|
Why are people like Mister Fister allowed to post racist conspiracy theory level nonsense in the Palestine/Israel thread completely unpunished? You probe pro-Palestinian people for much less all the time in there.
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2023 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:I would need to have examples of posts by Mister Fister that were reported but not probed to explain exactly why they weren't. There is no policy that pro-Palestinian people are treated any differently than pro-Israeli people, though because pro-Palestinian is something like a 90-10 majority, it would make sense that there would be more probations of that side overall even if the rates are the same. Sure! https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3754814&pagenumber=484&perpage=40#post535657365 In here Fister posts 3 tweets, one from MEMRI TV, which is well known to not be a reliable sources, one from some random bluecheck with 1,500 followers, and one from @StopAntisemitism, a bias twitter account that has spent most of the last week doxxing women that tore down "missing persons" posters in the USA for Israeli captives. None of these are reliable sources, but the third one is at least relatively easy to verify, even though it is putting the onus on the readers to verify what they posted. The first two are just inexcusable tweets to post without any context, explanation, or justification. I know this post was reported because I tried to report it and got the message that it had been reported recently. Of course there isn't a written down D&D rule for explicit bias against pro-Palestinian posters, if that was the case this thread would look very different I imagine, but I don't know how else to explain this post making through administration when someone got probed for posting a tweet from a Democracy Now journalist citing the Gaza Ministry of Health that got overturned after people called it out. That isn't a numbers issue.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:It appears that post was handled by a different mod, and no explanation was given for not acting on the report (this is normal due to the high number of reports we receive). MEMRI had not been discussed during the course of the current conflict as being unreliable until after Mister Fister posted it, so that can be considered an honest mistake, and now that the truth has come to light others who post it without explaining themselves will be probed for not acknowledging rebuttals/ongoing debate. His second source does clearly seem to violate the rule against Twitter randos, so I will consider your posting of it here an appeal and punish it accordingly, with a warning to use better sources in general. You say MEMRI had not been discussed as being unreliable so it could be an honest mistake, had there been previous discussions of the Democracy Now journalist as being unreliable?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D Bullying Nazis online is no different than being a Nazi?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Yes, positions aren't moderated in D&D, even the worst ones, though that post also would have been hit in D&D proper for other reasons. This is because doing so makes moderators arbiters of what's good and right, which in turn makes moderation much more difficult, makes rule enforcement issues into political issues, and stifles debate. For a more in-depth explanation of my reasoning, I would recommend using search to find my posts which say "moderate positions" or variations thereof. Because this policy has been debated extensively it is unlikely to change. This moderation philosophy seems to embody the idea of "perfect is the enemy of good". You're struggling so hard to achieve perfectly objective moderation that you're forgetting that a moderator is supposed to be someone that applies their judgment, which is inherently subjective.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:20 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:The goal is not perfect objectivity. The goal is that a mod's judgement is employed in matters of whether something is interesting, whether someone is being sincere, whether something is damaging discussion, and that sort of thing. Rather than our judgement being employed to give unassailable answers to political, philosophical or scientific questions. When you ban a racist you're not giving an answer to a question, you're taking an action that makes the forum a healthier place. You shouldn't have a policy that says "we don't moderate positions", you should have a policy that says "we don't want to moderate positions but will do so if it will improve the forum." Otherwise you're putting your personal philosophy over the role of the moderator.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 20:59
|
|