|
Gros Tarla posted:Majorian mentioned it would end up with people on one side of the debate being alone there. Is it because people don't want to be challenged? Or is it because most people don't want to interact with the other side of that debate for some reason? Or is it because most people simply don't care? Whichever it is, does it really justify letting it take over the main thread over and over? The thing is, it doesn't usually "take over" the main thread (ie: USCE) that often, at least in my experience. What does take over the thread is posters who don't want to engage on the topic being discussed, complaining bitterly about the topic being discussed - even if it falls squarely under the umbrella of a US Current Events thread, even if it's germane to debate and discussion, and even when it's pretty clearly not settled.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
FistEnergy posted:The Biosphere Collapse thread in cspam is consistently one of the best threads on the forums, check it out if you haven't. It's dark and super pessimistic, which is the sober and honest way to be at this point. Yes, very much so, in contrast with the thread consensus in DND which is that everything is fine because Joe Biden is riding to the rescue. Thank goodness CSPAM has the only thread in which people are realistically pessimistic about climate change. Majorian posted:The thing is, it doesn't usually "take over" the main thread (ie: USCE) that often, at least in my experience. What does take over the thread is posters who don't want to engage on the topic being discussed, complaining bitterly about the topic being discussed - even if it falls squarely under the umbrella of a US Current Events thread, even if it's germane to debate and discussion, and even when it's pretty clearly not settled. Unfortunately this in particular is highly subjective. If I see 200 new posts in CE, I usually think "oh huh what breaking news just happened" but often I am Charlie Brown running to a football held by some of the usual suspects yelling back and forth about their posting enemies being fascists/nazis/bigots for page after page. It's not productive and it's not interesting. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Yes, very much so, in contrast with the thread consensus in DND which is that everything is fine because Joe Biden is riding to the rescue. Thank goodness CSPAM has the only thread in which people are realistically pessimistic about climate change. Lmao why did that post require you to then invent a strawman to be mad at? Whatever you call this style of posting it is a big part of what makes D&D suck. People read a post and then invent some big angry strawman to be mad at instead of honestly engaging with the actual post and posters beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Yes, very much so, in contrast with the thread consensus in DND which is that everything is fine because Joe Biden is riding to the rescue. Thank goodness CSPAM has the only thread in which people are realistically pessimistic about climate change. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The thing is, it doesn't usually "take over" the main thread (ie: USCE) that often, at least in my experience. What does take over the thread is posters who don't want to engage on the topic being discussed, complaining bitterly about the topic being discussed - even if it falls squarely under the umbrella of a US Current Events thread, even if it's germane to debate and discussion, and even when it's pretty clearly not settled. Posters are under no obligation to engage with someone replying with their pet peeve to literally anything, or at all for that matter. Current events, on that note, are reasonably interpreted as things happening today, or this week, not systemic issues (as evidenced by the same posters barging in with the exact same 1-2 points every single day, for months).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:The Biosphere Collapse thread in cspam is consistently one of the best threads on the forums, check it out if you haven't. It's dark and super pessimistic, which is the sober and honest way to be at this point. if you want any kind of peace of mind do not under any circumstances check it out, it is soul-searing which yes is the sober and honest outlook, but still
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:02
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Lmao why did that post require you to then invent a strawman to be mad at? This is a feedback thread about DND, not CSPAM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not what's happening, that is the point. This is a dumb "being intolerant of my intolerance makes you the intolerant one"-style gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:This is a feedback thread about DND, not CSPAM. Word, that doesn't explain anything I asked but word. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
From my latest USCE probe, this time for calling out what is clearly a homophobic dog-whistle from a certain poster who loves this whistle collection:quote:A great deal of your posting in this thread is complaining about moderation,
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Word, that doesn't explain anything I asked but word. Cool. Should I assume someone popping into the DND feedback thread to post about cool CSPAM threads is doing so out of good faith and generosity? The assumption of good faith does not need to be an endless font of naivete.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Discussing a topic in a dedicated thread for that topic is most likely going to be quieter and slower-paced than discussing that same topic in a general chat thread. But that's not a bad thing at all. Letting the people who're actually interested in a topic be the ones to hash it out would presumably lead to a higher quality of discussion, make it easier to see when arguments are becoming repetitive, and attract subject experts who've done more research and are bringing more knowledge and data to the table. It may get less engagement from those who are less engaged in the topic, whether because they don't want to single it out or because they'd prefer to lurk and learn from the higher-quality discussion. The Israel/Palestine thread's dead 90% of the time, but everyone there knows what they're talking about, and people aren't routinely fumbling basic details of the Israeli governmental system. After all, if you're having trouble figuring out how to use the bow in Hades and want to find out more about it, are you going to go ask in the Games Chat thread, the Steam thread, or the Hades thread? If you want to make a data-driven case for D&D 4th Edition being the best D&D flavor ever, with a heavily-sourced comparative evaluation of each edition, are you going to post that in the Trad Games Chat thread or in the Dungeons and Dragons thread? If you want to convince people that white pizza is a sin against food, would you do it in the GWS Chat thread or in the Pizza thread? It's obvious that you'd want to bring the most of the topic-specific discussion to the dedicated thread for exactly that topic, and only occasionally mention it in the chat thread. Doing so isn't burying or containing the subject, but rather the exact opposite: creating a dedicated space where people can give the full attention it deserves. It's only in Debate and Discussion that I've ever seen people raise such an objection to bringing things out of the general chat thread (which the general US politics thread will always be, no matter how many generations of mods try to change that).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The thing is, it doesn't usually "take over" the main thread (ie: USCE) that often, at least in my experience. What does take over the thread is posters who don't want to engage on the topic being discussed, complaining bitterly about the topic being discussed - even if it falls squarely under the umbrella of a US Current Events thread, even if it's germane to debate and discussion, and even when it's pretty clearly not settled. I agree, it almost always devolves into threadshitting. Although I don't see either side being worse than the other, it's just 100% poo poo on all fronts. I just skip all that poo poo personally. And god drat, sometimes it does take over, pages after pages. Sometimes I load up SA, think something big happened because there's 900+ new posts but nope. Just two assholes talking past each other making GBS threads up the whole thread, and actual Current Events getting lost in their midst. And most of the time, that fight started around that topic. I still fail to understand how structuring that discussion better (ie: a thread around the topic) wouldn't be the best option. It is, as you mentioned, a big issue. At least, it could not be worse than the current situation. And I personally would be much more inclined to read about it in its own space, where context is more readily accessible, than as a passing thought in a thread that moves so fast. And also, without all the whining and posting vendettas, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:10
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:From my latest USCE probe, this time for calling out what is clearly a homophobic dog-whistle from a certain poster who loves this whistle collection: The full text of the probe for those curious: A great deal of your posting in this thread is complaining about moderation, in this case bringing up posts from 5 days ago that Koos has already addressed. There's a feedback thread, use it or PMs and in the future please contribute something to the thread instead of simply whining.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:To my knowledge (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the mods haven't been discouraging people from creating threads. It's just that people don't want to create threads, for reasons that really have nothing at all to do with the mods. Well one very obvious reason springs to my mind immediately. If making "stale" arguments is against the rules, then making a thread to host those stale arguments sounds like a good way to get oneself and everyone who posts in it probated. And possibly dinged extra for mod sass for coming back and making the same argument that the mods just punished you for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Discussing a topic in a dedicated thread for that topic is most likely going to be quieter and slower-paced than discussing that same topic in a general chat thread. But that's not a bad thing at all. Letting the people who're actually interested in a topic be the ones to hash it out would presumably lead to a higher quality of discussion, make it easier to see when arguments are becoming repetitive, and attract subject experts who've done more research and are bringing more knowledge and data to the table. It may get less engagement from those who are less engaged in the topic, whether because they don't want to single it out or because they'd prefer to lurk and learn from the higher-quality discussion. The Israel/Palestine thread's dead 90% of the time, but everyone there knows what they're talking about, and people aren't routinely fumbling basic details of the Israeli governmental system. Very good point. I do wonder what it would look like to go whole hog with dedicated threads for topics that come up a lot. Has that been explicitly tried before?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The full text of the probe for those curious: A great deal of your posting in this thread is complaining about moderation, in this case bringing up posts from 5 days ago that Koos has already addressed. There's a feedback thread, use it or PMs and in the future please contribute something to the thread instead of simply whining. Is the username Koos Group literal in that a group of Kooses (Keese?) post on the same account?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
I don't think it's going to lead to anything helpful to turn the d&d feedback thread into a cspam vs d&d thing, so I genuinely don't want to pile onto that dump, but one thing I will say is that the discussion on the last few pages does a pretty good job of highlighting how subjective decisions regarding what kind of topic is "stale" or "off topic" (the two being used interchangeably to shut down discussion), and the given solution being "create a new thread for this topic," clearly and systemically will create an insular thread and sub culture that pushes differing points of view into different threads or subs, and that does seem to be what's happening. The reason is that the decision about what is stale or boring isn't purely rational and non ideological on behalf of moderation.
speng31b fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Is the username Koos Group literal in that a group of Kooses (Keese?) post on the same account? It actually was named that because I shared the account for the first year or so of my posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Very good point. I do wonder what it would look like to go whole hog with dedicated threads for topics that come up a lot. Has that been explicitly tried before? Maybe, but without enough pressure or attention to make it stick. There didn't use to be anything like uspol that I recall from way back - everything was its own topic. I think Twitter changed that because high speed embedding of news and "news" became possible, changing the landscape. Over the years the various feedback threads have discussed Twitter and its effects a lot but there hasn't been any real change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Lmao why did that post require you to then invent a strawman to be mad at? You know what, thinking on it for a minute, you two were right to call that out and I 100% should have just ignored that post, there was no need to jump on it regardless of whatever that poster's intentions may or may not have been. Mea culpa and if someone really wants me to fall on my sword, so be it. v I would rather not wet my blade given that choice, gentlegoon v Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
I shall fall on your sword, sire, I'll be the sacrificial lamb
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well one very obvious reason springs to my mind immediately. I don't see a reason that a dedicated thread for a topic would have more stale arguments. Ideally people would repeat themselves less often because there would be a clear history of how the arguments have gone and informative OP that heads some of it off. The same as things are in any forum, really, not just D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The full text of the probe for those curious: A great deal of your posting in this thread is complaining about moderation, in this case bringing up posts from 5 days ago that Koos has already addressed. There's a feedback thread, use it or PMs and in the future please contribute something to the thread instead of simply whining.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Should I assume someone popping into the DND feedback thread to post about cool CSPAM threads is doing so out of good faith and generosity? The assumption of good faith does not need to be an endless font of naivete. assuming they're doing it just to make you feel bad strikes me as a bit of a stretch, tbh
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Almost like I was away for a few days or something. I didn't think to check whether the very brief quarterly window of mod feedback was open or not. That one's on me. My PMs are always open, OP. You just have to pay Jeffrey the Feedback Tax.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:Should I assume someone popping into the DND feedback thread to post about cool CSPAM threads is doing so out of good faith and generosity? The assumption of good faith does not need to be an endless font of naivete. B. Assume good faith. If you strongly suspect someone is operating in bad faith, report them rather than attempting to call them out in the thread. This avoids false positives where a poster is operating in good faith and forced to defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I don't see a reason that a dedicated thread for a topic would have more stale arguments. Ideally people would repeat themselves less often because there would be a clear history of how the arguments have gone and informative OP that heads some of it off. The same as things are in any forum, really, not just D&D. You said that, for example, "democrats are ineffectual" is a risky point to try to make and that if you want to argue it you need to include information mods don't know or make the argument in a novel way. And if you get it wrong, boom, probation. Doesn't seem worth it. Would you need to have the rule if arguments that people are tired of seeing had their own threads? People who don't want to read arguments that Dems are ineffectual could just...not read that thread. If people are going in a thread about a well-worn topic and getting mad that there are arguments in there they're tired of hearing and reporting them maybe they could just not read threads they don't like instead? Like I don't know what purpose the rule would be solving here
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
I remarked some feedback threads ago that there's interesting and productive discussion to be had amongst posters in a broadly shared Western-mainstream (if liberal) zeitgeist, and interesting and productive discussion to be had amongst posters in a broadly shared radical zeitgeist, but I don't think there's good odds for productive dialogue between the two camps (at least not great enough to justify the added degree of modding effort required) Some shared assumptions are necessary for a discussion to be a meaningful exchange of ideas. "Stale arguments" (paging WB Gallie to explain an essentially contested concept) is not a great way to mod these conflicts since any bona fide disagreement would also affect subsequent arguments over what should be natural/obvious, the limits of the possible, assumptions on how people or institutions would react, etc. A worldview unsurprisingly permeates all topics; it can't be hived off. ronya fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Possibly but I was theorizing on why people might be deterred from starting the thread. I agree and think that sort of rule shouldn't apply to people making a new thread for that reason. Doesn't necessarily mean it should be a free-fire zone if/once it gets going, but I think the old SA norm of OPs having a high burden is out-modded by the megathread-focused zeitgeist of contemporary DnD. If anything OPs should be given extra leeway to encourage more topical threads given it's already a bit of an uphill climb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Maybe, but without enough pressure or attention to make it stick. There didn't use to be anything like uspol that I recall from way back - everything was its own topic. I think Twitter changed that because high speed embedding of news and "news" became possible, changing the landscape. Not really sure why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I agree and think that sort of rule shouldn't apply to people making a new thread for that reason. It wouldn’t apply to someone making a new thread, since the rule’s reference point is mainly threads, and rarely gimmick accounts, rather than the entire subforum. Some measure of confusion may be due here with offshoot threads, e.g., January 6 and SCOTUS for USCE, being seen as a continuation of the main thread - but that’s neither strongly enforced, nor applicable for cases other than a moderator creating a splinter thread to redirect some conversation. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Maybe, but without enough pressure or attention to make it stick. There didn't use to be anything like uspol that I recall from way back - everything was its own topic. I think Twitter changed that because high speed embedding of news and "news" became possible, changing the landscape. USpol as it exists now sprung from 2012 mainly the heat from Vilerat's death getting a large amount of new goons reading about US politics. I think in general individual threads will always get less traffic then megathreads just do to difficulty in finding/reading new ones. Although some spinoff threads die to their toxic nature, like the gun control thread is constant high energy bickering that I want no part of posting in despite reading it because I am curious about where gun control is going. Same with the immigration thread which felt like a honeytrap to get "the libs" to post in so they could get pounced on and fewer people started taking the bait, I think in general there's little you could/should do to mod that away as they are contentious topics and people are always going to be angry about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well also dedicated threads for long running arguments like "does voting matter" kept getting closed by the old mod team, leaving nowhere to have those discussions. the most recent one on that topic (which, yes, is one of the most common topics where USCE becomes tedious and frustrating) appears to be open but dead https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3986700 the other was closed by OP, reopened by a mod, then closed by OP again, leading to the currently dead open one https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3973064&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:
My bad, sorry E: wait wasn't the OP a mod. Or was it former mod by then VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:assuming they're doing it just to make you feel bad strikes me as a bit of a stretch, tbh yeah, it was not my first post in this thread so it wasn't a cspam drive-by. I was replying to a particular poster looking for climate change content on the forums with more than a handful of replies a day. Not intended to derail anything. RealityWarCriminal posted:B. Assume good faith. If you strongly suspect someone is operating in bad faith, report them rather than attempting to call them out in the thread. This avoids false positives where a poster is operating in good faith and forced to defend themselves. Hey that's a good rule!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh is that what happened They were an IK and they were either already former when they closed the thread or shortly thereafter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:It wouldn’t apply to someone making a new thread, since the rule’s reference point is mainly threads, and rarely gimmick accounts, rather than the entire subforum. Some measure of confusion may be due here with offshoot threads, e.g., January 6 and SCOTUS for USCE, being seen as a continuation of the main thread - but that’s neither strongly enforced, nor applicable for cases other than a moderator creating a splinter thread to redirect some conversation. Or to other mods apparently, since Koos' last reply to me seemed to imply that the rule would apply to these splinter threads. If your opinion is shared by the rest of the mod team, great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well one very obvious reason springs to my mind immediately. This combination of "what's the problem just do x" and selective punishment of x is certainly one reason I don't bother engaging here anymore. If this generation of mods were capable of or interested in fairly applying their own standards they'd be different people. The disingenuous, circular reasoning on display here in the feedback thread is a hilarious example of the unwillingness to even try to see their own behavior. Mod formulating an answer to me: why are you doing that? Shut up and listen instead of rationalizing. I'm not going to start posting here again either way, I promise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2022 23:45
|
|
