Spring 2022 D&D Feedback.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Spring 2022 D&D Feedback.

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

I'm not sure CSPAM is known for it's wide variety of viewpoints.

But more substantively, do you think Koos' 'moderating argument quality not positions' policy is a sham, or somehow not being enforced well?

Willa brought some great examples of her concerns, and I think that lead to a pretty good explication of some of the nuances of the new moderation philosophy. What are some examples of refusal to tolerate dissent?

# ¿ Apr 23, 2022 21:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 23:59

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

OwlFancier posted:

That is the nature of political conflict, yes, you cannot find a position that will please everybody, at some point you have to make a value judgement, because everybody else is certainly doing it.

I agree with this - in conjunction with the 'arguments not positions' there should be a statement of values, explaining which positions are out of bounds. A valueless community is 1) impossible, and 2) going to end up with some pretty awful values (paradox of tolerance and all that).

But the process of laying out those values is not a quick one; while there are already winners and losers in the 'lets pretend no values' regime, the change will always leave some people unhappy.

But I do think a project of working towards a D&D values statement to go alongside the more procedural rules is something to strongly consider.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2022 15:27

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

Jaxyon posted:

The moderation team explicitly believes these are topics open for discussion(through action and words to confirm this) and that people must be assumed to be in good faith about them until they absolutely explicitly reveal themselves to be bigots by harassing posters.

Only the most unrepentant bigots are open about their bigotry so all bigots need to thrive here is a thin veneer of sophistry and at most you'll get a nice little 3 day vacation for not playing the game well enough. As opposed to the ejection out the airlock you'd get in most other well moderated forums.

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.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

recall the furious temper tantrums in both 2019 and 2021, from various parts of the right, about how dare anyone refer to America's ethnic purity maintenance facilities as 'concentration camps,' due to this description being too emotionally charged to have a Reasonable Discussion

I'm not sure I agree with this definition of 'the right.' Which is part of why policing based on labels is a problem.

'Denying that trans individuals have a right to exist' is a value 'no bigotry' is an invitation to work the refs against your posting enemies.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

it was discouraging that it took a few days of bullying to get the moderators to take down a "here's how -you- can donate money directly to fascist militias and get a cool prize from us for doing so" link

For example, take this understanding of how to interact with mods. I'm not familiar with this particular incident, but casually invoking bullying as the method to deal with forum issues is not a sign of a healthy relationship with moderation generally.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2022 18:14

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

cinci zoo sniper posted:

This has been an interesting discussion, and I�m curious to hear what kind of outcomes would people prefer for the hypothetical move away from the observed outcomes of the current moderation stance:

1) Values, e.g., �D&D mods believe that trans women are women, and do not wish to have this debated�

2) Principles, e.g., �conversations in D&D shall follow the spirit of the UHDR and the Istanbul Convention�

3) Behaviours, e.g.

4) Something else

5) Combination of multiple or the above

I understand that my 3 options do overlap - this is just the best eloquence I can muster on the spot, apologies.

Almost certainly a mix will be key. My personal preference is to largely stick with the methodology paradigm currently in place, but with some specific values laid out as well. Which I think is what the posting here looks like it's leaning towards as well.

Because they could get out of control, these values should have a light touch, and probably a 'one warning' system since a lot of folks don't read the rules. And there should be a rebuttable presumption against adding to them.

I don't think this would ban conservatives who want to talk about economic stuff, or imperialism stuff, and I have no problem with this not being a place for the kind of social conservative who doesn't believe in personhood of trans people, or who thinks it's child molestation to mention Sarah has two dads. For instance, I'm still on the fence about trans in pro sports, but am quite able to keep quiet about it if that's the read of the room.

I really don't like the behaviors as set out here, because that will be a lot of line drawing about whether something is a right-wing talking point or not. And some of the more vocal folks here have a really expansive view of right wing. IMO it just moves the heat slightly, but wouldn't lessen it.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2022 19:33

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Spring 2022 D&D Feedback.