|
Koos Group posted:It's the same as the benefit of having any position argued by its actual adherents rather than only summarized or analyzed by others. Getting it straight from the horse's mouth means it is more likely to be similar to what you'll encounter in the real world, and you can see what sort of things they might say in response to criticisms. I feel like the logical extension of this argument is that it is better to learn to be a doctor by discovering it from first principles rather than going to a school where they teach you the collected body of knowledge already available on the subject. I don't think the best way to learn about fascism is by taking fascists at their word about it.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
basically koos while i get why it is important to have a bit of flexibility in the rules to let people make a bit of an argument about whatever it is also equally important that the people pushing well past that already permissive line get blasted from the sniper tower. if instead the idea is to have relatively hands off moderation and mostly only use 24hr max probes, you need to restrict the bounds of what is appropriate to argue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like the logical extension of this argument is that it is better to learn to be a doctor by discovering it from first principles rather than going to a school where they teach you the collected body of knowledge already available on the subject. I think a better analogy would be observing an animal in nature vs. only reading about it. In addition, most of the learning would not be from the poster, but from those with morally and/or factually superior arguments who are there arguing against them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The goal is not perfect objectivity. The goal is that a mod's judgement is employed in matters of whether something is interesting, whether someone is being sincere, whether something is damaging discussion, and that sort of thing. Rather than our judgement being employed to give unassailable answers to political, philosophical or scientific questions. When you ban a racist you're not giving an answer to a question, you're taking an action that makes the forum a healthier place. You shouldn't have a policy that says "we don't moderate positions", you should have a policy that says "we don't want to moderate positions but will do so if it will improve the forum." Otherwise you're putting your personal philosophy over the role of the moderator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:That is exactly the point. Having absurd, unsupportable positions means that, at least ideally, when these positions are refuted, they will be forced to either give up or resort to dishonest tactics to continue the argument, and the dishonest tactics are what is moderated. That is how one hopes truth and goodness comes to the fore in a debate. If you know this in advance why not just apply the rule now instead of making everyone go through a kabuki of debating racists and homophobes etc until they finally break a decorum rule. Why not just include Nazism in the unpublished list of 'stale' arguments that get probed on sight without the poster cordially receiving rope for a few days until they 'fail to address replies' or 'cite an unreliable source'? It's a 100 year old ideology, and antisemitism is millenia old, what is the freshness date on antisemitism? E: Koos Group posted:It's the same as the benefit of having any position argued by its actual adherents rather than only summarized or analyzed by others. Getting it straight from the horse's mouth means it is more likely to be similar to what you'll encounter in the real world, and you can see what sort of things they might say in response to criticisms. If you want to learn what Libertarians actually believe you're way better off reading books by actual libertarian thinkers than by reading former SA libertarian jrodefeld's much poorer quality arguments sourced from mises.org VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 21:04
|
|
|
Reik posted:When you ban a racist you're not giving an answer to a question, you're taking an action that makes the forum a healthier place. You shouldn't have a policy that says "we don't moderate positions", you should have a policy that says "we don't want to moderate positions but will do so if it will improve the forum." Otherwise you're putting your personal philosophy over the role of the moderator. Koos was picked because of their personal philosophy and vision for D&D. The only real negative is that they will not allow posters with belief and vision a chance to try their own. Only Koos is allowed a grand D&D experiment with almost no data to show for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
There also seems to be an inherent tension between "you can learn about Nazi arguments by debating them" and "Nazi arguments will inevitably break other D&D rules around good faith and will get punished" If they're in bad faith anyway, what do you learn from debating them (unless you didn't already know that). If you do learn something valuable anyway from bad faith arguments, then why aren't they allowed as teachable moments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
The only thing that makes the argument bad faith is the unwillingness to consider arguments against it Which the constant reductivism of everything into ‘Nazism’ , ‘racism’, etc is doing. It’s bad faith responses that are simultaneously calling for moderator’s approval of. It’s only a ‘tired’ argument if you’ve given up on it yourself, or you’ve run out of points you can retort. Just because you convinced yourself you call someone a Nazi doesn’t mean you get to punch them without suffering consequences of causing the escalation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Reik posted:When you ban a racist you're not giving an answer to a question, you're taking an action that makes the forum a healthier place. You shouldn't have a policy that says "we don't moderate positions", you should have a policy that says "we don't want to moderate positions but will do so if it will improve the forum." Otherwise you're putting your personal philosophy over the role of the moderator. The problem with "we don't want to moderate positions but will do so if it will improve the forum" means that what political positions are good for the forum becomes a rule and moderation issue, and every report or piece of feedback now has cause to be a political argument rather than one about how to run a good forum. And one might think "well, let's just limit it to the very fringes, the ideas that are so bad it's practically self-evident and the vast majority of posters agree." This sounds reasonable at first blush, and did even to me at one point, but the problem is that it incentivizes characterizing opponents' arguments' in the most hyperbolic ways possible to link them to something that is heinous enough to be moderated. None of this is hypothetical. It already was happening, and was a large part of why the crop of mods before me became burnt out and quit. VitalSigns posted:If you know this in advance why not just apply the rule now instead of making everyone go through a kabuki of debating racists and homophobes etc until they finally break a decorum rule. Stale argument rules ARE one of the defenses against the sort of thing you're describing. If someone makes a racist argument that is widely circulated with no input of their own, they will be punished. VitalSigns posted:There also seems to be an inherent tension between "you can learn about Nazi arguments by debating them" and "Nazi arguments will inevitably break other D&D rules around good faith and will get punished" I said that they are likely to eventually break D&D rules against good faith if they continue after they're refuted. The initial argument is not necessarily in bad faith if they accept the refutations, which is unlikely but not impossible. And bad faith arguments aren't allowed as teachable moments because they make debate difficult and prevent one from assuming good faith. This policy is not something I adopted lightly. I've fully considered a great deal of objections, modifications and alternatives. With all due respect, I'm unlikely to hear one I haven't already at this point, but if you believe you do have such an argument, you are welcome to PM me now that the thread is coming to a close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Thank you for the feedback, everyone. Though the thread is over, my PMs are still open, and there will be another in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 21:36
|
|