|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
As a quick point I think the clearly delineated rules are a good thing at least from the perspective of helping posters clearly define and give context for when they report a post; so even if on one hand koos you decide that mods should have wider latitude for when to use their buttons, the written rules would still be good to have as more clearly and transparent guidelines for posters in general and to help posters when they communicate with mods.Majorian posted:The "Flatten" post earned that poster a pretty swift permaban. (in C-SPAM) So putting aside that it wasn't initially reported by anyone who posts in CSPAM, as a follow up to my earlier post I'm going to single you out here as you've specifically have been engaging in a pretty obvious pattern of sealioning. The thing your responding to here in this very post is a pretty good example of the kind of nitpicking you've been doing that seems designed to be a drag on discussion. In particular posts like this, which are just insincere: Majorian posted:I don’t have to look for reasons to dislike him. Majorian posted:It's not just possible, it's pretty much a certainty. But that's the thing: if Team Biden knows the media is running with the "Biden's brain is mush" narrative, they should probably try to make sure he's not playing into it. You went on to make fifteen posts about Biden's age/mental faculties where your stated intentions don't add up or align with the insistence on "discussing" the point, in particular the way you yourself never seem to have an actual position on the issue, only "people are saying" or "well people believe it because" and framing it as just a point of discussion as an "election issue", this seems to me like a strategy where by getting people to respond to you, you're creating further opportunities to be further contrarian; not because you're legitimately interested in what people are saying. And then posts like this where c'mon: Majorian posted:I'm actually asking you to back up your accusation that people are bringing up Biden's age and health because they've either been duped by the right or are trolling the thread, and not because they are actually concerned about Biden's age and health. Which you basically dropped shortly after I pm'd you, so the possibility however slim exists you legitimately didn't know and needed my PM to know. Who can say. But given those fifteen posts between march 7th and March 8th its impossible to read this at face value: Majorian posted:This is all I'm saying. People had already responded to you with this point, or made this point repeatedly in the past. You went at it again: Majorian posted:It wasn't intended to "make any strides" in that direction. You attributed his gaffes to his stutter, and I showed you Biden personally denying that this is the case. Either Biden is telling the truth (or what he erroneously believes to be the truth), or he is lying for some reason. Where again, you're just nitpicking. Instead of putting any effort at all into reading context into what you're responding to, where you often seem to read posts in an overly literal fashion; where you're placing an undue burden of effort into forcing people to explain what the reasonable position is; which would be fine if this was genuine and if you absolutely had no prior position or understanding of the issue, but you clearly do. And then there's this whole sequence of posts by you to Maine Paineframe: Majorian posted:Who believes this, MP? Please be specific, because I haven't seen a single person anywhere suggest this. Where this is just textbook sealioning. Bonus points for obvious concern trolling here: Majorian posted:I dismissed them because they didn't indicate that anyone actually believes that a ceasefire and an end to the genocide are synonymous. They were bad examples, because they do not say what MP claims they say. Then there's posts by you where you're "just asking questions": Majorian posted:In what way have Biden's policies/initiatives/expansions of presidential powers been "radical," exactly? Can you be specific? Majorian posted:Of course it is, but MPF said "Biden is the most progressive president in our parents' lifetimes," and I'm pretty sure MPF is around my age. I'm also pretty sure most (not all) of us have parents who were born before 1969. Which is more nitpicking, that doesn't respond to the substance of the point being made. Majorian posted:Let's dig a little deeper into that, though: which parts of the Democratic coalition would they piss off by having a clearly-stated, more humane policy towards immigration and the border? Would they piss off those parts so much that they wouldn't vote for them in the upcoming election? No one responded to this, so I was tempted to give it a pass; but on closer inspection it has many of the same issues as your other posts; you nitpick a broad point someone makes without engaging with its substance, in this case the source you brought to backup the nitpick ultimately sustains the broader more charitable point being made (Americans in general are highly concerned with immigration), the point about the "Democratic coalition" is ambiguous as to whether it means only people who self-identify as Democrats or people who tend to vote for Democrats. And I'll be upfront and clear that the issue here isn't not being probed for this, the problem is the lack of pushback from mods interested in taking an active effort at curating discussion. There's no mod presence who can read all of your posts and ask you to put in more effort and to knock it off. Similarly, USCE regular "B B" regularly is engaging in bad faith concern trolling, particularly using posts like this for context, it isn't possible to take it at face value that they're just "concerned" or interested in discussing the ramifications of the poll numbers, because they repeatedly post the same content over and over and don't engage with the thread: B B posted:This 6-3 ruling is gonna be amazing. At least Joe and the Democrats will be able to console themselves with the fact that they resisted the urge to politicize politicize the court maybe forever in a way that's not healthy, though. Why I don't think this B B poster likes Democrats or hopes they win at all! And yes, they're even mocked posters in D&D in CSPAM while actively participating in D&D: quote:I have already seen this actually. It hasn't even been a half hour. :laffo Now I can't know for sure what's in B B's heart of hearts, and in a vacuum the fact that some of Biden's polls are bad is important information to discuss, we are in an election year; but between the fact that it's already been well discussed, that they might not be predictive this far out, and not super meaningful, constantly bringing them up, again and again, without any new context or information that brings up an interesting point of discussion, seems clear to me that at some point a threshold was reached and B B should've been asked to knock it off. But again, it isn't that he should've been probed every time, there should've been a mod present in the thread, who could remember the discussion the last time B B made a similar post and be like, "Hey, do you have any new information to bring up with this?" so the rest of the thread knows that the situation is being handled. To repeat, the issue is that most of the time probes are too little, too late, and only are serving as a ill fitting bandaid to a deeper problem. In which the burden of policing the thread has fallen onto regulars who just as often are the ones who get punished for it, and are often punished harder for it. mawarannahr posted:There is still dogpiling and digging into years-old post histories in the War in Ukraine thread; there was an ugly example with someone whose name begins with K and Cpt_Obvious a few weeks ago. IIRC, folks were egging K on. This is obviously false with just a casual glance at the thread in question. For one Cpt_Obvious was obviously engaging in bad faith, I don't understand why Kalit gets a day for this: Kalit posted:Kind of ironic, considering you stated it's an impossible "war" (i.e. attempted genocide) for Ukraine to "win" (i.e. survive) early on: While this: Cpt_Obvious posted:This war has been deemed "unsustainable" for Russia since it began. While this post by Cpt_Obvious later only got 12 hours: Cpt_Obvious posted:While technically the term "slush fund" can include any account used for miscellaneous expenditures, it usually implies corrupt use of the money. I certainly don't agree with more of my tax dollars being sent abroad, there doesn't seem to be any illegitimate use of the funds by the Biden administration. Afaik the only place the money set aside for Ukraine goes is either to Ukraine itself or arms dealers like boeing and raytheon. As for Dog Piling, I do think it'd be nice if it happened less often, because it can be annoying, and intimidating, to respond to several different people making slightly different arguments. Good moderation would be helpful here to encourage just at most, 1-2 people responding to 1 person. Especially when often if someone says something controversial or unpopular half the posts are just some variation of "lol, lmao". And that's lovely even if there's circumstances where that's deserved. If its a lovely position then they'll inevitably when faced with a good argument make a bad argument and get adequate and proper feedback; and if others try to make the same argument, with good moderation, legitimate argument can be given proper room to breath. So as far as I can tell, you've not made a single post in the thread, perhaps you've regularly and religiously lurked in it, but when you're claiming you've never seen any "pro-Russia" posters in the thread (despite the very obvious examples already provided), but plenty of people "demonizing" such posters using "fallacious" rhetoric; well to be blunt, this seems dubious to me, but if you're right, there should be a massive preponderance of examples of this occurring, can you provide a small handful of examples of people who you felt like were just, innocently providing their opinion and concerns, who you felt were unjustly demonized for it, along with those posts engaging in that, where the person who was demonized was also unfairly probed by the mods? There should be a huge selection to pick from. I just spent like four hours going back and picking out posts to bring up for my post, so this isn't an unreasonable thing for me to ask of you I feel.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 19:28
|
|
Plus, of course, that how rickety or not-rickety he comes off as will significantly impact how well he does in the election.
|
socialsecurity posted:This is true, some people are obsessive about loving with D&D and 6 hours is not a hurdle to that. Heck, you're incentivized to do so, because if you toss out a low effort post and bait like six people into responding to you, you traded one six hour probe for 36 hours on other people; it's like indirectly doing the thing that used to be a thing where you'd request a ban to get someone else banned, whatever that was called; except you're getting potentially several times the value. Probably Magic posted:There's no "evidence" or "facts" supporting this viewpoint. It's not "novel" or "thought-provoking." I can find the same thing on reddit and the MSNBC.com comment section. Weirdly escapes scrutiny. Just to clarify are you disputing socialsecurity's claim that there's posters who despite being given similar facts are possessing obviously hypocritical positions because of ideology or are you saying something else? It isn't clear to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:You have 80+ probations almost all of them for refusing to follow the rules of D&D. koolkal posted:It's especially funny because DV has one of the longest rapsheets in D&D, stemming largely from probes IN D&D. If we're using rapsheets as a metric of poster worthiness, DV is one of the worst posters in all of D&D. Perhaps the worst over the past year. Fister Roboto posted:You've got a way longer rapsheet for consistently being an abrasive rear end in a top hat than most of the people you're yelling at. I'mma be blunt and say that while DV should've been clearer and said something like "We can tell your intent from looking either at the relevant LC entries on your rapsheet or your past posts on the subject that can be easily searched for." since lots of people can have rapsheets for irrelevant things such as joke probes; this is all not actually engaging with the point, and is deflecting from the substance of the matter at hand; that yes, it is possible to make a reasonable conclusion about someone's intentions, and conclude that the aggregate pattern of posting amounts to bad faith by looking at the history of posting in its proper context. These posts don't respond to this point. Probably Magic posted:What purpose. You have yet to explain this. I can tell you I argue with you not out of some amazing agenda but because you irritate me in a way that reminds me a bit of myself. Do you see how ridiculous this is though? The lengths of this paranoia? For the lols? Some trolls are more dedicated to their craft and have more free time than others, it isn't complicated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
Valentin posted:whatever makes this harassment is so Byzantine and tortured I can derive nothing meaningful from either the post or the probation. and again this is better solved by you blocking the poster you say is specifically targeting you, given that this targeting appears to start and end at responding to your posts. That DV was harassed in the past isn't in doubt and in context isn't hard to see the ways B B was deliberately trying to push DV's buttons and clearly DV is just using it as a recent example. No one replied because IIRC it got probed surprisingly quickly. In general this is a good example of the mods doing their job, by correctly identify a attempt in context at bad faith trolling and responding adequately. Probably Magic posted:Trolling isn't "sabotage," Raenir. He's also used the term "abuse" before. These are highly-charged words for at worst can be termed "harassment." This framing, by DV's own metrics, are designed to manipulate the reader. Why does he employ it then? You're being a little too obvious here in giving the game away, so I'll say to Koos that this is the kind of thing we're talking about. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
Valentin posted:I mean you can see from the rap sheet it got probed two days later. No one replied because it didn't matter, much like a one word dm reading "owned" So I remember that it had a different probe reason originally but this was changed, so its possible that this would also change the probe date? I'm unaware of this is the case or not, but lets assume this doesn't change the probe date; okay so two days later and no one engaged with the obvious troll post. I'm unsure what about my position in my post you're quoting are you disagreeing with exactly? What are you disputing? That its two days later doesn't change the other things I said. The meaning of the words I used is clearly their regular meaning and I'm sure you have a working definition of them that matches broadly my working definition; but to repeat and perhaps clarify, 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. Remember, again, I never said that "This post, this post, and that post should be probed." I'm pointing out the obvious undeniable pattern that these two-three particular posters are just two recent examples I am aware of; its dozens of posters and hundreds of posts over years and what makes them frustrating; I'm not asking for Majorian and B B to be probed, but for mods to be a more active presence in threads and to keep a closer eye on posters and their posting histories; because otherwise this sort of pattern can happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 22:11
|
|
|
Esran posted:I have a passing familiarity with Majorian's posting, and I don't consider them to be usually employing the tactics you mention. I'm not sure what you mean by retreat, my point and argument regarding Majorian's, and B B's, and to a lesser extent, Cpt_Obvious's posting still stands exactly as I said them. You seem to have interpreted my explanation in a way that's at odds with the intention of my original post; I certainly never said "not these posts specifically", if I picked them out, its because they all on some level relevant to the point about there being a pattern, and every single one contributed in their own way, but to point out that they aren't by any means the full story and that the surrounding context is important for evaluating them. 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. In short, I consequently don't need to explain Majorian's posts and why they're sea lioning, when your posts have subsequently served as a perfect self-describing walking definition of what it is and what the pattern is and why people do it. I couldn't have explained it any better than how you've provided a real in real time demonstration of it, thanks. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:None of my posts that you quoted are at all controversial. Considering the multiple posters who responded to you in a majority of those circumstances I don't think you can claim that your posts weren't "controversial". You certainly put a lot of effort though to try to seem non-controversial that's true. Insofar as "controversial" here seems to have been picked to downplay the extent in which they are "disagreeable" or "contentious". Insofar as you're trying to say "Look it isn't like I said Tiananmen Square didn't happen, its not a big deal!" sure by that standard; but that isn't whats being discussed here, no one is suggesting banning or probing you for anything (or at least I'm not) either you don't need to do this or frame things this way. quote:There are two problems with throwing around the word "sabotage," as far as I can see: one, it assumes a degree of intentionality and premeditation that probably don't really exist when someone is posting an unpopular opinion among DnD regulars. There's actually zero issues with using the word sabotage, just as there would be zero issues with using the term "throwing" in the context of a video game; there's a clear casual colloquial use that's been regularly used in non-serious contexts everywhere all the time on these forums at the very least and no one is seriously confused by it and that going to this much effort to litigate it instead of just moving on and addressing the actual substance is just about dragging things out; perhaps on purpose. quote:No, I think you probably should if you're going to make the accusation. Luckily for you you can just reread the original post then; I feel like it and the subsequent posts where I further explain really should suffice to explain a problem many posters have with posting in D&D and why many are very frustrating with how moderation is in terms for every step forward there's two steps backwards that the current rules don't solve. And lets be honest; if I am correct and you've been engaging either knowingly or unknowingly (i.e cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning etc etc) in bad faith posting you'd obviously not be inclined to agree to believe it or admit to it; because why would you? Few people are ever actually convinced to accept the opposite position they previously held by virtue of logical argument and evidence alone. That's just not how that works I'm not sure what you're expecting to happen asking for that. If anything its strange to me to frame it as an accusation, when for me Ultimately you're not the audience here and my job isn't to convince you, even if you understandably might take umbrage at being singled out like this; this is a feedback thread and ultimately my audience is Koos, and my purpose is to inform and give my feedback to him, about the things, I've experienced and observed as I've personally seen and observed them; not to appeal to "and other people clap/agree with me" but I don't appear to be the only one who feels this way or have been the only one to have observed these things, I'm just the only one who was willing to put themselves out there in going to the effort to dig up enough posts to provide some sort of evidence to provide to the mods without there being accusations of "vagueposting" that something more egregious is amiss than "this guy got probed for six hours, but this guy was probed for 24 hours for the same thing whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat"; and as we've seen providing specifics just means providing specific points to be litigated endlessly. Remember the point here for me, my intention here, isn't for mods to be hammering your posts, or you, more often; that's never been the goal; but for there to be more active mods, actively participating in the thread, and if there indeed is some possibility; that I've done you dirty and pegged you wrong, that this is a false positive, then the best and most convincing thing you can do, to convince me, that you were completely honest and forthright the entire time; is to simply say, and go, "Hey, I don't think your observations of my posts are accurate, although I understand how it can seem that way, however for what its worth I do agree with your end goal, even if I think the evidence you choose was incorrect, I nontheless believe you have a genuinely intention to see things improve, and I agree with your conclusion nonetheless, I, Majorian, #1 Zhukov Enthusiast Extraordinaire, agree with you, Raenir Salazar, that mods could be more active participants with the aim to more passively discourage bad posting, to curate a better posting experience overall." That would literally end the issue for me, regarding you, and I'd drop it forever at least insofar as I've involved you. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I do find this conflict difficult to understand and without much relevancy to moderation issues (other than issues of what constitutes bad faith or how to recognize patterns in behavior). I do hope exchanges like that one are not common in D&D proper, and I urge you to report them and they will be dealt with. Yes, this was my intention, thanks for being focused on the merits. Let me know if there's anything unclear, although by DM might be better.e to add: As to whether those kinds of arguments are common, I can't say, but whenever I see them do happen, they very often are reported and well, this leads us back to the problem, that it takes days, if not over a week, for there to be any action, and consequently allows for multiple pages for it to occur. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Mar 14, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
Stringent posted:i think that might be due to how long it takes to read your posts, or just skim by them and ignore them because they're too long, have you ever thought about offering a thesis and then defending it below? Bold of you to assume I'm only talking about conversations I'm actively participating in; and not like, just generally catching up on a thread and seeing jibba-jabba going on for multiple pages, hitting the report button, seeing its already reported, and as I catch up to the current page notice that we're now days later with nothing done and the derail or whatever still ongoing. But you knew that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
Stringent posted:It's not bold, because I'm specifically talking about you, and yes I did already know that. You're a lovely writer, but you are good at collating facts. Hence my request to offer a thesis and defend it below. Koos can you chime in if these sorts of posts are desirable for the feedback thread?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Personal criticisms are allowed in feedback threads if relevant to moderation or the credibility of a user in the thread, but I would prefer Stringent be more respectful to you and let this particular conflict be, as we've seen enough about it. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I'm not sure what this has to do with feedback about D&D anymore, so I'd suggest taking it to PMs if you want to continue. My takeaway would be that there seems to be some dispute as to what topics should be allowed to be discussed with "rationality and nuance" and maybe the principle regarding moderating "arguments not positions" might need to be restated or clarified.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
My assumption as to what Koos wants us to do, please correct me if I'm wrong; is to generally not report that someone seems to have a contradictory position or hypocritical stance on a specific topic, but to only report a particular post, if and when they inevitable break the rules trying to defend that contradictory position in the course of reasoned discussion. And only if when that contradiction comes up, and if it does so in a natural and relevant way to that discussion; i.e no digging up a post where they contradict themselves just to debate the contradiction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2024 20:04
|
|