|
OwlFancier posted: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? I also strongly agree with this. Outright banning linking to violent content in a thread about a literal war smacks of ‘let us opine about these things, but gently caress you if you make me face the reality of what it is I’m opining about’. Ultimately I think if you’re going to sound off about horrendously violent events, you shouldn’t shy away from seeing them. It grounds us in the reality of it and stops it being a game. OwlFancier phrased it better anyhow. I didn’t know about any of what D&D wanted or whatever, I used to just hang in the UKMT and have only ventured further because of I/P, so I’m here with new eyes I suppose, but yeah I’ve not enjoyed seeing posters constantly excuse Israeli war crimes and treat Palestinians as less than human, but politely, so it’s fine. Meanwhile anyone who says ‘gently caress you you genocidal maniac’ gets probed. I’d suggest if mods actually punished people for holding awful opinions then we’d have barely any of the latter type of post anyway. Also the whole ‘email the admins about racism or whatever’ thing is a pathetic shirking of responsibility. Please grow a backbone.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Jakabite posted:I also strongly agree with this. Outright banning linking to violent content in a thread about a literal war smacks of ‘let us opine about these things, but gently caress you if you make me face the reality of what it is I’m opining about’. Ultimately I think if you’re going to sound off about horrendously violent events, you shouldn’t shy away from seeing them. It grounds us in the reality of it and stops it being a game. OwlFancier phrased it better anyhow I think that is wishful thinking, posting dead bodies in a topic has not really changed anybody's mind on anything in the past. People can always justify it away and it just makes the thread worse off. It usually just serves to start a 2 minutes hate, which can be cathartic, but not really in a healthy way. We all wish we can make people change their minds based on atrocity, but real reckoning doesn't happen this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:I think that is wishful thinking, posting dead bodies in a topic has not really changed anybody's mind on anything in the past. People can always justify it away and it just makes the thread worse off. It usually just serves to start a 2 minutes hate, which can be cathartic, but not really in a healthy way. Yeah there were people denying Bucha ever happened. Linking to the photos/videos of the evidence would not change their mind as they are already steadfast in their "side"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
Where's the lie Vox? He summed up your entire shtick in one line. Ironic. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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. While I agree with the sentiment, it's unclear what you actually want. People are complaining about contrarian posters not being punished enough, and you are complaining about contrarian posters being punished too much while responding to the same point. I'm not sure where the contradiction lies. I don't think it's a moderation thing that posts going against the grain get a lot of hate engagement. I would consider it a fail when discussion is no longer happening, which is not just a function of the topic but also tone, but that's just how humans operate in a social setting. Or is this another opportunity to soapbox about the general opinion of the forum?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
stay the course koos there's no improving D&D, let alone fixing, the rest of the world has long since moved past a politeness-obsessed debate club for comfortable middle class centrists. SA as a whole is so culturally ossified that the few people in charge are unwilling to let nature take its course and allow it to become a non-fyadlite, slightly more mainstream cspam in the exact same way D&D went from a nest of nutjob libertarians to what it is now. D&D will continue to get worse and shed active posters until it's a handful of rapidly aging losers screaming at each other about how trustworthy the washington post is. the best possible fate for the subforum is to exist as koos' own rat utopia experiment. godspeed koos. make dv a mod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
I absolutely need the Ukraine thread's rules that demand spoilering links to horrible photos/videos, and NMS warning tags, for the sake of mental health. Without those rules I couldn't read the thread. I assume the same rules now apply to the I/P thread, although I think the I/P OP warning could be more explicit about it. Maybe copying and pasting the rule from the Ukraine thread OP into the I/P thread OP would be a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted: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. There are a number of headwinds here against letting a real discussion develop. As I said, I won’t respond to posts containing invective or personal attacks, as a matter of both principle and self-preservation. So if you find it annoying that I’m not responding to you, start by looking inward. VitalSigns posted:Tbf the way moderation operates if you post an opinion too far from the median political alignment in here you pretty much have to drop an argument pretty quickly, because if you're getting dogpiled you're making people angry and it's typically assumed that any opinion that makes too many people angry must be a troll. Actual disagreement and debate on a controversial topic is considered a fail state by the moderation team. And by most of the posters left. Yep, one of our most venerable mods operates entirely in an intuitive fog of “any position I don’t agree with can’t possibly be anything but a troll”, it’s incredible. Plus, you know, human nature dictates that it’s easier to hand out one undeserved probe to calm things down than five justified ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
People post in here, see that the culture of the thread is tedious at best and rewards long winded genocide apologia, and leave. That's not quote farming, that's just going to a different forum with a culture that is a better fit. It should not be surprising that people post differently in forums with different posting cultures. I'm sure you can find some counterexamples but in general people have earnestly held beliefs and don't want to be required to write an answering post addressing a gish gallop of trivially wrong or unrelated bullshit. It's not enjoyable or productive and people have lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
Again, issue of leftists refusing any nuance to exist and trivializing everything into correct or subhuman is the conundrum at hand. You can’t reason with leftists, it’s all about supreme power or bust for them. If being centrist is a slur, the rot runs deep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
I feel like the first and second halves of that post contradict each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
The CSPAM quote farming gets a lot of heat simply because you can actually see it on here. I mean, it's a well-known fact that there are off-site discords for d&d regulars to complain about their posting enemies and how unfair it is that they're allowed to disagree with the thread regulars without catching a ban for hurting their feelings or to coordinate report dogpiles to at least try to make it happen. But, that's off-site, so there's nothing to be realistically done about that. But a syq in the succ zone? Even if you scrub the names, you can still see people making fun of your dumb poo poo genocide apologia takes or whatever opinions you have that can't stand any form of disagreement or ridicule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Hah, show me a leftist who's all about power and I'll show you a statist pretending to be a leftist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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? I don't think anything about the policy Koos just listed there, or how it has generally been enforced, could be fairly characterized as a blanket ban on expositing on the brutality of war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
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”. No amount of rulebreaking is allowed in a good post. But a high quality post does lead to enforcement being more lenient, starting with a warning. If someone is posting well but absolutely insists on breaking some rule, they will have to be punished after a warning. I didn't make that clear in the example you provided, which is my fault. The reason for this policy is that D&D's primary goal is to create good posts and enforcement must serve that goal, even over forum justice. TheDisreputableDog posted: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? I disagree that it's impossible to extricate the concept of a good post from one you agree with. I define a good D&D post as one that is well cited, contains relevant and useful but uncommon knowledge, is creative in a sophisticated manner, or is otherwise edifying. This is true even if the post is making an overall point that I disagree with. I suppose there is an exception in posts that are funny, as I'm more likely to find them funny if I agree, but this rarely comes up as there are few funny posts in D&D. TheDisreputableDog posted: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. Your first example does appear to have been a mistake. I assume it was not me who handled it, as I would have probed the poster, but it is old enough that it would be difficult to find the mod who handled it or their reasoning at this point (we have a poorly implemented report system). The second one also probably should have been probed, though the mod handling it might have found it clever and amusing enough not to do so. I actually tried searching for that one in the reports but couldn't find it. TheDisreputableDog posted: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. The assertion that I allow people in line with my beliefs to get away with whatever they want is categorically untrue. The majority of posters I punish have similar beliefs to me, because the majority of posters on the board in general do. On the flip side, there are reports I have handled just recently regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict by posters whose beliefs on the subject make my skin crawl, yet I marked them as miscellaneous (the term for a report that is not acted on) when they were not breaking rules. 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. Not a terrible idea, though I'm not sure it would be practical to find a new IK for every new thread. It takes time for mods to clear an IK and for the admins to actually add them. A better system would be to have IKs who handle particular areas, such as world history, US politics, science, et cetera, and for them to handle new threads in their domain. socialsecurity posted: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. The point of it isn't to stop complaining. I'm fully aware that there is a large contingent of people who will feel that fair rule enforcement is unfair and only rule enforcement unfairly in their favor is fair. I believe this is not limited to any political persuasion and is simply human nature, as you can also see it in sports quite often. Rather, the point is, in a nutshell, that debate is more vibrant when all viewpoints are allowed, and mods shouldn't be arbiters of what is good and right on every issue in the world. socialsecurity posted: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. Farming SYQ is explicitly against the rules. If you see someone sharing your quotes, or even posting about their conversation with you in general, on a different board, please report their posts here. socialsecurity posted: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. We're on the same page on the mod team that we need to keep that sort of thing from becoming tedious. We still aren't certain whether the best way to do that is with strict enforcement or having a thread for it, but we will take action either way. The Top G posted: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? I agree, but if he doesn't want to be an IK I'm not going to force him. Though I do relish the fact that he complains about rule enforcement while being completely unwilling to enforce any himself.  Victar posted: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 disagree. For a full explanation why, search my username for "moderate positions," "moderating positions" etc. It's a conversation that's been had a few times. To address the paradox of tolerance specifically, in short, one is not allowed to engage in intolerant behavior toward other D&D users, such as threatening or denigrating, or otherwise being hostile. OwlFancier posted: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? Thank you, that is something to consider. My intent here is simply to avoid glorifying violence or promoting desensitization to it. It can be difficult to judge whether someone is posting something violent to remind us of the horror of war, or because they enjoy sharing something sickening. But your reasoning is part of why violent content isn't banned completely, which some people in SAD have strongly promoted. 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 I was making fun of the meme/myself and that post was not meant to be taken seriously. Staluigi posted: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 This may be true. I do get in the habit of starting at 6 for a new type of offense and might need to more carefully consider how intentionally naughty someone is being and how much damage it does to a thread. Victar posted:I absolutely need the Ukraine thread's rules that demand spoilering links to horrible photos/videos, and NMS warning tags, for the sake of mental health. Without those rules I couldn't read the thread. I'll take a look and do that if it seems necessary, though the rule on the first page of I/P seemed explicit enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Again, issue of leftists refusing any nuance to exist and trivializing everything into correct or subhuman is the conundrum at hand. You can’t reason with leftists, it’s all about supreme power or bust for them. If being centrist is a slur, the rot runs deep. Bel Shazar posted:Hah, show me a leftist who's all about power and I'll show you a statist pretending to be a leftist. I would prefer if we keep discussion here about D&D rather than politics in general. Baronash posted:I don't think anything about the policy Koos just listed there, or how it has generally been enforced, could be fairly characterized as a blanket ban on expositing on the brutality of war. Yes, it is explicitly not that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
My contention would be that for the purposes of:quote:Material that is properly tagged and linked but is posted gratuitously, without a legitimate purpose in discussion, receives a major punishment at mods' discretion. "I find this viscerally disgusting and it makes me angry that people are looking to gloss over it in favour of defending the policies which produce it" is a legitimate discursive purpose. I don't think discussion of war can or should be cool and calm from all participants. Being able to do that is indicative of already being very desensitized to violence. That is why I can do it and I think that having strong emotional reactions is indicative of a far better state of mind. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I agree, but if he doesn't want to be an IK I'm not going to force him. Though I do relish the fact that he complains about rule enforcement while being completely unwilling to enforce any himself. I've told you, at length, in detail, why I can't. You know that it's because of the harassment and spreadsheet poo poo that you and previous mods and admins have encouraged. Why the hell would you think this is an okay thing to say? Koos Group posted:I was making fun of the meme/myself and that post was not meant to be taken seriously. I really want you to loving stop "making fun of" what you're doing. It's completely indistinguishable from your policy, and I don't think you can tell the difference when you're "not meant to be taken seriously" either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My contention would be that for the purposes of:
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
the_steve posted:The CSPAM quote farming gets a lot of heat simply because you can actually see it on here. Well-known or a well repeated lie? I here lots of conspiracy theories about secret discords and but it always is just nonsense. You are trying to compare something we can all see with some imaginary enemy you've invented. Hell a semi-official USPOL Discord exists that was created during the initial Lowtax troubles, they actually ban talking about the forums 99% of the time. Discendo Vox posted:I've told you, at length, in detail, why I can't. You know that it's because of the harassment and spreadsheet poo poo that you and previous mods and admins have encouraged. Why the hell would you think this is an okay thing to say? Yeah, not that you wouldn't be a bad mod, but most of the people recommending you become mod are the same people who creepily post about how much they hate you all the time which means the motivations behind such things are quite clear and gross.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Well-known or a well repeated lie? I here lots of conspiracy theories about secret discords and but it always is just nonsense. You are trying to compare something we can all see with some imaginary enemy you've invented. Hell a semi-official USPOL Discord exists that was created during the initial Lowtax troubles, they actually ban talking about the forums 99% of the time. The off-site DnD discords have been repeatedly confirmed, usually in relation to someone in CSPAM getting doxxed or otherwise targeted for harassment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I think the argument you outlined in your second sentence is made regularly in the thread. I fundamentally disagree that it would improve that discussion to have everyone linking to gory content to support their point. It probably wouldn't for people who are more comfortable discussing the subject dispassionately, or who are capable of framing their arguments in more florid terms. And you are of course butting up against the entire conceit of D&D as a forum at this point. I don't share the general view that arguments made with the right language are inherently more worthy of consideration than ones made crudely. I again think this is fundamentally a matter of moderating positions. If it is an argument that is made frequently I would suggest that this indicates that there exists a set of people whose method of discussion and therefore whose positions are excluded. Presumably their ability to discuss would be improved by permitting it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
the_steve posted:The off-site DnD discords have been repeatedly confirmed, usually in relation to someone in CSPAM getting doxxed or otherwise targeted for harassment. Confirmed by who? Where? I'm going to need more than your random word there's a secret cabal of D&D users out there doxxing people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:42
|
|
|
I kinda feel like there's too much passion or trying to goad people into getting mad in posting in the first place. I think the easiest example was the 'settlement' discussion in the IP thread where someone just kind of obtusely went on and decided to take a different definition of the term explicitly to rile people up. I don't even think they're doing it on purpose any more, that's just how people have been learning to post and get engaged with. Internet discussions are full of passion, everything on the internet is designed to farm emotional engagement out of you, i don't think it's a bad thing to try to tone things down on an internet forum, even if it might limit the emotional satisfaction of posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Again, issue of leftists refusing any nuance to exist and trivializing everything into correct or subhuman is the conundrum at hand. You can’t reason with leftists, it’s all about supreme power or bust for them. If being centrist is a slur, the rot runs deep. You should be perma'd for your mental health
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
And that's a value judgement that you can make, I merely point out that in doing that you also end up selectively moderating for positions which can dispassionately observe the horrific cruelty of war and give a lot of structural favour to the exact kind of rhetoric which is being used by the people in power who are supporting it. And it is exactly those positions which we are seeing popular protest the world over in opposition to. The desire for civlity in the face of brutality creates its own opposition which will select for people who are blunt and angry about their positions because those are the ones excluded from the civil discourse. In this position it is impossible to achieve value neutral moderation, only to pick sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Is literally anybody in this thread talking about actual real issues that happen regularly in D&D in fall 2023? I'm seeing a lot of rehashings of ancient arguments and grudges, and a lot of discussion of hypothetical problems that could theoretically happen, but D&D has calmed down quite a bit in the Koos years so I'm fairly surprised to see people acting like D&D is overrun with problems. "SYQ" posting was clamped down on ages ago, accusing people of doing it is also against the D&D rules, and I haven't seen anything in USCE about there being a resurgence of either one. Is this an actual problem cropping up again, or did someone just bring it up as a hypothetical and drag up old grudges with it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Is literally anybody in this thread talking about actual real issues that happen regularly in D&D in fall 2023? I'm seeing a lot of rehashings of ancient arguments and grudges, and a lot of discussion of hypothetical problems that could theoretically happen, but D&D has calmed down quite a bit in the Koos years so I'm fairly surprised to see people acting like D&D is overrun with problems. The violent content issue and the use of poo poo like electoralism arguments to derail discussion are both recent problems that have been recurring periodically. DnD has calmed down only in the sense that a lot of the effortposters and people who were creating new threads or providing effortful content gave up and left. Main Paineframe posted:"SYQ" posting was clamped down on ages ago, accusing people of doing it is also against the D&D rules, and I haven't seen anything in USCE about there being a resurgence of either one. Is this an actual problem cropping up again, or did someone just bring it up as a hypothetical and drag up old grudges with it? You're not seeing anything about it in USCE because it's against the rules to mention it. SYQ posting was clamped down on for a period of maybe a week, and has become common again. The figleaf is the user's name is taken off the post, but since there's a subculture around it, everyone in the threads where it happens is also reading the source. A lot of this thread is getting reposted, for instance. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:
This would hold a lot more water if it wasn’t also literally how you moderate D&D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
to solve syq bring back blow thread or a thinderdome. or all come to uspol and we'll hash it out
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The violent content issue and the use of poo poo like electoralism arguments to derail discussion are both recent problems that have been recurring periodically. DnD has calmed down only in the sense that a lot of the effortposters and people who were creating new threads or providing effortful content gave up and left. I object to the idea that discussions of electoralism vs parapolitical organizing is intended to do anything besides discuss those issues. You being unhappy that discussion is happening isn’t the same thing as someone twirling their moustache and saying “now I’ll derail this conversation!” It’s silly and unbecoming of you to insist there’s an overarching goal to that kind posting beyond “I’d like to discuss this outside of the bounds of traditional electoral methods” Until you can read minds, it’s in extremely poor taste and just unflattering to people’s perceptions of you as a smart dude to insist you can visit and accurately ascertain the secret motivations of other posters. I don’t think you have a secret agenda to bore me to loving death posting for the thousandth time about nutritional supplement labeling. I think that’s just your hobby horse, and like any reasonable person, I just gloss over it and read until a topic that is interesting to me comes up. The fact that you seem constitutionally unable to do this seems like the root issue here, to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:to solve syq bring back blow thread Increasing the amount of petty sniping and cross forum harassment and otherizing will just continue to drive people out of here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 21:47
|
|
|
D&D today is like reading about ‘settled science’ during peak COVID. Not sure if I ever saw a bit of ‘settled science’ that didn’t get blown apart under scrutiny later, at least in scope of how it was discussed in the press, by the feds, or online (and not by the actual scientists themselves who would have been careful not to talk about the work in such ways). Swaths of posters don’t want certain topics discussed at all and it’s rooted in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:D&D today is like reading about ‘settled science’ during peak COVID. Not sure if I ever saw a bit of ‘settled science’ that didn’t get blown apart under scrutiny later, at least in scope of how it was discussed in the press, by the feds, or online (and not by the actual scientists themselves who would have been careful not to talk about the work in such ways). Swaths of posters don’t want certain topics discussed at all and it’s rooted in bad faith. Would be helpful if you had an example here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Increasing the amount of petty sniping and cross forum harassment and otherizing will just continue to drive people out of here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Would be helpful if you had an example here. Every post complaining about ‘both sides are bad’ conversations
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 22:07
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Every post complaining about ‘both sides are bad’ conversations Repeatedly covering for a currently ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign and being a COVID skeptic do seem to go hand in hand to be fair E: as do mid-life crises, you’re at least on-brand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
I would also like the SYQ thing to stop, mainly because it loving sucks to see D&D posts in CSPAM, but also so that it takes away a big excuse for treating anyone who posts a controversial opinion as a troll. Unfortunately it's outside the purview of D&D mods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It probably wouldn't for people who are more comfortable discussing the subject dispassionately, or who are capable of framing their arguments in more florid terms. And you are of course butting up against the entire conceit of D&D as a forum at this point. I don't share the general view that arguments made with the right language are inherently more worthy of consideration than ones made crudely. I again think this is fundamentally a matter of moderating positions. I don't agree with your framing of this as a "position" that is being moderated. "Bombing an ambulance is morally and legally wrong" is a position. "I want you to see, in graphic detail, what it looks like when an ambulance is bombed" is not a position, it is a debate tactic, and one that is not acceptable here. If someone is incapable of discussion without linking to liveleak-esque content, then they should not be posting here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Again, I would prefer we focus on our positive or negative opinions of current D&D policies or occurrences, not politics, other forums, or old drama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2023 22:30
|
|