[Macros]

Actually mez I think it was the #metoo thread. And it was (Imo) fully justified.

[Mezla PigDog]

Macros, on 01 November 2019 - 07:01 AM, said:

Actually mez I think it was the #metoo thread. And it was (Imo) fully justified.

Oh yes, memory returns. I remember a feeling of righteous indignation so I probably was justified

[Tsundoku]

Mezla PigDog, on 01 November 2019 - 07:09 AM, said:

Oh yes, memory returns. I remember a feeling of righteous indignation

But to be fair, as an Englandisher you guys write a sternly-worded letter to your local MP about "slipping standards" when someone doesn't sip their tea in the right manner ...

[Grief]

King Lear, on 31 October 2019 - 09:14 PM, said:

Silencer, on 30 October 2019 - 05:51 AM, said:

worry, on 29 October 2019 - 08:05 PM, said:

*snip*

You know, worry, I wouldn't have thought you'd be in favour of tarring large groups of people with the same brush. It seems like something you're really passionate about NOT doing, under most circumstances. Unless you're suggesting if someone were to come on this forum and suggest that all people of a certain race were lesser somehow, that this would be OK because it's just a generalisation? Oh, oh no, because that would be racism and terrible. And if I recall correctly, aren't we supposed to be applying the same standards equally to all "sides"? Hmmm. Whatever shall we do?

You know, personal insults aren't the only thing that contributes to stifling the kinds of discussion you've stated you want for this board. Being condescending as hell works too. So does vague generalizing about expectations for behaviour, while alluding to goings-on behind the mod screen, while using said modship as cudgel to get people to do ... something that you want them to. It's been over a week and you still haven't really clarified what you want from people because you haven't really defined what the problem is.

If you could get down off your high horse for a couple of minutes, and restrain yourself from berating grown adults like recalcitrant children and actually fucking talk about what you want and how you'd like to go about getting it, and what people can do to achieve that, please do so, or get a mod who can. Because I tell you what, you want to talk about a forum being welcoming and place for everyone, I'm really tired of seeing these dripping with sarcasm messages from you while you simultaneously demand that people be nice.

Like if you want Tiste to stop needling BK, why doesn't anyone say that? If you want BK to stop doing drivebys in the Discussion forms, then use those specific words.

If you want people to #notallconservatives, #notallrebublicans, #notalltories after every "the group X said a bad thing, their supporters still support them but that doesn't mean that they support bad thing" or whatever it is then maybe say that. And if you think this is an unfair misrepresentation of what's been happening, please feel free to correct me, because I'm very confused!

But let me just say, that if you find yourself unable to do so without any "bold of you to assume" gotcha type argument where you can feel smug in your intellectual superiority over me, instead of clarifying your position (with evidence, if you please) then I'll ask you kindly to get fucked and be done.

To give my personal views on this I agree that condescension is part of the issue. Starting a post "Did you even read...?" or "Are you serious...?" really does nothing for the level of conversation. This is something I think we concretely can try to improve.

The broader #notallconservatives point is trickier. I generally agree that the politics we vote and argue for does reflect our values to some extent - while bearing in mind the practical constraints of voting - but nonetheless that doesn't mean it's either productive or interesting for me to take a policy I dislike and write a one-liner about how all the people on that side are either morally bankrupt or hoodwinked. There are plenty of people I dislike in the world but me posting about how much I dislike them isn't adding much to the discussion - and at the end of the day it's the discussion forum. If I already think the person posting holds views so beyond the pale that I can't have a discussion with them then maybe that's already outside the purpose of the place at some point. Ultimately, I don't feel that sarcastically sniping at people in a forum perpetuated mostly by people with similar stances to onself is especially the vehicle for holding people democratically accountable to their views.

To flip the question: if these stances are so fundamentally awful then should we be banning them as Amph suggested earlier? It may at least a more honest approach than letting people be insulted every time they enter until they leave.

[King Lear]

I agree and disagree with your expanding the issue to the wider board, but the point I'm trying to make is calls for civility are meaningless if some people are exempt due to a position of authority. When one of the most senior, not to mention frequently most active and visible, administrators of the board is telling people they're behaving badly while engaged in the same behaviour (while simultaneously suggesting they're somehow above it all), you're not going to achieve much except a circular argument of baiting and being baited. I understand the impulse (having indulged in it more than a few times, to my regret), but if you're looking for actual solutions, this achieves nothing.

More specifically to your post, "did you even read" and "are you serious" are perfectly valid responses to someone who didn't read or is clearly not engaging in good faith with the discussion at hand. If you're just saying that to dunk on someone, sure, not useful to or desirable for discussion any more than personal insults or baiting people. Your point is valid only in an instance where someone has presented an informative, reasoned response in the first place and is met with a dismissive response. No one disagrees with that that.

The point of contention is: are people responding dismissively to good faith arguments? Silencer, and by extension the wider mod team, are saying they are. The people who the mod team are pointing to are saying they're they're responding not only to bad faith arguments, but a repeated pattern of bad faith arguments. If you want more consideration for civility, what is the moderators advisement for people engaging in bad faith arguments regardless of which political "side" they nominate themselves on? There's appears to be a tension between 'self moderation' and requesting mod intervention - is the expectation that people to build a case against someone and present to the mods? Because a 'pattern of bad faith arguments' is something that runs over an extended period of time, and one drive-thru bait drop is not necessarily going to raise a moderator's eyebrows, even if it's reported. That's part of their charm.

Similarly, the idea of giving grace has to apply to everyone or no one; not just people who are willing to step forward to claim it's been denied them. If you want to make a case for consideration of rightwingers (or whomever - the subject of these feelings are not quite clear to me) who feel attacked by DB politics posts, then similar consideration needs to made for the fact that people are not necessarily congregating on DB politics discussions looking for opportunities to make smarmy comments, but rather people who are afraid and are venting those feelings in angry and possibly unjust ways. Are you [general you] really going to specifically demand civility to conservatives in the DB board after someone went on a facebook comment-worthy 'libtard commie" rant and not turn around and ask those same people to be more understanding the very real stress and fear people are feeling? Because I'm not getting any of that publicly in the way that this discussion has been heading so far. And again, what is the moderation solution for people not willing to do so? What is the moderator expectation for responces to people who repeatedly show that they don't deserve to have charitable consideration for what they're saying?


Obviously, I'm not expecting you, Grief, to have all (or any) answers to these questions, but I believe they deserve consideration if this is actually seen a problem with an intended solution. As before, I've seen the statements about mod discussions, but given the mod response to the ongoing issue so far I'm not really feeling particularly hopeful of a real solution coming from them or this thread.


Oh yeah also, my report button has literally never worked as far as I know. I get an error message. Anyone else had that problem?

[Grief]

King Lear, on 01 November 2019 - 08:55 PM, said:

More specifically to your post, "did you even read" and "are you serious" are perfectly valid responses to someone who didn't read or is clearly not engaging in good faith with the discussion at hand.

I would disagree here; I think that faux-questioning whether someone could possibly believe what they're saying is generally not a productive way to engage with a post. More often than not it's just an ad hominem.

King Lear, on 01 November 2019 - 08:55 PM, said:

If you want more consideration for civility, what is the moderators advisement for people engaging in bad faith arguments regardless of which political "side" they nominate themselves on? There's appears to be a tension between 'self moderation' and requesting mod intervention - is the expectation that people to build a case against someone and present to the mods? Because a 'pattern of bad faith arguments' is something that runs over an extended period of time, and one drive-thru bait drop is not necessarily going to raise a moderator's eyebrows, even if it's reported. That's part of their charm.

Similarly, the idea of giving grace has to apply to everyone or no one; not just people who are willing to step forward to claim it's been denied them. If you want to make a case for consideration of rightwingers (or whomever - the subject of these feelings are not quite clear to me) who feel attacked by DB politics posts, then similar consideration needs to made for the fact that people are not necessarily congregating on DB politics discussions looking for opportunities to make smarmy comments, but rather people who are afraid and are venting those feelings in angry and possibly unjust ways. Are you [general you] really going to specifically demand civility to conservatives in the DB board after someone went on a facebook comment-worthy 'libtard commie" rant and not turn around and ask those same people to be more understanding the very real stress and fear people are feeling? Because I'm not getting any of that publicly in the way that this discussion has been heading so far. And again, what is the moderation solution for people not willing to do so? What is the moderator expectation for responces to people who repeatedly show that they don't deserve to have charitable consideration for what they're saying?

As you allude to, it's hard to moderate "arguing in bad faith" because it's not easy to objectively define, and tends to play within the rules as much as possible almost by definition. One option Obdi pointed towards earlier would be holding higher standards on content in general (i.e, posts need to give more context, cite more, whatever) but as the forum ages I'm not sure it's very practical. And there are plenty of low content posts in the DB that people don't appear to find particularly objectionable (not to call out the vital discussion on Trump's halloween chocolate) so clearly it's not just that.

I agree with you that we should aim to hold a consistent standard across the board but from a moderation standpoint this is far from simple. Moreover, as pointed out by Amph holding everyone to the same standard can still frustrate people:

amphibian, on 22 October 2019 - 09:26 PM, said:

I'm really frustrated and it's not enough to go "well you should be polite to Nicodimas and he to you". He's superficially polite to me, but the stuff he's actively supporting is killing people and breaking the planet to a point where only the rich will survive.

In general, I think we can see a distinction here between "hostile language" and "hostile content". There are obviously areas where we ban people for the latter. But if an issue is within the sphere of discussion here then can we just say "their view is inherently hostile however polite they are and as such justifies a hostile response"?

Obviously I don't have all the answers, but personally (and speaking as a member, not a representative of the mod team) I think there are a few kinds of post we should aim to reduce. I'll use real examples here; my intention isn't to call specific people out but I think it helps to be as concrete as possible.

1. Generalisations / "if you do X you're Y". To me this feels especially like bait when we're talking about movements supported by the majority of voters in given countries.

Examples:
Republicans are a special breed of vile and stupid aren't they?
At this stage we can quite safely say anyone who votes Tory is either daft or thinks they'll get some of those delicious tax breaks.

2. Sniping other members by name from out of the blue. Many of us have been here years and are familiar with each others views; that's normal and can be part of a conversation. But bringing people into a conversation from out of left field just to snipe at them isn't productive and again just feels like bait to me.

Examples:
That'll be Nico's argument when he does a drive by of this thread too. The US is after all the only country with video games.
Yeah but on the other side of the arguments he's going to fix BK's bridge so ʅ(ツ)ʃ

[Grief]

Oh and regarding the report function not working for you do you want to try test reporting me or something? That's something it would definitely be nice to fix if we can. Perhaps best for a thread in admin support or such. As I mentioned earlier the report function goes very underutilised imo and I do encourage people to make use of it.

[King Lear]

I'm just going reply directly because I'm sick and tags are making me feel cross-eyed.

I feel like this is circular at this point but I disagree that "did you even read" and "are you serious" are not a productive way to engage with someone, especially if that person is not engaging in the argument at hand. They can be used as personal attack, but so can a lot of things, this feels more to me like there's a specific problem between individuals using these terms; why is expressing incredulity at someone's response unreasonable?

I don't think holding higher standards in the DB forums is impractical. It's requirement: if you want people to engage politely at all times there needs to be more focus on ensuring that they're also not being required to politely engage with endless bullshit. I also want to note that I agree with Amph and at no point am I advocating for a consistent standard that includes always being nice to people regardless of their how beliefs impact others. It's not just frustrating, it's actively harmful, and I believe Amph was clear on that.


I really do like the distinction between 'hostile language' and 'hostile content', but I find your general point frustrating, and I feel I'm not being clear or not being listened to.


On the surface, all of those examples (and in my view, particularly the random shots taken at specific people) should not be how people choose to engage. But on the other hand, a summary of your post seems to be 'well, making sure people are engaging is in good faith is kinda hard, but here are ways for you to be nicer' which tidily dismisses everything in my previous post, and seems to ignore the fact that I already said this stuff is not helpful. What's the functional difference between 'you lot need to stop dogpiling on people and dismissing their points out of hand' and 'Republicans are a special breed of vile and stupid'? If it's okay for a mod to repeatedly insult the intentions and understanding of people he perceives as a group with shared understanding who he thinks are being dicks, then why not for a group other people perceive as having a shared sense of hate for various swathes of the population?


To flip it, what if you told the people complaining about being disparaged for their political affiliations, that instead of a mod stepping in, rather they should be defending themselves only using informative, reasoned responses with relevant evidence to support their claims? It doesn't feel right to me, even though I fundamentally disagree with them.


But in that case why does support for policies and people who attack the humanity of others require civil debate at all times? How can the board admin state that they don't expect you to accept bigotry as valid but then turn around and say that people who support those who commit acts of violence on an institutional and international level are exempt from this and their feelings need to be considered when talking about the wider support for the bigotry espoused (and, critically, acted on)?


I know that sounds contradictory, but what I'm trying to say is, what's the line between a disagreement and litigating people's humanity, and why is the focus on one particular group of people over their debate opponents and the subjects of the debate?



I know I get read as angry on this forum pretty frequently, so I just want to say I really appreciate this discussion, particularly as this probably a bit of an uncomfortable place as a mod and person with their own opinions.

[King Lear]

I did try reporting you (I figured you wouldn't mind if I accidentally sent a thing through )

This is what I get:

 ReportingGrief.PNG (16.65K)
Number of downloads: 0

[D'rek]

I bet all Mott Irregulars members can't use the report function - It's probably a permission problem buried deep in the user groups somehow.

[Brujah]

FYI - while reading over the thread I accidentally negative repped post number 11.

[Aptorian]

An old issue was that some skins/themes don't allow reporting. I think grey for example doesnt work properly.

[Kanese S's]

I think we need to have a thread about this thread about discourse in the discussion thread. This isn't meta enough.