|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
While this is open I have a few small pieces if feedback. -Proof by contradiction is a standard logical argument so it's strange that a debate forum bans this and punishes people for doing it (characterized as "arguing indirectly" or "argument by innuendo") -You shouldn't get probated for "assuming bad faith" if you merely point out a mistake someone is making, like strawmanning your argument. Strawmanning can, and often is, done unintentionally through misunderstanding, saying "hey X is a strawman my argument is Y" shouldn't be treated as an accusation of bad faith. -Related to that, people shouldn't be punished for accidentally misunderstanding someone's argument if they take the correction gracefully: "Hey X is a strawman my argument is Y" "Oh sorry in the case here's my argument against Y" Doesn't seem like it needs any mod buttons, misunderstandings happen. It's really only a problem if someone's a dick about it and is like "no your argument is X and you're wrong!!!" -Is sarcasm allowed or not, this rule is enforced especially inconsistently and seems to just come down to which side of the discussion the person moderating the thread comes down on. Which is partly human nature, a sarcastic quip from someone I agree with is clever and funny, a quip from someone I don't agree with is glib and unserious and annoying, I get that sure. But like either ban it and go zero-tolerance or don't. Punishing it selectively is just going to drive out differences of opinion because people with unpopular views get tired of being mocked while getting punished if they respond in kind.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2023 09:11
|
|
|
Is picking out the fairly inoffensive I'm not demanding an answer, this is a question for you guys to think about
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2023 09:24
|
|
|
Why even have a feedback thread if you're going to characterize people as "griping" for providing feedback you asked for. Don't have the thread then if some mild criticism and questioning is "griping" to you. Anyways if you think those probes make for good discussion okay, seems penny ante stuff to me but I don't read that thread so maybe it's necessary or something. It's not really related to my feedback about "sarcasm", where as I said the issue is the very inconsistent enforcement, I could probably check the last pages of a bunch of threads and find plenty of sarcasm, and as I showed above reporting it is pretty much pointless, as even reports on very obvious rule-breaking get ignored, much less subjective stuff like whether a post is too sarcastic. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Mar 27, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2023 09:45
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Am I not allowed to say that you complain when you've written a complaint? Also, no comment on “people” meaning “the 200 probations goon”. Ok I'm going to chalk this up to a language barrier because "griping" has a very negative connotation compared to "complaining". A complaint can be a neutral description, saying someone is "griping" never is. So no offense taken if you only meant "complain"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2023 09:50
|
|
|
Rosalind posted:*snip* I'm really sorry that happened to you. I remember your posts in that thread and I really liked what you had to say, I understand that you won't be coming back, but for what it's worth people did see and appreciate your posts, thank you for making them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Proof by contradiction doesn't run afoul of that guideline as long as you clearly state that is what you're doing, so that your line of logic can be followed and addressed by other posters. Koos Group posted:
How can you have a dozen subsections of heavy-handed rules to make this a serious debate space, and then let people break them when you personally think it's funny, and still expect this to be treated as the serious subforun. Like I know this is a comedy website that has always had comedy exceptions to its few rules (and that has its own problems), but that's not going to work with a zero-tolerance policy on jokes. When people see mockery and trolling and sarcasm going on endorsed by the mods, while they get punished for minor infractions (or majorly punished for simply joining in on the behavior you've endorsed), are they going to stick around. Who wants to post somewhere they have to follow a bunch of debate club rules while other people get to troll the discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Yeah it's this and people mostly know it, it's why the people who claim it keep refusing to post any sort of receipts. I did post an example though. For a while after we were told that the only reason the moderation seemed biased is that opinions which conflicted with the majority were reported more (which is its own problem. Mods have this big rulebook that they can't actually enforce so the resuIt is a heckler's veto. Posts with unpopular opinions get reported more, posts with popular opinions don't just by weight of numbers because people tend to be fine with minor rules violations if they agree with the poster. And this is only natural but in aggregate it creates the appearance of bias) So I gamely tried reporting for a while but usually no action was taken even on egregious rulebreaking. I didn't keep a spreadsheet of every rulebreaking post that was ignored while other people got hit for piddly stuff, but I remembered the one that was egregious enough that I just gave up. Koos also said itt that he ignores his rule about no sarcasm or jokes as long as he or the other mods think it's funny. There was also the time he said he allowed someone to troll the China thread (and elsewhere until it got "too much") Koos Group posted:
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Mar 28, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 11:14
|
|
|
Rigel posted:It only takes one. There is always a very quick report for any post that can be interpreted by that poster's collective forums enemies as stepping out of line. That's why the best strategy to avoid punishment on here is to disengage if your opinion is too unpopular because you'll have like 10 people trying to find minor infractions to report, PMing mods, running to QCS, etc. The easy way to clear the report queue is to remove the unpopular opinion right. socialsecurity posted:No you didn't, you posted an example of a post you felt should of got probed but didn't which isn't even close to the same thing, not every single post is going to get reviewed so a single one not getting probed isn't proof of mod bias or anything else really. What people keep claiming is that people get probed solely for their opinions because they aren't liberal enough, which is something keeps getting claimed but never shown even a sliver of evidence for. Am I supposed to keep a spreadsheet of reported posts and actions taken on an internet comedy forum. Nobody is going to do that, because that's weird obsessive behavior and if I had that I'd be mocked for it. And of course there were examples of Koos saying he let people troll when he thought it was funny, while there's a big rulebook for everyone else. People notice, they're not going to keep grudgebooks of all the discrepancies in enforcement, they're just going to decide it's not worth it and make this place an even narrower chamber of thought than it already is. But maybe that's not a bad thing, certainly would be easier to mod.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 11:44
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's a subset of the "D&D mods are biased" complaints, with the larger pool including people who complain about precisely what VitalSigns is talking about. Not people getting probed, but people not getting probed for repeatedly breaking core D&D rules because they do it in a way that aligns with moderator biases. Like, I don't even disagree that a lot of the posts you're probably thinking of deserved a probation, given D&D rules and what it's supposed to be - but then that thinking should be applied universally. 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. socialsecurity posted:I asked for an example of someone getting probed for being not liberal enough, you know the accusation made many times in this thread. If it happens so often as people are pretending it shouldn't be hard to provide one, you don't need a "spreadsheet" or whatever. What you're doing right now is a good example of what makes this forum so tedious to post in though lol so thank you for providing an example of that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 12:03
|
|
|
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. 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. Is this what you guys wanted? (In case tone doesn't come through in text, these are not aggressive questions, I'm genuinely curious what your/yalls thoughts are on this)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 12:09
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Oh I'm sure all sorts of dumb poo poo gets reported, are you auto probing every one of these posts? From what I understand it's probably more logging in on Sunday and here's a big report queue, gently caress looks like so-and-so is riling people up again, and even if the reports are dumb there's a button to just make them stop for the next 6/12/18/24 hours. It's why really the only way to go is to disengage if too many people start arguing with you, if you dig in and defend an unpopular position you're playing with fire because someone is going to report every post you make, especially once people start baiting you with the usual sarcasm, condescension, etc. And it's understandable, I'd probably do that sometimes if I were a mod, easier and more pleasant to remove the unpopular opinion than to read 10 pages of arguing that you don't care about. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 12:21
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It is unreasonable to expect fair moderation in D&D, for all of the reasons you have just listed. I don't think it's unreasonable for mods to be aware of it (and I'm not sure they are), and to acknowledge it, and try to mitigate it, that's why people bring it up. But they are only human, it will never be perfect, but maybe it could be better? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 12:27
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You are still acting like mods auto probe posts based on the number of reports or something I did not say that and I don't think that. If you read back what I said again it is significantly more nuanced than that, but thanks again for being an example of one of the problems of discussion in D&D lol, someone just takes the most simplistic and uncharitable reading of what you say and starts screaming at you about it. (Yes I recognize I have been part of the problem too) Look man no offense but this is a feedback thread for the mods, I've given them my perspective, you can give them yours, I'm not going to argue with you or with your inaccurate interpretations of what I said.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 13:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Tangential at best evidence, along with a hyperbolic misrepresentation of what evidence is actually being asked for/would be required to support the original positions 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
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:I wonder how you reconcile the purported moderation by popular vote with your continued ability to post in D&D. Ha! Ok here's some feedback: I do like your droll sense of humor 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
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. I mean it was pretty egregious, and iirc I wasn't even the one that reported it, someone else got to it first, so it's not like the mods just ignore my reports because they don't like me or something. And it wasn't the first time, it was just the one that made me stop bothering with reports after briefly trying them when the mod response to examples of rules being enforced unevenly in last summer's feedback thread was "well you aren't using the reports, and people who disagree with you do" You asked for examples I provided one that I child find with a brief search. How many are you asking for, because I didn't keep a spreadsheet of the posts I reported, I would have to sit and remember and look, and there's little point to doing that if two or three or five examples may not mean anything either.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:
1) People don't understand the rules 2) People understand the rules, and are posting extremely badly anyway, and aren't being deterred by punishments, and aren't reforming. In that case moderation is too light. Tell those people politely to knock it off, or you'll hand out harsher punishments, 30 days off, whatever it takes 3) People are abusing the report system because getting people who disagree with you punished is how you "win", and creating a bunch of busywork for mods who have to clear BS reports (or maybe the reports are not technically BS, but the rules are so expansive that nearly everyone breaks them and you can always find something to ding someone on). This is a problem of over and under moderation. Undermoderation because there are no consequences for BS reports, and possibly overmoderation if the rules allow someone to always find something to report about I'm not a mod of course so I don't have insight these are just my thoughts. Also sorry if I am posting too much, I'm trying to keep it constructive but I can stop.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Evidence that people are getting unjustly probed for having left-leaning opinions, with the original position being the rules are unevenly applied. 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
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" 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. What you'll end up with is Democrats who get fed up with being condescended to while being punished if they respond in kind, and they leave. If you're running a conservative forum for discussion of conservative ideas then maybe that's what you want and it's OK. If you're trying to run a politics discussion forum with a variety of opinions where people can debate and discuss their positions, then you're not going to meet that goal. Jarmak posted:No, loud and abrasive descriptors of how something is being communicated, not what is being communicated. If mods actually probated people for being abrasive about Republicans people would throw a fit. Thing is saying Republicans suck doesn't ruffle any feathers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
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
|
|