|
Majorian posted:The problem with this take on the situation, IMO, is that the latter of the two groups you describe usually aren't harping on one issue or another just to be difficult or annoying. They're doing it because they want to debate a controversial or unsettled issue in the debate subforum. It seems to me that if the former group wants to post in a current events thread without someone trying to engage them in a debate, there are other subs with current events threads as well. Failing that, the mod team could do what's been suggested many times before and just rechristen the sub something like "current events," dropping the "debate" entirely. I don't see where your disagreement is other than not explaining why the latter group can't make a thread for a specific topic. D&d isn't a single current events thread, it's a subforum of threads,any of which can be used for debate or discussion, and I don't understand why someone who wants to focus on a single topic would want to constantly inject that topic into a thread seemingly meant for higher speed topic switching. It seems that person would be best served by creating a new thread complete with their own OP that clearly states their position and gives them a good "warehouse" to better bolster their argument with links and references.
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Majorian posted:The problem is, those threads often become containment zones, regardless of whether or not that is their original purpose. If someone wants to debate a topic, and other people do not want to debate that topic, should that person (or persons) be able to force their will on others, particularly when other avenues are available?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I mean that it's not meant to be a place to have worse-quality or less-interesting discussion so that people in the general threads don't have to read it. I am not using it as an argument against issue-specific or event-specific threads, though. I'm in favor of them. I'm just saying that the same standards would still apply to them. I think this is a fair assessment of the potential downside of topic specific threads. My feedback then is that all (or at least most) threads in d&d should have an IK assigned from the start in order to ensure that those standards are actually applied. My experience in some other topic threads is that the standards consistently applied to big threads tend to get lax in those threads, further degrading discussion until they become havens for the most toxic posters. If you are concerned about a lack of IK volunteers, then my comedy suggestion is to gang press a poster into IK servitude with the penalty for abuse being permabanning and the reward for good IKing being some sort of nominal trinket, like an avatar change or archives or a "ban one posting enemy" card.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
A more serious(?) suggestion that might make topic specific threads more likely to emerge: allow the OP to set certain parameters on the thread (after discussing with a mod) which are then out of the OPs control, such as slow-mode, white noise zero tolerance, "no fun allowed" posting. I think variations on this have happened before, usually in contentious topics, and sometimes that has resulted in in really good debate. Sometimes it also crashes and burns, though. So maybe look at what worked and what didn't. Did slow mode work?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:To be clear, you seem to be advocating for viewpoint oriented discrimination in the main thread for talking about current events because somehow when something you disagree with is posted there you are 'forced' to interact with it and it 'takes over' so as long and as there's another thread somewhere you don't have to read it's justified to do this. I think you are unfairly conflating disinterest with disagreement. Threads withering away from disinterest seems to be fine. Sometime people simply aren't interested in discussing something. If there is new news then nothing prevents you from posting that news in a dedicated thread and seeing if people want to discuss it. You could even make a new thread on a specific topic! Amazon deforestation is obviously intertwined with climate change but could easily support a thread on its own due to other interweaving factors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
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
|
|