I'll only say this once and then I'll get used to the new name, but I wish Change Machine was an option when we were voting. It's the spot you go when you enter the arcade to get your fun tokens, not a Coin Return. Also, out of that context, it sounds woke as hell.
Anyways, my question
-We respect the rights of artists, writers, and other creators in our community and the art they create. (1, 2, 3, 4)
Could somebody explain the underpinning of this particular value in practice? Is this part of an AI art discussion, sharing content posted here, or some other thing I'm missing, and why "in our community?"
I'll only say this once and then I'll get used to the new name, but I wish Change Machine was an option when we were voting. It's the spot you go when you enter the arcade to get your fun tokens, not a Coin Return. Also, out of that context, it sounds woke as hell.
Anyways, my question
-We respect the rights of artists, writers, and other creators in our community and the art they create. (1, 2, 3, 4)
Could somebody explain the underpinning of this particular value in practice? Is this part of an AI art discussion, sharing content posted here, or some other thing I'm missing, and why "in our community?"
Partially AI issues, partially codifying the "No begging for free art from artists on the forum, you can fucking pay people for their work" policy that's been around since time immemorial in my view.
+5
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
This looks like real solid ground to build on, good work folks!
0
QuetziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'll only say this once and then I'll get used to the new name, but I wish Change Machine was an option when we were voting. It's the spot you go when you enter the arcade to get your fun tokens, not a Coin Return. Also, out of that context, it sounds woke as hell.
I maintain that Change Machine should be the actual name of the transition team now that we've settled on Coin Return, personally.
+17
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
I'll only say this once and then I'll get used to the new name, but I wish Change Machine was an option when we were voting. It's the spot you go when you enter the arcade to get your fun tokens, not a Coin Return. Also, out of that context, it sounds woke as hell.
I maintain that Change Machine should be the actual name of the transition team now that we've settled on Coin Return, personally.
I am not a machine!
I am a man!!
+6
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
I'll only say this once and then I'll get used to the new name, but I wish Change Machine was an option when we were voting. It's the spot you go when you enter the arcade to get your fun tokens, not a Coin Return. Also, out of that context, it sounds woke as hell.
I maintain that Change Machine should be the actual name of the transition team now that we've settled on Coin Return, personally.
I'll only say this once and then I'll get used to the new name, but I wish Change Machine was an option when we were voting. It's the spot you go when you enter the arcade to get your fun tokens, not a Coin Return. Also, out of that context, it sounds woke as hell.
I maintain that Change Machine should be the actual name of the transition team now that we've settled on Coin Return, personally.
I may have more thoughts later, but this is one that immediately jumped out at me. People will say "he's thinking of a specific user", and that's true. But it's not a user here, actually. It's a guy from a forum I frequented over a decade ago, that doesn't exist anymore.
We provide a venue for discussions at all levels, from rigid, serious topics to light hearted off-topic fare. We hope to accommodate all communication styles allowing all of our users to be able to participate in topics freely at will, as they desire.
One concern I have is the vagueness of "all communication styles". It is often the case on internet forums that an otherwise well-intentioned user prefers a communication style that amounts to immediate hostility at the slightest prompting. They may not technically violate any rules, but they tend to have a chilling effect on discussion and result in a feedback loop of escalating toxicity. This causes threads in which such a user participates to gradually empty out until the only users participating are the ones willing to "wrestle the pig", so to speak.
The Code of Conduct does a little work addressing this indirectly, but I feel like it might be a good idea to clarify that no, being a ubiquitous asshole actually is a problem all its own, even if it's your "communication style". It's the Walter Sobchak effect -- their opinions may even be correct and in line with community values, but their unchecked aggression still has a net-negative impact on the forum's ability to sustain a larger community. "Am I wrong? Am I wrong?" is not a sufficient response from such a user. If people (including moderators!) clench up when they see a notification that you replied to a thread, then yes that is a problem even if you're technically within the letter of the law.
I don't have specific suggestions at this time, especially because I don't think I'm saying anything the CR team wouldn't agree with on a broad conceptual level. But I feel like the document as written maybe doesn't communicate that clearly enough, and (in my experience moderating other forums) it's really in the top 3 biggest moderation issues any forum faces.
I think that’s an important point, and it’s something I’m definitely open to clarifying a bit for the sake of ensuring we’re all on the same page, but before getting to that, I would say that it’s a good example of a situation where we would want to look back at the values (and even the other parts of our code of conduct) to see where there are intersections.
If we look at the idea of Connectedness, and then apply that to one person effectively shitting up every discussion they wade into at the expense of everyone else, does that feel like it runs counter to the spirit of the Value? If we look at Self-Expression, does this one user’s right to self-expression somehow excuse the fact that they’re curtailing the same right for others by driving them away consistently? Equity and Empathy could be weighed the same way. Is it equitable to the rest of the community to force them to contend with an angry screamer who flies off the handle in every discussion? Does it show empathy for the people who are being silenced by that kind of behavior being allowed?
Having those broad values as the foundation of everything else helps our moderation staff to be able to step back, look at the bigger picture, and hopefully make a better call for how an edge case aligns to our values, rather than throwing their hands up and saying “sorry, it’s not technically against the rules.” And those edge cases are exactly what the rules should flesh out in more depth, because those situations will be backed up by the spirit of our values.
I want to come back around to this point and urge a bit of wariness.
I think this can easily come around to posters getting accused of "main character syndrome" which is not something we should be moderating.
If posters are willing to, in good faith, tirelessly defend a position (which otherwise aligns with our values) without being hostile/insulting, just annoying or uncomfortable, then i think that should be ok behavior by default.
If BanCarsKarl is in every thread about urban planning and tax incentives and climate change and local politics talking about how we need to drastically shift our society to get rid of our reliance on personal vehicles we might get pretty tired of hearing from him, he might become that magnet for reports, he might bring that anxiety whenever he posts.
But he's not arguing for something outside our values, and he's not trolling, worst case he seems more heated than others about the issue because he believes it's super important.
Like Karl should probably get in trouble if he goes and stinks up the New Car Appreciation Thread or start up somewhere whereas it's wildly off topic, but otherwise i think he should be fine.
I don't want the situation where he's told "look you're not wrong but we just don't want to hear about it any more", or for moderation to think that and then begin scrutinizing his posts to catch him out on minor rule breaking.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+7
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
i would say a role of moderators is distinguishing between the person who's just really passionate about their pet cause, but is engaging in good faith, and the person who just knows they can get a rise out of people by arguing a certain position repeatedly
it's not an easy task for sure
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+21
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
I may have more thoughts later, but this is one that immediately jumped out at me. People will say "he's thinking of a specific user", and that's true. But it's not a user here, actually. It's a guy from a forum I frequented over a decade ago, that doesn't exist anymore.
We provide a venue for discussions at all levels, from rigid, serious topics to light hearted off-topic fare. We hope to accommodate all communication styles allowing all of our users to be able to participate in topics freely at will, as they desire.
One concern I have is the vagueness of "all communication styles". It is often the case on internet forums that an otherwise well-intentioned user prefers a communication style that amounts to immediate hostility at the slightest prompting. They may not technically violate any rules, but they tend to have a chilling effect on discussion and result in a feedback loop of escalating toxicity. This causes threads in which such a user participates to gradually empty out until the only users participating are the ones willing to "wrestle the pig", so to speak.
The Code of Conduct does a little work addressing this indirectly, but I feel like it might be a good idea to clarify that no, being a ubiquitous asshole actually is a problem all its own, even if it's your "communication style". It's the Walter Sobchak effect -- their opinions may even be correct and in line with community values, but their unchecked aggression still has a net-negative impact on the forum's ability to sustain a larger community. "Am I wrong? Am I wrong?" is not a sufficient response from such a user. If people (including moderators!) clench up when they see a notification that you replied to a thread, then yes that is a problem even if you're technically within the letter of the law.
I don't have specific suggestions at this time, especially because I don't think I'm saying anything the CR team wouldn't agree with on a broad conceptual level. But I feel like the document as written maybe doesn't communicate that clearly enough, and (in my experience moderating other forums) it's really in the top 3 biggest moderation issues any forum faces.
I think that’s an important point, and it’s something I’m definitely open to clarifying a bit for the sake of ensuring we’re all on the same page, but before getting to that, I would say that it’s a good example of a situation where we would want to look back at the values (and even the other parts of our code of conduct) to see where there are intersections.
If we look at the idea of Connectedness, and then apply that to one person effectively shitting up every discussion they wade into at the expense of everyone else, does that feel like it runs counter to the spirit of the Value? If we look at Self-Expression, does this one user’s right to self-expression somehow excuse the fact that they’re curtailing the same right for others by driving them away consistently? Equity and Empathy could be weighed the same way. Is it equitable to the rest of the community to force them to contend with an angry screamer who flies off the handle in every discussion? Does it show empathy for the people who are being silenced by that kind of behavior being allowed?
Having those broad values as the foundation of everything else helps our moderation staff to be able to step back, look at the bigger picture, and hopefully make a better call for how an edge case aligns to our values, rather than throwing their hands up and saying “sorry, it’s not technically against the rules.” And those edge cases are exactly what the rules should flesh out in more depth, because those situations will be backed up by the spirit of our values.
I want to come back around to this point and urge a bit of wariness.
I think this can easily come around to posters getting accused of "main character syndrome" which is not something we should be moderating.
If posters are willing to, in good faith, tirelessly defend a position (which otherwise aligns with our values) without being hostile/insulting, just annoying or uncomfortable, then i think that should be ok behavior by default.
If BanCarsKarl is in every thread about urban planning and tax incentives and climate change and local politics talking about how we need to drastically shift our society to get rid of our reliance on personal vehicles we might get pretty tired of hearing from him, he might become that magnet for reports, he might bring that anxiety whenever he posts.
But he's not arguing for something outside our values, and he's not trolling, worst case he seems more heated than others about the issue because he believes it's super important.
Like Karl should probably get in trouble if he goes and stinks up the New Car Appreciation Thread or start up somewhere whereas it's wildly off topic, but otherwise i think he should be fine.
I don't want the situation where he's told "look you're not wrong but we just don't want to hear about it any more", or for moderation to think that and then begin scrutinizing his posts to catch him out on minor rule breaking.
I can appreciate the difference. And fwiw, I have a couple of specific posters in my head who will defend an unpopular position that isn’t wrong, to the annoyance of several others. These posters are not wrong, and shouldn’t be punished because they’re always engaging in good faith, and treating others decently, even if they’re vehemently, and unwaveringly arguing a point that goes against the popular consensus, despite its merit. That’s a far cry from the example of a poster who is potentially not in the wrong, but who is just being an abrasive dick to everyone. I think it definitely hits a little bit of a grey area, but there’s definite contrast there and I think a big part of it will be expecting the moderation staff to be able to discern the difference, and also working with them to be prepared for situations like that (and, of course, building the community trust to the point that the rest of us will have faith in the staff to make those calls accurately).
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
I may have more thoughts later, but this is one that immediately jumped out at me. People will say "he's thinking of a specific user", and that's true. But it's not a user here, actually. It's a guy from a forum I frequented over a decade ago, that doesn't exist anymore.
We provide a venue for discussions at all levels, from rigid, serious topics to light hearted off-topic fare. We hope to accommodate all communication styles allowing all of our users to be able to participate in topics freely at will, as they desire.
One concern I have is the vagueness of "all communication styles". It is often the case on internet forums that an otherwise well-intentioned user prefers a communication style that amounts to immediate hostility at the slightest prompting. They may not technically violate any rules, but they tend to have a chilling effect on discussion and result in a feedback loop of escalating toxicity. This causes threads in which such a user participates to gradually empty out until the only users participating are the ones willing to "wrestle the pig", so to speak.
The Code of Conduct does a little work addressing this indirectly, but I feel like it might be a good idea to clarify that no, being a ubiquitous asshole actually is a problem all its own, even if it's your "communication style". It's the Walter Sobchak effect -- their opinions may even be correct and in line with community values, but their unchecked aggression still has a net-negative impact on the forum's ability to sustain a larger community. "Am I wrong? Am I wrong?" is not a sufficient response from such a user. If people (including moderators!) clench up when they see a notification that you replied to a thread, then yes that is a problem even if you're technically within the letter of the law.
I don't have specific suggestions at this time, especially because I don't think I'm saying anything the CR team wouldn't agree with on a broad conceptual level. But I feel like the document as written maybe doesn't communicate that clearly enough, and (in my experience moderating other forums) it's really in the top 3 biggest moderation issues any forum faces.
I think that’s an important point, and it’s something I’m definitely open to clarifying a bit for the sake of ensuring we’re all on the same page, but before getting to that, I would say that it’s a good example of a situation where we would want to look back at the values (and even the other parts of our code of conduct) to see where there are intersections.
If we look at the idea of Connectedness, and then apply that to one person effectively shitting up every discussion they wade into at the expense of everyone else, does that feel like it runs counter to the spirit of the Value? If we look at Self-Expression, does this one user’s right to self-expression somehow excuse the fact that they’re curtailing the same right for others by driving them away consistently? Equity and Empathy could be weighed the same way. Is it equitable to the rest of the community to force them to contend with an angry screamer who flies off the handle in every discussion? Does it show empathy for the people who are being silenced by that kind of behavior being allowed?
Having those broad values as the foundation of everything else helps our moderation staff to be able to step back, look at the bigger picture, and hopefully make a better call for how an edge case aligns to our values, rather than throwing their hands up and saying “sorry, it’s not technically against the rules.” And those edge cases are exactly what the rules should flesh out in more depth, because those situations will be backed up by the spirit of our values.
I want to come back around to this point and urge a bit of wariness.
I think this can easily come around to posters getting accused of "main character syndrome" which is not something we should be moderating.
If posters are willing to, in good faith, tirelessly defend a position (which otherwise aligns with our values) without being hostile/insulting, just annoying or uncomfortable, then i think that should be ok behavior by default.
If BanCarsKarl is in every thread about urban planning and tax incentives and climate change and local politics talking about how we need to drastically shift our society to get rid of our reliance on personal vehicles we might get pretty tired of hearing from him, he might become that magnet for reports, he might bring that anxiety whenever he posts.
But he's not arguing for something outside our values, and he's not trolling, worst case he seems more heated than others about the issue because he believes it's super important.
Like Karl should probably get in trouble if he goes and stinks up the New Car Appreciation Thread or start up somewhere whereas it's wildly off topic, but otherwise i think he should be fine.
I don't want the situation where he's told "look you're not wrong but we just don't want to hear about it any more", or for moderation to think that and then begin scrutinizing his posts to catch him out on minor rule breaking.
I can appreciate the difference. And fwiw, I have a couple of specific posters in my head who will defend an unpopular position that isn’t wrong, to the annoyance of several others. These posters are not wrong, and shouldn’t be punished because they’re always engaging in good faith, and treating others decently, even if they’re vehemently, and unwaveringly arguing a point that goes against the popular consensus, despite its merit. That’s a far cry from the example of a poster who is potentially not in the wrong, but who is just being an abrasive dick to everyone. I think it definitely hits a little bit of a grey area, but there’s definite contrast there and I think a big part of it will be expecting the moderation staff to be able to discern the difference, and also working with them to be prepared for situations like that (and, of course, building the community trust to the point that the rest of us will have faith in the staff to make those calls accurately).
It's true, I think all pizza suck.
PSN: jrrl_absent
0
minor incidentpublicly subsidized!privately profitable!Registered User, Transition Teamregular
Hell, New Jersey, it said on the letter. Delivered without comment. So be it!
I may have more thoughts later, but this is one that immediately jumped out at me. People will say "he's thinking of a specific user", and that's true. But it's not a user here, actually. It's a guy from a forum I frequented over a decade ago, that doesn't exist anymore.
We provide a venue for discussions at all levels, from rigid, serious topics to light hearted off-topic fare. We hope to accommodate all communication styles allowing all of our users to be able to participate in topics freely at will, as they desire.
One concern I have is the vagueness of "all communication styles". It is often the case on internet forums that an otherwise well-intentioned user prefers a communication style that amounts to immediate hostility at the slightest prompting. They may not technically violate any rules, but they tend to have a chilling effect on discussion and result in a feedback loop of escalating toxicity. This causes threads in which such a user participates to gradually empty out until the only users participating are the ones willing to "wrestle the pig", so to speak.
The Code of Conduct does a little work addressing this indirectly, but I feel like it might be a good idea to clarify that no, being a ubiquitous asshole actually is a problem all its own, even if it's your "communication style". It's the Walter Sobchak effect -- their opinions may even be correct and in line with community values, but their unchecked aggression still has a net-negative impact on the forum's ability to sustain a larger community. "Am I wrong? Am I wrong?" is not a sufficient response from such a user. If people (including moderators!) clench up when they see a notification that you replied to a thread, then yes that is a problem even if you're technically within the letter of the law.
I don't have specific suggestions at this time, especially because I don't think I'm saying anything the CR team wouldn't agree with on a broad conceptual level. But I feel like the document as written maybe doesn't communicate that clearly enough, and (in my experience moderating other forums) it's really in the top 3 biggest moderation issues any forum faces.
I think that’s an important point, and it’s something I’m definitely open to clarifying a bit for the sake of ensuring we’re all on the same page, but before getting to that, I would say that it’s a good example of a situation where we would want to look back at the values (and even the other parts of our code of conduct) to see where there are intersections.
If we look at the idea of Connectedness, and then apply that to one person effectively shitting up every discussion they wade into at the expense of everyone else, does that feel like it runs counter to the spirit of the Value? If we look at Self-Expression, does this one user’s right to self-expression somehow excuse the fact that they’re curtailing the same right for others by driving them away consistently? Equity and Empathy could be weighed the same way. Is it equitable to the rest of the community to force them to contend with an angry screamer who flies off the handle in every discussion? Does it show empathy for the people who are being silenced by that kind of behavior being allowed?
Having those broad values as the foundation of everything else helps our moderation staff to be able to step back, look at the bigger picture, and hopefully make a better call for how an edge case aligns to our values, rather than throwing their hands up and saying “sorry, it’s not technically against the rules.” And those edge cases are exactly what the rules should flesh out in more depth, because those situations will be backed up by the spirit of our values.
I want to come back around to this point and urge a bit of wariness.
I think this can easily come around to posters getting accused of "main character syndrome" which is not something we should be moderating.
If posters are willing to, in good faith, tirelessly defend a position (which otherwise aligns with our values) without being hostile/insulting, just annoying or uncomfortable, then i think that should be ok behavior by default.
If BanCarsKarl is in every thread about urban planning and tax incentives and climate change and local politics talking about how we need to drastically shift our society to get rid of our reliance on personal vehicles we might get pretty tired of hearing from him, he might become that magnet for reports, he might bring that anxiety whenever he posts.
But he's not arguing for something outside our values, and he's not trolling, worst case he seems more heated than others about the issue because he believes it's super important.
Like Karl should probably get in trouble if he goes and stinks up the New Car Appreciation Thread or start up somewhere whereas it's wildly off topic, but otherwise i think he should be fine.
I don't want the situation where he's told "look you're not wrong but we just don't want to hear about it any more", or for moderation to think that and then begin scrutinizing his posts to catch him out on minor rule breaking.
Absolutely agreed. It's not about tenacity, it's about hostility. If someone consistently cranks their aggression to an 11 anytime someone else hits 3, then they are causing a problem for a site that is designed to cultivate community. They may not be wrong in a particular case, but they are definitely wrong in their overall engagement with the community.
It's really hard to talk about this without pointing to specific in-forum examples of behavior, which is problematic for obvious reasons. So even though it's tiresome, I'm gonna construct a hypothetical. Please forgive me, LOL.
Imagine you run a community center. One of your programs involves bringing in volunteers to keep a community garden, to help address food insecurity for local families. The program is showing some positive results. But one day, one of your volunteers (let's call him Greg) starts loudly berating another volunteer (let's call him Nick) in front of everyone. See, Greg found out that Nick owns a Tesla, and Greg is going off about Elon Musk's behavior and how Nick is supporting him by purchasing the Tesla. The whole thing is uncomfortable for everyone, and you notice Nick doesn't come around anymore.
Over the next few months, it's the same thing over and over again, and it's always Greg. It's not always about Tesla, but it's always something. Sometimes, he gets set off even when his targets were clearly joking about whatever they said. And each time this happens, it's always the other folks who stop hanging around. But Greg? Greg stays. Eventually, you notice that even people who were never explicitly targeted by Greg's rants are disappearing from the volunteer pool, just because the vibes are so bad.
Unless Greg can keep the garden by himself, you have a problem and you need to deal with it.
And the problem is not that Greg is wrong about Tesla, or Elon Musk, or whatever. The problem is not that Greg is a bad person. The problem is also not that Nick shouldn't be in some way confronted with the knock-on effects of his decisions. Greg's probably a right and good dude, and Nick (like all of us) could stand to be more mindful of his impact on the world. But we're here to keep a garden and if Greg can't modulate his aggression levels more dynamically and appropriately to the context, then Greg needs to find a different project to invest his time in because he's killing this one.
That's what a forum is. We're trying to carve out a corner of the internet where we can talk about stuff. If you* consistently engage with people in a way that makes them justifiably disinterested in talking about stuff with or even near you, then your behavior is a problem for the community. Call it "main character syndrome", call it trolling, call it whatever. But cut it the fuck out, you know? There are other venues and platforms more suited to your 24/7 ranting behavior, and that's good because you're right -- there's a lot in this world to be angry about.
It is a grey area and it takes a solid, trusted moderation team. The work the transition team is putting in makes me optimistic about the outcome.
*(Not you, obviously. Greg. All the Gregs of the world.)
I may have more thoughts later, but this is one that immediately jumped out at me. People will say "he's thinking of a specific user", and that's true. But it's not a user here, actually. It's a guy from a forum I frequented over a decade ago, that doesn't exist anymore.
We provide a venue for discussions at all levels, from rigid, serious topics to light hearted off-topic fare. We hope to accommodate all communication styles allowing all of our users to be able to participate in topics freely at will, as they desire.
One concern I have is the vagueness of "all communication styles". It is often the case on internet forums that an otherwise well-intentioned user prefers a communication style that amounts to immediate hostility at the slightest prompting. They may not technically violate any rules, but they tend to have a chilling effect on discussion and result in a feedback loop of escalating toxicity. This causes threads in which such a user participates to gradually empty out until the only users participating are the ones willing to "wrestle the pig", so to speak.
The Code of Conduct does a little work addressing this indirectly, but I feel like it might be a good idea to clarify that no, being a ubiquitous asshole actually is a problem all its own, even if it's your "communication style". It's the Walter Sobchak effect -- their opinions may even be correct and in line with community values, but their unchecked aggression still has a net-negative impact on the forum's ability to sustain a larger community. "Am I wrong? Am I wrong?" is not a sufficient response from such a user. If people (including moderators!) clench up when they see a notification that you replied to a thread, then yes that is a problem even if you're technically within the letter of the law.
I don't have specific suggestions at this time, especially because I don't think I'm saying anything the CR team wouldn't agree with on a broad conceptual level. But I feel like the document as written maybe doesn't communicate that clearly enough, and (in my experience moderating other forums) it's really in the top 3 biggest moderation issues any forum faces.
I think that’s an important point, and it’s something I’m definitely open to clarifying a bit for the sake of ensuring we’re all on the same page, but before getting to that, I would say that it’s a good example of a situation where we would want to look back at the values (and even the other parts of our code of conduct) to see where there are intersections.
If we look at the idea of Connectedness, and then apply that to one person effectively shitting up every discussion they wade into at the expense of everyone else, does that feel like it runs counter to the spirit of the Value? If we look at Self-Expression, does this one user’s right to self-expression somehow excuse the fact that they’re curtailing the same right for others by driving them away consistently? Equity and Empathy could be weighed the same way. Is it equitable to the rest of the community to force them to contend with an angry screamer who flies off the handle in every discussion? Does it show empathy for the people who are being silenced by that kind of behavior being allowed?
Having those broad values as the foundation of everything else helps our moderation staff to be able to step back, look at the bigger picture, and hopefully make a better call for how an edge case aligns to our values, rather than throwing their hands up and saying “sorry, it’s not technically against the rules.” And those edge cases are exactly what the rules should flesh out in more depth, because those situations will be backed up by the spirit of our values.
I want to come back around to this point and urge a bit of wariness.
I think this can easily come around to posters getting accused of "main character syndrome" which is not something we should be moderating.
If posters are willing to, in good faith, tirelessly defend a position (which otherwise aligns with our values) without being hostile/insulting, just annoying or uncomfortable, then i think that should be ok behavior by default.
If BanCarsKarl is in every thread about urban planning and tax incentives and climate change and local politics talking about how we need to drastically shift our society to get rid of our reliance on personal vehicles we might get pretty tired of hearing from him, he might become that magnet for reports, he might bring that anxiety whenever he posts.
But he's not arguing for something outside our values, and he's not trolling, worst case he seems more heated than others about the issue because he believes it's super important.
Like Karl should probably get in trouble if he goes and stinks up the New Car Appreciation Thread or start up somewhere whereas it's wildly off topic, but otherwise i think he should be fine.
I don't want the situation where he's told "look you're not wrong but we just don't want to hear about it any more", or for moderation to think that and then begin scrutinizing his posts to catch him out on minor rule breaking.
If we're encouraging values like Empathy and Connectedness, then BanCarsKarl should be reminded that there is a need to be mindful of how his behaviour impacts on others in this particular shared space. This can be done by users or by mods. If he is unwilling or unable to do that, then this particular space is probably not For Him, unfortunately, per those values.
Maybe that makes me a tyrant - I actually am one, so, y'know, lions gotta lion - but I do actually think someone who would rather belabor a point despite making others uncomfortable, especially once it's been made clear that he is making others uncomfortable, is probably someone who just needs to stop posting about this topic for a while, if not leave all together.
I acknowledge that ND folks talking about something they're hyperfocusing on or have a special interest in might have an especially hard time with this, but I don't tend to find these folks to be the annoying ones as most ND folks already know this about themselves and prob already have the skills to manage it on their own.
You can be as passionate as you want. But there's a line somewhere between your passion and my right to not be set on fire by that passion.
There's also something to be said for the role of the Ignore function. Maybe don't be so annoying about this particular view if it means you might just get ignored en masse and then no one can see your Very Important Views anyway? Alternatively, if no one engages or responds to BanCarsKarl, then he can just keep shouting into the ether and folks can just talk around him. We call it Planned Ignoring in parenting spaces.
I'll only say this once and then I'll get used to the new name, but I wish Change Machine was an option when we were voting. It's the spot you go when you enter the arcade to get your fun tokens, not a Coin Return. Also, out of that context, it sounds woke as hell.
I maintain that Change Machine should be the actual name of the transition team now that we've settled on Coin Return, personally.
I am not a machine!
I am a man!!
Zonugal, You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
ahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
i've been thinking about it but
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
This is a rule in DnD now and I agree. If I wanted to see twitter (or whatever) hot takes I’d be on twitter. Contextless embeds are the newest “limed for truth” uselessness.
+9
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
I very much agree with this overall sentiment. Maybe not for [Chat] threads or in similar contexts, but for on-topic threads - especially ones relevant to current news - I'd rather not people just dump links to social media bullshit with a, "Take a look at this guy!" (whether good or bad). I'd even go so far as to say posting something with just a summary is like, the bare minimum, rather than some kind of response that adds to the content in question (or at least helps to further the discussion).
One thing I like about this place is that people are generally honest about engaging with topics, and are also fine saying whether or not they've actually looked at something someone else has posted and responding (or not) accordingly. Everywhere else on the internet is full of knee-jerk reactions to headlines, or reactions to reactions, where 95% of the people haven't even watched the content in question and 80% of them haven't done more to understand the context around it.
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
I very much agree with this overall sentiment. Maybe not for [Chat] threads or in similar contexts, but for on-topic threads - especially ones relevant to current news - I'd rather not people just dump links to social media bullshit with a, "Take a look at this guy!" (whether good or bad). I'd even go so far as to say posting something with just a summary is like, the bare minimum, rather than some kind of response that adds to the content in question (or at least helps to further the discussion).
One thing I like about this place is that people are generally honest about engaging with topics, and are also fine saying whether or not they've actually looked at something someone else has posted and responding (or not) accordingly. Everywhere else on the internet is full of knee-jerk reactions to headlines, or reactions to reactions, where 95% of the people haven't even watched the content in question and 80% of them haven't done more to understand the context around it.
It's something that almost sounds absurd to express, but might need to be: the goal of a discussion board is to provide interesting discussion (otherwise, why are we even here). Therefore, posters ought to ensure that their posts meet some community expectation of being worth the time to read-- with the caveat that we're not setting the bar at "great literature", but at "contains human input". A spambot can register an account and drop a link in a thread; you ought to at least describe what people can expect to see when they click it.
And admittedly, it could be intimidating to have a codified at the value/code of conduct tier saying "it's a violation of our values to have low-quality posts", but I'm sure there's a wording that carries across "do engage with the conversation rather than dumping a link and walking away without comment".
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
I'm "kupiyupaekio" on Discord.
0
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
I very much agree with this overall sentiment. Maybe not for [Chat] threads or in similar contexts, but for on-topic threads - especially ones relevant to current news - I'd rather not people just dump links to social media bullshit with a, "Take a look at this guy!" (whether good or bad). I'd even go so far as to say posting something with just a summary is like, the bare minimum, rather than some kind of response that adds to the content in question (or at least helps to further the discussion).
One thing I like about this place is that people are generally honest about engaging with topics, and are also fine saying whether or not they've actually looked at something someone else has posted and responding (or not) accordingly. Everywhere else on the internet is full of knee-jerk reactions to headlines, or reactions to reactions, where 95% of the people haven't even watched the content in question and 80% of them haven't done more to understand the context around it.
It's something that almost sounds absurd to express, but might need to be: the goal of a discussion board is to provide interesting discussion (otherwise, why are we even here). Therefore, posters ought to ensure that their posts meet some community expectation of being worth the time to read-- with the caveat that we're not setting the bar at "great literature", but at "contains human input". A spambot can register an account and drop a link in a thread; you ought to at least describe what people can expect to see when they click it.
And admittedly, it could be intimidating to have a codified at the value/code of conduct tier saying "it's a violation of our values to have low-quality posts", but I'm sure there's a wording that carries across "do engage with the conversation rather than dumping a link and walking away without comment".
Well the key diagnostic factor here is that it's an external link. Low-effort posts can be fine in certain contexts, but the pairing of external URLs with low-to-no-effort posts is the real issue.
I'd propose something like: "If you post an external link, you must accompany it with an explanation of why you posted it and sufficient context for its content and relevance to the current discussion." Of note is that requiring "why you posted it" means that it is not sufficient to simply quote an excerpt from the linked content. You gotta tell the thread why they should care.
Obviously this passes the Values/CoC level, but it might help clarify the sort of thing we're looking for in the CoC on this issue?
+1
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
I very much agree with this overall sentiment. Maybe not for [Chat] threads or in similar contexts, but for on-topic threads - especially ones relevant to current news - I'd rather not people just dump links to social media bullshit with a, "Take a look at this guy!" (whether good or bad). I'd even go so far as to say posting something with just a summary is like, the bare minimum, rather than some kind of response that adds to the content in question (or at least helps to further the discussion).
One thing I like about this place is that people are generally honest about engaging with topics, and are also fine saying whether or not they've actually looked at something someone else has posted and responding (or not) accordingly. Everywhere else on the internet is full of knee-jerk reactions to headlines, or reactions to reactions, where 95% of the people haven't even watched the content in question and 80% of them haven't done more to understand the context around it.
It's something that almost sounds absurd to express, but might need to be: the goal of a discussion board is to provide interesting discussion (otherwise, why are we even here). Therefore, posters ought to ensure that their posts meet some community expectation of being worth the time to read-- with the caveat that we're not setting the bar at "great literature", but at "contains human input". A spambot can register an account and drop a link in a thread; you ought to at least describe what people can expect to see when they click it.
And admittedly, it could be intimidating to have a codified at the value/code of conduct tier saying "it's a violation of our values to have low-quality posts", but I'm sure there's a wording that carries across "do engage with the conversation rather than dumping a link and walking away without comment".
Well the key diagnostic factor here is that it's an external link. Low-effort posts can be fine in certain contexts, but the pairing of external URLs with low-to-no-effort posts is the real issue.
I'd propose something like: "If you post an external link, you must accompany it with an explanation of why you posted it and sufficient context for its content and relevance to the current discussion." Of note is that requiring "why you posted it" means that it is not sufficient to simply quote an excerpt from the linked content. You gotta tell the thread why they should care.
Obviously this passes the Values/CoC level, but it might help clarify the sort of thing we're looking for in the CoC on this issue?
Sometimes it's fine in the context of a conversation to drop a blind link, so long as it's a known quantity.
A link to KnowYourMeme when someone expresses ignorance to a reference in a post as an example.
Similar for Snopes or TVTropes as context relevant explainers, where the link to the ongoing conversation is clear and appropriate.
Not everything needs footnote explainers (particularly when what you're providing is itself essentially a footnote), and unnecessarily including them is also detrimental to the free and unhindered flow of information.
So what you want is explainers to head off passive aggressive no-explanation no-context posts, not a wiki post justifying what is basically itself an offsite quick context aside.
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
In terms of values, this should be covered by Safety and Accountability probably. And in the CoC, it should be covered by "Engage in all discussions in good faith".
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
I very much agree with this overall sentiment. Maybe not for [Chat] threads or in similar contexts, but for on-topic threads - especially ones relevant to current news - I'd rather not people just dump links to social media bullshit with a, "Take a look at this guy!" (whether good or bad). I'd even go so far as to say posting something with just a summary is like, the bare minimum, rather than some kind of response that adds to the content in question (or at least helps to further the discussion).
One thing I like about this place is that people are generally honest about engaging with topics, and are also fine saying whether or not they've actually looked at something someone else has posted and responding (or not) accordingly. Everywhere else on the internet is full of knee-jerk reactions to headlines, or reactions to reactions, where 95% of the people haven't even watched the content in question and 80% of them haven't done more to understand the context around it.
It's something that almost sounds absurd to express, but might need to be: the goal of a discussion board is to provide interesting discussion (otherwise, why are we even here). Therefore, posters ought to ensure that their posts meet some community expectation of being worth the time to read-- with the caveat that we're not setting the bar at "great literature", but at "contains human input". A spambot can register an account and drop a link in a thread; you ought to at least describe what people can expect to see when they click it.
And admittedly, it could be intimidating to have a codified at the value/code of conduct tier saying "it's a violation of our values to have low-quality posts", but I'm sure there's a wording that carries across "do engage with the conversation rather than dumping a link and walking away without comment".
Well the key diagnostic factor here is that it's an external link. Low-effort posts can be fine in certain contexts, but the pairing of external URLs with low-to-no-effort posts is the real issue.
I'd propose something like: "If you post an external link, you must accompany it with an explanation of why you posted it and sufficient context for its content and relevance to the current discussion." Of note is that requiring "why you posted it" means that it is not sufficient to simply quote an excerpt from the linked content. You gotta tell the thread why they should care.
Obviously this passes the Values/CoC level, but it might help clarify the sort of thing we're looking for in the CoC on this issue?
Sometimes it's fine in the context of a conversation to drop a blind link, so long as it's a known quantity.
A link to KnowYourMeme when someone expresses ignorance to a reference in a post as an example.
Similar for Snopes or TVTropes as context relevant explainers, where the link to the ongoing conversation is clear and appropriate.
Not everything needs footnote explainers (particularly when what you're providing is itself essentially a footnote), and unnecessarily including them is also detrimental to the free and unhindered flow of information.
So what you want is explainers to head off passive aggressive no-explanation no-context posts, not a wiki post justifying what is basically itself an offsite quick context aside.
It also occurred to me (too late) that there are threads like SE++'s YouTube thread which are link clearinghouses by design, so any rule/value ought to be stated as to accommodate those.
So, yeah, it all probably just falls under the purview of the assumption of good-faith participation and does need more specific treatment than the equivalent of the rule governing D&D threads we have today.
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
I'm "kupiyupaekio" on Discord.
0
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2024
The beauty of starting with values is rules write themselves.
And that doesn't just mean explicitly written down ones.
Morninglord on
+3
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
edited December 2024
i don't mind if people drop memes in chat threads or whatever, but definitely if the intent of sharing a link is to be informative or engage in discussion, i think it makes sense to expect you to put a little effort into providing context
even in like the D&D music thread, if someone just dumps a bunch of YouTube links i tend to just skip over them. tell me what you like about it!
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
I very much agree with this overall sentiment. Maybe not for [Chat] threads or in similar contexts, but for on-topic threads - especially ones relevant to current news - I'd rather not people just dump links to social media bullshit with a, "Take a look at this guy!" (whether good or bad). I'd even go so far as to say posting something with just a summary is like, the bare minimum, rather than some kind of response that adds to the content in question (or at least helps to further the discussion).
One thing I like about this place is that people are generally honest about engaging with topics, and are also fine saying whether or not they've actually looked at something someone else has posted and responding (or not) accordingly. Everywhere else on the internet is full of knee-jerk reactions to headlines, or reactions to reactions, where 95% of the people haven't even watched the content in question and 80% of them haven't done more to understand the context around it.
It's something that almost sounds absurd to express, but might need to be: the goal of a discussion board is to provide interesting discussion (otherwise, why are we even here). Therefore, posters ought to ensure that their posts meet some community expectation of being worth the time to read-- with the caveat that we're not setting the bar at "great literature", but at "contains human input". A spambot can register an account and drop a link in a thread; you ought to at least describe what people can expect to see when they click it.
And admittedly, it could be intimidating to have a codified at the value/code of conduct tier saying "it's a violation of our values to have low-quality posts", but I'm sure there's a wording that carries across "do engage with the conversation rather than dumping a link and walking away without comment".
Well the key diagnostic factor here is that it's an external link. Low-effort posts can be fine in certain contexts, but the pairing of external URLs with low-to-no-effort posts is the real issue.
I'd propose something like: "If you post an external link, you must accompany it with an explanation of why you posted it and sufficient context for its content and relevance to the current discussion." Of note is that requiring "why you posted it" means that it is not sufficient to simply quote an excerpt from the linked content. You gotta tell the thread why they should care.
Obviously this passes the Values/CoC level, but it might help clarify the sort of thing we're looking for in the CoC on this issue?
Sometimes it's fine in the context of a conversation to drop a blind link, so long as it's a known quantity.
A link to KnowYourMeme when someone expresses ignorance to a reference in a post as an example.
Similar for Snopes or TVTropes as context relevant explainers, where the link to the ongoing conversation is clear and appropriate.
Not everything needs footnote explainers (particularly when what you're providing is itself essentially a footnote), and unnecessarily including them is also detrimental to the free and unhindered flow of information.
So what you want is explainers to head off passive aggressive no-explanation no-context posts, not a wiki post justifying what is basically itself an offsite quick context aside.
It also occurred to me (too late) that there are threads like SE++'s YouTube thread which are link clearinghouses by design, so any rule/value ought to be stated as to accommodate those.
So, yeah, it all probably just falls under the purview of the assumption of good-faith participation and does need more specific treatment than the equivalent of the rule governing D&D threads we have today.
Though personally, I always like it when someone posts a short message about why they wanted to share a video.
It feels like most of the problem the last few posts described is due to the technical limitations of vanilla breaking embeds and not necessarily that people are just posting blind links. My understanding is that xenforo does not have this problem, correct?
Plus, people aren’t really dropping blind links to just random websites without context.
While I’m all for more context, if embedded social media actually worked sometimes the tweet you’re linking is context enough. I really don’t think this needs to be a core value / code of conduct level thing. Maybe a specific rule about excessive no-additional-context posts.
0
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
It feels like most of the problem the last few posts described is due to the technical limitations of vanilla breaking embeds and not necessarily that people are just posting blind links. My understanding is that xenforo does not have this problem, correct?
Plus, people aren’t really dropping blind links to just random websites without context.
While I’m all for more context, if embedded social media actually worked sometimes the tweet you’re linking is context enough. I really don’t think this needs to be a core value / code of conduct level thing. Maybe a specific rule about excessive no-additional-context posts.
the idea is you should be participating in the discussion and not just air dropping links
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+7
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User, Moderatormod
and to refute your middle point, without it being a rule people absolutely do just drop blind links without context
It feels like most of the problem the last few posts described is due to the technical limitations of vanilla breaking embeds and not necessarily that people are just posting blind links. My understanding is that xenforo does not have this problem, correct?
Plus, people aren’t really dropping blind links to just random websites without context.
While I’m all for more context, if embedded social media actually worked sometimes the tweet you’re linking is context enough. I really don’t think this needs to be a core value / code of conduct level thing. Maybe a specific rule about excessive no-additional-context posts.
the idea is you should be participating in the discussion and not just air dropping links
Well and also I shouldn't be forced to watch a Youtube video to figure out why you posted it, or go to the hellscape that is twitter's corpse to again find out why your hot link is relevant to the discussion. And I may have no idea who this person/organization is and why I should give a shit what they uploaded that you are sharing. It should just be the standard practice that if you want to drop a link to some external source (no matter what) there should be some context to it.
It feels like most of the problem the last few posts described is due to the technical limitations of vanilla breaking embeds and not necessarily that people are just posting blind links. My understanding is that xenforo does not have this problem, correct?
Plus, people aren’t really dropping blind links to just random websites without context.
While I’m all for more context, if embedded social media actually worked sometimes the tweet you’re linking is context enough. I really don’t think this needs to be a core value / code of conduct level thing. Maybe a specific rule about excessive no-additional-context posts.
the idea is you should be participating in the discussion and not just air dropping links
Well and also I shouldn't be forced to watch a Youtube video to figure out why you posted it, or go to the hellscape that is twitter's corpse to again find out why your hot link is relevant to the discussion. And I may have no idea who this person/organization is and why I should give a shit what they uploaded that you are sharing. It should just be the standard practice that if you want to drop a link to some external source (no matter what) there should be some context to it.
I dunno maybe this is more of an actual problem in D&D.
There’s times when just posting the tweet or the vid is enough to get people talking. Example: release date announcement in a media thread, posting a joke/meme, etc.
That said I do think a top-of-pyramid specific rule about posting no-context embeds excessively is warranted, as I have seen a handful of users who basically treat the forums as a retweet button.
It feels like most of the problem the last few posts described is due to the technical limitations of vanilla breaking embeds and not necessarily that people are just posting blind links. My understanding is that xenforo does not have this problem, correct?
Plus, people aren’t really dropping blind links to just random websites without context.
While I’m all for more context, if embedded social media actually worked sometimes the tweet you’re linking is context enough. I really don’t think this needs to be a core value / code of conduct level thing. Maybe a specific rule about excessive no-additional-context posts.
the idea is you should be participating in the discussion and not just air dropping links
Well and also I shouldn't be forced to watch a Youtube video to figure out why you posted it, or go to the hellscape that is twitter's corpse to again find out why your hot link is relevant to the discussion. And I may have no idea who this person/organization is and why I should give a shit what they uploaded that you are sharing. It should just be the standard practice that if you want to drop a link to some external source (no matter what) there should be some context to it.
I think the twitter thing is just leftover instincts from when twitter embeds worked before half of the team got fired.
The nice thing about Bluesky is it has an option to quote the skeet and post the text so if embed's don't work it's easy to copy for people who don't want to go to the site.
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
As far as air dropping links go, all I ask is that people don't drop links behind a paywall, but sometimes that is harder to do in practice these days.
Posts
We are using CoRe all over the place in TT discussions, so yeah, that is very likely going to stick.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
yesssssssssssssssssssssssssss
I contribute so minimally that having this take off is deeply pleasing
Anyways, my question
-We respect the rights of artists, writers, and other creators in our community and the art they create. (1, 2, 3, 4)
Could somebody explain the underpinning of this particular value in practice? Is this part of an AI art discussion, sharing content posted here, or some other thing I'm missing, and why "in our community?"
Partially AI issues, partially codifying the "No begging for free art from artists on the forum, you can fucking pay people for their work" policy that's been around since time immemorial in my view.
I maintain that Change Machine should be the actual name of the transition team now that we've settled on Coin Return, personally.
I am not a machine!
I am a man!!
I want to come back around to this point and urge a bit of wariness.
I think this can easily come around to posters getting accused of "main character syndrome" which is not something we should be moderating.
If posters are willing to, in good faith, tirelessly defend a position (which otherwise aligns with our values) without being hostile/insulting, just annoying or uncomfortable, then i think that should be ok behavior by default.
If BanCarsKarl is in every thread about urban planning and tax incentives and climate change and local politics talking about how we need to drastically shift our society to get rid of our reliance on personal vehicles we might get pretty tired of hearing from him, he might become that magnet for reports, he might bring that anxiety whenever he posts.
But he's not arguing for something outside our values, and he's not trolling, worst case he seems more heated than others about the issue because he believes it's super important.
Like Karl should probably get in trouble if he goes and stinks up the New Car Appreciation Thread or start up somewhere whereas it's wildly off topic, but otherwise i think he should be fine.
I don't want the situation where he's told "look you're not wrong but we just don't want to hear about it any more", or for moderation to think that and then begin scrutinizing his posts to catch him out on minor rule breaking.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
it's not an easy task for sure
I can appreciate the difference. And fwiw, I have a couple of specific posters in my head who will defend an unpopular position that isn’t wrong, to the annoyance of several others. These posters are not wrong, and shouldn’t be punished because they’re always engaging in good faith, and treating others decently, even if they’re vehemently, and unwaveringly arguing a point that goes against the popular consensus, despite its merit. That’s a far cry from the example of a poster who is potentially not in the wrong, but who is just being an abrasive dick to everyone. I think it definitely hits a little bit of a grey area, but there’s definite contrast there and I think a big part of it will be expecting the moderation staff to be able to discern the difference, and also working with them to be prepared for situations like that (and, of course, building the community trust to the point that the rest of us will have faith in the staff to make those calls accurately).
It's true, I think all pizza suck.
PSN: jrrl_absent
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
Absolutely agreed. It's not about tenacity, it's about hostility. If someone consistently cranks their aggression to an 11 anytime someone else hits 3, then they are causing a problem for a site that is designed to cultivate community. They may not be wrong in a particular case, but they are definitely wrong in their overall engagement with the community.
It's really hard to talk about this without pointing to specific in-forum examples of behavior, which is problematic for obvious reasons. So even though it's tiresome, I'm gonna construct a hypothetical. Please forgive me, LOL.
Over the next few months, it's the same thing over and over again, and it's always Greg. It's not always about Tesla, but it's always something. Sometimes, he gets set off even when his targets were clearly joking about whatever they said. And each time this happens, it's always the other folks who stop hanging around. But Greg? Greg stays. Eventually, you notice that even people who were never explicitly targeted by Greg's rants are disappearing from the volunteer pool, just because the vibes are so bad.
Unless Greg can keep the garden by himself, you have a problem and you need to deal with it.
And the problem is not that Greg is wrong about Tesla, or Elon Musk, or whatever. The problem is not that Greg is a bad person. The problem is also not that Nick shouldn't be in some way confronted with the knock-on effects of his decisions. Greg's probably a right and good dude, and Nick (like all of us) could stand to be more mindful of his impact on the world. But we're here to keep a garden and if Greg can't modulate his aggression levels more dynamically and appropriately to the context, then Greg needs to find a different project to invest his time in because he's killing this one.
That's what a forum is. We're trying to carve out a corner of the internet where we can talk about stuff. If you* consistently engage with people in a way that makes them justifiably disinterested in talking about stuff with or even near you, then your behavior is a problem for the community. Call it "main character syndrome", call it trolling, call it whatever. But cut it the fuck out, you know? There are other venues and platforms more suited to your 24/7 ranting behavior, and that's good because you're right -- there's a lot in this world to be angry about.
It is a grey area and it takes a solid, trusted moderation team. The work the transition team is putting in makes me optimistic about the outcome.
*(Not you, obviously. Greg. All the Gregs of the world.)
If we're encouraging values like Empathy and Connectedness, then BanCarsKarl should be reminded that there is a need to be mindful of how his behaviour impacts on others in this particular shared space. This can be done by users or by mods. If he is unwilling or unable to do that, then this particular space is probably not For Him, unfortunately, per those values.
Maybe that makes me a tyrant - I actually am one, so, y'know, lions gotta lion - but I do actually think someone who would rather belabor a point despite making others uncomfortable, especially once it's been made clear that he is making others uncomfortable, is probably someone who just needs to stop posting about this topic for a while, if not leave all together.
I acknowledge that ND folks talking about something they're hyperfocusing on or have a special interest in might have an especially hard time with this, but I don't tend to find these folks to be the annoying ones as most ND folks already know this about themselves and prob already have the skills to manage it on their own.
You can be as passionate as you want. But there's a line somewhere between your passion and my right to not be set on fire by that passion.
There's also something to be said for the role of the Ignore function. Maybe don't be so annoying about this particular view if it means you might just get ignored en masse and then no one can see your Very Important Views anyway? Alternatively, if no one engages or responds to BanCarsKarl, then he can just keep shouting into the ether and folks can just talk around him. We call it Planned Ignoring in parenting spaces.
hi
Zonugal, You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...
Hi
and i'm not sure where it would fit into rules/CoC/values pyramid
but I would love something about not dropping a link without any information on what's behind it. either a small quote from the article/page that's being linked, or a summary from the person posting it.
Most of us have been in, on, around the internet for decades at this point. We know goatse, we know rickrolling, we know all about malware and 'do not click on links you don't trust'. so having a link just tossed into a post, or a sentence, without any kind of explanation of what's behind it, is a good way to get me to not engage with you, or your point that you're trying to make.
because growing up on the internet has made me super paranoid and in a way i'm sure you will all agree it's kinda justified.
same concept expands to just tossing out a tweet or bluesky, or whatever embed into a post without any surrounding explanation or commentary. Especially with some embeds just... not embedding.
I'm not sure the wording, or the usecase or where it would go into the thing, but it's definitely been a thought on my mind lately.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
This is a rule in DnD now and I agree. If I wanted to see twitter (or whatever) hot takes I’d be on twitter. Contextless embeds are the newest “limed for truth” uselessness.
I very much agree with this overall sentiment. Maybe not for [Chat] threads or in similar contexts, but for on-topic threads - especially ones relevant to current news - I'd rather not people just dump links to social media bullshit with a, "Take a look at this guy!" (whether good or bad). I'd even go so far as to say posting something with just a summary is like, the bare minimum, rather than some kind of response that adds to the content in question (or at least helps to further the discussion).
One thing I like about this place is that people are generally honest about engaging with topics, and are also fine saying whether or not they've actually looked at something someone else has posted and responding (or not) accordingly. Everywhere else on the internet is full of knee-jerk reactions to headlines, or reactions to reactions, where 95% of the people haven't even watched the content in question and 80% of them haven't done more to understand the context around it.
It's something that almost sounds absurd to express, but might need to be: the goal of a discussion board is to provide interesting discussion (otherwise, why are we even here). Therefore, posters ought to ensure that their posts meet some community expectation of being worth the time to read-- with the caveat that we're not setting the bar at "great literature", but at "contains human input". A spambot can register an account and drop a link in a thread; you ought to at least describe what people can expect to see when they click it.
And admittedly, it could be intimidating to have a codified at the value/code of conduct tier saying "it's a violation of our values to have low-quality posts", but I'm sure there's a wording that carries across "do engage with the conversation rather than dumping a link and walking away without comment".
I'm "kupiyupaekio" on Discord.
Well the key diagnostic factor here is that it's an external link. Low-effort posts can be fine in certain contexts, but the pairing of external URLs with low-to-no-effort posts is the real issue.
I'd propose something like: "If you post an external link, you must accompany it with an explanation of why you posted it and sufficient context for its content and relevance to the current discussion." Of note is that requiring "why you posted it" means that it is not sufficient to simply quote an excerpt from the linked content. You gotta tell the thread why they should care.
Obviously this passes the Values/CoC level, but it might help clarify the sort of thing we're looking for in the CoC on this issue?
Sometimes it's fine in the context of a conversation to drop a blind link, so long as it's a known quantity.
A link to KnowYourMeme when someone expresses ignorance to a reference in a post as an example.
Similar for Snopes or TVTropes as context relevant explainers, where the link to the ongoing conversation is clear and appropriate.
Not everything needs footnote explainers (particularly when what you're providing is itself essentially a footnote), and unnecessarily including them is also detrimental to the free and unhindered flow of information.
So what you want is explainers to head off passive aggressive no-explanation no-context posts, not a wiki post justifying what is basically itself an offsite quick context aside.
In terms of values, this should be covered by Safety and Accountability probably. And in the CoC, it should be covered by "Engage in all discussions in good faith".
PSN: jrrl_absent
It also occurred to me (too late) that there are threads like SE++'s YouTube thread which are link clearinghouses by design, so any rule/value ought to be stated as to accommodate those.
So, yeah, it all probably just falls under the purview of the assumption of good-faith participation and does need more specific treatment than the equivalent of the rule governing D&D threads we have today.
I'm "kupiyupaekio" on Discord.
And that doesn't just mean explicitly written down ones.
even in like the D&D music thread, if someone just dumps a bunch of YouTube links i tend to just skip over them. tell me what you like about it!
Though personally, I always like it when someone posts a short message about why they wanted to share a video.
Plus, people aren’t really dropping blind links to just random websites without context.
While I’m all for more context, if embedded social media actually worked sometimes the tweet you’re linking is context enough. I really don’t think this needs to be a core value / code of conduct level thing. Maybe a specific rule about excessive no-additional-context posts.
the idea is you should be participating in the discussion and not just air dropping links
Well and also I shouldn't be forced to watch a Youtube video to figure out why you posted it, or go to the hellscape that is twitter's corpse to again find out why your hot link is relevant to the discussion. And I may have no idea who this person/organization is and why I should give a shit what they uploaded that you are sharing. It should just be the standard practice that if you want to drop a link to some external source (no matter what) there should be some context to it.
I dunno maybe this is more of an actual problem in D&D.
There’s times when just posting the tweet or the vid is enough to get people talking. Example: release date announcement in a media thread, posting a joke/meme, etc.
That said I do think a top-of-pyramid specific rule about posting no-context embeds excessively is warranted, as I have seen a handful of users who basically treat the forums as a retweet button.
I think the twitter thing is just leftover instincts from when twitter embeds worked before half of the team got fired.
The nice thing about Bluesky is it has an option to quote the skeet and post the text so if embed's don't work it's easy to copy for people who don't want to go to the site.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}