- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
- Messages
- 15,437
- Reaction score
- 50,213
I aim for constructive adult, but in a dim light and at a distance. That's about the best I can manage.I've never been one so far and sure as hell am not about to start now!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I aim for constructive adult, but in a dim light and at a distance. That's about the best I can manage.I've never been one so far and sure as hell am not about to start now!
Reduce it to an hour, and you have yourself a rollicking good time!Maybe instead of a garbage dump forum we need a trash compactor that deletes anything more than 24 hours old. That way it's impossible to follow the debate from the beginning.
I aim for non-destructive adult. Yeah, I'm an adult- but not like a 'real' adult...I aim for constructive adult, but in a dim light and at a distance. That's about the best I can manage.
If we are going in that direction, I suggest that rather than wait 24 hours, it just deletes everything in that forum before it is posted.Maybe instead of a garbage dump forum we need a trash compactor that deletes anything more than 24 hours old. That way it's impossible to follow the debate from the beginning.
True, but there have been instances of bad faith engagement that were obvious. There is a noticeable difference between strongly arguing/defending a position and flat-out mocking and disruption.
I sense that you'll find them in the last place you look.Do we know any good psychics? I'm looking for my car keys.
Tristram, I know I've mentioned it before but how do you see growth affecting the policy going forward?
It seems forums are prone to hitting a certain critical mass where there's enough posters to form a clique that tries to push things around as they see fit. I always see the first mod war and the Tangency cool kids club that formed around Theron, Redredderreddest and Winna (resulting in the infamous "ban me motherfuckers" post) as the point of divergence where we'd need to send time travellers back to save the whales. Of course, there was another clique, the moderators and their supporters, who won that war but I think neither group was actually good for the forum.
Therpgsite gives us a counter example where a single individual has set the tone and direction of the forums, drawing like minded individuals like a light house.
The "because I say so," rule has its draw backs as does the big list of rigid rules.
This is a good example, and I think something I think the moderation has failed on. I don't understand how safety tools could be considered political. They are a neutral tool that can help RPGs be more inclusive.I think the Safety Tools thread was decent also though it's quite a contentious issue and hard to separate from politics. Because of that, the subject may just not be a good one for the Pub unless you want to add a sub-forum specifically for subjects that are hard to talk about without bringing SOME politics in.
Given that the guy people I've known have ranged from police officers that you would never realise they were gay, through to living cliches of camp, and a gay woman who claimed she could steal any man's girlfriend. So there's no way that's not a political question designed to appeal to RPG.Net mods.As an example: if I wanted to post a thread "asking for advice on portraying gay NPCs in a realistic and thoughtful manner," I'm pretty sure that thread would get booted for being "political,"
That's where I disagree.In other words, it is inherently political.
That's where I disagree.
I know that gay people exist. I am not gay, I have very little experience with being gay. As a GM, I could definitely use resources if I want to add realistic gay people to my roster of NPCs and improve my game. That's not politics to me.
I think you proved my point though. And I'll leave it at that.
Yeah, that'd be my view. A "how to I play a gay NPC?" isn't going to work because it's clumsy if well meaning. And the only possible answer is "exactly the same as you'd play anyone else, they just happen to be attracted to their own gender"."Gay people" are just people. Asking for advice on playing them is asking for stereotypes, because it assumes there's some way to specifically roleplay a gay person that isn't just treating them like an individual, the same as roleplaying anyone else. So yes, I'd consider that political, just as I would any form of bigotry.
On the other hand, if you wanted to have a thread about depicting "Modern North American Gay culture" in games, that wouldn't be an issue, anymore than a thread on "Medieval Lithuanian Culture" or "Pre-Contact Meso-American Culture".
IMHO, many posts can be read multiple ways. The problem I've seen over the years is that too many people -- and not just mods -- pick the worst possible way to interpret the post. I've found discussions are better if everyone involved reads such posts with the assumption that the poster did not mean in that way. In other words, if members read posts in the least problematic way, discussions generally work better.The issue is really identifying this as a mod, and not coming across as constantly reading the worste possible interpretation into posts.
Garbage dump is a not quite the right analogy - a better metaphor is a toxic waste dump that contaminates all the drinking water. The toxicity doesn't stay put - it follows people across decades and forums and then pollutes the atmosphere wherever it lands. In the past few months it's had a noticeable effect on the atmosphere here; the Pub is a perceptibly less fun place than it was 6 months ago.I assume if we have a garbage dump thread we wouldn't bother moderating it at all.
You could have a second rule - 'Leave your baggage at the door,' or 'What started on The Forge stays on The Forge.' This should be amenable to moderating on a 'we'll know it when we see it' basis.Well, this is the tricky thing. Outside of Mod+ threads, we generally step in when things get bad in a thread, but otherwise we only officially have the One Rule. Otherwise, we mostly have free speech here, which kinda means the good and the bad. I don't know if we suddenly moderate anytime an argument gets heated or words exchanged that will suddenly mean we now have "unspoken rules". And that also avoids the opportunity for posters to work things out on their own. We had a situation in a thread just this week, where I was watching it closely as it escalated, and then the posters de-escalated it themselves, and in the end there was no need for moderation. If I'd jumped right in and threadbanned one of the posters from the start, I'm not sure I'd count that as a better outcome. Sometimes the light moderation touch lets people just interact like people, and resolve issues between themselves. I think the more we moderate, the more we'll need to moderate, and the tone of The Pub will gradually shift to something much more oppressive and stuffy. But that does mean, the price for that is sometimes we're going to have people posting in bad faith, or jumping to ad hominem or strawmen.
It's a question kinda related to something we're kinda wrestling with backstage right now insofar as how far we'll let things go with a poster when they are having an affect on the board overall, or even outside perceptions of our forum, until we take the steps we are loathe too - bans or temp bans. There's no perfect answer that I know of. More moderation or less moderation both come with their own inherent consequences, and decisions we make now could affect the board cuture overall in the long-term.
I totally agree with this.As for my own experience: Generally, despite what I believe about "no politics." I think the site and mods enacted it in good faith, and try their best to keep the site as neutral and positive as possible. I think that is the spirit of the rule. I think most poster abide by the spirit of the rule, and that's what makes this a good place to chat about RPGS.
I think Krueger is aggressively and apparently conservative. I think they agressively do what they can to disrupt discussion that is not conservative, or disrupt discussion about products made by openly progressive authors. I've reported their behavior, and they are the only person I have blocked. My view is that "No Politics" as a rule is actually biased towards conservative politics, and Krueger takes advantage to get away gross negativity while abiding by the letter of the rule. I think Krueger regularly run afoul of the spirit of the rule.
Even though I have them blocked, the disruption remains, as I have to scroll through other posters contending with the same behavior.
Anyways, this is a pickle for moderation.
I mean, if you keep looking after you find them, that's just silly.I sense that you'll find them in the last place you look.
Is that the ratio of bad threads to good? 1:dozens?Two, I think things here mostly work. I look at the few issues we have from time to time and compare that to what's going on on other forums, and we are still, 1500 subscribers later, a pretty great community. I think people acclimate to the laid-back, not taking itself too seriously mood of The Pub well overall. For every thread that goes bad, we have dozens that are great and thoughtful and fun.
I've seen these sentiments stated before and they always strike me as odd. Has the 'Pub fallen from its glory days?I already look back on that first year as a sort of Golden Age for The Pub that we'll never quite capture again.
Oh, oh, let me try. I found my cars keys in the third last place I looked. Yup, silly.I mean, if you keep looking after you find them, that's just silly.
You’ll have to cut TristramEvans some slack. He’s just a very nostalgic person. To unwind from school every weekend, he takes his Dallas roleplaying game off the shelf and plays out scenes from the golden age of dramatic television.IsI've seen these sentiments stated before and they always strike me as odd. Has the 'Pub fallen from its glory days?
I hear he puts on his old goth boots every Friday and reads Vampire sourcebooks while shedding a single tear.You’ll have to cut TristramEvans some slack. He’s just a very nostalgic person. To unwind from school every weekend, he takes his Dallas roleplaying game off the shelf and plays out scenes from the golden age of dramatic television.
I hear he puts on his old goth boots every Friday and reads Vampire sourcebooks while shedding a single tear.
Yeah, I really don't like the argument based on an undefinined "They" either, whether it's a political group or baggage from the forum wars. In general, I simply dont like lumping people together, I think it's dehumanizing and divisive and counterproductive to conversation.I totally agree with this.
I don't mind that CRK and I butt heads a lot; I don't mind that we disagree or have different tastes. It's a discussion forum; if we all agreed on things then what's the point.
What I do mind is discussions being turned into "well what about what this person said fifteen years ago" rather than the actual topic at hand. What I do mind is "it doesn't matter how things are actually used at the table, I'm going to take the most literal and clearly un-fun reading that I possibly can and that must be true". What I do mind is the hypocrisy of saying both "don't assume intentions into my posts" and "of course it's the Usual Suspects doing their usual things" which reads a bit like assuming intentions to me as well as trying to be coy about it to hide behind Plausible Deniability. What I do mind is attempts to shut down topics that he doesn't like by posting "I say this is Politics so nobody should be allowed to discuss it because now it's a political issue" or even just a fucking blatant "I don't want this discussion to happen so I want this thread to be about something else".
He's not the only user that makes threads actively unpleasant to post in. I actually don't even think he's the worst. But it's certainly something that he's good at doing.
Has the 'Pub fallen from its glory days?
You’ll have to cut TristramEvans some slack. He’s just a very nostalgic person. To unwind from school every weekend, he takes his Dallas roleplaying game off the shelf and plays out scenes from the golden age of dramatic television.
This just strengthens my belief that Moderators are masochists. First, you willingly volunteer to babysit adults and then you <shudder> enjoy the golden age of Dallas.You’ll have to cut TristramEvans some slack. He’s just a very nostalgic person. To unwind from school every weekend, he takes his Dallas roleplaying game off the shelf and plays out scenes from the golden age of dramatic television.
"of course it's the Usual Suspects doing their usual things"
Personally, I wouldn't consider that to be a political topic. I agree with the people that say there isn't a particular way to "act gay", but I'd be fine with the question being asked, giving people a chance to give a sensible answer to it. While it is possible to make political hay out of people's sexual preferences, there is nothing innately political about the subject, and it isn't something I want to see discussion of shut down. If someone asks a naïve question about it, I think we have enough knowledgeable, mature posters to answer the question in reasonable fashion.This is a good example, and I think something I think the moderation has failed on. I don't understand how safety tools could be considered political. They are a neutral tool that can help RPGs be more inclusive.
One of the big problems with a "no politics" rule, is it becomes a "we strictly enforce the status quo." Which is political. It`s pro-majority, and makes the discussion unwelcoming to the minority.
As an example: if I wanted to post a thread "asking for advice on portraying gay NPCs in a realistic and thoughtful manner," I'm pretty sure that thread would get booted for being "political,"
Actually, I think Krueger is an example of how the "No Politics" rule isn't innately conservative, as Krueger is the most frequent person to go over the line. If there was a conservative bias, he wouldn't need to cross it so much.As for my own experience: Generally, despite what I believe about "no politics." I think the site and mods enacted it in good faith, and try their best to keep the site as neutral and positive as possible. I think that is the spirit of the rule. I think most poster abide by the spirit of the rule, and that's what makes this a good place to chat about RPGS.
I think Krueger is aggressively and apparently conservative. I think they agressively do what they can to disrupt discussion that is not conservative, or disrupt discussion about products made by openly progressive authors. I've reported their behavior, and they are the only person I have blocked. My view is that "No Politics" as a rule is actually biased towards conservative politics, and Krueger takes advantage to get away gross negativity while abiding by the letter of the rule. I think Krueger regularly run afoul of the spirit of the rule.