Summer 2022 D&D Feedback.

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

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Koos Group posted:

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.

I agree with removing the sticky and the sloppy assertions rule being attached in a reduced form as a sub-item of something else.

Professor Beetus posted:

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

As a fun police lieutenant, I like my grey forums grey.

Jaxyon posted:

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.

The overarching rule/motif of SA is that posts should be interesting. Someone yelling virtually the same thing 10 times is not that, especially when the subject of yelling most often is �I don�t like the current thing�.

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

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?

It depends on what they�re getting probations for. If someone makes really disruptive posts, thread ban can happen in just a few probations. Conversely, there�s a person in U/R thread who has close to a hundred of D&D probations this year � but their worst crime is not having a sense of humour compatible with the mean of the mod team.

lil poopendorfer posted:

CZS should stay outta USCE

That�s literally the reason we were looking to onboard 3 moderators dedicated primarily to USCE - it's a heated collection of threads with long-running arguments shaped by interpersonal history of the regulars. I cannot adjudicate those arguments with the nuance they may deserve by virtue of not being a regular thread poster, and I only touched it to cover for the availability of mods more familiar with it. Leon was one of the nominees here, and, consequently, I don�t plan to moderate USCE posts more nuanced than retardstomper58 going to pound town.

Edit: Clarified wording a little.

cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jul 30, 2022

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 18:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 00:03

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Cranappleberry posted:

Rather than getting rid of the stale arguments rule, perhaps relax or alter it a bit. If one poster or more are constantly making the same argument to the same other poster(s) and vice-versa, they should agree to disagree and move on.

I think we can workshop this to a something more predictably identifiable. There are a few behaviours, broadly spekaing, that normally go under �stale argument�:

Someone keeps repeating a specific thing that no one wants to talk about;
Someone has a gimmick to force a specific thing;
Someone repeatedly fails to convince someone else that they're right or what a specific thing is relevant to the conversation, without logging off;
Someone brings up a specific thing that the thread is simply unable to have a useful conversation about.

From the perspective of the current rules:

(1) Is not covered by for anything other than II.C;
(2) Can be frequently, but not always, described by another rule;
(3) Here I think a minor adjustment to I.A.2 could do the job;
(4) Can be sometimes, but not always, described by another rule.

I may be missing some other scenario and stand happy to be corrected by other mods, I'm kind-of tired today and had to edit my previous post like 5 times to make it readable.

cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jul 30, 2022

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 19:42

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

mawarannahr posted:

I�d like to request that rules be consistently cited in D&D probations, because I�m uncertain which rule is broken here:

You are allowed to wish death upon national figures elsewhere here. Why the exception for American government officials?

I don't presume to speak for Gout, but Mantis42 post is some combination of III.B, II.A, and II.B. How are u, on the other hand, didn't suggest violence against Putin � they seem to be perfectly content with Putin hypothetically dying from a distress caused by an unusually large kidney stone. If you review probations made in the U/R thread, you'll find that calls to assassinate Putin receive probations.

Edit: Violent suggestions addressed to American officials may be treated as of elevated severity, however, on the basis of Jeffrey not stocking up biscuits for guests from the Secret Service.

cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jul 30, 2022

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 19:46

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Harold Fjord posted:

It seems to be addressed to the Chinese military

I believe the Secret Service would still be responsible for seeing that the Chinese military doesn�t kill Pelosi, and that US law wouldn�t consider such a murder of Pelosi particularly legal in any case. This consideration put aside, the post doesn�t prescribe anything particularly interesting regarding their suggestion of violence, and does add precisely 0 to the conversation there, at a glance.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 20:02

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Jaxyon posted:

That would provide accountability.

Which is why zero mods have replied to this post.

That suggestion is basically concern trolling mods into becoming a Ministry of Truth.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 20:15

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Harold Fjord posted:

Is that not what is already happening?

It's just asking that the list be made explicit instead of us having to guess what posts you may remember

I think a few specific examples would lead to a more constructive conversation here.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 20:19

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Jaxyon posted:

Feel free to quote your uses of that rule to get it started, friend.

I don't see a major problem, and I can't read the minds of other people. So if that satisfies you, I'm happy to quote all my uses of that rule as adequate, since otherwise I would've not resorted to it.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 20:29

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Fister Roboto posted:

I think the overarching problem is lack of transparency. This is a site-wide problem, but a lot more noticeable in D&D where things are more contentious. The only thing that posters see is which posts get probated and the mod's explanation for why. Reporting can feel completely useless because there's zero feedback there. This leads to the perception that the rules are being applied arbitrarily. Whether that perception is accurate or not is going to be difficult to prove, again because of the lack of transparency. When none of us can see what's going on behind the scenes, it's easy for mods to hide their biases (whether they do this intentionally or not).

A couple weeks ago I got in an argument with DV. I accused him of making a stale argument, and ironically I got probated for "posting about posters" (this is another extremely arbitrary rule). Lots of other people were probated responding to him. I talked to another mod about it, asked why none of DV's posts were probateable when he was doing the exact same thing. I was told to report DV's posts, and I did, and nothing ever came of it. So yeah, just based on what I can see, it seems pretty arbitrary.

What�s going on behind the scenes is that the vast majority of reports are archived after a moderator posts one word reply of �resolved� or �misc� to them, depending on if an action was taken or not taken. If you don�t understand why you were probated, you should reach out to the person who probated you, or Koos.

Posting about posters is one of the most specific rules we have, and works exactly as it says on the tin. If you�ve received a corresponding probation that you don�t understand, feel free to quote the post in question here.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 21:28

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Jaxyon posted:

I thought you were going to quote your uses of the "fresh argument" rule?

Or was that just you saying you weren't going to quote anything and you were 100% right in all usages so you need give no examples?

You seem to think that mods deliberately issue probations where they denote reasons that they deem inapplicable, which would be a very odd thing to do. Similarly odd is to expect a conversation about alleged problem probations to happen, when no problem probations are offered up for a discussion.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 21:42

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Fister Roboto posted:

I did exactly that. I PMd you specifically, not just to ask why I was probated, but why the other poster hadn't been probated for being a caustic, condescending rear end in a top hat and also posting about posters. I did what you told me to do and nothing happened.

Looking up, I remember that conversation. Your subsequent 3 reports were processed by a moderator other than me, who offered a specific comment for why no action was taken. I'll ping them with the specific report, but it's not up to me to say who that was, or to share their reasoning on my own. They aren't obligated to chime in either, but you're always welcome to PM Koos about this - they'll know which reports you're asking about.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 21:52

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

DTurtle posted:

Are no context Twitter posts still against the rules?

If so, that should maybe be stated more explicitly and enforced more stringently in the Ukraine thread (which is mostly very good).

Bare tweet posts are fine for the Ukraine thread specifically, as long as it�s new information or something that otherwise adds to conversation in a reasonably apparent matter. Part of its intended purpose is to aggregate relevant situation updates, and embedded tweets are one of the more convenient ways to do that.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 23:27

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

speng31b posted:

On the topic of moderation, I left the same feedback the above posters mentioned about the probation policy feeling too arbitrary in the last feedback thread. Almost identical to what some people are saying now, and also the main reason I've entirely given up on trying to post in d&d.

On a semi related topic, I saw this particular probe yesterday in the Leper's Colony, and I've been on the fence about saying something or PMing someone. It's probably not worth a QCS thread or whatever but since there's a feedback thread, here it is. The probation reason just seems kind of hosed up and casually contemptful if not meant seriously, which is certainly how it comes across in context.

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=3993516&pagenumber=1759&perpage=40#post525182307

If a moderator is sincerely suggesting that a poster seek therapy I'm hoping there's something more going on behind the scenes than what it appears at a glance.

Just my 2c.

That poster has a long history of posting with the sole purpose of receiving reassurances that whatever they�re worried today - in context of the U/R thread it�s global nuclear war usually - is not about to pass. They�ve received repeated written warnings and probations for it in the thread, and other mods have told me that they post similarly in other threads at times as well.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 00:54

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

speng31b posted:

Yeah, before I posted this I checked the user's rap sheet so I am aware of the history to some degree. Regardless, the post doesn't seem insincere, so a probe reason of "get therapy" still seems especially callous and not especially appropriate. Just my feedback.

Oh, I�m fairly sure they�re not a gimmick account, which is why they got a sincere recommendation. It�s absolutely not healthy to be concerned with dying in a hellfire on a weekly basis.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 01:04

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Majorian posted:

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.

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.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 20:18

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Majorian posted:

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?

I�m happy to green light not just one, but whole 10 threads to cover the issue, should debating it in just a thread doesn�t count as a debate.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 20:26

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Stringent posted:

not trying to spam this, i won't bring it up again, but i did want to make sure it didn't get lost in the press

It has been noted and brought up for an internal discussion by Fritz already.

cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jul 31, 2022

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 20:42

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

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.

Posters are under no obligation to engage with someone replying with their pet peeve to literally anything, or at all for that matter. Current events, on that note, are reasonably interpreted as things happening today, or this week, not systemic issues (as evidenced by the same posters barging in with the exact same 1-2 points every single day, for months).

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 22:02

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Jarmak posted:

I agree and think that sort of rule shouldn't apply to people making a new thread for that reason.

Doesn't necessarily mean it should be a free-fire zone if/once it gets going, but I think the old SA norm of OPs having a high burden is out-modded by the megathread-focused zeitgeist of contemporary DnD. If anything OPs should be given extra leeway to encourage more topical threads given it's already a bit of an uphill climb.

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.

cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jul 31, 2022

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 23:04

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 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 analysing 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, 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 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. The divide underlie the behaviour of our ruling class (and those downstream of their decisions). Given that our elected officials are the most significant piece of our political superstructure, it's only natural that conversations about recent newsworthy events will converge back onto the topic of the behaviour of those elected officials. Shutting down discussion of a broad topic such as their behaviour under the pretence of being chock-full of �stale arguments� is therefore responsible (perhaps paradoxically) for the continued degradation of the discussion at hand. It pushes conversation further away from a materialist view of the underlying sources of conflict that led to the event in question. The result of that, as we've seen, is 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, in and of itself, on the broader class of American politics conversations. However, 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. Unfortunately, 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. Decidedly less so as a police officer looking for tickets to write or posters to threaten. Thanks for your time reading this. The only other point I'll add is that while I think that Leon is a �bad poster�, his planned moderation philosophy has high-level points clearly in line with what I've just written. Should it be truly given a shot, I predict he'll quickly become a more efficacious contributor 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.

Thank you for feedback! I hope you don't mind that I've taken the liberty to proofread and stylistically edit your letter, for improved readability.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 23:56

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

speng31b posted:

This makes complete sense. One thing I keep hearing is that D&D's moderation burden and burnout rate is disproportionately high compared to viewers/posters. Any idea why that is? Adding and placing trust in IKs seems like part of a good solution (one I've advocated for myself). Is it also possible there are posting or moderation culture changes that would help things?

The main reason is that US politics threads primarily are a jousting arena for people engaging in virtue signalling or ritual combat with their posting enemies. Very few seem to go there with candid interest of having a conversation with other people. For comparison, the non-American part of D&D produces at most 1/5 the reports that the American does, and the list of thread/forum bans attributable to people not knowing when to stop posting about the US is more than 10 times longer than the rest of it.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 00:49

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

Stringent posted:

sounds as if there might be 10x more americans posting on here doesn't it?

No, UKMT alone is about as active as the US threads combined. D&D on the whole is majority non-American, talking about non-American things.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 00:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 00:03

cinci zoo sniper: Mar 15, 2013

For a comparative number, Ukraine thread in February/March spent a few weeks at 1600-3600 posts per day.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2022 01:03

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