|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted: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. OK I have a few that come to mind that I'd have to go find, although only one that I can think of which covers this specific rule. I was going to wait a bit longer, but since all the mods are here and posting anyway When I saw how Koos described how the rule is being applied, it was news to me, because I see this go unpunished all the time: Koos Group posted: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. So I decided to look and see if there was anything in the CE thread meeting these criteria but going unpunished, and it wasn't hard. I only had to go back one page to find this (this rule is applied very inconsistently) Levitate posted:We get these candidates because people vote for them. Most of the dem voters are still just more conservative than the lefter leaning posters here and are more willing to follow what the anointed Dem candidate is by the DNC Seems to fit the bill. It's an argument that's been done to death, it's not saying anything new or in a novel way, occurred to everybody, it's boilerplate political rhetoric that invites a reply in kind, it isn't backed up by anything, and isn't stated in a falsifiable way. If conservative candidates must be winning because voters are conservative what more needs to be said. Now I understand that mods don't see everything, and if a post isn't reported it's not necessarily fair to bring it up as an example of bias (at least by the mods, it may be that posters of a certain political persuasion are more litigious and report posts they disagree with more often, which is its own issue). Which is why, to ensure I found a valid example, I reported this post over eight hours ago, and cited the rules it violated: Rule II.C "fresh or falsifiable" which we're discussing now and Rule I.A.4 "the deception of posting something you don't know to be true or false as though you know it to be true" (the other incredibly subjective rule that I've noticed tends to be arbitrarily and selectively applied). No action taken so far. (Sorry Levitate, not trying to get you punished, I don't like reporting posts and almost never do it, just trying to make a point)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2022 22:39
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Here's the one VitalSigns submitted from this morning that is unresolved, it's for a different Levitate post - https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4008715 (mod forum link for Koos) No I quoted the one I meant to I obviously reported the wrong one this morning. Oops.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
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.Ghost Leviathan posted:And the Democrats are far more likely to throw the election and self-destruct the party like UK Labour did to Corbyn rather than let anyone remotely leftist within a whiff of the Presidency anyway. And "stale arguments" like the one I cited pop up all the time and nothing happens to them. I only had to go back one page in USCE to find one! So if mods are applying the rule equally, maybe they could cite some examples of times they've punished posts like that, if there are so many if should be easy to remember? Or if they can't maybe it's because posts like that one never get reported while other positions do. But if so many instances of this rule go unreported, is it really a useful rule? Is it helping anything? And what should I take from this, that if some positions are getting punished more, it's because they get reported more, and therefore that I should just go through and report every single one I can find to even the score? That sounds awful for both me and the mods. A lot of extra work all around and what is it accomplishing anyway. If an argument keeps coming up there's obviously interest in discussing it. What's wrong with having a thread for it, like we used to have a "does voting matter" thread, why not have threads for subjects with recurring interest, then I think it would generate a lot less pushback if mods just gently told people to take their argument there. Well if they don't keep closing the thread all the time like they did with the voting thread. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 30, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
SpiritOfLenin posted:I remember in earlier feedback threads (early in Koos' reign I think?) there were people complaining that creating new threads for stuff like this and telling people to go there was shunting off discussion to die elsewhere. Yeah some people didn't like it but if the goal is pleasing those people I don't see how punishing the discussion instead addresses their objection. Seems even worse. I generally liked it, except for the #MeToo stuff which was very obviously only shunted away when a Democrat president was accused.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
Sloppy assertions is another rule that's so subjective it's just bad and would be much more easily and better addressed by a mod (or the person reporting it) to instead post "hey you asserted X, do you have a source for that? " Because, unless you just cite sources for everything no matter how obvious, which is unwieldy, you're basically just rolling the dice on what a mod thinks is true or obvious and what they think is questionable. Post something a mod agrees with and thinks is true, and well you're just stating facts. Post something a mod disagrees with or thinks is false, well that's sloppy of you. I couldn't think of a rule more difficult to enforce evenhandedly if I tried. What's the harm of asking for a source, then if they don't have one they'll either have to drop it or break the objective rule of repeating an argument without addressing a rebuttal. Especially when this is apparently the process followed for people who want to make bigoted arguments, people arguing transphobia got exactly the "hi please cite sources for your assertions" treatment rather than the instant probation for their sloppy assertions that other people get. Not sure why this leeway is only possible for bigoted assertions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 00:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm glad LT2012 is trying to push back against that trend, 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 00:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Yeah I think putting the onus on posters to report all these rule violations is the wrong answer, especially when people disagree with the rule and don't want to get people probated for it just to make a point (sorry Leviathan  )If you can find examples of unpunished violations every couple of pages on high traffic threads, then what is the rule even doing? Seems like it's just providing a way for people who want to wield the rules against their opponents to do that and if the only remedy is for everyone to report all these posts all the time is that making the forum better. If the rule is that important why is enforcement so haphazard and seemingly arbitrary? In short Arist posted:I feel I should say that I've kind of been avoiding the subforum altogether more recently due to the sheer volume of completely anodyne posts getting hit. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
No not really, you've either misread one or both if them if that's what you got from it. Maybe I wasn't clear but my feedback is not that I want heavier handed modding. It's heavy handed enough already. My feedback is that there are a couple of rules that are vague and frankly bad and impossible to enforce consistently. And sure enough enforcement is haphazard and arbitrary, you don't have to look too hard to find posts that break them aren't aren't punished even in threads mods actively post in. If these rules are so beneficial why aren't they being enforced, if enforcement isn't necessary in most cases, then the rule should be reevaluated. So far the only answers from mods about this inconsistency is that we all need to go through and report all those posts so they can hand down a bunch of probes consistently and evenhandedly. That would probably work. It would also probably be awful for everyone mods included. Perhaps it would be better to drop the rule or majorly rework it rather than blame posters for haphazard enforcement and tell us all to be hall monitors about it. I hope that was more clear. I also hope my feedback hasn't come across too negative, I've pretty much only talked about a couple of rules that I think are bad, but that's only because everything else is mostly fine, so take it as a compliment that this is the only major criticism I have. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
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
|
|