Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Spring 2022 D&D Feedback.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
whiggles
Dec 19, 2003

TEAM EDWARD
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
Everyone can see that right?

So my suggestion is to not implement a ban on "genocide denialism" unless the moderator staff is prepared to start making declarative statements on individual instances of possible genocide and enforce that line accordingly.

I wouldn't be opposed to that approach.

Edit: also, the determination should never result in "this is NOT a genocide," and instead would simply allow debate to continue on the topic. The only time debate is halted would be if there is a determination in the positive.

whiggles fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Apr 23, 2022

* # ¿ Apr 23, 2022 23:37
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 04:52
  • Quote
whiggles
Dec 19, 2003

TEAM EDWARD

Koos Group posted:

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.

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.



Agreed. After thinking on it more I believe what I'm getting at is that identifying transphobia in an individual poster's statements is more feasible because as the poster posts more and more their intentions and underlying beliefs reveal a more clear picture. The person possibly harboring what we might determine to be transphobia is right in front of you and the discussion will reveal new crucial elements to make a final determination. Whereas identifying the presence of genocide out somewhere in the wide world, the relevant information is prone to being warped several times over before it ends up in our hands and so not being able to discuss and investigate in the same form means you just run in circles.

There is still a great deal of personal value sets and interpretations of 'good vs bad Faith' that has to occur, but that's the nature of discussion.

* # ¿ Apr 24, 2022 21:21
  • Quote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Spring 2022 D&D Feedback.