|
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 at 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. Unfortunately, you must refrain from posting here if you're forumbanned, and refrain from giving feedback about threads in which you're threadbanned. You can however PM me if you think it's been long enough and you'd like to appeal either one.
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:This one's for you Koos: Are you happy? When you look around at the work you've done in D&D are you proud of your efforts? Can you sit back and feel a sense of accomplishment, even if the work is never truly finished? Yes, generally speaking based on the feedback, the day to day thread quality, and the behind the scenes metric of reports, D&D seems to be doing better than it was.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:2. Rigid application of rules against "posting about posters" is too blunt (see the Ukraine thread). It needs to be possible to refer to what someone does as an example for a certain behavior/logic or other things. I'm not seeing how rule IIC1 is needed when there's already rule IC1. That does seem like it should be allowed, and I thought I implied such with the explanation of IIC. Could you link to the specific probation(s) in the Ukraine thread that concern you? Regardless, IIC and IC are technically different because you can be hostile toward someone without posting about them ("gently caress off") or post about someone without being hostile ("this contradicts what you said five years ago.") Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:(Also about the rules - if you have a subsection 1, you must have a subsection 2 (or more). If not, add it to the one above in the hierarchy.) In cases where there's only one subsection, it's because there is one particular case of a guideline that people tend to violate more than others, but including it in the supersection might make it seem as if there are no others. Lib and let die posted:You've done a fantastic job driving out many of the most passionate dissenting voices and creating an atmosphere where your superstar posters feel comfortable enough that they are exempt from punishment for digging up peoples' personal information and using it as a cudgel so silence them. May you reign for thousands of years! That is a very serious offense which I would recommend PMing me about in addition to reporting it to make sure it's dealt with as swiftly as possible. It goes above and beyond regular posting about posters and I don't tolerate it. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Also D&D needs a stylesheet. Agreed. Harold Fjord posted:Koos post the metrics Discussions: Scholarly. Debate: Civil. Liberals: Protected from criticism. A Buttery Pastry posted:To bring this back to the discussion of D&D, I realize now that there obviously is an issue here, given the cycles of weird grudge-threads between certain D&D and C-SPAM posters which has everyone else just pointing and laughing. Perhaps the mods should post a little guide for when they refer people to QCS, asking them if their post avoids the issues I outlined above? As is, it doesn't seem like there's a real functional outlet for escalating complaints, if a chunk of D&D posters have become so insular that they can't properly communicate with "outsiders" (Obviously the same applies to their C-SPAM counterparts). We don't have a policy for this because it's not actually common to direct posters to QCS. Generally I tell my mods to direct them to PM me instead, since I have unlimited authority within D&D and serve as an appellate court for individual modding decisions. The only reason to go to QCS is if you believe I am unwilling to be reasonable about a decision, so wrong about the decision that the admins would disagree with me, and that the decision is important enough to invest your time thusly. A Buttery Pastry posted:Definitely also this. I ventured out of the regional threads for a while, but decided it wasn't worth it the moment it became clear that certain posters are not actually subject to the rules of D&D. No one is going to want to put in effort discussing a topic when the other person is just going to be allowed to make poo poo up and not respond to your criticism of their position. No posters are immune from D&D's rules. There is some amount of leniency afforded to posters who are providing high quality discussion or are experts in a relevant subject, but that is only a lessening of punishment or an additional chance. If they consistently break the rules, particularly in the same way repeatedly, they will be punished like everyone else. Koos Group fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Just saying, there’s a fine political style sheet right next door. I still think we should have a style sheet based on this fresco: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/%22The_School_of_Athens%22_by_Raffaello_Sanzio_da_Urbino.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Only if with a Serif font https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_38tKOlBTXU A Buttery Pastry posted:Can you explain why this is the case? I would think someone posting "as an expert" should be subject to greater scrutiny, given that they're essentially being raised up above other posters as official experts. Like, is this not just an officially sanctioned appeal to authority? I would define an expert as someone who has direct experience in a certain field or with a certain phenomenon and is consequently more knowledgeable about it that a layman. We do of course scrutinize whether they are lying about that experience, and will punish them if they are, since that is an extreme form of bad faith. It also is appeal to authority, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
the_steve posted:It really is more of the same; One sided moderation designed to keep dedicated centrists safe from any dissenting opinions that may upset their delicate balances and self-described "experts" who continue to get a free pass while violating the same rules they keep screeching and demanding everyone else be held accountable to because they couch it in enough I should clarify that the "expert" rule does not come up often (the only one in my recent memory was someone who lived in Haiti while possible international intervention there was being discussed) and that it does not simply mean someone who is smart or claims to know a lot. To be an expert one needs to actually have qualifications, such as a direct connection to something, work in a field, or an accredited certification.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 19:59
|
|
that Koos has decided they must be super smart to have such long paragraphs.
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:But why even afford them any extra leeway? Either their posts reflect that apparent expertise or they don't, doesn't really matter if they have a diploma or whatever. And of course direct experience also means a risk of some deep biases. Like, an American police officer would qualify as an expert on criminal justice because they work in the field, but you'd have to be the most naïve person in the world to treat more than a handful as an expert on anything the system is ostensibly about. I believe encouraging them to post serves D&D's educational purpose because they would be more likely to teach us something about whatever field than a layman. Again, being an expert does not mean the can violate D&D's rules with impunity, nor does it mean one can't argue against them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
selec posted:I have PMd Koos about my beefs before, but yeah if you are not a boring rear end Democratic placebo-satisfied poster, you will not have a good time in DnD. Maybe it’s eventually going to have to become a virtual simulacrum of those places in Europe that feel like a village but they’re just Truman Showing people with dementia as the world outside collapses. I'm not sure what moderation policies or decisions you're referring to here, but you are allowed to be anti-intervention in D&D (along with having any other position). In fact, if the consensus is pro-intervention, I would be glad to see someone go against it if they have real arguments because dissent enriches discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:And to tie this into any potential rules change suggestions, we should absolutely be able to talk about changing or breaking the rules when it comes to US Govt policy. I distinctly remember when Herstory Begins Now was a mod she posted something about how we're not allowed to talk about how our elected officials should do whatever is necessary to make things better for regular people (like killing the filibuster and shoving through progressive laws) because it's, and I quote, "tedious". That's completely ridiculous because the systems that exist around the current events that happen are absolutely relevant to the events themselves because that's how cause and effect work You are allowed to do this, for the record. The same rules apply to it as any other argument, such as that you can't say the same thing repeatedly, and that responses should be directly related to what they're responding to, and that you should try to be specific and sophisticated rather than repeating unfalsifiable political rhetoric that we've probably heard elsewhere on the internet. People who are against maneuvers that are illegal, non-traditional or otherwise dirty should also recognize that pointing out that this is what they are does not end the argument or mean that it's bad faith to continue supporting these maneuvers. When these issues come up, I would encourage posters to have the confidence to let things stand and agree to disagree when the argument can't go anywhere. The ideal interaction would be thus: Poster A: Congressional Democrats need to stop respecting the conch, and just talk whenever they'd like. There are already Republicans who do so, or hoard the conch even when it's no longer their turn to hold it. Poster B: That would be a blatant disregard of senate rules, and would make it much harder to discuss and therefore pass necessary bills with everyone talking at once. It could even be illegal with a certain interpretation of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. Poster A: Yes. I don't care though, because the current situation puts us at a political disadvantage when crucial bills are at stake. Poster B: Very well. I won't point out that it's illegal again, since you know. Poster A: Thank you. I won't bring up this maneuver again, since everyone is aware of it now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yeah if I had to name my number 1 pet peeve about d&d right now it's this. It's incredibly frustrating to post my genuine opinion about something, and it gets met with sideways accusations of being a cspam troll or a Russian propagandist. It's a way of avoiding having to actually debate the point, and it shouldn't be tolerated. Please report such accusations as they are indeed against the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I reported multiple cases of them just the other day and as far as I know nothing came of those reports. I didn't handle those, since I've been somewhat busy the last week, but I will take another look at all the reports you've made recently and PM you about whatever decisions were made.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok here's some feedback: when the mod running the feedback thread is trolling it and mocking users, it defeats the purpose. People are going to stop bothering if even anodyne suggestions like "keep this thread around more" are sarcastically dismissed. I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've only given one joke response in this thread, to a user who seemed to be joking themselves (Harold Fjord), and it was not at any particular person's expense. I also don't believe I've done anything to discourage feedback, and I welcome feedback that is critical of my or my team's decisions, because as you say doing otherwise would defeat the thread's point. BIG-DICK-BUTT-gently caress posted:yeah this is really annoying, having to wait for the quarterly feedback thread to redress one's grievances is not ideal. It's part of my general philosophy on sticky threads. A sticky tells users a thread is something they should read, either because it's helpful for posting on the forum, or important in its own right, so having too many stickies can act as a barrier to entry or just cause them to become less read. The purpose of feedback threads isn't so much to address specific grievances, but to use them as examples to reflect on whether there are general, broad changes that should be made to D&D's moderation policies or rules. Addressing specific grievances is done via reports and/or communication between myself and the aggrieved parties, right when they happen. What you're quoting is an example of this, because I already talked with the UKMT and resolved the issue some time ago (we were already trying to let Guavanaut handle its moderation at the time, but there was what seemed like an exceptional circumstance where mods should come in, but we learned that there are not exceptional circumstances and in the future will defer to him completely and absolutely).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm a jokey guy but I was serious. If you're considering stats, post them. All of those were my impressions, not figures. Thread quality cannot be quantified, and while reports could, making those numbers public would run afoul of Campbell's Law in the way Vox pointed out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:40 |
|
|
Since we seem to be winding down and I'm going to be gone for the rest of the night, I'll call it there. As always, thank you to everyone for their sincere feedback. A few takeaways for me:
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 22:50
|
|