cinci zoo sniper posted:

Post on your main, LALD.

Koos Group posted:

Discendo Vox posted:

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.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

I strongly agree with this.

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

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.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

People who would use, e.g., the topic of NATO history to mine SYQs

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?

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?

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

Turgid Flagella posted:

the Holodomor absolutely happened.

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.

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.

Somaen posted:

The person arguing that the holodomor was a consequence of the destruction of WW1, events separated by a decade, is not an academic. They are not anywhere near knowledgeable on the topic, they are simply repeating talking points and no knowledgeable person, let alone an academic, is going to waste time on debating them. There are legitimate high-end debates going on about the technical definitions, but the person who can't be bothered to learn the most basic things about the topic is not a part of that, they are simply denying an internationally recognized genocide on the internet. This behavior stifles discussion because intelligent people like to debate other intelligent people, or to educate people who are open to find out new things in a friendly manner -- why would someone use their time on "stalin did nothing wrong SHITLIB"?

Gumball Gumption posted:

I think DV getting a chance to try out their vision would be a net good either way it shakes out. Either it works out and D&D becomes a place where you're more able to learn because we have experts here who can keep things in reality or it fails and we close the book on a thing people have wanted to try for a long time. They would be a good mod.

fez_machine posted:

but again there's a whole range of places on this website that do this?

Why does D&D specifically have to be that place?

fez_machine posted:

why not just post in CSPAM about this stuff?

Why D&D?

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Just because people don't want to debate your frankly unhinged opinions doesn't mean they are "terminally academia-brained" — whatever the gently caress that means.

Pander posted:

I cannot for the life of me understand why sane people choose to leave the site rather than deal with this kind of argument.

Turgid Flagella posted:

Ah yes, the absolute abuse of being exposed to the idea that landlords are parasites

Aegis posted:

Why don't you start a thread about it, rather than continue to derail the feedback thread?

quote:

In this way, social researchers can see themselves, and can be seen, as scientists, researchers without bias or values, unburdened by mere opinion. In this way, social policies can be claimed to rest on objectively determined facts. In Technopoly, it is not enough to argue that the segregation of blacks and whites in schools is immoral, and it is useless to offer Black Boy or Invisible Man or The Fire Next Time as proof. The courts must be shown that standardized academic and psychological tests reveal that blacks do less well than whites and feel demeaned when segregation exists. In Technopoly, it is not enough to say it is immoral and degrading to allow people to be homeless. You cannot get anywhere by asking a judge, a politician, or a bureaucrat to read Les Misérables or Nana or, indeed, the New Testament. You must show that statistics have produced data revealing the homeless to be unhappy and to be a drain on the economy. Neither Dostoevsky nor Freud, Dickens nor Weber, Twain nor Marx, is now a dispenser of legitimate knowledge. They are interesting; they are “worth reading”; they are artifacts of our past. But as for “truth,” we must turn to “science.”

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

No, someone purchased an avatar that was a pic him in real life from his job or something. The culprit was never identified because the avatar purchase system is anonymous.

Cpt_Obvious posted:

Also very funny for posters loudly wondering " why did all the experts leave!?" and several experts respond "You. We left because of you".

Taerkar posted:

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

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.

Jarmak posted:

Those aren't accusations of bad faith.

quote:

you are promoting a conspiracy theory

Jarmak posted:

That's not what bad faith means.

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:

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:

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.