Switch Theme:

New (and completely unofficial!) political discussion space structural ideas - Launch Date Jan 25th!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Facts are the creatures of worldviews, not the other way round. People have largely overlapping but still, in some facets, quite different worldviews. So it’s that element that is at stake, rather than just a fact sheet recitation.

Let’s also be clear that we’re just talking about discussion. We aren’t policymakers trying to solve society’s problems. The only plausible goal of the kind of discussions we’re talking about are to learn and grow, develop relationships, and that sort of thing.

   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






Prestor Jon wrote:
 Wolfblade wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
Jerram, it’a not only the forest/trees issue with the quote function but also the quote wars issue GBT brought up where you have giant, multi-nested eye sores.

The main thing is just to structurally discourage tit-for-tat sniping. You will never get rid of it, but you can at least make it more tedious to engage in.

Wolfblade, GBT was using an example from his highschool days as an aspirational goal rather than a lower standard. I daresay that his example is exactly what we should aim for: giving one another the benefit of the doubt in the face of deep-rooted, paradigmatic disagreement. Surely, this is the very highest standard.


Up to a certain point? Sure. But there's a huge difference between a discussion about religion and a discussion about policy in politics. Policy thrives on facts and logic, religion does not to put it politely.


It would be nice if policy was based on facts and logic. We’d certainly all be better off it that was true. However, what drives government policy is special interests/lobbying, popular misconceptions, perceived truths, political pandering and financial gain.


Which would matter if we were putting actual policy into motion but we're not, so can you PLEASE stop pretending like that has some bearing on the discussion at all? Now, if start debating a specific example of how a policy came to be then obviously that aspect is important, but the vast majority of discussion there is more likely to be about the merits/impact of the policy.

Again, I thought I was clear I was talking about a discussion of said policy, not how actual policies get passed and it feels like you've purposefully misinterpreted this to be about something else or make another point twice now. No one is under the assumption we'll be influencing policy directly, but that doesn't stop us from discussing it, just like it doesn't make it acceptable for someone to push something blatantly racist or bigoted just because they have no direct influence over policy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/14 22:50:08


DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+


bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@ Rosebuddy:

I guess what I'm saying is, that if you're addressing someone specific, you can just do what I've just done... put @ Person Name: at the start. That clarifies which person you're talking to, and hopefully the reply makes sense to some part of their post. If someone else hasn't read Person Name's post, they probably don't care that you're replying to it, and don't need to see the quoted post again. If they have read it... they probably don't need to see the quoted post again, they'll already know what you're talking about. It's just a me thing, I realize other people don't mind quote walls and quote wars... I just find them irritating. I'm advocating to try to avoid it in a hypothetical future forum. No harm intended to the quote-lovers out there!


@ Wolfblade:

I am not advocating for the use of bad faith arguments. I am advocating for allowing a person to present their *opinion*, and present what reasons they have for holding that opinion. If another poster disagrees with the *opinion* presented, or believes the reasons for holding such an opinion are false, they can present that back. These posters can attempt to counter each other's points, but it is entirely possible that the two posters have different *value structures*.

Returning to my friend from High School, his *value structures* were what I might call tribal or clan-like in nature. I don't say that in a disparaging way, but in the sense that his culture was not widespread. Our peers were mostly secular (myself included). Our peers were mostly left-leaning (myself included, at the time). He was a true outsider at our school. In many ways, his entire mindset developed in a small, tight, group where the “other” was dangerous to their way of life. His *value structure* was protectionist, specific to his group. They couldn't save the whole world, so they saved themselves and whomever they could bring to their beliefs. They wished no specific harm on the “other”, but wanted them to stay on their side of the fence. Many things that I considered “backwards”, but to him was normal, and he had reasons he considered valid for his beliefs. We gave a lot of insight to each other by accepting that we could look at the same information, the same facts, and come to different conclusions about what to do with that information.

If we were trying to “win”, then we wouldn't have had the valuable exchanges that we had. Rather, if “winning” was the primary goal, it would have faltered. We both tried to sway the other to our way of seeing, but we usually didn't. It was usually more a case of trying to understand the other person's view through their *value structure*, instead of our own. We understood *why* we couldn't come to an agreement.

And we did this without labeling each other. I could have called him a racist, a facist, a bigot, a homophobe. He could have called me ambivalent, socialist (an insult, in his mind ), unwilling to protect our “way of life” and tollerant of socially harmful behaviour... and we did, a little bit, if I'm honest. I would hope that people are able to come to ETC and find that. Not a war zone, but a means of exploring other ideas and perspectives. I don't think that happens when we label *people* instead of dealing with arguments and ideas.

My perception is that you want to deny this by calling it bad faith. That an argument that you, personally, feel is in bad faith should not be allowed. This is a logical fallacy, in the presumption of correctness. It is possible the person is bringing a view that is so utterly alien to you, it seems false on first read. “A *person* could only believe that if they are BAD... or would only post that if they're a TROLL!” Instead, it may come from a perspective utterly foreign to you. By addressing the argument, the reasons and “evidence” you may find that there is a reason to it, even if you don't agree with it. Even if it does not align with your *value structure*, you may be able to understand it by understanding the other person's value structure.

From what I've gathered from your posts, I think you're looking to win the argument. Not learn and grow, but to defeat the other. In this regard, I think we have a differing value structure, and that we're unlikely to find agreement in how to best help shape the future ETC. That's what I mean by building up community, rather than burning it down. I understand that for some, Political discussion is verbal combat, and that's ok too. However, I think that what I'm trying to present is more community building. Positive, sharing, caring relationships between posters instead of different sides in a conflict. It can be both. I expect it will be.
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut




 greatbigtree wrote:

From what I've gathered from your posts, I think you're looking to win the argument. Not learn and grow, but to defeat the other. In this regard, I think we have a differing value structure, and that we're unlikely to find agreement in how to best help shape the future ETC. That's what I mean by building up community, rather than burning it down. I understand that for some, Political discussion is verbal combat, and that's ok too. However, I think that what I'm trying to present is more community building. Positive, sharing, caring relationships between posters instead of different sides in a conflict. It can be both. I expect it will be.



Then we'll have to decide some values that the community should share. "Learn and grow", okay, grow into what?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 Wolfblade wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
 Wolfblade wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
Jerram, it’a not only the forest/trees issue with the quote function but also the quote wars issue GBT brought up where you have giant, multi-nested eye sores.

The main thing is just to structurally discourage tit-for-tat sniping. You will never get rid of it, but you can at least make it more tedious to engage in.

Wolfblade, GBT was using an example from his highschool days as an aspirational goal rather than a lower standard. I daresay that his example is exactly what we should aim for: giving one another the benefit of the doubt in the face of deep-rooted, paradigmatic disagreement. Surely, this is the very highest standard.


Up to a certain point? Sure. But there's a huge difference between a discussion about religion and a discussion about policy in politics. Policy thrives on facts and logic, religion does not to put it politely.


It would be nice if policy was based on facts and logic. We’d certainly all be better off it that was true. However, what drives government policy is special interests/lobbying, popular misconceptions, perceived truths, political pandering and financial gain.


Which would matter if we were putting actual policy into motion but we're not, so can you PLEASE stop pretending like that has some bearing on the discussion at all? Now, if start debating a specific example of how a policy came to be then obviously that aspect is important, but the vast majority of discussion there is more likely to be about the merits/impact of the policy.

Again, I thought I was clear I was talking about a discussion of said policy, not how actual policies get passed and it feels like you've purposefully misinterpreted this to be about something else or make another point twice now. No one is under the assumption we'll be influencing policy directly, but that doesn't stop us from discussing it, just like it doesn't make it acceptable for someone to push something blatantly racist or bigoted just because they have no direct influence over policy.


I was attempting to point out that I believe the posting standard you’re setting is excessively specific. Discussing policies is very much a matter of perception and personal experience/personal benefit that may not be rooted in extensive knowledge of the facts of the policies or logic that meets the standard of others.
For example somebody could post that they think the president is doing a good job because personally things are going well for him/her. That post would be rebutted by someone who questions how the poster can have a positive view of a president who has said/some horrible things and points out that presidents don’t have much direct impact on our lives. The first poster might reply Well guess those negative things don’t really affect me so I’m not bothered by them and on the whole I think the president has been more good than bad. Which would be rebutted again with a reply like How can you hand wave away all of this racist/bigoted actions/statements/policies? What exactly has the president done that is so good that you’re okay with supporting such horrible things? Just your feelings and anecdotes? I guess my facts can’t compete against your feelings huh? This is such a garbage post and bad faith argument you should be banned.

If we want to discuss economic policy and our domestic economic response to the pandemic can we post opinions and ideas by themselves or do we need to include supporting evidence like quotes from Federal Reserve Chairs and links to Bureau of Labor Statistics reports? How much research and prep work should be done before conversing on the internet?

It seems like no matter what optimistic, possibly idealistic, comment is made there is always a rebuttal at the ready to make sure parameters, restrictions and punishments are in place to ensure that posts adhere to a specific template without deviation. It seems like RiTides desires and expectations are the antithesis of those who are most vociferously making suggestions for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
 greatbigtree wrote:

From what I've gathered from your posts, I think you're looking to win the argument. Not learn and grow, but to defeat the other. In this regard, I think we have a differing value structure, and that we're unlikely to find agreement in how to best help shape the future ETC. That's what I mean by building up community, rather than burning it down. I understand that for some, Political discussion is verbal combat, and that's ok too. However, I think that what I'm trying to present is more community building. Positive, sharing, caring relationships between posters instead of different sides in a conflict. It can be both. I expect it will be.



Then we'll have to decide some values that the community should share. "Learn and grow", okay, grow into what?


Grow into a great big tree. ;-)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 00:30:55


Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

Well, much like evolution, we aren’t evolving “into” anything. We just grow. Become more aware, increase our understanding of the universe. To be blunt, become more wise and informed.

A value that I would like to see brought to the community would be to have a place where the pursuit of greater understanding can flourish. Where, at least in one section, the goal is to try to understand different views, not defeat different views.

This does not mean we can’t have a combat zone. I love a good verbal scrap as much as the next guy. But that the former is the key focus of the site. A person can throw down most anywhere on the internet if they just want to scrap. I think a site whose focus is on increasing understanding would be more valuable, harder to find, than a written cage match.

What values would you like to see in the future ETC?



Edit: Pshhh. The people should be so fortunate as grow into a GreatBigTree. Henry Thoreau was way off. We can’t all be tall, tall trees. But those of us that can, should. And hopefully our metaphoric trunks can be made into something wonderful by the next generation. At the very least, we leave a bunch of fertilizer behind when we fall...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 00:40:00


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 greatbigtree wrote:


From what I've gathered from your posts, I think you're looking to win the argument. Not learn and grow, but to defeat the other. In this regard, I think we have a differing value structure, and that we're unlikely to find agreement in how to best help shape the future ETC. That's what I mean by building up community, rather than burning it down. I understand that for some, Political discussion is verbal combat, and that's ok too. However, I think that what I'm trying to present is more community building. Positive, sharing, caring relationships between posters instead of different sides in a conflict. It can be both. I expect it will be.


If I post 134 links that I haven't even read as an "argument", what learning and growing are you going to be doing with that post? What kind of "community building" comes from someone not even reading the things they refer to and claiming they say the opposite of what they do (and I'm not talking something that I interpret as saying the opposite, I'm literally talking "this one source is openly mocking the behaviour of the guy linking it that's claiming that it backs him up")?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






(After spending way too long editing and revising this, I'll just post it instead of creating a never-ending cycle of revision... and then forget to put this here. Sorry for the wall of text and no TL;DR!)

 greatbigtree wrote:

My perception is that you want to deny this by calling it bad faith. That an argument that you, personally, feel is in bad faith should not be allowed. This is a logical fallacy, in the presumption of correctness. It is possible the person is bringing a view that is so utterly alien to you, it seems false on first read. “A *person* could only believe that if they are BAD... or would only post that if they're a TROLL!” Instead, it may come from a perspective utterly foreign to you. By addressing the argument, the reasons and “evidence” you may find that there is a reason to it, even if you don't agree with it. Even if it does not align with your *value structure*, you may be able to understand it by understanding the other person's value structure.


Well, first off the stated goal of this future site is not about "understanding someone's value structure and why they believe X bigoted thing" but for political discussion and both would have pretty different rulesets to cultivate that type of atmosphere. I think if you recognize that, you may understand where I and others are coming from here and why we want a stricter ruleset to enforce that structure. Furthermore, just because a person really truly believes "X group is inferior/sinning and don't deserve Y rights and that's their value structure" does not lend any validity to the positions they take related to or based on that.

Anyways, your face-to-face interactions in high school provided both time and a personal connection an internet forum just cannot provide. "Deprogramming" someone of hate requires an immense amount of time, a personal connection, and a space in which they don't feel judged, but accepted. And make no mistakes, if they truly gleaned insight and came away different, that's what you were doing. Meanwhile, on the internet, if you get banned who cares, just make up another username and fake email address and feth that guy for being different! That mentality just doesn't work in real life, especially in a closed eco-system like high school. It's so much harder to convey the feelings and tone you want over the internet than in person. There's a complete lack of body language, no tone of voice, no eye contact, and so on. For example, sarcasm can be read as totally serious because there's no exaggerated tone of voice or body language. There's only text on a screen and maybe an emoji that may not perfectly express what you want it to.

Basically, you had an insightful conversation without any explicit rules or explanation on what a good conversation entails because you both were following implicit rules of social norms and decency in a conversation that you could gather a lot of context clues from. You had the threat of being a social outcast if either of you acted as most people act on the internet whether you realize it or not. Internet spaces only have the ones we actively choose to enforce and cultivate. Otherwise, it always sinks to however far people are willing to stoop which will inevitably drive people away, just like Dakka has seen. If we make those implicit rules explicit and enforce them on the new forum, you'll get the type of place you want. You'll certainly have a better chance than if you just cross your fingers and hope the Dakka model works this time.

So, to answer your point more directly no, that isn't what I want. What I want to see are actual, interesting conversations and discussions, especially from those with a large amount of knowledge in particular areas. I don't want to see the same old games of whack-a-mole as one person throws a stink bomb, leaves, and then does the same exact thing again next week. I don't want to be reading someone else's source to prove they didn't even read them. I don't want to see a novel's worth of text to disprove a paragraph, one that is devoid of any facts or straight-up denies them, that is then ignored and repeated almost verbatim next week. That's bad faith, and it's totally different than discussing the pros and cons of voter ID. I am not ok with someone who wants it because it either helps their party win or because it keeps certain people from voting because that only serves to drag down any conversation. I'm fine with discussing both illegal immigration and potential solutions to related issues. I'm not fine with automatically labeling illegal immigrants as criminals (and worse) or because they believe a certain physical feature will keep a certain group of people out and for no other reason. If you seriously don't believe me, DM me and I'd be happy to provide you with examples from Dakka showing you exactly what I mean by "bad faith" since an open discussion about political issues is still banned here.

Again, it is not about "differing view bad." It's more akin to someone saying a single IG conscript will beat the Nightbringer 10 out of 10 times, offers to simulate it and use mathhammer as proof, and then when the conscript loses, they pretend it didn't happen and issue the same challenge next week saying it hasn't been disproven or tested yet and ignore people who point out they've been through this song and dance before.

 greatbigtree wrote:

From what I've gathered from your posts, I think you're looking to win the argument. Not learn and grow, but to defeat the other. In this regard, I think we have a differing value structure, and that we're unlikely to find agreement in how to best help shape the future ETC. That's what I mean by building up community, rather than burning it down. I understand that for some, Political discussion is verbal combat, and that's ok too. However, I think that what I'm trying to present is more community building. Positive, sharing, caring relationships between posters instead of different sides in a conflict. It can be both. I expect it will be.


Can you have a good, diverse community if you don't cultivate a certain level of respect for each other among users? On the internet, can you really have a good relationship with a homophobe if you're gay, or with a racist if you're not of the same race as them? Can you have a good relationship with someone who is calling for the extermination of the Danes if you are a Dane? How on earth can you have a good relationship with someone who hates you, not based on their interactions with you, but for factors outside of your control? Do you seriously just pretend they don't want to exterminate all Danes or whatever? The onus should not be on the "good" person to ignore their flaws in order to build "positive, sharing, caring relationships between posters" but on the bigot to change or on the mods to punish such statements that don't build the community they want, but rather tear it down.

If you want a community to have good relations between members, you have to establish a structure that supports the interactions you want and punish or remove those who disrupt it significantly enough. Rules and vigilant, empowered moderation is key to that. It's why dakka is functionally a toxic wasteland with only the veneer of civility. Take a moment to scratch at the surface and you reveal the underlying passive-aggressiveness that has driven people away from here. If you bring up a radically different idea (such as FSM, or that the most recent star wars movies were great or anything related to "SJWs," among other examples) we aren't going to see many people saying "I respect your view and it's valid." You're going to see thinly-veiled flaming and gak-flinging between two or more sides because dakka's structure does not serve to enable a healthy discussion. Instead, the opposing posters drown out any real discussion and spread toxicity anywhere the topic goes, anywhere they see the "other" poster, and eventually, dakka bans the topic and pretends the problem was solved while never actually addressing the problem.

And I bring up Dakka's moderation because it's a failure at fostering a friendly community of people with diverse and potentially "extreme" views (in relation to the socially "accepted" position on certain subjects) which is what I'm trying to drive at. It's not about who I personally want to see gone or what views I disagree with, but what the structure needs to be in order to prevent it from being dakka v1.1 at best. Hell, you don't even seem to want dakka v1.0 so I'm unsure why you expect its ruleset to be moved somewhere else and get a different result or outcome.

I agree that we probably won't find common ground here, which is weird considering we both want the new site to have the best chance it can have. I just don't see it thriving long term if it includes people who support/encourage bigotry or engage in bad faith repeatedly. I'm all for giving everyone a clean slate to prove themselves there, but I also want there to be rules to at least try and prevent it from devolving into what politics here did because dakka's rules failed horribly.

(As for your view on quotes, I absolutely understand walls of quotes can absolutely be annoying especially if someone uses larger font sizes to simulate yelling, but not everyone checks threads as much as you or I do, and may only do so once or twice a day for a limited period of time and may come back to see several new pages per day. A better option imo is to have the quotes start in a collapsed form (i.e., like with an ignored user's post when you have to click a button to show it) and see how that works instead of jumping to the "extreme" decision of axing the quote feature altogether.)

Prestor Jon wrote:
I was attempting to point out that I believe the posting standard you’re setting is excessively specific. Discussing policies is very much a matter of perception and personal experience/personal benefit that may not be rooted in extensive knowledge of the facts of the policies or logic that meets the standard of others.
For example somebody could post that they think the president is doing a good job because personally things are going well for him/her. That post would be rebutted by someone who questions how the poster can have a positive view of a president who has said/some horrible things and points out that presidents don’t have much direct impact on our lives. The first poster might reply Well guess those negative things don’t really affect me so I’m not bothered by them and on the whole I think the president has been more good than bad. Which would be rebutted again with a reply like How can you hand wave away all of this racist/bigoted actions/statements/policies? What exactly has the president done that is so good that you’re okay with supporting such horrible things? Just your feelings and anecdotes? I guess my facts can’t compete against your feelings huh? This is such a garbage post and bad faith argument you should be banned.

If we want to discuss economic policy and our domestic economic response to the pandemic can we post opinions and ideas by themselves or do we need to include supporting evidence like quotes from Federal Reserve Chairs and links to Bureau of Labor Statistics reports? How much research and prep work should be done before conversing on the internet?

It seems like no matter what optimistic, possibly idealistic, comment is made there is always a rebuttal at the ready to make sure parameters, restrictions and punishments are in place to ensure that posts adhere to a specific template without deviation. It seems like RiTides desires and expectations are the antithesis of those who are most vociferously making suggestions for it.


1. Your example seems like it would fall under the "do not attack other users, but their ideas" clause, no? A proper response would be pointing out how it has negatively affected others, and if the response is "well, I don't care" then it kinda gets hard to maintain a good discussion if one side is only worried about how they personally are doing.

2. You don't need to be an expert or have a PhD to have a discussion on policy, but you should have some familiarity with the policy you're talking about. It would also probably be handy to have links to various reports and other sources to back up your position. (Was that supposed to be like, a crazy and outlandish suggestion or something? That's a pretty common feature in good-faith discussions, sourcing yourself and stuff.) However, if you choose to not familiarize yourself beforehand anyways, you should be prepared to do some research if someone brings up a counterpoint or admit you don't know much about it and explain why you're taking the position you are. That leaves plenty of room for a discussion to happen and insight/knowledge to be gained.

3. I'm all for what he wants, but I, and several others, believe he isn't going to get it if he just attempts to copy Dakka's ruleset and hands-off approach. The idealistic model of users primarily policing themselves (and just themselves) has already been tried and it failed. Badly. It did not create a community that had engaging political discussions with each other in any sense.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 greatbigtree wrote:


From what I've gathered from your posts, I think you're looking to win the argument. Not learn and grow, but to defeat the other. In this regard, I think we have a differing value structure, and that we're unlikely to find agreement in how to best help shape the future ETC. That's what I mean by building up community, rather than burning it down. I understand that for some, Political discussion is verbal combat, and that's ok too. However, I think that what I'm trying to present is more community building. Positive, sharing, caring relationships between posters instead of different sides in a conflict. It can be both. I expect it will be.


If I post 134 links that I haven't even read as an "argument", what learning and growing are you going to be doing with that post? What kind of "community building" comes from someone not even reading the things they refer to and claiming they say the opposite of what they do (and I'm not talking something that I interpret as saying the opposite, I'm literally talking "this one source is openly mocking the behaviour of the guy linking it that's claiming that it backs him up")?


Walrus isn't exaggerating. The person said (and I quote exactly as they typed it) "Under every recount scenario, X would've won Y... ESPECIALLY under a state-wide recount." after posting a source which said, "X would not have won if a full recount was done," more or less.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/15 02:14:42


DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+


bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

That's not even the incident I was thinking of, which just makes my point stronger.

To be clear, we're not arguing for an instant ban as soon as someone argues in bad faith (at least I'm not). By all means, give people the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, you have to be more willing to drop the hammer and make people face consequences for repeated bad-faith posting. It doesn't even have to be permabans at first, obviously. Just something more than a slap on the wrist and a "you naughty boy!" from the moderators. I'm still completely flabbergasted at the fact that I've only gotten a single official warning during my time at Dakka considering how many times that I, in hindsight, was being an ass (and the one warning was totally deserved).

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
That's not even the incident I was thinking of, which just makes my point stronger.

To be clear, we're not arguing for an instant ban as soon as someone argues in bad faith (at least I'm not). By all means, give people the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, you have to be more willing to drop the hammer and make people face consequences for repeated bad-faith posting. It doesn't even have to be permabans at first, obviously. Just something more than a slap on the wrist and a "you naughty boy!" from the moderators. I'm still completely flabbergasted at the fact that I've only gotten a single official warning during my time at Dakka considering how many times that I, in hindsight, was being an ass (and the one warning was totally deserved).

Oh, I know it isn't, it was just the most recent example of what you're talking about, and I'm not arguing for an instant ban either for record, it's why I suggested warnings and temp bans/mutes.

DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+


bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Walrus, the reason you have only netted a single warning is probably because Dakka moderators take a very light-touch approach. And that in turn contributes to my (and probably also RiTides’s) resistance to a rules-heavy approach to a prospective politics discussion forum.

This is not just a matter of theory. The light-touch approach is the product of collective decades of experience of work as moderators. First of all, we have found that suspending and banning accounts is of very limited value, speaking practically, except in the most extreme cases. Second, punishing people is not fun. Like, at all. Having to punish posters is by far and away the leading cause of mod burn-out.

Moderation on Dakka is built around two fundamental principles: (1) the concentration of enforcement power in moderator hands and (2) negative sanctions. This schema works okay for moderating hobby discussion, but much less for moderating discussion of subjects like religion and politics. This was a contributing factor to the decision to ban those topics, whenever they don’t explicitly relate to hobby discussion, on this site.

So from practical experience, I would say that a board dedicated to political discussion must rely less on rules and moderator enforcement and more on principles of positive reinforcement and self-organization.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 03:13:12


   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






Then the board will fail. We saw it here at dakka with a full team of moderators, and the new board will have even fewer resources.

Moderating a political discussion is not easy, and trying to take a figurative shortcut will not work.

DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+


bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Or, alternatively, we already have such a forum: the Wasteland.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Wolfblade, I don’t think you quite followed my post. The moderation structure of Dakka is not appropriate for fostering healthy political discussion. Keeping that same structure and simply doubling down is not the solution. The solution is a different kind of structure.

Walrus, Wasteland is simply no moderation. Again, what we need is a structure that encourages posters to be thoughtful and restrained. And a structure where the community itself has some control over the tenor and pace of discussion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 03:43:53


   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






I was referring more to "I would say that a board dedicated to political discussion must rely less on rules and moderator enforcement and more on principles of positive reinforcement and self-organization." And I think the main difference between dakka's politics thread and the wasteland is that people can openly insult each other to be honest.

Because, again, that's just Dakka. Mod action outside of locking threads and finger wagging was non-existent in the politics thread. There were no seriously enforced rules besides "civility" (sometimes) and very little, if any, positive reinforcement. There was self organization though, a lot of us got fed up with the trolls and bad faith posters... But it didn't help in any way. It just became an "Us vs Them" thing because the mods wouldn't do anything about the problem posters.

So yeah. The Wasteland is just dakka without some of us pretending to be civil anymore.

DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+


bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@Wolfblade:

I’m not sure if you’ve done this on purpose, but you’ve enacted every version of “bad faith” and logical fallacy that I know of, within this thread.

You attempt to straw man my arguments by waving them away as “high school stuff. Time to be grownups!” Which also draws upon an appeal to authority. (That you are wise enough to judge my statements to be naive.)

You misrepresent my motivations. You argue that I have expressed a belief that the “Dakka” style of moderation would work on this new site, while I have repeatedly argued that political discussion does not belong on Dakka. I have doubts as to RiTides methods. He’s much more hands off and patient than I am. We have different value structures... but I think his way will ultimately be successful. I feel that Dakka doesn’t suit political discussion because the culture is competitive. We wargame. That’s what brings us here. There was no push for greater understanding in those threads. It was a fight, each time. The fight would have occurred with, or without bad faith. It will occur anywhere that there is a drive to defeat your enemy, instead of trying to learn.

My motivation, is to hopefully be able to foster an experience for others, that I am fortunate to have experienced. I have had similarly interesting exchanges with very left wing people as well. With people of many walks of life. I find it has helped lead to me leading a fulfilling life. I think education and learning are the tools for people to advance their lives in the way of their choosing. Someone may come to ETC looking to scrap. But maybe they take a few hits on the chin, and want to learn how to avoid getting duped into an argument they can’t win. So we (might?) have a combat zone, and an education zone. A place where people can learn how to debate, argue, and reason. And in doing so, much like mastering a martial art, the student learns that conflict isn’t necessarily the best means to reach the best end. That it is ok to make a mistake and learn from it, instead of slugging it out in a trench.

Another misrepresentation, is that I don’t want respect between posters. I do expect respect between posters. Respect, in my view, is to have the discussion attempt to form the best synthesis of ideas presented. Not that one party is defeated by the other, but to have both parties walk away with a better idea or plan than they walked in with.

You continue to flaunt the same argument... the Boogeyman of the poster that posts in deliberate bad faith. This does not need to be overcome, in a discussion / sharing model. If one party presents “evidence” that is unworthy, or invalid, then that person’s opinion can be disregarded. They’re free to post, and free to be judged unworthy of discussion. They may learn, change, and grow into becoming worthy, or they may not. They may learn from their experience, or they may not.

Such a boogeyman, is a *person*. The *person* doesn’t matter.

Repeating the same, debunked boogeyman threat has become a bad faith argument in its own right. Your indirect personal attacks regarding my motivations have been shown to be incorrect, due to the active logical fallacy of presumption of correctness. Your attempts to straw man my positions have been shown to have failed. Your misdirection in implying that I *desire* to have racists and bigots given an “equal credibility” is shown false in my reminiscing about my friend with distasteful views. I am actively in favour of inclusivity. I want anyone to be able to have the chance to change their ways. You have shown your inability to accurately asses the information presented to you, in an attempt to win an argument that can’t be *won* in the sense you imagine. Because we have different value structures, I have come to the understanding that I can manipulate you into playing the role of an antithetical argument, while I play Plato. We have performed for RiTides, the only person in this discussion who’s opinion really matters.


As my experience with RiTide is that he’s hella-patient, and genuinely impartial and open to ideas. So to most effectively try to shape the future of his website, I would need to convince him by engaging in a logical argument, in the face of the very nature of argument that *shouldn’t* be the style cultivated.


And in doing this... I get to win. I’ve got my cake and I get to eat it too. Had it both ways. No regrets.

Nah, I’m just messing around. Or am I? Is this a ring within a ring, within a ring? Was I engaging in good faith before? Am I now? Am I using the tools of my enemies against them? Can I use them against my enemies, if we are here as fellow students and not enemies at all?

Mic’s over there, if you want to take a crack at winning.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

It’s a bit funny to me when people who insist on facts in theory don’t do so in practice, but I guess that is human nature.

Moderation on Dakka is confidential. Just because you don’t know what happened doesn’t mean nothing happened. And there’s also the issue of discretion, meaning that just because something was done differently to how you think it should be done (when you actually know what happened) doesn’t mean what was done was done incorrectly.

This is the kind of exchange that, from my perspective, only reinforces that this draconian insistence that there be all kinds of rules and constant bans is not to be taken seriously. What you get with that is a blog rather than a discussion forum. But like I said, that is a decade of moderation experience talking. And that’s why I advocate for a different kind of structure, based on transparent community actions rather than behind-the-scenes policing.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/15 06:39:57


   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






 greatbigtree wrote:
You attempt to straw man my arguments by waving them away as “high school stuff. Time to be grownups!” Which also draws upon an appeal to authority. (That you are wise enough to judge my statements to be naive.)

Uhhhh... No. I did not handwave it away as "high school stuff" but I seriously doubt you actually read anything I wrote judging by your admission of bad faith. You did however provide a perfect example of why bad faith posting should be curtailed. Here I thought I just wasn't being clear enough, but you were just being purposefully dense.

So congrats, you successfully trolled me because I expected better from you, but you also proved my point by making yourself a perfect example, which is more valuable than almost any other evidence that myself or others could provide.

 Manchu wrote:
It’s a bit funny to me when people who insist on facts in theory don’t do so in practice, but I guess that is human nature.

Moderation on Dakka is confidential. Just because you don’t know what happened doesn’t mean nothing happened. And there’s also the issue of discretion, meaning that just because something was done differently to how you think it should be done (when you actually know what happened) doesn’t mean what was done was done incorrectly.

This is the kind of exchange that, from my perspective, only reinforces that this draconian insistence that there be all kinds of rules and constant bans is not to be taken seriously. What you get with that is a blog rather than a discussion forum. But like I said, that is a decade of moderation experience talking. And that’s why I advocate for a different kind of structure, based on transparent community actions rather than behind-the-scenes policing.


Community actions (and correct me if I'm wrong) sounds like it amounts to "ignore/block users" which didn't work here, and it certainly did not work in the wasteland. I and others are in favor of some sort of actual structure because regardless of the mysterious and arcane workings that went on behind the scenes (whatever they were) failed. Hell, one of the mods got called out over posting something that got the thread locked earlier and then the same mod locked the thread that they created an issue in. And obviously, there was a thread in NnB about it, and taking a quick glance there made me chuckle a bit. I honestly forgot about the "mods are dictators, feth the community's wants, deal with it" rant at the very start.

Anyways, the users who consistently dragged the threads down and generated mod alerts were still around until the very end. Threads were created here in NnB pointing out the issue, as were posts within the threads themselves, and posters overall were asking for more structure/a crackdown which didn't happen. There was even a rule that was supposed to help in that respect (rule 3 of the last two politics threads for the record) and we could argue what "devoid of 'discussionable' content" really means (i.e. if the exact same subject has been discussed 5 times in the same thread, or if a user tries a gish-gallop of links without reading them or if it only applies to actual spam such as image-only posts or whatever) but whatever it meant and applied to doesn't matter as it did not solve the problem.

Ironically, you're making a strawman too. I'm not advocating for an immediate ban, let alone a permanent ban immediately, or a draconian ruleset, but a series of increasing punishments (barring something serious which may warrant skipping steps). I'm advocating for a ruleset that defines what bad faith is, and what good faith is, and the punishment that will be used to curtail the former and encourage the latter. I also really think you should go back and actually skim some of those threads (and the NnB thread I mentioned) before dismissing the idea of stricter guidelines not being the solution to the shitfest that happened in the politics thread here.

And if you are accusing me of "not using facts" it's only because I'm probably not allowed to post them between it probably not being "civil" and/or the politics ban. Or if you're talking about my stance on dakka's moderation actions and the perceived total lack of it in the politics thread, well, I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong in that regard but I don't think that's realistic for obvious reasons. For now, all I can go on is what I saw happen during the 5 months of the last two threads which was a mix between nothing and spitefully locking a thread after they created an issue in it.

DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+


bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

What you’re describing (a system of incremental sanctions) is what we already use on this site.

As for a clear definition of a rule against “bad faith arguments” — this is a mythical concept, at least as you seem to be using it. Bad faith argument, most concisely defined, is a kind of deception; in other words, it is a matter of a subjective mental state. Accusing someone of arguing in bad faith is always going to be a subjective judgment. It is not just an evaluation of the argument, it is a matter of joining the argument. As soon as a moderator accuses someone of bad faith, (s)he effectively stops being an impartial third party and instead takes a side in the argument itself. The rule you want boils down to a rule against making certain arguments, rather than kinds of arguments. In other words, the risk of bad faith is a necessary factor of freely discussing political subjects; it cannot be eliminated by any rules system.

In a free discussion, participants must work out for themselves what is a strong or weak argument, what content is worth engaging, and which users should be ignored. The politics ban here is largely the result of posters generally doing a bad job with this, not just the bad behavior of a few problem posters who, from a necessarily uninformed perspective, appeared to go unpunished. Our system, built on a small number of users policing a much larger number of users armed only with negative sanctions, simply does not fit with the nature of the problem. As I said, simply “modding harder” under these conditions won’t work.

What I mean by community action is more than just being personally responsible in what you decide to ignore or engage, and thus reward. (As I laid out in my post above; I won’t repeat the whole thing here.) But that kind of responsibility is inescapably the basic requirement for free discussion about controversial subjects. This is a classic “beam and mote” question, if there ever was one.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/12/15 09:45:20


   
Made in de
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Nuremberg

I think a lot about systems these days, in my work.

But I think that this is really something you cannot deal with on a systematic level.

No system can really handle the shifting ideas and perspectives on a political or religious discussion, not if you want it to actually be free and open.

Dealing with bad faith and free speech is kind of the defining problem of our era, and I don't think we have much in our toolbox except relying on the people engaging with arguments and discussions to use their best judgement.

It is unsatisfactory, I know. We want some sort of justice to be done, we want some sort of consequence for poor behaviour. But ultimately we can mediate that ourselves, and that is all we can do. Use ignore, don't engage, try to model what you want to see.

Yup, super unsatisfactory and not very cathartic, but probably the only way to really have political discussion that is totally open and does not descend into an echo chamber.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 10:02:16


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Da Boss, you’re spot-on and the issue is of course compounded by what tends to motivate these arguments which has been summed up by others ITT as scoring points. I like and agree with your implicit diagnosis as well, of people looking for some kind of catharsis. That is a goal much better suited to therapy than free discussion.

   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Da Boss wrote:
I think a lot about systems these days, in my work.

But I think that this is really something you cannot deal with on a systematic level.

No system can really handle the shifting ideas and perspectives on a political or religious discussion, not if you want it to actually be free and open.

Disagree, it is the system that influences the culture of debate to be had, and the later part is also verifyably visible.

Dealing with bad faith and free speech is kind of the defining problem of our era, and I don't think we have much in our toolbox except relying on the people engaging with arguments and discussions to use their best judgement.

It is unsatisfactory, I know. We want some sort of justice to be done, we want some sort of consequence for poor behaviour. But ultimately we can mediate that ourselves, and that is all we can do. Use ignore, don't engage, try to model what you want to see.

there we have the issue, modern political discussions based in "representativ systems" automatically force people to proclaim colour even if they don't cary the associated agenda, polarisation then worsens this and you get what we have in the USA. And ignoring /non engaging is not the solution period.

Yup, super unsatisfactory and not very cathartic, but probably the only way to really have political discussion that is totally open and does not descend into an echo chamber.

Debates about the standpoint on free speech are allways difficult, but the concept of justice has nothing lost within it by association.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Calculating Commissar




Frostgrave

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly, I wouldn't bother spreading yourself out. It's just making work for yourself that comes to nothing.

A lot of what you'll need in terms of categories will come down to participation and frequency. Less is more. Start with a general board, let it run for a bit, and then start branching off into sub-boards as the traffic comes in and gives you an idea what you need. You won't need an Education section if there's only ever an education topic once in a blue moon.


This seems to be the sensible approach - just create a Politics section here with a "no being a gak" rule, appoint a few more mods and ban anyone from the group that can't behave. Put a huge disclaimer on it that it's a gakshow and be done.

You certainly don't need a separate forum for it, paid or otherwise, and the more subcategories you add the more fragmented it'll become (even though it's all inter-linked anyway so policing the subcategories will be hell).

If any of it becomes too big, split it off.


As a long-time user who doesn't get much gaming time at the moment, it was really only the political commentary (which seemed pretty reasonable on the whole) that kept me visiting, but if I need to go to another site or not trivial to access I won't bother.

One other forum I'm on has a politics subforum, which you can only access having been a member for 1+ month with 100+ posts, which at least keeps the trolls and sockpuppets to a minimal. You can even hide it from anyone not logged in so search bots can't direct traffic to it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jadenim wrote:

I do miss the politics threads, because I find it interesting to talk about this stuff and, particularly over the past few years, cathartic given...everything...that has been going on in my areas of the world (I live in the UK and have family in the US). It also helps break the echo chamber, as here is a group of people from all walks of life, from all over the world, who have been brought together by a common interest (war gaming), regardless of political leaning. There were a lot of times when we had useful, polite discussion and I, and I think most people, went in with the attitude of “at the end of the day we’re all nerds who can go to other areas of the site and geek out of toy soldiers”.


Exactly this. The forum here gave a much higher quality of debate than any other I'd seen, and from a UK point of view seemed very open and fair. I understand the US stuff was a bit wilder though.

It should be fairly obvious who is/isn't acting in good faith.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 11:14:54


 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

Edited to be more constructive:


To try to salvage what is rapidly becoming a self-demonstrating thread, how do we empower the community itself to deal with people who post objective bollocks repeatedly (again, not something people disagree on, literally "my source says the opposite of what I claim"-levels of bollocks)? If the mods can't/won't do it, what do we want the community to do other than pretending there's not a massive [expletive] among them?

On the resistance to mods being subjective, you already are. "No genocide promotion" is a subjective stance. "No personal attacks" is a subjective stance. Why don't you just ignore someone sending death threats and let the community decide whether they're merited or not?

You're correct that the Wasteland is "no mods", more or less. The difference between that and what you envision is inevitably going to include subjectivity on the mods' part. That doesn't have to be bad enough to negate the upsides.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 12:39:32


For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos






 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Edited to be more constructive:


To try to salvage what is rapidly becoming a self-demonstrating thread, how do we empower the community itself to deal with people who post objective bollocks repeatedly (again, not something people disagree on, literally "my source says the opposite of what I claim"-levels of bollocks)? If the mods can't/won't do it, what do we want the community to do other than pretending there's not a massive [expletive] among them?

On the resistance to mods being subjective, you already are. "No genocide promotion" is a subjective stance. "No personal attacks" is a subjective stance. Why don't you just ignore someone sending death threats and let the community decide whether they're merited or not?

You're correct that the Wasteland is "no mods", more or less. The difference between that and what you envision is inevitably going to include subjectivity on the mods' part. That doesn't have to be bad enough to negate the upsides.




This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/15 12:52:36


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

I changed my post to be more constructive, can I ask that you please edit the quote accordingly?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Walrus, you are right, when we mods enforce Rule Number One here on Dakka Dakka, we are taking a side — but not a side in the substance of the underlying argument. Telling someone not to call another person a troll, for example, is not validating or denying the accusation in question. Telling someone that they are making a bad faith argument (or an appeal to authority, or a false dilemma, etc, etc) is just engaging in a counterargument against them. It’s not moderating; it’s joining in the very debate in question and, when you do that while at the same time explicitly threatening to suspend someone’s account, it becomes abusive because of the power differential.

On some extreme topics, such as explicitly advocating genocide, it is justifiable to evoke that power differential. But not so when it comes to the usual political disagreement. In the last few years, there has been a tendency in rhetoric to try to equate anything one doesn’t like with the worst things imaginable, in order to justify abusive practices against people with whom one disagrees. Resisting that trend doesn’t mean that we will abandon clear opposition to the actual worst things, such as genocide.

   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I changed my post to be more constructive, can I ask that you please edit the quote accordingly?


Since you asked friendly no worries.
But you raise a good point here.

One poster insisted and turned his argument into bad faith territory, the reaction wasn't lucky.

How to salvage or avoid that...

Now that is an issue.

Normally i am a big proponent of subsidiarity and only intervention upon need. Call me culturally damaged if you want.

I think a slow mode COULD allready alleviate a lot of issues.
Further, i think you'd have to put up with it. ( the bollocks part that is). It is fair play to point out that this isn't accurate but just as much as language populism can win a matter of fact calculated response calmly uttered has a simplistic beauty to it.
I believe it is perfectly fine when at this point when posters call the "arguments" out or quote former answers reminder the arguments not the poster. The beauty of the forum after all is that Ctrl C and V is available as a tool.

This MAY also require an more active moderation to point torwards the issue.AKA the worst bad faithers (and they are exceptions and most often trolls) could be curbed by simply having a mod act upon a clearly stipulated predetermined path for a counter argument. F.e. someone is blatantly anti vax and posts nonsense and the answer could be xyz from valid sources like Healthorganisations of nations etc.

However, exclusion is not something that i am personally comfortable with, out of the simple fact that by the off chance you get someone out of his bubble and make him understand that the world is not black and white but a gakton of other colours aswell then you have done democracy at it's core tenant a bigger service.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/12/15 13:04:46


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

"Stop telling people that your links say literally the opposite of what they actually explicitly say" isn't taking a stance on the person's argument either.

Do we let the community somehow vote to censure individual posts? It'd still be subjective, but the censure or lack thereof would have the legitimacy of having been handed down by the community itself rather than the dictatorial edict of a mod. There's obviously plenty of problems with such a system that would need to be hashed out, but as a starting point?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Not Online, subsidiarity is exactly what I am advocating both for this site and RiTides’s prospective forum.

The difference is, this site’s structure has been built around the concentration of power in the hands of a few, which is fine for moderating discussion about toy soldiers — but not discussion about politics. So I am arguing that a site about the latter should be structured around diffusing power to moderate among the actual participants, albeit without emphasizing exclusion.

Walrus, I laid out one potential approach in detail already ITT. I think further suggestion along those lines would be helpful. But voting to ban people is definitely not an approach I could support.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/12/15 13:11:20


   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: