|
This format for a feedback thread reflects poorly on whoever came up with this terrible idea. If you can't trust yourself to moderate debate and discussion of something as low-stakes as forum moderation, then what are you even doing here? If you can't handle a few hours of not being in strict control of the discussion, how do you hope to run the whole forum? Baffling. It's especially silly to ask questions of posters who are expressly forbidden to answer them with replies. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Oct 23, 2021 |
#
¿
Oct 23, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
thatfatkid posted:Actually allow debate and discussion. Disagreeing with sabre rattling propaganda isn't genocide denial, especially when the associated press and US don't even describe what's happening in xinjiang as genocide anymore. (bit hard to with the uyghur population actually growing and their life expectancy and quality of life improving) my feedback is to keep banning blatant genocide deniers on sight and also rape apologia while i'm thinking about it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 00:52
|
|
|
weren't forum bans just a response to permabans being impossible to get approved for a while? if someone really just is incompatible with this forum, ban them the ordinary way. after a few reregs where they can't stop doing hateful poo poo, go ahead and take out the trash. if they rereg and post in a non-hateful way, let them be. forum bans seem like a failed policy.
Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Forumbans were something the admins were actively pushing as a replacement for long probes and bans. The idea was that it was better to deprive a single thread or forum of someone's posting indefinitely than to deprive the entire site of their posting for a couple weeks. I think that's a failed project. In part because it puts the mods in the position of having to keep a poorly documented list of unpeople, and in part because it requires punishing otherwise-harmless posting. Both of those things feel like personal grudges, even if they aren't meant to be. It also means it's hard to figure out why someone got probed; Bucky Fullminster copped a punishment for violating his forumban for spamming his blog and it started a whole page derail, while just saying they were probing him for spamming his stupid-rear end blog again wouldn't have caused nearly as much fuss. I can't stand ze pollack for example, and I know they're forumbanned atm. But if they post something harmless/funny/interesting, where's the harm in leaving it alone?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:My favorite is the Marxism thread, which flips seamlessly between friendly and funny shitposting and legitimately insightful analyses and discussions by some incredibly smart and well-read posters idk. CSPAM always strikes me as boring catty white noise, even if its political consensus is generally closer to my own. that's not a CSPAM problem; i'm not gonna barge in an demand that they all post to my taste. I think there's a place for both forums, not because liberals and leftists can't coexist, but because it's fine to have different standards of "interesting" and "informative" if there are enough posters to sustain two communities. CSPAM's fine, it's just not to my taste. Also, WRT to your second point, I'm not really sure how to reconcile my feeling that genocide deniers should get thrown out on their rear end and my own belief that American immigration policy is morally equivalent. I've said my thoughts here: Cease to Hope posted:what's happening now, on the US/mexico border and in palestine and nauru and xinjiang, this is what the mass killing looks like. it can certainly be worse and there's no way to predict if or when that will happen i think, but the current status quo is stable. it's the same model as residential schools and ghettos. designate people as incapable or irregular or illegal, then "administer" them with a degree of calculated disregard for their safety to "deter" them. since the goal is just to make them go away, you don't need mass killing. all you need is just piecemeal, nominally unsanctioned abuse and the occasional reprisal against "criminals" who revolt against this status quo. "we're trying our best to help these people" serves as political cover, and "at least we're not rounding them all up and executing them" changes the subject to the Dangerous Foreigners who do/did that and serves an implicit threat against anyone who would revolt. people like thatfatkid, who have consistently insisted that it's not happening and if it is it's not a problem, are obviously beyond the pale regardless of the specific locale. and you usually get banned in D&D or elsewhere if you try that apologia about american immigration, too. (you can get away with it in TFR though, lol.) but there's a range of apologia, and obvious different standards for each of those examples that seem to me to be different heads of the same hydra. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:At least, I think that distinction is worthy of debate and discussion. That discussion cannot happen until you drive out the people who will constantly derail it with the argument that nothing is happening and it's all fake. Moreover, I don't think that kind of blatant hate should be welcome on SA at all in any forum. Pentecoastal Elites posted:In a practical matter, though, I have no loving clue why I, a dumbass American, should feel the need to become a China hawk because of it. There is no -- absolutely zero -- "corrective action" America could possibly take that wouldn't make it profoundly worse. Moreover the thing I think being loudly and publicly "critical of China" is actually doing is contributing to the sinophobia that has been ramping up to insane levels since the start of Covid. Something I think a lot about whenever I hear about increasing anti-Asian violence and hate crimes here in America. This is a sort of blinkered Americentrism that isn't helpful, though. There are reasons to criticize China other than to establish a casus belli for war with China. For one, it's often helpful to engage people's outrage with a foreign misdeed to get them to abandon their own apologia for the same abuse at home. It won't convince everyone, but it can work. Likewise, criticizing governments needs to be allowed in the government criticism forum! There are some pretty obvious double standards I don't think you've considered; no American leftist would ever stint from criticizing, say, Saudi Arabia for fear of how it will encourage hate for American Muslims or Arabs. Nobody in D&D (AFAIK) is spreading the sort of hateful conspiracies that American racists do traffic in (or they should be harshly punished if so!); American racists do not generally get righteously angry about foreign Muslims being mistreated. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Oct 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Anyway the discussion also can't happen until you drive out the people who will constantly derail it with the argument that any sort of comment that isn't complete and utter acceptance of the idea that China is literally mass murdering it's Uighur population, and that to say anything otherwise is not just argued against, but should result in a permaban. Can you point to an example of this? Because I think you're creating an extreme caricature to draw a false equivalence. thatfatkid is an actual poster, and not the only one who posts the way he does.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I know you were replying to fatkid and if they deny anything bad whatsoever is going on that's one thing, but I don't think looking at even specifically what the DoD is saying about China and saying "this, to me, does not constitute a genocide" is ban-worthy -- at least if not saying the same thing about any of the genocides America is participating in or has participated in does not also constitute a ban. Link didn't work but neither of the quoted posts said anything particularly out of line. I'm willing to believe there are liberal genocide deniers. Ban them! Why would I want those creeps around?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:literally "no one deserves to be heard unless they are more polite to me and my posting pals" That poster you're replying to is making a dumb argument I don't agree with, but yeah I think you do need to be a minimal amount of polite. Open roiling hostility is its own sort of boring useless white noise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Because I'm stupid enough to keep believing that people can discuss changes like reasonable adults instead of overgrown children screaming and throwing fruit in the produce isle and challenging the shift manager to a fight. then what the gently caress have i been doing studying the blade all this time
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:That sure is a lot of words to call me a patholical liar, MSDOS. It's funny that you would call anyone pathological when you've spent the entire last year of your posting exclusively complaining about D&D in other forums. Don't post in this thread again. MSDOS was kinda being lovely but this is out of line I think.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Starks posted:Suggestion: The word "tankie" should be blacklisted. Namecalling was once frowned upon in D&D and really doesn't add anything to the discussion except to escalate pettiness, the word has lost most of its original meaning, it's posted ad naseum when certain subjects come up, and it's confusing to me personally because for years I thought a tankie was someone who worked for a think tank. If you're going to blacklist stuff like democrat party or whatever I don't see why this is allowed. Blacklisting microaggressive namecalling on a per-name basis is a hilarious but ineffective policy. It doesn't accomplish anything but making D&D and its mods look petty.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Starks posted:You're probably right but then I should be allowed to say Demonrat and "Dumb Yank". I'm open to a liberalizing of the rules as well. That's just being a hostile dickhead, which should get people probed. A petty list of banned words is not the right solution to the problem of aggro posting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:Making poo poo up about what you think other people mean when they post things has continuously been brought up as a problem and yall just keep doing it. There is a point where you just failed to lurk more though. Most of the banned words (big exception: concentration camps) were just pointless shitstirring that either indicated a failure to lurk more or intentional hostility. The mods handled punishing that failure poorly, but there is a point where a hostile attitude should not be welcome. If you can't contain your scorn, post in the politics forum where uncontrolled bile is welcome instead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A Excel spreadsheet that's like the Postinomicon/Adminomicon/Modinomicon(??? Still workshopping this) that's like a central compedium of modmin notes on problematic users, current thread/forum bans, and perhaps an automated tool like a spreadsheet formula to track ramps and probes would be a useful tool. Holy poo poo this is the worst idea I've seen in my entire life. Thankfully it's also completely impractical! But do not make a shitlist of enemies of D&D.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:You say this is the worst idea you've ever seen in your entire life, but did you not see the very next sentence where he suggests a Something Awful Moderation JIRA? I meant the whole post, in fairness.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
Nobody trusts the mods to exercise good judgement. Ticky-tacky rules that promise to involve no judgement (eg word bans), removing reports, using the mods as a cudgel against posting enemies to win arguments, purging the mods again, getting rid of the forum entirely, all of these are symptoms of this one core problem. And none of them actually solve it. If there was any inherent deference to the mods before, it's all been pissed away (and was probably already exhausted by the time PPJ flamed out). When a mod probes an rear end in a top hat who has political opinions, nobody trusts that it was because they were an rear end in a top hat and not because of their political opinions. But D&D does need someone who will toss out the assholes, both because a bunch of the locals are toxic waste or horribly boring white noise and because there's a bunch of people who've decided loving with D&D is a righteous cause or the funniest thing ever. Moderation is necessary and sorely needed right now, but it's built on trust, and right now there is none. I don't know how you fix that problem. I don't know if you can fix that problem.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
I read D&D but do not post much any more because it has been on a years-long downslide that I think the mods are doing nothing to reverse. Does my opinion count, y/n
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I only care about the opinion of people who have firsthand experience with posting here, not secondhand opinions from some other thread or grudges from before any of the current mod team was around. If you take command of a ship on fire, it's fair to criticize you for not extinguishing them fires.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
posts are stored in the usnews
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:This would probably make it too popular, imho. There's a lot of sickos and freaks on these forums who have big folders of flashy infographics and Nate Silver sized hulking and wheezing spreadsheets of like, tank stats or CK2 tactics. I've heard there's even some threads that worship the concept of Number. Not fair to the other forums. please do not dox me i try my best to keep that perversion limited to the game forums
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
the trump threads also hand out sixers because they're funny, don't read too much into it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
D&D is never gonna solve the problem of the cadres of freaks who are obsessed with posting their enemies into submission by not having any mods at all
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
thatfatkid posted:I'll do it, I'll be the replacement mod of D&D. My reign will be ironfisted and without mercy. All shall love me and despair. go into the west
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
wait does this mean we need to give the modship to an obsessive murderous freak who immediately falls into a volcano
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
a month where people are only allowed to post shellac lyrics
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Yeah, the "lack of trust" seems to be primarily from disgruntled posters obsessively pissed about well-deserved probes. it is a long-standing problem i've noted for a while
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:It's really no different from right wingers screaming about CRT in their public schools when there's no evidence for it at all. Do you really not see how obnoxious and inflammatory this sort of comparison is? The fact that people can get away with this sort of extremely-lightly-veiled "and this is why the person I'm quoting is actually a monster" posting, even in heavily moderated threads, is why uspol is a toxic waste dump. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Oct 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:IIRC the other reason "doom posting" was made actionable was because of its negative mental health effects on posters. I'm sympathetic, but it's a politics forum. It's a hazard adults should already be aware of. It should not be a unexpected trigger to have people being negative about the news in the political news thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Think of it like a law against selling some really addictive drug that only makes you feel bad, but the sentence for conviction is just being physically unable to sell drugs anymore on one particular street, instead of prison or a fine I don't buy into that analogy. I see "doomerism" deployed more as a thought terminating cliche to fend off negative commentary more than I see unconstructive nihilism. The latter sort of poster definitely exists, but I do see more people mad about would-be Arzys and Rimes. Main Paineframe posted:most of the worst of those types have been forumbanned by now, though yeah. past tense, not present.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
How are u posted:Here's an example of the type of doomerism that gets pretty tired and old, from earlier this morning. The post it's replying to is its own sort of blinkered unrealistic nothing, though. I don't see a great difference.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It doesn't seem to be claiming "everything will be fine", but rather "if X happens, everything will be fine". It doesn't take for granted that X will happen, it just refers to the possibility that X might happen and speculates on what it might lead to. It doesn't claim to be an absolutely certain telling of a future that's yet to happen. X is "santa claus's arrival". it's not any more realistic than the supposed doomposting
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Asserting that a hoped-for good thing can't possibly happen is kind of, um, doomerism in itself. Killin_Like_Bronson posted:If the probability of an event that somebody puts hope into has a really low chance of being observed based on past history, measurable democrat response to climate change for example, then that hope is not valuable and begs for somebody to explain that. That explanation should be welcome. The hoped-for good event is the Democratic Party pushing out its centrists yet still holding power, or (given the original context) having enough control of the Senate in the near-term to not need the centrists. There are several unlikely events there, all chained together. Santa Claus is more realistic, but it doesn't matter. Neither post is unacceptable. They're both just the posters saying more about their own outlook than anything substantive. There's no rule that every post has to be strictly realistic. There's no need for a rule like that. What the hell is the problem with that post?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm just frustrated, sorry. That's just so obviously to me a situation that doesn't need any intervention.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
Why are the mods fooling with redtexts in the first place
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 05:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Stuff like this will be just as punishable as someone trying to deny Tara Reade's claims. That's what the change will be. Posting evil poo poo should cop a lot more punishment than posting aggro poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
How are u posted:Saying something like "If you voted for Joe Biden you support rape" is pretty evil poo poo, and shouldn't be tolerated. Nah, they're not equivalent. At the end of the day, saying that supporting a man credibly accused of rape is supporting rape is a reasonable stance to take. It may be impolite to point it out, or a distraction from the topic at hand - aggro posting - but it isn't an evil thing to do. And it's definitely not morally equivalent to making excuses for powerful rapists. Fister Roboto posted:FWIW I agree that accusing people of being rape apologists is not a great idea. It's completely unproveable, you can't read their mind, all it does is piss people off. You're right that people should probably say things like "what you are saying is hateful" and not "you are a hateful person," but it doesn't make that big a difference. Nobody is less offended by "what you are saying is rape apologia" than by "you are a rape apologist." The latter is obviously a consequence of the former. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No its not. Because that's what has happened. It turns into a big slapfight over "Every dem voter is a rape apologist, therefore all of D&D is likely full of rape apologists and fascists" which is why we're in this problem to begin with. It does not result in any meaningful conversation or discussion, just an endless chum fest of who is worse than whom. No what's not? I said it wasn't conducive to discussion to constantly bring it up. But pointing out that Biden is a rapist is not morally equivalent to smearing Tara Reade. The former is obnoxious (if not relevant to the discussion at hand), the latter is evil.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Hard disagree, op. Tone is important and can change the way the reader interprets information. Someone will be far more receptive without personal accusations. "What you are saying is rape apologia" is an accusation. You can hem and haw about grammar, and tone and, hell, I agree. But it will always be read by the person you are speaking to as an accusation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 19, 2024 11:32 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That isn't what happened though? Biden being a rapist we all agree on. Its whether voting for Biden invalidated Tara Reade's case or makes the voter a rape apologist. There's nuance there Okay. The issue here is that How are u was trying to draw false equivalences to smearing Tara Reade as a rhetorical cudgel, and they can feel free to cram that cudgel someplace uncomfortable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2021 18:02
|
|