|
Please use this thread to post your suggestions and provide feedback on Trad Games and The Game Room! This is the place to discuss rules, moderation, fun things and bad things and neutral things happening in our community, identify problems and suggest solutions. Moderators may also use this thread from time to time to solicit feedback on rules changes and other ideas for the forum. You can post here anonymously or provide private feedback by PMing your comment to a mod or admin, who will keep your identity in confidence per your request and repost your comments on request. Do not attack other posters here. This thread is not a substitute for using the report function. Please visit SAD for general SA-wide problems or as an alternative if you are unsatisfied with the results you get here or prefer to discuss things with the greater SA community. Contact the admins if there's a serious problem that needs immediate attention or requires bypassing the mod team. Here is the previous TG/TGR feedback thread.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
The last several pages of the previous thread were a heated debate about rules for posting AI-generated text and images in TG. Over 50 goons expressed some kind of opinion on what to do. Based on that discussion, TG moderators have decided to do the following:
I know that some of these decisions will be unsatisfactory to a lot of posters. This represents an unhappy compromise because we are convinced that it is the least-worst solution for now. This is not set in stone, and if things don't work, we can revisit the issues, but please give things time to settle out. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jun 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
Eh, we'll see how it works. I still feel that allowing that content at all is corrosive to what makes TG a good place to post, and why it draws small press and indie artists and game designers that have given us some of the best discussions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
Everything looks to be the good track! Just to ask a clarifying question: Regarding the specifics of: quote:Do not make low-effort dumps of your AI-generated stuff in other TG threads. That includes but is not limited to: character portraits, maps, character sheets, adventure ideas, your one-on-one chatlogs with an AI, and more. Too many posters hate this stuff and so it invites a hostile reaction, extended irresolvable debates about the ethics, and lots of reports for mods to deal with. This means high effort posts as deemed by the mods would be fine? So as an example if I post like a 500 (hand typed) word Let's Play about how a session went, but happened to include some AI generated images for portraits, but say some hand drawn maps together; this would probably be fine?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The last several pages of the previous thread were a heated debate about rules for posting AI-generated text and images in TG. Over 50 goons expressed some kind of opinion on what to do. Based on that discussion, TG moderators have decided to do the following: Yeah this is not satisfactory at all and doesn't address the numerous complaints about AI poo poo that were put forward in the previous thread. Nice job, mods! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
I'm unhappy that AI gets allowed outside of its containment zone, but hopefully the idea of "low effort" will be brutally policed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I'm unhappy that AI gets allowed outside of its containment zone, but hopefully the idea of "low effort" will be brutally policed. You know these mods, it absolutely will not be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This means high effort posts as deemed by the mods would be fine? So as an example if I post like a 500 (hand typed) word Let's Play about how a session went, but happened to include some AI generated images for portraits, but say some hand drawn maps together; this would probably be fine? This is the intent of the rule, yes. It's specifically based on the example posted in the previous thread of mostly handmade Blood Bowl assets that included a generated team logo, but where there's still been a lot of work put in by the poster manually. What we don't want people to post is just straight dumps of "I had ChatGPT make a dungeon" or "here's my new PC portrait from Midjourney" or whatever when there's no human creative work done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Set new rules in the TG rules thread prohibiting low-effort posts of generated images or text stuff in other threads, due to the high risk of unresolvable extended arguing derails they attract. To be clear, this prohibits "hey check out my images" in random threads, but would allow someone running a game to use an AI-generated portrait to illustrate an NPC, or AI-generated image to illustrate a location in their game, etc?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:This is the intent of the rule, yes. It's specifically based on the example posted in the previous thread of mostly handmade Blood Bowl assets that included a generated team logo, but where there's still been a lot of work put in by the poster manually. What we don't want people to post is just straight dumps of "I had ChatGPT make a dungeon" or "here's my new PC portrait from Midjourney" or whatever when there's no human creative work done. Allowing it at all still implicitly encourages people to use those tools which are run entirely off of stolen assets and are used as justification to oppress workers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:48
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:This means high effort posts as deemed by the mods would be fine? So as an example if I post like a 500 (hand typed) word Let's Play about how a session went, but happened to include some AI generated images for portraits, but say some hand drawn maps together; this would probably be fine? We're going to have to see how that falls out, really. It's basically impossible to police an absolute ban, and we definitely do not need volunteer forum monitors sweeping through every thread (especially game threads in TGR) looking for any sign of the illegal AI. At the same time, if you're posing 20 generated character portraits in your D&D game writeup in the D&D thread, people are going to notice and we're going to get one of those derails if we're not responsive to the report. It's a judgement call. The safe thing for you to do is to keep your AI stuff in the AI thread. Your writeup about your D&D game doesn't actually need to include your character portraits. If we're getting five reports a week because people keep trying to salt posts with AI stuff, then we may have to tighten down a rule, we'll see. Low effort "hey look at this cool pic" posts will definitely get reported and we'll act on those reports. What I would like to see right now is good-faith attempts to follow the rules with a recognition that not antagonizing your posting enemies is the best way to coexist. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
Fajita Queen posted:Allowing it at all still implicitly encourages people to use those tools which are run entirely off of stolen assets and are used as justification to oppress workers. We have had this debate, at length, this point was made repeatedly, and we have arrived at the compromise we're at.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Yeah, I should clarify that this is still under a lot of scrutiny from the mods. If this topic starts to degrade the creative culture of the forums, or if AI fans get really into bear-poking "here's my dungeon writeup and CHECK OUT THREAD COOL MIDJOURNEY ELVES  " poo poo with otherwise okay posts, I'm inclined to ban it entirely. This is not a declaration that one side has "won"; it's a tentative test of allowing a posting topic that people seem to want to talk about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We have had this debate, at length, this point was made repeatedly, and we have arrived at the compromise we're at. When something is bad you don't compromise with it. With this kind of approach to moderation, why do you mod tradgames instead of D&D? Did you get the acronym confused with the game?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
I'm personally medium-okay with the compromise, but the addendum of allowing it outside of the designated thread seems specifically engineered to make this mod action as unsatisfying as possible to as many goons as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
this sure is a half measure that guarantees that everyone's at least a little unhappy so we'll see
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
Fajita Queen posted:When something is bad you don't compromise with it. The community does not have a consensus that this is as bad as you feel it is, so Anti and I do not feel we should enforce that specific uncompromising viewpoint. Magnetic North posted:I'm personally medium-okay with the compromise, but the addendum of allowing it outside of the designated thread seems specifically engineered to make this mod action as unsatisfying as possible to as many goons as possible. We're trying to be realistic and explicit about what we think we can do, and to express intent via the rules. Our intent is not to shame people and push them into a quarantine: it's to avoid derails and extended intractable slapfights. So we are disallowing the types of posts we think cause those derails and slapfights, making sure the segment of the community that wants to talk about AI stuff has a place to do that where it's not in the faces of the people who don't want to see it, and leaving room for mod discretion because there will surely be borderline/marginal posts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:08
|
|
|
You offering to post AI supporter opinions in the thread anonymously as if they're some kind of vulnerable group that are in danger of some sort is probably the funniest poo poo to happen in TG in years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
That's the general rule for feedback threads, and was present in the OP of the previous thread, long before the AI stuff came up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
ravenkult posted:You offering to post AI supporter opinions in the thread anonymously as if they're some kind of vulnerable group that are in danger of some sort is probably the funniest poo poo to happen in TG in years. To be fair to Leperflesh, if one of us wanted to anonymously post that AI supporters were dorks and weenies, they would have probably helped with that, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Can it be against the rules to cry about being persecuted against like a minority because someone called AI stupid. If you're going to let these people post wherever the least you can do is ensure that is not acceptable on the board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Yeah, I should clarify that this is still under a lot of scrutiny from the mods. If this topic starts to degrade the creative culture of the forums, or if AI fans get really into bear-poking "here's my dungeon writeup and CHECK OUT THREAD COOL MIDJOURNEY ELVES I hope this is kept with fairness in mind, like I feel like the intent here should be to be open in their use of AI; for example suppose I sketch a character or 3D model the base of the character myself, but then I use AI to finish the render which I use in my NPC portrait. I'd think the intent is to be open about this and mention as part of the larger post, "Yeah I used some AI to help me with part of this output." Especially even if AI is only a small tiny part of the process, and I mention it to be transparent but in a non-confrontational way; if someone reacts excessively negatively to it I hope the mods take context into consideration and don't treat this as the AI user disturbing the peace when they checked every box and did what could to act in good faith. Same goes if someone is reasonably civil with their response even if its a criticism, "I wish you didn't use AI but otherwise fun post." then of course the expectation should be to let it go and not argue the point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We're trying to be realistic and explicit about what we think we can do, and to express intent via the rules. When I say this next paragraph, I need you to understand I am not saying this as someone who has gone on record against you. This is simply as a goon. I would say this to any mod who made similar arguments. What do you think is 'unrealistic' about banning AI talk in TG? What law of reality hinders this course of action? It can't be the lack of consensus, because as far as I know, if you and AV wanted to, you could make that the rule anyway even if everyone didn't like it. You could set the example. By pulling the "better subforums aren't possible" line, it just sounds incredibly craven.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Ibram Gaunt posted:Can it be against the rules to cry about being persecuted against like a minority because someone called AI stupid. If you're going to let these people post wherever the least you can do is ensure that is not acceptable on the board. Yeah, that poo poo is not okay; report it if you see it. In general, feel free to report anyone posting AI stuff to be snotty / piss people off / be performatively self-pitying, because it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:When I say this next paragraph, I need you to understand I am not saying this as someone who has gone on record against you. This is simply as a goon. I would say this to any mod who made similar arguments. While I'm not Leperflesh, I think the imagined problem is that it's going to come up as a subject from time to time, likely because another dorkass company has to be shouted down after airing it as a way to gently caress over workers, and they're imagining a hard time policing when someone's being ghoulish enough to dunk on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:When I say this next paragraph, I need you to understand I am not saying this as someone who has gone on record against you. This is simply as a goon. I would say this to any mod who made similar arguments. there have been, and will continue to be, low-key uses of AI art and text that nobody would notice unless someone explicitly pointed it out. If someone is running a game in TGR and one of the PCs in that game generated their character portrait that is appearing on one token, that is not the level of problem that we think we can realistically deal with, if anyone even notices. But "AI talk" goes in the AI thread. Raenir Salazar posted:I hope this is kept with fairness in mind, like I feel like the intent here should be to be open in their use of AI; for example suppose I sketch a character or 3D model the base of the character myself, but then I use AI to finish the render which I use in my NPC portrait. I'd think the intent is to be open about this and mention as part of the larger post, "Yeah I used some AI to help me with part of this output." Especially even if AI is only a small tiny part of the process, and I mention it to be transparent but in a non-confrontational way; if someone reacts excessively negatively to it I hope the mods take context into consideration and don't treat this as the AI user disturbing the peace when they checked every box and did what could to act in good faith. No, I don't think that would fly, at least not today. Explicitly calling out in an otherwise unrelated post that you used AI is going to highlight that and invite a derail/fight. If you want to talk about how you used AI to help you generate a character portrait, you should do that in the AI thread. Most of the people outside that thread do not care or want to hear about how you did that. It would be nice if people could have a nonconfrontational conversation like the one you described, but I think the last three days have shown that's less likely than a fight, reports, and bad feelings all around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
Like guys I know we are all game nerds and so we want to read some rules and then immediately, reflexively theorycraft them to death. But can we not? If you have a specific post you want to make, and you don't know if it's OK, ask me or Anti. If you see a post you think isn't OK, report it. If we run with these rules for a bit and everyone is confused and chaos reigns, we'll figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The community does not have a consensus that this is as bad as you feel it is, so Anti and I do not feel we should enforce that specific uncompromising viewpoint. There doesn't need to be consensus among the community when one part of the community is wrong. You ban the bad thing and tell them to go elsewhere if they don't like it. If you are unwilling to make that call then you should step down and let someone else make it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:there have been, and will continue to be, low-key uses of AI art and text that nobody would notice unless someone explicitly pointed it out. If someone is running a game in TGR and one of the PCs in that game generated their character portrait that is appearing on one token, that is not the level of problem that we think we can realistically deal with, if anyone even notices. So, to be clear, if the post is "high effort" (lets assume for the sake of the argument that some hypothetical post is high effort), and happens to use AI in the process somewhere; the post is fine as long as it doesn't mention AI was used? Lets also assume that it's probable that the use of AI is undetectable with a passing glance. Leperflesh posted:Like guys I know we are all game nerds and so we want to read some rules and then immediately, reflexively theorycraft them to death. But can we not? If you have a specific post you want to make, and you don't know if it's OK, ask me or Anti. If you see a post you think isn't OK, report it. If we run with these rules for a bit and everyone is confused and chaos reigns, we'll figure it out. I mean, with respect, I'm honestly a little unsure of what the rules are actually saying so I feel like its fair to ask clarification, especially if you and Anti have kinda given me two different answers. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:No, I don't think that would fly, at least not today. Explicitly calling out in an otherwise unrelated post that you used AI is going to highlight that and invite a derail/fight. If you want to talk about how you used AI to help you generate a character portrait, you should do that in the AI thread. Most of the people outside that thread do not care or want to hear about how you did that. I think "don't say when you use AI" interacts very weirdly with the encouragement to credit the source when you post an image. Will it also be discouraged to ask people for a source if they don't label an image? What about if someone asks and the poster replies "I used AI"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I think "don't say when you use AI" interacts very weirdly with the encouragement to credit the source when you post an image. Will it also be discouraged to ask people for a source if they don't label an image? What about if someone asks and the poster replies "I used AI"? Then we call them dorks and weenies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:there have been, and will continue to be, low-key uses of AI art and text that nobody would notice unless someone explicitly pointed it out. If someone is running a game in TGR and one of the PCs in that game generated their character portrait that is appearing on one token, that is not the level of problem that we think we can realistically deal with, if anyone even notices. Fundamentally, that is not "AI Talk." I think you're mixing your messages here. There are two issues here: "AI Itself" which is impressive and accessible but threatening to cause labor issues and "AI Talk" which is the currently intractable debate between techno-optimists and creatives. It is the latter that is corrosive and causing issues for the forum. An "AI Talk" ban is not necessarily a ban on any AI content in TG. It could be, but it doesn't have to be. A containment zone is one way to hem in the "AI Talk" problem pretty straightforwardly but obviously not the "AI Itself" problem. The fact that you're saying you cannot deal with a problem because some other problem may happen but maybe no one will even notice seems like your priorities are pretty extremely misaligned. Leperflesh posted:Like guys I know we are all game nerds and so we want to read some rules and then immediately, reflexively theorycraft them to death. But can we not? If you have a specific post you want to make, and you don't know if it's OK, ask me or Anti. If you see a post you think isn't OK, report it. If we run with these rules for a bit and everyone is confused and chaos reigns, we'll figure it out. Uh, this is the feedback thread. You are going to attract feedback. If you don't like the feedback you're getting, there are many things you can do about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So, to be clear, if the post is "high effort" (lets assume for the sake of the argument that some hypothetical post is high effort), and happens to use AI in the process somewhere; the post is fine as long as it doesn't mention AI was used? Lets also assume that it's probable that the use of AI is undetectable with a passing glance. Like this is more theorycrafting. If it's genuinely undetectable, nobody would report it, right? If a mod can't even tell, how could that mod act on it? I'm sure you'd be honest if I asked you, but a rule that hinges on honest confessions wouldn't work too well. Are you trying to get me to help you figure out how to sneak AI content into posts, so you can prove to everyone that it's good, actually? Please don't do that either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Fundamentally, that is not "AI Talk." I think you're mixing your messages here. There are two issues here: "AI Itself" which is impressive and accessible but threatening to cause labor issues and "AI Talk" which is the currently intractable debate between techno-optimists and creatives. It is the latter that is corrosive and causing issues for the forum. An "AI Talk" ban is not necessarily a ban on any AI content in TG. It could be, but it doesn't have to be. A containment zone is one way to hem in the "AI Talk" problem pretty straightforwardly but obviously not the "AI Itself" problem. If I follow what you're saying here, and I'm not totally sure I do: the rule is indeed intended to move all AI Talk to the AI thread or out of TG, but it also recognizes that actual AI Itself in posts can trigger AI Talk because people who hate it see it and want to yell at it. When you asked Magnetic North posted:What do you think is 'unrealistic' about banning AI talk in TG? I misunderstood and thought you were referring also to like, edge cases of AI Itself like the character token example, because we are banning AI talk in TG outside of the AI thread and that's not unrealistic. Is that not clear in the new rules? I meant for it to be clear. e. it's an excluded bit, you're right. I've updated the rule. Old: "If you are excited about the stuff you're generating with tools like these or you want to learn about them, you can post about them in the AI for TG thread. We are rebooting that thread, I'll update this post to link to it as soon as it's up. That is not a thread to go trolling in. If you hate AI stuff, just stay out of that thread please." New: "If you are excited about the stuff you're generating with tools like these or you want to learn about them, you can post about them in the AI for TG thread. We are rebooting that thread, I'll update this post to link to it as soon as it's up. That is not a thread to go trolling in. If you hate AI stuff, just stay out of that thread please. That is the only thread where you should post chat about AI tools and their use in TG. "
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Oh, okay, so it's a total containment thread, good. That's about the best that I hoped for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:addendum of allowing it outside of the designated thread seems specifically engineered to make this mod action as unsatisfying as possible to as many goons as possible. kinda agree at least insofar as its vague wording. read one way and it allows any generated content as long as its gussied up enough, read another and it says "you can post AI content, apart from [lists almost all forms of TG related AI content]" As an artist, I know which of my ai involved creations would be fine at large and pass without comment (any that have had considerable amounts of "conventional" art applied) and which would have to go in lockup but it might not be as obvious or easy to distinguish for other people posting their own stuff Plus it does gently caress over the people who aren't good at conventional art but want to put a lot of effort into something using only generators. That would be regarded as low effort despite taking a lot more time, effort and creativity than some of the campaign doodles I've done by hand which would be fine to post. tl;dr the rule just leaves it up to arbitrary ruling of the mods and leads to people spamming reports to get an action taken, avoiding which was partially the point of a ruling in the first place waiting and seeing can't hurt tho, it's not an urgent issue Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jun 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
It is a topical thread for AI chat and images and posts, and a recognition that AI chat anywhere else is likely to cause a derail or fight, plus an understanding that there might be gray areas we won't be able to fairly adjudicate and you can and should just not try too god drat hard to discern whether someone touched up their character portrait using photoshop's infill tool or whatever, because that's really unnecessarily looking for fights to pick. Like the core complaints that I think we can act on is intrusive AI stuff being posted around random threads where people don't want to see it and really want to yell about it - and people who do want to engage with that feeling unfairly attacked and pilloried, even within the thread explicitly for their interest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Like this is more theorycrafting. If it's genuinely undetectable, nobody would report it, right? If a mod can't even tell, how could that mod act on it? I'm sure you'd be honest if I asked you, but a rule that hinges on honest confessions wouldn't work too well. Are you trying to get me to help you figure out how to sneak AI content into posts, so you can prove to everyone that it's good, actually? Please don't do that either. Leperflesh posted:It is a topical thread for AI chat and images and posts, and a recognition that AI chat anywhere else is likely to cause a derail or fight, plus an understanding that there might be gray areas we won't be able to fairly adjudicate and you can and should just not try too god drat hard to discern whether someone touched up their character portrait using photoshop's infill tool or whatever, because that's really unnecessarily looking for fights to pick. Okay so, to be clear then, as I feel like it's still a bit unclear, if someone posts what you consider is arguably a high effort content post that you or another mod happens to think might incidentally include AI; they won't press buttons as long as they don't mention they used AI? I know you don't want theory crafting but the purposes of rules I feel on a philosophical level is to clearly telegraph what's allowed if they are to be fair rules that are evenly applied. My description here also still firmly places the final judgement call with the mods and isn't something that can be game'd/rules lawyered, the point is to know what the envelop looks like, because it seems like by your latest post the intent isn't total "containment" of AI content, but only of chat? With containment of AI content limited to where its engineered to start a fight?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
this is some "i'm not touching you" type posting
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
"hey cool law mind telling me how I can violate the spirit of it without violating the word of it"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 01:27
|
|