Summer 2022 D&D Feedback.

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

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

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.

Clancychat may serve as a useful specific example of the general class of this argument -meaning that the things which make clancychat a problem are, collectively, sufficient, but not necessarily necessary or categorical, features of the things that the rule covers. Falsifiability, likelihood and counterfactual weighting are also elements to take into consideration.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 30, 2022

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 19:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 17:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Yep, it's along the lines of demanding a list of accepted and not-accepted sources.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 20:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

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.

There is not a rule about only using accepted sources.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 20:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jaxyon posted:

Yes, exactly.

There is a rule about using stale arguments.

Which arguments are stale is necessarily a reflection of the current and prior discussion. You are, as others have noted, trying to obligate the mods to construct something for you to attack.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 21:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Koos Group posted:

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.

This user is telling you that your idea of "consistently providing high-quality contributions" as immunizing a user from anything less than "really messing up" is severely miscalibrated. For one thing, it's a quantitative measure balancing against a categorical immunity; a user hits a minimum number of "high-quality contributions", number not determined, standard not determined, and they get to do as much threadshitting as they want so long as you decide that they have not "really messed up" with any one of them. It appears to be a way to identify a set of constant offenders who get, as a matter of forum culture, to poo poo up the forum. In practice, the inertia of the bad decision to immunize these users from forumbans makes it harder and harder to remove them over time.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2022 21:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 17:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

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!

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jul 31, 2022

# ¿ Jul 31, 2022 05:38

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