4th Quarter 2023 D&D Feedback.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 4th Quarter 2023 D&D Feedback.

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

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?

If content is properly tagged so people can know what they're clicking on, I would personally suggest that simply demonstrating the brutality of the war is a sufficient point in and of itself? A lot of the people in governments around the world are trying to sanitize the war by framing it in terms of "self defence" and deliberately refusing to engage with the abject cruelty of it, I would personally suggest that the strongest argument against that is documenting the actual horror of it. If people want to justify it then make them justify the reality of it. I suspect this is probably the motivation for a lot of people posting horrific things.

Discussion of war without a focus on the human cost is inherently inaccurate, in a way which I think inherently favours its perpetuation, i.e the "it's impossible to make an anti-war war movie" argument. I think this unavoidably comes down to "moderating positions" in practice and I think the position being moderated in favour of is a very bad one.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 13:36

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

OwlFancier posted:

My contention would be that for the purposes of:

"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.

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.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2023 20:26

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

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.

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.

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.

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

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

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: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

This is not a thread for discussing the moderation of cspam. Take it to PMs, SAD, or cspam.

Baronash fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 7, 2023

# ¿ Nov 7, 2023 00:41

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Stringent posted:

I have some actual feedback to ask about!

I'm in an odd timezone (Japan), so this kind of post always confuses me. When these kinds of posts come up in the off hours when no D&D mods are around, it's easy to see them stay up for hours and assume this is a permitted tone of discourse. Like, without seeing whether this gets probed or not, I feel like I have no compass as to whether or not it's OK to reply in kind.

So as actual feedback, could you put out some feelers for some more non-US timezone mods? Asia/ANZAC timezone in particular?

I'll defer to Koos about whether he's looking for more mods or TZ coverage, but I will say that this is a pretty blatant case of posting about posters, which is a D&D-wide rule because it just encourages bringing up old drama, as it did here.

As far as what is or isn't acceptable, I'd encourage you to read the rules and :justpost:

rather than relying on whether the person you're replying to has been probated. There is a long delay, even in well-covered timezones, between when a post is made and when (if ever) a report gets acted on. We're all volunteers as mods, and have jobs, friends, family, and weekend plans. Posts will often sit in the queue for hours, and sometimes even a day or two if we all happen to be busier than usual. We're also very reliant on reports, because it's not possible to read every post in every thread, and some threads have posts go unreported even if they're breaking the rules in one way or another.

Obviously that's not an ideal situation, and there are IKs who do great work with specific threads and more mods would be great, but I don't think we'll ever be at the point where you should expect that someone you are currently in a discussion with is going to get hit with a probe in the moment.

Baronash fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Nov 7, 2023

# ¿ Nov 7, 2023 16:24

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Stringent posted:

Well, that seems like an action item that could be acted upon?

Which part? More mods I definitely agree is something that could be acted on, ditto for better TZ coverage, though it's ultimately a Koos decision so as I mentioned I'll defer to them.

But if the hope is that we can have enough coverage to be calling balls and strikes in the moment, I don't think there's a reasonable number of mods that can make that a reality. It's also just not a reliable way to understand what is and isn't acceptable, because if you're catching up on a thread later there are all sorts of reasons why a specific rulebreaking post might not have a "User was put on probation for this post" tag.

Twincityhacker posted:

1. Please don't use the numbers of the rule broken in the rap sheet. I know it takes longer to type out "posting about posters" than Rule $ but it makes the rap sheet clearer to understand.

I did enjoy this even before being a mod because I found it hilarious to have posts get hit with comically staid probe reasons like "You have violated article 7 section b subsection 2." Koos did make this request of the D&D mods last night though, so that should be stopping.

Baronash fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 7, 2023

# ¿ Nov 7, 2023 17:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 13:36

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Stringent posted:

That is the hope, because if you're catching up on a thread later there's all kinds of rules that have kind of materialized in the last 5-10 pages that you might have missed. I understand it's a burden, but to that end, what's a reasonable number of mods?

I don't really agree about the frequency, but poorly communicated thread rules (or forum-wide rules that are highlighted in specific threads) that boil down to "didn't you see my proclamation on page 352 that we will be judging the use of argument Y harshly? It's all clearly explained in this other thread's OP." are annoying and we need to get better about making sure people have a reasonable chance to see those.

My thought (haven't run it by anyone else yet) on this is that thread rules (including things like unreliable sources, well-trodden arguments, etc.) should be kept in the OP and updated, and the thread title would get edited with [OP Updated Nov 7]. If you're participating in the thread and the title gets updated, mods could consider that sufficient opportunity for posters to make themselves aware of current rules.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2023 18:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 4th Quarter 2023 D&D Feedback.