|
R. Guyovich posted:tentative rules list, subject to review here in this thread for a week or so. these look pretty much like the old rules. can you let us know what was added? will enforcement be changing in any way?
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
Does "other forums" include CSPAM? Does "drama from other forums" include parallel threads from those forums that are used to attack DnD threads? What counts as an "insult or smug dismissal"? Does that include, e.g., "liberal" or "tankie"? Can we drill down on bad faith a bit more? Adopting a pseudoneutral tone and cycling through lies shouldn't be permissible. It's very possible to sealion a thread that way, especially if there's more than one troll doing it; the people willing to engage and refute get ground down and give up. We've lost a lot of the more knowledgeable posters that way, and it contributes to the coalescence into megathreads because there are fewer engaged, informed posters in the smaller threads - and they become easier targets. Maybe a variable enforcement standard? What goes into a report for trolling? Is the repeated posting of false or misleading sources evidence of bad faith? How about serial claim repetition? Is there a sort of diminishing returns on saying the same thing? How many times can someone, e.g., post an "ACAB, remember the MOVE bombing, you all love licking boot, racists" or a "but remember electability" post before it contributes nothing? Is there like a cooldown and then the user gets to do it again? Can we expect more strict enforcement of the general rules on "ask yourself the following question" and post quality? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Apr 29, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Does "other forums" include CSPAM? as a follow-on to this, does bad faith posting include being a devil's advocate? and more directly for guyovich, how do you think these new rules will change d&d? what do you think this place will look like in 6 months with these rules vs. 6 months from now without these rules?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
I am deeply concerned these rules will not be enforced fairly. It is one of the reasons I have not been posting, it seems certain posters can get away with some things laid out here in the rules while others will eat probations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I am deeply concerned these rules will not be enforced fairly. It is one of the reasons I have not been posting, it seems certain posters can get away with some things laid out here in the rules while others will eat probations. You'll notice fairness isnt in the rules
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Can cheerleading be defined, or examples provided of what the mods consider it to be? My old understanding seems like it would overlap heavily with drama importing and good-faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:You'll notice fairness isnt in the rules So then the rules will be applied in an arbitrary manner?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
I mean the only suggestion ITT beyond "probate people for posting in a way which makes me sad" was "delete chat threads and force people in the discussion forum to confront each other on the issues upon which we're all discussing" which obviously isn't going to happen for reasons people who are entirely the problem feel are sound, so I'm not sure what anyone else was expecting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:tentative rules list, subject to review here in this thread for a week or so. These seem pretty good in my opinion and I think these can be enforced by the mods relatively fairly based on how modding currently operates. axeil posted:as a follow-on to this, does bad faith posting include being a devil's advocate? If you announce you are being a devil's advocate, I think that should be fine, you just have to make it explicit somewhere in the post. Zachack posted:Can cheerleading be defined, or examples provided of what the mods consider it to be? My old understanding seems like it would overlap heavily with drama importing and good-faith. Cheerleading is "oh no one listen to this poster, they're crazy" (or you can sub in "tankie" or "centrist" or "chud" or whatever), it's basically using an ad hom attack to completely dismiss someone instead of engaging them on the merits. If you think they have no legit merits to be engaged on, just smash that report button. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Apr 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
What exactly is the test for knowing that multiple posters with a "pseudoneutral tone" are actually "lying"? You just know it when you see it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
I've provided multiple examples of concrete indicia of bad faith. Yes, lying is something that can be demonstrated.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've provided multiple examples of concrete indicia of bad faith. Yes, lying is something that can be demonstrated. You've been pretty vague actually. What, specifically, is the litmus test for good faith vs bad faith in your mind?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Most of the "actual discussion" is terrible rehashing of the most broad arguments imaginable. Like yes it's a discussion forum, but at the same time, the Venezuela thread is not the referendum on the history of American foreign policy thread. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not relevant, which makes this a great example of the problem with random posters appointing themselves the sole arbiters of what can be discussed in a thread. In practice, it tends to be little more than a demand that no one post anything that contradicts their personal worldview. R. Guyovich posted:tentative rules list, subject to review here in this thread for a week or so. These seem decent enough, though most of them have been written or unwritten rules for most of D&D's existence anyway, so I feel like they're unlikely to have much real impact
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 15:24
|
|
Helsing posted:You've been pretty vague actually. What, specifically, is the litmus test for good faith vs bad faith in your mind? Again, I am not providing a litmus test. I am asking for the mods to clarify their bad faith concept, and provided several specific examples of patterns of behavior that trolls have used to screw up the forums in the recent past. These could be sufficient, but not necessary, criteria. Axeil's question is a good one; how will enforcement of this improve the current state of discourse, that increasingly alienates posters trying to have an informed discussion? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Apr 29, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
I'm glad the assume good faith rule got picked up, though yeah it might be specified that playing devils advocate is trolling/posting in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
I think if you explicitly say, "to play devil's advocate..." or similar, rather than run an extended "try to guess if I am serious or ironic" gimmick, it should be allowed. The proposed rules sound fine in theory, but it's going to turn heavily on how they are enforced in practice. "No cheerleading" and "no low effort" were already rules, but were so unevenly enforced that it was a problem. If accusing other posters of nebulous "bad faith" or hidden motives actually starts getting punished, it would seriously improve the forums. Can we get some clarity on "promotion of any ideology espousing... sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia"? Like, if someone comes out and expresses support for the Republican party, are they going to catch a probation? Is someone who supports strong immigration controls for economic reasons going to get probated because racists also favor strong immigration controls?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Can we get some clarity on "promotion of any ideology espousing... sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia"? Like, if someone comes out and expresses support for the Republican party, are they going to catch a probation? Considering that party is a big promoter of all of those ideologies, yes, I would say so. You'd have to go way out of your way to find a way to support the Republican party while somehow ignoring it's history as being sexist, racist, homophobic, and transphobic. How many actual Republican posters do we have here at this point, anyway? Pretty sure everyone with any sense has realized it's basically a fascism lite party at this point and there are no more "reasonable Republicans" to be dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Can cheerleading be defined, or examples provided of what the mods consider it to be? My old understanding seems like it would overlap heavily with drama importing and good-faith. I'd say it comes down to posting about posters. Posting "X is such a great quality poster who's always right and everyone who disagrees with them is a threadshitting moron" or "don't bother responding to X, he's a C-SPAM troll". Dead Reckoning posted:Can we get some clarity on "promotion of any ideology espousing... sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia"? Like, if someone comes out and expresses support for the Republican party, are they going to catch a probation? Is someone who supports strong immigration controls for economic reasons going to get probated because racists also favor strong immigration controls? We already have clarity, because that rule already exists and we already know how it's enforced: it's okay to be a Republican as long as you can avoid saying anything openly racist...a challenge that few of our forum Republicans have been able to survive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Considering that party is a big promoter of all of those ideologies, yes, I would say so. You'd have to go way out of your way to find a way to support the Republican party while somehow ignoring it's history as being sexist, racist, homophobic, and transphobic. It seems like making it a bannable offense to admit membership of one of America's two major political parties, that ~30% of adults identify as a part of, wouldn't be very conductive to discussion. A bunch of major world religions have sexist, homophobic, or transphobic dogma. Is professing one of those faiths going to be bannable as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It seems like making it a bannable offense to admit membership of one of America's two major political parties, that ~30% of adults identify as a part of, wouldn't be very conductive to discussion. quote:A bunch of major world religions have sexist, homophobic, or transphobic dogma. Is professing one of those faiths going to be bannable as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It seems like making it a bannable offense to admit membership of one of America's two major political parties, that ~30% of adults identify as a part of, wouldn't be very conductive to discussion. Do you think 30% of D&D regulars identify as Republicans? We've had plenty of threads discussing religion in a political sense, and obviously posters are allowed to say stuff like "I'm a Christian, I'm Jewish, I'm Muslim, I'm (insert X religion here)" without getting banned, but if you start using religion to justify terrible moral opinions (like the previously mentioned sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia), that would definitely be probe/ban worthy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
We should really just tolerate intolerance if you think about it P.S. Being a bigot is not being a Republican. I cant possibly imagine why you would conflate those for rhetorical purposes...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:48
|
|
|
I mean, WampaLord and twodot jumped straight in with, "yup, it's the same", so it wasn't exactly a huge stretch. twodot posted:People who think the Republicans are good are even less conductive to discussion. Like what conversation is there to be had "I simultaneously want people to be forced to carry babies to term and also want to defund government spending on babies" "You're an rear end in a top hat"? You're even trying to police what moral frameworks people are allowed to argue from. Anti-abortion because you're Catholic? Too bad. If you're aiming to have a left-wing version of r/thedonald, running off and banning anyone who disagrees with you on any mildly controversial issue is fine, but it's anathema to a discussion forum, which this nominally is. VVV that's what concerns me, yes. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Apr 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It seems like making it a bannable offense to admit membership of one of America's two major political parties, that ~30% of adults identify as a part of, wouldn't be very conductive to discussion. The "promotion of any ideology" phrasing coupled with an intersectionalist worldview means that literally any political opinion outside the overton window here can be framed as bigoted and punished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
People don't typically have coherent politics and follow one of the two viable U.S. political parties for different reasons, many of which end up as "pragmatism." With religions it's a hundred times more complicated. This is all really obvious, but lol at the multiple posters ITT suggesting that D&D become a Marxist hugbox.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, WampaLord and twodot jumped straight in with, "yup, it's the same", so it wasn't exactly a huge stretch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I mean, WampaLord and twodot jumped straight in with, "yup, it's the same", so it wasn't exactly a huge stretch. I'm not here to play paradox of tolerance with a political party that is enabling synagogue shooters. Anyone who actively chooses to identify as Republican in 2019 with Donald Trump at the head of the party is indeed a bad person. However, you'll notice nowhere in R. Guyovich's new rules does it say "Republicans are banned" so what are you actually worried about? It says sexism/racism/homophobia/transphobia/etc are banned. If you just say "I'm a Republican" without doing any of those things, that would not be a post that could be punished.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
What opinions, specifically, do you thing that people might be banned for in D&D that they shouldn't be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm not here to play paradox of tolerance with a political party that is enabling synagogue shooters. Anyone who actively chooses to identify as Republican in 2019 with Donald Trump at the head of the party is indeed a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:How far does this reasoning extend? If someone just says "I'm a literal Nazi, but I'm not endorsing any specific racist policies or beliefs" should we consider that fine? I'm a professional athlete but my only physical activity is walking my dog, which I sometimes pay others to do. What? Are they one of the Koch brothers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
The rule is always going to be "it's up to mod discretion", because anything else will be impossible to enforce consistently anyway and will just lead people to toe the line and then whine & bitch when they get banned anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
I don't think we have to follow a rule where if a major political party advocates for an evil in the US, or anywhere else for that matter, that this forum must allow for advocacy for that evil.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
I do think it's worth distinguishing between party and position in that regard. Dick Luger was a Republican who did a ton of work toward international disarmament, under a Republican party ideological framing. The direct statement and its connotations should still do the work, not "Republicans want this".
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:How far does this reasoning extend? If someone just says "I'm a literal Nazi, but I'm not endorsing any specific racist policies or beliefs" should we consider that fine? Dang it's almoSt like trying to write precise rules instead of broad guidelines leaves room for dickweeds to rules lawyer
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You've been pretty vague actually. What, specifically, is the litmus test for good faith vs bad faith in your mind? Dead Reckoning posted:It seems like making it a bannable offense to admit membership of one of America's two major political parties, that ~30% of adults identify as a part of, wouldn't be very conductive to discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Come to think of it just flat out banning Republicans from expressing their opinions anywhere would probably do a lot to improve the discourse, both in D&D and everywhere else. in like the last two years i don't think i've ever seen a single person say that they are a republican in the main dnd politics threads
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:How far does this reasoning extend? If someone just says "I'm a literal Nazi, but I'm not endorsing any specific racist policies or beliefs" should we consider that fine? To reverse your hypothetical wording "I'm not endorsing racist policy but....I'm a literal Nazi" Hmmm yeah seems like a grey area chief
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
twodot posted:How far does this reasoning extend? If someone just says "I'm a literal Nazi, but I'm not endorsing any specific racist policies or beliefs" should we consider that fine? Do I really have to answer this question for you, twodot? No, of course it's not fine, but we don't have to worry about putting "No Nazis" in the rules of D&D because that rule is enforced over the entire forum at large, and is enforced pretty loving well, which is why this forum remains the only decent corner of the Internet left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Do I really have to answer this question for you, twodot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, we agree simple endorsement of sufficiently bad organizations is itself bad, I'm missing on why the Republican Party is falling short of being sufficiently bad. Why is it fine to say "I'm a Republican", but "I value racist and sexist goals the Republican Party seeks" is too far? Honestly, I don't know, but I'm willing to give the tiniest benefit of the doubt to someone who has seemingly been living in a cave and doesn't realize the GOP is actually evil now (lol they always were, now just the mask has slipped). If someone seems to hold 100% non-bigoted beliefs, yet stubbornly wants to identify as a Republican, we don't necessarily have to ban them just for that offense. Only if they actually engage in bigoted behavior. This is me meeting the more conservative posters halfway, by the way, for everyone throwing around the strawman that we just want to turn this place into a "Marxist echo chamber" Sodomy Hussein posted:multiple posters ITT suggesting that D&D become a Marxist hugbox. Not an argument! *pops bubble*
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2019 23:19
|
|