|
silence_kit posted:https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4020995&userid=155796 Well some of these links have no probes at all, a few others have maybe 1-2 out of hundreds I am very unclear as to your point? If it was about ideology wouldn't they be probed 99% of the time?
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
socialsecurity posted:If it was about ideology wouldn't they be probed 99% of the time? The point is that in Heck Yes! Loam!'s ideal world, they would be getting probed WAY MORE often, instead of rarely or not at all. A common mode of operation for the posters I quoted in USCE is to just rant about Republicans/corporations/billionaires/etc. My first post in this thread was a response to below post: Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I've stopped participating in D&D because the moderation has become increasingly difficult to understand, and it is not clear what will catch a probe and what won't. Someone being cross but not disagreeing with anyone will get a pass and others in disagreement with even a smidge of attitude gets harshly punished. See my response to Heck Yes! Loam!: silence_kit posted:There will always be a bias where posters who hold the thread majority opinion will be treated with leniency, and posters who hold a minority opinion will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Not trying to sic the mods on these posters. This kind of posting is what the people want. Who am I and/or the mods to be at odds with that? Salient point. As long as the mods do enforce standards if another poster of a different political lens engages the thread with effort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I've stopped participating in D&D because the moderation has become increasingly difficult to understand, and it is not clear what will catch a probe and what won't. Nelson Mandingo posted:I came here to basically post this. I enjoy having a space to be more serious and really think about my and others posts and when I disagree can generally expect a response more than "ur dumb turn off your monitor". As much as I like to white noise poo poo post in other forums. I too came here to make almost these exact posts. I disagree with most of the rest of Loam's post (threadbans are good and should be used more often, and brigade participants should be annihilated from orbit) but I've resigned myself to no longer posting in a number of D&D threads because I genuinely cannot tell what will set Cinci Zoo Sniper off. I've been around here a long time, and I can't remember the last time we had such an aggressive mod, both with the buttons and in tone toward the people subject to those buttons. The ChatGPT thread was a mess as every thread about these technologies tends to be, but also a good example of the tone. Apparently Cinci works in that field and has Strong Opinions About It - opinions I agree with, mind you. But expressing his irritation at the thread being badly informed about how the technology works, then declining invitations to share his expertise in about the most condescending way possible, then hanging the Sword of Damocles over the thread because it's "a failure of an educational thread" is behavior that would get another poster probed. You can't tell me this post could be made by a non-mod without drawing a probation. Cinci's impending crackdown on videos and walls of texts when his own major contribution to educating the thread was a link to a Wolfram article that a non-specialist would take hours to read and possibly hours more of adjunct research to actually comprehend is just hypocritical, but that's another topic altogether. The Ukraine thread feels like a minefield, no humor intended. Something Cinci wrote in the ChatGPT thread comes to mind here: cinci zoo sniper posted:it would certainly be counterproductive to present yourself as an expert on something you're not feeling particularly confident with. The optimal middle ground would to simply make your point and then specifically say that you're not an expert in it Right now, the Ukraine thread feels like it's at the mercy of someone who presents themselves as an expert. Being from Latvia and researching the war extensively does not make someone an expert, but we see no humility here. I'm guilty of the same posting style, anyone who frequents TradGames will know that, so I recognize it - but that's also why I've never so much as attempted to get into moderation after 22 years on the forums. I'm running out of time to write this and I expect other folks will chime in if it matters enough to them, so I'll just make the observation that VFW manages to have educational, humane, empathetic, brigade-proof discussion about the unjustifiable, genocidal invasion of Ukraine without feeling like you're constantly tiptoeing around an angry mod. Since the days when it was called Current Events, D&D's moderation philosophy has shifted up down a gradient of "moderation according to a strictly enumerated set of rules, beyond which we are helpless and subject to trolls who know how to abuse edge cases until we make more rules" to "just vibes, maaaaaan." There's no point in my arguing for one or the other, because moderation style is a product of the constantly-rotating mod staff, and has nothing to do with the opinions of users - which is probably as it should be. People who want it to change badly enough will put on the hair shirt of becoming a mod themselves, and then the style will change again until they burn out and a new crop rotates in. And after reflecting on it for a while, I think that's where I'm at with D&D: withdrawing to lurker mode even more than usual, and waiting for the moderation style to feel less hostile. Nobody in the mod staff should particularly care about whether I post here or not, I'm hardly a significant contributor, but if you're trying to take the temperature of the forum, there's my two cents. Cinci, you'll take this as a callout post, and it kind of is. But I hope you'll take it in the spirit it's intended, which is this: you are going to burn out hard if you keep this up, and the aggression is not making the forum better, it's just having a chilling effect on discussion and making people resent you. I suspect you'll describe the chilling effect as removing white noise, and we could go back and forth on this, but I'd rather not because I genuinely can't tell at what point criticism will be taken as probe-worthy in a feedback thread. Take that for what you will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
The Ukraine thread moderation comes across as ridiculously petty probes in between unnecessarily condescending posts. It's a massive turn-off as a lurker, and I can only imagine how frustrating it is for people trying to discuss the subject in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I assume you mean USCE, and not the USPol thread in CCCC. Either way, that's likely due to how enforcement works with regard to reports. If those posts were reported, they would be dealt with, but I assume because the vast majority of posters have politics from centrist to far left, they aren't. You are welcome to report them yourself, and you can have me personally take a look at them by notifying me when you did so. socialsecurity posted:This whole conversation happens every time there is a feedback thread but there is never any examples shown, makes it hard to believe/have any real change. Oh I could provide examples, but only if you are really interested, because I don't keep like a spreadsheet of posts I reported for breaking the rules, and I gave up on bothering with reports that won't get acted on anyway a long time ago so it would take some time to hunt them down. But I do remember the individual post that made me conclude that reporting people who break the rules while agreeing with the mod teams' politics was a waste of time, and that "well nobody reported them" wasn't why they weren't being punished for stuff that anyone else would get hit for. Rigel posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 08:43
|
|
|
I'm gonna pipe up and say that really aggressive modding for the Ukraine thread specifically is a good thing. Having a low tolerance for shitposts, clancychat etc. in that thread is fine - if you want to post stuff like that, there are other subforums' Ukraine-threads that have that. Probably there is the occasional post that maybe didn't need a sixer, but like, who the gently caress cares about sixers? In general I've liked what the Koos Regime has done to D&D, a sentiment I think I've mentioned before in these feedback-threads. I have no opinion on the AI-thread since I didn't read it at all though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 09:40
|
|
|
Thank you for feedback on the war thread, Kestral. I'm not sure where to place it, since I don't pose myself as a military expert of any sort. The closest that I can think of moderating “as an expert” is when I stop people from writing fanfic about battles hundreds of miles behind the current frontlines. That should ideally be self-explanatory based on the thread being about current affairs, or TVIV-style as Fuschia tude put it, but if it's not that, then I hope you can clarify. And no, copping a probation in the feedback thread is well into goatse territory.Kestral posted:The ChatGPT thread was a mess as every thread about these technologies tends to be, but also a good example of the tone. Apparently Cinci works in that field and has Strong Opinions About It - opinions I agree with, mind you. But expressing his irritation at the thread being badly informed about how the technology works, then declining invitations to share his expertise in about the most condescending way possible, then hanging the Sword of Damocles over the thread because it's "a failure of an educational thread" is behavior that would get another poster probed. You can't tell me this post could be made by a non-mod without drawing a probation. Cinci's impending crackdown on videos and walls of texts when his own major contribution to educating the thread was a link to a Wolfram article that a non-specialist would take hours to read and possibly hours more of adjunct research to actually comprehend is just hypocritical, but that's another topic altogether. The problem with the thread was not that I have Strong Opinions about it, as evidenced by me never attempting similar moderation when the Tech Nightmares thread discusses the topic to a varying level of competence. The issue was that this is a highly prominent subject presently, while the debate in the thread at large showed poor, if not outright disregarding or simply non-existent, command over the facts. As in, my view of it was through the prism that other goons may end up searching for this thread, hoping to find something informative for the talk of town, instead stumbling into that. When I first read through the thread, I spent a non-trivial amount of time talking to posters both publicly and privately, to set crystal clear expectations for its moderation, instead of closing it right away. Which is to say that the mod guidelines would expect me to close it, especially should the quality of the conversation fail to improve measurably. What subsequently happened was that my ruling on the thread's conditional existence got effectively dismissed by one of its main characters, who showed little to no interest in improving the quality of their posting. Not even a full day later after I made an internal decision to shut the thread down by the end of that week (more likely renaming it, less likely by closing it), the thread did have a serious meltdown (starting from the whereabouts of this post). This put me into a pinch of “Do I spend my time and energy saving this when they have ignored the terms of their lease and the thread remains not useful beyond satisfying individual pet peeves?”. The logical answer to that is “no”. That said, I think you're expecting a bit too much from an SA mod working as a consultant to do unpaid consulting in their subject of expertise. I didn't sign up to be a mod because I wanted some unpaid professional after-hours, or because I have a glut of spare time, and the best you're getting out of me on your terms is some literature pointers. The “on your terms” bit is the important here, as I post plenty of work-related stuff seriously in SAL, YOSPOS, and elsewhere, where I see people with mature interest in the subject. Here, however, I found it most plausible that the leading poster of the thread was unlikely to develop what I would consider mature interest. As of the thread's conclusion, I consider myself to be well vindicated in my suspicion. Consequently, my topic-focused participation in the thread was largely limited to offering a maximalist benchmark for what I consider to be a useful and non-controversial understanding of its subject, ChatGPT and similar models – the Stephen Wolfram blog post. No one was expected to read it in full to be allowed to keep posting – it would've simply been sloppy work from my side to clamour “you should grok the subject” and provide no “trusted” references at all. Whether if you derive your knowledge from it or somewhere else was irrelevant to me, and I assume that plenty of perfectly normally participating episodic posters in the thread had never read the article in full because, as you note yourself, it is a handful. Lastly, you would do well to read the post you linked about a future walls-of-text ruling from me. It concerns itself with in-line content exclusively, rather than linked references. What you suggest would be an incredibly silly thing to do. Edit: Kestral posted:You can't tell me this post could be made by a non-mod without drawing a probation. There's nothing probatable about declining an arbitrary call-out to write a post, since you do not owe anyone in D&D, or elsewhere on SA, your time. A similar-sounding post could draw a probation if it happens to be a parting shot, or if it blows off a button pusher investigating if they should put their button pushing hat on, but those are distinct situations. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 11:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh I could provide examples, but only if you are really interested, because I don't keep like a spreadsheet of posts I reported for breaking the rules, and I gave up on bothering with reports that won't get acted on anyway a long time ago so it would take some time to hunt them down. Yeah this is the problem with these threads being so infrequent (the last one was over half a year ago iirc) and short. Sure there are a ton of individual instances that you could point to, but who in their right mind is going to keep a list of these things until whenever the next feedback thread is? I can try to see if I remember some particularly egregious posts, but that'll take time. How long is this thread going to be open? I hope it's not just for the weekend, because I literally just now noticed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Pay attention too much you're a weirdo and pay attention not enough and then you don't have any good examples for the every 3 month feedback thread. It's like how reporting is castigated in some circles but also leads to random delayed punishments and so biggest assholes abuse the system to apparently win. The flip side of course is that certain posters think they are going to win if it weren't for those dastardly mods silencing them out of the thread but all they do is repeatedly make the same point over and over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Yeah this is the problem with these threads being so infrequent (the last one was over half a year ago iirc) and short. Sure there are a ton of individual instances that you could point to, but who in their right mind is going to keep a list of these things until whenever the next feedback thread is? The last one was in November, meaning that this is a month behind their cadence for the last year. And this one will probably stay open just for the weekend indeed, as they usually would.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Joe Biden raped Tara Reade
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
Ukrainian nazis are still nazis
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Turgid Flagella posted:Joe Biden raped Tara Reade And the moral implications this bears on his supporters cannot be discussed while the moral implications of conservative positions is the longstanding reason that they have been systematically excluded from participation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Turgid Flagella posted:Joe Biden raped Tara Reade Post on your main, LALD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Post on your main, LALD. Empty quoted. I think things are potentially better under koos but the only way to be sure is to get more people participating again and this well maybe too poisoned. The most basic issue is that it's still light discussion threads but the rules randomly slam flipped to debate rules whenever convenient for certain people who don't like hearing contrary arguments Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Post on your main, LALD. Lib and let died. ETA: why would I post on LALD? It was made very clear by the last pre-bam probation on my rap sheet that my specific expertise as part of the Dem fundraising machine isn't as recognized as the credentials of other posters just because I'm a cranky, cantankerous rear end in a top hat. Turgid Flagella fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
SpiritOfLenin posted:I'm gonna pipe up and say that really aggressive modding for the Ukraine thread specifically is a good thing. Having a low tolerance for shitposts, clancychat etc. in that thread is fine - if you want to post stuff like that, there are other subforums' Ukraine-threads that have that. Probably there is the occasional post that maybe didn't need a sixer, but like, who the gently caress cares about sixers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
I'll echo the opinion that the Ukraine thread benefits from stricter moderation as someone who is interested in reading and learning about the facts of the situation without having to pore over dozens of pages of slapfights, memes, and bad faith arguments. It's a major historical event in our world right now that is having far-reaching implications on several aspects of our lives and I find it valuable to be able to have a distillation of the news and ongoing conflict in a place that also has varying viewpoints in the discussion. There are plenty of other places to shitpost. I feel similarly about the ChatGPT thread but for a different reason. I have very little familiarity with the field, but even in my everyday life I encounter people who speak authoritatively about either the imminent existential danger of AI or the fact that it will imminently deliver us to luxury gay space communism. These are extreme examples but the point is that many people present themselves as experts about this when they really shouldn't be. This has the effect of muddying the waters when trying to follow along and understand an actual thoughtful conversation about the state of AI today and where it is going. I think it is useful having a forum where subject matter experts can feel like they can engage in conversations without being shouted down by people arguing from feelings rather than knowledge. This isn't to say that D&D should be a humorless void where only experts are allowed to ask questions or give opinions, but I think that the rules that have been implemented have had a positive effect on my reading experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Is “Joe Biden sucks” and “there are more than zero assholes who live in Ukraine” supposed to be scandalous? Like everyone already knows, literally everyone agrees I’d vote for all DND mods if I never have to read those exact things over and over and over forever
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Is “Joe Biden sucks” and “there are more than zero assholes who live in Ukraine” supposed to be scandalous? Yeah it kind of highlights the exact kind of posting that has been tampered down lately, there's posting WITH people in order to discuss or debate a topic then there's posting AT people in order to attempt to antagonize them because you just want to troll or you've decided they are all dirty libs and you want to rile them up for some syq or some nonsense. I will also go ahead and agree with everyone about the Ukraine thread I feel it needs to be overly modded just to keep it from becoming a mess, although the USPOL/other threads have probably gotten way too stale from that same kind of over modding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh I could provide examples, but only if you are really interested, because I don't keep like a spreadsheet of posts I reported for breaking the rules, and I gave up on bothering with reports that won't get acted on anyway a long time ago so it would take some time to hunt them down. I agree that this post was breaking rules and should have been probated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Turgid Flagella posted:my specific expertise as part of the Dem fundraising machine 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Cinci, that was a lot of words to say I don't know what I'm talking about when I gave my credentials multiple times and spent quite a lot of energy referencing both commentary by experts and academic literature, and yet you dismissed me out of hand instead of engaging with the substance of my arguments. That gave other posters carte blanche to frankly dogpile me and drag the conversation kicking and screaming to where people are hurling insults at me when the thread was closed. And then literally days after that, Microsoft themselves released a paper claiming that GPT-4 shows "sparks of AGI." The reason I haven't posted in the new thread isn't because I don't want to continue engaging on the subject, but because I don't want to continue engaging with you. That was the literal definition of modding to fit your personal beliefs, and it was some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Cinci, that was a lot of words to say I don't know what I'm talking about when I gave my credentials multiple times and spent quite a lot of energy referencing both commentary by experts and academic literature, and yet you dismissed me out of hand instead of engaging with the substance of my arguments. That gave other posters carte blanche to frankly dogpile me and drag the conversation kicking and screaming to where people are hurling insults at me when the thread was closed. As I have suggested multiple times both to you, to other people in the gassed thread, and here - all you need to get me to ignore your thread is to name it more appropriately, e.g., “I want to talk about AI”. Do not name it after a specific, real-world thing, such as OpenAI ChatGPT or Google Bard, and the only reason I’ll have to read it then is if someone reports a post there, and I’m the mod clearing the queue at that moment. Also, that paper may or may not be in direct contradiction with OpenAI’s official statements on the matter, or getting laughed despite being littered with caveats such as: quote:Given the breadth and depth of GPT-4’s capabilities, we believe that it could reasonably be viewed as an early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system. quote:Our claim that GPT-4 represents progress towards AGI does not mean that it is perfect at what it does, or that it comes close to being able to do anything that a human can do (which is one of the usual definition [sic] of AGI; see the conclusion section for more on this), or that it has inner motivation and goals (another key aspect in some definitions of AGI).
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
I've been very open about working in their campaign and fundraising database - to the point that I've already had the conversation with my bosses about internet psychos trying to doxx me and get me fired (sadly a conversation I've had to have with every boss I've had since my first Twitter dox in the early COVID days). I've undone AOC staffer gently caress-ups so she doesn't eat another (hefty) FEC-related fee, I've been on intimate Zoom calls with Representative Presley personally thanking my team for saving them from reporting nightmares, hell I could tell you more about how independent senators will behave in voting patterns based on information that could cost my job if I spoke it into existence. But, you know, I'm just cranky LaLD from C-SPAM so anything and everything I say is based in grudge politics or informed strictly by Russian disinformation or whatever the line is these days. E: but after catching 6 and then a ban for talking about my own loving post in another thread tells me all there is to know - you'll bend and twist the rules to punish or favor whoever, whenever. Turgid Flagella fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:As I have suggested multiple times both to you, to other people in the gassed thread, and here - all you need to get me to ignore your thread is to name it more appropriately, e.g., “I want to talk about AI”. Do not name it after a specific, real-world thing, such as OpenAI ChatGPT or Google Bard, and the only reason I’ll have to read it then is if someone reports a post there, and I’m the mod clearing the queue at that moment. That is not what you said. This is what you said: quote:If this is the conversation that you want to have, I will need you to create a thread titled “prove to me that my slide rule is not sentient”, as this thread will be killed then. quote:If you want to make such posts in D&D, you will need to create a thread that leaves no doubt that the thread is about some system of belief, or to debate you personally, rather than about the factual nature of ChatGPT. You also called me "a crazy person." The new thread is called "Let's chat about AI." Does that mean you've dropped your objections? cinci zoo sniper posted:Also, that paper may or may not be in direct contradiction with OpenAI’s official statements on the matter, or getting laughed despite being littered with caveats such as: Those are not huge caveats. Nobody in that thread, including me, said that ChatGPT is as intelligent as a person, has human-like terminal goals, or is sentient. You know that my core argument is "we don't know whether larger networks will result in emergent behavior that could eventually be considered general intelligence, but every time we make these things bigger, they gain new abilities and we don't really understand how." This is both a fair argument to be having in a thread about the latest, largest models, and not an uncommon argument by researchers in the field. You were the only person who thought even for a moment that the subject of the thread was strictly limited to ChatGPT instead of just being called that because it was the newest thing at the time. In fact, I don't think you even thought that because there was tons of discussion around generative art and diffusion models that didn't get shut down, despite ChatGPT not being a diffusion model. Stop straw manning me and stop playing pedantic games. Edit: here's a giant banner on the top of OpenAI's website:  Please address how this is not relevant to the AI they make and why I'm a crazy person for wanting to talk about it. KillHour fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:That is not what you said. This is what you said: cinci zoo sniper posted:If you name the thread like “let's chat about AI”, or any other way that doesn't imply that could be practically useful to people who want to learn more LLMs and their applications presently in the vogue, you can be well on your way. cinci zoo sniper posted:The fact that a crazy person could have a crazy take on statistics isn't really adding legitimacy to the angle of refusing to understand how the thing works. While I cannot stop such a crazy person from having such a crazy take, I can and will stop them from platforming it in D&D as an idea with an implicit educational value. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The last one was in November, meaning that this is a month behind their cadence for the last year. And this one will probably stay open just for the weekend indeed, as they usually would. If you actually want adequate feedback, you should probably keep this open for at least a week. That's my feedback right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Now that I think of it, it would also be nice if the mods could show how they've considered feedback from previous threads. Doesn't mean they have to follow every suggestion, but right now there's not much direct indication that these feedback threads are actually doing anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:3. One off links/tweets offloaded in the thread Speaking both to this proposal and koos' broader follow-up, this will be the third or fourth time that some variant of a "provide context for mediated material" rule has been proposed. You can ask members of previous moderation teams on this, but my impression is they keep getting dropped because mods keep not wanting to be responsible for telling whether or not the user sharing something is misrepresenting it, because it requires reading the mediated material. ...However, the rule keeps being reinvented and reintroduced because, in fact, mods do have to read the mediated material to tell whether it's being misrepresented. There's no escaping that problem, and either not having such a rule, or not doing the legwork it entails, just creates an especially easy route for a user to ruin discussion on a whim. Relying on the user's own words as "load-bearing" will not relieve you of reading what they cite. This is a broader pattern, of course- not wanting to do the emotional labor of moderating, (or specifically of removing the user) has the effect of creating much, much worse problems later, normalizing their bad practice and driving other users off the site. This makes every moderation/administration decision as painful as possible, each change a crisis that results in further blowback and recrimination about the modding team. What's made the Ukraine invasion thread relatively successful is precisely that cinci doesn't fall into that trap there. cinci zoo sniper posted:Lastly, I would also like to receive some public feedback on the thread rules that are seen as obsolete, reductive, or otherwise unnecessary. I will respect your time and say that if your feedback about potential removals from rules is not more specific than “remove them all”, I won't dwell on it any much. Existing "guidelines" should be formalized and treated/enforced consistently as rules. The absolute last thing the moderators should be doing right now, of all times, is adopting the freedom caucus "what can we cut this time" approach to their responsibilities. It's been true for a literal decade that inconsistent enforcement is weaponized against the general concept of moderation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Is about Neoplatonists, as presented, as a group of people, from a conversation between me and Bar Ran Dun, which stemmed out of me talking to gurragadon. Yes, (as one) Neoplatonists are crazy but it’s a part of the conversation. There is a segment of the AI / tech folks that are very definitely Neoplatonists. It’s part of the public discourse on the subject. Even if I agree with you that in this ChatGPT context it is definitely crazy. But my point was that many very basic assumptions even like “Math is real” are Neoplatonist. It’s not something that can be blanket excluded from a discussion on the topic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Goons manage to be a much better news aggregator than the actual news aggregators, it turns out. Exactly why I'm happy things are less tire fire and more ""boring""" ... Because that was the thing, was most the people here making things not boring were well you know that thing when someone could be on a factually correct side but it was irrelevant because their discussing things was argument by exhaustion and toxicity well beyond tolerable doses, and it would never change That part. also the part where they usually weren't factually correct either?? I take boring
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Yes, (as one) Neoplatonists are crazy but it’s a part of the conversation. There is a segment of the AI / tech folks that are very definitely Neoplatonists. It’s part of the public discourse on the subject. Even if I agree with you that in this ChatGPT context it is definitely crazy. And that's a perfectly fine point to make, even if hashing it out is ultimately not my preferred direction for that thread. I'm alluding to this merely as to the missing context for the claim that I've called KillHour “a crazy person”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Yeah it seems daft as all heck to have a "feedback thread" on some of the quietest times in the forums usual operation. That and not popping it up in some of the threads that usually ask for feedback.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Yeah that too I don't get why you don't have it open for a week so everyone has a chance to weigh in. I get that some of the previous feedback threads got slap-fighty but that hasn't been a problem with this one so far, so what's the harm in giving it a try? Worse case it becomes a tire fire and then you can punish the people responsible or close it then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
My feedback of the Ukraine thread is that there are probably some unneeded sixers, but it's currently well-moderated for its intended purpose. Although I do think there was a period of time earlier in the war where there were waves of blatantly bad-faith posts that only existed to troll/mine SYQs that weren't exactly clamped down upon on the D&D side, and it only eventually stopped because the moderation/admin policies changed elsewhere on the site to ban SYQ-baiting between sub-forums.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:Although I do think there was a period of time earlier in the war where there were waves of blatantly bad-faith posts that only existed to troll/mine SYQs that weren't exactly clamped down upon on the D&D side, and it only eventually stopped because the moderation/admin policies changed elsewhere on the site to ban SYQ-baiting between sub-forums. The issue itself was blatant from the start, as it involved maybe a dozen goons sharing the same 3 openers. As such, I did what I could as fast as I could – there simply are limits to what an IK can do. Doing the same as a mod does take a specific due process, since by and large I should and try to give most posts a benefit of doubt, but is otherwise much more practical. To put it plainly, as a mod, I am empowered to (eventually) institute thread bans and make thread participation be a $10 letter to the editor if all else fails. As a matter of fact, however, it hardly does go as far (cf. the relatively short thread ban list for the war thread), as shrugging off longer probations eventually becomes counterproductive to just posting. It did, however, also help, and quite so, that the C-SPAM thread stopped being effectively unmoderated around the same time as I became a mod, and that the crew there had a better sense of humour than cosplaying an RSS feed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
I can echo that limiting feedback to a weekend every three months is not just too short but seems badly timed for really getting much participation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Speaking both to this proposal and koos' broader follow-up, this will be the third or fourth time that some variant of a "provide context for mediated material" rule has been proposed. You can ask members of previous moderation teams on this, but my impression is they keep getting dropped because mods keep not wanting to be responsible for telling whether or not the user sharing something is misrepresenting it, because it requires reading the mediated material. ...However, the rule keeps being reinvented and reintroduced because, in fact, mods do have to read the mediated material to tell whether it's being misrepresented. There's no escaping that problem, and either not having such a rule, or not doing the legwork it entails, just creates an especially easy route for a user to ruin discussion on a whim. Relying on the user's own words as "load-bearing" will not relieve you of reading what they cite. We already have a rule that sources require some explanation if they're being used to make an argument. As well as one that users must not misrepresent the source. We do read sources when a user is reported for this, which you should know. What Cinci and I are proposing is more along the lines of not letting sources make your argument for you, but only using them as a "see also" sort of reference, or a citation for a fact. For example, it's burdensome when a poster says "oh, BeardedBedroomMan made a video about this. Check it out, and debate him: [link]." We would prefer something more like "That is incorrect, because blah blah blah blah. To give credit where it's due, I originally learned about this from BeardedBedroomMan [link], though watching it isn't necessary to understand or respond to my argument."" Discendo Vox posted:Existing "guidelines" should be formalized and treated/enforced consistently as rules. The absolute last thing the moderators should be doing right now, of all times, is adopting the freedom caucus "what can we cut this time" approach to their responsibilities. It's been true for a literal decade that inconsistent enforcement is weaponized against the general concept of moderation. I'm not sure I understand the analogy to austerity. The reason that standards implied by D&D's three rules are called guidelines rather than rules is to emphasize that they aren't exhaustive. If you act in bad faith, the rule you're breaking is the one to not impede discussion. And there are other ways you could break this rule that aren't enumerated, as well. The guidelines are simply the most common things that come up. VitalSigns posted:Yeah that too I don't get why you don't have it open for a week so everyone has a chance to weigh in. One thing I'd like to try, is keeping it open until no new users have posted for 6 hours, or whatever time frame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2023 22:15
|
|