|
Ytlaya posted:Edit: btw, I can't speak for others, but the recent moderation is the thing that finally got me to stop posting in d&d. Not because it's subjective/ideological (that's always been the case to varying degrees), but because I'm genuinely uncertain how to avoid getting zapped for things like "stale argument." I used to have a pretty solid grasp of "how to not get probed in D&D." I may have thought that many rules/standards were dumb, but I at least understood them and could navigate them.  I think the current policy of "probe first, ask questions/give warnings later" is incredibly stifling towards discussions. I'm glad LT2012 is trying to push back against that trend, but it's going to take a broader change among the mods if they want this place to be less toxic.VitalSigns posted:Well anyway, good example of how difficult it is, with the opaque reporting system, to put the onus on posters who have no visibility to provide examples of bias. Even if I had reported the right post, apparently another mod was supposed to look at it, so nothing was done until I brought the report up in here. We can always litigate individual posts, and I have no access to data about how many posts get reported etc. Meanwhile it's not hard to find other positions that are stomped on immediately. Yeah, this post is from just a couple pages before the Ghost Leviathan one you cited: (name redacted because I don't want anyone to get probated) quote:The left is by and large not interested in working within the system to change it, they'd rather stand outside and yell/make their own party with blackjack and hookers, which promptly explodes into infighting and backbiting. Basically Monty Python's People's Front of Judea skit all over again. That's about as stale, sloppy, and tired an argument as it gets, especially in DnD. Yet, no mod action. IMO if the mods can't or won't enforce the "original arguments only" rule consistently, then they just need to abandon the rule. e: and to be clear, my preference would be "abandon the rule." That goes for all rules that the mods can't or won't enforce at least somewhat consistently. Overall DnD needs less "push buttons first, issue warnings/guide the discussion later" moderation, not more. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jul 31, 2022 |
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah to give some positive feedback, I think what LT2012 said when he came on is a step in the right direction, I'm interested to see if he succeeds. Agreed. It's what I tried to do as IK. I burned out for a variety of reasons, so if I have any advice for LT, that's basically it: don't burn yourself out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Victar posted: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. For the record, the vast majority of CSPAM Ukraine/Russia thread's posters do not say disgusting things about the deaths of any civilians, Ukrainian or otherwise. Those that do can be counted on one hand, and they get probated or banned immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 08:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:IMO, everyone would be a lot happier with the fresh arguments rule if we just admitted that it's a conflict two groups of people in the general US threads: the people who want to talk about different things every day, and the people who have one or two specific issues/subjects that they want to endlessly debate. Those two groups constantly fight in the general US politics threads and it annoys basically everyone. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 18:56
|
|
, so instead they have to go on a roundabout story about subjectivity vs objectivity and the educational purpose of the forums and poo poo.
|
Zachack posted: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. Koos Group posted:Anyway, yes, making new threads for particular topics is encouraged. Although it's not really meant as a containment area, but more so the topic can be discussed in-depth and people can more easily see the sum of what's already been said about it. The problem is, those threads often become containment zones, regardless of whether or not that is their original purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is the issue. People don't want their pet issues put into topical threads because they know there's not enough interest to actually sustain them. So they want to be able to force it. I don't think one can fairly describe topics like the Democratic Party's squelching of left-wing candidates and movements as people's "pet issues. This is especially true when clearly a lot of people do want to discuss those issues and feel like they are being discouraged from doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. See, to me it reads as one group of posters bringing up very valid points that challenge other posters' assumptions and declared values, and being told that actually no, they can't make those challenges outside of a quarantine thread. In other words, being discouraged from debating an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Not sure what’s the problem with creating a thread for a very valid and major issue, and letting all interested individuals participate in it. The problem is that you end up mainly with people who agree with one another one the issue, and there isn't much debate to be had. The point of a debate forum is at least in part to have debates. If your positions aren't at risk of being challenged or rebutted, what's the point of calling it a debate forum?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Gros Tarla posted: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. We had such a thread during the 2020 primaries/general election, when I was an IK here. Unfortunately, it quickly became a containment zone for basically any criticism of Biden and the Democratic establishment. There was good discussion, but not much debate, beyond a few alt-centrist trolls who would wander in occasionally and embarrass themselves before leaving. I enjoyed the thread, but again, it wasn't much of a "debate" thread. The sad reality was, centrist posters in DnD simply didn't want to discuss the bad things about Biden and the Dems anywhere, and they often still don't. Main Paineframe posted:Sounds like we're ripe for a thread about analyzing current political issues from a Marxist perspective! This is more than enough words for an OP. There was already a thread like this, too. Strangely enough, not too many non-Marxists showed up to debate, so it also became another chat thread. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Aug 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Epicurius posted:Just as a general rule, if the thread wants a debate between Marxists and non-Marists, I don't think it should start with I think Cpt Obvious was being tongue-in-cheek with that comment. quote:The name of the forum isn't just Debate. It's Debate and Discussion. Right, and the sub's got the "discussion" part covered pretty well. The problem, at least as I see it, is that it does not encourage healthy, constructive debate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 01:23
|
|