|
Greetings. It's time for this quarter's feedback thread. Here you are encouraged to tell us your thoughts on how D&D is going. Whether you're a lurker or a poster, who reads one thread or many, we'd like to hear from you. As always, you can give feedback by posting in the thread, PMing me, or you may post in the thread anonymously by PMing me the post and I'll make it for you. D&D rules will be relaxed here somewhat, since we're talking about the forums rather than educational subjects, so citations will be less valuable than normal, and personal opinions will be more valuable. All I ask is that you continue to present your ideas with honesty as you would in normal D&D, be respectful to other users, and don't spam the thread, by which I mean posting the same thing repeatedly to increase its exposure at the expense of other posters. Unfortunately, you must refrain from posting here if you're forumbanned, and refrain from giving feedback about threads in which you're threadbanned. You can however PM me if you think it's been long enough and you'd like to appeal either one. Since I'm beginning this thread on Saturday, it will continue through Monday, as about three days seems to be the sweet spot.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
POSSIBLE FEEDBACK TOPICS Election 2024 Thread I intend to make a thread for the 2024 election now that the primaries are effectively over. Some things I'd like your opinion on:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Can you provide a brief summary of what, if any, feedback you received from the last thread that resulted in changes or adjustments to D&D? Doing so may help avoid rehashing of feedback that has low value in advancing change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
I say we need the media literacy thread back, if we are for god knows what reason turning this place into high school debate club a huge part of that is being able to properly cite sources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Can you provide a brief summary of what, if any, feedback you received from the last thread that resulted in changes or adjustments to D&D? Doing so may help avoid rehashing of feedback that has low value in advancing change. I don't recall the specifics, as that was a few months ago, and I also don't think a list of issues or considerations that were already resolved would be informative on how to present new ones. Though there was a list like that posted toward the end of the previous thread, so one can go looking for that if they're curious. To address your concern of avoiding rehashes, the only issue I can think of where it's unlikely that feedback will be useful is the D&D policy of moderating argumentation and not positions. There've been many discussions of that, even from before I became a D&D mod, and everything that can be said has probably been said at this point. Otherwise, feedback on any topic should have the potential to be productive. Generally speaking, the best way to increase the chances of your feedback leading to change is to be specific. If applicable, link examples of when the problem has occurred, identify which D&D rules or policies should be changed and how, and even make comparisons to how something is handled in other SA forums, online communities, or real life organizations. It also helps to demonstrate how the proposal is in line with D&D's primary goal of being educational, producing interesting discussion and honest, rigorous and original debate. socialsecurity posted:I say we need the media literacy thread back, if we are for god knows what reason turning this place into high school debate club a huge part of that is being able to properly cite sources. I've been considering this for some time. I do think it's a worthy topic to have in D&D. The issue is that, because it has potential to inform moderation policy, it can become very high stakes or lead to perceptions of mod favoritism. There is also an enormous amount of baggage and grudges around it involving some users.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 02:28
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I don't recall the specifics, as that was a few months ago, and I also don't think a list of issues or considerations that were already resolved would be informative on how to present new ones. Though there was a list like that posted toward the end of the previous thread, so one can go looking for that if they're curious. It would be useful to hold you accountable for actually resolving the issues being repeatedly brought to your attention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 03:28
|
|
|
Cynical despair fan fiction adds nothing to discussion and usually actively hurts it by causing stupid derails. Posts like these: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4004152&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=506#post538241587 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4004152&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=507#post538250511 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=833#post538158300 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=834#post538175095 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3590854&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=835#post538182600
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 03:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It would be useful to hold you accountable for actually resolving the issues being repeatedly brought to your attention. Yeah might as well get to the point, DV having a group of people that hate and harass them doesn't mean we shouldn't have a media literacy thread. It means people trolling that thread because they view being asked to be critical of media as a crime against them should be actually moderated. Papercut posted:Cynical despair fan fiction adds nothing to discussion and usually actively hurts it by causing stupid derails. Posts like these: Following politics can be depressing so I get some leeway on despair posting, but when that's your entire posting persona it can get very grating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
I'm not sure a media literacy thread needs to inform moderation, anyone who would get probed for that is already posting in bad faith. I think the value of a media literacy thread is that people make a lot of mistakes, like confusing factual and opinion journalism and posting articles with a misleading twitter summary or headline, that aren't always in bad faith, and it would be good to have a place to learn about that. The problem with a media literacy thread is that people with weird grudges against Discendo Vox will copy and paste entire chapters of Manufacturing Consent into it, and whatever you think about Manufacturing Consent it does nothing to help you distinguish factual reporting from an op-ed. A good way to stop that would be to probe those people for failing to meet effort with effort, since they responded to an original argument someone made with a copied and pasted book chapter or 45 minute youtube video.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 04:05
|
|
|
I think an important part of tuning D&D rules over time is looking for and addressing "Debate Club" tactics where clever use of existing rules can substitute for having a stronger argument. To some extent that's inevitable in any rule-based debate space,but it should still be limited. One that stands out for me lately is the flexibility of "Show me proof that X." Sometimes it's totally reasonable and concrete and leads to showing who actually has some evidence on their side, but other times it's demanding "proof" of something either very loose and subjective, questionably relevant to the argument, or pervasive and obvious but still taking effort to actually chart out and document. Like it's cousin of "If you want a summary of my argument read this book," it's a way to require more work from an opponent than you are putting it. To be clear, I'm not saying we need to probe people for asking how sure we really are that water is wet, even. Just that it seems there should be a little clarity as to how far people are expected to go to cite proof of an assertion, particularly ones where any plausible proof can easily be met with "nah, got anything else?" or requires doing a bunch of original statistical analysis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Election 2024 Thread If there will be threads on the two conventions (the libertarian one could probably fit within the general libertarian megathread?), it might be better to relax the usual D&D rules a bit and let them be more "TVIV"-style threads. Mocking the weird choreography and people earnestly or accidentally giving "the Roman salute" for Dear Donald probably doesn't merit that much intellectual scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 06:42
|
|
|
The TVIV style stuff for live events usually goes pretty well. I can’t think of a “live” event thread here that imploded, they usually move to fast too implode and everybody is watching the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 07:42
|
|
|
How are you all doing on the mod side? Here’s my experiences since the last one of these. If one pursues discussions until obvious contradiction that the other side won’t back down from usually moderation happens. That unfortunately remains something that most readers, not participating in the discussion, do not want to read.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 08:08
|
|
|
The political cartoons thread continues to be Not loving Godawful and I continue to enjoy it, barring the occasional derail that doesn't involve political cartoons or their cartoonists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
I get a good and hearty lol out of Koos' lepers' colony bombing runs. Keep up the good work. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
I've pretty much stopped posting in D&D because it's just not enjoyable anymore. The forum trends towards a liberal centrist consensus, and any argument outside of that is met with hostility, compounded by years of weird cross-forum grudges. The mods might not explicitly moderate positions, but some positions seem to generate a lot more reports until something sticks. Many of the rules may seem fair on paper, but in practice are open to very wide interpretation. For example, the rule against making stale arguments. What counts as a stale argument? Is someone keeping a list of them somewhere? Does responding to a stale argument with a point that's already been made count as a stale argument? Does posting "but Trump would be worse" or "but what about Hamas?" for the 1000th time not count as a stale argument? Whether it's intentional or not, there seems to be an ideological bias when it comes to enforcing the rules. If you want them to be enforced fairly, then there ought to be more ideological diversity on the mod team. The Palestine thread has been particularly dire. Lots of posters revealing themselves to be reluctant genocide apologists at best or outright psychopaths at worst. The most aggravating part is a certain group of posters who make a habit of dancing around the issue, never making an argument themselves but instead constantly needling at others' arguments with bullshit questions and trivial nitpicks. Finally some metafeedback, which is that these threads never seem to actually be for feedback but rather for releasing pressure. Nothing seems to have changed since the last thread. One weekend every 3-4 months is absolutely not enough. You always ask for specific examples, but what kind of weirdo is going to keep a spreadsheet or whatever of examples for months at a time? The haphazard nature of it also doesn't help. If it's only going to be open for one weekend every 3-4 months, it would be nice to know ahead of time when exactly that weekend will be. I didn't even notice this thread until just now. Lots of other forums have feedback threads that are always open, why not D&D? If the fear is that people will just use it to grudgepost, then just punish that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:You always ask for specific examples, but what kind of weirdo is going to keep a spreadsheet or whatever of examples for months at a time? I've made mental notes about instances I noticed that positions were obviously being moderated, but I didn't make a spreadsheet so I'd have to go back and search for them. On the fence about doing it though since someone got banned in the last thread for giving feedback Koos didn't like. Plus it would take time and my dogs aren't gonna walk themselves. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:You always ask for specific examples, but what kind of weirdo is going to keep a spreadsheet or whatever of examples for months at a time? just pulling out this comment because you have noooooooooooo idea some of the old stuff people send along to mods in reports. some goons absolutely do keep receipts. regardless of the OP asking for specific examples, some people are gonna give them whether in public or private.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
pmchem posted:just pulling out this comment because you have noooooooooooo idea some of the old stuff people send along to mods in reports. some goons absolutely do keep receipts. regardless of the OP asking for specific examples, some people are gonna give them whether in public or private. Oh yeah obviously it's a thing that does happen, but I don't think it's controversial to say that it's unhealthy behavior. But the problem is that the policy of "if you've got a problem with a post that did/didn't get punished, wait 3-4 months to address it" is kind of encouraging that behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Yeah might as well get to the point, DV having a group of people that hate and harass them doesn't mean we shouldn't have a media literacy thread. It means people trolling that thread because they view being asked to be critical of media as a crime against them should be actually moderated James Garfield posted:I'm not sure a media literacy thread needs to inform moderation, anyone who would get probed for that is already posting in bad faith. I think the value of a media literacy thread is that people make a lot of mistakes, like confusing factual and opinion journalism and posting articles with a misleading twitter summary or headline, that aren't always in bad faith, and it would be good to have a place to learn about that. Fair points. I'll try to get back to making the thread. If anyone has more advice about how to handle its moderation, please let me know. Papercut posted:Cynical despair fan fiction adds nothing to discussion and usually actively hurts it by causing stupid derails. Posts like these: I've had this complaint before, but I'm not sure how it's possible to get rid of posts that are excessively or uselessly cynical or despairing, because cynicism and despair must be a reasonable response to political developments in at least some cases. Though cases where someone is engaging in it without supporting their arguments, or when they receive counterarguments but persist without addressing them or further developing their own argument, are against the rules currently. Killer robot posted:I think an important part of tuning D&D rules over time is looking for and addressing "Debate Club" tactics where clever use of existing rules can substitute for having a stronger argument. To some extent that's inevitable in any rule-based debate space,but it should still be limited. One that stands out for me lately is the flexibility of "Show me proof that X." Sometimes it's totally reasonable and concrete and leads to showing who actually has some evidence on their side, but other times it's demanding "proof" of something either very loose and subjective, questionably relevant to the argument, or pervasive and obvious but still taking effort to actually chart out and document. Like it's cousin of "If you want a summary of my argument read this book," it's a way to require more work from an opponent than you are putting it. I believe I've seen this happening once or twice, but it's something where having as many examples as possible would be useful so I can understand exactly what's happening, how it differs from legitimate requests for evidence, and whether they're engaging in bad faith. If you'd like to avoid calling anyone out, please PM them to me. Rappaport posted:If there will be threads on the two conventions (the libertarian one could probably fit within the general libertarian megathread?), it might be better to relax the usual D&D rules a bit and let them be more "TVIV"-style threads. Mocking the weird choreography and people earnestly or accidentally giving "the Roman salute" for Dear Donald probably doesn't merit that much intellectual scrutiny. Bar Ran Dun posted:The TVIV style stuff for live events usually goes pretty well. I can’t think of a “live” event thread here that imploded, they usually move to fast too implode and everybody is watching the same thing. Agreed. Fister Roboto posted:I've pretty much stopped posting in D&D because it's just not enjoyable anymore. The forum trends towards a liberal centrist consensus, and any argument outside of that is met with hostility, compounded by years of weird cross-forum grudges. The mods might not explicitly moderate positions, but some positions seem to generate a lot more reports until something sticks. One of my goals for D&D is to have ideologically neutral moderation that encourages a diversity of viewpoints, so if I've failed in that I apologize. Fister Roboto posted:Many of the rules may seem fair on paper, but in practice are open to very wide interpretation. For example, the rule against making stale arguments. What counts as a stale argument? Is someone keeping a list of them somewhere? Does responding to a stale argument with a point that's already been made count as a stale argument? Does posting "but Trump would be worse" or "but what about Hamas?" for the 1000th time not count as a stale argument? Whether it's intentional or not, there seems to be an ideological bias when it comes to enforcing the rules. If you want them to be enforced fairly, then there ought to be more ideological diversity on the mod team. To answer your questions in order: a stale argument is one that everyone is likely to have heard already, and unlikely to produce interesting debate and discussion. No one is keeping a list of them, as that is not obviously not feasible. Responding to a stale argument with a point that's already been made probably does count as a stale argument, as it's producing more material that's not interesting, though posting an argument that's been made before as a direct response to a new argument might not be, as noted in the rules. "... but Trump would be worse" or "but what about Hamas?" posted by themselves would indeed count as stale arguments. It is true that this rule involves a degree of subjectivity. A bias could be expressed as punishing stale arguments that annoy you more because you're ideologically opposed to them, though I find the more common bias is simply what arguments you've heard more often influenced by what circles of discourse you follow (though this is at least mitigated when dealing with arguments that have become stale on SA and D&D themselves). For better or worse, I believe this is a rule we have to have, because there will always be people who make tiresome arguments, and these go against D&D's purpose. I certainly wouldn't mind having more ideological diversity amongst mods, though finding additional mods is already very difficult, so I'm not eager to add new criteria when looking. Fister Roboto posted:Finally some metafeedback, which is that these threads never seem to actually be for feedback but rather for releasing pressure. Nothing seems to have changed since the last thread. One weekend every 3-4 months is absolutely not enough. You always ask for specific examples, but what kind of weirdo is going to keep a spreadsheet or whatever of examples for months at a time? The haphazard nature of it also doesn't help. If it's only going to be open for one weekend every 3-4 months, it would be nice to know ahead of time when exactly that weekend will be. I didn't even notice this thread until just now. Lots of other forums have feedback threads that are always open, why not D&D? If the fear is that people will just use it to grudgepost, then just punish that kind of thing. The reason feedback threads aren't continuously open is that having them as events encourages more new feedback and prevents them from becoming hangouts. The reason they're only every 3-4 months is because they take a significant amount of my time and energy. The reason they aren't scheduled far in advance is because I like to have them on weekends where I'm mostly free, and I don't always know if that will be the case in advance. VitalSigns posted:I've made mental notes about instances I noticed that positions were obviously being moderated, but I didn't make a spreadsheet so I'd have to go back and search for them. I searched the last thread and didn't find any instances where a user was banned (though it's possible there was a panel ban by an admin not noted normally on a post). Regardless, I don't punish people for giving me feedback that's critical of me or D&D, as that would somewhat defeat the purpose. Generally the only things that are moderated in feedback threads are the ones specified in the OP. Fister Roboto posted:Oh yeah obviously it's a thing that does happen, but I don't think it's controversial to say that it's unhealthy behavior. But the problem is that the policy of "if you've got a problem with a post that did/didn't get punished, wait 3-4 months to address it" is kind of encouraging that behavior. If you reported a post and it didn't receive a punishment in a few days, you can appeal it to me and I'll take another look, overturning it or upholding it and explaining the decision. This actually happens fairly often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I've had this complaint before, but I'm not sure how it's possible to get rid of posts that are excessively or uselessly cynical or despairing, because cynicism and despair must be a reasonable response to political developments in at least some cases. Why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 20:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Why. Well. There are surely political outcomes which are both undesirable and common to the point of being predictable, which would make cynicism a reasonable response. And there are surely ones which are undesirable and extraordinarily unlikely for you to be able to change, which would make despair a reasonable response. I'm not saying anything about how frequently these are the case, only that they occur more than 0% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I've had this complaint before, but I'm not sure how it's possible to get rid of posts that are excessively or uselessly cynical or despairing, because cynicism and despair must be a reasonable response to political developments in at least some cases. Though cases where someone is engaging in it without supporting their arguments, or when they receive counterarguments but persist without addressing them or further developing their own argument, are against the rules currently. Enforce the "stale argument" rule against posts that are essentially just "nothing matters", even if they include the poster's own personal fantasy of how the nothing matters will play out
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
Papercut posted:Enforce the "stale argument" rule against posts that are essentially just "nothing matters", even if they include the poster's own personal fantasy of how the nothing matters will play out The "essentially" is quite important here because it could break something down into a strawman or a position rather than the argument itself. If you were to simply say "stop thinking about this because it doesn't matter," that could be a stale argument. But if you say "this doesn't matter because X," and X is honest and hasn't been presented before, that's not a stale argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:The "essentially" is quite important here because it could break something down into a strawman or a position rather than the argument itself. If you were to simply say "stop thinking about this because it doesn't matter," that could be a stale argument. But if you say "this doesn't matter because X," and X is honest and hasn't been presented before, that's not a stale argument. And? Mods have to make judgements on every post. A post that says "even if Congress did exactly what the supreme court just said they should do, it wouldn't matter because the supreme court would just change their mind" doesn't add anything to a discussion and is a hypothetical that can't be debated. It's just personal venting. If you want you could change my complaint to, the stale argument rule should be much more vigorously enforced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Well. There are surely political outcomes which are both undesirable and common to the point of being predictable, which would make cynicism a reasonable response. And there are surely ones which are undesirable and extraordinarily unlikely for you to be able to change, which would make despair a reasonable response. No, not "surely", and not for the purposes of factual good faith educational discussion in this factual good faith discussion forum. Show your work. What is the contribution of despair and cynicism to factual good faith educational discussion? Why are you not enforcing the rules?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
I'm also curious why this post, which was reported, didn't get a probe. It seems to very clearly violate II.A and II.B and arguably I.A.2 https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4004152&pagenumber=507&perpage=40&userid=0#post538251042
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:39
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I'm also curious why this post, which was reported, didn't get a probe. It seems to very clearly violate II.A and II.B and arguably I.A.2 We're still in the backlog and haven't gotten to that report yet. I probated the post since you brought it to my attention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:
If you don't have the time or energy to do feedback threads and don't really post here in D&D all that often have you considered just finding someone else that's more active in the community that has the desire and free time to mod it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 22:29
|
|
|
Wow an open feedback thread! IMO a D&D with probably 20-30% less Calm Hiters would be great. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, not "surely", and not for the purposes of factual good faith educational discussion in this factual good faith discussion forum. Show your work. What is the contribution of despair and cynicism to factual good faith educational discussion? Why are you not enforcing the rules? Cynicism around a certain topic can be educational and good faith if you explain the model or historical precedents that inform your cynicism, and your cynicism's validity can be tested by the predictions you make. Likewise, well-founded despair around a certain topic can be an argument that one's efforts are best spent on something else. socialsecurity posted:If you don't have the time or energy to do feedback threads and don't really post here in D&D all that often have you considered just finding someone else that's more active in the community that has the desire and free time to mod it? I have the desire and free time to mod D&D. I spend a significant amount of time clearing reports, taking private feedback, handling appeals, speaking to mods and devising policy. The reason I don't participate in discussion often is to help avoid bias, and I consider this an asset when modding a debate-focused board, rather than a more community-focused board.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
you should ramp probations for serial offenders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I think an important part of tuning D&D rules over time is looking for and addressing "Debate Club" tactics where clever use of existing rules can substitute for having a stronger argument. To some extent that's inevitable in any rule-based debate space,but it should still be limited. This. There seem to be some posters who abuse the rules to troll and get others probated. They do the calm Hitler routine until someone over-reacts and then they get probed. While the calm Hitler is free to continue playing their game to get more probed for opposing genocide. Fister Roboto posted:I've pretty much stopped posting in D&D because it's just not enjoyable anymore. The forum trends towards a liberal centrist consensus, and any argument outside of that is met with hostility, compounded by years of weird cross-forum grudges. The mods might not explicitly moderate positions, but some positions seem to generate a lot more reports until something sticks. This too. There was a recent trend in the P/I thread of posters coming in to post the NYT rape article right after the discussion had finished talking about it being debunked. This happened a few times and the only probes were people frustrated by the same stale arguments being brought up in quick succession. Basically it would be good if the mods could recognize the calm Hitler game of getting others probed for stepping outside the rules by lashing out a person defending genocide by just asking questions, or calling their bad faith argument 'bad faith'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 22:59
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Wow an open feedback thread! IMO a D&D with probably 20-30% less Calm Hiters would be great. I agree, but to elaborate a little and hopefully avoid going to posting jail in solidarity… I feel like you allow extremely awful things to be said in this forum, as long as they’re couched in flowery, verbose language. This also applies to stale arguments. ‘What about Trump’ would get probated, but five paragraphs detailing Trump’s words with sources, without further elaboration, wouldn’t because ‘effort’ has been put into that post in your eyes. I think if any bad faith/outright supportive of genocide poster wants to post in support of their position without being punished, it’s pretty easy: just make it into four paragraphs or more and maybe throw in a source or two (relevant and reliable or not) and you’ll be fine because you’re posting ‘in good faith’, as demonstrated by the ‘effort’ put into writing such a long post with sources. I truly believe that it’s loving insane to have someone who never interacts with the (or any) forum moderating it, because it means you’re not able to see the forest for the trees, and I think if you posted engagement numbers for D&D it would show a big drop and your myopic moderation style would explain it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Cynicism around a certain topic can be educational and good faith if you explain the model or historical precedents that inform your cynicism, and your cynicism's validity can be tested by the predictions you make. Likewise, well-founded despair around a certain topic can be an argument that one's efforts are best spent on something else. Posting your cynicism is not actually posting explanation of models or historical precedents about an issue. Despair is similarly not an argument about resource allocation. Neither of these are actually educational or factual; they're a gloss on top of actual information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
tristeham posted:you should ramp probations for serial offenders. Agreed. We already ramp for the same offense, but I've been considering steeper ramps and more ramps for related but not exactly the same offenses, due to the amount of recidivism and an increase in reports and violations that's been happening. Marenghi posted:This. There seem to be some posters who abuse the rules to troll and get others probated. They do the calm Hitler routine until someone over-reacts and then they get probed. While the calm Hitler is free to continue playing their game to get more probed for opposing genocide. It does sound as though the posting of the article was a clear violation of I.A.3 (don't repeat rebutted arguments). I have considered, and even thought about putting it as a recommended topic in this feedback thread before deciding against it, the issue of whether punishment should be deferred when someone makes an accusation of bad faith and the user they accused is indeed punished for bad faith. It's already in the mod policies that you can, at your discretion, give such users lighter punishments including warnings, but that doesn't happen often. What are everyone's thoughts on that idea?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:I agree, but to elaborate a little and hopefully avoid going to posting jail in solidarity… While the idea that you can say anything in D&D as long as you use the right language or tone is something of a meme, it is true that you are allowed to advocate for horrible positions. Verbosity in and of itself, however, is not taken into account. Rigor is important, because it not only makes a position falsifiable so it can be better engaged with, but shows the position is more likely to have merit and not be wasting everyone's time in the first place. It also has a correlation with number of words, though something can be laconic and rigorous. Precision of language, likewise, makes it clearer what you are saying and easier to respond to, and can take more words. In addition, good faith simply means you're being honest in every respect and doesn't have much relation to post length. As for your example, five paragraphs detailing Trump's words, without elaboration or explanation, would probably be probated for argument via insinuation unless it's undeniably clear what point they were trying to make. Jakabite posted:I truly believe that it’s loving insane to have someone who never interacts with the (or any) forum moderating it, because it means you’re not able to see the forest for the trees, and I think if you posted engagement numbers for D&D it would show a big drop and your myopic moderation style would explain it. I still read the forum despite not posting often myself, and I also keep abreast of the parts I don't read via private feedback and advice. We don't have any tracked data for engagement numbers, but overall engagement isn't the top priority anyway. It's quality. 1000 posts per day where all are good is considered better than 2000 posts per day where only half of them are good, and moderation is oriented with that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Agreed. We already ramp for the same offense, but I've been considering steeper ramps and more ramps for related but not exactly the same offenses, due to the amount of recidivism and an increase in reports and violations that's been happening. Part of the issue is that what once person considers debunked is not the same as another person. In the I/P thread there are people who see any indication that a journalist has interacted with the Israeli government as disqualifying, and pointing it out is enough to debunk a source. So if someone posts one of those sources there's a bunch of whining about how it's already debunked and shouldn't ever be discussed again. Marenghi and I probably have different options on what it takes to disqualify or debunk a source. Unless you start tracking what conversations have been sufficiently discussed and should not be discussed again barring new information, which sounds awful, you're going to have this "problem". The I/P thread in particular seems to have little to no moderation and a lot of very low content posting. You can go back and look at the "Biden is going to make a pier and give it to Israel!" hysteria from a couple days ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Part of the issue is that what once person considers debunked is not the same as another person. In the I/P thread there are people who see any indication that a journalist has interacted with the Israeli government as disqualifying, and pointing it out is enough to debunk a source. So if someone posts one of those sources there's a bunch of whining about how it's already debunked and shouldn't ever be discussed again. Marenghi and I probably have different options on what it takes to disqualify or debunk a source. Agreed. We've been thinking about getting more IKs for it. That's something I wouldn't mind hearing recommendations for, here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
hit "but trump" with tired arguments remove gjb from mod postion for reasons ive stated in each feedback thread keep stickying politoon thread and most important, probe me with a funny picture
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 00:05
|
|
