|
My sincere advice is that Discendo Vox be made D&D moderator. I do not think he will stop backseat modding until he is, I don't think the people who like his posting will stop complaining until he is, and I think it is reflective of the desires of the general American D&D populace. This recommendation has been shot down in the past if it's from anyone who posts in CSPAM as "ironic" which is strange to me, but I suppose shouldn't be. It's true that I don't believe Discendo Vox can moderate fairly or even effectively. But I also don't believe that would disrupt D&D as a forum as it is already moderated unfairly and ineffectively. I suspect it's rather like liberals avoiding power and frequently sabotaging their campaign efforts (see the many times Biden said not to vote for him in 2000) because taking control would mean potentially alienating capital, so they'd rather avoid it. So too would making DV mod reveal that for all the auspices of serious intellectualism, this forum mainly serves as a role-playing game for aspiring Democratic Party strategists. Lest it seem like my advocacy for DV's modship seem like accelerationism, though, I just think it'd be more of the same. Let him have his moment in the sun. My other advice is that the only real way to deal with electoralism ouroboros talk is having a toxx thread. If people want to make affirmative statements about Biden, they should bet their account on it, and those who vie against him, the same. It's a fun Something Awful tradition, and it would also help weeding out people who are less committed to the forums and more committed to electioneering instead. ' Last of all, I suppose I should say that D&D has failed to be a forum I would want to post in. There's just a core cadre of posters in every American Politics thread here who are very unpleasant to deal with through their condescension, clearly disingenuous positions, and especially their tendency to frame their position as reached through some "consensus" that is almost always illogical in conclusion. There is a willingness to entertain philosophical or even emotional arguments against conservativism that is then rebuffed immediately if applied to liberalism. The tendency towards "evidence-based arguments" seems to always ignore the forest from the trees, like arguing that you can't call the Titanic cruise a failure because the electrical work on the boat was so good. So final advice would just be to block my ability to even see it, but that's a lot of technical work for one user to get his preference. I do think it would make everyone happy though, myself most of all. Anyway, there's nothing Koos Group can really do about who uses this forum, so the fault lies not in our blue stars, but ourselves.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:We need to stop treating this like a team sport. You interpret comments about some members of a group you belong to as applying to the entire group, and take offense to it. Two years ago, you were advocating for America to intervene on the Palestinian behalf as part of your argument defending America arming the Ukrainians against the Russians. If you're doing this much pearl-clutching over Hamas, a group America doesn't fund, while shrugging about the Azov Battalion, my question is, why should anyone take you seriously? I'd argue one of the more major problems with D&D is its insistence in taking arguments like yours seriously but also if engagement with posters like you goes too long and lapses even a smidge with formality when it comes to these ridiculous claims, punishment incurs. It is, to put it as nicely as possible, an unbalanced ratio of effort.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There are other sub forums on this website that I don't post in, in large part because I expect if I did post there that a disagreement with the core thread cohort would result in me being called stupid or presented with two year old forum quotes to argue about by people with a grudge, as has happened in this very thread. I'm not that interested in a slapfight with you, but to be clear, you're implying that having a memory is a form of harassment. I think a forum where people are required not to remember things would result in a lot of disingenuous gimmick posting, a forum of How Are Yous. As is, it's actually in D&D rules that posters can be forumbanned if they post about D&D elsewhere while posting here, so if you're going to demand blindness for any posting in the chat thread, I suppose I should demand the same for CSPAM. In any case, this is the kind of effort imbalance I'm talking about - "Everyone must assume I'm posting in good faith even as I contradict myself unless I post in the forbidden forum in which case my 'bad faith' can be assumed even without evidence. Surely this won't lead to even more forum grudges." In conclusion, Free VitalSigns. Anyway, I don't want to make this any more personal, but if you think my posting attitude has changed towards you, (a) Don't pretend you weren't just sniping at me in the electoralism thread, something I'm sure you were doing with no bitterness in your heart and completely pure of malice, and (b) Yeah, it's strange how arguing the usual liberal stuff can be one thing but Just Asking Questions about Hamas amidst a genocide can lead people who've engaged with you earnestly in the past to suddenly feel used and self-loathing at ever giving you the time of day.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
To be clear, I do not think being inconsistent is a probationary offense. Rather, the onus being on the person dealing with someone inconsistent to not point it out or indeed to argue as dispassionately as before I think ultimately rewards bad faith. I also see no problem in offering up opportunities to explain one's own evolution - I'll be the last person to claim I haven't personally evolved and I'd be happy to elucidate how I've in the past been Zionist or moderate and how I learned to revile those positions and change. Change is good! Would like it noted that no change happened here though, just bizarro logic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Well, the other factor is that I, and I suspect a large contingent of readers, don't have interest in learning about the personal political journeys SA posters have taken, and come to D&D for information and ideas about the real world. They must leave very disappointed then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 00:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:To put this differently, the current moderation practices train and incentivize trolls to use these methods to sabotage discussion. I'm going to need you to explain this "sabotage" notation you keep using. What purpose would this "sabotage" serve? Who would benefit? What nefarious agenda is beholden here? I'm inclined to think that people who use "sabotage" as a byword for "disagreement with consensus" are engaging in a cultish practice, an attempt to perform a mass delusion. You yourself admit to pushing agendas, but if anyone else does that, they're "sabotaging." I just find it interesting that your attitude is welcome and sustained in D&D while people who would even criticize D&D are not allowed here. I find your posting far more toxic than quite a few of the forumbanned participants here. And I don't think you're alone in this method, for the record, lest it seem like an overly pointed version of grudgeposting. Its your particular verbage that I think does a great job revealing the usually more covert devices of the "cadre" I mentioned earlier. Cadre like this: socialsecurity posted:Hell if you took half the Pro-Russian posts and replaced "Ukraine should just surrender and give into Russias demands it would save more lives" or "Ukraine asked for this because they considered joining Nato" and replaced Ukraine with Gaza and Russia with Israel I'm sure people would be lining up to call those posts "pro-Israel" 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:As you can already see I am responding to and agreeing wuth extensively documented examples from Raenir Salazar. Also we can all still see y'all's rapsheets. The issue is not disagreement with consensus. The issue making statements that are designed to sabotage discussion by shifting burdens, rendering falsification impossible, and repeatedly re-raising rebutted claims, actions that violate the rules and are not enforced on. This does not address the very loaded term of "sabotage" at all, which implies you're embarking on a great project. You're not. You're posting in a politics forum. Posting with the same boring views I could get from the White House Press Secretary, no less. God forbid people make fun of you for pretending your cheerleading is not in fact serious philosopher-king discourse. Truly, this will derail.... something. Unclear as to what. Whatever. This poo poo's depressing, and I already offered up the solution on my end in my very first post, time to pursue that matter further.
|
|
#
¿
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. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted: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. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
I'd love to know what game this is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:14
|
|
|
"Teasing someone, much like terrorism, is designed to provoke a response."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
E: This is dumb, I'm being dumb.
Probably Magic fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 21:38
|
|