|
Greetings. It's time for this quarter's feedback thread. Here you can tell us your thoughts on how D&D is going. As always, you can give feedback by posting in the thread, PMing me, or you may post anonymously by PMing me the post and I'll make it for you. D&D rules will be relaxed here somewhat, since we're talking about the forums rather than educational subjects, so citations will be less valuable than normal, and personal opinions will be more valuable. All I ask is that you continue to present your ideas with honesty as you would in normal D&D, and that you don't spam the thread, by which I mean posting the same thing repeatedly to increase its exposure as the expense of other posters. If you are having a real discussion of your feedback to clarify or rebut counterarguments to it you can do so for as many posts are needed. The rule of thumb is just to not post something in this thread you've already posted. The next post will be a report of what's currently happening in D&D and possible issues to discuss.
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Keep seppo mods out of the auz thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
I would like to see some style sheet changes or perhaps a subforum background image, but my sources tell me that the fun police have loudly spoken against it. e: That's it, that's my feedback
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
1. Keep this feedback thread open through tuesday or wednesday because many regular posters post from work and don't see this until it's already closed 2. Moderation states that it does not moderation positions, only tone and tactics. However that's impossible to moderate so it effectively becomes a moderation of positions. Example: "This argument isn't fresh" as a probation reason. Almost zero arguments are fresh, so effectively the moderator is probating positions they find tired, subjectively. In a political forum, if you don't have moderation based in fact, then you are effectively moderating based on the political positions of the staff. Nobody is unbiased, so it's not possible to moderate feelings-based rules in a nonbiased manner. 3. Having two political forums that are largely(though not entirely) seperated by rhetoric causes moderation issues because each forum develops a culture with regards to the other. Close one of the two, combine with the other. I don't care which.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Stop directing the conversation in USCE and let people post. Maybe get a handle on those trying to shut down conversations vs those that are just posting a bit of white noise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:1. Keep this feedback thread open through tuesday or wednesday because many regular posters post from work and don't see this until it's already closed I feel like there needs to be some way to stem the tide of a few people bringing the exact same argument up the exact same way hundreds of times despite the relevance to what's at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I feel like there needs to be some way to stem the tide of a few people bringing the exact same argument up the exact same way hundreds of times despite the relevance to what's at hand. If people are bringing up the same argument hundreds of times it's probably because it's a. not a settled issue at all, b. relevant despite you personally not thinking so or c. fun to argue about. Moderating against people doing things for any one of those reasons seems counterproductive to the idea of a debate forum
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
#1 there is a Koos call so I'm not going to address it, but I do have some thoughts on 2 and 3 there.Jaxyon posted:2. Moderation states that it does not moderation positions, only tone and tactics. However that's impossible to moderate so it effectively becomes a moderation of positions. A lot of the current moderation philosophy/rules have been born out of prior feedback threads and the result of users of various different stripes calling for less subjectivity and more objectivity in moderation. I think that for the most part, the new rules structure, despite being nerdlord central, do a pretty god job of that. Handling reports since the rules changes has been much easier than before, and I feel like I have to spend less time deliberating about my decisions because for the most part they are pretty straightforward. That said, and I think you will find this true of most everywhere else on this site, you simply cannot eliminate all subjectivity in moderation. Everyone brings their own biases to the table, conscious and subconscious. And posts will be seen through those lenses. I think the best solution is one we are already trying to implement. Having a moderation team with diverse backgrounds, interests, and viewpoints is really helpful in taming some of those biases. If someone wants to know what a lazy pothead thinks about a particular post, they can come to me. If someone is looking for a horse's viewpoint, well, we know where to go for that. Koos has brought on his own substantial FYAD-wisdom and leadership and I think the results speak for themselves. Ultimately we are all doing our best to try and thread the needle and foster good discussion, and at the end of the day, the biggest consequences of our decisions are typically "a person was unable to post for a range of time typically between 6 hours and 3 days, and very infrequently longer." I hope that at least gives you some insight into how I am approaching the concept of subjectivity/objectivity. I can't speak for everyone else, but I suspect much of the mod team is trying to do the same. Jaxyon posted:3. Having two political forums that are largely(though not entirely) seperated by rhetoric causes moderation issues because each forum develops a culture with regards to the other. Close one of the two, combine with the other. I don't care which. I think you're onto something here. I think what might work best is if CSPAM is a top-level forum, and DND is made into a sub-forum specifically for formal debate and discussion as opposed to the general politics free for all of the former. Joking aside, while I see what you're getting at, I don't really think closing one or combining them is a good idea. CSPAM gets thousands and thousands more posts in a day. I think there is an absolute need for a space for people to be able to post freely and vent about all the awful garbage in the world, and CSPAM can largely fit that bill. Obviously not everyone in DND posts in CSPAM and there's some venting and casual discussion that happens in DND as well, but certainly much less. I like a lot of what CSPAM has to offer, but I don't want to see DND just be CSPAM lite, regardless of what my post history has to say. I think there's enough space on SA for the two to coexist and serve different needs, so long as we can manage both spaces well enough, which, of course, is difficult and one reason that we have these feedback threads. e: Also this will probably be my only contribution to the feedback conversation this evening, as I have some prior engagements to deal with, but I hope that this provided some useful insight and I am looking forward to checking back in later and seeing more great feedback from everyone. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
I think things are on the right track except that czs wanders around random slaughtering perfectly decent conversations
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think things are on the right track except that czs wanders around random slaughtering perfectly decent conversations That's a good point, can someone tell CZS to stop slamming his buttons every time the conversation gestures in a direction not covered by the thread title
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:That's a good point, can someone tell CZS to stop slamming his buttons every time the conversation gestures in a direction not covered by the thread title Harold Fjord posted:I think things are on the right track except that czs wanders around random slaughtering perfectly decent conversations Not to speak for Koos or the other mods, but a big part of the reason Leon Trotsky 2012 was asked to mod (and foolishly accepted, the schmuck) is he's super active in the US CE thread and can better moderate in real-time rather than mostly relying on reports after the fact. It's always better to try and be active and guide discussion in the present rather than hand out probes much later. Again, not to speak for LT2012, but it seems like he's mostly gonna act as a super-IK for the US CE thread so you'll probably see cinci acting on US CE reports much less often. Totally unrelated, any ideas for "fun" stuff or new threads, etc? Athanatos is back to actively admin'ing and is encouraging us to do fun stuff, give out prizes, etc. I tried to get a "debate club" thing going a while back where folks could discuss a narrow historical topic/issue for prizes: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3990897 It was okay but didn't really take off. I still like the idea, but I think the problem in getting it going is a lot of users browse based on their bookmarks, so it's hard to get new threads going.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:A lot of the current moderation philosophy/rules have been born out of prior feedback threads and the result of users of various different stripes calling for less subjectivity and more objectivity in moderation. I think that for the most part, the new rules structure, despite being nerdlord central, do a pretty god job of that. Handling reports since the rules changes has been much easier than before, and I feel like I have to spend less time deliberating about my decisions because for the most part they are pretty straightforward. You're not going to eliminate it, sure, but all you've got here is a set of rules that provide a fig leaf for the same subjectivity. In particular "we don't moderate positions so being an outright bigot is OK" along with "arguments must be fresh" is a specifically absurd pairing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
the objectivity vs subjectivity argument can't be solved, and it's secondary to the questions of (a) how hands-on should mods be in regulating discussion and (b) what are the most appropriate moderation tools. there doesn't seem to have been any introspection from the mods on this – by default, their answers appear to be "extremely" and "probation as the only course of action, or drop a snide one-liner in the thread if you don't understand a report". blind enforcement of minor rule breaking remains extremely counterproductive to discussion, and seems to have resulted in fewer d&d users than ever – so i guess congrats to the mods for progress on their "zero posts by 2028" strategy!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 06:20
|
|
|
also it is winter
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 06:21
|
|
|
From my perspective, everything is pretty much fine. I can't really think of a probation that didn't make sense. Everyone who says there is a problem have not linked to any examples. I want to see examples.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 06:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:2. Moderation states that it does not moderation positions, only tone and tactics. However that's impossible to moderate so it effectively becomes a moderation of positions. I don't think, at least in the example you provided, that this necessarily becomes moderation of positions. For example, one can hold the position that the Democratic party is ineffectual and not worth supporting, and could make fresh arguments for this by demonstrating it rigorously with the party's current actions or historical actions that aren't widely known. It would only be stale if someone hopped in a thread to post "the Democrats are ineffectual and not worth supporting," without any support or direct connection to an ongoing conversation, because this is an idea everyone's heard. I really do think this rule is important for the board's educational purpose. If you're reading stuff that's been said many times before because it's rudimentary, you aren't learning anything or gaining anything from D&D. It could be valuable for someone come in with some sort of common misconception and watch it be debunked, but that's why the rule is actually "fresh or falsifiable." One of the things the rule is meant to prevent is the use of boilerplate political rhetoric, because this is often by design not counterable with anything but a contradiction by other boilerplate political rhetoric. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Stop directing the conversation in USCE and let people post. Maybe get a handle on those trying to shut down conversations vs those that are just posting a bit of white noise. So I know exactly what you mean, do you have an example of each type of post? some plague rats posted:If people are bringing up the same argument hundreds of times it's probably because it's a. not a settled issue at all, b. relevant despite you personally not thinking so or c. fun to argue about. Moderating against people doing things for any one of those reasons seems counterproductive to the idea of a debate forum Well, it sounds like you might be talking about the same issue being fun to argue about rather than the same specific arguments, because repeating the same arguments back to each other is difficult to imagine being fun. It's tedious, even miserable, done because we see something we feel can't be allowed to stand, rather than a sense of exploration. And that's not to say one shouldn't do it. Some arguments really do need to be made over and over in general, and I would even say it's our duty to do so. But that's in the real political arena, not D&D, which has a different purpose. exmarx posted:the objectivity vs subjectivity argument can't be solved, and it's secondary to the questions of (a) how hands-on should mods be in regulating discussion and (b) what are the most appropriate moderation tools. there doesn't seem to have been any introspection from the mods on this – by default, their answers appear to be "extremely" and "probation as the only course of action, or drop a snide one-liner in the thread if you don't understand a report". I hope none of the clarifications I ask for come off as snide. When I have a question or challenge related to a report in a thread, it's sometimes not even to gather info on whether mod action is necessary, it's to make the reporter's argument for them because I think they had a point that could add to discussion rather than being the basis of mod action. I also do believe in some amount of discretion when a rule's being broken, in two forms. One, if a post is very good (that is to say rigorous, educational and/or clever) then some infractions it makes can be allowed. And two, if an infraction is minor it should have reduced action, down to a warning. I recognize even a warning can feel heavy-handed coming from a mod, but this is balanced with the need for everyone to understand what expectations are, and if someone breaks a rule with no response from a mod whatsoever people could come to think it isn't a rule or isn't enforced at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 06:57
|
|
|
If stale arguments are probateable, then the mods should provide an exhaustive and frequently updated list of which ones are considered stale. Otherwise it's an extremely arbitrary rule that can be used to shut down discussion without warning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 08:14
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I would like to see some style sheet changes or perhaps a subforum background image, but my sources tell me that the fun police have loudly spoken against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 08:15
|
|
|
What's the standard for when bans are considered? There are a handful of posters here who've had dozens and dozens of probes just this year alone. I agree we need to give people a chance to improve their posting style, especially on such a slippery and subjective board. But after the 30th probe in as many weeks, does that poster deserve any more good faith? I would argue that a small handful of posters contribute the majority of the unproductive arguments in USCE and other hotspot threads. It's not that their arguments are just so bad that we can't allow them. You can have a reasoned discussion of even the most tired topic, and it's even helpful to do so in many cases, because it helps us refine our arguments so that we can talk to the real people in our physical lives who really do believe these things. But to allow that kind of atmosphere, you'd have to start actually banning people who make a habit of unproductive posting. People can be banned from just one board, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 09:42
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:From my perspective, everything is pretty much fine. I can't really think of a probation that didn't make sense. Sure, since you asked, here's some tiny images of bad probes:     There's so many blocks like this. Just the worst kind of mindless word filter modding, the robotic open-report-hit-buttons that makes the whole thing about how d&d is aiming to have zero posts by 2024 or whatever feel less and less ironic. I mean having a rule that's literally "it's illegal to make jokes here, unless we find them funny, post at your own risk" already feels like a satire of bad moderation but bringing a guy onto the mod team who doesn't actually seem to have a sense of humor and just probes jokes on sight is like an Andy Kaufman bit some plague rats fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 09:47
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:What's the standard for when bans are considered? There are a handful of posters here who've had dozens and dozens of probes just this year alone. I agree we need to give people a chance to improve their posting style, especially on such a slippery and subjective board. But after the 30th probe in as many weeks, does that poster deserve any more good faith? I would argue that a small handful of posters contribute the majority of the unproductive arguments in USCE and other hotspot threads. Oh here's my other feedback: if you're going to make insinuations like this, you've got to name names so we can see what exactly you're mad about, considering jokes are illegal and you can get probed if a mod has seen your argument before "they've been probed a lot" is not a useful metric for anything
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 09:48
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Sure, since you asked, here's some tiny images of bad probes: QFT GoutPatrol and CZS should stay outta USCE
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 11:17
|
|
|
Cinci zoo sniper's uspol probations suck rear end. Keep them out of the thread and leave it to Leon and whoever. Mods should be able to differentiate harmless white noise posting from annoying derails. That's all there is to it. Thank you and go with God.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 11:35
|
|
|
There's way less genocide denial as the brain damaged freaks got driven out to containment zones/threads. Kudos for that
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 11:55
|
|
|
Make NeatHeteroDude a mod. that's my only feedback.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
USCE is fine how it is now A stylesheet would be fun
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
Free vitalsigns
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 14:35
|
|
|
rules need more subsections and branches it ain't done till it is one giant wonderful tree where we can build a truly utopian board of silence and tranquility, free from our petty squabbles
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:What's the standard for when bans are considered? There are a handful of posters here who've had dozens and dozens of probes just this year alone. I agree we need to give people a chance to improve their posting style, especially on such a slippery and subjective board. But after the 30th probe in as many weeks, does that poster deserve any more good faith? I would argue that a small handful of posters contribute the majority of the unproductive arguments in USCE and other hotspot threads. People can't be easily banned from one board using actual forum functions, but we do ban users from individual boards or sometimes even threads. This is accomplished by making a note on their rap sheet, and if they post in the area whilst under such a ban they receive an actual ban. As for the standards, we look at how much they add to discussion vs. how much they detract. If someone consistently provides high-quality contributions, they would need to really mess up to be forumbanned. If they never contribute anything but white noise, they don't have to do that much wrong before a forumban is considered. There are other factors that can come into play as well, such as mercy kills for a poster's mental health, but that's the short of it. some plague rats posted:Sure, since you asked, here's some tiny images of bad probes:  RBA Starblade posted:A stylesheet would be fun Now we're talking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
last time we had one of these the moderators had to be carefully walked through why giving money to openly fascist groups was bad, this time we just had to remind one that calling something a gay disease on the basis that it seemed like one to him was bad progress is being made only thing i'd raise is the 'tired argument' probes not being paired to 'tired assertion' probes making the issue with them clear: if repeating something you know is contentious is fine, but disagreeing with it isn't, the thing being punished isn't being 'tired,' it's disputing the subject in question. there are absolutely subjects where that's the right call. see, for example, the immediately punished Lets Debate: Are Moderators Subhuman thread, which explained to moderators why certain subjects are not up for debate far better than any well-reasoned argument could. but claiming that thread was shut down for being a 'tired argument' would be a transparent exercise in eliding the actual reason. if bringing up a tired point is acceptable, and rebutting it isn't, you are moderating positions and then pretending you aren't to avoid backlash. either equalize punishment or abandon the pretense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 16:10
|
|
|
i need more rules to line my nest with for the coming winter
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Free vitalsigns What happened to him?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:What happened to him? After being allowed to post in USCE after the last mod feedback thread, they were threadbanned a second time. My only real feedback is that I think that starting that second subforum in CSPAM was a good move calming down the USCE thread in D&D. It feels less like a warzone with the same handful of posters constantly taking shots at each other and anyone else who they feel is siding with their posting enemies. Outside of that, I agree with those saying that CZS should probably not mod in USCE since they seem to be really quick and heavy on probes. And letting LT2012 moderate is a good move as well, as having someone closer to the discussion deciding disciplinary action will help a lot with the "why was this worth a probation" follow up posts. The "tired argument" rule should also go away. I could easily see that discouraging new posters from the thread because it may not be a tired argument to them or they may not be aware that their argument has come up numerous times before. There are some who use the same talking points for as a crutch for their arguments, sure, but should those posts need to be disciplined, it should be for a different reason. Again, I think having someone closer to the discussion to help moderate will help a lot with that. Overall, I feel USCE is in a good place, just a couple of things that stick out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:28
|
|
|
I don't ever want D&D merged with the mess that is C-SPAM. I am especially grateful that CZS and others moderate the D&D Ukraine thread. The C-SPAM Ukraine thread has gotten so bad that a C-SPAM mod had to openly demand that posters to stop saying disgusting things about the deaths of Ukrainian civilians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Moderating based on the apparent frequency of arguments in a linear message board format that does nothing to actually keep track of the arguments made or how successfully they've ever been supported or rebutted in the past is a total absurdity
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
CSPAM has no subforums and we haven't moved any threads there, are you referring to USPOL? That got moved to CCCC, with CE being the replacement with the new format of quarterly reboots and an emphasis on finding new rules and guidelines that will make it a more enjoyable space for people to spend time in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:CSPAM has no subforums and we haven't moved any threads there, are you referring to USPOL? That got moved to CCCC, with CE being the replacement with the new format of quarterly reboots and an emphasis on finding new rules and guidelines that will make it a more enjoyable space for people to spend time in. Sorry, I misspoke. Yeah, I was talking about moving that to CCCC. I never venture into into either that or CSPAM and assumed CCCC was a subforum in CSPAM. Velocity Raptor fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:Sorry, I misspoke. Yeah, I was talking about moving that to CCCC. I never venture into into either that or CSPAM so I thought CCCC was a subforum in CSPAM. No worries, I just wanted to clarify since CE is going to be one of the primary topics of this thread if I had to guess. It's actually a subforum of BYOB which is why it has the stylesheet with the calming effects of pastels and comic sans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Epic High Five posted:No worries, I just wanted to clarify since CE is going to be one of the primary topics of this thread if I had to guess. It's actually a subforum of BYOB which is why it has the stylesheet with the calming effects of pastels and comic sans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 17:52
|
|