|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:in fairness, the last few times a moderator suspected of cspam sympathies was modded the maxes-out-reports-daily crew absolutely lost their minds, so it makes sense that modern moderation is about attempting to appease those people what is the limit, anyway?
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
oh okay. I was going to suggest dropping it down to around five but ten seems fine - I was under the impression that it was like 50 or something heh anyway my feedback is that the present and former moderators of D&D have over the last few years turned this place into somewhere that I would literally rather have my fingernails pulled out with a pair of pliers than engage in on an ongoing basis - but on the other hand driving out people like me seems to have been the point and at least these days most of you are pretty open about the goals for D&D. moreover the mod team's stated goals match its actions finally and I do sincerely appreciate that as well. I think you're giving the majority of the people who still post here what they want and that's great so keep it up
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 06:10
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Because John Kasich is an alt of B B that they logged onto to spam even more reports when they maxed out on their main. like why haven't you just perma'd that account. this isn't feedback I'm just curious
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 06:13
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:In every other forum I've ever seen, a permaban is just called "a ban".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 06:45
|
|
|
okay so what would happen if I registered like ten or more accounts and used them to create a simulacrum of political discussion in d&d superficially indistinguishable from earnest debate of differing points of view or is that allowed and people already do it
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 07:38
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:seems like a foolproof plan, we've no way to prevent or respond to this. you should do it imo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:It's a complaint without a vision of what kind of forum the poster wants.  like obviously I'm not going to loving post here same as I don't post in the anime forum because that's not my jam. but I'm a former poster here so I keeps tabs that's the only difference as I've mentioned before the user base of d&d is composed predominantly of people who, in another time and place, would have been quite happy living under the Nazis (as were most people back then at least at first). I don't think it's reasonable or for that matter practical to ban everyone who posts here so giving d&d people a safe space where they can laugh and play with other Nazis is, imo, a reasonable goal and I'm glad the moderation team here is finally being open about it instead of pretending they're really trying to do something else, like the previous group of morons who were running the place. godspeed koos group et al MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Jul 31, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 13:20
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I can't imagine why D&D mods would make you feel unwelcome to post here
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Did you read that post? because there's no sass in my response to it
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 14:01
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:D&D is the forum where you think CSPAM is all Nazis and CSPAM is the forum where you think D&D is all Nazis. If you express the opposite opinion in the wrong one you're a sick freak.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
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. 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. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" isn't a terrible maxim to hold as you're trying to guide discussion, but it breaks down when people can't agree on what the extraordinary claims are. Currently "the Democrats do not have an ideological project and their primary and perhaps sole purpose within our political system is to prevent leftward movement - thus as a party they are uninterested in acquiring and wielding power" is something of an extraordinary claim in USCE while "the Democrats are an ordinary political party" is not. If you react to current events in D&D while holding the former view, you will catch probations frequently as other posters (who don't agree with many of your premises) will force the discussion to drill down to that belief. Over and over. You probably won't be allowed to merely assert that the Dems are bad for the sake of argument by the person (or people) you're debating with, and neither will you be able to debate whether the Dems are bad (rightly, of course, as it's the USCE thread not the Dems Are Bad thread) by the moderation team. So you're stuck, and you can't really participate as a peer in USCE. (Note that the inverse doesn't apply, however: since "the Democrats are an ordinary political party" is not treated as an extraordinary claim, you can freely react to current events in USCE while taking that as a given. If you're challenged on it you're free to insist that the terms of discussion be that your debate partner prove that they aren't (which very quickly turns into the situation previously discussed), or you can refuse to engage at all thereby "winning" the argument since the underlying assumptions that support your argument can never be challenged, while your partner's can.) I don't know if there's a good way to square this circle for what it's worth, but I know that "create a thread about it" isn't the answer since the question isn't "how can I debate whether the Democrats are bad?" Most of the people having trouble with D&D don't really want to do that, I think - they want to react to current events in a social context that is actively hostile to basically the entire ideological framework that informs how they react to those current events. I don't know what compels them to desire that but it'd probably be better for most of them if they just stopped.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is a good example of why it's more important than ever to keep things grounded in facts and sources in D&D. What you're attempting to do here is to declare one set of premises "ordinary" and another set of premises "extraordinary" and justify this arbitrary arrangement with "take it to another thread." Of course, what happens in that other thread would have no bearing on what happens in USCE, and anyway even if it did, only the people whose premises are currently labeled "extraordinary" would have any incentive to participate. You are manifestly attempting to steer discussion in the direction that you, personally, desire, but you insist that everyone play along with you in this fantasy that you are grounding everything in "facts and sources" when the issue at hand is precisely what framework to use when discussing these facts and sources and drawing conclusions from them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Calling something not ordinary is literally what extraordinary means. You don't get to decide extraordinary claims are just tenants of your ideology as a cheat code to having them be accepted by fiat. Having them be accepted as uncontroversial by a small number of people you chat with online does not make them them ordinary. It's like arguing with someone who believes the bible is the literal word of god and won't stop using that fact to justify every position despite the people they're arguing with not being Christian. You can't talk about anything without it instantly becoming about whether god is real. "Extraordinary" of course always carries with it the social context in which the word was used. What is "extraordinary" in one place is ordinary in another, in my example as well as yours. What I'm getting at here is not that I disagree with D&D over what is extraordinary and what is not (I do, but it's beside the point) but rather that "discuss the extraordinary things in a separate thread" misses the mark because most of the people involved don't want to debate that exactly: they want to discuss current events in a context where their basic assumptions of how the world works are held to be "ordinary" both by the people enforcing the rules and most of the people involved in the discussion. Not everyone's going to be able to get that in one place, I don't think - there is some room for differences of opinion of course but past a certain point incompatible systems of belief are incompatible. I think the current moderation team actually gets this to some degree but I wanted to explicitly call it out because I think it's important to recognize. The reason I think it's important is well-illustrated by Main Paineframe's post actually: there is a world of difference between "we are holding these specific beliefs systems to be ordinary here because we've arrived at that conclusion via some kind of social consensus" and "we are holding these specific belief systems to be ordinary here because they are the ones supported by 'facts and sources.'" The former recognizes that social consensus exists (and thus, that it can change) while the latter does not. The former is more likely to react to a new consensus, should one appear, with acceptance (and, more likely to allow one to appear), while the latter would, oh hell I dunno, probably exercise its power to harass people it doesn't like, for years, before finally melting down, quitting, and moaning about how much better things used to be.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2022 03:10
|
|