|
A Buttery Pastry posted:After a rocky few weeks with too much mod-intervention/trolling, it appears the mod team has backed off trying to enforce its vision of the forum on the regional threads where the thread consensus is that the thread is better when the mods stay away. So, good job staying out. I think you misunderstand how this works. The point of trying to get an IK for Scandipol was to offer the thread to have a voice in a hypothetical moderation action. As the thread has broadly ignored the offer to self-moderate itself, no one is going to be consulted when in mods’ subjective opinion something has to be done in it. 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. The concern of D&D is not how posters post somewhere else, or how they have posted in the past, unless they’re posting in bad faith and allege to hold immediately contradictory opinions. If you want to gossip your posting enemies, instead of challenging their argument on merits, do that somewhere else. IC1 and IIC1 differ in that being a passive aggressive rear end in a top hat goes under IC1 even if you don’t ever mention a poster, but a non-negative commentary about other posters is still not welcome in D&D. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Let D&D be poo poo posty lite again Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Also D&D needs a stylesheet. Elephant Ambush posted:It should also no longer be against the rules to be mean to people like them because they deserve it for trying to be the main characters of this forum and dictate how everyone else should follow their rules and posting style. They're also constantly wrong and anyone who points that out with a sarcastic joke gets probated and that's bullshit Just post in C-SPAM if you want to post in C-SPAM. The whole point of having multiple subforums is to meet different expectations of different posters, and “recreational hipfiring about politics” is well served already by one. 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. Do you have any recent examples of this?
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 19:16
|
|
eggshells so that we don't bruise this rules-obsessed dweeb's fragile little ego
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
World Famous W posted:nah, ill keep posting here, mainly in usce and politoon, like ive done for a decade plus Just saying, there’s a fine political style sheet right next door.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Koos Group posted: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 Only if with a Serif font 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 19:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:"Something has to be done"? The people causing trouble before you went in to advocate for an IK were mods. We've got a perfectly stable system going on in Scandipol, no reason to mess with it. For as long as no mod is going to have a reason to consider moderation action in the thread, sure, everyone there seems to be having a perfectly fine time. If a mod will consider intervening, be that reason a report or someone just browsing the thread at leisure, they’ll however unlikely leave everyone in the thread happy, for the reasons I’ve enunciated in the thread - y’all, funnily enough, touch grass so much that it’s difficult to establish proper context by simply reading up on the thread, with no mods presently living in the region. If the thread would have an IK in that scenario, all intervention considerations would get deferred to the IK via regional threads’ prerogative to self-moderation, and potentially hamfisted mod intervention would only come if the IK royally misses the mark on expectations, e.g., the conclusion of Cardiac’s tenure. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
tristeham posted:i find it fascinating that any talk about the geneva convention is forbidden in a thread about an ongoing war. You’ll be even more fascinated if you actually read the rule you are referencing. Simply copy-pasting half-page excerpts from the Geneva Convention or some other international legal framework because you’re larping a Nuremberg tribunal judge is what is discouraged in absence of meriting circumstances, such as a news agency citing it wrong, or you being a lawyer with relevant expertise in what is being discussed. What’s even funnier, with you being active in the C-SPAM’s Ukraine thread, is that the buttons on this rule have predominantly been pushed on people trying to “argue” how something with absolutely no details available must absolutely not be a Ukrainian war crime. That and the rule not concerning itself with something being characterised as a war crime - just with the tedium that comes with people pasting large globs of legal texts and then arguing how they, with a master’s degree in posting on D&D, interpret it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that this is the price of having no IK - but that's preferred to upsetting the status quo by adding one. The value proposition is even worse for people invited to be IKs, especially if they want to post outside D&D. Fair enough, if this this is the official thread community stance, or as close to one as we’d get, I’m more than glad to respect it, having it been actually communicated. My idea to get an IK for Scandipol was not a response to some clear problem, but an act of overdue recognition to the body of posting there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why does just living somewhere or having lived somewhere make someone an expert and grant them any special protection? I live in America, do my opinions on American politics get special protection from posters living in other countries? Do they have to be extra deferential in disagreeing with me or risk punishment? Bluntly, the reason for giving a nod to non-American posters is that the average American needs a few minutes to find America on the globe, and that this is a majority American website, despite D&D itself no longer being a majority-American subforum, to all of which the expectations for an American circlejerk barrelling into a conversation about internal affairs of Haiti gets calibrated. Our China thread is the main casualty of inconsistent moderation support throughout the years, in this context, with the majority of local posters having abandoned it years ago because they got tired of being shouted down by a 10-fold number of Americans regurgitating their morning news or some such at them. That said, you’re correct that living somewhere doesn’t make you an expert automatically. Critical thinking is not waived at all in making sure that the minority perspective is acknowledged. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think it makes a great deal more sense in country-specific threads. Sure maybe German posters don't want a bunch of Americans arguing with them about German politics based on something they saw on Twitter or whatever. I agree with you on this. Some room has to be made somewhere for the underrepresented, but US-centric discourse is a reasonable expectation for a thread about US politics. In the context of the recent relevant moderation flashpoint, Haiti chat, the conversation happened in the LatAm regional thread and CE both, and I haven’t found time to read the latter much recently. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Mischievous Mink posted:Why was the dude you tried to force into an IK for the thread not disqualified by his horrible racism? You made it clear you were vetting candidates so I don't get why that wasn't a dealbreaker. IKs get very superficial vetting - someone just glances at their rap sheet, 1-2 pages of recent posts, maybe an admin does some admin checks if they’re really bored and stumble into the thread. The reason for this hands-off vetting is that IKs have superficial power, and there are no serious expectations towards them handling sensitive PMs or similar, and a thread or forum in need should be able to get one on a short notice. Consequently, no one spent time reading years of their posting history. I did, however, make an effort to solicit feedback and nominations from the thread. In any case, being a “horrible racist”, which is a claim that I cannot confirm for not having read any much of their posts, and that I have to intrinsically question the veracity of due to substantial political animosity between them and select other thread regulars, doesn’t automatically disqualify someone from being a D&D IK, if their posts are coherent and follow the relevant rules. Breaking SA or D&D rules on a regular basis does disqualify one, but there’s a distance between being a mainstream Scandinavian conservative, which is speculate is a load-bearing element of your allegation, and the threshold at which general SA rules against bigotry kick in. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 29, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
selec posted:I am not here to say that Haitians are wrong about what’s happening in their country, but I am going to have a lot of opinions about the US rolling in to “help”. Does that clarify? I think this is a very helpful clarification to make explicitly, and in the context of conversation possibly happening in the US CE thread and in the LatAm thread, the posts to the tune of what you just said would be rightly placed in CE. For LatAm thread, the preferred posting etiquette on the quoted discourse would be to meet the local perspective in the middle.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Mischievous Mink posted:You should really have given his rap sheet a superficial glance then instead of wasting your time on all this vapid nonsense. And a superficial glance I did. Short rap sheet with no bans and no recent long probations is good enough for an IK. Literally no one is going to open a vague probation from 4 years ago, in this context. If we miss something that way, we can always just take their buttons away - it’s only an IK.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:Then why have a thread on this forum? If they want to be among themselves, they can go to a German forum. As long as a country has forums that largely allow free speech without consequences, that's a viable alternative. The point of the regional threads is for people from the region to hang out and talk about things unlikely relevant to anyone else. Or at the very least to people without an explicit interest in that narrowly defined region. Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:Can you prove this? Also, even if you can, should we base a discussion forum on your blunt stereotypes of "frankly, most people from country X are ignorant/idiots"? As much I like to flatter myself, I don’t think I can prove a deliberate hyperbole to not be such.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:What if someone has an interest, but doesn't speak the language? And if speaking the language is a requirement for participation, why have this thread on this site? There’s no rule that posts must be in English. Despite that, people still use English in regional threads quite often, because they don’t want to be rude to potential lurkers. For the same reason, if your interest includes formulating a question like a normal person would, someone will get back to you in English.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 03:11
|
|
|
Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:Sure, your posts as a mod to admonish people surely don't constitute a rule: My posts don’t constitute site-level rules on SA indeed. And no, I would’ve probated you on the next post written in German, for making a post useless to the thread - German speakers in it are a stark minority. Simultaneously, with the thread being an offshoot of the regional thread for Eastern Europe and having 10+ Russian speakers amongst the group I consider to be its regular contributors, posting there in Russian is perfectly fine by me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
RealityWarCriminal posted:Please make an economy thread so Leon can post in it 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
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. You could always just PM a moderator or post a QCS thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 11:41
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:now you're just being mean to be mean Not at all. In fact, I merely defer to their posting career as a QCS regular.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 14:43
|
|
|
Victar posted:I, uh, didn't really understand the Ukraine thread crackdown on discussion of a leaked US congress-signed open letter about aid to Ukraine, but if the hypothetical alternative to accepting that crackdown were losing CZS moderation, then no trade no deal - I would not want to gamble the D&D Ukraine thread on any other mod. What happened there is that in addition to the discussion of the leaked letter, which was very reminiscent in tone to the conversations about the DSA that the thread used to have before I cracked out on them a few months into the war, there was also an ongoing discussion about how the economy of California is or is not better than the economy of Germany, that was absolutely irrelevant to the thread. As I explained there: cinci zoo sniper posted:No, this is a current events thread for a war in Ukraine, and the last page about economies of Germany and California, months old words from random members of the lower house of US parliament, and some theoretical wanking about what could or could not happen at some point in the future was broadly irrelevant and tedious to read. But for the purpose of feedback thread, I'm happy to go into more detail. So, the opening question on the economy chat was questionably appropriate for the thread. In part because it's a nonsensical question, and there's some baseline expectation for doing your own minimum research before posting, and in part since it has a rather dubious connection to the current events of the war in Ukraine. khwarezm posted:https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1584641718049464320 No, an economy the size of the US is not going to die because it has to pay US for the gas instead of paying Russia for the gas, and no, wild speculations for events that some person could imagine happening some number of years in the future does at best struggle to qualify for a current events discussion. As a follow up to this post, a number of replies were made on the topics of the economic competitiveness of California or the United States, that are broadly irrelevant to the thread, and which I would've preferred to not have been posted to it at all: WarpedLichen posted:I wish I had a crystal ball as accurate as these pundits, probably could make a killing on the markets. TheDeadlyShoe posted:The irony of that chart is that a lot of California's current GDP growth is credited to renewables. If anything, the current crisis should show Germany / the EU that not only is cheap Russian energy a dire political choice, but a questionable economic choice in the long term. Tuna-Fish posted:The problem with this is that renewables work a lot better in California than they do in Central or Northern Europe. What renewables do you propose to power Germany with in the winter months when there is basically no sunlight, and when very cold weather typically coincides with zero wind? TheDeadlyShoe posted:I was more speaking industrially than trying to reboot the German energy debate. Germany's industrial expertise should theoretically apply to manufacturing renewables, even if the domestic market is small. Granted it would be far easier for that sector to develop with a strong domestic demand, but it's not impossible - just look at Germany's status as a shipbuilder. archangelwar posted:Not only does Germany have huge existing renewable exploitation, but they also have huge potential renewable exploitation both domestically and within close proximity with the right partnerships. Renewable energy doesn’t just consist of rooftop solar and lowlands windmills in Munich. WarpedLichen posted:By what measure of renewables are we really talking about anyway? FishBulbia posted:European states individually are mostly depopulating or stagnating places with limited natural resources. IDK how them no longer being comparable to the productive end of literally continent spanning countries is supposed to shocking unless you were frozen in like 1912 and just woke up. Cicero posted:In a lot of more left leaning discussions on the internet, the framing is that the US is pants on head idiotic policy-wise compared to (Western) Europe. While this is frequently accurate, it somewhat conflicts with the US going from strength to strength economically: if the US keeps picking poo poo policies, why is it doing so much better in terms of productivity? Pook Good Mook posted:Not to derail, but as much as people say "America is like playing a game of geopolitics on easy mode with cheats on" if California were a new country founded yesterday it would be ludicrously competitive from a natural resources and climate/geography standpoint. WarpedLichen posted:I mean how much of that is because of global hegemony and being the world's reserve currency? Effectively unlimited borrowing is pretty good for the economy. Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:This article goes into those talking points (not reproducing the diagrams here): Boris Galerkin posted:For the average American who isn’t terminally online, they see these news articles about massive billion dollar aid and weapons packages to Ukraine and then they look at the dwindling number in their bank account. Morrow posted:A little derail, but there's a convincing argument that while it's good for the US financially, it hurts the broader economy because the dollar is going to be artificially strong and increase the cost of imports. Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:I had posted a reply on this page to the post you’re quoting. It addresses the “easy mode”. WarpedLichen posted:I don't think the letter being from June/July makes it any less dumb. The lack of content or meaningful call to action is what makes it dumb. That it got picked up by the media closer to the election as a political weapon is just taking advantage of its inherent dumbness. I'll just say that this is a lot of posts for something that's neither clearly about the titular purpose of the thread, nor intrinsically interesting to me or my assumptions about what the sum of posters and lurkers frequenting the thread derive good value for their time from. Simultaneously, the other conversation branch surrounding the Caucus letter began like this (a bit earlier than the economy chat, chronologically, but most of the posts I take issue with are in the second half of it): Dapper_Swindler posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1584606451905200128?s=20&t=3zejqp1XIxnQyhT45oM-sA That seems like dumb and bad optics. And the bolded text did set it on the bad foot right away, since every time I've seen something like that phrased towards the DSA, AOC, Sanders, the rest of the Progressive Caucus in the thread, it was a tedious derail where posters were much more interesting in springing to the opportunity to rehash their pet peeves about domestic politics. Before I continue, the expected appropriate analytical response to this would be to note that 30 House liberals mean gently caress all in the current political environment, in the context of bi-partisan support on the Hill for aiding Ukraine, and in the realities of this conflict. To my delight, to the tune of two dozen posts were also made with perfectly normal commentary about it, e.g.: sean10mm posted:A handful of reps with dipshitty foreign policy ideas in general writing a dipshitty letter about foreign policy (that Biden is going to throw in the circular file immediately) isn't really a sign of anything, good or bad. It's just Monday in DC. MikeC posted:I don't see what is wrong with the letter other than that it assumes Biden hasn't already tried from time to time to find some sort of negotiated solution. All it is really saying is that it would be better if the war ended sooner rather than later while reaffirming the stance that the US should never impose or pressure Ukraine into a settlement that they are not happy with. Is it redundant that what they are asking for is already being tried? Yes. But I don't see anything in the contents of the letter which would make it "stupid". Pablo Bluth posted:The problem is it ignores that Russia is an entirely bad faith actor when it comes to negotiations and honouring their commitments arise from said negotations, while providing something Russia can use in bad faith to waive around and say "Why won't the west negotiate?". Unsurprisingly, the undesirable posts that I was concerned about were also quick to follow: mobby_6kl posted:They should send these cops to Bakmut Eric Cantonese posted:I hope it isn't terribly off-topic to state this, but some of these people are also the ones who drag their feet on condemning Iran while clawing at each other trying to put the boot in on the Saudis. It's a very annoying pattern among legislators I otherwise usually like a great deal. Mooseontheloose posted:It's a nothing letter so the Progressive Caucus can say they that we need more money for social programs and maybe see if there is a peaceful solution. I wouldn't pay it much mind. WarpedLichen posted:Is Biden asking the progressive caucus for opinions on what to do during the war? Are they providing an idea on how to achieve peace? Is there somebody in the administration who will slap their head and go geez, framework for peace, I can't believe nobody thought of that before? WarpedLichen posted:They're perfectly entitled to say anything they want, whenever they want. Just because they are entitled to put their foot in their mouth doesn't mean they have to do it. Herstory Begins Now posted:that's largely my feeling, the letter just doesn't say much (albeit if it doesn't say much, why the gently caress even release it other than obvious electoral considerations) Rinkles posted:What was the impetus for yesterday's "call for negotiation" from the Progressive Caucus? The midterms? Rigel posted:Also, aside from stupid assholes like Cruz who aren't liked and would never get the job, Senate Majority Leader is not a job any of the other reasonable alternatives really want. The speaker has more of an ability to be a bit of a firebrand in the house as long as they don't go too far, but the majority leader has to always keep 50+1 wanna-be future presidents in line, never gets credit for making that happen, and always gets the blame from activists whenever he fails. McConnell always gets support because if he quits, someone else has to take over. Nenonen posted:So y'all saying that Trump would be the perfect speaker? And a few more borderline posts, and then half a dozen to a dozen posts long questionably necessary conversation on whether if the letter really is or is not from July or whatever. Summarising, from my perspective, I had just read about 80-120 posts (I don't let myself fall behind more than 2-3 pages even if my day is slammed), out of which the thread could've missed 25 to, say, 40 posts – not in the least since 2-3 legitimate topics did drown in that noise, e.g., the story about the long-range missile crew from Russia. Since the common denominator for the two conversations was "bloviating about the USA", I posted a corresponding warning: cinci zoo sniper posted:I must have missed when this became a US politics thread. A few people asked questions related to the warning, and so I made it more clear with a subsequent warning: cinci zoo sniper posted:No, this is a current events thread for a war in Ukraine, and the last page about economies of Germany and California, months old words from random members of the lower house of US parliament, and some theoretical wanking about what could or could not happen at some point in the future was broadly irrelevant and tedious to read. Hardly the best warning I've ever written, but should not be a particularly ambiguous one. Alas, it was not, so after a few probes I even dropped a third warning: cinci zoo sniper posted:Instead of derailing the thread further with the most After which the posters keen on ruminating about American politicians did finally agree to move on, besides Herstory deciding that it was a great opportunity for some backseat modding: Herstory Begins Now posted:Am I missing something because the direct politics of american support for Ukraine seems incredibly in the purview of this thread called "War in Ukraine"? particularly while it's still a developing story When, in fact, the “no DSA chat” rule of the old thread, that I had forgotten to copy into the rules of the ongoing thread when rebooting it, was very specifically meant to shoot down the posts like the one they made, with poo poo some leftist American org said somewhere on the media, on their approach to the thread. tl;dr: It was 2 US-centric convos totalling to at least 2 dozen dubiously contributing posts, spread across merely 2 pages, that set me off to intervene at an arguably slow and soft, for me, pace, not just a mere invocation of congressional politics. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Oct 31, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 20:25
|
|
caveat "I hope someone else makes a relevant post", consider being the change that you want to see.
|
Discendo Vox posted:While I think that some of CZS's actions are a bit heavyhanded (for example, some of the derail posts they highlight are providing direct sourcing and context that serves to explain why the US Reps letter is irrelevant), it's infinitely better than choosing to not enforce the rules, or entertain users who come to the forum seeking a reaction they can then take back to a group socialized around opposing the forum's purpose. I agree that there’s much to be gleaned from reading the poll figures in the article linked in the tweet by Herstory. On Herstory’s post, I take issue with the intent behind the post - I parse it as “look at the bad thing the caucus Twitter said”, rather than “here’s a factual supplement for this discourse”. Perhaps there’s also something good in the Quincy Institute tweet thread, I didn’t study it thoroughly. On the Eric’s post, I dislike just the first sentence, and would’ve not mentioned the post at all without it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:22 |
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm a jokey guy but I was serious. If you're considering stats, post them. I have no idea what numbers you expect to see or think that we are tracking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 22:07
|
|