|
Velocity Raptor posted: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. The uspol CCCC thread is actually great and welcomes all
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Tech thread could use a reboot but it's nice to have it as a general Jesus Christ thread for how hosed up things are in tech, or how musk is currently trying to get pegged by a tesla In general, alot of the threads that have ops that are 5 or more years old might be best rebooted in order to just hopefully increase eyes and just cause wow, they are ancient at times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:
I agree with removing the sticky and the sloppy assertions rule being attached in a reduced form as a sub-item of something else. 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. As a fun police lieutenant, I like my grey forums grey. Jaxyon posted:Example: "This argument isn't fresh" as a probation reason. The overarching rule/motif of SA is that posts should be interesting. Someone yelling virtually the same thing 10 times is not that, especially when the subject of yelling most often is “I don’t like the current thing”. 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 (c) should absolutely get moderated against, point of D&D is not for you to have fun at the expense of others. 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. It depends on what they’re getting probations for. If someone makes really disruptive posts, thread ban can happen in just a few probations. Conversely, there’s a person in U/R thread who has close to a hundred of D&D probations this year – but their worst crime is not having a sense of humour compatible with the mean of the mod team. lil poopendorfer posted:CZS should stay outta USCE That’s literally the reason we were looking to onboard 3 moderators dedicated primarily to USCE - it's a heated collection of threads with long-running arguments shaped by interpersonal history of the regulars. I cannot adjudicate those arguments with the nuance they may deserve by virtue of not being a regular thread poster, and I only touched it to cover for the availability of mods more familiar with it. Leon was one of the nominees here, and, consequently, I don’t plan to moderate USCE posts more nuanced than retardstomper58 going to pound town. Edit: Clarified wording a little. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 18:28
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:Tech thread could use a reboot but it's nice to have it as a general Jesus Christ thread for how hosed up things are in tech, or how musk is currently trying to get pegged by a tesla Oh wow yeah some of these OPs are pretty old. Once the feedback thread wraps up I'll try to find good candidates for a reboot/look into any mentioned here or in PMs on these grounds barring serious objections from the threads themselves, or at least see if the OP would like to keep their thread if they're still active but just update the OP a bit if it's not already at 1000+ pages
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Rather than getting rid of the stale arguments rule, perhaps relax or alter it a bit. If one poster or more are constantly making the same argument to the same other poster(s) and vice-versa, they should agree to disagree and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
I think falsifiability should be a big factor in whether an argument is 'stale' or not, if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
I’d like to request that rules be consistently cited in D&D probations, because I’m uncertain which rule is broken here:Mantis42 posted:I hope they shoot her down. You are allowed to wish death upon national figures elsewhere here. Why the exception for American government officials?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:Rather than getting rid of the stale arguments rule, perhaps relax or alter it a bit. If one poster or more are constantly making the same argument to the same other poster(s) and vice-versa, they should agree to disagree and move on. I think we can workshop this to a something more predictably identifiable. There are a few behaviours, broadly spekaing, that normally go under “stale argument”:
From the perspective of the current rules: (1) Is not covered by for anything other than II.C; (2) Can be frequently, but not always, described by another rule; (3) Here I think a minor adjustment to I.A.2 could do the job; (4) Can be sometimes, but not always, described by another rule. I may be missing some other scenario and stand happy to be corrected by other mods, I'm kind-of tired today and had to edit my previous post like 5 times to make it readable. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I think we can workshop this to a something more predictably identifiable. There are a few behaviours, broadly spekaing, that normally go under “stale argument”: Clancychat may serve as a useful specific example of the general class of this argument -meaning that the things which make clancychat a problem are, collectively, sufficient, but not necessarily necessary or categorical, features of the things that the rule covers. Falsifiability, likelihood and counterfactual weighting are also elements to take into consideration. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 19:45
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:I’d like to request that rules be consistently cited in D&D probations, because I’m uncertain which rule is broken here: I don't presume to speak for Gout, but Mantis42 post is some combination of III.B, II.A, and II.B. How are u, on the other hand, didn't suggest violence against Putin – they seem to be perfectly content with Putin hypothetically dying from a distress caused by an unusually large kidney stone. If you review probations made in the U/R thread, you'll find that calls to assassinate Putin receive probations. Edit: Violent suggestions addressed to American officials may be treated as of elevated severity, however, on the basis of Jeffrey not stocking up biscuits for guests from the Secret Service. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 19:46
|
|
|
It seems to be addressed to the Chinese military
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:It seems to be addressed to the Chinese military I believe the Secret Service would still be responsible for seeing that the Chinese military doesn’t kill Pelosi, and that US law wouldn’t consider such a murder of Pelosi particularly legal in any case. This consideration put aside, the post doesn’t prescribe anything particularly interesting regarding their suggestion of violence, and does add precisely 0 to the conversation there, at a glance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted: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. That would provide accountability. Which is why zero mods have replied to this post.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That would provide accountability. That suggestion is basically concern trolling mods into becoming a Ministry of Truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Yep, it's along the lines of demanding a list of accepted and not-accepted sources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Free vitalsigns Aw that's nice, but let's not make me personally a topic of the feedback thread I don't think it's for that or would be very interesting to anyone else. If I want the threadban reviewed someday I'll PM a mod about it, I don't think it's needed here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:That suggestion is basically concern trolling mods into becoming a Ministry of Truth. Is that not what is already happening? It's just asking that the list be made explicit instead of us having to guess what posts you may remember
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:That suggestion is basically concern trolling mods into becoming a Ministry of Truth. If you cant be accountable for the rule than it's not a rule it's a fig leaf. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted: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 A good post
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Is that not what is already happening? I think a few specific examples would lead to a more constructive conversation here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yep, it's along the lines of demanding a list of accepted and not-accepted sources. If you have a rule about only using accepted sources, a list of accepted sources would be a no brainer. But i get it. Mods want the flexibility to wield that rule to moderate positions. Providing accountability would make it too obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I think a few specific examples would lead to a more constructive conversation here. Feel free to quote your uses of that rule to get it started, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If you have a rule about only using accepted sources, a list of accepted sources would be a no brainer. You keep repeating this but perhaps you could actually share some clear examples? If it's such a problem it should be pretty easy, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:That suggestion is basically concern trolling mods into becoming a Ministry of Truth. Is it? How is it different from now? Currently if people want to know what is a 'stale' argument they would have to read a bunch of threads and take note of which arguments get punished. Or find out their argument has been judged stale by having a probation dropped on them without warning. And how are new posters supposed to navigate this rule. D&D always gets new people when an election comes around, are they supposed to go through the archives making notes on stale arguments before they post? If a newcomer posts something mods are tired of hearing and get 6 hours off are they going to come back? Why not warn someone before you probe a stale argument for the first time? Just reply to them in the thread with something like what Koos said above: that arguing, say, one of the two major political parties is ineffectual is a stale argument and from now on should be considered risky. Then you could just note that somewhere (perhaps a post in the rules thread) so everyone knows which arguments have the stale warning applied. If simply documenting the 'objective' criteria you're already using to punish people anyway is going to make you look like a "Ministry of Truth", then what does that say about the rule and the way it's being enforced?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If you have a rule about only using accepted sources, a list of accepted sources would be a no brainer. There is not a rule about only using accepted sources.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Feel free to quote your uses of that rule to get it started, friend. I don't see a major problem, and I can't read the minds of other people. So if that satisfies you, I'm happy to quote all my uses of that rule as adequate, since otherwise I would've not resorted to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
The probations for "stale arguments" also come off as real arbitrary because there's plenty of chatter over well-trodden subjects that doesn't get hit and as far as I can tell there's no rhyme or reason to it. Instead of feeling like a rule to abide by it feels more like blindly walking across a minefield. Or in short: VitalSigns posted:Why not warn someone before you probe a stale argument for the first time? Just reply to them in the thread with something like what Koos said above: that arguing, say, one of the two major political parties is ineffectual is a stale argument and from now on should be considered risky. Then you could just note that somewhere (perhaps a post in the rules thread) so everyone knows which arguments have the stale warning applied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I don't see a major problem, and I can't read the minds of other people. So if that satisfies you, I'm happy to quote all my uses of that rule as adequate, since otherwise I would've not resorted to it. Ok go ahead
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
I can't speak for other mods but I generally do try to intervene via posting before slamming buttons, especially for things like this, i.e. "hey, seems like this argument is going in circles, let's move on" or for situations where it's starting to get personal or nasty, giving people a chance to simmer down before just resorting to probes. But if you get a report of a pretty clear rules violation, I think it can be appropriate to just hit the post, depending on the rule being violated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
D&D is fine enough I guess. it's shitup by some kind of bigger site-level issues that are entirely beyond the scope of the mods here, but D&D itself is, idk fairly consistent at this point. If you argue like an rear end in a top hat, you're going to get probated. if you argue like not an rear end in a top hat, 20% chance you're going to get probated. On that note: mods should read a few lines above and below in reports because some real dumb probes happen when that isn't done. Also yall should be doing mod searching like 24/7/365 because the average time until burnout seems like it's about half the time that it takes to find a single new mod. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:D&D is fine. it's shitup by some kind of bigger site-level issues that are entirely beyond the scope of the mods here, but D&D itself is, idk fairly consistent at this point. If you argue like an rear end in a top hat, you're going to get probated. if you argue like not an rear end in a top hat, 20% chance you're going to get probated. Yes, even if I am not actively reading a thread, I will typically go back at least a page or two for more context. In the interest of mod transparency I will say this has resulted in plenty of "misc'ing" of reports. It has occasionally been apparent that something is reported because of a posting grudge that goes back a few pages and it's someone trying to rules lawyer their posting enemy. So yes, context is important and if you see me probe something, you can know that I did make some attempt to understand the context of the reported post. You may think that I have gotten it wrong and if someone has a specific example I am happy to take a second look and address it. I've absolutely pm'd back and forth with a user and let them know I was in the wrong before, I'm not afraid to do a little self-reflection or eat a little crow. I do prefer to deal with that via PMs though, making GBS threads up a thread with complaints is annoying and frustrating. (Obviously I'm not talking about the feedback thread).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There is not a rule about only using accepted sources. Yes, exactly. There is a rule about using stale arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:You keep repeating this but perhaps you could actually share some clear examples? If it's such a problem it should be pretty easy, no? Can I cite Koos' post in the subject itt? Koos Group posted: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 mean, surely it can't be the case that posting "A" is fine, but disagreeing is risky and if you don't manage to disagree in a way that's novel to whatever mod reads the report complaining that someone disagreed with "A" then you get punished. Because that does seem like moderating positions if, as YMB says, someone can affirm one side of the argument without issue but those who disagree have to choose between letting it stand unchallenged, finding a novel rebuttal every time, or getting punished for repeating a rebuttal that had been made before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Yes, exactly. Which arguments are stale is necessarily a reflection of the current and prior discussion. You are, as others have noted, trying to obligate the mods to construct something for you to attack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Koos Group posted: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. This user is telling you that your idea of "consistently providing high-quality contributions" as immunizing a user from anything less than "really messing up" is severely miscalibrated. For one thing, it's a quantitative measure balancing against a categorical immunity; a user hits a minimum number of "high-quality contributions", number not determined, standard not determined, and they get to do as much threadshitting as they want so long as you decide that they have not "really messed up" with any one of them. It appears to be a way to identify a set of constant offenders who get, as a matter of forum culture, to poo poo up the forum. In practice, the inertia of the bad decision to immunize these users from forumbans makes it harder and harder to remove them over time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:That suggestion is basically concern trolling mods into becoming a Ministry of Truth. Thanks for calling feedback trolling, that's very productive. I think the overarching problem is lack of transparency. This is a site-wide problem, but a lot more noticeable in D&D where things are more contentious. The only thing that posters see is which posts get probated and the mod's explanation for why. Reporting can feel completely useless because there's zero feedback there. This leads to the perception that the rules are being applied arbitrarily. Whether that perception is accurate or not is going to be difficult to prove, again because of the lack of transparency. When none of us can see what's going on behind the scenes, it's easy for mods to hide their biases (whether they do this intentionally or not). A couple weeks ago I got in an argument with another poster. I accused them of making a stale argument, and ironically I got probated for "posting about posters" (this is another extremely arbitrary rule). Lots of other people were probated responding to them. I talked to another mod about it, asked why none of the other poster's posts were probateable when they was doing the exact same thing. I was told to report the posts, and I did, and nothing ever came of it. So yeah, just based on what I can see, it seems pretty arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Which arguments are stale is necessarily a reflection of the current and prior discussion. You are, as others have noted, trying to obligate the mods to construct something for you to attack. I am asking for accountability. If accountability is problematic, then you've identified a problem with a rule. Do you feel that "I know it when I see it" is an adequate standard for obscenity in media?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think the overarching problem is lack of transparency. This is a site-wide problem, but a lot more noticeable in D&D where things are more contentious. The only thing that posters see is which posts get probated and the mod's explanation for why. Reporting can feel completely useless because there's zero feedback there. This leads to the perception that the rules are being applied arbitrarily. Whether that perception is accurate or not is going to be difficult to prove, again because of the lack of transparency. When none of us can see what's going on behind the scenes, it's easy for mods to hide their biases (whether they do this intentionally or not). What’s going on behind the scenes is that the vast majority of reports are archived after a moderator posts one word reply of “resolved” or “misc” to them, depending on if an action was taken or not taken. If you don’t understand why you were probated, you should reach out to the person who probated you, or Koos. Posting about posters is one of the most specific rules we have, and works exactly as it says on the tin. If you’ve received a corresponding probation that you don’t understand, feel free to quote the post in question here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:What’s going on behind the scenes is that the vast majority of reports are archived after a moderator posts one word reply of “resolved” or “misc” to them, depending on if an action was taken or not taken. If you don’t understand why you were probated, you should reach out to the person who probated you, or Koos. I thought you were going to quote your uses of the "fresh argument" rule? Or was that just you saying you weren't going to quote anything and you were 100% right in all usages so you need give no examples?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:What’s going on behind the scenes is that the vast majority of reports are archived after a moderator posts one word reply of “resolved” or “misc” to them, depending on if an action was taken or not taken. If you don’t understand why you were probated, you should reach out to the person who probated you, or Koos. I did exactly that. I PMd you specifically, not just to ask why I was probated, but why the other poster hadn't been probated for being a caustic, condescending rear end in a top hat and also posting about posters. I did what you told me to do and nothing happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can I cite Koos' post in the subject itt? I mean people can get probed for either and it's just an example for illustrative purposes? If you think a post has been probed unfairly for ideologic reasons surely you can point to a clear example. I personally have tried to completely ignore whatever political slant of what's being reported and focus on "did this break any rules? And what does it look like in context of the conversation?" I'm not sifting reports looking for anyone being insufficiently deferent to Nancy Pelosi and the DCCC. I'm not going to say it's never happened, because obviously there is always some sort of implicit bias at work, but that's why the rules are written as carefully as they are, and why we have a number of mods all over the left side of the political spectrum to try and make up for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2022 21:40
|
|