Summer 2022 D&D Feedback.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Summer 2022 D&D Feedback.

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 23:52

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

#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.

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.

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

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Jaxyon posted:

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.

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

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

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

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

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.

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

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

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

VitalSigns posted:

Can I cite Koos' post in the subject itt?

I can't help but notice that the reverse argument "Democrats are effectual" is not mentioned. But it would seem to me that if "not-A" is a stale argument then "A" is as well, right? So are we supposed to infer from this that "Democrats are effectual" is also a stale argument? (The evidence doesn't support it, I have not seen anyone making that argument get probated even though it pops up over and over, but if I'm wrong it should be a simple matter for a mod to show where they've punished it).

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.

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

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

TheDisreputableDog posted:

I’m not sure how the “serious posts only” rule snuck in, but it’s terrible and should be rescinded. The rules used to explicitly define humor as a cornerstone of SA in general, and any community without the ability to crack a joke is going to hate itself.

I'm not sure that you need to worry about that since your posts are always hilarious.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 22:08

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Discendo Vox posted:

I have a modest proposal for the improvement of the general posting climate, as well as a potentially lucrative opportunity for Jeffery. Unless otherwise indicated, the following actions are to be conducted without explanation or announcement by moderators.

1. All non-mod users will be randomly and evenly assigned one of two invisible account profile tags, "SBG" and "PBG". This information will be stored server side and made inaccessible to others.
2. On a chosen date and time, Debate and Discussion will be a) backed up in its current state, b) hidden from viewers that are not signed in and c) silently mirrored into two versions, identical in every way. Each version will only be visible or accessible to users with a corresponding tag.
3. After a sufficient resocialization and self-selection period has occurred, both mirrored copies of Debate and Discussion will be wiped and the backed up copy from before Phase 2 will be restored with full access and visibility.
3a. Simultaneous with the reversion, all users with the SBG tag will receive stars on thar accounts (similar to mod stars, but with different styling or coloration).
4: After sufficient conflict has occurred, users will be able to purchase the SBG tag and corresponding star for $3 from the SA Store. Moderators will not be able to revert or change tag reassignments.
5: After another self-selection period, users will be able to purchase the PBG tag (and corresponding star removal) from the SA Store for $10.
6. After resettlement and homophily occurs, users will be able to purchase the SBG and PBG tag for other users from the SA Store for $100. Moderators will not be able to identify the source of tag reassignments.
7. By an automated process not to be adjusted by any admin or moderator, every x days where x is a number between 7 and 35, a random individual on the forums that is active in Debate and Discussion will have thar tag status switched. Again, this process will not be publicized in any way. The number of individuals to be reassigned can be adjusted by a designated administrator as necessary to maintain conflict.
8. In the event that stability appears imminent, the mirroring, splitting and isolation from step 2 can be repeated across the full forums.

They never will learn.
No. You can't teach a goon!

I'll be forwarding this feedback to Jeffrey every day from now on until he relents and allows someone to make this happen. Thank you for your feedback.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 06:23

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

okay so what would happen if I registered like ten or more accounts and used them to create a simulacrum of political discussion in d&d superficially indistinguishable from earnest debate of differing points of view

or is that allowed and people already do it

Based on what I know about alts on this website, it would not surprise me to discover that this already describes large chunks of DND.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 07:41

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Herstory Begins Now posted:

There are a bunch of people with 3 or 4 accounts (and a few with significantly more... mostly people who were dodging something), but at least from when I still was getting the juice about what handful of alts was who, almost no one was replying to their own posts with other accounts. Not never, but it wasn't common and I think it was informally the line in the sand on alts.

The idea that DND is a handful of people multi-boxing at each other is somehow even better tbh

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 08:19

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Gumball Gumption posted:

Anyone with those skills also has the skills to recognize that they should stay the gently caress away from the structure of our mod/admin system

It's true, they had to settle for someone that will take a massive bong rip and glance at reports once every four or five days.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 15:46

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Harold Fjord posted:

A good point but there should be a time or even just is this still funny limit before for they are eventually exposed and there should be mods watching for people switching to alt accounts to avoid questions while discussing the same topic we already have enough people refusing to engage while making GBS threads on people all the time hello silence kit.

Props for the professor for attempting humor /sincere

In the interest of more transparency I will say that we can and do request alt checks with relative frequency, but admins don't even tell us who it is unless it's a perma'd user. Until my dying day I will be shaking my fist and shouting "post on your main you cowards!"

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 15:56

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Stringent posted:

oh yeah, i've been meaning to ask this.

how much is discendo vox getting warnings instead of probes because the mods don't want to deal with pms from them?

Not much at all tbh. Vox can be a verbose fellow at times, it's true, but in general they are one of those gifted posters that are generally good at keeping their posts inside the rules guidelines more often than not, most reports about Vox that I can remember not actioning on are ones that are too much on the subjective side for me to want to hit, and often rely on "well I don't like his tone!"

But also, Vox does run afoul of us from time to time and he does get bopped when he gets out of line, same as anyone else here.

Rest assured, big pms do not scare me. I will happily put on a Klingon opera and read some 9000 word screed if any of you feel the need to send wild pms at me.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 17:39

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

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.

There's a regular pattern of threads withering as they got silo'd off. Posters who think "but we need cops" want to post that once in the police discussion thread, strawman a bit, then leave until the next time cop murders start "derailing" current events with discussions of what to do about it.

A lot of D&D threads are pretty much going dark. No climate news gets posted in climate change yet there's lots of it every day.

DND threads aren't "dying" and not every forum needs to have threads that move at 1000+ pph, most of which are people going "lmao." Instead of complaining that no one wants to talk about all the new climate news in the climate change thread, why don't you go there and post it? have no idea how people keep up with the thread paces in cspam. There's a few threads I enjoy but due to the nature of my sporadic browsing, I am seeing maybe 200 out of every 2000 posts. It's okay and even good for DND to be slower in contrast. There is no need for USCE to be an unwieldy clusterfuck of deep into the weeds discussions that could easily be taken to a thread with a more specific focus, or create one if none exists.

On the other hand, if anyone wants to get deep into weed discussion, I am all for it.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 20:54

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Professor Beetus posted:

DND threads aren't "dying" and not every forum needs to have threads that move at 1000+ pph, most of which are people going "lmao." Instead of complaining that no one wants to talk about all the new climate news in the climate change thread, why don't you go there and post it? have no idea how people keep up with the thread paces in cspam. There's a few threads I enjoy but due to the nature of my sporadic browsing, I am seeing maybe 200 out of every 2000 posts. It's okay and even good for DND to be slower in contrast. There is no need for USCE to be an unwieldy clusterfuck of deep into the weeds discussions that could easily be taken to a thread with a more specific focus, or create one if none exists.

On the other hand, if anyone wants to get deep into weed discussion, I am all for it.

One other thing I forgot to add here, Dems bad discussion is totally fine anyway! If you see some bad thing that is new or notable to point out in the thread, go ahead, post it. But here are a couple caveats: since the dnd threads are so "dead," please go back 3-4 pages and make sure that you're not posting something that's already been posted and discussed. It leads to circular arguments that can then come across as tired because they happen 3-4 times in a row. This is another reason it's good to have threads that don't move at such a breakneck pace, because they encourage people to keep up with the thread rather than just popping in to shitpost.

Which leads me to my last point for the moment: it's okay to lurk too. I am not as well informed or smart as some of the posters I like to read here. I chime in with commentary or make dumb jokes as I see fit, but I'm 99% sure I post less than nearly any other DND moderator on the site, with the possible exception of Vilerat. I like to read thorough, detailed posts on subjects I'd like to know about. People going back and forth endlessly with "I disagree and anyone who disagrees with me is a fascist/nazi etc," which is obnoxious and performative.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 21:04

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

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: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Gumball Gumption posted:

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.

This is a feedback thread about DND, not CSPAM.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 22:05

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

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

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Gumball Gumption posted:

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.

Willa Rogers posted:

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

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

VitalSigns posted:

Oh is that what happened

My bad, sorry

E: wait wasn't the OP a mod. Or was it former mod by then

They were an IK and they were either already former when they closed the thread or shortly thereafter.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 23:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 23:52

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Gumball Gumption posted:

Honestly a really chill response, thank you and it's not a big deal it's just a style of posting I see here a lot and drives me nuts. I don't know what to call it and I don't really know how to explain it but I really do think that little interaction is a great example of one of the things I think really derails threads, starts fights, and gets very little attention.

One person posts a belief or idea they have about a subject, the next poster reads it and picks up something between the lines that they find so offensive that this just has to be trolling and then reacts accordingly, and the discussion quickly goes off the rails as two people post earnestly at someone who they're absolutely convinced has to be trolling. And that poo poo when it's not caught and told to knock it off it just builds and builds because both posters become absolutely convinced they're not just right but the good guy in this position.

I'm not even sure if there's a great way to make rules around it but if we're trying a softer touch I think mods and IKs need to push back on situations where posters read between the lines and then jump to conclusions instead of at least asking the other poster to explain their position. Part of civil debate is allowing people the ability to rephrase and explain their position since we can all really recognize that the written word is not perfect at expressing meaning.

Yeah, I think it's pretty crucial for mods to be able to take a step back and recognize when they've perhaps made a bad call or lashed out too quickly. Simply acknowledging "hey my bad" can do a lot to defuse tension and remind folks that we're all just human beings trying to navigate this poo poo as best we can.

As to your last paragraph, that was pretty much the philosophy I used when I was more actively modding the COVID thread. My thinking was essentially "hey, no one is on the side of the virus, and pretty much all of the disagreement/debate in there is going to come from differing opinions on how to respond to it and deal with it most effectively." And for the most part this was true, although I did find myself dealing with the downside of a softer touch as well, which sometimes meant getting a little walked on or giving enough leeway that problem posters were able to come back and start making GBS threads things up as long as they could figure out how to keep on the mask a little bit longer. But I'm still proud of how well that thread did overall, particularly in the early days. It's also a case where we were certainly grateful for some of the resources offered by the CSPAM thread, particularly the ones focused on PPE.

Anyway yeah, nobody's perfect and we can all strive to do better, especially mods. And I don't expect any high praise for this or anything, tbh this type of thinking should imo simply be the baseline for where moderating begins.

e: Usually when I see reports outside of USCE it's reports from the Oceania posters enforcing their rather strict thread immigration rules against posters visiting from the US.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 00:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Summer 2022 D&D Feedback.