1st quarter 2024 D&D Feedback: State of the Forum

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 1st quarter 2024 D&D Feedback: State of the Forum

Seven Deadly Sins: Apr 5, 2009; I stole something that would make me fabulously wealthy...

But I eated it.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:56

Seven Deadly Sins: Apr 5, 2009; I stole something that would make me fabulously wealthy...

But I eated it.

On the topic of doomposting above; one of the more irritating things that has been happening in various places, but particularly in relation to the I/P thread, is people who show up to constantly derail any concept of nuanced opinion with a definitive blanket statement that can't be engaged with or refuted. In the I/P thread in particular, you get a bunch of drive-by sniping of any conversations regarding the complicated issue of support for Israel among the populace (and its political ramifications) with a dismissal of "nah, biden is a turbo zionist who loves genocide, it's that simple and it's not worth having any other discussion". Some of it comes with very old (and, to be fair, factually accurate) statements from Biden during his days as a senator, but most of the time it's just a pithy one-liner dismissal designed to shut down discussion and eliminate nuance from a difficult topic. It's essentially the along the same lines as the frivolous doomposting that was talked about otherwise, and mostly just serves to be a form of venting that everything is bad and it's impossible to get better.

To be specific, I'm not arguing that such a *position* lacks merit, just that it's frustrating when it's presented in a way that's designed to kill nuanced discussion. Politics is complex and it's frustrating when discussion of those complexities gets killed by a rejection of that nuance. This is not the only position of this type, but it is the most recent and pernicious.

Regarding cinci / the Ukraine thread, sometimes it can be beneficial to have a mod that is biased against the type of "positions" that tend to be bandied about in bad faith, good enough at recognizing that kind of bad faith arguing, *and* is active enough in the thread to act on it before it gets to suck the thread into a morass of bad faith bullshit that derails it for days on end. When there are common positions that are difficult to discuss and defend in good faith, having someone who is willing to at least have their bullshit-o-meter start at "probably bullshit" helps keep things on track.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2024 08:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > 1st quarter 2024 D&D Feedback: State of the Forum