|
Baronash posted:I think you're misunderstanding what I said. When I said that the argument was made frequently, I meant the argument of "X is reprehensible, and it should be opposed/is a war crime/etc." That type of argument makes up, I would say, the majority of the I/P thread for understandable reasons, and vanishingly few of the posters involved in making those arguments feel the need to link horrifying content for the sole purpose of shocking their interlocutor. 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. And to be honest I do find it a bit gross that people are so intent on spending their time discussing this conflict but absolutely refuse to even be on the same page as a link to the reality of it. No one’s forcing anyone to look but this is over-sanitisation of a horrible subject.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 22:36 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 11:05 |
|
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. And to be honest I do find it a bit gross that people are so intent on spending their time discussing this conflict but absolutely refuse to even be on the same page as a link to the reality of it. No one’s forcing anyone to look but this is over-sanitisation of a horrible subject. To be clear, believing this material should be linked in this context, as you do, is a position. Doing so is an action.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 22:45 |
|
OwlFancier posted: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. Objectively it is bizarre that if you show someone a picture of the aftermath of airstriking an ambulance full of kids you get banned but advocating airstriking the ambulance in the first place is perfectly acceptable. Clearly, actually bombing kids is more harmful than simply showing people the real human cost of what they support, especially if the latter is done to try to convince people to stop supporting mass murder. But it's not mysterious when you look at the policy as just flowing downstream from how war is packaged and sold by the ruling class and their media, as this antiseptic thing where you push some buttons and some red lights on a map wink out on an electronic map, and reasonable people can disagree about whether any kids/medics/journalists/etc in the area were in league with the terrorists. Absent a massive propaganda machine to manufacture consent for infinite war, a sensible policy would be to ban images of horrible violence and ban advocating for that horrible violence to be done to those people in the first place, but that's not how we're primed to view the conversation.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 22:50 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Objectively it is bizarre that if you show someone a picture of the aftermath of airstriking an ambulance full of kids you get banned but advocating airstriking the ambulance in the first place is perfectly acceptable. Clearly, actually bombing kids is more harmful than simply showing people the real human cost of what they support, especially if the latter is done to try to convince people to stop supporting mass murder. Yes, this, basically. I find the former far more represhensible than the latter, but I am not aware of any policy to ban people for the former? Especially if it is worded abstractly, indefinitely. I find it impossible to imagine that this does not constitute de-facto moderating positions.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 22:53 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Objectively it is bizarre that if you show someone a picture of the aftermath of airstriking an ambulance full of kids you get banned but advocating airstriking the ambulance in the first place is perfectly acceptable. Clearly, actually bombing kids is more harmful than simply showing people the real human cost of what they support, especially if the latter is done to try to convince people to stop supporting mass murder. If you feel you should be able to link people dying there is an active SAD thread about the topic that will probably supersede any decision Koos makes about the topic.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 22:57 |
|
Koos Group posted: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. That all sounds very reasonable. What makes it bullshit is that post was actually the third in a series of other posts by the same poster that were reported for personal attacks and backseat modding. So it’s not a case of giving someone a one-time break, they’re already a repeat offender and you’re cherry picking one post and finger wagging with a “don’t do it again” and a wink. You can’t sit there and tell me you regularly give out warnings like that, either. quote: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 don’t care about the reasons these individual posts weren’t punished, they’re just two examples of a much larger pattern that stuck out to me. I’m asking you to address the root cause, which isn’t just a hand-wavy “we missed that one”. You missed it because a mod agreed with one person and disagreed with the other, and let their biases get in the way. Throw a stone here and you’ll hit two other similar posts. I had a great conversation with Inferior Third Season awhile back where they explained from their point of view, some posts are 51% probe-worthy, and others are 49%. It’s essentially a coin flip. I appreciate their explanation, and I’m not saying they’re being intentionally disingenuous, but after the eighth or ninth consecutive lost coin flip, you have to consider that perhaps being the only nominal conservative here is the deciding factor. It’s exhausting, and I’m not playing that game anymore when you won’t even admit there’s an issue. I’m not the only one saying that ITT, and you know you’ve already lost some thoughtful left-wing posters for the same reason.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:01 |
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, this, basically. I find the former far more represhensible than the latter, but I am not aware of any policy to ban people for the former? Especially if it is worded abstractly, indefinitely. See also how supporting violence is treated. Automatic ban, unless it's an agent of the state shooting someone for jaywalking or something and then not only is there inevitably someone to say "good shoot", but their pro-violence opinion must be treated as respectable and it's the people telling them to gently caress off who get punished. socialsecurity posted:If you feel you should be able to link people dying there is an active SAD thread about the topic that will probably supersede any decision Koos makes about the topic.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:05 |
|
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. And to be honest I do find it a bit gross that people are so intent on spending their time discussing this conflict but absolutely refuse to even be on the same page as a link to the reality of it. No one’s forcing anyone to look but this is over-sanitisation of a horrible subject. Again, it's not a position, it is a tactic. You can't argue the facts of "I want you to see this." You can certainly form a position of "I think this tactic should/should not be allowed," but that is not the same thing.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:10 |
|
Baronash posted:Again, it's not a position, it is a tactic. You can't argue the facts of "I want you to see this." You can certainly form a position of "I think this tactic should/should not be allowed," but that is not the same thing. Showing evidence of things is a tactic, but it is a tactic that preferences some positions over others. There are some positions which are more sustainable in the absence of evidence than in the presence of it. I don't think tactics and positions are especially separable.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:15 |
|
Koos Group posted: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. edit: we are all human, not we all ate humans
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:20 |
|
Baronash posted:Again, it's not a position, it is a tactic. You can't argue the facts of "I want you to see this." You can certainly form a position of "I think this tactic should/should not be allowed," but that is not the same thing. Fair enough, but I think the first sentence of my post was far from the main substance of it. I think playing into the sanitisation of war, which as mentioned above comes downstream from the powers that be (in the world I mean), is a failure of these forums and I think we can do better than kowtowing to that.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:24 |
|
I agree with all those calling for firmer enforcement of the rules. There are already forums for emoting about the news. Too many times it's like TV/IV. We know the Republicans are clowns and there is no shortage of places to basically post "lmao" or share epic memes. Furthermore, reporting these posts has been unappreciated. If so many posts are breaking the rules, why should I have to be the one to stop reporting? If you're getting so many reports maybe it's because Koos Group's rules aren't being enforced well enough so there are a lot of posts that break them. (For context, after reporting 10 posts in 13 minutes, I am no longer allowed to report posts, -- yet I do so in good faith, without bias as to whether I agree with the posts, referencing the rules each time. This is ridiculous. I have bouts of IBS and so I have to spend a lot of time sitting on the john, where reading the forums is the best activity.)
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:24 |
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:Swaths of posters don’t want certain topics discussed at all and it’s rooted in bad faith. I used to think this but banning certain topics is ideological and honest. Posters lobbying to ban (or at least silo) the topic of electoral legitimacy genuinely believe it is a bad faith topic. And in reverse, many posters who don't believe in the legitimacy of liberal democracy may view the banning of such a topic as bad faith. Imo, both sides are wrong. People can have all sorts of exotic, contradictory, or controversial beliefs even if I personally think they're too absurd to be serious.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:37 |
|
I will say this- i think it would cut down on a lot of the talking past each other if people only attributed positions to specific posters or people, and actually had to quote the post in question rather than vague swipes.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:39 |
|
Panzeh posted:I will say this- i think it would cut down on a lot of the talking past each other if people only attributed positions to specific posters or people, and actually had to quote the post in question rather than vague swipes. Hell yeah, a single bad poster, even if dozens of people shout them down becomes "the thread all believes what this bad poster did" it's exhausting to deal with endlessly.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:44 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Objectively it is bizarre that if you show someone a picture of the aftermath of airstriking an ambulance full of kids you get banned but advocating airstriking the ambulance in the first place is perfectly acceptable. Clearly, actually bombing kids is more harmful than simply showing people the real human cost of what they support, especially if the latter is done to try to convince people to stop supporting mass murder. This is part of why I've not taken the hardline stance against any violent material being linked which is advocated in SAD. It is also true that bombing children is more harmful than anything one could post, but this is irrelevant as bombing children is already against the general rules of SA. socialsecurity posted:If you feel you should be able to link people dying there is an active SAD thread about the topic that will probably supersede any decision Koos makes about the topic. It is true that if the SAD discussion leads to an admin decision that differs from what I'm currently doing, then the admin decision will take priority. VitalSigns posted:See also how supporting violence is treated. Automatic ban, unless it's an agent of the state shooting someone for jaywalking or something and then not only is there inevitably someone to say "good shoot", but their pro-violence opinion must be treated as respectable and it's the people telling them to gently caress off who get punished. Neither my nor the admins' policy include any provisions for who is perpetrating violence. It's based on whether it's graphic (if posted inline) and whether it is cheering it on or otherwise ghoulish (if linked). And though it's not my business, if a Gibbisser linked a video of the police shooting someone and said "serves them right" I would hope they'd be banned. OwlFancier posted:Showing evidence of things is a tactic, but it is a tactic that preferences some positions over others. There are some positions which are more sustainable in the absence of evidence than in the presence of it. If there is a debate over whether something happened and someone posted video evidence that included violence that would be allowed under my current policy, as it is part of discussion. World Famous W posted:im always sincere, but ill drop the jokes for this. several of the us politic threads have people that have been posting together for years. we are all human and will build and keep grudges. hell, ive got plenty of grudges from 2020 and posters about reade. now, ive mostly been civil to them, but it's there. just don't think you're going to get what you want here at all I'm not asking anyone to drop all their grudges, just not to post about them in this thread for feedback to inform policy. Panzeh posted:I will say this- i think it would cut down on a lot of the talking past each other if people only attributed positions to specific posters or people, and actually had to quote the post in question rather than vague swipes. Agreed.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2023 23:59 |
|
I don't know if it matters to the argument at this point but i was actually exposed to research and practice about this specific issue and it turns out exposing people to gory context regarding a multitude of issues is actually one of the best ways to change people's minds about oppressive systems. I might wish this wasn't the case but it was shockingly effective throughout The best way we ever saw to shock people out of complacency for police brutality was expressly trying to share and boost visibility of video of police killings, especially the infamous hotel Simon Says video and all those reels of police popping beloved family pets like it some kind of trophy shoot. The best way we had to slap people right off the fence about mass shootings and permissive gun laws was showing the bodies. Same poo poo happening in israel right now, and it's been pretty consistent with warcrimes footage in ukraine, I'm almost certain it's actually one of the reasons why certain groups clutch pearls hard enough to turn them into diamonds over "displaying heartless gore" when it's definitely going to change people's minds over time if the way the events are reported isn't heavily sanitized and cordoned off. I don't know how much i like this as reality but gets you thinking about the deliberacy of groups that tried to stop us showing police killings to complacent fairweather "allies" while the police just kept killing and killing and killing and killing and i have a tendency to remember it when looking at poo poo like all this and trying to figure oh no i gotta go looking for the Bad Faith Bogeyman again cause gonna bet I started with an interest in wanting to make the letters-from-birmingham rear end White Liberal compelled to actually see police violence and murder in action, to keep them from keeping that as an abstract concept in their minds rather than constant and state sanctioned terror. And i definitely want the realities of communal punishment and violent ethnic cleansing in palestine absolutely jammed in the faces of people day in and day out so i guess i got 2 dogs in the fight till the cops plug them at least SIDE NOTE: also found out that the absolute best way to increase sympathy and support for cops was if people saw videos of them dealing with belligerent sovereign citizens like this 100% catapulted them in the opposite direction of acab
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 00:22 |
|
Staluigi posted:I don't know if it matters to the argument at this point but i was actually exposed to research and practice about this specific issue and it turns out exposing people to gory context regarding a multitude of issues is actually one of the best ways to change people's minds about oppressive systems. I might wish this wasn't the case but it was shockingly effective throughout Who are these certain groups? Are they posters? Could you quote them?
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 00:26 |
|
Koos Group posted:It is also true that bombing children is more harmful than anything one could post, but this is irrelevant as bombing children is already against the general rules of SA. What about supporting it, defending it, explaining how it was necessary or that they were willing human shields who deserved it. I agree with you that I don't want to see pictures of dead kids in the I/P thread, but even more I don't want to see people defending killing kids because that's worse, and yet.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 00:28 |
|
My one big piece of feedback is that I wish there was more of a rule against arguments defending, either implicitly or explicitly, violence against civilians and/or that the punishment for it was something more extreme than the typical d&d 'made a snarky reply' or 'failed to address the argument' 6/12/24
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 00:43 |
|
I only read the USCE, 2024 GOP Primary, and Trump Legal Troubles threads. I have no complaints about them except for the recent electoralism discussion that occurred in USCE. 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. Can I get a clarification on this please? When will we be there?
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 01:09 |
|
Staluigi posted:I don't know if it matters to the argument at this point but i was actually exposed to research and practice about this specific issue and it turns out exposing people to gory context regarding a multitude of issues is actually one of the best ways to change people's minds about oppressive systems. I might wish this wasn't the case but it was shockingly effective throughout I don't disagree with any of this but I do think the way the Internet works means that in reality posting gore means that the people who could have their minds changed just walk away without looking and the only people who stick around want to gawk or worse. I think it's a really strong argument for why CNN or the NYT shouldn't be self-censoring and also an explanation as to why they avoid graphic evidence of police misconduct but I don't know if it applies to SA the same way. I just find it hard to see it being something that's going to shake people up, instead we will just have the worst posters left getting really excited about death in 4k
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 01:19 |
|
socialsecurity posted:Who are these certain groups? Are they posters? Could you quote them? Posters? Like that what I'm talking about is research and activist work on a web forum about the web forum? Tragically, I'm not that terminally online yet, this was from much more In Real Life poo poo like being in person with activist groups with a vested interest in finding ways to counter political and government sponsored messaging (and popular apathy) about little things like the police being an organized terror mob But the lessons learned still apply one way or another to when the act of sharing evidence and demonstration of things that can contain violence and gore, like state terror or ethnic cleansing, becomes this contentious and people are debating whether to just ban it outright Gumball Gumption posted:I don't disagree with any of this but I do think the way the Internet works means that in reality posting gore means that the people who could have their minds changed just walk away without looking and the only people who stick around want to gawk or worse. Yeah that leads into the not fun part for me: when you make this issue SA specific i think i lean towards gore bans anyway even knowing why it is important to keep violent imagery present, accessible, and referenceable, because i don't have any confidence this place is functional enough to appropriately handle it It sucks because the visibility of these things is important, but it is ... hard to convince me that SA is generally up to the task of the things you have to do to avoid war porn cheerleading with tons of traumatic unspoiled ambushes that make threads unsafe for lots of people. If the administrative competence isn't there, better off just cutting the loving limb off
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 01:22 |
|
If it helps? I don't think it is SA specific. It's just the general way being able to select what you're exposed to works. People, generally, are not self selecting content that challenges them.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 01:53 |
|
Which is why I would favour the approach of permitting linking to disturbing content with a clear indication of what it contains, and challenging posters to defend it if necessary, you don't have to click on it if you don't want to, but I think that would serve both the end of deterring making excuses for, or seeking to abstract barbarism into detatched terms, while also preventing people from being exposed to essentially shock images without knowing about it. If someone consistently refuses to engage with the reality of their position then I think that would just make them a bad faith poster or whatever. Someone you can't really have a conversation with however you want to phrase it.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 02:02 |
|
Ither posted:I only read the USCE, 2024 GOP Primary, and Trump Legal Troubles threads. Might have a reckoning if it starts taking over the thread whilst going nowhere again.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 02:03 |
|
Koos Group posted:Might have a reckoning if it starts taking over the thread whilst going nowhere again. Why do you need a bad thing to happen again before you prevent the bad thing from happening?
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 02:27 |
|
Staluigi posted:I don't know if it matters to the argument at this point but i was actually exposed to research and practice about this specific issue and it turns out exposing people to gory context regarding a multitude of issues is actually one of the best ways to change people's minds about oppressive systems. I might wish this wasn't the case but it was shockingly effective throughout yeah I read a pretty interesting book about this and it echoes what you say. It's not something I really want to debate but if it's a topic you're interested in, check it out. https://nyupress.org/9780814724361/death-makes-the-news/ excerpt: quote:With each new conflict in the Middle East, families of the fallen, activists, and politicians on both sides criticize the American news media for not showing their dead more often. This was the reaction, in the summer of 2014, for instance, when the U.S. press coverage of beach bombings in Gaza included images of dead Palestinians. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the Israeli prime minister complained that Hamas was intentionally putting civilians in harm’s way so that news images of their deaths would elicit sympathy from Americans: “They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause,” he said, fearing that such images ignite antisemitism.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 02:28 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:Why do you need a bad thing to happen again before you prevent the bad thing from happening? I already issued the thread a warning about it, which is the only preventative measure we're sure we want to take at this time.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 02:37 |
|
Also my stance which is forum wide is bans should be permas, just as they are anywhere else. If you don't, bans are just probations that cost you money.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 02:45 |
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I had a great conversation with Inferior Third Season awhile back where they explained from their point of view, some posts are 51% probe-worthy, and others are 49%. It’s essentially a coin flip. I appreciate their explanation, and I’m not saying they’re being intentionally disingenuous, but after the eighth or ninth consecutive lost coin flip, you have to consider that perhaps being the only nominal conservative here is the deciding factor.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 15:52 |
|
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. You have a habit of posting unsupported assertions projected onto groups to support opinions. You are doing it in this very post: “Swaths of posters”. When pressed on you get quiet and withdraw from the conversation. I think there is nothing wrong, and should be nothing against D&D rules about calling you out for it every time publicly as long as it continues to be clearly textually supportable by the content of your posting.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 16:52 |
|
ban anyone who posts a vxtwitter or fxtwitter link it's bad enough that people just blindly copy-paste links from Twitter in the first place, but the vx or fx mean they copy-pasted a Twitter link from Discord and now that's just getting loving ridiculous
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 16:53 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:ban anyone who posts a twitter
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 16:57 |
|
Sorry, if dumb Twitter links that are hastily sent to you in a panic are how the leaders of the free world operate so it should be how D&D operates. Matt Yglesias is a thought leader in Washington DC and we shouldn't build a safe zone where we can just avoid that fact.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 16:59 |
|
This Gumball Gumption posted:Sorry, if dumb Twitter links that are hastily sent to you in a panic are how the leaders of the free world operate so it should be how D&D operates. Matt Yglesias is a thought leader in Washington DC and we shouldn't build a safe zone where we can just avoid that fact. I don't think I've ever heard Yglesias being referred to as a "thought leader". TBH, I've never even taken him as a serious political analyst/journalist/whatever he is. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 6, 2023 |
# ? Nov 6, 2023 17:05 |
|
World Famous W posted:im always sincere, but ill drop the jokes for this. several of the us politic threads have people that have been posting together for years. we are all human and will build and keep grudges. hell, ive got plenty of grudges from 2020 and posters about reade. now, ive mostly been civil to them, but it's there. just don't think you're going to get what you want here at all Most of the actual old drama has died down as well. Some people now post in CSPAM and some still post in D&D and generally each group stays there. There seems to be only a relatively small number of folks that regularly post in both.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 17:08 |
|
Kalit posted:This His stuff is very commonly shared and talked about and he's a great example of someone we don't take seriously for being a Twitter loser but is taken very seriously by the sorts who work in the White House. Ron Klain was a self-reported daily reader in the White House. Banning Twitter links would be a silly bubble to put ourselves in when the actual political world lives and breathes Twitter and social media in general
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 17:10 |
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Most of the actual old drama has died down as well. Some people now post in CSPAM and some still post in D&D and generally each group stays there. There seems to be only a relatively small number of folks that regularly post in both. No. If the "old drama has died down", it's because the trolls have more control; the people who were the most beneficial participants have been driven off of DnD or SA overall. The subforum continues to be harvested and targeted by trolls, actively facilitated by the current pattern of rationalizing not enforcing the rules. This thread is a great example, like its multiple predecessors; users who participate in the forum give feedback; it is either ignored or new actions are actively refused. Trolls poo poo the place up, and it serves to entertain them. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Nov 6, 2023 |
# ? Nov 6, 2023 17:12 |
|
|
# ? May 13, 2024 11:05 |
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. If the "old drama has died down", it's because the trolls have more control; the people who were the most beneficial participants have been driven off of DnD or SA overall. The subforum continues to be harvested and targeted by trolls, actively facilitated by the current pattern of rationalizing not enforcing the rules. This thread is a great example, like its multiple predecessors; users who participate in the forum give feedback; it is either ignored or new actions are actively refused. Trolls poo poo the place up, and it serves to entertain them. As someone who in both places I don't think this is happening and a lot of people who only post in D&D and see it as counterweight to something have locked themselves into a war only they're fighting. The accusations of off-site organization towards me has always come from people who embedded up engaging in that exact behavior because they convinced themselves they needed to do it defensively.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2023 17:27 |