|
Nooner posted:This whole oval office debacle really seems like it shares a lot with whether or not the hard "r" makes a difference oval office gets most of the attention, but people complain about "wordfilter" moderation for other words, too. I have not seen anyone mount a defense of using the n-word, or fag, or transphobic words, but oval office and the r-word still have their defenders. As far as I'm concerned, allowing oval office in the Commonwealth threads is allowing for context. The usage of the word is different in those places, so it is allowed there. In non-explicitly Commonwealth threads it is banned. The rules about word usage as they currently exist set clear expectations and allow for a more consistent and timely response. Having a clear line in the sand makes it easier for people to report violations, and makes it easier to respond to them. There are so many posts per day, and so many threads, that thinking a mod or IK is going to read every single one, much less within a timely manner, is unreasonable. If the rules on word usage were relaxed or made entirely context-dependent it would mean people would be more likely to test the boundaries, posts would linger longer with no response, and punishment for violations would seem that much more arbitrary depending on which individual mod was evaluating the context of the post. It's honestly a little tedious having to enforce the wordfilter rules, but at least it is pretty clear and unambiguous. It really doesn't come up all that often, and we can sometimes go days without having to probe for it. While I understand some people are not thrilled by the current set of rules around word usage I don't think there are alternative approaches which would be both practical and effective.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:also mods please stop with the finger wagging probation reasons like you're a parent scolding a child (not singling any one mod out on this). it's extremelyt cringe and only further serves to separate mods into this authoritative class that is separateand morally superior to posters I wanted to go back to this because I think it needs a response. Coming up with probation reasons is not as simple as this, and sometimes feels like a no-win situation. If it's too jokey we're told we aren't being serious enough. We're told probation reasons need to be clear and straightforward, but then we get complaints like the one you're making. There is also a certain amount of time pressure - probing something too long after the fact is something we try to avoid, and having a timely response is something we aim for. And the expectation is that a probation reason should only be a sentence or two, so length is something of a concern, too. Sometimes we do screw up (I know a few of mine have been overly harsh or unclear), and then the only recourse is to ask an Admin to edit it because we can't. I think we all try to make probation reasons as clear as possible, and funny if we can, but it is a highly restrictive medium to work in.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:that response reads like "thanks for the feedback but our current method is perfect and thusly, request denied Okay? It's something I've thought about a lot (obviously), and was just trying to explain how I see it. This is really not helpful. Should I have included more smilies? Should I swear a little more? What would make it sound less like the dreaded HR voice?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 20:40
|
|
"
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:the response has plainly been "too much work to read posts. gonna word filter instead. and hands absloutely = tied" To some extent, yeah. You're talking about requiring more labor from an unpaid, volunteer workforce. Why would I want to further cut into my shitposting time by feeling expected to read every post in every thread to see if the use of slurs is appropriately contextual? Having clear lines makes it much more manageable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Infidel Castro posted:Maybe we should put our responses in the form of early 90's Ad Council PSA raps. Maybe from now on I will reply only with animated GIFs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
DeadFatDuckFat posted:What? When you get a report, do you not look at the context of the post anyways before slamming buttons? Yeah, I do - that's normal procedure. What I was talking about was some expectation to follow all threads and evaluate every use of slurs on a case-by-case basis. More often than not I see a report, check the context, and then dismiss it because no response is needed - there are way more reports that result in no action than ones that do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, it's a volunteer position, why do it if you hate reading? Do you seriously read every thread in GBS? Does anyone? Actually, I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that last question. bagmonkey posted:dude make thread regulars who aren't psychos the IK of that thread and it'll cut down on the work drastically. It's not that tough to ID who in the thread doesn't have meltdowns regularly and actually gives a poo poo about keeping the thing alive We do actually try to do this. More IKs and mods would be great. It's just easier said than done - a lot of people decline when asked. That's true across SA as a whole, not just a GBS thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Inexplicable Humblebrag posted:dumping a "your ticket is important to us" paragraph is an example of The Mod Voice. the subsequent posts have been more normal, so congrats on that If you can edit my post in question to be any shorter and yet convey the same information then great, maybe I was just too wordy. Seriously, though, what other approach would you have preferred? A one-liner dismissing the concern? A leading question? An actual animated GIF? Sure, my writing style can get a little pedantic, but I do that all the loving time. I've posted the same way forever, from way before I was a mod, and I drop in and out of conversational shitposting and essayist as appropriate. Again, this seems like setting up a no-win situation where either I can answer sincerely and be accused of using "Mod Voice" or I can shitpost and be accused of not listening to users and not taking things seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:you need the username on the account and the email address tied to the account For a gift certificate, you just need some way to contact the person you're trying to give it to. Which, in the absence of them having PMs gets way more difficult. If a situation like this arises we could request the person be given plat in order to receive the gift certificate, Rube Goldbergian as that is. Jose posted:This is feedback from a former gbs mod: you're a dumbass Well, yeah, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 00:32
|
|
|
Devils Affricate posted:Could not disagree more with this. Allowing a word in certain threads while blanket banning it in all others isn't taking context into consideration, it's a shortcut designed to avoid context. Now if someone uses the word in a bigoted way in one of the whitelisted threads it's liable to go unpunished, while if someone uses it in an obviously benign way anywhere else they get probed for it. I'd argue it's worse than choosing either extreme of just allowing it everywhere or nowhere. If you can't be hosed to actually read the posts that get reported and try to make an informed decision, then just drop the ban completely or set it to autoban. Devils Affricate posted:Also why isn't "twat" banned? Why isn't "bitch" banned? What's different about these words? I'm honestly not trying to be an internet debate lord. As far as I can tell those words get used just as much if not more to disparage women, and people absolutely should catch probes/bans for using them that way. But for some reason context is taken into account with these but not the other one. We do read reports for context - I clarified that earlier. If you're arguing for a more complete ban, and a ban of more words, then fine. You can do that if you want to. Other than feeling the current rules are fairly manageable I haven't really spent time thinking if we should police language even more.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:You're not getting probed for that and if you do I'll ask for it to be reversed Agreed and same.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Devils Affricate posted:I said the posts and the context surrounding them, not the reports. And lmao no I was not advocating for more word filters, jesus dude. Sorry, was your argument that mods should have to read every post in every thread? I mean, about the slurs I honestly don't completely disagree with you, but there are logistical constraints on what can be done in practice.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
Devils Affricate posted:My argument is that if you don't have enough time to read the original post and enough posts related to it to get the proper context of a potential offense, you shouldn't be hitting the ban button. The focus should be on what was actually being said in the post rather than the presence of certain words. The system you've fallen back on for getting around your logistical constraints is worse than simply doing nothing. Yeah, like IC said that pretty much is standard practice. I feel like we might be talking past each other to some extent. I'm not trying to present the current system as perfect, but have been trying to explain why it is the way it is. If we can improve it that would be great. But getting too far into hypotheticals isn't really going that direction. Like more mods and IKs so more threads have real-time eyes on them would be great, but that is way easier said than done.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 02:48
|
|
|
Devils Affricate posted:Sorry, weren't we just talking about how typing oval office gets you a probe regardless of context? As a rule of thumb, in non-Commonwealth threads, yes. There have been exceptions made for context, so it's not like a completely automated thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
syntaxfunction posted:It's still kind of weird that there's tiers of slurs? Some seem auto-flagged, others are actioned if anyone reports them, others are just ignored. Does it not strike you as weird? AFAIK nothing is automatically flagged anymore. I'm not sure if that's happened since the Lowtax days. And I won't disagree about the slur tier list thing. That's largely something that has been around for a long time, although it has evolved over the years. If people want to discuss that then I think it's perfectly fine - again I am not arguing for the current state of affairs so much as trying to explain it. (Insert joke about "explaining = endorsing" here.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Devils Affricate posted:Well that's odd, because from what I've seen, at least in recent years, goons very rarely use "oval office" as a pejorative aimed at women, so getting probed for it should be the exception if what you're saying is true. You guys keep going back and forth on this. Eh, it does happen, usually regarding terrible right-wing women. The word honestly doesn't come up that regularly, and it doesn't come up with anything like the frequency you would think considering how mad people get about it. Having an auto wordfilter could be funny, but it would probably end up in more or less the same situation as now as people game the wordfilter in various ways.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Bonzo posted:Thank you, this does more to explain what is happening. Bonzo posted:So I'm free to insult people, as long as its funny, but I can't say oval office. got it. I'm a little confused here - the mention of the c-word is based on the current state of it being banned in GBS outside of British/Australian threads. The OP of this thread is relaxing the rule for this thread, not proposing anything new. The rest of the thread is discussing the existing rule from various viewpoints. And other stuff, but for whatever reason this word gets most of the attention.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
It's pronounced "jiff."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
ninjoatse.cx posted:I don’t want smugworth to become a mod because good GBS mods usually stop posting Rude. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
hot cocoa on the couch posted:i still chuckle at when i was probed for saying retard when referring to engine combustion timing. it was a mispost intended for ai and i forgave the mod but it was a v funny example of word filtering to me Yeah, I remember that. You were quite gracious and understanding about the mistake, and I appreciated the explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
BigBadSteve posted:Make Sid the official GBS artist!!!!! BAGS FLY AT NOON posted:Yeah I kinda don’t see how we discuss any major issues within GBS without talking about the forums at large, especially considering that most of the recent drama bombs were caused by non-GBS posters making a stink about GBS because they travel around looking for things to complain about. I want to echo Seth and say I want to come back to add more, but it is my Monday morning and work calls, so there will be a delay. I'd say part of the intent of a feedback thread is to be able to discuss stuff we usually don't, and the OP of this thread speaks to some of that, I think. Like, I usually don't talk about modding, outside when people PM me to discuss something, which doesn't happen all that often.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
syntaxfunction posted:I'd also like to say that when issues are brought up to mods about things to do with the forums on one hand it would be fair to ask us to post in SAD (problems stated excluded) but also there should be action taken on the part of the mods as well. Representation by those in authority should be something that is good to do. If there's no representation and only enforcement of rules that would make you cops, not officials with the people's interests at heart, ya know? I can only speak for myself, but the bolded part is what I try to do. I have written  in the mod forum, and I'd like to think it's helped more than just piss off other mods and admins but that ratio would probably depend on who you asked.Interforum/meta forum stuff generally is exhausting and aggravating, and I appreciate that GBS as an entity generally floats above it. That said, I'm also glad to be able get feedback about it. We'd actually been talking about doing a feedback thread back in December, but things happened. Going forward I think discussing whether GBS should have a recurring or ongoing feedback thread would be a good topic. Also Nooner posted:Can I be an admin? I'm ready now Done.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
I know megathreads can feel kind of impenetrable, but I think most are pretty good at explaining in-jokes or references to earlier stuff if people ask. Maybe codifying that as a rule could help? Something like "If someone is new to a thread and asks questions try to help them get up to speed," maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
Cthulu Carl posted:Occasional reboots might help too. Maybe like a yearly refresher or something, I dunno, it probably depends more on how fast the thread moves than any kind of actual page count metric or something. Like how TFF will have threads that cover a week during the season because lots of stuff happens and then there's a thread for the whole offseason. Yeah, this is something we try to do but can definitely lag on or forget about. Having it vary as needed by thread topic makes sense. One of my favorite threads is the Critterquest thread, and instead of rebooting it we've been renaming it, which I think works well for that thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I suppose one problem with me raising it is I didn't have a solution. I had assumed that maybe a clear statement about the list of things that "sorry, you just can't say any more" included misogyny as well as ableism, mental health, etc. was possible. Speaking for myself as a GBS mod, I think misogyny should be treated the same and I'll advocate for adding it explicitly to updated GBS rules. It's one of those things that seems like it should go without saying, but I'm all too aware that's not the case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:This is actually more progress than two threads in SAD achieved, and I'm mildly surprised and actually grateful for positive engagement. I can't speak to anything beyond GBS, but I think having it explicitly stated in the rules at least wouldn't hurt. I could go off on a rant about it in general, like as a societal thing, but at least in GBS we can try to work against it and try to improve.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:because that guy with a record of posting absolutely psychotic poo poo at the slightest provocation decided this was the venue to cry crocodile tears about something I said and stand by, and it seems unfair to let him set the narrative with zero pushback. Steel tempers steel, Tai. This looks like grudgeposting of some sort, and I would suggest you just don't. some plague rats posted:Absolutely! Your comments on Tara Reade should have gotten you banned, in my opinion. But I assume that's not the abuse you're referring to, could you be specific please Yeah, definitely do not do this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
Space Kablooey posted:yeah that was not a good one considering the room, nooner. Yeah, it wasn't, but it was also pretty clearly a somewhat convoluted but on-topic joke so I let it ride.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
Space Kablooey posted:Yeah I also thought it was funny but still a little on the 😬 side, but your call. I don't want to go into full joke-explainer sentence-diagramming mode, but I read it as what I could only describe as a parodic reverse No True Scotsman. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Obviously it was a joke (I assume), but really are "jokes" about how (female) abuse victims should try "posting tits" to earn acceptance from their abusers not way over the line nowadays? Goddamnit, I guess I will explain the joke further. I took it as Nooner parodying the people who were telling the victims to suck it up, just with a more antique Internet misogyny thing as hyperbole.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
SpiritOfLenin posted:i think the admins mentioned there is an admin level trail, or maybe mod level, i don't remember which it was. admins can check who edited posts at least Yeah, I think admins can see a post's edit history. In other circumstances there is usually a record, like notes on how a report was handled. Some stuff I don't think to sign, like if I'm adding spoiler tags or something like that - those I often just mark with a "Mod edit:" in the post I am editing. That stuff is recorded in the report notes, though. Anything edited out also gets added to the report notes for future reference.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:If it makes a difference (not sure it does?) I was actually referring to the followup joke to nooner's about how posting tits was the way to success and acceptance, but the argument applies to nooner making jokes about abuse victims should post tits to make their abusers like them seems a little more than you made it out to be, but obviously opinions vary. It's one of those things that is a judgement call, and I freely admit I could be wrong. If I thought Nooner was actually being callous or flippant with it I would have hit him with a sixer, but I honestly think his intent was good there. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I'm also kind of working from an assumption this thread has slightly looser rules in some ways in order to be able to discuss things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
tiaz posted:I'm not totally against this but I don't think being taken in by a troll is as bad as a troll making GBS threads up an otherwise acceptable thread. From what I've observed lately people who aren't trolling are much more likely to behave themselves following a non-probe "knock it off" and certainly following a sixer. On that note I'm going to ask everyone to knock it off. Please and thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Stux posted:interesting yall silent when a woman voices her concern over a man (? dont know pope corky sorry if innacurate) literally silencing her. thought folx in gbs were strong allies, was what i had been hearing at least, but i guess its all puffed chest in here. noting this down for the future. youre all on notice. I'm going to go ahead and take this in good faith (because I am very dumb) and say that if situations like this arise and we don't have a feedback thread open then reaching out to one or more mods would be a good next step. I was out for a while, and in catching up on the thread I didn't see Metis of the Hallway's post as requesting a reply. garfield hentai posted:i think gbs should be a safe space for me to post pictures of my rear end and balls without getting a probe. maybe a bit of incidental shaft but i can see that being a slippery slope Duly noted.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2023 06:11
|
|
|
16-bit Butt-Head posted:im going against my better judgement and commenting on this because its stupid. im not mad about women posting about sex im grossed out by goons of all genders posting about their sex lives i dont care if its spinz or bust rodd or someone else its nasty lol go post on fetlife or another forum if you want to post about your boring sex life so bad. dont probe me lol im just saying my piece here later Duly noted.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
Can we try to focus more on chat and less on slapfights? For posterity? Having a goldmined thread peter out into tedious snarking between posters always feels like a letdown.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2023 19:49
|
|