|
Fister Roboto posted: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. Just speaking for myself, the takeaway I've gotten from this thread is to at least be aware of a possible bias for someone I agree with and against someone I disagree with.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
There are places you can discuss how actually, NATO provoked Russia into invading and actually, the holodomor is a made up conspiracy to make the soviets look bad that are more appropriate and you are very welcome to post there, why do you need to import that to DnD
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Somaen posted:There are places you can discuss how actually, NATO provoked Russia into invading and actually, the holodomor is a made up conspiracy to make the soviets look bad that are more appropriate and you are very welcome to post there, why do you need to import that to DnD Who the hell is talking about the Holodomor here besides you? Personally, I would like to debate and discuss things in the Debate and Discussion forum. I don't think telling (or at the least, implying) that other users should go somewhere else is helpful for fostering a community where people feel empowered to share and discuss opinions on things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Somaen posted:There are places you can discuss how actually, NATO provoked Russia into invading and actually, the holodomor is a made up conspiracy to make the soviets look bad that are more appropriate and you would are very welcome to post there, why do you need to import that to DnD Sorry, friend, but the Holodomor absolutely happened. Can you link me any of those threads for discussing how it never happened? I'd like them to get attention from the site admins because there was absolutely a mass famine in Ukraine after WWI and we need to tamp down on that kind of dangerous denialism if it's here on SA
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
The above posts from GJB about not enforcing the rules, followed immediately by the collection of knives out for the most active moderator, nicely demonstrates the “inconsistent moderation is weaponized against moderation” thesis I mentioned before. The knife-wielders are further able to use their own successful “purges” of both casual discussants and experts and the resulting population drop to justify why the rules shouldn’t be applied to them-a continuous ratcheting argument for more harassment and less moderation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Mar 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The above posts from GJB about not enforcing the rules, followed immediately by the collection of knives out for the most active moderator, nicely demonstrates the “inconsistent moderation is weaponized against moderation” thesis I mentioned before. If the mods hit buttons as hard as you're crying for them to, you'd be spending more time on probation for backseat modding than you currently do legitimizing US state department propaganda. Just something to ponder!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
Discussing IR theory is not only not verboten, but also not covered under any thread rules. MikeC just needs to manage to refrain from sniping at “the thread” as a political party, when they post about - which, to their credit, they usually manage just fine. Otherwise though, “an RSS of the war” is the point of the thread, as in my conception of it goons should find practical to read the thread with the purpose of understanding what is happening on the ground in Ukraine and Russia. There was a subset of posters who were not interested in that, and instead would prefer to litigate their own pet peeves day in an out. The repertoire there was highly repetitive, and most often presented in a low-quality way with a huge “debate me cowards” energy, which set a rather standard bar for any ensuing conversation too. That wasn’t really sustainable for the thread, and so I chose to impose a requirement asking of people to make novel, high-effort posts on the subject if they do. That led to a disappearance of multiple daily pages of useless posts without any much probations issued, and based on no “let’s talk about NATO history” threads springing since then I can only conclude that the point of the posts was to revel in the attention at least as much as to “contribute” to the thread (quotes due to missing the point of it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
The lack of concern trolling by folks who definitely don't support the ongoing attempted ethnic cleansing of Ukraine but can't stop talking about how Ukrainians are all Nazis and it's Nato's fault anyway should be viewed as a positive of Cinci's modding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Also, please keep politics out of the feedback thread for the politics forum. The point of it is to yell at us, not at Ukraine or Medvedev.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The repertoire there was highly repetitive, and most often presented in a low-quality way with a huge “debate me cowards” energy, which set a rather standard bar for any ensuing conversation too. That wasn’t really sustainable for the thread, and so I chose to impose a requirement asking of people to make novel, high-effort posts on the subject if they do. That led to a disappearance of multiple daily pages of useless posts without any much probations issued, and based on no “let’s talk about NATO history” threads springing since then I can only conclude that the point of the posts was to revel in the attention at least as much as to “contribute” to the thread (quotes due to missing the point of it). How are these not tacit admissions of assuming bad faith in others' posts? I'd like to hear from a mod who isn't CZS on this matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:How are these not tacit admissions of assuming bad faith in others' posts? I'd like to hear from a mod who isn't CZS on this matter. Oh, one can post poorly in good faith, which was the case here, the same one post dozens of times per day. People who would use, e.g., the topic of NATO history to mine SYQs would fall under the standing rules for posting in bad faith, and no thread-specific rules were needed to sanction them in a due process. The second highlighted sentence is a retrospective speculation on why the posting patterns the repetitive posting rules sought to curb did wither shortly thereafter. Procedurally, however, mods are not required to assume good faith of every single post, to address that question as well, as in no mod is under an obligation to be naive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
Turgid Flagella posted:Sorry, friend, but the Holodomor absolutely happened. Really, do you agree that it's an internationally recognized genocide of Ukrainians, due to the Soviet state actively not providing relief to the affected areas, mostly populated by minorities like Ukrainians and Kazakhs? Did I read you right, you think the Holodomor, which happened in 1930, was caused by WW1, which ended in ~1918 and the Russian civil war with the occupation of Ukraine ending in ~1922? Judgy Fucker posted:Who the hell is talking about the Holodomor here besides you? Are there any other topics you feel like you are unable to discuss besides that NATO caused Russia to invade the countries around it? DnD frequently tells racists, conspiracy theorists, genocide deniers to gently caress off so some topics are absolutely not untouchable
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:But as you mentioned, Aegis, the War thread is drama-free, even if it's a terrible space to actually discuss the War. I think this is the gist of the issue with D&D's new moderation scheme under Koos: the Prime Directive, if you will, has been to try to minimize conflict and drama, even if it comes at the expense of everything else, including good discussions and overall thread activity. This is why so many threads in D&D are mere shadows of their former versions: mods have cracked down on anything and everything that can remotely result in a large number of reports they need to sift through and adjudicate. As a result, most posters have stopped participating, because what they want to talk about has been deemed off-limits (due to drama potential) and they don't want to get probated. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. This is a really good example of how optimizing policies to improve the metrics (i.e. reducing the number of reports) may not produce outcomes that are actually optimal. cinci zoo sniper posted:Procedurally, however, mods are not required to assume good faith of every single post, to address that question as well, as in no mod is under an obligation to be naive. Assuming good faith is part of D&D's rules (specifically, rule I.B.) , and mods should be required to follow them as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:People who would use, e.g., the topic of NATO history to mine SYQs Have you tried connecting with a BetterHelp.com app-based therapist to talk through your persecution complex with? I thought this thread wasn't supposed to be about intra-forum grudges? Additionally, are you doubting the accuracy with which issues of NATO history, US postwar colonialism and anti-Communist (which has become synonymous with anti-Russian) activity, or do you just not care to see it at all? This is probably an important distinction to make - if I'm going to go digging through hundreds of pages of The Jakarta Method for a relevant passage, it'd be nice to know the effort won't go towards being accused of "mining for SYQs" before I put in the actual effort to show that all of this is just an extension of the US's desire to be the monopolar superpower while nominally communist-aligned governments that were left economically teetering on the edge because unlike the US they'd been entrenched in the actual war for years rather than showing up at the end to drop nukes on civilian cities and take some concentration camps selfies at camps already liberated by Soviet forces
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:There's room for debate of conceptual topics, here. My objection was to having that debate in a topic that someone may mistake to be specific to the talk of the town that it was named after, especially when the main participants exhibited not even basic command of the debate and the facts of the subject. The new thread is named less dubiously and with a clearer OP, and therefore has my blessing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I think this is the gist of the issue with D&D's new moderation scheme under Koos: the Prime Directive, if you will, has been to try to minimize conflict and drama, even if it comes at the expense of everything else, including good discussions and overall thread activity. This is why so many threads in D&D are mere shadows of their former versions: mods have cracked down on anything and everything that can remotely result in a large number of reports they need to sift through and adjudicate. As a result, most posters have stopped participating, because what they want to talk about has been deemed off-limits (due to drama potential) and they don't want to get probated. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Assuming good faith is a rule for posters because it's the Mod's job to determine bad faith. The oft-stated "solution" for bad faith posting is to alert a mod/report the post and move on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:nicely demonstrates the “inconsistent moderation is weaponized against moderation” thesis I mentioned before. Most of the recent moderators have been pretty good. This is going to happen to anyone who remains a participant in the conversations they moderate, even if they moderate perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Really, do you agree that it's an internationally recognized genocide of Ukrainians, due to the Soviet state actively not providing relief to the affected areas, mostly populated by minorities like Ukrainians and Kazakhs? Bro I literally typed the words Turgid Flagella posted:the Holodomor absolutely happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Rules against posters assuming bad faith are good for keeping arguments from devolving into "even you don't believe that so I'm going to disregard it" but they're easy to weaponize by anyone who wants to, well, argue something even they don't believe, knowing it can't just be mocked. Even when it's easy to pick apart, it allows someone to meet effort with no effort (or more precisely force people to use effort to meet no effort.) Either way can turn a thread into Facebook comment argument dredge. For it to work, it requires mods to clamp down on dishonest hot takes instead. Which I think is better now than in the past. Imperfect, but it's always going to be based on judgement calls so it's not something that can really be "solved."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Oh, one can post poorly in good faith, which was the case here, the same one post dozens of times per day. People who would use, e.g., the topic of NATO history to mine SYQs would fall under the standing rules for posting in bad faith, and no thread-specific rules were needed to sanction them in a due process. The second highlighted sentence is a retrospective speculation on why the posting patterns the repetitive posting rules sought to curb did wither shortly thereafter. Alright, so CZS is firm in the position that DnD mods don't need to follow the forum's own rules (namely, assuming good faith). Could I get some input from other mods about this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Most of the recent moderators have been pretty good. Yeah, the moderators trying to socialize is a problem factor here. I disagree that the recent moderators have been pretty good; I just think so many good participants have been driven away that the resultant limited activity seems benign. Meanwhile, the bad faith users continue to control the scope of “chat,” sometimes explicitly for the entertainment of the mods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
please post about D&D moderation and avoid slapfights with other users. the Holodomor thread is in CSPAM, it has fuckall to do with the topic of this thread, which is D&D moderation. Judgy Fucker posted:Alright, so CZS is firm in the position that DnD mods don't need to follow the forum's own rules (namely, assuming good faith). Could I get some input from other mods about this? that's correct. for example, if a mod thinks someone is trolling they do not in fact need to assume the troll is posting in good faith. it's rather cynical and not a good thing to assume everyone is posting in bad faith but I haven't seen anyone doing that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:the Holodomor thread is in CSPAM, it has fuckall to do with the topic of this thread, which is D&D moderation. It's in the gas chamber, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Turgid Flagella posted:Bro I literally typed the words Do you think it's a genocide as recognized internationally?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:that's correct. for example, if a mod thinks someone is trolling they do not in fact need to assume the troll is posting in good faith. it's rather cynical and not a good thing to assume everyone is posting in bad faith but I haven't seen anyone doing that. Thank you for answering, even though that's total bullshit and is absolutely abused as a way for moderators to enforce pet orthodoxies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
I feel like I should say a few things about the old Chat-GPT thread and the new AI thread that I created. cinci zoo sniper posted:As a mod, I have an explicit duty to contain threads that are a persistent embarrassment to the subforum I watch, and the whole point of this debacle is to (ideally) stave off this thread from establishing itself as such. And my policy position on the question is such that much as we don't debate in D&D how the Iraq War would have played out if American soldiers had been able to spit 6 fluid ounces of hydrochloric acid at a 50-yard distance every 5 minutes, we will not be having a general purpose thread about ChatGPT engaging in substantial anthropomorphization of the software. 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. What does the bolded mean? Is there a specific directive from Koos Group to avoid "embarrassing" thread? What does it mean to be an embarrassment? Are there specific criteria or is it completely subjective? Does there have to be a SYQ thread in CSPAM before it's embarrassing enough? Who determines what is embarrassing about a thread? Should there be a poll at the top of every thread so it's democratized? I was not embarrassed at all by participating in that conversation. It was a fruitful conversation where I gained perspectives from both sides of the issue. It's a tech issue so a forum with a bunch of people who are likely to work in tech are going to have negative stereotypes associated with tech weirdos, but I don't care if you have to deal with it all the time, it's part of the conversation. What is embarrassing is eliminating any discussion for that reason, especially in a DISCUSSION forum. This is the forum I went to post about AI in because people write what they think, they write long essays, they source things. I read their sources, their posts, I learn and enjoy them. I don't want to read about it in GBS and CSPAM where I'll get a bunch of poo poo posts. And if I do I would go there to get my laughs. You can't eliminate threads on these criteria because you remove subject matter experts with differing opinions, see KillHour. He hasn't posted at all in the new AI thread yet. Edit: I also think it's important to note that slow moving threads like the Chat-GPT thread can go through periods where it seems like somebody is just arguing against the mob. But they are not only arguing for themselves. When people are arguing, they are arguing their opinion for the audience of lurkers who aren't posting along with the person they are arguing with. gurragadon fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Mar 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
I would have just renamed the chat GPT thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
What exactly was wrong with the chat GPT thread? Also someone crazy with power posted:As a mod, I have an explicit duty to contain threads that are a persistent embarrassment to the subforum I watch, and the whole point of this debacle is to (ideally) stave off this thread from establishing itself as such No. No it is not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:What does the bolded mean? Is there a specific directive from Koos Group to avoid "embarrassing" thread? What does it mean to be an embarrassment? Are there specific criteria or is it completely subjective? Does there have to be a SYQ thread in CSPAM before it's embarrassing enough? Who determines what is embarrassing about a thread? Should there be a poll at the top of every thread so it's democratized? Heck Yes! Loam! posted:No. No it is not. quote:Consider rebooting or gassing a thread if it is a persistent embarrassment to the threads around it. If it is a large popular thread, be sure to talk this over with your fellow mods and the posters in the thread. A lot of threads become mini-communities all to themselves, and it does a disservice to those users if you nuke an entire thread before trying every other option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:It is a specific directive from Jeffrey, which in the current rendition of the private mod guidelines reads as follows: Well, it's a directive from Jeffrey I guess I should take it up with him. But speaking to the mods of D&D I don't think that would be a relevant criterion for a discussion forum. There is no unified view on anything in these forums and embarrassment is completely subjective to the reader. Even a large group of people, such as a group of mods, is influenced by similar goals and ideas so running it by that sample size wouldn't be sufficient to determine embarrassment. I would really like to hear Koos Group explanation for this? Edit: I'm not going to take it beyond this forum because I don't think it's very useful and D&D could very easily just not listen to whatever that nonsensical order was from Jeffrey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I would have just renamed the chat GPT thread I was preparing to rename at the end of the week when it decided to combust, you're correct. The load-bearing problem I had with it was the distance between its title, its OP, and the conversation that de facto made home there, with this being a highly searched term considerably corroborating the situation in my view of it. gurragadon posted:D&D could very easily just not listen to whatever that nonsensical order was from Jeffrey. Not really the top 10 strategy for having a constructive working relationship with the site owner, if I may. cinci zoo sniper fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Mar 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I was preparing to rename at the end of the week when it decided to combust, you're correct. The load-bearing problem I had with it was the distance between its title, its OP, and the conversation that de facto made home there, with this being a highly searched term considerably corroborating the situation in my view of it. If I may, your not being paid and it's a completely voluntary working relationship. If you take a lighter approach to what he wants it will make for better conversations in more open ended threads like the Chat-GPT/AI thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:If I may, your not being paid and it's a completely voluntary working relationship. If you take a lighter approach to what he wants it will make for better conversations in more open ended threads like the Chat-GPT/AI thread Your current thread is literally under no restrictions, as I've mentioned earlier, and there's nothing I can do to make it even “freer”.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Your current thread is literally under no restrictions, as I've mentioned earlier, and there's nothing I can do to make it even “freer”. It would be freer without an ever-present threat of mod "embarrassment" ending it. Maybe there is nothing you can do, but you can choose to say threads aren't an embarrassment to you if there is some kind of mod vote. Not because it doesn't embarrass you, but because you agree it's a dumb reason to shut down discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Your current thread is literally under no restrictions, as I've mentioned earlier, and there's nothing I can do to make it even “freer”. gurragadon posted:It would be freer without an ever-present threat of mod "embarrassment" ending it. Maybe there is nothing you can do, but you can choose to say threads aren't an embarrassment to you if there is some kind of mod vote. Not because it doesn't embarrass you, but because you agree it's a dumb reason to shut down discussion. If I might make a suggestion - maybe gurragadon should be a thread IK (presuming they're willing?) For the ChatGPT thread? This way, an aggro mod would only have to come in and do a bombing run should the IK fail to keep the thread relevant and meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:It would be freer without an ever-present threat of mod "embarrassment" ending it. Maybe there is nothing you can do, but you can choose to say threads aren't an embarrassment to you if there is some kind of mod vote. Not because it doesn't embarrass you, but because you agree it's a dumb reason to shut down discussion. Since “AI” is a fairly vague concept, thusly making the thread “let's chat about this vaguely defined thing”, it is not under a plausible risk to suffer an “anti-embarrassment” intervention. The goal of my moderation of the ChatGPT thread was to disassociate a specific topic from posts that don't suit it adequately, and a similar determination cannot be made for an intrinsically open-ended, conceptual conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Since “AI” is a fairly vague concept, thusly making the thread “let's chat about this vaguely defined thing”, it is not under a plausible risk to suffer an “anti-embarrassment” intervention. The goal of my moderation of the ChatGPT thread was to disassociate a specific topic from posts that don't suit it adequately, and a similar determination cannot be made for an intrinsically open-ended, conceptual conversation. Do you understand my larger issue that I'm using the ChatGPT thread to frame? The point is embarrassment isn't a good metric to shut down conversation in any case. Edit: Isn't a good metric to shut down conversation in a Debate and Discussion forum in any case would be better to say. Turgid Flagella posted:If I might make a suggestion - maybe gurragadon should be a thread IK (presuming they're willing?) For the ChatGPT thread? This way, an aggro mod would only have to come in and do a bombing run should the IK fail to keep the thread relevant and meaningful. I don't think I would be a good IK even if offered because I don't think any conversation should be moderated really. gurragadon fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Mar 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Honestly cinci zoo sniper, you seem a bit too emotionally invested (and extremely strongly opinionated) in the topic of ChatGPT/AI and that makes you a poor choice for thread moderator. Even before Koos took over, it was strongly frowned upon for moderators to actively moderate threads they were also participating in. The reasons should be obvious. I think if you continue posting in that thread, you should agree to do so without your mod hat on. Pick someone to IK the thread and stay out of any moderation decisions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Honestly cinci zoo sniper, you seem a bit too emotionally invested (and extremely strongly opinionated) in the topic of ChatGPT/AI and that makes you a poor choice for thread moderator. This seems odd to me, everyone wants mods to be more part of the community but them to also not moderate threads they post in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
I don't want mods to be part of the community. I want them to moderate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2023 18:04
|
|