|
longtime reader, infrequent poster. DND policy continues to reward pointless verbosity and the appearance of effort over intellectual clarity and (most importantly) posting and stating your opinion. this has reduced the number of unique people posting and overall posts made such that e.g. the I/P thread manages to regularly go full days without a single post because no one is incentivized to engage because there are very obviously no readers. thoughtful and well-cited posts on various political topics are made with regularity on this site and I almost never read them in DND, because the policy here rewards posting which drives away posters, and the fact that people (including the despised imagined low-effort poster) could be reading what you are saying is one of the main reasons to try to make a good, persuasive, well-reasoned post. which is all to say of course that the koos experiment remains an enormous success and the end of DND is in sight. keep up the good work. e: put another way, the modding in DND is now such that it is deeply unlikely to attract or retain another eripsa or homeworkexplainer (or whoever did the anti imperialism thread back when) or any of the vital weirdos that make a forum worth reading, because they know no one is here to read their nonsense. Valentin fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Mar 11, 2024 |
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:Sorry to take a meat cleaver to the rest of the post, but to me this is the really important bit of both your post and a major past and current (and future) criticism of dnd moderation. people are on the forums because they like to read and make posts. they like to read posts because they are funny, or informative, or aggravating in a way which is rewarding to the psyche. people like to make posts because of the human urge to shout into the void, the possibility of being read and called funny/informative/aggravating, and the simple desire to post with one's pals. all these things require a certain volume of posts. like most posters, i navigate primarily via bookmarks, and i am unlikely to click on a bookmarked thread that has only one or two posts unless i am particularly interested in the subject. if no one is posting, i will not read. if no one is reading, i'm less likely to post (particularly because I, like many relatively low-volume posters, tend not to post unless something in another post prompts me to, which will simply happen less with a lower volume of posts). the stated premise of the dnd change in part was the idea that by lowering the volume of posting (by creating soft higher barriers to posting via stricter moderation and changed policy), and in particular "low-content aggroposting", an environment would emerge that would foster high-quality posts and increased discussion, as well as attract posters driven away by aggressive or low-quality posting. the first problem with this is that all the good stuff is an imagined second-order effect of the primary outcome, which is a lower number of posts (given numerous statements from koos and jeffrey, though, this appears to be a feature and not a bug in the slightest). the second problem is that "low-content aggroposting" is enormously popular with everyone for a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that low-content aggroposting can often be the most accurate or emotionally true style of posting on a given issue, but also because that style of posting means you can actually tell that many people are reading a thread, and in turn would read your posts), and in numerous cases tends to attract rather than drive away posters. the best way to handle it and reap its rewards without the attendant degradation of the conversation is fairly attentive and responsive moderation that can actively prevent low-content aggroposting from derailing a thread in motion. i understand that this is unlikely given the current state of moderation on SA, but the fact that responsive moderation is not available does not mean that elaborate systems of rules for four-day-late six-hour probations are in any way an adequate substitute. e: and it's worth noting that dnd is particularly susceptible to a reduced volume of posts affecting engagement because there is relatively little reason (outside of threads like political cartoons) to Just Post of one's own accord. e.g. games and hobby forums will always have a built-in incentive to post because people always want to show off their cool character or a good run or the thing they made. the only reason to engage in dnd is to debate or discuss someone you disagree (or agree!) with, especially since the trend has been against just posting news updates directly from twitter (which i think was a fine moderation change i'm not critiquing that one, but "posting poo poo directly from my feed to a different forum" and "reacting to tweets someone else posted" were incredibly boring posting styles that nonetheless buoyed dnd engagement for a long time). Valentin fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Mar 11, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
also all things are nuanced because life is inherently complex. the fact that a situation may be nuanced tells you nothing about how best to discuss it. trump admin white house palace intrigue was certainly nuanced and complex and had an enormous effect on policymaking, and that nuance would have been rightfully derided as totally irrelevant if the discussion was about policy outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted: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: leaving aside that the quoted post is extraordinarily normal and common as a sentiment among registered Dems that I know, is the stance you are taking that one must like the Democratic Party to sincerely want to discuss it? personally, I despise the Democratic party, and yet I feel a great and sincere anxiety about its electoral failures and its weak response to the gop's blatant corruption, because they have ramifications for the people I love, which I frequently express in criticism of the party and its approaches. I think that is very obviously a form of good faith. Valentin fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
so it's sabotage because people seem to get weirdly fixated on certain points, stay quiet until they can jump in to comment on what seems to you like pointless minutia, and they continue to engage in this behavior despite probation? that's not sabotage that is literally just posting lmao e: i think if you want to post in DND you should have to read one of the wow lore threads from a year the game was really popular so you have a baseline for what normal deranged internet conversation looks like. a lot of this reads like people astonished to learn people have strong, consistent feelings that cause them to jump into conversations in ways which may seem derailing or pointless. If you hate that, argue against repetitive posting, don't assume bad faith. People do that poo poo in good faith constantly, on much more pointless topics than politics. Valentin fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's sabotage because it is specifically deleterious to a factual, educational, falsifiable discussion, basic good faith discussion, not "philosopher king discourse." Even if we weren't able to identify patterns in those posts themselves as Raenir identified and as I've already articulated, we can still see your rapsheets. We know you are doing this on purpose. as someone who doesn't know any of the people involved, "WE CAN SEE YOUR RAPSHEETS" is infinitely more deleterious to assumptions of good faith than people posting their opinions repetitively or annoyingly. try blocking or simply ignoring them, if you think conversations involving them repeatedly end in a repetitive derail.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You are misrepresenting my position; there doesn't have to be a grand conspiracy for there to be a group of users who enjoy Sartre's right to play. To wit, I am confident you know that I can't post more words about the FDA without being specifically harassed for doing so. 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. e: like I can't emphasize enough how uninformative this is: B B posted:Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I can't even tell from context, because no one appears to reply to the post. What point is being made here? Sometimes people are lightly antagonistic towards you in easily ignorable ways? Valentin fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted: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. 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"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
yeah, those two definitions are indeed clearly different, before you even reach the level of connotation. It's especially important to note the distinction between the way the trolling definition describes an actor's behavior neutrally, while the sabotage definition imputes malice and deliberate destructiveness to the actor's intent. I agree it's confusing to use them interchangeably. Valentin fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:i am not a d&d mod so i cannot speak for them obviously but as someone who can see the reports forum, i can assure everyone here that a sufficient number of posts are being reported. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
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
|
|