|
longtime reader, infrequent poster. DND policy continues to reward pointless verbosity and the appearance of effort over intellectual clarity and (most importantly) posting and stating your opinion. this has reduced the number of unique people posting and overall posts made such that e.g. the I/P thread manages to regularly go full days without a single post because no one is incentivized to engage because there are very obviously no readers. thoughtful and well-cited posts on various political topics are made with regularity on this site and I almost never read them in DND, because the policy here rewards posting which drives away posters, and the fact that people (including the despised imagined low-effort poster) could be reading what you are saying is one of the main reasons to try to make a good, persuasive, well-reasoned post. which is all to say of course that the koos experiment remains an enormous success and the end of DND is in sight. keep up the good work. e: put another way, the modding in DND is now such that it is deeply unlikely to attract or retain another eripsa or homeworkexplainer (or whoever did the anti imperialism thread back when) or any of the vital weirdos that make a forum worth reading, because they know no one is here to read their nonsense. Valentin fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Mar 11, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Koos Group posted: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. I think you actually do believe this and want to it to be the case but, as you’ve been repeatedly told, it isn’t. The issue is that your response is once again going to be either ‘yes it is’ or ‘sorry I’ll work on it’, and we’ll be in the exact same position in three months. At this point I’m not sure if it’s wilful (I think it is, personally) or you’re just not brilliant at comprehension and analysis of the written word. Accountability is not opening a feedback thread or saying ‘okay, sorry’. It’s certainly not saying ‘your eyes deceive you, young goon’ when many posters tell you something that contradicts what you think is happening. A great first step is to recount what was asked of you last time and what steps, if any have been made to address those points, but you’ve already refused that simple, absolute minimum suggestion within hours of this thread being open.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 00:36
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:A great first step is to recount what was asked of you last time and what steps, if any have been made to address those points, but you’ve already refused that simple, absolute minimum suggestion within hours of this thread being open. Going back through and making a list of every single one is a serious undertaking, and more than I'd like to do while I'm already fielding feedback in this current thread and going through the report backlog. However, if you or anyone else has a specific concern from the last thread where I agreed to work on something, I would be happy to explain what I've done, and redouble my efforts if necessary. Jakabite posted:I think you actually do believe this and want to it to be the case but, as you’ve been repeatedly told, it isn’t. The issue is that your response is once again going to be either ‘yes it is’ or ‘sorry I’ll work on it’, and we’ll be in the exact same position in three months. At this point I’m not sure if it’s wilful (I think it is, personally) or you’re just not brilliant at comprehension and analysis of the written word. I'm honestly not sure what concrete steps could be taken to reduce instances of, if I understand the problem correctly, rule violations being overlooked when the violating post is long. It's already not a policy to do that. I can make a note in the mod policy handbook that length is not equal to quality nor an exoneration, and bring the mods' attention to it, if you'd like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 00:52
|
|
|
Valentin posted:longtime reader, infrequent poster. DND policy continues to reward pointless verbosity and the appearance of effort over intellectual clarity and (most importantly) posting and stating your opinion. this has reduced the number of unique people posting and overall posts made such that e.g. the I/P thread manages to regularly go full days without a single post because no one is incentivized to engage because there are very obviously no readers. thoughtful and well-cited posts on various political topics are made with regularity on this site and I almost never read them in DND, because the policy here rewards posting which drives away posters, and the fact that people (including the despised imagined low-effort poster) could be reading what you are saying is one of the main reasons to try to make a good, persuasive, well-reasoned post. kind of have to echo everything valentin stated here. dnd really sucks to post in right now, and im not even sure if the moderation regime considers this a problem or a feature
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
Valentin posted:longtime reader, infrequent poster. DND policy continues to reward pointless verbosity and the appearance of effort over intellectual clarity and (most importantly) posting and stating your opinion. this has reduced the number of unique people posting and overall posts made such that e.g. the I/P thread manages to regularly go full days without a single post because no one is incentivized to engage because there are very obviously no readers. thoughtful and well-cited posts on various political topics are made with regularity on this site and I almost never read them in DND, because the policy here rewards posting which drives away posters, and the fact that people (including the despised imagined low-effort poster) could be reading what you are saying is one of the main reasons to try to make a good, persuasive, well-reasoned post. The reason I find the I/P thread so frustrating to read and post in is because it seems like anything remotely critical of Hamas is taken as full throated support for Israel's genocide, and discussion ends up in arguments about how people are actually trying to run interference for the Biden administration. It isn't too much moderation that makes that thread suck, it's the almost complete absence of it until things get *really* bad. Someone who steps in and tells people to cool it would stop it from getting to that point and make for a far more interesting thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 01:31
|
|
|
The largest issue regarding D&D moderation is it seems like for many threads mods don't participate or read the discussion and don't have context to determine who the actual trouble makers and trolls are, and thus don't intervene soon enough either to prevent otherwise good faith participants from accidentily breaking the rules in a moment of frustration when a troll has been allowed to go unmoderated for days at a time, despite multiple reports. A pattern I've noticed is when trolls stir up a thread with obviously bad faith arguments, probes get carpet bombed out something like days later, too late to have at all helped foster a proper debate environment, and instead erodes the patience and faith that the rules matter, are being enforced fairly, and erodes patience in being willing to deal with hostile or obviously bad faith arguments in the effort to be informative or entertaining for others who do appreciate the effort. As for the tired arguments, the problem here is its being suggested that the obvious and most straight forward rebuttals are "tired", but the problem is that its like saying that the sky is blue is a tired argument, there's only so many ways of answering such an assertion in a coherent way, while the "interlopers" themselves making the original likely bad faith claim are highly unlikely to recieve moderation within a timely manner. The complaint here that "Trump bad" is a "tired" argument is symmetrical to the fact that the assertion is it being in response to, for example, "Biden old" is just as tired, and far more likely to be thrown out there as bad faith bait. I have examples, but I am unclear to what extent the posting about posters rule is being enforced, should I pm it instead? I know at least two posters who just repeatedly post the same point over and over and never listen or seriously engage with the responses; the burden here of what what the "tired" argument is should be more on the person asserting it, not responding to it in the most straight forward and coherent way. I think its also worth pointing out that never has the "Trump bad" arguments that are being suggested are "tired" have ever been actually engaged with, or responded to in any substantiative way to my memory, so I'm not sure if it can be said to be a "tired" argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 02:16
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I have examples, but I am unclear to what extent the posting about posters rule is being enforced, should I pm it instead? I know at least two posters who just repeatedly post the same point over and over and never listen or seriously engage with the responses; the burden here of what what the "tired" argument is should be more on the person asserting it, not responding to it in the most straight forward and coherent way. There's no posting about posters rule ITT. Whether you post about them here or PM me is up to your judgement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 02:30
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:The reason I find the I/P thread so frustrating to read and post in is because it seems like anything remotely critical of Hamas is taken as full throated support for Israel's genocide, and discussion ends up in arguments about how people are actually trying to run interference for the Biden administration. This is what I mean by posters dancing around the issue. If someone came into the cop thread, for example, and posted a bunch of statistics about black crime, or pointed out that the most recent victim of police brutality had a criminal record, there would be no doubt that they were trying to justify police brutality, or at least deflect from the extremely valid criticisms of the police. Even if they started every post with "I don't condone police brutality BUT". The exact same thing is going on in the IP thread but on a larger scale ("I don't condone genocide BUT"). If you don't think that they're trying to justify Israel's actions, then what other point do you think they're making? That Hamas is bad? Great, most people already agree with that. So what's the next logical step that they want us to take? It's not a particularly interesting point if that's all it is. It's not discussion, it's just deflection. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 02:31
|
|
|
Valentin posted:because the policy here rewards posting which drives away posters, Sorry to take a meat cleaver to the rest of the post, but to me this is the really important bit of both your post and a major past and current (and future) criticism of dnd moderation. I think it would be useful to expand upon this (and other people have, in various ways). The sort of posting that drives away posters that I am both personally and policywise inclined to crack down on is low-content aggroposting, but it doesn't seem like that's your major complaint about current / koos regime dnd. i'll still reread the rest of the post but this is the part that my brain put bold font and sirens around
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 02:55
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:This is what I mean by posters dancing around the issue. If someone came into the cop thread, for example, and posted a bunch of statistics about black crime, or pointed out that the most recent victim of police brutality had a criminal record, there would be no doubt that they were trying to justify police brutality, or at least deflect from the extremely valid criticisms of the police. Even if they started every post with "I don't condone police brutality BUT". The exact same thing is going on in the IP thread but on a larger scale ("I don't condone genocide BUT"). If you don't think that they're trying to justify Israel's actions, then what other point do you think they're making? That Hamas is bad? Great, most people already agree with that. So what's the next logical step that they want us to take? It's not a particularly interesting point if that's all it is. I think you're making my point. There was serious discussion about whether or not most of the October 7th deaths were *actually* due to friendly fire. I'm surprised you think most people agree with "Hamas is bad", because there are some real efforts to avoid saying that. It's like having a conversation with someone about WW2, and mentioning that the Allies should've bombed the rail lines to Auschwitz, or shouldn't have dropped atomic bombs on Japan, and getting treated like you were cheerleading the Nazis or Imperial Japanese. A conflict can have a very clear right and wrong side and still have details like this worth discussing. Your vision for the thread is "Israel bad" and yeah, dude, we know, but there's more to talk about than that. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 03:02
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A pattern I've noticed is when trolls stir up a thread with obviously bad faith arguments, probes get carpet bombed out something like days later, too late to have at all helped foster a proper debate environment, and instead erodes the patience and faith that the rules matter, are being enforced fairly, and erodes patience in being willing to deal with hostile or obviously bad faith arguments in the effort to be informative or entertaining for others who do appreciate the effort. Yeah I think the Ukraine thread has been the most successful D&D moderation because (especially in 2022 when there was more of it) the troll attempts got probed right away. People have things to do besides mod a dead forum 24 hours a day, but 6 hour probations given out 3 days after the behavior are only going to go so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 03:16
|
|
|
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 feel like "show me proof that x" is a necessary response to some of the flippant dismissals that I see in D&D, because saying to someone "this is a flippant dismissal" is assuming that it's a bad faith response, asking them to verify that position allows that it may not be. Regarding flipping dismissals, is this probe-able in D&D because it seems like responses to flippant dismissals tend to get probed because there is no functional counter argument to that response, save for the above, which then invites complaints. I know that moderating this forum is a hard and thankless task, but Koos can you please be careful that when you are reading posts that you are not assuming what has been said, but actually dealing with the content of the post itself. I am glad you reversed the probe (here:https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=1&threadid=4053225&pagenumber=101&perpage=40#post538127755) of a poster who was probed for responding to me with what you assumed was a sarcastic straw-man of my position, when they had literally agreed with me and clarified my position. Unfortunately this reversal only took place because I happened to notice that they were probed a few pages back and messaged you directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 04:04
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think you're making my point. And people have explained multiple times in multiple ways what is wrong with this framing. If you keep insisting otherwise then I think that falls under the "stale argument" clause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:And people have explained multiple times in multiple ways what is wrong with this framing. If you keep insisting otherwise then I think that falls under the "stale argument" clause. It isn't "this argument is stale" it's "I don't want to talk about this". If you don't want to talk about those topics, nobody's holding you down and making you post. But trying to stop discussions you don't like by pretending they're settled and discussing them is making a "stale argument" is just twisting the moderation rules to try and get what you want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 04:20
|
|
|
Koos Group posted: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. I wouldn't describe the schism around media literacy/criticism so much as "baggage and grudges", but rather a sincere disagreement over what media literacy/criticism consists of. There seems to be roughly two major schools of thought in DnD, one which focuses on the vetting of sources, and another which places less emphasis on the source and instead focuses on a close read of the content. Sorry to single DV out here, but they're probably the most vocal and coherent exponent of the "vetting the source" school of thought. For example, I was brought to task for posting a video from an Iranian state media aligned account which posted a video of the Houthi Prime Minister: Discendo Vox posted:Once again, I am begging you to consider where you are getting your information from. Like when you see a tweet like that, or an account like that, why doesn't it give you pause about your sources of infromation, let alone before you repost it uncritically here? I'm not posting this to decry the position that DV and a lot of other posters here follow, but just to illustrate that a schism does exist, and if a media literacy/criticism thread is created it should be created with the expectation that the majority of debate is going to be centered around this schism, and that debate has the potential to get pretty acrimonious at times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 04:48
|
|
|
the_steve posted: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 11, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
Stringent posted:I wouldn't describe the schism around media literacy/criticism so much as "baggage and grudges", but rather a sincere disagreement over what media literacy/criticism consists of. There seems to be roughly two major schools of thought in DnD, one which focuses on the vetting of sources, and another which places less emphasis on the source and instead focuses on a close read of the content. No. Your decision to refuse to consider the source of media when you find it rhetorically convenient to do so does not mean that I do not scrutinize the content of media. The "schism" is the degree of tolerance shown for your interest in making GBS threads up the forum, as demonstrated by your rapsheet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 07:07
|
|
|
Stringent posted:I wouldn't describe the schism around media literacy/criticism so much as "baggage and grudges", but rather a sincere disagreement over what media literacy/criticism consists of. There seems to be roughly two major schools of thought in DnD, one which focuses on the vetting of sources, and another which places less emphasis on the source and instead focuses on a close read of the content. I cannot think of a single discussion of media literacy on this forum where "vet your sources" and "read the content closely" were on opposing sides of a debate and I have seen many where both were in the same post, so I don't know where this "schism" is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 07:35
|
|
|
Stringent posted:I wouldn't describe the schism around media literacy/criticism so much as "baggage and grudges", but rather a sincere disagreement over what media literacy/criticism consists of. There seems to be roughly two major schools of thought in DnD, one which focuses on the vetting of sources, and another which places less emphasis on the source and instead focuses on a close read of the content. I'm sorry this is nonsense there is not a group of posters on this site that think reading the content is a bad idea, the idea is so ridiculous that it has to be some sort of performative attack right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 13:49
|
|
|
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. On the other hand, there are definitely people posting "nothing matters" stuff on a regular basis. Especially in the Trump Legal Matters thread, where every single thing that happens is routinely met with at least one person insisting that Trump is immune to legal consequences and will surely be bailed out by a billionaire or freed from consequences by a judge or simply declare that the consequences won't count because he's rich or will be president. It's very repetitive and annoying to have to respond to that stuff each and every time, especially since it's well-trod ground at this point and the counter-arguments are basically the same every time. I think that this repetitiveness thing is becoming a much bigger issue across D&D this year as the presidential election rolls in and politics brainrot gets especially severe. How often does USCE talk about US Current Events these days? It's just people rehashing their perspectives of the 2024 election all the time, with occasional brief interludes of a few posts for any Current Event that might catch someone's interest. The thread has a tendency to be treated as "US Politics General Chat" these days, and I think the mods are much too prone to letting that happen. That's why electoralism chat keeps coming up so often - well, that, and the frequency of low-quality posts that contribute nothing to the discussion and serve as little more than bait for a derail. Don't forget why USPol was ended and replaced with USCE in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 14:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On the other hand, there are definitely people posting "nothing matters" stuff on a regular basis. Especially in the Trump Legal Matters thread, where every single thing that happens is routinely met with at least one person insisting that Trump is immune to legal consequences and will surely be bailed out by a billionaire or freed from consequences by a judge or simply declare that the consequences won't count because he's rich or will be president. It's very repetitive and annoying to have to respond to that stuff each and every time, especially since it's well-trod ground at this point and the counter-arguments are basically the same every time. I agree that this is an inherent issue for D&D that we don't have an answer to. There's no debate or discussion between "Trump has received no visible constraints on his lifestyle and ability to spout incendiary bullshit and therefore has not seen anything that could be considered consequences" and "Trump has been assigned penalties by our court system and therefore has received consequences, even if the financial details of them and how they affect him are completely hidden from public view" because those are opposite positions starting from opposite pretenses and have nothing new to say on either side. The same with "our system can be meaningfully reformed" vs. "reform will never be meaningful enough and only revolution is acceptable". Nobody has anything new or convincing to say on that, but a bunch of people think they do. The best solution would be proactive moderation where arguments are identified as "exhausted" and contained in separate threads, but that would involve a) many more moderators to allow for proactive involvement, b) a willingness to shut down discussion, and c) a willingness to put up with the constant "i am being supressed, the mods are afraid of MY TRUTH" response from the people who want to argue those tired points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
hooman posted:a poster who was probed for responding to me with what you assumed was a sarcastic straw-man of my position, when they had literally agreed with me and clarified my position. Unfortunately this reversal only took place because I happened to notice that they were probed a few pages back and messaged you directly. I appreciate that, thank you. “Two people can’t possibly both hold this position outside the local overton window, so one of them must be trolling” is fairly emblematic of the moderation problems here. Unfortunately, I’m just too exhausted with kicking receipts up the chain, only to receive a cut-and-paste response that makes it clear those receipts weren’t actually read. It’s clear the current mod team likes what D&D has become, sees no reason to make any fundamental changes, and threads like these are “check the box” performative exercises. Former D&D regimes may have been horrible and biased, but at least they fostered an emotional and intellectual vibrancy - this place is deliberately being suffocated under shades of verbose and droll beige. My advice to anyone here who feels the need to take a position outside the norm: say what you want to say, and don’t engage or respond. The rules as written, and the way they’re enforced are massively biased against the person getting dogpiled, there are just too many subjective excuses to allow a biased or disinterested moderator to end the conversation by fiat, at your expense. It’s sad to point this out because this place is supposed to foster debate, not strangle it in the crib, but that is the safest path of least resistance based on the current ruleset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 15:14
|
|
|
My opinion is that ending martial law in the I/P thread has done more harm than good. I get that the risk of harsh punishments has a chilling effect on posting, especially since mods are human and can make a bad call. But bad calls erring on the side of "too harsh" can be and usually are reversed in D&D, from what I've seen. And now, the I/P thread seems to be an example of Gresham's Law of Posting - bad posting drives out good, far more thoroughly than martial law ever did. I've been reading D&D almost daily since early 2020. Two D&D regulars I would like to nominate for IK or mod, if they're willing and able to consider it, are Main Paineframe and Professor Beetus. Both of them post fairly often in D&D. They back up their arguments with research and sources. They follow D&D rules, including and especially when interacting with posters they disagree vehemently with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 15:37
|
|
|
nevermind
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:Sorry to take a meat cleaver to the rest of the post, but to me this is the really important bit of both your post and a major past and current (and future) criticism of dnd moderation. people are on the forums because they like to read and make posts. they like to read posts because they are funny, or informative, or aggravating in a way which is rewarding to the psyche. people like to make posts because of the human urge to shout into the void, the possibility of being read and called funny/informative/aggravating, and the simple desire to post with one's pals. all these things require a certain volume of posts. like most posters, i navigate primarily via bookmarks, and i am unlikely to click on a bookmarked thread that has only one or two posts unless i am particularly interested in the subject. if no one is posting, i will not read. if no one is reading, i'm less likely to post (particularly because I, like many relatively low-volume posters, tend not to post unless something in another post prompts me to, which will simply happen less with a lower volume of posts). the stated premise of the dnd change in part was the idea that by lowering the volume of posting (by creating soft higher barriers to posting via stricter moderation and changed policy), and in particular "low-content aggroposting", an environment would emerge that would foster high-quality posts and increased discussion, as well as attract posters driven away by aggressive or low-quality posting. the first problem with this is that all the good stuff is an imagined second-order effect of the primary outcome, which is a lower number of posts (given numerous statements from koos and jeffrey, though, this appears to be a feature and not a bug in the slightest). the second problem is that "low-content aggroposting" is enormously popular with everyone for a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that low-content aggroposting can often be the most accurate or emotionally true style of posting on a given issue, but also because that style of posting means you can actually tell that many people are reading a thread, and in turn would read your posts), and in numerous cases tends to attract rather than drive away posters. the best way to handle it and reap its rewards without the attendant degradation of the conversation is fairly attentive and responsive moderation that can actively prevent low-content aggroposting from derailing a thread in motion. i understand that this is unlikely given the current state of moderation on SA, but the fact that responsive moderation is not available does not mean that elaborate systems of rules for four-day-late six-hour probations are in any way an adequate substitute. e: and it's worth noting that dnd is particularly susceptible to a reduced volume of posts affecting engagement because there is relatively little reason (outside of threads like political cartoons) to Just Post of one's own accord. e.g. games and hobby forums will always have a built-in incentive to post because people always want to show off their cool character or a good run or the thing they made. the only reason to engage in dnd is to debate or discuss someone you disagree (or agree!) with, especially since the trend has been against just posting news updates directly from twitter (which i think was a fine moderation change i'm not critiquing that one, but "posting poo poo directly from my feed to a different forum" and "reacting to tweets someone else posted" were incredibly boring posting styles that nonetheless buoyed dnd engagement for a long time). Valentin fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
just like both of the next two possible us presidents the (us side) subforum is demented and dying it's why we call it d&d
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:I appreciate that, thank you. “Two people can’t possibly both hold this position outside the local overton window, so one of them must be trolling” is fairly emblematic of the moderation problems here. Unfortunately, I’m just too exhausted with kicking receipts up the chain, only to receive a cut-and-paste response that makes it clear those receipts weren’t actually read. It’s clear the current mod team likes what D&D has become, sees no reason to make any fundamental changes, and threads like these are “check the box” performative exercises. Former D&D regimes may have been horrible and biased, but at least they fostered an emotional and intellectual vibrancy - this place is deliberately being suffocated under shades of verbose and droll beige. I'm not enthused at advocating that people engage in drive-by threadshitting where they deploy opinions they're unwilling or unable to defend. 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. I'm in favor of steeper ramps and more leeway for actually calling out people acting in bad faith. Sometimes it takes an actual callout to cut off some of the more heinous arguments, and I think a certain amount of allowance for that is important in any discussion forum. People have to be allowed to call a spade a spade sometimes. Valentin posted:people are on the forums because they like to read and make posts. they like to read posts because they are funny, or informative, or aggravating in a way which is rewarding to the psyche. people like to make posts because of the human urge to shout into the void, the possibility of being read and called funny/informative/aggravating, and the simple desire to post with one's pals. One of the reasons that I read this forum is because it tends to be lower activity and higher density with less drive-by lmaos and low-content low-effort snipping at each other. When things get tense at least they tend to get tense in service of a pair of opposing viewpoints. There are plenty of other places where people can have that kind of relationship with serious issues, and I appreciate the extent to which this isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
My sincere advice is that Discendo Vox be made D&D moderator. I do not think he will stop backseat modding until he is, I don't think the people who like his posting will stop complaining until he is, and I think it is reflective of the desires of the general American D&D populace. This recommendation has been shot down in the past if it's from anyone who posts in CSPAM as "ironic" which is strange to me, but I suppose shouldn't be. It's true that I don't believe Discendo Vox can moderate fairly or even effectively. But I also don't believe that would disrupt D&D as a forum as it is already moderated unfairly and ineffectively. I suspect it's rather like liberals avoiding power and frequently sabotaging their campaign efforts (see the many times Biden said not to vote for him in 2000) because taking control would mean potentially alienating capital, so they'd rather avoid it. So too would making DV mod reveal that for all the auspices of serious intellectualism, this forum mainly serves as a role-playing game for aspiring Democratic Party strategists. Lest it seem like my advocacy for DV's modship seem like accelerationism, though, I just think it'd be more of the same. Let him have his moment in the sun. My other advice is that the only real way to deal with electoralism ouroboros talk is having a toxx thread. If people want to make affirmative statements about Biden, they should bet their account on it, and those who vie against him, the same. It's a fun Something Awful tradition, and it would also help weeding out people who are less committed to the forums and more committed to electioneering instead. ' Last of all, I suppose I should say that D&D has failed to be a forum I would want to post in. There's just a core cadre of posters in every American Politics thread here who are very unpleasant to deal with through their condescension, clearly disingenuous positions, and especially their tendency to frame their position as reached through some "consensus" that is almost always illogical in conclusion. There is a willingness to entertain philosophical or even emotional arguments against conservativism that is then rebuffed immediately if applied to liberalism. The tendency towards "evidence-based arguments" seems to always ignore the forest from the trees, like arguing that you can't call the Titanic cruise a failure because the electrical work on the boat was so good. So final advice would just be to block my ability to even see it, but that's a lot of technical work for one user to get his preference. I do think it would make everyone happy though, myself most of all. Anyway, there's nothing Koos Group can really do about who uses this forum, so the fault lies not in our blue stars, but ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:My sincere advice is that Discendo Vox be made D&D moderator. I do not think he will stop backseat modding until he is, I don't think the people who like his posting will stop complaining until he is, and I think it is reflective of the desires of the general American D&D populace. That recommendation was shot down in the previous feedback thread by DV personally, when they stated they would never accept IK or mod. I will be very shocked if they change their mind. Another D&D regular I am recommending for IK or mod is Leon Trotsky 2012, for the same reasons as Main Paineframe and Professor Beetus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
Stringent posted:I wouldn't describe the schism around media literacy/criticism so much as "baggage and grudges", but rather a sincere disagreement over what media literacy/criticism consists of. There seems to be roughly two major schools of thought in DnD, one which focuses on the vetting of sources, and another which places less emphasis on the source and instead focuses on a close read of the content. Discendo Vox posted:No. Your decision to refuse to consider the source of media when you find it rhetorically convenient to do so does not mean that I do not scrutinize the content of media. The "schism" is the degree of tolerance shown for your interest in making GBS threads up the forum, as demonstrated by your rapsheet. These posts are a good example of why the media literacy thread was closed in the first place, and why it should remain closed unless someone else can take the reins. The post Stringent linked had DV object to a video interview posted by a channel owned by Iran. Stringent and other posters asked whether DV believed the interview had been manipulated, or why this channel should be considered less trustworthy than other state media. DV refused to explain and was probated. Nothing was learned, and yet DV has now decided that Stringent is just "interested in making GBS threads up the forum". Even when treated with the absolute softest kid gloves, DV can't help but condescend to and personally attack people they disagree with, nor are they capable of assuming good faith.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
Esran posted:These posts are a good example of why the media literacy thread was closed in the first place, and why it should remain closed unless someone else can take the reins. Yeah, I agree with this and what Probably Magic said 100%. The rules about impugning others' motives do not apply evenly among posters, and the divide clearly falls along ideological lines. The fact that this post didn't get hit for assuming bad faith in other posters (and/or inciting inter-forums drama) shows how biased the moderation is. Here's the offending paragraph: quote:It's nice that supporting genocides has suddenly become a dealbreaker among people who've happily voted for pro-genocide presidents and members of Congress in the past, but I can't help but notice how often it's coming from people who've hated Biden since 2019 and have consistently taken every excuse they can find to advocate opposing him. It's not exactly persuasive when someone with a NoJoe 2020 tag suggests that an event that happened in 2023 is the reason they can't possibly justify voting for Biden. I'm rather concerned that all the leftists who suddenly discovered a deep concern about Gaza a few months ago are going to express that concern solely through leaving the "President" slot on their ballot blank, pat themselves on the back for doing their part to stop genocide, and then forget all about Palestine and go back to ranting about student loans or railroad unions or something. Overturning the overwhelming American political consensus in favor of Israel is a large undertaking that'll probably take several Congressional election cycles (because the true root of it is in Congress, not in the presidency!). What makes this especially egregious is that a lot of NoJoes have been posting passionately and earnestly on this issue for literal decades. You can check our post histories if you like. Some of us are even active in protests IRL! So it's pretty gross to continually suggest that we're a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies to this issue and only care about it because we want to hurt Biden's electoral chances or whatever. If I made a post like that, I'd fully expect to eat at least a 6er - and rightfully so! It's an extremely clear violation of the rules. e: to be 100% clear, I'm not asking for that post to be hit now; it's been a month since it was made, after all. But it serves as an example of a broader problem in this forum's moderation. Some posters get to impugn the motives of other posters and have a better-than-even chance of getting away with it. Other posters can expect to be probated for even a whiff of it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Victar posted:Another D&D regular I am recommending for IK or mod is Leon Trotsky 2012, for the same reasons as Main Paineframe and Professor Beetus. lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It isn't too much moderation that makes that thread suck, it's the almost complete absence of it until things get *really* bad. Someone who steps in and tells people to cool it would stop it from getting to that point and make for a far more interesting thread. A mod stepping in to tell people to knock it off when discussion gets pulled down into petty slap fights would probably go a long way to improving discussion. Rather than coming by a few days later and randomly probing the participants of said slap fight. Raenir Salazar posted:The largest issue regarding D&D moderation is it seems like for many threads mods don't participate or read the discussion and don't have context to determine who the actual trouble makers and trolls are, and thus don't intervene soon enough either to prevent otherwise good faith participants from accidentily breaking the rules in a moment of frustration when a troll has been allowed to go unmoderated for days at a time, despite multiple reports. Again prompter reaction would probably solve a lot of the issues. The longer trolls are allowed to engage in their 'I'm not touching you' style of debate trolling, the more posters are likely to cross a line and say something that will get them probed. If probing people is the purpose of their trolling, which I suspect it is. They are essentially being awarded for making GBS threads up threads because the more they frustrate actual discussion, the greater the chance of catching more posters with probes when the mods do step in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:A mod stepping in to tell people to knock it off when discussion gets pulled down into petty slap fights would probably go a long way to improving discussion. Rather than coming by a few days later and randomly probing the participants of said slap fight. I agree with this, probes after the fact just serves to piss people off - having a mod just telling people to knock it off when things get dumb (circular, heated, trolling, etc) would be best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 20:06
|
|
|
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? This dude either needs to be forumbanned or made mod, no inbetween
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 20:08
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:A mod stepping in to tell people to knock it off when discussion gets pulled down into petty slap fights would probably go a long way to improving discussion. Rather than coming by a few days later and randomly probing the participants of said slap fight. Absolutely. If this is supposed to be the serious debate forum, then the moderators need to take an active role in actually moderating the debate, and not just through handing out probations. I didn't do debate club in high school but I'm pretty sure that you're not supposed to penalize people in a debate by gagging them for 6 hours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 22:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I agree with this and what Probably Magic said 100%. The rules about impugning others' motives do not apply evenly among posters, and the divide clearly falls along ideological lines. The fact that this post didn't get hit for assuming bad faith in other posters (and/or inciting inter-forums drama) shows how biased the moderation is. Here's the offending paragraph: We need to stop treating this like a team sport. You interpret comments about some members of a group you belong to as applying to the entire group, and take offense to it. You derailed USCE over this just the other day because you interpreted comments about some people calling for a ceasefire as demeaning to all people doing so. This would be a lot less frustrating place if posters treated it like a discussion and not as an us vs. them exercise Fister Roboto posted:Absolutely. If this is supposed to be the serious debate forum, then the moderators need to take an active role in actually moderating the debate, and not just through handing out probations. I didn't do debate club in high school but I'm pretty sure that you're not supposed to penalize people in a debate by gagging them for 6 hours. I also think we should punish people the same way high schoolers are, and DV shouldn't be allowed to attend the spring formal, and should probably also get detention. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 22:43
|
|
|
Seven Deadly Sins posted:I'm not enthused at advocating that people engage in drive-by threadshitting where they deploy opinions they're unwilling or unable to defend. Yes, I should clarify that doing what the Disreputable Dog is advocating is annoying to other posters and would likely lead to punishment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:We need to stop treating this like a team sport. You interpret comments about some members of a group you belong to as applying to the entire group, and take offense to it. It's a little difficult not to take offense to someone saying that a group I belong to doesn't genuinely oppose genocide, and instead is only doing it to get at Joe Biden. That's the sort of thing you say when you want someone to take offense, especially when you should know better, as MP absolutely should. quote:You derailed USCE over this just the other day because you interpreted comments about some people calling for a ceasefire as demeaning to all people doing so. This entire argument began because Main Paineframe was treating it as an "us-vs.-them" team sport. That is how this started. I would not be involved in this discussion if he had not done that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
It was stated once that the objective here was to create the Calmest Hitler. How far along to that goal are we and who are the current candidates?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 23:02
|
|
