|
Cicero posted: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. Agreed (and I say that as someone who has often recently been on the receiving end of 6-hour probations from you!) My only feedback is that I wish there was a way to address C-SPAM poster's "concern trolling" posts, since it becomes plenty evident at times that they drop in to D&D threads to stir the pot, engage enough that it seems to be in good faith but don't provide sources/etc., and then go back off to C-SPAM to make light of the topic they were just posting in D&D. I know that QCS is supposed to ideally be used for the purpose to address issues like this, but the problem is that more often than not, the mods and IKs of C-SPAM agree with the general braintrust/etc., so getting anything punished or changed is unlikely. In some instances they're even in on it, such as the mod who tried to lure Brown Moses so that he could chain-probe him, and openly bragged about it. The mod only received a 6-hour from Koos, when it seems like that should be something that gets him stripped of his forum role, or at least a much longer probe. Canned Sunshine fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 24, 2022 |
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Sanguinia posted:EDIT: Also the rule that you can't cite to people's statement cross-forum or in their rap sheet to help prove their statements are obvious bad faith is a stupid one. Nix it. Either that or ban helldumping across all forums because allowing threads which only exist to mock people on other forums (especially when there's so many examples of people baiting out helldump content) while also making it punishable on D&D to point out people's statements on other forums for an actual constructive purpose is nonsense. This is a few pages back, but I didn't want it to get lost, because I think it's a valid argument. It gets really irritating that people say they don't have time to discuss topics in D&D, etc., and so they're dipping in, glancing, whatever else. But that same poster spends 90% of their time in another area of SA, like C-SPAM typically, being "ironic" or whatever about the very topic that they claim they can't spend more time in D&D discussing. Maybe they could only spend 70% of their time in C-SPAM, then they could use the other SA time actually getting caught up or having good discussions on whatever topic they feel worth the small amount of time they're going to invest in the applicable D&D thread. Otherwise it comes off as drive-by concern trolling/shitposting that, at the surface, seems like a good faith argument, but in reality is just trying to stir up the hornet's nest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted: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. You may think there is a misunderstanding, but there is not. But we'll get to that... Ytlaya posted: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! I agree, this is not bad faith posting. Ytlaya posted: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). I also don't disagree here, for the most part, because I do think a lot of threads on SA tend to homogenize and often drive those with contrary opinions away. Ytlaya posted:"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. Now here is where I'm going to start to disagree. "Bad faith", per Oxford's definition, is "(in existentialist philosophy) refusal to confront facts or choices." So while I would agree with you that in an online space, the desire to rile others up is one form of "bad faith" posting, I also believe it applies to someone who is attempting to have an active discussion and/or debate, but who refuses to even be open minded and actually evaluate the information that others are posting and possibly question their own strongly-held beliefs. Thus, going back to your initial comment, it is not a misunderstanding: I believe there are individuals who do post on SA for the sole reason of riling others up, etc., and probably don't believe at all what they are posting, but I would agree with you in that I generally don't think it's anywhere near the majority of the problem. I do think though, as someone who lurks the C-SPAM Ukraine thread but doesn't actively post in in (largely because of said homogenization you mentioned above), that there are a significant number of posters in the C-SPAM thread who do fully believe what they are posting there. For example, one common refrain amongst regulars at times in the C-SPAM Ukraine thread has been that Azov Battalion and other far-right groups make up some significant number of Ukraine's military/government; when some have then tried to post in the D&D thread based on this mindset, they get presented with data showing that overall, pretty much all of these far-right groups are a small % and that it is an issue that can be dealt with post-conflict. Then it deteriorates into an argument because the original poster is so settled on their own opinion/belief, they refuse to even evaluate the information being presented to them. I personally view this as bad faith, because if someone is not willing to even be open to discussing the possibility that what they are posting is not accurate, then there is no point in discussing anything with them (and, this view exactly meets Oxford's definition). Ytlaya posted: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. But this is then contributing to the homogenization you bemoan! If you think certain things are bad/wrong, post them and back them up with documentation. That's the only way that D&D can improve in my opinion. Ytlaya posted:At no point in this process would I actually be dishonest, though. Ytlaya posted: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. I would say that this should go to QCS, but it'd just be invaded by the Army of C-SPAM to defend their inalienable posting rights, but I disagree: I legitimately don't think that any thread or forum on SA should openly allow a group of posters to mock others on SA. People will obviously disagree with this, as it seems you do (but I will apologize if I misinterpreted it), but several of the C-SPAM threads are openly toxic to anyone who does not share the regular's viewpoints, much as you posted above. And yes, I do know that there are those who feel that way about D&D also. I think the difference is that in D&D and other areas, when someone is openly hostile to another poster for their views, the hostile party usually gets probated. In many of C-SPAM's threads though, posters end up being allowed to be hostile to anyone who doesn't share the group think, and mods don't really take any action.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2022 04:15
|
|