Taerkar posted:

Bait left out to make the others think it's safe, obviously.

Rigel posted:

I'll go ahead and just help VS out by saying that anytime there is a post that falls well outside the traditional liberal orthodoxy or is even just the least bit spicy, it will get reported. You guys might be underestimating how often posts get reported.

Turgid Flagella posted:

Most of us to the left of the democrat party are well aware of the dangers of being such; we know what the feds did to X and Dr. King

cinci zoo sniper posted:

I wonder how you reconcile the purported moderation by popular vote with your continued ability to post in D&D.

Main Paineframe posted:

It sounds like the problem might be that the posts Vitalsigns is complaining about aren't getting reported, then? Any given post can only be reported once, so the question isn't "How often does X get reported?" so much as "How likely is X to get reported?" and "How likely is the mod to take issue against X when they see the report?".

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Posting in the "Donald Trump piss tape" thread on SA is our "I Have a Dream" speech.

Deteriorata posted:

The problem is that "You got probated for being an condescending rear end in a top hat" gets translated to "I got probated for being an academic."

The perceived persecution then is used to justify further condescending behavior.

VitalSigns posted:

Ha!

Ok here's some feedback: I do like your droll sense of humor

VitalSigns posted:

The easy way to clear the report queue is to remove the unpopular opinion right.

Deteriorata posted:

The problem is that "You got probated for being an rear end in a top hat" gets translated to "I got probated for being a leftist."

The perceived persecution then is used to justify further assholish behavior.

Discendo Vox posted:

There is plenty of coverage- to the point that you are promoting a conspiracy theory by working backwards from the conclusion you are wanting to find, and prioritizing false beliefs in order to "know" that it is worse than it is. To wit:

is not remotely plausible. It indicates you have not read any of the material already posted about what happened, what the substances involved are, and what is getting done. You seem to be taking every single "why isn't this getting more coverage!?" post, anywhere, at face value; a process of ratcheting perception that could be applied to any event, anywhere. The fact that your beliefs aren't true is being used to justify them.

Discendo Vox posted:

No, I haven't. They're working backward from their own misperception about perception. They want it to be bad news, so they are doubling down on needing there to be bad news, to the point that they are overtly unmooring their standard of how things should be covered from reality- literally alleging a conspiracy because the bad coverage isn't worse.

Discendo Vox posted:

Nah, the quote, like the rest of celadon's nested claim, is about coverage. celadon has alleged that the fact that coverage isn't as lovely as they want it to be, as ignorant as some of it already is, is evidence of conspiracy. It's a demand that coverage be worse, working backward from such a need.

Discendo Vox posted:

Okay, great. celadon has alleged that the fact that coverage isn't as lovely as they want it to be, as ignorant as some of it already is, is evidence of seeming conspiracy. It's a demand that coverage be worse, working backward from such a need.

The coverage of the incident, and the discussion of it, doesn't need to be as lovely as they, or you, want it to be.

There are plenty of people giving really lovely takes unmoored from reality about the situation. A bunch of them have been posted in the thread! You're doing the exact same "why aren't more people talking about this" takes as those people, about those people.

There was a horrible black cloud, and there was urgent messaging regarding immediate evacuation, and there were already several pages of people telling them to knock that poo poo off, right here in the thread, evoking that. Why are you seeking for public perception to be more delusional?

Discendo Vox posted:

I'm not interested in promoting or tolerating misinformation, in the broader press or here, to pursue your fantasies.

socialsecurity posted:

This is the post that started most of this argument and is a common complaint in these threads, there are many people claiming that having the minority opinion will get you probed. Yet no examples of that have been posted beyond a single post from Rigel that you are mad didn't get probed which doesn't really mean much of anything.

VitalSigns posted:

If we're going to do this could you state succinctly
1) what evidence is actually being asked for, and
2) in your own words what do you think the "original positions" are

VitalSigns posted:

Pretty much yeah. There's a big rulebook plus a bunch of unwritten "vibes" rules (see above CZS bolding some anodyne little sentence in a big thoughtful post because it said something like "this theory you guys love to hate" which is apparently a pet peeve of theirs), so there's a lot of enforcement but simultaneously a lot of rulebreaking ignored, and that's a fertile ground for unintentional bias. People naturally look harder for fallacies in arguments they disagree with vor arguments that make them angry.

Fister Roboto posted:

The problem is that liberals who post like assholes are given more leeway.

Fortunately I just remembered that I had a PM conversation with Koos about this, so here are some examples.

Strawmanning, accusation of bad faith.

Accusation of bad faith.

Accusation of bad faith.

Strawmanning, accusation of bad faith.

Accusation of bad faith and generally being a condescending rear end in a top hat.





All of these posts were reported. None of them were acted on. And this is just one conversation. Now maybe it's my bias speaking, but I don't think that accusing people of promoting conspiracy theories and "wanting news coverage to be shittier" is very conducive to a healthy debate environment.

Especially since the poster DV is responding to, celadon, appears to be one of the subject matter experts that DV has expressed interest in bringing back to D&D.

Jarmak posted:

Those aren't accusations of bad faith.

quote:

you are promoting a conspiracy theory

Turgid Flagella posted:

cinci zoo sniper posted:

The median reports queue for the last several months is 0–10 USCE reports per day and 0–5 reports for the rest of D&D combined, including the war thread, Israel/Palestine, UKMT that's as active and as large as the USCE, whatever is the jousting thread of the day, and so on.

VitalSigns posted:

From what I understand it's probably more logging in on Sunday and here's a big report queue

Jarmak posted:

That's not what bad faith means.

Turgid Flagella posted:

It absolutely is.

The author of the posts being quoted could have simply said that the person they are responding to has fallen for a widespread conspiracy theory - instead DV (who has been spoken to about his specific linguistic choices being used to paint him as a victim of some sort of widespread, organized campaign of perfidious tankies) chose to accuse the poster of promoting the so-called conspiracy theory.

DV assumes malice instead of ignorance - this is textbook bad faith.

Main Paineframe posted:

It sounds like the problem might be that the posts Vitalsigns is complaining about aren't getting reported, then? Any given post can only be reported once, so the question isn't "How often does X get reported?" so much as "How likely is X to get reported?" and "How likely is the mod to take issue against X when they see the report?".

cinci zoo sniper posted:

Thanks. To also say something useful:

The median reports queue for the last several months is 0–10 USCE reports per day and 0–5 reports for the rest of D&D combined, including the war thread, Israel/Palestine, UKMT that's as active and as large as the USCE, whatever is the jousting thread of the day, and so on.

Taerkar posted:

Can you provide us with anonymous examples of some of the bad reports?

VitalSigns posted:

But idk at some point the whole team might want to step back and ask is an environment where "anytime there is a post that falls well outside the traditional liberal orthodoxy or is even just the least bit spicy, it will get reported" something that we should try to change? It's a tough question though because how do you go about it, but also I'm not sure if mods even agree it should change, maybe it's what they want?

Jarmak posted:

There's nothing about the word "promoting" that implies the person doing the promoting doesn't believe what they are promoting or is acting with malice.

Jarmak posted:

Evidence that people are getting unjustly probed for having left-leaning opinions, with the original position being the rules are unevenly applied.

Finding someone with a liberal position who didn't get a probe one time isn't evidence of anything. Your own position is that liberals are the overwhelming majority so of course if you find a probe that was missed it's most likely going to be a poster with a liberal opinion; all that is is evidence that the mods don't catch 100% of posts that deserve a probe.

Jarmak posted:

If your complaint is that people drawing a lot of attention to themselves by loudly and abrasively pushing unpopular opinions are more likely to catch legitimate probes while people with more orthodox opinions are more likely to slip under the radar when they cross the line then yes, of course that's the case.

Turgid Flagella posted:

Words have connotations.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

That is done more or less consistently where the decision to gas a thread is not straightforward. No one is going to bother with that when it's like a goatse or some other obvious problem, like when the thread just devolves into a worthless brawl, which the ChatGPT thread got gassed for.

Jarmak posted:

Yes they do, which is why I used the word implies.

There is nothing about the term promoting that implies that the one doing the promoting doesn't believe what they are promoting or is acting with malice. To promote something, in this context, is to bring attention/publicity to it. In the case of making a post about something on a message board "promoting" is about as dry and technically accurate as you can get.

Jarmak posted:

Yes they do, which is why I used the word implies.

There is nothing about the term promoting that implies that the one doing the promoting doesn't believe what they are promoting or is acting with malice. To promote something, in this context, is to bring attention/publicity to it. In the case of making a post about something on a message board "promoting" is about as dry and technically accurate as you can get.

VitalSigns posted:

Okay so what are you asking for because it sounds like a spreadsheet then, but you said that was ridiculous hyperbole so could you be specific what evidence you mean.

VitalSigns posted:

Well kinda yeah. Opinions that I agree with are unremarkable, opinions that I disagree with are loud and abrasive.

Calling Trump and Kavanaugh rapists would be obnoxious and abrasive on a conservative forum, here it's unremarkable and flies under the radar. Vice versa for saying the same about Biden.

VitalSigns posted:

I think it's a problem though that exceptions are made when mods like it. I mean what is this supposed to be, a serious debate space of respectful tone and intellectual arguments, or shitposty laugh at nerds who get too riled up space. It can't be both.

quote:

Before you post: Before posting, please ask yourself the following question: "Am I making a post which is either funny, informative, or interesting on any level?"

gurragadon posted:

I really need to argue that it should be done with every thread that is gassed from this subforum then. Unfortunately, if given the option to not explain why the thread is gassed moderators default to that. You should have put a reasoning in the ChatGPT thread, it has been a major contention point in this feedback thread.

I would suggest the rule is that it is done on a 100% consistent basis while gassing threads from now on. Even the goatse thread, edit it out and put a message about why you gassed it. There won't be any controversy but there will be receipts.

Fister Roboto posted:

"Promoting" implies a high degree of activity to me. Maybe you don't see it the same way but I would suggest investigating your biases in this discussion about biases.

Turgid Flagella posted:

And for context, the poster we're discussing was very notably rebuked by admins for choosing language that implies acts of malice from those who disagree with him. This is an important bit of context, because it's a pattern of behavior on the part of the poster in question. This was an issue that was brought up 2 or 3 feedback cycles ago, and while the most egregious hyperbolic language has largely tamped down, the poster in question is still very clearly assuming malice vs ignorance whenever a poster disagrees with them.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

It has never been this, and the sole "exception" that gets made is to respect the first rule of SA:

If your post is funny, in the subjective opinion of the button posher reading it, it may survive despite, e.g., otherwise being a minor infraction.

“Major contention” as in you're literally the only person who has cared to make more than a few posts about it, and participation past you, KillHour, and XboxPants is at least as much joining in on the default spectacle of a QCS-like thread as they mean to actually care about your concerns. In a feedback thread this is fine, but taking a step outside of it you'd have been told hours ago to just “lurk more” if the specific reason why that thread was gassed isn't immediately apparent to you, because mods physically cannot spend multiple hours making happy every occasional small thread poster with self-professed belief that no thread should ever be moderated. And this standard for leaving a post-it note on a gassed thread is standard for the SA at large, rather than just D&D.

Jarmak posted:

Degree of activity has absolutely nothing to do with level of good faith. Activists very actively promote their causes, because they believe in them.

There's no context which turns "promoting" into a word that implies acts of malice. If anything it is a word choice to goes out of it's way to avoid carrying an implicit judgement of malice or lack thereof.

Which is where I think your real issue is, DV pedantically chose words that allow him to avoid having to implicitly recognize that the post was made in good faith by choosing words that carry no connotation one way or another. There's no rules that say a poster has to expressly recognize that you're posting in good faith, and this is trying to twist words into something they don't mean to get the mods to force such a recognition. DV is allowed to not believe the post is in good faith, he's allowed to choose language that doesn't expressly endorse the post was made in good faith, what he isn't allowed to do is accuse the post of being in bad faith.

Turgid Flagella posted:

Yes, his advanced skill with language is exactly what allows him to get away with posting like a condescending rear end in a top hat with impunity.

Jarmak posted:

There's nothing about evidence that a poster was unjustly probed for having leftist opinions that sounds like a spreadsheet. Hell, you gave us an example of a post that skated by, why is the inverse suddenly "a spreadsheet"

Jarmak posted:

No, loud and abrasive descriptors of how something is being communicated, not what is being communicated.