|
Kchama posted:I feel like having one-sided rules of "you can't mock them but they can mock you" is only going to breed extra resentment instead of defuse it like the rule was originally intended when it was implemented. Since it was, well, intended to be mirrored in C-SPAM, but they've dropped the rule. koos covered it but I wish to be quite clear and concise on this one: No.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:koos covered it but I wish to be quite clear and concise on this one: I tried my friend, I tried farewell
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 02:57
|
|
|
no, bring back the blow thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The reason I said that is because the "fresh" part of fresh and falsifiable is somewhat subjective. It's based on what we see around the internet or the forums to the point that it has become tiresome, but everyone gets political arguments from different places and some people spend much more time reading these sorts of things, so what might be stale for one would be fresh for another. Enforcing that rule more strictly would mean both having less hesitation to punish, and doing more research such as asking a specialist in a particular thread or skimming a thread to see whether something has been said to death. There's also the rule's exception to consider, which is when something that isn't necessarily fresh but DOES directly refute another argument might be permitted. DnD has not, in a decade, needed a recap of "instead of discussing specific facts, current events or observable reality, I declare that anything other than civic withdrawal and overthrowing the government is futile and useless". This not a new idea- it’s a way to derail discussion and communicate contempt for everyone having it. There are thousands upon thousands of words and concrete examples here telling you what effect this "argument" has; I've personally given you documentation that this method of sabotaging discussion is centuries old. It doesn't require research to tell someone is breaking the rules - and your decision to entertain the users who do this, every single time, has consequences for who will continue to tolerate posting here. The same is true of white noise posting, and trolling, and argument by euphemism, and all the other recriminating toxicity that you have excessively documented and not stopped. Telling people to report poo poo, and then choosing to not act on it, tells the reporting party that you think the trolls are more valuable than everyone else participating or sharing actual information. I understand you struggle to recognize how your lack of moderation impacts people. So here are a couple reminders of the effects of your “hesitation to punish.” Rosalind posted:[...] To be honest, I am not going to return to posting in D&D probably ever. It's not fulfilling. Rosalind posted:See this is exactly it! This post perfectly encapsulates why I don't post here any more. But what message are your moderation decisions sending to everyone else? To the people who just want to learn or communicate? What should they have to tolerate? Well, thankfully we have a recent case where all the implicit elements of the trolling you don’t punish have spelled out for you. Xiahou Dun posted:Hi ElephantAmbush! Remember me, the guy who played Gloomhaven with you a bunch? If it wasn't for the watered-down bullshit imperceptibly better than nothing ACA I'd be dead. I almost died while between health insurances and that policy is the reason why I got to get surgery and, y'know, didn't loving die. The ACA does nowhere near enough, it's a pretty lovely implementation of any of its policy aims, but it's still the sole reason I'm alive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush has never trolled anyone in their life. The thing you've quoted is one earnest poster replying to another earnest poster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
Conservative posters should have to be 3 times funnier than the funniest leftist poster
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Elephant Ambush has never trolled anyone in their life. The thing you've quoted is one earnest poster replying to another earnest poster. The position that it's imperceptible whether other users live or die- that the discussion of actions that would determine life or death are pointless, and that only societal overthrow matters, is a well-trod way to sabotage discussion, as it was successfully deployed to do for several loving days. This reached the point that a mod acknowledged that this was what it was, but they still chose to do nothing about it for several additional days. Rigel posted:A quick note on "voting doesn't matter" doom/apathy arguments and/or "Dems bad" debates: as irritating and report-producing as those two subjects may be to some people, they are not forbidden topics of discussion, and current events do occasionally cause them to become relevant topics. The person who originally deployed the electoralism shitshow then got to continue to derail the thread with it for another two days before they got a sixer for doing it. And we should all be grateful that they made it that easy, because there is already an explicit playbook for trolling the thread with these arguments, whereby the person who initiates this particular sabotage drops it and disappears for as long as possible while people respond! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The position that it's imperceptible whether other users live or die- that the discussion of actions that would determine life or death are pointless, and that only societal overthrow matters, is a well-trod way to sabotage discussion, as it was successfully deployed to do for several loving days. This reached the point that a mod acknowledged that this was what it was, but they still chose to do nothing about it for several additional days. Do you have proof of their duplicitous intentions? It is also possible for people to believe those things earnestly and say them. You can think they're stupid for that but it does not mean they're trolling or intentionally derailing. EA has absolutely never trolled anyone and is one of the most earnest posters here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You know what would help with this difficult problem of knowing what’s “fresh,” Koos? Reading the loving subforum. The issue is that you're talking about a position, regarding the utility of different sorts of political action. You do in fact need to say what rule someone is breaking, not just that they have some sort of viewpoint that makes them likely to break rules. The freshness rule is also not applied abstractly, where anyone arguing for the same thing must be guilty, it's about specific arguments and the exception of direct responses applies. Discendo Vox posted:You know that your decision to facilitate this backbiting harassment drives SMEs off the subforum- that they would rather post anywhere else, because by not enforcing the rules, you obligate them to entertain their attackers. Their expertise makes them a target under the system of not-moderation you have established. People who post about this problem are the easiest, lowest "research" probations for you to issue; and they just leave, because they recognize how this approach stacks the deck in favor of the people who don't care about probations. I am as sad as you to see any expert go, as it hurts D&D's ability to be informative, which is one of its top goals. If someone has a wealth of knowledge or expertise they're sharing, I try to be especially lenient toward them and harsh toward anyone who breaks a rule in a way targeting them. I'm not sure what else I can do, and it's not helpful for you to say "enforce the rules" because I already believe I am doing so. I wrote all of them my dang self with the intent of being enforced. Discendo Vox posted:But what message are your moderation decisions sending to everyone else? To the people who just want to learn or communicate? What should they have to tolerate? Well, thankfully we have a recent case where all the implicit elements of the trolling you don’t punish have spelled out for you. The poster Xiahou Dun is responding to did not say it doesn't matter whether they live or die, and it's not clear from that post that they knew this part of Xiahou Dun's history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The issue is that you're talking about a position, regarding the utility of different sorts of political action. You do in fact need to say what rule someone is breaking, not just that they have some sort of viewpoint that makes them likely to break rules. The freshness rule is also not applied abstractly, where anyone arguing for the same thing must be guilty, it's about specific arguments and the exception of direct responses applies. Discendo Vox posted:No, they are, in fact, violating the rules. Koos Group posted:I am as sad as you to see any expert go, as it hurts D&D's ability to be informative, which is one of its top goals. Koos Group posted:If someone has a wealth of knowledge or expertise they're sharing, I try to be especially lenient toward them and harsh toward anyone who breaks a rule in a way targeting them. I'm not sure what else I can do, and it's not helpful for you to say "enforce the rules" because I already believe I am doing so. I wrote all of them my dang self with the intent of being enforced. Koos Group posted:The poster Xiahou Dun is responding to did not say it doesn't matter whether they live or die, and it's not clear from that post that they knew this part of Xiahou Dun's history. The entire point of the electoralism argument, the entire reason it works to destroy discussion, is that it rejects all other discussion. Elephant Ambush hosed up only by making explicit the statement which was implicit when selec decided to sabotage discussion of gun control policy by deploying it - the claim that all discussion and all outcomes other than the ones that selec demands, in this case a euphemistic call to violence, are worthless. This is always the argument. It has always been the argument. It has always been a counterfactual that dismisses and sabotages all discussion of specific facts, demanding that everyone who cares about anything else reassert their value. It has always, always, carried with it the belief that the people killed by these differences in outcome are worthless. You know that it does this, which is why you have to keep coming up with excuses to not apply the rules to it- to pretend that it is fresh, to give it new threads, to give users with mile-long trolling rapsheets opportunity after opportunity to deploy it. Every single time, every single time, these arguments ruin discussion because they always carry the same message: that everyone else who is impacted by the differences between the parties, who cares about those impacts, that all of it, that all of them, are worthless. This isn't new. It isn't fresh. It isn't falsifiable. It isn't moderated. It tells users who care that the most important topic of discussion in DnD is how they are worthless. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
My feedback is that Discendo Vox needs to be forum banned. I hate to be petty and call someone out like this but I think he is genuinely the worst poster here. Every conversation he butts into becomes a drag, like you're seeing right now. Every post he makes is dripping with condescension, anger, and self-righteousness. He never tries to have a discussion with anyone, he just lectures and berates them until they stop posting or a mod finally responds to his dozens of reports. And when the mods don't immediately respond, or respond in a way that he doesn't like, he publicly berates them for it. Seriously, stick up for yourselves! He doesn't try to understand anyone's perspective, and frequently misinterprets what they say in the most uncharitable way possible. If someone comes to a different conclusion about something than him, he accuses them of trolling or spreading propaganda. I've tried talking with him like a normal person and even then he thinks I'm trolling. I've never seen him admit that he was wrong about something, or even entertain the possibility that he could be wrong. He lashes out aggressively at the smallest of issues, even people who aren't necessarily disagreeing with him. He constantly refers back to his own posts as if he's some kind of respected scholar that we should all pay deference to. The reality is that he's just an anonymous poster on a dying comedy website forum like the rest of us. He has nothing to contribute except bile and a completely unearned sense of authority. Just a couple weeks ago I was having a conversation with another poster. Eventually I came to the conclusion that we weren't just going to agree on each other's point, so I tried to politely end the conversation. And the other poster was gracious enough to leave it at that. But then DV comes at me with this poo poo: Discendo Vox posted:You're taking the position that your beliefs are immune to information, in the pursuit of defending authoritarian propaganda. Like what the gently caress? If I or anyone else posted something like that I'd definitely be probated. And he does this constantly. He doesn't want to debate. He doesn't want to discuss. He doesn't want to further his own understanding or anyone else's. He just wants to lecture and yell at people until they agree with him or ignore him. I'm happy to just put him on ignore, but I think that his toxic attitude is directly harming this forum. I think I deserve a probation for this post. It feels gross, but I needed to get it out there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
Going to take the counter position and say, please, please, three times please, make Discendo Vox a moderator.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:My feedback is that Discendo Vox needs to be forum banned. I hate to be petty and call someone out like this but I think he is genuinely the worst poster here. Every conversation he butts into becomes a drag, like you're seeing right now. Every post he makes is dripping with condescension, anger, and self-righteousness. He never tries to have a discussion with anyone, he just lectures and berates them until they stop posting or a mod finally responds to his dozens of reports. And when the mods don't immediately respond, or respond in a way that he doesn't like, he publicly berates them for it. Seriously, stick up for yourselves! The post you are quoting was in response to you trying to "let's agree to disagree" after multiple users in the politoons thread, including the most active politoon contributors, explained to you in detail why and how someone working directly for authoritarian state-controlled foreign-facing propaganda outlets uses selective framing and loaded symbolism to misrepresent their subject, and how their appeal as a "supporter of the oppressed" was similarly selective and misleading, in service to those regimes. As someone else put it more succinctly, Kchama posted:Ah, the old "You can't refute me, because I won't read!" counter. This is in many respects the core conflict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 04:20
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:koos covered it but I wish to be quite clear and concise on this one: Just to be clear, I agree with not getting rid of the rule. It should be instituted all around again and cracked down on even harder than it currently is. Especially in D&D. My post was just commenting on the fact that leaving things to fester without doing anything causes long-term issues, even if short-term it is a good idea. I actually don’t have a good idea on how to fix it beyond “make sure all the mods are on the same page”. Kchama fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Just to be clear, I agree with not doing getting rid of the rule. It should be instituted all around again and cracked down on even harder than it currently is. Especially in D&D. My post was just commenting on the fact that leaving things to fester without doing anything causes long-term issues, even if short-term it is a good idea. I actually don’t have a good idea on how to fix it beyond “make sure all the mods are on the same page”. disagree w/ this guy Stringent posted:Going to take the counter position and say, please, please, three times please, make Discendo Vox a moderator. agree w/ this guy thanks koos god bless & have a good weekend
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 04:41
|
|
|
Stringent posted:Going to take the counter position and say, please, please, three times please, make Discendo Vox a moderator. I'm down with this too tbh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
Stringent posted:Going to take the counter position and say, please, please, three times please, make Discendo Vox a moderator. This sounds like a permaban with extra steps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
I think DV should start with a trial period as an IK with a pathway to moderation if their work is acceptable. Koos says that the mods are being hit with floods of reports. DV is complaining that the mods aren't reading the forum or responding sufficiently to reports, which could be true given the high post volume that some threads generate, notably the I/P thread right now, and the USCE thread whenever it's election time. The mods need help. DV for IK and potential mod. Any other volunteers? I would not mod D&D even if it paid money. And I mean a lot of money. Much, much more than the $0 an hour that D&D mods are presumably being paid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Victar posted:I think DV should start with a trial period as an IK with a pathway to moderation if their work is acceptable. IKs can't read reports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 05:50
|
|
|
I don't think it's useful to center specific posters as possible IKs or mods for longer than a brief nomination. Wouldn't mind other nominations, though, whether for individual thread IKs or for additional mods - it's almost never a bad thing to have more eyes on things. also yes IKs are unable to read reports, to which we have responded with variably effective workarounds
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Please refrain from condescension toward other posters, such as name you changed when quoting. However I won't be punishing you for it as the rest of this post is very good. Thank you. Can you please clarify this idea - how much racism is allowed in a good post without punishment? How much white noise cheerleading? Perhaps you can update the rules to asterisk the rules which you’ll waive because the post is “good”. Of course you won’t actually do this, because this was off-the-cuff bullshit on your part, but let me explain why this is terrible policy. First, if you’re trying to encourage a substantive discussion, this is the worst way to do it. Some people will simply ignore posts with good points if they contain personal attacks against them, as I did. Some will instead just counter-attack in response, but either way you’re not getting a good debate out if it, because you’re tilting the playing field. Second, it’s impossible to extricate the concept of a “good” post from “a post I personally agree with”. Even if you want to argue that the post was objectively well-cited, you’ve personally bent over backwards to punish a cited post of mine that didn’t contain a personal attack, but did stir up the anthill. It’s almost like the term “good post” is inherently subjective and biased by our own beliefs, so enforcing the rules as-written is the best way to operate? And it this doesn’t just involve me - anyone sufficiently outside the accepted center-left spectrum has to deal with this inconsistent and piss-poor moderation. Let’s look at a different example. Whatever you think about the OPs post, they felt strongly about it, and took the time to write up their thoughts, only to face low-effort snark in return. Absolutely the opposite of what you claim to stand for. This post was reported, why wasn’t it punished? Because the target’s positions don’t fall in line with the general thread’s. But if I responded in-kind to one of the many leftist effortpost/meltdowns here, I’d be punished faster than it takes to type ‘snowflake’. Not even the ‘zero tolerance’ I/P thread is immune from bullshit snark going unpunished. I was really hopeful when you took over, but this is way worse than before. You routinely subject out-of-band political posts to the highest level of scrutiny, while people in line with your beliefs get away with whatever they want. At least FoS and crew wore their biases in their sleeves, you collectively just hide behind the “WE DONT MODERATE POSITIONS THOUGH” lie. Whether you’re lying to yourselves, doing it intentionally, or just not wanting to deal with the blowback, I can’t say. But you need to decide if you want to be in charge of a real venue for discussion where the rules are equally applied, or just run a cool kids lunch table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:What message are you telling users when they have to repeatedly argue against the claim that it doesn't matter whether they live or die? For days? For years? That's very much not what the post you quoted was saying or implying. I'm going to take this opportunity to point out that even in D&D, "more words" doesn't necessarily mean "better". More words can quite often be better, yes, because they give people more room to clearly describe exactly what they're talking about. But if someone's completely loving tilted and just posting an angry rant or annoyed lecture with zero regard for clarity of communication, that can actually be worse than a one-liner shitpost. If someone's just posting to vent their rage about something, they don't have to pick up a thesaurus to do so. The point of D&D is to have a debate and discussion, not to post a mountain of big words about how right you are and then sit back and wait for everyone to applaud. Again, clarity of communication is key. It's actually hard to respond to posts like this one, because they make everything three times as complicated as it needs to be while treating forcefully stated opinions as if they're facts, and it just gets even more incomprehensible if someone responds and turns it into a back-and-forth. Just look at how Xiahou Dun gave an anecdote about how a policy helped them personally, and DisVox twisted it into "[users] have to repeatedly argue against the claim that it doesn't matter whether they live or die". That's ridiculously hyperbolic. Stretching poo poo like that is far more poisonous than a whole page of electoralism debate during a slow week in USCE.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 06:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Just look at how Xiahou Dun gave an anecdote about how a policy helped them personally, and DisVox twisted it into "[users] have to repeatedly argue against the claim that it doesn't matter whether they live or die". That's ridiculously hyperbolic. Stretching poo poo like that is far more poisonous than a whole page of electoralism debate during a slow week in USCE. I am not, and it is not. Every single time we get this electoralism bullshit, the same framework is in play. By saying that there is no difference or an "almost imperceptible" difference between the parties, they are rejecting differences in policy, like the policy that Xiahou Dun credits with saving their life, as meaningless. This is the point, this is the purpose, of that equivocation, to dismiss the difference in consequences that occur based on electoral outcomes. Those outcomes are measured, in no small part, in human lives. This deliberate dismissal has always been why using this ultimatum framing is so effective as a trolling method- it rejects as meaningless as everything less than an extreme counterfactual, including everything and everyone who was involved in the previous discussion. It obligates the people having the discussion of reality to defend each and every part of that reality against a continuously shifting tide of cultivated ignorance. And it wasn't "a whole page", it lasted for at least nineteen. It's not like there weren't any other current events happening in the US that week! Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 07:11
|
|
|
Feedback that I haven't really thought through: Every active thread in D&D needs an IK (active being, I guess, two pages back?). From PMs Koos has indicated that some threads have relaxed rules, and some of those threads also don't have IKs, which means they have a higher chance of permanent degradation because there's no one ostensibly responsible for keeping the thread "functioning". Obviously some relaxed-rules threads work fine as they are, in which case I don't think having an IK would cause any problems (up until they finally go insane from other causes). Other threads, though, IMO really have a degraded discussion because it's too easy to shitpost and be hostile. I think assigning IKs to all threads may also encourage new threads - if an OP is assured that someone will be at least paying a little attention and ensuring the rules are followed a little, they may be encouraged to take the actual step of creating a ne thread. I feel that over the years the success rate of new threads has been low partly because that lack of attention means that people can easily poo poo the thread up in a hurry and while it's in early stages. I want to note that I would hesitate to make OPs the IK, and probably discourage that, since they are likely biased in favor of their views or interests that prompted the thread in the first place. You also get the benefit of a larger pool of future moderator candidates, assuming that isn't a curse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 07:52
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Feedback that I haven't really thought through: Every active thread in D&D needs an IK (active being, I guess, two pages back?). From PMs Koos has indicated that some threads have relaxed rules, and some of those threads also don't have IKs, which means they have a higher chance of permanent degradation because there's no one ostensibly responsible for keeping the thread "functioning". Obviously some relaxed-rules threads work fine as they are, in which case I don't think having an IK would cause any problems (up until they finally go insane from other causes). Other threads, though, IMO really have a degraded discussion because it's too easy to shitpost and be hostile. Yes, this would be excellent. No, I will not be an IK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 08:01
|
|
|
I think the whole "we don't moderate positions" is pointless, because even if that is/was true (maybe) the people who complained endlessly about it in the first place that ended us with Koos still complain about it so it really isn't working. One of the core issues is we have a group of people that really aren't here to post with anyone, they are here to post at people to tell them off because they think D&D is full of evil libs or fascist or whatever, then everyone else is meant to pretend that this person that has been farming you for SYQ for 10 years is posting earnestly. Koos was brought in to reduce reports/noise from D&D and they've stated himself they don't care about quantity of posts so I think the overall goal is just drive most of the regulars out with bullshit rules from a person that doesn't actually engage with the forum itself which has seemed successful. At the very least the electorialism poo poo needs it's containment zone or it is going to endlessly dominate every single thread even remotely tied to US politics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 08:57
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Can you please clarify this idea - how much racism is allowed in a good post without punishment? How much white noise cheerleading? Perhaps you can update the rules to asterisk the rules which you’ll waive because the post is “good”. I believe many people get into the idea that Palestinians are somehow less than human. That wasn't snark. I've used that reply on many people in earnest conversation because they aren't. Anyhow, if you want to talk about bad faith and lacking substantive discussion, your entire MO as long as I've seen your posts is to post a controversial position, and then never ever participate in discussion of it. I do agree "we don't moderate positions is bullshit".
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 09:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox is right, discussing elections should be banned in D&D
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 13:42
|
|
|
Stringent posted:Going to take the counter position and say, please, please, three times please, make Discendo Vox a moderator. This. DV seems to have a clear idea of what the current problems with D&D are and how they can be solved, why not give him a chance to put his money where his mouth his?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
Nthing DV as DnD mod. The point Koos made earlier about how reports that aren’t acted on often have nothing written about them because there’s too many? I bet DV could take care of that problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 14:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The entire point of the electoralism argument, the entire reason it works to destroy discussion, is that it rejects all other discussion. Elephant Ambush hosed up only by making explicit the statement which was implicit when selec decided to sabotage discussion of gun control policy by deploying it - the claim that all discussion and all outcomes other than the ones that selec demands, in this case a euphemistic call to violence, are worthless. This is always the argument. It has always been the argument. It has always been a counterfactual that dismisses and sabotages all discussion of specific facts, demanding that everyone who cares about anything else reassert their value. It has always, always, carried with it the belief that the people killed by these differences in outcome are worthless. I haven’t made a euphemistic call for violence, and I believe insisting that I’ve got a secret troll playbook, rather than some opinions on what the best way to move forward to a more responsive and capable political system, is a paranoid fantasy that fails Occam’s razor at several points. I post for fun, and I post honestly. I’m someone who was a neck-deep Talking Points Memo process liberal just like you about fifteen years ago. But the last fifteen years have been quite a journey for everyone, and not everyone came out the other side in the same place, no matter how similar the place they started from. I think you’d do better responding to my posts if you had not constructed a weird image about my intentions and beliefs and lastly if you took yourself and your arguments a little less seriously. Your experiences are not universal, and your conclusions not unassailable, and the avenues you believe are “reasonable” to respond to your beliefs are not the only reasonable ones, despite how those responses from outside your worldview feel when you read them. This is a You problem, bud. Edit: And as for my masterful troll strategy of “speaking my piece” and then not posting for a while? I have a life and other interests besides the forum, and sometimes other threads are also interesting. You are attributing way, way too much planning and forethought, maybe I’m just an old stoner who saw the discussion continuing, saw points I agreed with or would’ve made had other users not made them, and was able to carry on not posting a reply because I don’t need to be the person having the specific discussion? There’s a wild amount of theorycrafting going on to explain “shared my opinion, then got stoned and decided to do other things.” Somebody fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 16:01
|
|
|
One thing I’ve noticed is that people seem to get away with saying some extremely heinous poo poo (cheering on genocide and generally treating Palestinians as sub-human, for example), but if they dress it up in nice words and a calm, measured tone, and don’t quite explicitly say the Bad Words, they get away with it because ‘we don’t moderate positions’. Frankly I think that’s both untrue and ridiculous. If I was to waltz into a dnd thread and say ‘it is my solemnly held opinion that all non-white people should be exterminated, here’s 2000 calmly written words on why’, I’m genuinely not sure if I’d be banned or not. I should, obviously, but if I was then clearly you do moderate positions. I have a lot of issues with CSPAM but their joke/observation about DnD being the calm hitler meme is pretty spot on from what I’ve seen. Please do moderate positions and learn to read between the lines, rather than just assuming ‘calm tone, reasoned argument, lots of words = a fine argument to make that couldn’t possibly be loving evil’.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:One thing I’ve noticed is that people seem to get away with saying some extremely heinous poo poo (cheering on genocide and generally treating Palestinians as sub-human, for example), but if they dress it up in nice words and a calm, measured tone, and don’t quite explicitly say the Bad Words, they get away with it because ‘we don’t moderate positions’. Frankly I think that’s both untrue and ridiculous. If I was to waltz into a dnd thread and say ‘it is my solemnly held opinion that all non-white people should be exterminated, here’s 2000 calmly written words on why’, I’m genuinely not sure if I’d be banned or not. I should, obviously, but if I was then clearly you do moderate positions. I have a lot of issues with CSPAM but their joke/observation about DnD being the calm hitler meme is pretty spot on from what I’ve seen. IIRC, a lot of people who also post regularly in CSPAM were the ones who pushed for not moderating positions, as they claimed they were being unfairly targeted. Although, now you got me thinking about if they started moderated positions again. Maybe we can finally stop having the same dumbass electoralism circular argument that gets boiled down to people’s position of essentially democrats and republicans are the same/nothing matters/etc. So yea, I agree, start moderating positions. Especially probating positions that aren’t rooted in reality Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:One thing I’ve noticed is that people seem to get away with saying some extremely heinous poo poo (cheering on genocide and generally treating Palestinians as sub-human, for example), but if they dress it up in nice words and a calm, measured tone, and don’t quite explicitly say the Bad Words, they get away with it because ‘we don’t moderate positions’. Frankly I think that’s both untrue and ridiculous. If I was to waltz into a dnd thread and say ‘it is my solemnly held opinion that all non-white people should be exterminated, here’s 2000 calmly written words on why’, I’m genuinely not sure if I’d be banned or not. I should, obviously, but if I was then clearly you do moderate positions. I have a lot of issues with CSPAM but their joke/observation about DnD being the calm hitler meme is pretty spot on from what I’ve seen. The reason that they keep repeating the calm hitler meme is because it's something Koos said. Koos Group posted:If anyone finds all my words tedious, I can sum it up thusly: D&D's purpose is to create the calmest Hitler imaginable. A Hitler so placid, so suffused with good faith, that he can save the world using citations. They've taken it to heart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
I didn't know IKs can't read reports, so I'm on board with DV for D&D mod. I quit reading C-SPAM in 2022 because there were too many posts by people who didn't see Ukrainians as human. Maybe it was just a few people who were really vocal about it, but there was way too much paradox of tolerance. D&D has a paradox of tolerance problem too, but at least the worst offenders are almost always denounced by other posters, which is a step up from what I remember of 2022 C-SPAM. My understanding is D&D's current strategy to deal with the paradox of tolerance is "Though positions are not moderated in D&D, all SA rules such as those regarding bigotry apply fully. If you see something you believe has no place on the site, this is a sitewide issue rather than merely a D&D one, and you should contact the admins at forumadmins@somethingawful.com". I don't think kicking the paradox of tolerance ball up to the forum admins is the right solution. If something is bad enough to email the forum admins about, it should be bad enough for a probation or a ban. Maybe error on the side of short probations, starting with 6'ers, if you're worried about stifling debate. But the paradox of tolerance can also stifle debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The reason that they keep repeating the calm hitler meme is because it's something Koos said. See I had no idea and generally don’t vibe with CSPAM’s whole edgy terminally online thing, but I thought it was pretty drat apt. Also what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Violent Content I would say this seems slightly odd to me. I agree that disturbing content should not be posted inline, it should be up to people whether or not they want to engage with that. But I would also suggest that wars by their nature are extremely bloody and cruel things, and particularly when a major subject of discussion is the extraordinary brutality of the conduct in the war and the deliberate targeting of civilians, it does seem odd to ban exposition of that? If content is properly tagged so people can know what they're clicking on, I would personally suggest that simply demonstrating the brutality of the war is a sufficient point in and of itself? A lot of the people in governments around the world are trying to sanitize the war by framing it in terms of "self defence" and deliberately refusing to engage with the abject cruelty of it, I would personally suggest that the strongest argument against that is documenting the actual horror of it. If people want to justify it then make them justify the reality of it. I suspect this is probably the motivation for a lot of people posting horrific things. Discussion of war without a focus on the human cost is inherently inaccurate, in a way which I think inherently favours its perpetuation, i.e the "it's impossible to make an anti-war war movie" argument. I think this unavoidably comes down to "moderating positions" in practice and I think the position being moderated in favour of is a very bad one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:One thing I’ve noticed is that people seem to get away with saying some extremely heinous poo poo (cheering on genocide and generally treating Palestinians as sub-human, for example), but if they dress it up in nice words and a calm, measured tone, and don’t quite explicitly say the Bad Words, they get away with it because ‘we don’t moderate positions’. Frankly I think that’s both untrue and ridiculous. If I was to waltz into a dnd thread and say ‘it is my solemnly held opinion that all non-white people should be exterminated, here’s 2000 calmly written words on why’, I’m genuinely not sure if I’d be banned or not. I should, obviously, but if I was then clearly you do moderate positions. I have a lot of issues with CSPAM but their joke/observation about DnD being the calm hitler meme is pretty spot on from what I’ve seen. It's because D&D operates off of a very middle-class definition of rudeness. Calmly and icily arguing for the deaths of millions of people with a thesaurus in hand and a self-satisfied tone is not rude, it's intellectual drawing room conversation. Getting angry at or, worse, passing moral judgment on someone else in the room, is rude. But... this is also exactly what you guys wanted?? D&D demanded a place where 'rudeness' was banned so arguments exactly like that could be made without social disapproval: supporting a rapist for president, putting kids in cages (if the president has a blue tie and not a red tie), defending drone strikes, letting covid rip under a Democrat even if it kills more people than died under Trump, etc. Did you guys really think it would be different on a topic where you disagree with the political establishment? Not killing thousands of innocent civilians is a fringe position in the media and political class of the US, of course the mainstream view is going to be favored. ("You" isn't addressed to you personally, just the generic you) Jaxyon posted:
Case in point, this thread, people who also post in CSPAM are accused of "farming" for quotes, it's just assumed that no one can sincerely disagree with the slight-left-of-center bent of the forum, and anyone that seems to must be pulling some kind of trick on people. So idk maybe they guy is posting conservative opinions and declining to defend them as a bad faith troll to make people mad, but hard to tell since defending unpopular opinions will get you punished so perhaps his opinions are sincere and he just doesn't want to be on probation all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:See I had no idea and generally don’t vibe with CSPAM’s whole edgy terminally online thing, but I thought it was pretty drat apt. Also what the gently caress Yeah you'd think it would be enough for a new mod, but this is what admins want a D&D where everyone thinks the rules are dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
You gotta get real comfortable using way longer probations more often and sooner in the cycle of having determined that someone is a toxic idiot or a safari provocateer (or both) like I'm no stranger to it cause of all sorts of things in my dumbshit past but here the major issue is that it doesn't take much to derail some threads into pages of flaming poo poo where i could a been learning something but now it's repeatedly having an epistemologically closed position jackhammered at it by newly resident obsessives No more of this repeatedly handing sixers out to people who are here to stir poo poo and are happy to carry that back as a trophy for work well done I don't think any of the rest of this poo poo matters too much but that's my piece
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 18:16
|
|
