Jakabite posted:

One thing I’ve noticed is that people seem to get away with saying some extremely heinous poo poo (cheering on genocide and generally treating Palestinians as sub-human, for example), but if they dress it up in nice words and a calm, measured tone, and don’t quite explicitly say the Bad Words, they get away with it because ‘we don’t moderate positions’. Frankly I think that’s both untrue and ridiculous. If I was to waltz into a dnd thread and say ‘it is my solemnly held opinion that all non-white people should be exterminated, here’s 2000 calmly written words on why’, I’m genuinely not sure if I’d be banned or not. I should, obviously, but if I was then clearly you do moderate positions. I have a lot of issues with CSPAM but their joke/observation about DnD being the calm hitler meme is pretty spot on from what I’ve seen.

Please do moderate positions and learn to read between the lines, rather than just assuming ‘calm tone, reasoned argument, lots of words = a fine argument to make that couldn’t possibly be loving evil’.

World Famous W posted:

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.

selec posted:

I see those SYQ posts and I don’t see them as harvesting—more like when you see some cool herbs and take them home to make tea. To me, harvesting would be deliberately posting bait, then SYQ’ing the responses. I’m not an SYQ poster, so my reading might be naive, but I don’t see it as fundamentally different from posting stuff in other threads where we mock people making stupid tweets. It feels more personal because it’s another user on the same site, but it’s a behavior we see on all social media: can you believe this rear end in a top hat? Look at this rear end in a top hat!

It’s not a particular thing to SA, it’s just the smaller community of users makes it more likely to be taken as a personal affront. The behavior itself is as old as the internet itself. If we make SYQ against the rules, that’s fine, but it should be undertaken knowing it’s us being weird about the internet as it exists for most users, and not like, something we know has succeeded for other sites, unless there’s examples out there of it working meaningfully. I think the real solution is to tell people getting SYQ’d to chill the gently caress out, posting isn’t praxis and people are allowed to make fun of your opinions. It’s just pure aesthetics, “I don’t want this happening to me, so please make it happen somewhere I can’t see it.” Which feels very antithetical to the idea of responding to bad speech with good speech.

Ironically, the only way I knew DV was posting wild conspiracy theories calling me out by name is due to a SYQ in the succ thread.

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.