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.

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.

Assuming good faith is part of D&D's rules (specifically, rule I.B.) , and mods should be required to follow them as well.

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah but that's the problem right. People I agree with are laying down some righteous truth, people I disagree with are making GBS threads up the discussion.

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.

You asked for an example, I provided one. Koos agreed it broke the rules, no reason was given why the report was ignored. If you guys don't care about it, fine, I don't know what else you want me to do. I could spend the time finding the other ones I tried reporting when I was briefly doing that I guess but like what kind of sample size are you asking 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.

Harold Fjord posted:

Demanding obsessive keeping track of posts like this is weird to make a condition of presenting an argument.

A lot like the point Turg is making

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

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.

Turgid Flagella posted:

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.

Turgid Flagella posted:

Words have connotations.

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.

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.

VitalSigns posted:

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.

Well this is text so none of this is loud, and what's considered "abrasive" is subjective and is always going to be mediated by the audience.

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.