|
Koos Group posted:I do wonder about whether the trolling rule should be changed in its wording. Firstly because posting falsely or pretentiously seems to be a part of the definition most of the time, rather than simply with the intent to upset, and also because of the perennial difficulty in distinguishing between a message meant to be inflammatory vs. one that simply is inflammatory due to their beliefs.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Jakabite posted:It is a position. No one’s mind has ever been changed by participating in an internet debate anyway, its only utility is to convince spectators. Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Speaking only for myself, I can honestly say that I've had my opinion swayed several times about a large variety of topics. Some of which I knew little about, some I knew a lot about and many that I thought I knew a lot about. I don't mind being called out on my own bullshit or learning why I was mistaken about something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
To be honest speaking to Irish goons has been a great way to learn about Ireland in a way you can't get in the UK because of our terrible whitewashed education system. Hell, even Northern Ireland, supposedly part of the UK, I have to learn from NI goons calmly explaining why I'm dumb, poo poo and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 21:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:To be honest speaking to Irish goons has been a great way to learn about Ireland in a way you can't get in the UK because of our terrible whitewashed education system. Hell, even Northern Ireland, supposedly part of the UK, I have to learn from NI goons calmly explaining why I'm dumb, poo poo and wrong. Speaking for all the Irish goons itt, we have been systematically lying to you for years about what Ireland is actually all about. Partially as a joke, but also we have a kind of Wakanda thing going on over here
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
Nice try Imagineer but I know that's blackface.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Nice try Imagineer but I know that's blackface. I wish I could say you were wrong...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:That’s never been D&D though. It’s always been serious and aggressive. My first posts almost two decades ago were as a just graduated engineer on the topic of reactor types and nuclear proliferation in Iran. We got into it pretty seriously, quoting nuclear reactor engineering texts and IAEA reports back and forth. The tone has always been the problem. I don't know what the ratio is, but I'd imagine D&D gets a lot more lurkers and readers than it does posters, because the "gently caress you you're wrong" hostility makes people not want to post and risk a probe or a ban or a snide seventeen paragraph rebuttal. Like, if Being Right on the Internet actually made a difference to anything in the world ever, okay, but the level of vitriol in D&D over opinions that have zero importance outside of the community has absolutely no benefit. If anything, it has driven people away who may otherwise have something to contribute. Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:On one hand, you're right that part of the reason this site worked was it mocked the self-seriousness of other parts of the internet, but it's not the only reason. Lowtax also recognized that every other site was filled with stupid low-effort garbage, and went out of his way to insist that you do not post unless what you have to say is funny, informative, or interesting. I don't know about robert's rules of order, but on the one forum set aside to focus on the "informative" part of that, it seems pretty appropriate to have stricter rules to me. I don't like the the attitude of treating forums conflict as super serious and wish everyone would chill the gently caress out but I think it's cool to have a variety of places with a variety of expectations here. Informative is one thing, sure. But stricter rules don't always lead to that. In this thread, ostensibly posted for feedback, I just saw Nix get forum banned because Koos thought they had a history of bad faith trolling, while Nix says he's being sincere. I don't know Nix and Koos outside of this thread and have not had any interactions with either of them ever, but a mod having the ability to arbitrarily forum ban somebody who hasn't done anything especially egregious except for posting what is likely their legitimate opinion seems not right or useful. I can name a dozen people I think have to be trolling because what they say is absurd to me but I don't think they should be forum banned for it. If somebody just wants information, there's always wikipedia. Eason the Fifth fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Nov 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Some people are just temperamentally like that, and may have a hard time turning it off even if they try (in some cases these can be related to factors not fully in their control, e.g. certain types of neurodivergence -- even just being from a different culture can predispose someone to sounding awkward while writing English). A good number of the notable ND posters have been banned over the years for various reasons. We used to have more deeply weird posters. Some of the problems that have spilled out of D&D into the larger forums over the years have been ND posters. But that’s not widely known that it was the case and they mentioned it only in passing. Also the dates of the changes that occurred to the DSM regarding Asperger’s and autism and the average posters age here plays into it. Personally I can only write well in a professional context largely due to posting here. It took over a decade of seriously arguing about religion every day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:17
|
|
|
Eason the Fifth posted:
I mean, it still is a comedy forum on the internet but does that mean we can't do a little house keeping? Stop the continued harassment from CSPAM and other low effort garbage. I don't remember how the the other folks ran the place but it's simple to me if people keep beating a dead horse like "Electoralism" they should be stopped. Eason the Fifth posted:The tone has always been the problem. I don't know what the ratio is, but I'd imagine D&D gets a lot more lurkers and readers than it does posters, because the "gently caress you you're wrong" hostility makes people not want to post and risk a probe or a ban or a snide seventeen paragraph rebuttal. Like, if Being Right on the Internet actually made a difference to anything in the world ever, okay, but the level of vitriol in D&D over opinions that have zero importance outside of the community has absolutely no benefit. If anything, it has driven people away who may otherwise have something to contribute. Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
That almost makes me wonder about the idea of "kid gloves" threads akin to the "there's no such thing as a stupid question" thread concept or Reddit's "Explain Like I'm Five" subreddit where there's a lower barrier to entry and and extremely zealous moderation standard towards hostility and ridicule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:I feel like pretentiousness could be harmful as a criterion. I have gotten valuable information and worthwhile perspectives from posts written in a way I would deem pretentious. Some people are just temperamentally like that, and may have a hard time turning it off even if they try (in some cases these can be related to factors not fully in their control, e.g. certain types of neurodivergence -- even just being from a different culture can predispose someone to sounding awkward while writing English). I don't think it's a big issue in posts that don't otherwise inflame. Agreed, but by pretentious I didn't mean haughty, as it's sometimes used, but rather literally operating under some pretense, which is the premise of the trolling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:That almost makes me wonder about the idea of "kid gloves" threads akin to the "there's no such thing as a stupid question" thread concept or Reddit's "Explain Like I'm Five" subreddit where there's a lower barrier to entry and and extremely zealous moderation standard towards hostility and ridicule. That's a pretty interesting idea, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Going to just make a single post re-iterating the core problem that probably can't be addressed. Most arguments over various topics stem from broader disagreements that would be considered outside the context of the threads they take place in, and because of this they can never truly be addressed/resolved. Usually what happens is that different people have different base assumptions about the topics being discussed. This often takes the form of one side believing that a "good faith" argument is one that treats the mainstream US/Western narrative as the "null hypothesis," so to speak. They don't "blindly" believe it, but they do think it's the starting point that others have the burden of disproving. From this perspective, a good faith/evidence-based discussion is one where other people have the burden of disproving the media narrative. And on the other side, you have people who believe the burden of proof is instead of those advancing the mainstream narrative. This argument usually can't be addressed with hard evidence. There is no "objective" way to resolve this. This is especially the case when the argument is about the likelihood of future events, or about the honesty of public figures - in those situations, some sort of "unbiased hard proof" is literally and inherently impossible! The hospital bombing in Gaza from a couple weeks was probably a situation with an unusually high amount of hard evidence, but that still ended up not going anywhere because people can simply pick and choose which sources they want to believe. In a conflict like this, most on-the-ground info isn't going to be coming from the major US new orgs, so people can simply reject the authenticity of anything they don't like, and there's no "God of Truth" who can come down and prove them wrong. We directly saw this when someone posted a non-American reporter. This was ultimately rescinded, but it would not have been if the reporting were instead from "a random person" (or from any organization that is considered "biased").* The core issue is that there's a deep disagreement about "the nature of the United States (and consequently both its major political parties and the rest of the world)." A serious debate about this would be considered off-topic for a current events thread. So you'll just endlessly have people arguing with each other about the latest news, with zero avenue for ever resolving the actual source of their disagreement. To resolve the disagreement, you'd need an actual discussion about "why someone believes that it doesn't make sense to trust the good intentions of US political figures," or "the history of nations going back decades and what that implies about their current behavior and goals." If people started arguing about this, it would be considered a derail (and I don't even necessarily disagree with this - a "current events" thread is essentially meant to be "a thread where people react to current events"). The closest things to solutions I can think of are one or both of the following: - Have a thread where these deeper ideological disagreements can be discussed, and people are redirected there if they start having arguments in the current events thread (but this would require that mods not step in with their own personal ideas of what constitutes "bad faith," because they're usually oblivious to their own personal ideology) - Explicitly identify the US Current Events thread as "Succ Zone for Democrats." A bunch of people want to just discuss the latest political news with people who think similarly to them. I genuinely get this - it's basically what the Succ Zone in C-SPAM is. You want to chat with your buds, and it feels like some sort of trolling when someone comes in and starts arguing. No one would have an excuse for being mad if they were booted for arguing in a thread with that explicit "mission statement." * This is a somewhat separate topic, but my personal feeling about this is that people should be allowed to post whatever, and that the false stuff will end up being filtered out eventually. Who cares if people temporarily believe something wrong? It's better for that to happen than it is for "anything that isn't from a handful of authorized sources" being outright banned. This is especially the case in a situation like "a war zone where there's little media access and a huge amount of information is having to come from amateur sources." It's fine if someone posts something that ends up later being revealed as fake news! Once it's revealed as fake, people will point this out. The God of Misinformation isn't going to smite you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
As a lurker, I'd say that the main reason that I very rarely post is that I'm usually a bit late, and even if I think I've managed to come up with something interesting to add, by the time I read the thread it has already been said, or I feel like it's been too long to bring it back up. As opposed to trying to avoid hostility or something like that. I think that D&D has been managing to have relatively serious discussion about topics, without getting too serious. Sometimes I find myself skimming and skipping posts for a few pages when arguments get repetitive and/or circular, and that seems like the biggest issue to me? I don't think that more probations need to be issue for that, but I would like to see mods/IKs engage in the discussion constructively to help move it along when that starts to happen, and I think that that does happen but it could happen more often. I agree that the feedback threads should stay open much longer, possibly indefinitely, and at least until some sort of resolution or progress is achieved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
My feedback is that the moderation needs to take a closer look at contentious threads, either actively guiding and moderating discussion, or more quick to act on posts that break the rules. There were a few pages in the IP thread in particular where a poster advocated for ethnic cleansing in an obviously bad faith and trolling way (so even from the perspective of 'we don't moderate positions only arguments, the arguments themselves broke the rules in multiple ways, i.e were repetitive, weren't engaging with the argument or responding to the points being made) but no one did anything, I pm'd Rigel about it but there was no response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
I think D&D would be improved a lot if politics were minimized. Probably piss off a lot of people, but the board might actually become active if there are interesting things to debate with superior D&D brains then whether or not party/policy is bad (it is). Let CSPAM be the board of politics and current events. It's mostly boring watching people go around in circles on the same issues where there is 0 stakes to posting and no one ever learns anything. Wouldn't it be more interesting to debate and discuss philosophy, art, economics or science where effort posting might actually be interesting to read? To elaborate a little further, I think D&D should be a place for discussion elevated to a slightly higher degree where facts are valued and we can share ideas to duke it out like the cretins we are in cspam. This might remove some of the us-v-them mentality if everyone has to go to cspam to discuss voting or war or whatever and people can come to this forum to learn more about things and have a reasoned debate or just learn more about interesting topics. swamp thong fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:I think the US politics thread has electoralism derails because people don't get probed for posting about posters as reliably if they call the posters they're posting about "the liberals" (that might also work with "the leftists" but nobody does that) I tend to think that this could potentially be fine if you just happen to mention the conventional wisdom of the thread/board (without attacking someone by name or making it obvious who you are attacking) on the way towards making whatever point you are trying to make, as long as it does help you in trying to make some kind of a point and it is not excessively whiny, annoying, or an obvious troll. Killer robot posted:I don't think it's possible for rules meant to curtail trolling or deceit to require an objective view into the speaker's heart of hearts. I also don't think they can meaningfully exist if they are automatically bypassed by a doe-eyed assertion of innocent sincerity. It's as absurd as the "It's only bribery if the quid-pro-quo was in writing AND if the exchange involved cloth sacks with dollar signs printed on them" joke. Rules meant to curtail bad faith actors by nature have to have some level of "reasonable person" standard and thus will involve judgement calls of what is reasonable. I think this is me right here, I'm probably the D&D mod most likely to be wedgied by Koos for being ridiculously naive and missing the obvious troll/bad faith poster. When I see someone posting an extremely unpopular opinion, I do try to be fair to their POV, but then in doing so, I often miss the signs that someone is just stirring poo poo up for laughs. Rigel fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:21
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Strongly disagree with this sentiment. Speaking only for myself, I can honestly say that I've had my opinion swayed several times about a large variety of topics. Some of which I knew little about, some I knew a lot about and many that I thought I knew a lot about. I don't mind being called out on my own bullshit or learning why I was mistaken about something. Fair enough, but i think it’s pretty rare. Participating in the debate is I think inherently emotional and results in people digging in like the dumb apes we are. I have had a lot of my opinions changed by reading other peoples’ debates though. That’s why i generally only participate in an even slightly heated discussion on here when I’m pretty drat sure of my position and am willing to plant my flag with no regrets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:46
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:Fair enough, but i think it’s pretty rare. Participating in the debate is I think inherently emotional and results in people digging in like the dumb apes we are. I have had a lot of my opinions changed by reading other peoples’ debates though. That’s why i generally only participate in an even slightly heated discussion on here when I’m pretty drat sure of my position and am willing to plant my flag with no regrets. I've definitely learned a lot and had my mind changed a lot when lurking and browsing, and can agree that it's usually easier than when you're actively engaged in a debate. Of course, sometimes it turned out to be dishonest bullshit or bad approaches I had to unlearn later, but that itself is part of a learning process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:That's a pretty interesting idea, actually. It's a good experience but does really require dedicated moderators/IKs from the offset. Feel free to PM if you don't want to muddy the waters of this thread. Killer robot posted:I've definitely learned a lot and had my mind changed a lot when lurking and browsing, and can agree that it's usually easier than when you're actively engaged in a debate. Of course, sometimes it turned out to be dishonest bullshit or bad approaches I had to unlearn later, but that itself is part of a learning process. This to me is why I don't believe in instantly probating people with bad faith or generally lovely takes - providing a thoughtful (if potentially rude) response is so much better than the perceived complaint of probating people for "wrongthink" - by and large both posters and lurkers want to know why a post got such negative feedback.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:38
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:in a politics forum people who level cap their Seriousness can end up the most insufferable and discussion-annihilating of all, and it's not the primary issue you have to deal with in that kind of environment anyway. the main thing you gotta balance is if a place like this can stay legitimately informative in some way, especially for individual subject or nation threads and when dealing with current events. the issue of how to balance the seriousness vs. funny/chill/casual lever (looking back at the audience, etc) is way below that in importance and the major reason why you gotta kick people out isn't because they aren't Serious Politics Posters but because they drown threads that you used to be able to go into and get something useful out of it rather than some weird interforum or posting as praxis drama that someone can't let alone I think that "serious" doesn't have to equal "completely loving insufferable to deal with". I think the big question isn't really how serious someone is, but rather how interested they are in having an actual conversation rather than just shouting one-sidedly into the void. Some base level of seriousness is needed to that, but big-and-wordy doesn't necessarily mean serious about having a conversation either. All the standard D&D stuff feeds into that. Using more words than a simple one-liner helps to ensure that you can clearly express and communicate your position. Citing sources for your statements helps to counter people's tendency to state their opinion as fact or uncritically repeat wild Twitter rumors as truth. Keeping the insults and personal attacks under control helps reinforce that we're just having a chat rather than getting into a petty internet slapfight. And so on. Clarity of communication is super loving important. The mods have some role to play in facilitating that, of course, but the posters themselves also have a crucial role to play. And that role can best be summed up as "stop acting like a boomer who's just discovered the ability to yell at people on the internet for the first time". I'm not singling out anyone in particular with this, it's just kind of a general observation for all of D&D: If a bad post goes unpunished for a couple of hours, loving deal with it. Pretend we're functional human beings who can exercise a bit of patience and let things slide a for a little while. It's annoying when someone posts a dumbass take or one we personally find morally abhorrent, but we don't have to immediately poo poo our pants over it and start flinging it everywhere while screaming for the zookeepers to come clean everything up for us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:39
|
|
|
Eason the Fifth posted:Informative is one thing, sure. But stricter rules don't always lead to that. In this thread, ostensibly posted for feedback, I just saw Nix get forum banned because Koos thought they had a history of bad faith trolling, while Nix says he's being sincere. I don't know Nix and Koos outside of this thread and have not had any interactions with either of them ever, but a mod having the ability to arbitrarily forum ban somebody who hasn't done anything especially egregious except for posting what is likely their legitimate opinion seems not right or useful. I can name a dozen people I think have to be trolling because what they say is absurd to me but I don't think they should be forum banned for it. If somebody just wants information, there's always wikipedia. Regardless of your posting history with Nix, you could easily take a look at their rap sheet/posting history to easily gain some perspective on why the forumban occurred
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
The infamous U.S. current events thread is probably the calmest and best I have ever seen it in years and years. People who can't help but stir white noise poo poo have generally gotten kicked out or gotten bored and left. This comes from actively moderating, reading the thread, and being firm about rules. While I agree that moderators openly abdicating responsibility for moderating has been a historic problem, I'm not sure I agree with Discendo Vox that this is still a major problem, at least in that thread. Not everyone is going to like every moderator decision, including me. But things appear to have largely calmed down, even when elections are heating up. Boring is good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
on the subject of ramping, i think there's a currently ongoing example of someone who just keeps getting short probes over and over for doing the same poo poo constantly, despite the fact that the short probes and mild rapsheet scoldings clearly aren't working i'm going to redact their username, but this user has a very distinctive rapsheet so I don't think it'll be hard for anyone to figure out who they are  i'm not saying they should get ban+monthed or something, but this does not look like someone who is being dissuaded by dayprobes but this sort of thing happens a lot in D&D, where someone can reliably get 1-2 probes every week and it just never really escalates from there. i'm bringing this particular user up as a topical example, not to single them out specifically
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:on the subject of ramping, i think there's a currently ongoing example of someone who just keeps getting short probes over and over for doing the same poo poo constantly, despite the fact that the short probes and mild rapsheet scoldings clearly aren't working You uh might want to reread those ban reasons if you think you redacted their username
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 05:34
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:You uh might want to reread those ban reasons if you think you redacted their username 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 05:47
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:That almost makes me wonder about the idea of "kid gloves" threads akin to the "there's no such thing as a stupid question" thread concept or Reddit's "Explain Like I'm Five" subreddit where there's a lower barrier to entry and and extremely zealous moderation standard towards hostility and ridicule. 2nding that. I post on a forum similar to that and they simply enforce Be Nice debate rules and calmhitlers are taken care of under the "no bigots" policy because they don't pretend not moderate positions. Other ideas: - Combine C-Spam with D&D. You either sink or swim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 07:35
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:- Combine C-Spam with D&D. You either sink or swim. It's funny because CSPAM originally was a D&D subforum. It got split into it's own forum either because the very serious debate havers couldn't abide there being a section for shitposting, or the shitposters were tired of people trying to apply the serious debate rules to the shitpost forum; one or the other/some combination of both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
the_steve posted:It's funny because CSPAM originally was a D&D subforum. Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be (idiot) king.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 08:50
|
|
|
the_steve posted:It's funny because CSPAM originally was a D&D subforum. Well the mods of the shitpost forum will ban+30 people for arguing about the true positions of certain posters. Certain positions just aren't allowed in CSPAM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 10:10
|
|
|
My feedback is that saying hitler had a point about the jews should be more than a 1 day probeMonica Bellucci posted:When the IDF makes you start siding with Hitler...
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Yeah I've gotten more for "posting about posters" that's just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:My feedback is that saying hitler had a point about the jews should be more than a 1 day probe But it was very calm soooo
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:My feedback is that saying hitler had a point about the jews should be more than a 1 day probe Lol, this entire feedback thread is pointless if they're already this incompetent/malicious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:My feedback is that saying hitler had a point about the jews should be more than a 1 day probe In that particular case, poster was so immediately shamed by the entire thread that they haven't posted there again. Not sure if they're still posting elsewhere on the forums, but...kinda seems like job is done unless you're arguing that this should be a perma? Which would also be fair and understandable, but in this case thread consensus produced a result better than a probe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
The rules are written to prevent shaming anyone out of a thread for any opinion no matter how terrible, they just appear to have not been enforced this time. Generally shaming someone is a gamble, if you just respond "shut the gently caress up" to someone you get punished. You're "supposed" to report it and move on so mods can take care of it, according to the rules anyway. Koos Group posted:As a reminder, even when engaging with fraught topics or arguments that seem self-evidently wrong, rules of rigor and good argumentation still apply. This was in response to people reacting to someone posting pseudoscientific claims that African Americans have an unfair advantage in sports because they are descended from slaves. Internaut! posted:Males in general are significantly stronger and faster than females, there is no debate about this in any serious circle. This does not even address transgender athletics much less make a statement about them. So... which is it. Do mods handle stuff like "I like Hitler" or are the rules against incivility arbitrarily suspended and posters are expected to handle it with public shaming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:In that particular case, poster was so immediately shamed by the entire thread that they haven't posted there again. Not sure if they're still posting elsewhere on the forums, but...kinda seems like job is done unless you're arguing that this should be a perma? Yeah Nazism should earn a permaban. It shouldn't be necessary to continue to detail discussion by "shaming" the poster. Ideally there would be no discussion of the post whatsoever, just a perma and everyone moves on. The perma sends the message that Nazism isn't tolerated here - not just in one thread or at one time, but for the whole forum forever. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Honestly looks like an extra-judicial shot since at worst it's white noise posting, 2.b I believe. Good probe under common sense but goes against how D&D is supposed to operate. They obviously are not trolling, they lack the rap sheet and have posters saying they're generally a good poster in that thread. It's in good faith and it doesn't seem like they expected the response or were intentionally poo poo stirring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The rules are written to prevent shaming anyone out of a thread for any opinion no matter how terrible, they just appear to have not been enforced this time. Generally shaming someone is a gamble, if you just respond "shut the gently caress up" to someone you get punished. You're "supposed" to report it and move on so mods can take care of it, according to the rules anyway. It's an interesting one because that was in the UKMT where we are allowed to C-SPAM post as well as D&D post and the general rule is only our IKs are allowed to mete out punishment. I actually was a little put out that a D&D mod had to come in and punish them as I feel leaving a post like that unprobated, even with thread feedback being harsh, gives a bad impression. The thread had a small argument over the "gently caress off" vs probation approach.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Skimming their post history they do not seem to be a Nazi (I realize I am risking savage mockery if my skimming was too brief and I missed a bunch of Nazi posts), and it was just a *very* tasteless joke, so maybe they dont need to be punished like an actual Nazi, but looking at what other people have gotten for much less, it should probably be more than a day to joke that doing the Holocaust was a good idea. I am curious why all the people responding in ways that also broke the rules weren't punished though, when people were warned before to be civil to a guy spouting actual Nazi race science or get punished themselves. Are the rules about civility, rigorous argument, and decorum in effect at all times, or nor? Is there an exception to them if someone posts a really bad position? Note that I would be fine with the latter I'd just like to know since we're always told it's zero tolerance on civility no matter what we're responding to. E: ah OK just saw that it was in a thread with its own rules about civility. E2: wait the England thread is the one where you're not expected to be polite??? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:34
|
|