|
Valentin posted:i retract my current support for the koos moderation regime. while i support trying to reduce the volume of posts so mods don't have to look at reports, i fear he has only concentrated and intensified the backseat-modding posting gene in this particular petri dish. He's simply trying to create the Koosatz Haderach, let him cook
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
One fundamental fault of current enforcement policy, among others, is that punishments not only arrive late, but a) rule violations intended to sabotage discussion and b) rule violations for objectively correctly identifying these efforts are treated equally harshly. If anything the latter are more commonly and more harshly punished, as Raenir Salazar has documented. This documentation shouldn't be necessary to get you to enforce the rules on users who are not participating in good faith.Koos Group posted:The only higher obstacle to bans would be admin denial, which is very rare, and the highest obstacle to forumbans would be me, and I am almost always in favor of them. The idea that you are "almost always in favor of forumbans" is also contradicted by the above, and the rapsheets involved. If you want to reduce the number of reports, if you want to simplify the moderation burden, then one of the many ways you could do so productively is by recognizing that you will reduce the number of reports by removing the people who are the root cause, the ones you have already acknowledged are deliberately sabotaging discussion. This reduces the number of reports of the users in a) because they are no longer breaking the rules, and it reduces the number of reports in b) because there is no longer trolling for these users to correctly identify. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:farting around in here is all well and good, but how long has it been since anyone's checked the D&D reports? you think you can do better?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:One fundamental fault of current enforcement policy, among others, is that punishments not only arrive late, but a) rule violations intended to sabotage discussion and b) rule violations for objectively correctly identifying these efforts are treated equally harshly. If anything the latter are more commonly and more harshly punished, as Raenir Salazar has documented. This documentation shouldn't be necessary to get you to enforce the rules on users who are not participating in good faith. I think you are misusing "objectively correct". It doesn't mean "I agree with". The Raenir post has received disagreement from several posters who see little obviously wrong with many of the posts being linked to, and when asked to explain how these posts were problematic, Raenir assumed I was out to get them, and also decided they didn't need to elaborate further. Even if you believe that post contains evidence of trolling, I think it is also a great example of something else: An inability to articulate an argument clearly enough for other posters to understand, while believing that the argument essentially makes itself and is self-evidently true, and so people disagreeing or asking for clarification on the argument must be doing so in bad faith. It has been pointed out several times that your complaining about rapsheets doesn't really work when yours is so extensive. I suppose you should also receive a forumban? An alternative way to reduce the number of reports is doing something about the people who keep mashing the report button whenever they see an opinion they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
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. You don't engage in accountability or think accountability would be useful? Noted. What's the point of this thread, koos. Letting us blow off steam while you can't even be bothered to write down what problems people have
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 00:48
|
|
|
Esran posted:I think you are misusing "objectively correct". It doesn't mean "I agree with". Correct as in the same users were punished for trolling. Again, we do not have to deny the content or existence of these users' rapsheets in considering whether or not Koos group almost always applies forumbans, or recognizes the motivations of the users with a long history of violating the rules in established ways. Repeatedly denying Raenir's detailed explanations does not actually shift the associated burdens. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:01
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You don't engage in accountability or think accountability would be useful? I assume it's a semi-regular excuse for posters to petition the mods to ban their posting enemies. Keep it here instead of letting it spread elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:22
|
|
|
lol one of the complaints from the last thread was the lack of accountability just like this one started off with Complain all you want people, Koos has clearly stated he's not doing poo poo, but in Calm Hitler terms so you technically can't say that's what he said reminder that calm hitlers are literally his stated goal
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Correct as in the same users were punished for trolling. Again, we do not have to deny the content or existence of these users' rapsheets in considering whether or not Koos group almost always applies forumbans, or recognizes the motivations of the users with a long history of violating the rules in established ways. Repeatedly denying Raenir's detailed explanations does not actually shift the associated burdens. I don't think Koos said that he "almost always applies forumbans" in the sense that he has forumbans on a hair trigger, which seems to be how you're understanding it. I think he said that if another moderator asks for a forumban, he'll generally approve it. Regarding Raenir's "detailed explanations", I don't think they were either of those things. You can't accuse other posters of sealioning, insincerity, nitpicking and other bad faith tactics, and point to a bunch of their posts as evidence, and then when someone says they don't see it, suddenly these posts don't prove anything by themselves anymore, and the "obvious undeniable pattern" that you insist is there is only visible to those who "do an investigation" into the context, and that poster's previous discussions, posts and stated positions. And then when I say I still don't see it, it's because I'm asking in bad faith and intend to "muddy the waters". It's exactly what I just described: A failure to properly support a claim, and then assuming bad faith when people disagree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
You can say you disagree with my posts but please don't make up what I've said about them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If you want to reduce the number of reports, if you want to simplify the moderation burden, then one of the many ways you could do so productively is by recognizing that you will reduce the number of reports by removing the people who are the root cause, the ones you have already acknowledged are deliberately sabotaging discussion. This reduces the number of reports of the users in a) because they are no longer breaking the rules, and it reduces the number of reports in b) because there is no longer trolling for these users to correctly identify. I would be more than happy to remove anyone who has an intent or consistent pattern of sabotaging discussion. You just haven't been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that this is occurring in all cases where you believe it is. Esran posted:I don't think Koos said that he "almost always applies forumbans" in the sense that he has forumbans on a hair trigger, which seems to be how you're understanding it. I think he said that if another moderator asks for a forumban, he'll generally approve it. That's correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I would be more than happy to remove anyone who has an intent or consistent pattern of sabotaging discussion. You just haven't been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that this is occurring in all cases where you believe it is. I think an important question here, insofar as it ties back to my earlier observations, is do the mods at all take any steps to determine if someone is sabotaging discussion, and aware of the ways someone can take steps to do so in a way where they have cover and plausible deniability doing so? It doesn't seem like especially with how delayed rules enforcement tends to be, that there's no way the mod team is really able to practically keep tabs on things? Hence why I've been suggesting we need more active mods participating in discussion so the people who may or may not be sabotaging discussion will be more likely to directly interact with the mods and more likely to get more scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think an important question here, insofar as it ties back to my earlier observations, is do the mods at all take any steps to determine if someone is sabotaging discussion, and aware of the ways someone can take steps to do so in a way where they have cover and plausible deniability doing so? It doesn't seem like especially with how delayed rules enforcement tends to be, that there's no way the mod team is really able to practically keep tabs on things? Hence why I've been suggesting we need more active mods participating in discussion so the people who may or may not be sabotaging discussion will be more likely to directly interact with the mods and more likely to get more scrutiny. More mods would certainly be a good idea, and may help with this. As for finding someone who is operating in bad faith following the letter of the rules, all we can really do is use our common sense (such as that one incident with BB and Discendo Vox). It also helps if reports explain how a user is attempting to skirt the spirit of the rules thoroughly and precisely in case it isn't intuitively or immediately apparent to whichever mod happens to be handling the report.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
1st Quarter feedback thread 2023:Rosalind posted:I am going to be so egotistical as to assume that I might be one of the people you're referencing here. To be honest, I am not going to return to posting in D&D probably ever. It's not fulfilling. Rosalind posted:See this is exactly it! This post perfectly encapsulates why I don't post here any more. 2nd Quarter feedback thread 2023: Discendo Vox posted:You've not responded to most of the feedback from the previous feedback thread. The primary difference since the latest round of mod turnover has been even less enforcement of the rules than before, meaning even more trolling and circular arguments in all the major threads.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 02:42
|
|
|
I've mostly kept my input out of this thread because at this point it's more fun as a spectator event than anything meaningful, and I'm sure what I'm about to say is going to be written off by most as just more grudgeposting from the shadowy DV gangstalking crowd but my honest and earnest feedback is that it's time for a "put up or shut up" moment. If he's going to complain about the moderators not moderating to his expectations and he's categorically going to refuse to shoulder that mantle himself, he should stop loving complaining under the axiom that one should not ask others to do that which one is themselves unwilling to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You can say you disagree with my posts but please don't make up what I've said about them. Yeah this is why posting in the I/P thread is dangerous and exhausting, it doesn't matter what you say really, even trying to understand the basics of what's happening sometimes will get you labeled a genocide supporter, by the same people spend their time defending the Russian and Chinese genocides. You end up spending so much time trying to correct people imagining poo poo you are saying that you get off on a tangent and never discuss the original point, which probably is their goal to derail the "bad thread" At this point only active moderation by people engaged with D&D can turn things around but I don't think you could get most of the regulars who have left back and I don't think that is the goal of the admin team either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If people aren't reporting things it may be indicative that they don't think they should be moderated. You can't make people report things in that instance. Even if they break the rules because not everyone is going to agree with the rules. I would agree regarding snitching, I felt that way as well, and have previously not tended to hit report on anything but the most egregious poo poo. However terrible posts that are clearly rulebreaking being unreported (and thus not acted on) while posts that are much less clearly rulebreaking getting probes (due to reports) gives the unfair impression that the modding is biased, when the bias actually lays with the people who are willing to hit report. Which is not something I have any ideas on how to fix. I agree that ideally, we'd report less posts, which would reduce load on the mod team and then get faster action and turnaround on the dire poo poo, but given the tone of the discussion in this feedback thread I don't think that people are likely to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 07:26
|
|
|
hooman posted:I would agree regarding snitching, I felt that way as well, and have previously not tended to hit report on anything but the most egregious poo poo. Making a lot of assumptions here about who's doing the reporting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 07:47
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I've mostly kept my input out of this thread because at this point it's more fun as a spectator event than anything meaningful, and I'm sure what I'm about to say is going to be written off by most as just more grudgeposting from the shadowy DV gangstalking crowd but my honest and earnest feedback is that it's time for a "put up or shut up" moment. If he's going to complain about the moderators not moderating to his expectations and he's categorically going to refuse to shoulder that mantle himself, he should stop loving complaining under the axiom that one should not ask others to do that which one is themselves unwilling to do. I would like to repeat the sentiment expressed multiple times before in this thread that he should be forced to accept a moderator position or be forumbanned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 08:13
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Making a lot of assumptions here about who's doing the reporting. I assume that people who are motivated enough to post in this feedback thread are frustrated enough with rulebreaking posts to hit report on them. If that's wrong, then fair enough I'm wrong about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 08:25
|
|
|
Autisanal Cheese posted:I would like to repeat the sentiment expressed multiple times before in this thread that he should be forced to accept a moderator position or be forumbanned. it's that simple folks
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 09:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:You can say you disagree with my posts but please don't make up what I've said about them. I've been very careful to quote you exactly. I didn't make anything up. Here's proof: You accusing another poster of sealioning, concern trolling, insincerity and nitpicking, and pointing to their posts as evidence Raenir Salazar posted:In particular posts like this, which are just insincere: The post where the evidence of these tactics is now suddenly not so clear anymore, and it requires a bunch of context to see the "obvious undeniable pattern" that you still insist is there. Raenir Salazar posted:I am not saying these posts individually are necessarily these things (although I'm sure some are); but that considering context, that clearly on the whole they aggregate their way towards being those things overall. Because obviously people can make a post that in isolation doesn't break the rules, or seem to be in bad faith, but once we consider context, such as post history; whether or not a poster based on prior discussion, posts, and positions, should really in fact know better then the ignorance a particular post seems to be all of a sudden implying; that there's some level of dishonesty motivating the posts.Thus just because a single post out of context to you seems fine, it should be clear given an unbiased observer, aware of their post history, who can do an investigation, who can look at it in context what makes it problematic. The post where you decide I am operating in bad faith because I don't agree with you Raenir Salazar posted:Ultimately there's a few things happening here, (1) that you fundamentally misunderstood the argument and (2) and that your reaction here tells me there's no circumstance where you will, and consequently (3) that your intentions here are to try to muddy the waters by dragging out my post in obnoxious litigation from "what even is the meaning of sea lioning/jaq'ing off/etc" to "I demand you explain in meticulous detail why these posts are relevant, so I can then disagree point by point for every post, in which you then need to explain and refute those points in turn" forever; the irony would be hilarious if weren't so equally sad. So you're just wrong. You may not have meant what you wrote, but I represented what you wrote accurately. socialsecurity posted:Yeah this is why posting in the I/P thread is dangerous and exhausting, it doesn't matter what you say really, even trying to understand the basics of what's happening sometimes will get you labeled a genocide supporter, by the same people spend their time defending the Russian and Chinese genocides. You end up spending so much time trying to correct people imagining poo poo you are saying that you get off on a tangent and never discuss the original point, which probably is their goal to derail the "bad thread" It's not my feedback thread, so it's up to the mods what kind of feedback they think is valuable, but I would consider a post like this worthless, because you're not backing your claims at all. At least two other people in this thread have done this exact same thing: Complain about how mean people are being to them, and how many rules those posters are certainly breaking, and when they're asked to point to the posts that show this happening, they go silent. Maybe you should point to the posts where this is happening? And also, if you can't handle people disagreeing with you without inventing a conspiracy where they must be posting in bad faith to deliberately derail the "bad thread", then maybe a political discussion forum isn't right for you? They could just be disagreeing with you because they think your ideas and arguments are bad. Esran fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 12:06
|
|
|
Esran posted:It's not my feedback thread, so it's up to the mods what kind of feedback they think is valuable, but I would consider a post like this worthless, because you're not backing your claims at all. At least two other people in this thread have done this exact same thing: Complain about how mean people are being to them, and how many rules those posters are certainly breaking, and when they're asked to point to the posts that show this happening, they go silent. I just took a quick look at the I/P thread DelilahFlowers posted:Nazi poo poo is allowed here? Here's an example of knee jerk calling someone a genocide denier: Bel Shazar posted:That is just an amazing amount of words to say why people shouldn't consider using force to stop a genocide... And an example with China in it since the post that you were responding to mentioned that Stringent posted:These are flat out lies, and it's absolutely pathetic you're dragging them into this thread thinking they provide any kind of comparison to Israel. How many tons of HE has the PLAAF dropped in Xianjiang? How many thousands of children have been slaughtered? How are you not ashamed of yourself for posting this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Here's an example of knee jerk calling someone a genocide denier: What I meant, which is why I said it, is that that was a whole bunch of words to say we shouldn't use force to stop a genocide, which is what that prior post was. Nothing about what Raenir posted denied a genocide and I am not your loving strawman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I just took a quick look at the I/P thread The first post led to a probation, so what's the problem? The second post is not calling someone a genocide denier, it's summarizing an (incredibly long-winded) argument. The original poster then clarified their argument later. You are simply misreading the post. The third post is disagreement with an argument (that China and Israel are both committing genocides) put forth by the original poster. There's literally nothing in the second two posts demonstrating that "it doesn't matter what you say really, even trying to understand the basics of what's happening sometimes will get you labeled a genocide supporter, by the same people spend their time defending the Russian and Chinese genocides. You end up spending so much time trying to correct people imagining poo poo you are saying that you get off on a tangent and never discuss the original point, which probably is their goal to derail the "bad thread". Raenir wasn't "trying to understand the basics", they were making a big pile of claims that people disagreed with. Neither of the responses made anything up, they're disagreeing with claims made by the poster they're responding to. This is not "it doesn't matter what you say really, you can't even ask about the basics". This is "I made a bunch of claims and then people disagreed with me". If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, a forum for discussing politics is probably the wrong place to post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
Esran posted:I've been very careful to quote you exactly. I didn't make anything up. Here's proof: I'm going to repeat again that I don't agree with the interpretation you've arrived at and that it doesn't align with the intention of my posts, and I don't think there's any utility in going back and forth where it seems like if I try to explain, that just seems to result in more misunderstanding instead of clarification. Esran posted:The first post led to a probation, so what's the problem? I'll first say that I appreciate that you do seem to be quite charitable and sincere, so the main thing I'll say that the main issue with Bel Shazar's reply to me that often a problem with summarizing someone's post is you can easily flatten the argument and reduce it to something that isn't an accurate summary of the actual argument. And this can either be done by mistake because they didn't take the time to fully read or consider the fine nuances of the post, or deliberately in order to fan the flames, is this what Bel Shazar is doing? I have no idea. The second thing is that "disagree with" is putting it a bit mildly, if the only issue with the I/P thread was people "disagreeing" with each other I don't think it'd be a source of contention, because can just agree to disagree. And to stress this very hard, You're basically the only person making any kind of reasonable attempt at a counter argument, like it is technically true that on some level the other replies are "disagreement" but they're largely lacking any substance or content, aren't responding to the actual argument, are hostile (you should be ashamed!), or a baffling and blatant example of the kind of thing where I don't think people get to have it both ways where they feel justified in yelling at people who just disagree with them about the finer points of whats happening or should happen, in regards to the I/P conflict, but then feel like all of the benefit of the doubt and nuance should be given to the ability to litigate the Holodomor and other genocides when its an communist country that's accused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
stop whatabouting, ya sealion
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 15:50
|
|
|
strawmaning, motte and bailey, kramering trolls all of ya! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I'm going to repeat again that I don't agree with the interpretation you've arrived at and that it doesn't align with the intention of my posts, and I don't think there's any utility in going back and forth where it seems like if I try to explain, that just seems to result in more misunderstanding instead of clarification. I'm fine with simply letting it be. Raenir Salazar posted:And this can either be done by mistake because they didn't take the time to fully read or consider the fine nuances of the post, or deliberately in order to fan the flames, is this what Bel Shazar is doing? I have no idea. Your post was very long with lots of different points being made, but the main thrust argued that someone asking for military intervention to stop Israel is also necessarily asking for genocide (this was the original claim that prompted the discussion). That's slightly different from arguing that no force can be used at all, but I think you can understand how someone might read it that way. I think as per the rules of D&D that we should assume the people expressing disagreement in that thread are doing so because they genuinely disagree, and aren't deliberately fanning the flames. Raenir Salazar posted:The second thing is that "disagree with" is putting it a bit mildly, if the only issue with the I/P thread was people "disagreeing" with each other I don't think it'd be a source of contention, because can just agree to disagree. The subject has strong feelings attached to it. I don't think we should expect people to just agree to disagree. We're not arguing about a technical subject where it is easy to be detached. We're talking about the mass murder of tens of thousands of people, and the starvation and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands more. It is also a subject on which it is known that a strong propaganda effort exists, and the thread has had repeated visits from posters who show up, post terribly sourced obvious lies (and often in very verbose form), and then disappear again. A recent example was the guy arguing that Israel had to continue oppressing the Palestinians as a form of self-defense, or the guy who showed up after Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation to post fake news about him they sourced from a random Israeli Twitter account. It becomes very tedious to repeatedly pick those posts apart and rebutting every point, so I don't think it's unreasonable that some people now just focus on the overarching argument being made in a post and call bullshit on that, and then ignore all the little details that often aren't crucial to the main argument anyway. I think people posting that way aren't doing so for malicious reasons. They are simply expressing their disagreement (sometimes rudely) with what is being said. Raenir Salazar posted:And to stress this very hard, You're basically the only person making any kind of reasonable attempt at a counter argument, like it is technically true that on some level the other replies are "disagreement" but they're largely lacking any substance or content, aren't responding to the actual argument, are hostile (you should be ashamed!), or a baffling and blatant example of the kind of thing where I don't think people get to have it both ways where they feel justified in yelling at people who just disagree with them about the finer points of whats happening or should happen, in regards to the I/P conflict, but then feel like all of the benefit of the doubt and nuance should be given to the ability to litigate the Holodomor and other genocides when its an communist country that's accused. The context for this discussion is that Israel is doing a genocide in Gaza right now. The hostility you're getting is likely because against that backdrop, you are taking a very strong stance that asking for a military intervention against Israel is itself a genocidal request. People who disagree with that are going to feel like you're accusing them of genocidal rhetoric, or they're going to feel that you're running interference for Israel. I don't want to get into either Xinjiang or the Holodomor, except to say that even if you firmly believe that both of these are genocides, you need to understand that this is not an uncontroversial viewpoint. That there is a genocide happening in Israel is pretty much only contested by Israel and maybe the US, and I don't think you disagree with it either. Neither do most of the people posting in the I/P thread, but some of the people posting there don't believe that the other two events are genocides. I'm not saying this to change your mind, but to make you understand that the reason you might be seeing a request for nuance on e.g. the Holodomor is that it's simply not a settled question whether that was deliberate (a genocide) or incompetence (a famine). I don't think anyone believes that what Israel is doing is just an accident or incompetence or that they don't know what they're doing, and so there's no need for that kind of nuance in that discussion. Israeli leaders are openly celebrating their war crimes on Twitter and in the press, so there's much less room for interpretation here. Esran fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Give me your money. This was from a post from March 13 i guess gjb must have seen the poster reporting themselves (the report title shows who reported who) and assumed it was something easy to deal with now I can finally reveal what I was saying that about, though. a couple of days ago, someone was accusing posters of being fascists in USCE and declaring themselves to be D&D's authoritative representative of the collective queer experience. between that and the heated responses from all the people who understandably got mad at them, I knew some people were definitely going to get probed from that discussion, and I was waiting to see how long it took last night, one person from that exchange finally got probed. but not for any of that. they got a sixer for saying that people in other forums told them that D&D sucks and it wasn't worth posting here i know drat well how the reports forum gets sometimes, but that's the price the mods pay for declaring that D&D is going to be a highly moderated space with a whole bunch of rules and a strong "don't engage with rulebreakers, just ignore them and let the mods take care of it" policy
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
i am not a d&d mod and am not speaking as mod in this post. i have a modest proposal to address all the comments about timely modding of reports: if a d&d report is not addressed by a d&d mod (resolved/misc/bullshit) within 36 hours, then the reporter, reportee, and all the d&d mods automatically get a 6er thanks and godspeed
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
pmchem posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar should also be made mod of D&D
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:11
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Raenir Salazar should also be made mod of D&D Not with that word count on your post buddy
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
even better than timely processing of reports would be mods and iks who are active in discussions and can moderate in real-time but that would require them to actually read any of the terrible dnd threads and lmao. current dnd moderation could just be accomplished by asking chatgpt if a reported post violates the rules. congrats, youve created a place where the most insufferably tedious assholes on the internet can passive aggressively snipe at each other for four days. then koos group wakes up to three dozen reports on monday morning and absent-mindedly mashes probes before going back to his basement twink orgy. who is the audience for this subforum, who is it supposed to appeal to? at this point just delete dnd, move current events threads to gbs or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Esran posted:Your post was very long with lots of different points being made, but the main thrust argued that someone asking for military intervention to stop Israel is also necessarily asking for genocide (this was the original claim that prompted the discussion). That's slightly different from arguing that no force can be used at all, but I think you can understand how someone might read it that way. This isn't even remotely true though? The original claim was: Quantum Cat posted:Hey Kalit while it's still your turn to kramer into the thread and defend genocide, can you please address why we should not be doing everything up to and including using overwhelming military force to sweep the state of Israel into the dustbin of history? At a certain point Esran, you've got to stop and think about whether by interpreting words the way you're doing, whether mine or someone else's, that it becomes an active impediment to discussion and whether you should really stop to consider the words and their context more carefully; because its strange and frustrating the way you keep misstating what my argument is, or its proper context. quote:I think as per the rules of D&D that we should assume the people expressing disagreement in that thread are doing so because they genuinely disagree, and aren't deliberately fanning the flames. I did though? I responded assuming good faith in the thread in question. However, the normal rules don't apply here in order to more freely provide feedback. I am observing that such a post is problematic because it overly simplifies and "boils down" or "reduces" someone's argument to such a degree that distorts the original argument, which it absolutely did. I brought it up because its an example of how the hostility of the thread due to lack of moderation isn't discouraging substancless responses, which even if you don't agree whether it overreduced my argument (which is also against the rules of D&D) the post still shouldn't be made either way because it doesn't even respond to the argument. It just said "That's a lot of words to describe something I don't like", there's no discussion there. There's literally no content to that post. They could've said "That's a long post and I don't like it." And it would have had the same effect. As it was I disagree with their interpretation of my argument, which is all I can really say in response to it, so it advanced nothing. quote:The subject has strong feelings attached to it. I don't think we should expect people to just agree to disagree. We're not arguing about a technical subject where it is easy to be detached. We're talking about the mass murder of tens of thousands of people, and the starvation and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands more. There is no issue which doesn't have strong feelings about it, whether its on the subject of socialist revolution, electoralism, or ones favourite brand of mayo. There's no rational way of delineating for a politics discussion forum which subjects are okay to disregard the rules and which aren't. People honestly shouldn't be on the internet discussing things, if they aren't willing to entertain the idea that someone might disagree with them on a topic, and maybe this subforum isn't for those people? Because again, we literally just have to point out a different historical genocide, or a different current event, and suddenly the teams swap in terms of when its okay for there to be calm rational discourse; it's incoherent. quote:It is also a subject on which it is known that a strong propaganda effort exists, and the thread has had repeated visits from posters who show up, post terribly sourced obvious lies (and often in very verbose form), and then disappear again. A recent example was the guy arguing that Israel had to continue oppressing the Palestinians as a form of self-defense, or the guy who showed up after Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation to post fake news about him they sourced from a random Israeli Twitter account. It becomes very tedious to repeatedly pick those posts apart and rebutting every point, so I don't think it's unreasonable that some people now just focus on the overarching argument being made in a post and call bullshit on that, and then ignore all the little details that often aren't crucial to the main argument anyway. I don't think it follows for you to claim: quote:I think as per the rules of D&D that we should assume the people expressing disagreement in that thread are doing so because they genuinely disagree, and aren't deliberately fanning the flames. And also then claim its okay to yell and be hostile at people because "a strong propaganda effort exists"; either you care about the rules in having a proper discussion environment, or you don't and just want the refs to take your side in banishing those people to the shadow realm. I dunno and cannot evaluate how valid or in good faith or bad faith those anectdotes you alledge are, but presumably people should be allowed to on a discussion forum to question narratives, sources, etc. And if there is bad faith then the best thing we should be asking for is consistent active moderation to keep an eye on things and keep legitimate discussion going. It kinda just seems like what you're asking for is permission to have a space where the rules don't apply, but only for this specific topic because you don't want to have to go to the effort of "rebuting every point", well tough luck? We have to also deal with that in other threads all the time; the problem isn't that people can make those arguments, its that there isn't enough active moderation to better keep an eye on things. quote:I think people posting that way aren't doing so for malicious reasons. They are simply expressing their disagreement (sometimes rudely) with what is being said. It's a problem if it creates a culture where a specific thread becomes droll and tiresome to participate in; people should be able to have an unpopular opinion and not be dogpiled for it by multiple poorly written substanceless low content white noise posts. Going back dozens of pages the same sort of pattern is pretty persistent, one person makes a claim that pushes back against the consensus, there's maybe 1 or 2 posts that respond substantiatively, and the rest are just noise indistinguishable from a swarm of angry hornets. quote:The context for this discussion is that Israel is doing a genocide in Gaza right now. The hostility you're getting is likely because against that backdrop, you are taking a very strong stance that asking for a military intervention against Israel is itself a genocidal request. People who disagree with that are going to feel like you're accusing them of genocidal rhetoric, or they're going to feel that you're running interference for Israel. This is just not a reasonable interpretation of my argument, as I explained. And is a part of the problem of the I/P thread where it is a thing posters repeatedly do, and bogs down discussion into litigating what the argument even is. quote:I don't want to get into either Xinjiang or the Holodomor, except to say that even if you firmly believe that both of these are genocides, you need to understand that this is not an uncontroversial viewpoint. That there is a genocide happening in Israel is pretty much only contested by Israel and maybe the US, and I don't think you disagree with it either. Neither do most of the people posting in the I/P thread, but some of the people posting there don't believe that the other two events are genocides. This doesn't follow. Your opinion here isn't objectively correct and doesn't justify taking the position a nuanced rational discussion is only something that should be reserved for genocides by communist countries, but not for countries that have US involvement. This isn't a coherent basis for deciding which topics moderators should just let the rules slide and which ones to not. Its why Koos in the first place took an approach about moderating "arguments not positions". What you seem to be asserting as facts to justify nuance for these topics are absolutely under dispute and cannot be accepted at face value as to why some topics its okay to yell and some aren't. Pentecoastal Elites posted:Raenir Salazar should also be made mod of D&D If people will shut up about DV I'll take it as his proxy. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
Senate Cum Dump posted:even better than timely processing of reports would be mods and iks who are active in discussions and can moderate in real-time but that would require them to actually read any of the terrible dnd threads and lmao. current dnd moderation could just be accomplished by asking chatgpt if a reported post violates the rules. You could just not post/read D&D and "any of the terrible dnd threads". It doesn't make sense to me for you to hate this subforum so much and argue for its deletion but still read/post here. E: I was wondering how long until someone in the I/P thread got mad enough to buy me an avatar. Guess I should have bought into the conspiracy theory that the US was going to use their new aid port thingy to forcefully remove Palestinians from Gaza 
Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
i think d&d has threads that are fun to read, and post in. thats my feedback.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:i think d&d has threads that are fun to read, and post in. thats my feedback. How dare you. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Esran posted:I'm fine with simply letting it be. Raenir Salazar posted:This isn't even remotely true though? you have very obviously and straightforwardly misunderstood esran's post here. "original claim" refers to your post and not quantum cat's. for clarity: Esran posted:I'm fine with simply letting it be. Raenir Salazar posted:Asking for the destruction of a country, especially using military force, like the atomic bombings of Japan, can absolutely lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people; even if one can argue such acts (such as the strategic bombing campaign during the Korean War) were necessary to bring the war to an end. they are referring to your claim that quantum cat's statement must necessarily suggest a genocidal outcome. hope this helps! Raenir Salazar posted:you've got to stop and think about whether by interpreting words the way you're doing, whether mine or someone else's, that it becomes an active impediment to discussion and whether you should really stop to consider the words and their context more carefully; because its strange and frustrating the way you keep misstating what my argument is, or its proper context. Valentin fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Mar 16, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2024 18:53
|
|
