|
Helsing posted:Online arguments are almost never going to change anyone's mind and thinking that the purpose of such debates is to change minds will only confuse things. At most a good argument will force you to understand your own beliefs better. The advantage of an online forum is that you can have your ideas challenged and are forced to actually try and articulate a coherent defense of what you think. You also learn to pick apart and dissect other people's arguments. Sometimes that is actually easier to do when faced with a bad or mediocre argument rather than a brilliant one. Sort of like the cliche that you can often learn more about writing by reading a really bad book instead of a good one (the bad book gives you lots of warnings about what to avoid, whereas it's often much harder to actually figure out exactly what makes a good book so drat good).
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Strong arguments for arguing on Facebook itt
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is a pretty wild take. So I guess by this logic, if I start uncritically posting Breitbart articles here I'll be cheered since "the main point isn't to identify and transit correct information." You think this is a reasonable interpretation of what I just wrote? Cause this seems like the classic D&D conundrum. You lead in with a complaint about how "posters in D&D are fundamentally uninterested with doing anything but getting sick dunks on each other" and as such "there's no exchange of knowledge and ideas". Then in literally the next paragraph you make what seems to me like the most ridiculous bad faith and uncharitable interpretation of my argument. To be clear, I think we need to impose higher standards on D&D posting and part of that is stricter modding to clamp down on low effort or intentionally trollish behaviour. However, we need to remain realistic about what can and should be expected from an online discussion forum. I think if we have realistic expectations about what we can accomplish then we're much more likely to achieve our goals. (Edited to be less needlessly confrontation) MSDOS KAPITAL posted:So is it your contention that one-note posters who don't engage back, contribute positively to this? That really depends. I do think that some of D&D's most memorable threads involved a bunch of us getting into a running argument with someone like jrod in the libertarian thread. It's kind of hard to formulate hard and fast rules that can apply in each and every possible scenario, which is why I think mod discretion will always play a crucial role. However, most of the time one note trolls who refuse to engage but consistently gently caress sabatoge a discussion space should be dealt with very harshly. Generally speaking though my thoughts on how to do with this were spelled out earlier today: Helsing posted:I think that the paradox here is that while trolling can derail good discussions, encouraging the average D&D poster to become an ever vigilant inquisitor forever scrutinizing the sincerity of other posters and searching for evidence of 'bad faith' is a cure worse than the disease. First of all, there's nothing inherently wrong with playing devil's advocate. If people want to play around with defending arguments that they don't completely believe in themselves then there should be a place for that on the forum. Second, once posters feel comfortable acting as judge and jury they tend to become really insufferable. Nothing kills a thread faster than an echo chamber mentality where the hivemind collectively decides who does or does not have a legitimate argument. Helsing fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You think this is a reasonable interpretation of what I just wrote? Considering that I see people uncritically post poo poo from state propaganda outlets like Russia Today here all the time and getting Very Upset about it when they get called out...it's not entirely preposterous. It's that sort of behavior that I'm arguing against by adopting similar absurd positions to attempt to highlight the absurdity. If we want higher standards for posting, that includes throwing garbage "sources" like Andrew Wakefield, Breitbart, Russia Today, etc. in the trash where they belong. You can't have a cogent argument if the citations and facts its based on are lies.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
One of the issues is that you have a hell of a lot of people right now who don't want to debate and discuss but rather cast out anybody who disagrees with them and then sit around and screech about how everybody but them is an abhorrent monster. This is why I've mentioned my criticisms of the "anything that even looks potentially vaguely racist is bad" stuff. It definitely seems like the forum orthodoxy is some pretty extreme far left views. Instead of arguing against the actual substance of everything to the right of that there's a mad rush to create an inquisitorial attitude looking for anything that can be argued to be bigotry of some sort. You see this every time somebody declares literally every Trump supporter is automatically a bigot of some sort. Sorry but that just isn't true; yes every white supremacist is probably a Trump supporter but not every Trump supporter is a zig heiling KKK member. That just isn't the reality of the situation. This is also why I deliberately asked "is voting for Trump in 2020 a racist act?" It's very telling that no yes or no answer was actually given. I suspect that the answer for a lot of people is "yes, ban literally every Trump supporter." You've even seen posters have exactly that opinion here. You see this overall politically in the left right now where everybody to the right of Marx gets labeled alt right, alt right adjacent, a collaborator, or whatever. If you aren't 100% on board with these extreme left views then they scream pejoratives at you, go on the attack, and look for any reason they can possibly come up with to label you a bigot and therefore a bad person who should not be listened to. Instead of arguing it's shouting pejoratives and circling the wagons. That is not debate; that is an inquisition. You especially see that when you have people saying "you're really concerned about that. Are YOOOOOOUUUU a Trump supporter? Hmm? Hmm? Hmm? You sound like a Trump supporter" while they finger the punish button. This is why I don't post much in D&D anymore; it's gone completely insane. This is why it's incredibly bad that nobody will give a clear definition of what racism is. What happens if we end up with a moderator who believes that anybody who has ever cast a vote for any Republican politician is automatically a racist? They'll be breaking the rules by registering and making any posts at all. I find that unacceptable. Of course now people are immediately going to accuse me of being a Trump supporter. I'm neither American left nor American right at the moment; I'm thoroughly disgusted with the behavior of both major parties as well as America's political system in general. I've always leaned left but the American left is so far left right now it's lost me entirely. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 23:12 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:evilweasel's occasional law posts were consistently overshadowed by his being a ridiculous rear end in a top hat the rest of the time. Everyone keeps whining about evilweasel being an rear end in a top hat but I don't really see how he would be remarkable in our current climate, especially when he's in fact backing up his claims and not just making one-line posts.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Stuff While I don't agree with all of what you said, there certainly has been a trend of decrying everything as fascist. While admittedly fascism is an ideology without a lot of cohesion, it loses some it's punch when you start equating lovely market liberalism policies with locking up asylum seekers in camps and separating families or voter id laws designed to prevent entire ethnic groups from voting. It's as ridiculous as when Sean Hannity or whoever decries any type of public spending as impending socialist doom.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Everyone keeps whining about evilweasel being an rear end in a top hat but I don't really see how he would be remarkable in our current climate, especially when he's in fact backing up his claims and not just making one-line posts. Also he'd only aggro on posters after they repeatedly needled him and did all sorts of terrible posting which, while not very kind or nice, is completely understandable.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:While I don't agree with all of what you said, there certainly has been a trend of decrying everything as fascist. While admittedly fascism is an ideology without a lot of cohesion, it loses some it's punch when you start equating lovely market liberalism policies with locking up asylum seekers in camps and separating families or voter id laws designed to prevent entire ethnic groups from voting. It's as ridiculous as when Sean Hannity or whoever decries any type of public spending as impending socialist doom. Yeah the thing that I find grating is this attitude of "everybody who disagrees with me is a quadruple Hitler." When you start calling everybody to the right of you a fascist, a Nazi, a racist, alt right, or whatever the word of the week is it kind of loses its punch. Equating "no, totally open borders is a bad idea" with "let's just kill everybody that doesn't look like me indiscriminately" is ridiculous. Giving a poo poo about border security isn't inherently a racist thing but you really do have people going "the only possible motivation is racism." Uh...no. And before somebody says "but the right does it too!" yes I know this and that's part of why I'm fed up with both parties.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Everyone keeps whining about evilweasel being an rear end in a top hat but I don't really see how he would be remarkable in our current climate, especially when he's in fact backing up his claims and not just making one-line posts. e: you idiot
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
axeil posted:Considering that I see people uncritically post poo poo from state propaganda outlets like Russia Today here all the time and getting Very Upset about it when they get called out...it's not entirely preposterous. Except that's very clearly not what I'm arguing, as I made clear in both the post you quoted and the other posts in this thread. I find this really weird given we're in the thread for discussing discussions and it feels like you're intentionally talking past me to avoid actually engaging in a meaningful debate about this. It's especially weird cause you're doing this in the context of you complaining about how other posters weren't being sufficiently deferential and respectful to your expertise. axeil posted:Also he'd only aggro on posters after they repeatedly needled him and did all sorts of terrible posting which, while not very kind or nice, is completely understandable. This is how everyone you're complaining about justifies their posting. If we can't move past this attitude then the forum is never going to improve. People need to get over this notion that "the problem here is everyone except me and the small handful of posters I happen to like" Helsing fucked around with this message at 22:30 on May 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Except that's very clearly not what I'm arguing, as I made clear in both the post you quoted and the other posts in this thread. If you can't even hold up the pretense of a good faith discussion in the meta-thread about discussions then perhaps you're not the objective judge that you imagine yourself to be. This isn't about you, this is about the people posting links from dubious sources as the backing for their argument. you seem to get very defensive and condescending when people don't agree with you. perhaps you aren't the objective judge you think you are. godspeed for canpol then i guess.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Of course now people are immediately going to accuse me of being a Trump supporter. I'm neither American left nor American right at the moment; I'm thoroughly disgusted with the behavior of both major parties as well as America's political system in general. I've always leaned left but the American left is so far left right now it's lost me entirely. I'm right there with ya friend.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
Heironymous Alloy earlier posted a set of rules that an RPG forum uses to ban Trump supporters on sight. I don't hate those rules, but this isn't an RPG forum, it's a politics discussion forum, and if you're getting tired of getting the easiest dunks in history on people who support Trump (in the rare case they even appear) or generally anyone you know to be wrong, you're in the wrong kind of discussion and should be on Reddit, for better or worse. Finding like-minded people is what Reddit is for. If people feel the forum has a problem with racists, you need to report those posts and/or the mods need to do more to get rid of them. Simple as that. I don't really have the trust that if we ban the nearly non-existent Trump posters we won't immediately hear crowing from the same exact posters pushing a Trump ban about anyone not sufficiently left on the same grounds. In fact they have already started doing this ITT. A reminder that this subforum used to be full of libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, and virtually all of those people eventually disappeared and in some documented cases changed their politics for the better and kept posting (and Ron Paul is a capital-r Racist). A rule banning Trump supporter is the beginning of an echo chamber. There are many posters who I think are morons and rarely engage with, but it is my work to report their posts, put them on ignore, or call them a fucker, not the mod's.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 23:19
|
|
|
axeil posted:This isn't about you, this is about the people posting links from dubious sources as the backing for their argument. I don't know how you view this, but from my perspective, this originally this was about me saying that we need to accept that there are limits on what we can reasonably expect from this forum or from any online debate. You were ostensibly replying to me but apparently just wanted to make a mostly unrelated point about how the forum should punish people for using bad sources. I pointed out that you weren't actually responding to what I was saying and now here we are. This seems to me like exactly the kind of dynamic that pushes posters who might otherwise be able to debate something civilly into getting angry, sarcastic or abrasive. Your first post in this thread was a really good one. You seem like somebody who actually would like things to get better. Which is exactly why I want to talk about it rather than shrug our shoulders and move past it. Because if we can't recognize this dynamic and talk about it like adults then I really don't see how we can expect D&D to be the sort of educational space you seem to be arguing that it should aspire to be.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Make dnd a subforum of cspam
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the issues is that you have a hell of a lot of people right now who don't want to debate and discuss but rather cast out anybody who disagrees with them and then sit around and screech about how everybody but them is an abhorrent monster. This is why I've mentioned my criticisms of the "anything that even looks potentially vaguely racist is bad" stuff. It definitely seems like the forum orthodoxy is some pretty extreme far left views. Instead of arguing against the actual substance of everything to the right of that there's a mad rush to create an inquisitorial attitude looking for anything that can be argued to be bigotry of some sort. You see this every time somebody declares literally every Trump supporter is automatically a bigot of some sort. Sorry but that just isn't true; yes every white supremacist is probably a Trump supporter but not every Trump supporter is a zig heiling KKK member. That just isn't the reality of the situation. This is also why I deliberately asked "is voting for Trump in 2020 a racist act?" It's very telling that no yes or no answer was actually given. I suspect that the answer for a lot of people is "yes, ban literally every Trump supporter." You've even seen posters have exactly that opinion here. You see this overall politically in the left right now where everybody to the right of Marx gets labeled alt right, alt right adjacent, a collaborator, or whatever. If you aren't 100% on board with these extreme left views then they scream pejoratives at you, go on the attack, and look for any reason they can possibly come up with to label you a bigot and therefore a bad person who should not be listened to. Instead of arguing it's shouting pejoratives and circling the wagons. There is always, always, always going to be some subjective judgment when it comes to whether or not a post is offensive to <disadvantaged minority>. Creating a "definition" is only going to lead to pointless rules-lawyering that will go nowhere and satisfy no one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
There’s an implicit assumption here that there’s an epidemic of people being probated for being accidentally racist or sexist when in reality when that type of situation tends to happen, we tend to mark the reports misc. and the person in question is pilloried in the thread instead. Like some guy had a transphobic meltdown in UKMT the other day and I only queued a ban because he basically asked for one in his post. He proceeded to admit later it was a dumb meltdown and I retracted it. But mostly it was handled by the thread calling him a dumbshit.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I'm saying that a lot of people on SA may agree that voter ID laws are racist but are completely unprepared to handle arguing that position and having a "practice" environment has a lot of value in the off-chance they are at a diner where Fox News is getting "average joe" opinions and don't want to become the new face of Delicious Liberal Tears. I've watched numerous threads cross over my realm of expertise and a staggering number of goons will more or less state the correct "outcome" opinion while completely and utterly botching every other backing element of that opinion, and doing so in a way where anyone with even minor familiarity with the issue would have an easy time shredding the correct opinion-havers. I agree in principle. But what if someone argues that Hillary Clinton had a secret child rape dungeon in her favorite pizza joint? Should we be expected to take that seriously and argue against that as "practice", while probating anyone who calls them a conspiracy dumbass? What about other conspiracy theories, like antivaxxers or climate change denialists or 9/11 truthers or mass voter fraud believers? At some point, a line has to be drawn, and some subjects have to be written off as too out there for serious debate except as thought experiments. I agree that D&D is far too prone to just dunking on someone while completely failing to argue against them, and I definitely don't want a blanket ban on wrong opinions (not even if they're provably, verifiably wrong). But derailing USPol with an argument about whether the Earth is round isn't really worthwhile, regardless of whether or not the globe advocates are making a decent case for themselves. I think the argument right now is just where we should draw that line.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Sure! Arguments against late-stage abortions or particular techniques based on safety statistics, where the risk isn't outweighed by health dangers to the woman. Similarly, while I support extremely permissive immigration, I think arguments can made for more selective methods that aren't bigoted, though the framing and methods promoted by the Republican party largely are. WampaLord posted:And we have said over and over that it comes down to moderator discretion, you just want to know exactly how far up to the edge you're allowed to go. It's sort of crazy to me that you're worried that I'm going to "tiptoe up to the line" and post something harmful to the forum discussion, but you're unable or unwilling to explain what that thing would be. Lightning Knight posted:There’s an implicit assumption here that there’s an epidemic of people being probated for being accidentally racist or sexist when in reality when that type of situation tends to happen, we tend to mark the reports misc. and the person in question is pilloried in the thread instead. Lightning Knight posted:That, and yes, I am willing to say that if you still support Donald Trump in 2019, you are garbage. Sorry. We can debate on if people who did support him, past tense, have learned their lesson, but Mnoba is the poster child for “toes the exact line he feels he can get away with while inciting a bunch of drama” and I was glad he finally publicly declared something actually really lovely. Main Paineframe posted:At some point, a line has to be drawn, and some subjects have to be written off as too out there for serious debate except as thought experiments. I agree that D&D is far too prone to just dunking on someone while completely failing to argue against them, and I definitely don't want a blanket ban on wrong opinions (not even if they're provably, verifiably wrong). But derailing USPol with an argument about whether the Earth is round isn't really worthwhile, regardless of whether or not the globe advocates are making a decent case for themselves. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:22 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you describe to me how I can ask questions that will make you take my questions seriously? Like this is literally thread about the construction of rules, and I don't even understand the rules for posting in the thread talking about what the rules should be. you're taking it as a given that fool_of_sound will be a highly capricious steward of the thread and crack down on people they disagree with for that reason and that reason only. i don't need to tell you how ridiculous that is considering there are plenty of opinions around these parts that don't tack to orthodox marxism-leninism and yet they remain unbanned by yours truly.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:These are all things you appear either to agree with or be largely indifferent to. I was asking for an argument for further restricting abortion access that you disagree with but don't disqualify for being insufficiently "data based." Can you explain why you're worried about inadvertently being just that little bit too racist? It's something that's never crossed my mind. Or maybe you could tell us where you think the line should be?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Such as? There's a few examples from my neck of the woods. MothraAttack is a real life journalist who's well respected in Middle East news circles, and he bailed on SA and migrated to a twitter chat that came about with other journalists that circumvented the whole thing with having to sort through pages of nonsense peddled by Ghouta truthers and RT citers. Muffiner is a Syrian expat who followed the war very closely and had contact with sources we didn't have available and were useful in Brown Moses's reports, and he stopped posting almost entirely after some of the poisonous discourse surrounding the regimes bombing campaigns, the chemical weapons attacks, and the victims. Al-Saqr and BM remain, although they post way less than they used to. But I think they are both perfect examples of what is the ceiling for DnD posters these days. The type that is engaged outside of the forums in such a way that they have knowledge to inject into their posts that is valuable for others, but they either have to always find entertainment punching below their weight by arguing with idiots no matter how far removed they become from pop politics level discourse (BM), or are angry and passionate enough that they simply have to be calling idiots idiots and are gluttons for punishment (Saqr). But most people who accumulate knowledge outside of these forums didn't get it by arguing with people who read an article one time and have a hot take they want to share every day, and so they don't really have any use for the forums at present. In journalist circles, years back, the Middle East thread had a really good reputation, and a few people who've gone on to contribute positively to the worlds understanding of the war in Syria actually signed up because it was tough to find civil and serious discussion about it in an internet landscape dominated by the Syrian civil war reddit. But they've all kinda fallen out or didn't stick, and it's hard to blame them. It's too bad really, because when journalists and deeply engaged activists are there bouncing around ideas with knowledgeable posters, the thread sets a bar where it provides a service to people reading it, and the people posting in it. And occasionally when things get slow, you can still see glimpses of that same culture in some threads. But any thread is one trump tweet, a big news story, or controversial post away from being an unreadable mess of ideologues spreading their opinions on the general vibe of things since they became experts after listening to a podcast. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 08:51 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:48
|
|
|
axeil posted:me, for one. I am almost certain I know more about the intricacies of Dodd-Frank and bank regulation than anyone in this forum. EW was the undisputed master of legal knoweldge for another. i can speak to these specific scenarios w/r/t punishment at least: you were probated for some truly insane screeds about russia and russians that would have gotten you a ban if it were practically any other ethnic group. as mentioned before evilweasel couldn't seem to make use of his expert knowledge without lashing out at the people who dared disagree with him. absent a permaban there's nothing preventing someone who got hit with a punishment from coming back to the forum and trying again, though the users themselves might not be so forgiving.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying, at best, that you're going to come down on anyone openly supporting Trump, so why are you hesitant to make it part of the standing forum rules? Because it hasn’t been widely discussed among the mods/admins. Even then, the practical impact of such a thing is minimal. Mnoba is the first poster in months, maybe years, who openly declared support for Trump in this sub forum. There’s plenty of shy conservatives who spend their days being extremely passive aggressive and whining about free speech, but few people are dumb enough to hitch their wagon to Trump in 2019 and who post in this forum.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 09:24
|
|
|
people have been asking about a philosophical mission statement on what d&d should be, so let me answer that while the discussion is active: it's not really my place or the mod team's place to figure that out by ourselves. whatever we come up with isn't going to be satisfying for everyone, and wouldn't accomplish anything a clear set of rules with space for mod discretion would. the users are what determine the place of the forum. share your visions rather than asking for one to be handed down from on high.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
"We can't determine the character of the forums for you!" He exclaimed, while periodically mass-purging posters he doesn't like. No.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
if i wished to avoid being caught up in the bad poster purge, i would simply post well
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 11:47
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:"We can't determine the character of the forums for you!" He exclaimed, while periodically mass-purging posters he doesn't like. iirc none of the people who got hit with the purges were particularly controversial with the exception of evilweasel. strange no one vouched for you!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
exmarx posted:if i wished to avoid being caught up in the bad poster purge, i would simply post well Evidenced by my string of bad, probated posts between the two purges, I suppose. R. Guyovich posted:iirc none of the people who got hit with the purges were particularly controversial with the exception of evilweasel. strange no one vouched for you! While it's not surprising to see you hiding behind the skirts of popular opinion here, I'm not only taking exception to the fact that you capriciously ban people. You literally write the rules. You appoint the mods and IKs, and know exactly what their worldviews are. You selectively enforce those rules. You ban people for sport. That's all fine, but you don't get to throw your hands up and be like "I dunno man this is THE PEOPLE'S forum" and pretend like the tone of the forum hasn't been being actively dictated to us. That's intellectually lazy, though to be fair not inconsistent with a realistic implementation of leninism.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 13:28
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:people have been asking about a philosophical mission statement on what d&d should be, so let me answer that while the discussion is active: it's not really my place or the mod team's place to figure that out by ourselves. whatever we come up with isn't going to be satisfying for everyone, and wouldn't accomplish anything a clear set of rules with space for mod discretion would. For better or worse you and the mod team are the ones who shape the culture of the forums by deciding when to enforce the rules and on whome. I guess my vision of D&D is one with a better quality of conversation because the rules against dogpiling, cheerleading, and meeting effort with no effort are more vigorously and consistently enforced and the "this was a bad post IMO" discretionary rule is less so. I want to read a D&D where people have real, substantive, contentious debates about hot topics. Not a D&D where objectionable opinions are buried under a pile of unfunny burns and low effort rejoinders until a mod decides that somehow the person who posted the opinion was the problem and not the shitposters who can't behave themselves in a public forum. I want to read a D&D full of insightful posts from people with real expertise. People who, as it has been pointed out upthread, mostly don't post here anymore because it's just not worth it. I want you and the mod team to make it worthwhile for those people to post here again. I want the mod team to carve out space for real debates by punishing people for bad behavior and not bad opinions. FWIW that's my take.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:You literally write the rules. You appoint the mods and IKs, and know exactly what their worldviews are. You selectively enforce those rules. You ban people for sport. That's all fine, but you don't get to throw your hands up and be like "I dunno man this is THE PEOPLE'S forum" and pretend like the tone of the forum hasn't been being actively dictated to us. That's intellectually lazy, though to be fair not inconsistent with a realistic implementation of leninism. R. Guyovich posted:tentative rules list, subject to review here in this thread for a week or so.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:These are all things you appear either to agree with or be largely indifferent to. I was asking for an argument for further restricting abortion access that you disagree with but don't disqualify for being insufficiently "data based." Again dead reckoning it's strange that you have this worry
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:you're taking it as a given that fool_of_sound will be a highly capricious steward of the thread and crack down on people they disagree with for that reason and that reason only. i don't need to tell you how ridiculous that is considering there are plenty of opinions around these parts that don't tack to orthodox marxism-leninism and yet they remain unbanned by yours truly. 2) You still haven't answered the question! Do I need to not think fool_of_sound is an rear end in a top hat for you to take my questions seriously? Is it ok to think that, but you need me to not say it out loud for you to take my questions seriously? Can I say that out loud, but it's like really important to you that I want to post in uspol for you to take my questions seriously? 3) Let's take everything you've said for granted, that post was absurdly ridiculous, do you actually think that invalidates my other questions? Should I just stop posting in this thread given you've effectively told me you're going to ignore everything I say? You are aware that even if we disagree on which of my posts are reasonable and which are unreasonable, you could respond to my reasonable questions, and ignore my unreasonable (to you) questions? R. Guyovich posted:people have been asking about a philosophical mission statement on what d&d should be, so let me answer that while the discussion is active: it's not really my place or the mod team's place to figure that out by ourselves. whatever we come up with isn't going to be satisfying for everyone, and wouldn't accomplish anything a clear set of rules with space for mod discretion would. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:29 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Let's put his concerns to the test and make FoS IK of this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:There's a few examples from my neck of the woods. MothraAttack is a real life journalist who's well respected in Middle East news circles, and he bailed on SA and migrated to a twitter chat that came about with other journalists that circumvented the whole thing with having to sort through pages of nonsense peddled by Ghouta truthers and RT citers. Muffiner is a Syrian expat who followed the war very closely and had contact with sources we didn't have available and were useful in Brown Moses's reports, and he stopped posting almost entirely after some of the poisonous discourse surrounding the regimes bombing campaigns, the chemical weapons attacks, and the victims. Al-Saqr and BM remain, although they post way less than they used to. But I think they are both perfect examples of what is the ceiling for DnD posters these days. The type that is engaged outside of the forums in such a way that they have knowledge to inject into their posts that is valuable for others, but they either have to always find entertainment punching below their weight by arguing with idiots no matter how far removed they become from pop politics level discourse (BM), or are angry and passionate enough that they simply have to be calling idiots idiots and are gluttons for punishment (Saqr). Thank you for explaining your perspective. What kind of practical steps would you advocate to improve the situation?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Getting a 6er is just too high a price to try something out first instead of simply repeating over and over that an IK is an rear end in a top hat and I don't dare tred into their domain.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:1) No I'm not taken that as given. What I am taken as given is that fool_of_sound is an rear end in a top hat, which I have ample evidence of in this very thread, and I have no desire to test whether an rear end in a top hat is or is not going to be a highly capricious steward when I have the option of not testing that. twodot posted:Should I just stop posting in this thread (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Thank you for explaining your perspective. What kind of practical steps would you advocate to improve the situation? Maybe it's a different problem I'm thinking about, but I'd say: 1) reduce empty takes. One liners like the everpresent "lol nothing matters" or "jfc the world is doomed" in response to posts makes d&d feel like Twitter (with fewer nazis thankfully). Nothing is added by (for common example) mcmagic responding to a story posted about Nancy pelosi doing something with "Worthless. They should be primaried." Not all takes are empty, but it feels when I catch up on posts that I can skim every third or fourth post where someone gives a generic opinion that does nothing for the thread other than contribute to mood, usually pissy or depressed. 2) Cut down on extreme partisan derail manifestos. It's frustrating to post when some people turn every issue or argument into a penultimate litmus test for whether you are on Good Side or Bad Side. For example, picture a debate about wealth tax where phi320 Kramer's in to declare any tax system is capitalistic and therefore inherently bad and you either support true liberation from capital or you're all complicit in its crimes. Or a discussion about 2020 strategies and PJ states that elections are ultimately meaningless without collective actions like general strikes. Battle lines get drawn and it becomes a game of red rover where you're either for or against the injected argument that derails the original discussion. I frequently don't bother to ask questions in the forums cause I know I can ask in discord with a far lower chance of a don quixote rushing in to tilt. I guess these two points could be summarized as the typical "stop the empty shitposting and derails" request, but I think the things I'm thinking of are cloaked in just enough of a politics/d&d veneer to avoid being immediately obvious for what they are, and things have been like this so long that it's just seen as the norm.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
I'd like it if derailing a thread about some foreign topic to bloviate on and on and on about the US was made probateable.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 19:07
|
|