Summer 2022 D&D Feedback.

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

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Greetings. It's time for this quarter's feedback thread. Here you can tell us your thoughts on how D&D is going.

As always, you can give feedback by posting in the thread, PMing me, or you may post anonymously by PMing me the post and I'll make it for you.

D&D rules will be relaxed here somewhat, since we're talking about the forums rather than educational subjects, so citations will be less valuable than normal, and personal opinions will be more valuable. All I ask is that you continue to present your ideas with honesty as you would in normal D&D, and that you don't spam the thread, by which I mean posting the same thing repeatedly to increase its exposure as the expense of other posters. If you are having a real discussion of your feedback to clarify or rebut counterarguments to it you can do so for as many posts are needed. The rule of thumb is just to not post something in this thread you've already posted.

The next post will be a report of what's currently happening in D&D and possible issues to discuss.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 00:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 15:33

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

One thing I'd like feedback on is potential changes to guidelines in the rules. In particular, I'm looking at getting rid of the "sloppy assertion" guideline. It seems to encourage moderation over in-thread discussion, can require mods to fact-check (which reduces the number of reports they can handle and makes them arbiters of truth rather than referees), and comes dangerously close to moderating positions. While there are cases I can think of where someone making a sloppy assertion damages discussion, these almost invariably involve breaking some other rule, such as not posting seriously, trolling, failing to be precise, or bullshitting (acting in bad faith).

If I did get rid of the sloppy assertion guideline however, I would still probably keep its sub-guideline of reading sources and links you cite.
Should the Roe Overturned thread be unstickied? It never was updated with advocacy groups, I suspect most people have gotten what they'll get from it by now, and there are already quite a few stickied threads.
Anidav, CommieGIR and Ardennes are stepping down as mods, though Anidav will continue IKing. In all three cases it was due to having less time to devote to moderating. We thank them for their service.
In conclusion, the state of the union is strong.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 00:10

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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.

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 really do think this rule is important for the board's educational purpose. If you're reading stuff that's been said many times before because it's rudimentary, you aren't learning anything or gaining anything from D&D. It could be valuable for someone come in with some sort of common misconception and watch it be debunked, but that's why the rule is actually "fresh or falsifiable." One of the things the rule is meant to prevent is the use of boilerplate political rhetoric, because this is often by design not counterable with anything but a contradiction by other boilerplate political rhetoric.

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Stop directing the conversation in USCE and let people post. Maybe get a handle on those trying to shut down conversations vs those that are just posting a bit of white noise.

So I know exactly what you mean, do you have an example of each type of post?

some plague rats posted:

If people are bringing up the same argument hundreds of times it's probably because it's a. not a settled issue at all, b. relevant despite you personally not thinking so or c. fun to argue about. Moderating against people doing things for any one of those reasons seems counterproductive to the idea of a debate forum

Well, it sounds like you might be talking about the same issue being fun to argue about rather than the same specific arguments, because repeating the same arguments back to each other is difficult to imagine being fun. It's tedious, even miserable, done because we see something we feel can't be allowed to stand, rather than a sense of exploration. And that's not to say one shouldn't do it. Some arguments really do need to be made over and over in general, and I would even say it's our duty to do so. But that's in the real political arena, not D&D, which has a different purpose.

exmarx posted:

the objectivity vs subjectivity argument can't be solved, and it's secondary to the questions of (a) how hands-on should mods be in regulating discussion and (b) what are the most appropriate moderation tools. there doesn't seem to have been any introspection from the mods on this � by default, their answers appear to be "extremely" and "probation as the only course of action, or drop a snide one-liner in the thread if you don't understand a report".

I hope none of the clarifications I ask for come off as snide. When I have a question or challenge related to a report in a thread, it's sometimes not even to gather info on whether mod action is necessary, it's to make the reporter's argument for them because I think they had a point that could add to discussion rather than being the basis of mod action. I also do believe in some amount of discretion when a rule's being broken, in two forms. One, if a post is very good (that is to say rigorous, educational and/or clever) then some infractions it makes can be allowed. And two, if an infraction is minor it should have reduced action, down to a warning. I recognize even a warning can feel heavy-handed coming from a mod, but this is balanced with the need for everyone to understand what expectations are, and if someone breaks a rule with no response from a mod whatsoever people could come to think it isn't a rule or isn't enforced at all.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 06:57

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

XboxPants posted:

What's the standard for when bans are considered? There are a handful of posters here who've had dozens and dozens of probes just this year alone. I agree we need to give people a chance to improve their posting style, especially on such a slippery and subjective board. But after the 30th probe in as many weeks, does that poster deserve any more good faith? I would argue that a small handful of posters contribute the majority of the unproductive arguments in USCE and other hotspot threads.

It's not that their arguments are just so bad that we can't allow them. You can have a reasoned discussion of even the most tired topic, and it's even helpful to do so in many cases, because it helps us refine our arguments so that we can talk to the real people in our physical lives who really do believe these things. But to allow that kind of atmosphere, you'd have to start actually banning people who make a habit of unproductive posting. People can be banned from just one board, right?

People can't be easily banned from one board using actual forum functions, but we do ban users from individual boards or sometimes even threads. This is accomplished by making a note on their rap sheet, and if they post in the area whilst under such a ban they receive an actual ban. As for the standards, we look at how much they add to discussion vs. how much they detract. If someone consistently provides high-quality contributions, they would need to really mess up to be forumbanned. If they never contribute anything but white noise, they don't have to do that much wrong before a forumban is considered. There are other factors that can come into play as well, such as mercy kills for a poster's mental health, but that's the short of it.

some plague rats posted:

Sure, since you asked, here's some tiny images of bad probes:

RBA Starblade posted:

A stylesheet would be fun

Now we're talking.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 15:45

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

last time we had one of these the moderators had to be carefully walked through why giving money to openly fascist groups was bad, this time we just had to remind one that calling something a gay disease on the basis that it seemed like one to him was bad

progress is being made

only thing i'd raise is the 'tired argument' probes not being paired to 'tired assertion' probes making the issue with them clear: if repeating something you know is contentious is fine, but disagreeing with it isn't, the thing being punished isn't being 'tired,' it's disputing the subject in question.

if bringing up a tired point is acceptable, and rebutting it isn't, you are moderating positions and then pretending you aren't to avoid backlash. either equalize punishment or abandon the pretense.

I've thought about this nuance before, and I agree with you that the rule shouldn't be enforced that way. It should be the opposite. Bringing up a stale argument out of nowhere is worse than responding with one. Or at least, a rebuttal should be judged by how often it's been used for a specific purpose, whereas a bare assertion stands on its own.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

there are absolutely subjects where that's the right call. see, for example, the immediately punished Lets Debate: Are Moderators Subhuman thread, which explained to moderators why certain subjects are not up for debate far better than any well-reasoned argument could. but claiming that thread was shut down for being a 'tired argument' would be a transparent exercise in eliding the actual reason.

As I mentioned in the previous feedback thread, that thread was closed because it was not making its argument honestly or directly. It was, as you say, satire. You could have a thread about qualities of moderators, it would just need to go beyond the scope of SA to something educational, such as a rigorous sociological and psychological analysis (or creative philosophical analysis) of people who accept or pursue internet power in general. Regardless, that decision didn't have anything to do with the stale argument rule one way or the other other.

VitalSigns posted:

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?

The easiest ways to avoid making a stale argument are to keep the argument specific, rebutting the particular points someone has made in a way that likely hasn't been done before, or to only make arguments you yourself haven't heard before. It's very unlikely something you thought of yourself will, by sheer coincidence, be considered a stale point because someone else happened to come up with it on the board as well. Usually the guideline hits very common talking points or, as Cinci implies, arguments people in this particular forum are sick of, meaning the people who make them are aware of how many times they've occurred.

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.

Yes. If someone made a post saying "the Democrats are effectual" and nothing else, that would be a stale argument. More realistically, if someone busted into a thread to say "you should vote for the Democrats, they know how to get things done by reaching across the aisle, and they're better than the alternative," without any further support, that would also be a stale argument.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 21:59

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

There are a few things I feel I should clarify.

First, the difference between stale arguments and common positions. You don't need to have some sort of contrarian ideology where you are the only person who holds the views you advocate for. Whether argumentation is fresh is about how you advocate for your views. What particular points you make to show something is true or false, good or bad; not whether others have also expressed the thing is true or false or good or bad.

Second, if you feel mods are using gudielines to punish things they disagree with, that is a problem with the mods, not the guidelines. Mods aren't bound by the specific guidelines; they can already punish anything they feel is damaging or failing to add to discussion. Leaving room for mod judgement is necessary for unforeseen circumstances and to prevent rules lawyering, and has been the norm across SA for the entirety of its existence. Trying to come up with rules so careful they are capable of transforming bad mods into good mods is what leads to word filter moderation. If you believe a mod is punishing people for having views they disagree with, your recourse is to PM me and demonstrate it. I will explain to them why a diversity of views is so vital to discussion, then if it continues I will warn them, then if it still continues I will demod them.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 22:16

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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 should clarify further in the rules what that guideline is intended for, because making jokes isn't the main thing it's attempting to prevent. It's to stop posts that are knowingly not making their point rigorously, or only doing it halfheartedly so they don't have to defend it, and then often using humor as an excuse. If you make a joke that isn't actually sneaking in a point, or one that we find genuinely funny (as it already states), the rule doesn't apply.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 22:23

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

We have our first anonymous post:

Anonymous Poster A posted:

lol, lmao

Not quite what I was hoping for.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 22:30

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Fritz the Horse posted:

I'll let Koos reply to your larger points, but for the specific post in question the report is sitting in the queue unresolved waiting for Leon Trotsky 2012 (or someone else) to handle it. I did glance at it but it was nothing urgent. I'm not sure if it's an explicit decision from Koos Group but we've been letting LT2012 handle much of the reports from US CE. A major reason he was asked to moderate is he's super active in the US CE thread, he's kind of a super-IK for it I guess? And report volume has gone way, way down the last week or two which is good.

But anyway, it's sitting in the queue unresolved, it hasn't been declined.

Actually I just made that report a few minutes ago to verify that it hadn't been reported. Which itself is the reason nothing had been done about it.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 22:52

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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)

this is the Levitate post VS reported this morning, I think VS quoted the wrong one above:

Looks like the morning one isn't actionable because it's a direct and original rebuttal.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 22:56

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Fister Roboto posted:

Yeah, and like I said, that's kind of a problem. I got probated because cinci just hands out a lot of probes, and then DV gets off with just a warning because you take a lighter approach, despite being way more aggro. It's arbitrary even if you're not deliberately trying to be unfair.

Vox has been probated more times than you since I became a mod. Although there is an element of subjectivity in what warrants a probie versus a warning, yes. It's based on the quality of the remainder of the post, the severity of the infraction, and whether there is currently an interesting discussion happening that a probation would put on hold.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 23:01

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Herstory Begins Now posted:

Why is ardennes still a d&d mod? He was already pretty much completely inactive before I became an Ik in d&d 3 years ago

He is not.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 01:19

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Anonymous Poster B posted:

Hi Koos thanks for letting people terrified of posting, like myself, contribute.

I think being a condescending rear end in a top hat should be against the rules, mostly because it makes me personally mad on behalf of other posters but also is very unconstructive. It can be basically an accusation of bad faith and the like.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 03:14

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Anonymous Poster A posted:

I thought QCS was harsh on DND mod staff, but you DND feedback guys... Hoo boy, this is some wild vitrol I'm reading. I think the current mod staff are doing alright. It is just a shame this wasn't the crew when I was DNDing 1000 years ago, I would have liked it.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 18:32

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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 mods have (correctly, imo) decided that the general threads should be for the former group, and that the latter group can make dedicated threads for whatever they want to discuss instead of trying to constantly drag the general thread back to their one pet issue. But the mods won't say it because , so instead they have to go on a roundabout story about subjectivity vs objectivity and the educational purpose of the forums and poo poo.

If the former were my reasoning, I would have no problem saying it or incentive not to say it. The idea of D&D having an educational purpose is traditional according to the prior generation of mods, and accords with what I myself want from such a board. I'd ultimately just like a place where I can read more sophisticated analysis of relevant issues and events than elsewhere on the internet, where people are intellectually creative, where different ideologies are tested in-depth, and where common arguments are examined critically when there wouldn't be the time or good faith to do so elsewhere. In short, I'd like it to be interesting. Every guideline is geared toward that one way or another.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 18:57

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 19:15

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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?

There are two posters who, if you probe them for any reason, are guaranteed to send an angry PM. Ironically they're usually on opposite sides of arguments. This response isn't taken into consideration at all, because it would be unfair to give them carte blanche just because they complain, and also unfair to punish them more harshly because they annoy us.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 19:17

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

XboxPants posted:

There is another side to all this. I started posting again in D&D this year after avoiding it for several years, and I'll agree with feeling unsure about what topics are okay, and individual threads feeling like a minefield. That can encourage people to just leave, or come in and make a post and get bopped and leave. But, if you're not one of those, it can also encourage new posters to spend a few days/weeks/months mostly lurking and gradually getting used to the tone of the board, and encourage them to spend time carefully weighing their arguments or whether they even need to make a post at all. If those things are priorities to the mod staff, then this environment actually makes sense. Like, OH NO, you have to actually consider whether your post is a bunch of poo poo before posting.

Yeah, it's applied subjectively and unevenly but that's gonna happen when you have a human mod team staffed by volunteers. I think it's not as bad as it seems. The only change I'd argue is that if you're gonna admit that some infractions, like making jokes or stale arguments, are never going to cause enough harm to D&D to warrant bans, then they don't warrant probes, either. Koos said they'd generally only ban a decent poster if they really messed up. How about, you only punish people at all if they actually do something that causes a problem. If it's not a problem, why should it be against the rules? Am I taking what Koos said out of context, or does this make sense?

Like... if someone can continually run up against the vague stale arguments rules, but never become such a big problem that it necessitates their removal from the board... doesn't that indicate that violation of that rule doesn't actually make a post harmful? And if it's not harmful, again, why would we need to regulate it?

I don't recall saying that they'd never warrant bans actually. If every point you made in D&D was done so non-seriously so that you didn't feel obligated to defend it or present it rigorously; or, if you posted nothing but the same thing over and over, those could indeed lead to thread- or forumbans.

I interpret your post as wondering why we need Rule II (always add to discussion) at all. If someone posts something that isn't hurting anyone, why take moderation action? Well, they don't cause direct harm to discussion in the same way as Rule I does, like calling your opponent a sonofabitch or lying about facts. But they do indeed cause a problem, which is dilution of interesting material. This makes the board less rewarding for lurkers, who must wade through the baloney, and for posters, whose creative and effortful posts are less likely to be seen due to being crowded out.

Koos Group fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 31, 2022

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 19:34

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Main Paineframe posted:

What do you mean by "containment area" here?

I've always felt that it was a bit of an odd thing to bring up as a general argument against having issue-specific or event-specific threads.

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.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 19:49

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Herstory Begins Now posted:

perhaps we need a forum for discussing history

And hell, one for Herstory.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 20:38

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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:

Wow almost like the moderation sucks rear end and consistently defends homophobes, transphobes &c.

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

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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.

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).

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: Mar 6, 2013

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: Mar 6, 2013

VitalSigns posted:

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.

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

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

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

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

500 good dogs posted:

Hi, I'm a long-time reader, but infrequent poster in D&D these days, as this has always been my shitposting-focused account (which I found necessary to create as a result of sharing too many personal details on my older accounts). In my view, the problem with the "stale argument" rule is that it is antithetical to the Marxist approach to analyzing current events, especially in a setting with as much "posting history" as has grown out of American politics in a forum like D&D. As we all know, in order to think critically about a particular story in the news, Marxism teaches us that we must first identify the underlying material conditions that relate to (or led to) that event's occurrence. Furthermore, the tenets of fruitful discussion require finding a common ground among participants in the conversation in order to build a productive set of concepts; Marxists often will (and should!) find themselves starting from those aforementioned material conditions when forming their arguments, and (unfortunately for most of us) we all can agree that the class divide is the most impactful, if broad, set of conditions that underlies the behavior of our ruling class (and those downstream of their decisions). Given that our elected officials are the most signficant piece of our political superstructure, it's only natural that conversations about recent newsworthy events will converge back onto the topic of the behavior of those elected officials. Shutting down discussion of a broad topic such as their behavior under the pretense of being chock-full of "stale arguments" is therefore responsible (perhaps paradoxically) for the continued degradation of the discussion at hand, as it pushes conversation further away from a materialist view of the underlying sources of conflict that led to the event in question, which results (as we've seen) in clearly-frustrated, emotionally-driven posting that leads to ad hominem attacks and straw person arguments. Given the unpredictable application of punishments for the "stale argument" rule, I don't believe that it has had a true chilling effect, per se, on the broader class of American politics conversations, but I do believe the inability of the current suite of moderators to otherwise guide posters toward a more fruitful resolution of conflicting views is just as damaging to the longevity of a specific discussion. I've seen Koos attempt what I believe to be a steering in the vein I describe, but it often comes across as being adversarial to posters instead of something that more plainly aims to find consensus among participants about points of low-level material reality. So it's no surprise to me that when that fails, posters end up spinning in circles until the conversation dies or a big batch of probations needs to be given. Furthermore, these events just serve to breed more negative relationships between posters as attacks become more personal and folks are talking past each other or misinterpreting each others' words. So, in short, I believe that moderators should approach their role as posters (when not clearly engaged in the material as a typical "normal poster") as more of a committee chairperson steering a group toward productive ends, and less of a police officer looking for tickets to write or posters to threaten. Thanks for your time reading this, and the only other point I'll add is that while I think that Leon is a "bad poster", if his planned moderation philosophy (which has high-level points clearly in line with what I've just written) is truly given a shot, I predict he'll quickly become a more efficacious contributer to the overall positive health of D&D than any recent moderation style changes have produced. So I hope that he's given enough latitude and support to implement the sorts of policies he's shared in other threads as being in line with his goals.

Well, I would agree, in the sense that I don't think it's a good idea to shut down discussion of the behavior of elected officials. That's certainly not what the rule is intended for.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 00:09

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Whoops. Didn't meant to unsticky. I set the duration to 2 days and thought that would be up for a few more hours.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 00:22

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

studio mujahideen posted:

The stale arguments rule is idiotic because it privileges gross, bad opinions. Because the only thing that triggers it is responding. You can express the same disgusting opinions however many times you want, but people only get to refute you once.

Someone says the same gross poo poo again, in a slightly different way? Thats fine. Refute that, the same way you did before? Now you're arguing, stale-style.

As I said earlier ITT, that's basically the opposite of how I want the guideline to work. I'll add a clarification to the rules and make sure the mods understand.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 04:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 15:33

Koos Group: Mar 6, 2013

Thank you for the feedback, all. It will be taken into consideration. I will at the very least be getting rid of the sloppy assertions rule and unstickying the Roe thread.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 04:52

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