for it. As for whether a rule being in place would prevent the people who made the statements and were later punished from making the statements in the first place, I hadn't considered that. In this specific case I don't know that it would, as both of them thought they could get away with hiding their positions, and may not have thought of what they were saying as transphobic anyway and as a result still may have done the same in the thread. But more broadly I see your point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Presumably the entire premise of the thread would be off limits? Or do you still think a thread about whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete or not is valid under this hypothetical policy? Good question. The thread probably would not be allowed.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:D&D ostensibly has mods other than Koos but none of them felt like they were allowed to do anything about rampant transphobia that he ignored for days. Maybe Koos should just be a normal mod and not "head mod"? I don't believe I ever told any of the other mods not to moderate that thread. Jaxyon posted:No, hate speech only is against the rules of the site and not even very strongly: Ah, I was under the impression Jeffrey had added more to the rules than that. Maybe he just said it in some QCS thread. Upgrade posted:It is extremely weird that apparently the goal of this iteration of D&D in 2022 is to educate bigots, and therefore we must give bigots a space to peddle their ideas so they have the opportunity to be educated. I do appreciate Koos making this goal extremely clear, because it lets anyone not interested in engaging with people within that framework just not participate in the forum anymore. I guess my earlier suggestion that the mods make their vision for the forum clear isn't necessary, because it has been made very clear. It's just not something I'd ever want to be a part of, and I'm not sure who would. The goal of current D&D is not to educate bigots, is to have good discussion. When I began modding I believed avoiding moderating positions was beneficial to that goal. I am currently reconsidering it based on feedback.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Are you sure about all of that first part? And I'd disagree about calling bigotry and the "you're trans because you did sex crimes" dms just "bad opinions." It's been repeatedly shown that the person who sent those dms is welcome as long as they do the correct debate dance so yeah that does not sound like a welcoming place to me. The person who did that was permabanned minutes afterward, then permabanned a second time after I noticed him, so no, I don't believe it's been shown that he's welcome here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Don't you think that as a moderator who's quoting the rules, in a discussion about a very serious subject, you should at least know what the loving rules are? Your actions show what level of importance this is to you. And as far as I can see, it's not much. The fact that I was operating under the assumption that the rules against bigotry were more stringent is a point in my favor I'd say, but yes, I should have double checked the site rules before referencing them. Jaxyon posted:It doesn't as much matter what your goal or intent is, what matters is the resuslts and the impact. The results and impact have been you laxly moderating bad faith bigots and strictly moderating their targets. The opposite is true. In the trans athlete thread I moderated people who were upset about transphobia and potential transphobia to a much more lenient degree than normal, because it is such a highly charged and personal topic that some slack could be given when getting heated about it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
RealityWarCriminal posted:The point people are making is that their intentions were obvious, they should have been booted from the thread earlier, and should have been punished before they reached the point of PMing users. They were punished before the point of PMing users. They didn't begin until they were no longer able to post. Regardless, your second paragraph is duly noted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You gave people who called transphobes transphobes 12 hours or more because they didn't follow The transphobes were permabanned and threadbanned with a longer probie than that, respectively. Edit: Assuming we're talking about the same people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 00:00
|
|
and the transphobes they were calling out sixers.
|
Who What Now posted:Was that D&D mod Koos? I was involved in bringing Aginor to the admins' attention. I actually don't remember who Trollologist was. Maybe I'm mixing up them and Internaut!.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:How many placeholders did you give him? Again, I don't remember, but it was at least long enough to keep him from posting until his perma.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 00:11
|
|