|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
At this juncture, one of the actions needed is to actively re-solicit the groups of educated users that were driven out of the forum over the past 6 or so years. The lawyers, the scientists, the people who used to make discussion viable in greater detail. Per Bar Ran Dun's comment, we now face an active negative stereotype of DnD, continuously reinforced elsewhere, whenever there's an attempt to have someone from anywhere else on SA participate.Koos Group posted: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. No, you do not, and you know you don't. You have a "guideline" that isn't predictably enforced, and I do know it's not predictably enforced. Koos Group posted: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. It's not an analogy to austerity; it's an invitation to sabotage, working backwards from wanting to do less. The "guidelines" have never served as the floor for moderation. The mods have been very explicit about finding ways to not apply those guidelines- and in practice, because some require more work than others, the ones requiring the most thought get applied least, and have the most explicit statements of a policy of nonenforcement. The paradox of tolerance continues. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 27, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2023 01:05
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I don't want mods to be part of the community. I want them to moderate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Rosalind posted:I am going to be so egotistical as to assume that I might be one of the people you're referencing here. To be honest, I am not going to return to posting in D&D probably ever. It's not fulfilling. You are, and, yeah, this is the trajectory that the current decision to promote the harassment and bad faith that the mods find "funny" has produced. The absence of SME users is, in turn, blamed on the act of moderation. fez_machine posted:Yeah, only a few clicks away in GBS, BYOB, C-SPAM etc. etc. (including D&Ds very own chat threads). Nobody has yet made a convincing argument why D&D generally needs to be more casual and chatty when there exists many other places to do so on this very forum. The purpose was to ensure that the people who want to undermine moderation could have a community. Rosalind posted:See this is exactly it! This post perfectly encapsulates why I don't post here any more. And the users who do it get to control the space, and get their own unmoderated spaces revolving around undermining discussion, and get infinite chances. Meanwhile, SMEs like Rosalind just leave.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2023 00:56
|
|