|
I'd love to know what the rest of us have to tolerate anti-social behavior. There is absolutely no reason to ever tolerate people who are assholes to others.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
gurragadon posted:So you are just being dismissive in the feedback thread? This is why you are not a good mod I'm merely suggesting to make arguments not reliant on a misrepresentation of the situation, which you have largely avoided doing until now. For instance, when you say that the ChatGPT thread is “a major contention point”, the implication is that a large proportion of goons providing feedback in the thread do care about the thread, and find its story contentious. That is an evidently false statement, and the reason it feels “contentious” to you is because 1) you have multiple mods talking at lengths about it with you, and 2) you have a lot to say about it, especially in when it comes to prescriptivist treatment of moderation that is out of line with the present situation. If I had any interest in being dismissive about this subject in the feedback thread, I could've simply ignored you, other posters from the thread, and posters from outside the thread, when I have in fact taken a few hours reading through all of the messages, and replying virtually to all of them that don't ask for a specific response from someone else, e.g., Koos Group. As I said in the bolded part of the post you quote, your feedback is perfectly adequate for the thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'd love to know what the rest of us have to tolerate anti-social behavior. There is absolutely no reason to ever tolerate people who are assholes to others.  The essential problem is a bunch of posters conflating political opinions with assholery. You think you aren't just as big an rear end in a top hat as anyone else here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:
No, it's not. Hence why I'm continuing to ask for an example of someone getting probed for an opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'd love to know what the rest of us have to tolerate anti-social behavior. There is absolutely no reason to ever tolerate people who are assholes to others. I stopped posting in dnd cause I expressed dissatisfaction with the Washington state democrats once and you went on an extremely angry posting spree that I would frankly classify as unhinged. I went “well, this is not a group of people I want to chat with”
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:My moderation feedback is that this thread needs more moderation because the pedantic slap fights are feeding back into themselves and consuming the thread designed for feedback on moderation. Agreed with this. Harold Fjord posted:The essential problem is a bunch of posters conflating political opinions with assholery. And with this, too, minus any specific accusations toward Solkanar512.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:It has never been this, and the sole "exception" that gets made is to respect the first rule of SA: Letting people troll and poo poo up discussion isn't funny to the people trying to have a discussion so allowing it when you or Koos or whoever thinks it's funny undermines what you're trying to do. Maybe it would be funny if they could troll back but of course you're not supposed to respond in kind or you get punished, and reporting it obviously does nothing if a mod thinks they're funny. As well it's just confusing to new people. You come in and see jokes and shitposts, you do it too, but whoops you joked about a sacred cow to whatever mod is reading it and boom punishment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well that is the same thing. If you make a rule that you can't be condescending, and then you punish Democrats when they are being condescending, but not Republicans, that is still bias and has the same effect as punishing Democrats for their opinions, even if none of those probations are "unjust" because the Democrats really did break the rules. You were literally just asked for a converse example of what you had already provided an example of. If it would require a spreadsheet to show anything of use then that sort of implies the example you provided doesn't really show anything of use. This seems to be boiling down to the people you don't like aren't getting probed enough. And yes, keeping your audience in mind is part of not being abrasive. So far we've discovered that drawing a lot of attention to yourself makes it less likely you will skate by when legitimately breaking the rules, and that saying insulting things about beliefs of people in the audience is more abrasive than saying insulting things about the beliefs of people who aren't present. This isn't some sort of failure of moderation, this is how interacting with humans works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I'm merely suggesting to make arguments not reliant on a misrepresentation of the situation, which you have largely avoided doing until now. For instance, when you say that the ChatGPT thread is “a major contention point”, the implication is that a large proportion of goons providing feedback in the thread do care about the thread, and find its story contentious. That is an evidently false statement, and the reason it feels “contentious” to you is because 1) you have multiple mods talking at lengths about it with you, and 2) you have a lot to say about it, especially in when it comes to prescriptivist treatment of moderation that is out of line with the present situation. I dunno people were talking about it in this thread before I showed up to put my two cents in, including yourself. Maybe I just shouldn't post on this subforum because I don't agree with the moderation principles. Obviously, the ChatGPT has more meaning to me than the Ukraine thread which I don't read. I was trying to use the ChatGPT thread to frame the issue of modding on subjective things like "embarrassment" which YOU said was a criterion. I believe there should be no moderation sure, but I also know that there will be moderation, I'm not an idiot. Thats why I was discussing a compromise I thought was a fair with Koos Group last night, which I think would satisfy a lot of people with thread gassing. It can be confusing to people about why something happens even if it seems apparent to you as the moderator. gurragadon fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
I think that cinci zoo sniper's moderation strategy proved its effectiveness during the GBS ukraine thread drama. Overall I think he has done a very good job, particularly given the volume of contradictory complaints about how such a thread should be done. I think MikeC can feel hard done about his probations in the Ukraine thread. To some extent I think he fits under the rubric of someone who gets more pushback because he views are not in lockstep with the plurality of the thread. On the other hand, at least once MikeC has brought up some point about realism that I disagreed with, but I declined to respond to because that debate is tangential to the thread and had occurred a few times before so starting a new debate about the nature of "realism" in international politics was a fraught topic to bring up. I will say that its silly that if we look at things dispassionately, there is no thread on somethingawful that has honest interlocutors from a variety of perspectives debating the Ukraine war, which is unfortunate, but ultimately understandable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
To continue on the "abrasiveness" topic. I have friends/family that carry opinions that shade more toward center-right, and if I want to express disagreement with an opinion I probably don't use the same sort of flippancy I might if I was talking to a group of purely like-minded people. It's not about having a dissenting opinion, it's about being a dick about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
I think we got a pretty good example of what abrasiveness looks like earlier in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You were literally just asked for a converse example of what you had already provided an example of. If it would require a spreadsheet to show anything of use then that sort of implies the example you provided doesn't really show anything of use. All right if this thread is still open tonight I'll try to give you an example of what I think you are asking. Jarmak posted:And yes, keeping your audience in mind is part of not being abrasive. So far we've discovered that drawing a lot of attention to yourself makes it less likely you will skate by when legitimately breaking the rules, and that saying insulting things about beliefs of people in the audience is more abrasive than saying insulting things about the beliefs of people who aren't present. This isn't some sort of failure of moderation, this is how interacting with humans works. Yeah but the audience here is a result of selection. All the Republicans have been run out and the few who are still here just ignore all the "lol Republicans suck" stuff mostly. If a forum with a narrow range of opinion is what you want then it's all well and good. If it's not then well you (not you personally, the generic you) would need to either crack down in all of it equally, or change the rules so Republicans can say "lol Dems suck" too. For example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Tone police are the loving worst. It should be fine to post abrasively if the argument is sound.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The essential problem is a bunch of posters conflating political opinions with assholery. You think you aren't just as big an rear end in a top hat as anyone else here? No, it's trivial not to aggro post, it's trivial to actually address the arguments of others without twisting them in the worst possible way and it's trivial not to accuse others of poo poo like "supporting rapists". Best Friends posted:I stopped posting in dnd cause I expressed dissatisfaction with the Washington state democrats once and you went on an extremely angry posting spree that I would frankly classify as unhinged. I went “well, this is not a group of people I want to chat with” Yeah, that's really something, isn't it? It's really weird how despite me "chasing you out", you've continued to post in D&D rather frequently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:05
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Demanding obsessive keeping track of posts like this is weird to make a condition of presenting an argument. Very often it's not really possible to tell what the poster is complaining about, e.g., the whole genre of “mods censoring politics complaints” that at times feel like people see D&D as the liberal counterpart to C-SPAM, which it isn't. Bringing like 3-5 recent examples makes the intent basically impossible to misunderstand, and is by far the fastest way to get an answer about a real or suspected problem. gurragadon posted:I was trying to use the ChatGPT thread to frame the issue of modding on subjective things like "embarrassment" which YOU said was a criterion. Modding is ultimately subjective, in that context is going to matter, and it will invariably be a sum of the place, the time, the posters, and the button pushers interacting in one place. Also, to bring up general SA rules: quote:Crazy Catchall: Please do not try to cleverly circumvent some rule listed here. These rules are general guidelines and are very flexible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
I probably should have also pointed out that in my conversation with Koos, he said that the posts I linked were indeed in violation of the rules, but he thought that DV only needed a warning. This seems to point to me that DV is given special leeway - I've never received a PM warning from mods, but I have several probations that genuinely took me by surprise. As feedback, I would suggest that more warnings be used, either in thread or via pm, to try to cool things down. Probations often have the opposite effect in the long run, when if they temporarily silence the culprit. At the end of the day, nobody is ever going to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rules are or aren't being enforced fairly. I can only report on what I see from my perspective, and I have to trust that my opponents won't simply move the goalposts. I have gone out of my way to provide evidence as requested, so I ask that my efforts be treated with some degree of charity. That is the essence of good faith, or at least how I understand it. Now that I've jogged my memory, I can probably think of a few other posts that were reported but not acted upon. I'll try to look for them after work. And thanks for keeping the thread open as requested, these things take time 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:
“Query ID invalid,” but I’d be surprised if I’ve posted more than 10 times in the past year and a half, when I was a semi regular before that. Mea culpa that I have not literally posted zero times. To your earlier point about toxicity and “posting like an rear end in a top hat,” do you think you are currently posting in line with the kind of friendly tenor that you say you want to see? My take is, bitterness to outright toxicity is generally the norm here, and it’s only in the visible spectrum of light when it appears in someone with a different set of politics. Imo, you don’t genuinely want less posting like an rear end in a top hat, you want less posting by the people you think are assholes. Which is not an unusual perspective! It’s just fairly hypocritical to see so directly in action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
The last several pages of posting have convinced me that D&D should be gassed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:My take is, bitterness to outright toxicity is generally the norm here, and it’s only in the visible spectrum of light when it appears in someone with a different set of politics. This doesn't seem like an accurate statement to the threads I read and I don't think anyone else has gone that far. You said you stopped posting almost two years ago, are you basing this perception on that? Or have you been reading, but not posting, for the last two years and it is a more current problem? Are there any threads you think are examples of constant outright toxicity right now you could point to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Very often it's not really possible to tell what the poster is complaining about, e.g., the whole genre of “mods censoring politics complaints” that at times feel like people see D&D as the liberal counterpart to C-SPAM, which it isn't. Bringing like 3-5 recent examples makes the intent basically impossible to misunderstand, and is by far the fastest way to get an answer about a real or suspected problem. I've come to the agreement over the course of yesterday's conversation with you and Koos Group that I understand you need subjective modding tools sometimes. Thats why I said just put a message in the thread. It's not a lot of effort, and it really does help with understanding when these feedback threads come around. This thread it's me complaining about ChatGPT, but next thread it's just going to be somebody else complaining about some other topic. Give yourself the receipts to go back on, you're not going to remember why you gassed everything months ago or what was stupid about it. Maybe an issue comes up with a thread a previous mod gassed, it would be nice to be able to see there reasoning behind it even if they aren't on site anymore or a mod anymore. Thats why I think it should be every thread in this forum. This isn't GBS or CSPAM and its not treated that way by the mods or userbase, so threads shouldn't be gassed like they are in GBS or CSPAM.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does this surprise you? The rules and practices mods set up ensure this outcome. I'd have been shocked if you told me any different. All I can speak to is that the rules and practices I implemented cut report volume by a factor of 2 or 3, and came with an explicit directive that posters not be moderated for their political positions, regardless of how absurd anyone finds them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:
Nobody is conflating political opinions with assholery. The type of poster we do not want or need in D&D is the "cranky, cantankerous rear end in a top hat" (quoting Turgid's own description of themselves) who cannot conceal their contempt and vitriol for their fellow posters when they debate them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Anyway, the thread is low on new posters, and is reaching the point where there it's becoming uncivil and about posters and grudges, so this seems like a good time for closing. Thank you to all who provided feedback.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I'm aware that a small portion of the forums and mostly just a couple of threads generate most of the reports, and like it seems like that can only be one of three things going on As far as your list is concerned, the first two things can happen in overlap, and are semiregular feature each. It's not something we actively discuss internally though, since there's no one-size-fits-all answer to solving either of these, if it's even possible. The third is also a yes, but it's a bit more subtle – there's, for example, quite a bit of raging reporting that cannot even be clearly identified as charging the posts in question with anything discernible. I don't agree though that it works both as a way to get your posting enemies (because people reporting like that are less subtle than they think they are both in general and especially since the volume of reports can be so low that you're reading reports from just 1 goon exclusively for several days straight), or as a way to create a meaningful volume of busywork, since the volume boils down to at least 6 D&D mods having a week to read 1–2 pages of posts total, most of which they will have read normally in the thread before stumbling into a report on them. Lastly, the rules are just the 3 top-level items, with everything else being guidelines that pre-empt the more rote rules lawyering. However, an important thing that you don't mention here is that, in general, people report less than we would like them to. That is why the reports sound so lopsided – it's simply bad/small statistics. As for the reason why we want to see more reports, it's not some desire to plow more - it's just that we feel that the team is smaller than it should be, and neutral reports are a great way to stretch our field of view in appropriate moments. And no, I think that your posts are fine, especially as you seem to be actually interested in having a dialogue and learning about modding minutiae. I can't offer too much of the former for USCE, since Leon is our point person for the thread, but I can gladly address the random backend stuff. edit: Ah, we're closed. Oh well, VS (and anyone else) you can PM me if you would like to continue this chat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2023 16:36
|
|