Dominion Strategy Forum
Meta => Feedback => Topic started by: AdamH on November 09, 2015, 07:46:25 am
-
There has been some frustration recently (actually it's been going on for quite a while for me) that discussions tend to get off-topic and it's difficult to continue them productively. I think something that would help me a lot is if there was a place we could post (like a board just for this purpose) where posts that aren't on topic and aren't relevant to furthering the discussion are not allowed. I thought a [serious] tag might accomplish this but I believe that has failed to work 100% of the time so far. I've been told by some smart people that I trust that having a separate board for this, which is moderated more closely, may be a better solution.
Some people think that having moderated discussion is a bad thing, I would say to those people that they are not required to read or participate in moderated discussion. If those people are worried that nobody would participate in moderated discussion, then I would say to those people that silence is preferable to irrelevant noise. If those people choose to disagree with that statement, then I respect their opinion and would like to remind them that they are not required to read or participate in this moderated discussion, and also to please consider that other people out there may have a different opinion and would like to have a place to talk under these guidelines.
I don't think taking anything away from the current forums is a good idea; just adding a place where your posts are deleted or something-or-other when they aren't on topic and productive. I'm not sure exactly what this would look like, but it would have to be its own sub-board or something and it would have to have some moderators and clearly defined rules. I can come up with some rules but I'm not confident that they would be good. I can moderate it but I wouldn't like to be the only one doing it and I don't know that I'm the best guy for the job anyways. There are a lot of questions that need answered so hopefully we can have a good discussion here to come up with those answers (lol). Once this gets more clearly defined then I hope to add a poll to this thread to gauge interest in each of the options that has come up.
Does anyone else have any thoughts? If this gets too quiet I can share some of mine but I don't know of any of my thoughts that are without any problems.
-
I'm fine with this. Basically whatever would get you posting happy again. :D
However, I'm not sure this will totally achieve the end that you want. In the [serious] thread, there did appear to be reasonable responses to the question asked and more of a fundamental disagreement with the methodology of engaging MF. I'm not sure how one would "moderate" the discussion in that thread except to make a judgement call about tone, and I don't think that's what you mean by this thread.
-
I think in that case the blame for that one going wrong can be placed mostly on me. The content of peoples' replies was just fine and actually constructive but the people that didn't follow directions got to me. I sort of set that thread up for failure by asking too much of people to direct their discussion elsewhere.
OTOH if people would just read my posts before criticizing them it would go a long way, but this is the internet and we can't tell people what they can say. Without something in place (like what I'm suggesting here) threads like that have no chance of accomplishing their goals.
-
I think the answer is to not put [serious] or moderated anything. Most people can tell from the tone you're looking for serious discussion, and saying "ONLY SERIOUS DISCUSSION ONLY GUYS" is just going to invite trolling. This is the internet, and it's also human nature. Telling people not to do something, particularly from a position without any real authority, just invites dissent. Just start your discussion, reply earnestly, and don't give in to trolling. Posting things like "can we please stay on topic" only irks people more. So, just, I dunno, relax?
-
not sure how i feel about all this
not wanting to hear disagreement is such a wild concept for me tbh
i come from the school of valuing negative opinions more than positive ones, and it's awfully hard for me to see how believing otherwise doesn't limit your growth as a person.
that being said, i'm also a big believer in the concept of safe spaces for marginalized groups, but this doesn't seem like any kind of parallel to me? dunno, not really feelin this and not sure how many others here besides adam would really go for it...
-
I think the answer is to not put [serious] or moderated anything. Most people can tell from the tone you're looking for serious discussion, and saying "ONLY SERIOUS DISCUSSION ONLY GUYS" is just going to invite trolling. This is the internet, and it's also human nature. Telling people not to do something, particularly from a position without any real authority, just invites dissent. Just start your discussion, reply earnestly, and don't give in to trolling. Posting things like "can we please stay on topic" only irks people more. So, just, I dunno, relax?
I gotta be honest with you, man. I'd rather not post here at all than whatever you're suggesting. Whatever change I would need to make is not clear to me by your post. You can even point to other threads that you think have been successful in this regard and I still wouldn't know how I need to change what I say or how I say it to make my posts more like theirs. And even if I knew exactly what to do, I don't want to filter myself so people troll me less. F.DS used to be above that kind of crap and it isn't anymore.
I'm not suggesting that the internet change so that I can talk on it better. I'm not trying to defend the way I've gone about starting or trying to maintain the threads I'm butthurt about being derailed -- you're right about this being the internet and that is to be expected, I just didn't realize how much F.DS had recently become like the rest of the internet.
There seems to be this idea that 100% unmoderated forums with total "freedom of speech" is philosophically best and we should embrace that and anything else is just less good. I don't agree with that. I think someone should have authority in a separate place on F.DS -- I think this would be OK with you judging the the way you worded your post, but I'm not positive and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
not sure how i feel about all this
not wanting to hear disagreement is such a wild concept for me tbh
i come from the school of valuing negative opinions more than positive ones, and it's awfully hard for me to see how believing otherwise doesn't limit your growth as a person.
that being said, i'm also a big believer in the concept of safe spaces for marginalized groups, but this doesn't seem like any kind of parallel to me?
I totally agree with you, funkdoc. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I don't want to hear people who disagree with me.
I mean, disagreement should be constructive: a response of "Why did you rank Coin of the Realm over Peasant? I think Peasant is better because of XYZ" is much better than "Peasant rulz ur n idiot coin sux lolol" and even that is much better than "Beggar is best card CotR is bad! Scout is better than all of these!" which is better than "Otters are cute!"
For me, the first one is really good, the second one should be asked for further clarification, and the third and fourth should just be deleted because they aren't on topic or serious comments.
dunno, not really feelin this and not sure how many others here besides adam would really go for it...
If I'm the only person interested in this, then the solution is clearly to not do it and I'll just leave. This is fine. I mean it's not fine, I'll be really sad but it would be the only thing to do.
I'd really like to gauge interest in this -- I'd be really surprised if there wasn't interest but of course that's possible. If done properly (would have to be a separate sub-board that is easy to ignore) there should be no cost to people who aren't interested. I just don't know what that looks like and I don't feel comfortable making a poll to gauge interest when I don't know what we're gauging interest of yet.
Let me be clear, even though I already said this: I want to find out how much interest there is in this and if there isn't enough interest, then we shouldn't do it. That's going to happen.
It seems to be difficult to get any feedback on exactly how this should work or what it should look like because people are so far just saying "this won't work I don't like it and nobody will" as opposed to actual suggestions for something that would work. If I don't get any such suggestions, I'll put together my best guess and make a poll on it and we'll see. You are welcome to vote however you want on that poll.
-
The problem in judging helpfulness as opposed to, say, profanity is that it's subjective. If we assume good faith (and why wouldn't we), then a nice guy who posted an unpopular opinion, or proposed an out of the box solution, or couldn't explain themselves properly is going to see their post deleted, and put yourself in their shoes, they meant their best and got kicked out of the discussion.
This is real bad for a community too.
I can see how a moderating system would be good to have in a "technical" thread (such as one to, say, collect bug reports or count ourselves or list different species in the subfamily Lutrinae), whence it would be cool to be able to move discussion posts to a sister thread made to that purpose.
I guess if you had a specific aim in mind for your thread (a problem to solve, work to do, whatever), you could likewise have an "office" thread where people concentrate on the job, and post in a concise, but complete manner; and an unmoderated "coffee machine" thread, to which you could move any post considered too "lax". This would take away part of the feeling of having been ostracized after you get your post moderated, and would not result in the loss of any helpful contribution, even those deemed unhelpful.
OTOH, you'd have two threads to read, and split discussions and all that, and you cannot prevent people from using the unmoderated thread only so we'd probably end up in the same place we are now, but maybe we will enjoy it a bit more, who knows.
-
I dunno what to tell you, man. If someone is being silly ("otters are cute" or "CotR sucks" or whatever), you can just scroll by their post and ignore them. Or if their post made you laugh, you can chuckle to yourself and maybe +1 it. The response you're giving is what I'd expect to malicious or hurtful posts (and, granted, there have been a few of those on here, which is regrettable). I really don't think the answer is policing, though. Deleting posts only makes people resentful that their post got deleted.
As for examples - just look at the rankings threads. Those have been quite on topic, and no one had to put a serious tag or anything. Or look at the articles subforum - people post their articles, and get constructive feedback. I think your experience with the MF threads in particular is coloring your view as to how this forum is behaving. Everyone on here is really invested in the future of online Dominion, and passions get really high in those threads. We've been waiting for a stable Dominion platform for over 3 years now, and there is a lot of bitterness toward what seems to be near-constant fuck-ups. So some people are taking things into their own hands to try to resolve it, and there's a decided lack of enthusiasm toward the people currently in charge of Dominion Online.
I think the answer for you is to take a break from MF threads in particular. We seem to be having constructive discussions in Dominion General at the moment. :)
-
I would read a forum that did not allow silliness.
I don't have insightful strategic things to say often, so I probably would no post there very much.
I don't have any idea how to moderate it. Your biggest problem will be finding the right balance as to not scare people away from posting. If posts that were made with good intentions, but didn't live up to standards get deleted too often people will give up. Obviously this is not your intention, but I think it will be hard to filter posts that are in the gray area. How do you tell the difference between post type #2 made by a someone who disagrees with the collective, and post type #3?
example:
Black Market is too low, Gear is too high
I know you're being flippant, but Gear seriously is under-ranked.
I'm not being flippant, though admittedly I took the chance to make a parody post...
(JSH admits his post was intended to look like a joke, but I think the example is relevant.
-
I think there is a place for moderated threads. But to an extent they already exist. Forum games, Dominion Tournaments, those all have strict posting requirements whether it be for rule regulations or for quick/swift data collection of wins or whatever in the tournament setting.
So the capacity for these types of threads already exist. I think what needs to happen is that the person requiring or wanting such a specific thread or sub-forum that they could then become a moderator over needs to show why that is essential.
For example: I think the "Ask Donald" anything thread could use some moderation to remove the stupid, "What are you wearing right now" troll questions. That would be a great use of moderation. Or if, for example, Qvist had not created the awesome program he created, but instead had everyone post their ranking lists in thread moderation would be necessary to allow this hypothetical Qvist to more easily collect the data and put it in a presentable format without needing to worry about others cluttering the thread with talking about other people's rankings.
Those are just some examples. So if you can illustrate why it is necessary, and ultimately prove to theory that it is necessary and worthwhile and that you are capable of being a responsible moderator (which you probably are), again to theory, I would have no issue with there being more moderation in the forums. But I think a general sub-forum titled Moderation Only Here that is consistently open to the general public is in general a poor idea (not sure if that is what you are recommending, but that is what I took from your basic premise) as I think too often people will go there seeking card invention feedback or game play feedback and remove any negative critique and thus remove good and profitable discourse from the forums.
-
Just here to say that I'm reading and following the thread. There's value in just having this conversation and listening to people's views.
I also do think that [Serious] tags can work - they work on Reddit after all. It's just that you have to hit the report button mercilessly on anything that isn't actually serious. It's not like "reporting" a post puts the author on a Naughty List or anything, it just flags a particular post to my attention. I anticipate that a system like that would have growing pains as people get used to it.
-
So moderating these things is hard. My only thought is to have multiple people moderating it and only delete posts that are unanimously agreed upon that they need to be deleted. I certainly don't think it's a job for just one person. I do know, however, know that other online communities have had great success with this kind of thing so I know it can be done. I know this because my IRL friend who I trust implicitly was able to rattle off a few subreddits that fit the bill. I promptly forgot which ones they were because I had never heard of them, but I believe it can be done.
Some threads on these forums are already successful at this. Wero mentioned the articles subforum which is the first thing that came to my mind. I had thoughts about merging this hypothetical new place with the articles subforum but I don't want to take something away that already exists. Am I just off base here? I don't have any confidence that if I post a thread on the articles board without the required Magical Secret Mojo™ (which I do not seem to possess) that it won't eventually get trolled by someone. After previous events, I'm really only comfortable posting a serious discussion around here in a place that's more moderated than what we have now.
The tournament boards are successful because there are moderators with the authority to organize discussions when they get off-track and who see the value in keeping things that way. It's super-great! What if we had a place with that kind of moderation, only where we could talk about all things Dominion? I mean, that would check all of my boxes.
The DXV thread, well I feel like that's kind of a special case. DXV likes some of the off-topic questions and just ignores the ones he doesn't like. It works great for him. I am not DXV (but if I had three wishes, you can be-- ahem. Excuse me).
I'm not sure exactly what I'm recommending. I'm not sure I'm the best person to moderate it, I just said I'm willing. There are some really good ideas here that I'm hoping to learn from.
-
Just here to say that I'm reading and following the thread.
<3 <3 <3
I also do think that [Serious] tags can work, it's just that you have to hit the report button mercilessly on anything that isn't actually serious. It's not like "reporting" a post puts the author on a Naughty List or anything, it just flags a particular post to my attention.
I'ma be perfectly honest. I really hesitate to press that button unless I know it's a spam bot. I feel terrible for taking up your time since I don't know how annoying that is to you. I figure that's another benefit of having multiple moderators, so that if I am away for the weekend I don't have to feel like the forums need my attention constantly or something.
-
Please don't do this, I'll have nowhere to go
-
A more serious post: this had been proposed and enacted in several online communities I've been part of in the past. Every time, the serious discussion forum either dies or only gets posted in by the original proposers. People don't like unfree speech. If what you are actually seeking in the depth of your heart (it's not easy to admit) is a place where your own perspective is champion, a blog is a great environment. Just look at ww's. Nothing wrong with it.
-
I've never read ww's blog.
I didn't know he even had a blog.
Probably still won't read it now, though.
-
Somebody asked me to link to it (I won't name names; I'll hide your lack of Google skills from the public)
http://wanderingwindergames.blogspot.com/
As per wero comment:
It's true one person may not read a blog, but a) that person does not reflect the entire community by any means and b) you can share blog posts here and on reddit if you so desire. reddit is practically built for that kind of thing.
-
A more serious post: this had been proposed and enacted in several online communities I've been part of in the past. Every time, the serious discussion forum either dies or only gets posted in by the original proposers.
This is a really frustrating post for me to read. I <3 you, man, but this doesn't help me at all.
I've made it clear that silence is just fine with me. You say "it dies" like that's a bad thing. If nobody is interested then it won't happen, if people are interested then it will. If you don't want to post there, don't. If you don't think it will work, well, good for you. None of these things have happened yet, who knows what the future holds?
For me it's between doing this or not posting at all so I'm going to try and make it work. You saying you think it won't work isn't helping me make it work. It's also not going to get me to stop.
People don't like unfree speech.
Speak for yourself.
If what you are actually seeking in the depth of your heart (it's not easy to admit) is a place where your own perspective is champion, a blog is a great environment. Just look at ww's. Nothing wrong with it.
I don't know where you got this idea. Did I say something that makes you believe this is the case? If so, please point it out so I can make it clearer. If not, then please don't put words in my mouth (or WW's mouth for that matter).
-
PPE: Adam already said something but...
I'm not sure if there is some honest misinterpreting of Adam's wishes here, or what, but I don't see anything implying he is looking for a forum where no one is allowed to disagree with him.
I think it is pretty clear he just wants to be able to talk about Dominion without jerks making posts like this:
Is it Moat?
Qvist,
I encountered a bug where the site asked me to rank a card against itself.
(http://i.imgur.com/OO32gPK.jpg)
-
I don't think my claim is far off the mark, referring back to earlier threads, particularly in his discussion with SCSN. Maybe he never outright stated it, but there were several posts that made this conclusion with textual evidence. Go back and read those; make it a game if you want. Adam is taking the perspective that his conception of how discussion should go is the way it 'should' be, even when he is one of the only people making the argument. (Whether he's right or wrong isn't my interest by the way; I'm happy with the forum and the reddit community mostly as-is.)
I should of course point out that nobody uses the [serious] tag, which is already an existent, less-elaborate application of the type of self-policing Adam is advocating. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't care much if every single discussion is 'serious' or not. My real life is serious enough as-is; having some color on the places I like to visit online helps me get through the day. Maybe I don't find every joke that gets posted here funny, but I also don't find every 'serious' post particularly insightful. And where do you draw the line? Are we requiring a thesis statement in every post now? Are we putting up signs that say "NO FUN ALLOWED"? Do we censor new posters who we perceive as not knowing what they are talking about? I just find the entire concept ridiculous and unproductive, and I strongly suspect Adam's manifesto is coming from too personal of a place to befit the entire forum.
Other than that, anything I would want to say has been covered by other posters here. I apologize for even posting here; debate is not my forte. *goes back to writing skeleton puns for the art thread*
-
You know, this happens to me in RL all the time. I'm very serious about something (usually a game, fancy that!) and the people I'm around, family, friends, etc. just aren't that serious. Therefore, they start poking fun at my seriousness to the point of almost literal ROFL. Which of course makes me more defensive, which just increases the good joke for everyone else. My young daughter is starting to exhibit the same traits.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get people like that on board. The only choices are to flip such a massive gasket that the whole topic shifts to mental stability (but the joke is stopped), or to just let it go.
PPE: I think this has nothing to do with new posters not knowing what they are talking about...on the contrary, this is about highly established and respected posters using sarcasm & joking as weapons/tools (if you will) to galvanize the community and gain a lot of +1s, even if such banter derails the OP. This is the internets, after all, people will do that! So why is it bad to have one "moderated" forum where such posts potentially get blocked as opposed to a ton of upvotes? I honestly don't know.
-
You know, this happens to me in RL all the time. I'm very serious about something (usually a game, fancy that!) and the people I'm around, family, friends, etc. just aren't that serious. Therefore, they start poking fun at my seriousness to the point of almost literal ROFL. Which of course makes me more defensive, which just increases the good joke for everyone else. My young daughter is starting to exhibit the same traits.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get people like that on board. The only choices are to flip such a massive gasket that the whole topic shifts to mental stability (but the joke is stopped), or to just let it go.
I think if those people didn't like you, they wouldn't poke fun at your seriousness. Maybe the other choice is to accept the relationship for what it is.
-
You know, this happens to me in RL all the time. I'm very serious about something (usually a game, fancy that!) and the people I'm around, family, friends, etc. just aren't that serious. Therefore, they start poking fun at my seriousness to the point of almost literal ROFL. Which of course makes me more defensive, which just increases the good joke for everyone else. My young daughter is starting to exhibit the same traits.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get people like that on board. The only choices are to flip such a massive gasket that the whole topic shifts to mental stability (but the joke is stopped), or to just let it go.
I want to point out here that (and your comment is entirely valid, make no mistake) 'seriousness' is in the eye of the beholder. When Adam is saying he wants more serious discussion, for instance, he has a particular idea of that in mind. That might not match another person's perception. For instance, Stef has a very different writing style in his 'serious' posts that I would consider more concise and leaving more up for interpretation (which imply the reader has certain understandings already, and make for very engaging reads by the way), but his 'serious' posts are certainly equal to or at times greater than those characteristic of Adam's more analytical, 'packed' style. As an extreme example, I believe Awaclus is being entirely serious with a lot of his one-liners. Are they not appropriate in a 'serious' discussion? Depends on who you ask.
-
You know, this happens to me in RL all the time. I'm very serious about something (usually a game, fancy that!) and the people I'm around, family, friends, etc. just aren't that serious. Therefore, they start poking fun at my seriousness to the point of almost literal ROFL. Which of course makes me more defensive, which just increases the good joke for everyone else. My young daughter is starting to exhibit the same traits.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get people like that on board. The only choices are to flip such a massive gasket that the whole topic shifts to mental stability (but the joke is stopped), or to just let it go.
I think if those people didn't like you, they wouldn't poke fun at your seriousness. Maybe the other choice is to accept the relationship for what it is.
just let it go == accept the relationship for what it is
(and people doing something because they like you doesn't stop it from being a problem)
You know, this happens to me in RL all the time. I'm very serious about something (usually a game, fancy that!) and the people I'm around, family, friends, etc. just aren't that serious. Therefore, they start poking fun at my seriousness to the point of almost literal ROFL. Which of course makes me more defensive, which just increases the good joke for everyone else. My young daughter is starting to exhibit the same traits.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get people like that on board. The only choices are to flip such a massive gasket that the whole topic shifts to mental stability (but the joke is stopped), or to just let it go.
I want to point out here that (and your comment is entirely valid, make no mistake) 'seriousness' is in the eye of the beholder. When Adam is saying he wants more serious discussion, for instance, he has a particular idea of that in mind. That might not match another person's perception. For instance, Stef has a very different writing style in his 'serious' posts that I would consider more concise and leaving more up for interpretation (which imply the reader has certain understandings already, and make for very engaging reads by the way), but his 'serious' posts are certainly equal to or at times greater than those characteristic of Adam's more analytical, 'packed' style. As an extreme example, I believe Awaclus is being entirely serious with a lot of his one-liners. Are they not appropriate in a 'serious' discussion? Depends on who you ask.
Even though the line may be hard to draw doesn't mean the whole idea is bad - there are some posts which are obviously not serious.
-
You know, this happens to me in RL all the time. I'm very serious about something (usually a game, fancy that!) and the people I'm around, family, friends, etc. just aren't that serious. Therefore, they start poking fun at my seriousness to the point of almost literal ROFL. Which of course makes me more defensive, which just increases the good joke for everyone else. My young daughter is starting to exhibit the same traits.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get people like that on board. The only choices are to flip such a massive gasket that the whole topic shifts to mental stability (but the joke is stopped), or to just let it go.
I think if those people didn't like you, they wouldn't poke fun at your seriousness. Maybe the other choice is to accept the relationship for what it is.
just let it go == accept the relationship for what it is
(and people doing something because they like you doesn't stop it from being a problem)
Hmm.. not exactly what I meant. I meant more, like.. what you're getting isn't exactly what you're looking for, but focus on the parts of it that are beneficial and not that are negative. I mean, it would be far worse if everyone just ignored you entirely.
I have similar experiences with what theright555J was describing.
-
As an extreme example, I believe Awaclus is being entirely serious with a lot of his one-liners. Are they not appropriate in a 'serious' discussion? Depends on who you ask.
Well, I would probably just entirely ignore the forum anyway.
-
- In general splitting communities is bad. It happens anyway, due to wanting to focus on a smaller area, or people having problems with the site owner, or people wanting less moderation. Wanting more moderation, not so common, but here you are. I think I was better off with BGG having all the Dominion traffic, but then there are benefits to having dedicated forums. Currently Dominion is mostly discussed here, then on reddit, then at BGG, then at the German forums. Those pretty much make sense; this site is dedicated, reddit talks about everything, BGG covers all games, and the German forums are in German. It would be better to combine the non-German traffic but there will always be people on BGG who prefer staying there and ditto for reddit.
- It's easy to start your own forums. Zetaboards will give you free ones (with ads) (http://www.zetaboards.com/). You can be up and running so fast. You can make them invite-only if you want just certain people there, or let anyone join. You can moderate however you want and see what happens.
- It's also easy to start a blog. There people can comment on the blog posts. WanderingWinder has a blog with some Dominion articles, probably you've seen it (http://wanderingwindergames.blogspot.com/). Your content could be mostly video-based.
- I think a big thing about the level of moderation is the level of non-post content. If you have tons of non-post content (e.g. front page articles) then people will keep coming to the site for that stuff, despite heavy moderation. When all of the content is posts, they want to say what they want to say.
- If there's a [serious] thread then for sure there will be a parallel "This thread is for replying to Adam's thread without having your post deleted" thread. Really, if you make a separate heavily moderated site that non-members can read, there will be "This thread is for replying to Adam's forums." So I mean, there's something to come to terms with. It seems easy to ignore but it will be there.
- I don't know if you've ever had your posts deleted. It doesn't make people change their wicked ways; it enrages them, and makes them go somewhere else, where their posts won't be deleted. Your rage at posts you didn't want, it's the same for them when they want their post and don't get it. So deleting posts is anti-community, except of course in the case of people trying to provoke the mods, e.g. with shock images. Me personally, I am not interested in having my posts deleted.
- I don't know if f.ds can get ignore lists, but that's a great approach for many people. You hide the Ozles and Witherweavers and never know what you're missing. Except when other people quote them, although their are plug-ins to handle even that. Actually yeah maybe you can do ignore lists with a plug-in if the forum software won't do it. Ignore lists, that is the solution.
- People who make joke posts tend to be popular. It's great to have a WanderingWinder ranking all the cards and writing a paragraph about each; it's also great for a WitherWeaver to crack wise. Even when the hit rate is low. Not that I am praising making tired jokes, man. I might block some of those people, if there were ignore lists. The first three letters are the same, we get it.
-
I don't think my claim is far off the mark, referring back to earlier threads, particularly in his discussion with SCSN. Maybe he never outright stated it, but there were several posts that made this conclusion with textual evidence. Go back and read those; make it a game if you want.
As the person who wrote the posts, and the sole source of all information, intent, and mental and physical work that went into making them, I can say definitively what my intent was and was not. Do you really think you know better than me?
I'd believe you if you showed me some evidence, but seeing as how you just said "go back and pick apart Adam's posts and see if you can find implications that support my point" as your best source of evidence, I'm still not convinced. I still have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Link a specific post, link a thing I said that supports your conclusion and couldn't possibly mean anything else. These would be compelling things, what you said is not compelling.
How many times have I said in this thread that I don't think I'm the best person to be the actual moderator of this? You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that directly contradict your stupid theory about my intentions that you think you know better than me. I honestly don't see how I'm not supposed to take this as a personal attack.
And this is exactly the kind of crap I'd like to not have to deal with when I'm trying to have a productive conversation. His comments are off-topic, non-constructive, and personal in nature. What value does it add to the conversation? You really need to back up what you said or apologize.
I'm not saying I shouldn't be questioned, but I'm not the one who brought up the idea that my opinion shouldn't be questioned. I'm the one who has asked for people to clarify what they mean so it can be talked about, and people like you are the ones who have failed to actually do so.
-
People don't like unfree speech.
Speak for yourself.
Make up your mind! Either he gets to speak for himself or he doesn't.
-
You hide the Ozles and Witherweavers and never know what you're missing.
You're missing some great god-damned content, let me tell you.
-
PPE (because of course): I am just going to post this and not worry about whether other posts conflict with it.
I do think some of the posts that upset Adam in the threads in question were reasonable attempts at constructive conversation that were misinterpreted as trolling. I think the general atmosphere of all the things that were happening contributed to that happening. This is another point that supports the point that this stuff is extremely hard to moderate. I believe it is best to take what Adam has posted here as an accurate representation of what he wants to try to do, and not assume things based on the mud slinging that happened to incite it. If something is started, and on topic disagreement is rejected, I don't think we have to worry about the experiment lasting very long.
I also think there is a very difficult line between disagreeing with someone's position on a topic, and telling them the topic shouldn't be discussed at all. I don't know what point I'm trying to make with that, but I think the second has little value.
I don't have the slightest idea if the thing Adam wants can succeed or not. It is clear that most of the regulars around here are not bothered by the things he wants to avoid, but perhaps we would perfectly happy to participate in the [serious] threads and have our fun in the other 99% of the forum.
-
For what it's worth, I think ignore list functionality would be useful.
-
You know, this happens to me in RL all the time. I'm very serious about something (usually a game, fancy that!) and the people I'm around, family, friends, etc. just aren't that serious. Therefore, they start poking fun at my seriousness to the point of almost literal ROFL. Which of course makes me more defensive, which just increases the good joke for everyone else. My young daughter is starting to exhibit the same traits.
Unfortunately, there is no way to get people like that on board. The only choices are to flip such a massive gasket that the whole topic shifts to mental stability (but the joke is stopped), or to just let it go.
I think if those people didn't like you, they wouldn't poke fun at your seriousness. Maybe the other choice is to accept the relationship for what it is.
just let it go == accept the relationship for what it is
(and people doing something because they like you doesn't stop it from being a problem)
Hmm.. not exactly what I meant. I meant more, like.. what you're getting isn't exactly what you're looking for, but focus on the parts of it that are beneficial and not that are negative. I mean, it would be far worse if everyone just ignored you entirely.
I have similar experiences with what theright555J was describing.
The literal statement of this is correct. It sounds like it implies something false though.
The thing is, it's not a binary choice overall. For you, you should just put up with it and be grateful you have any family or friends, but the fact that your situation is better than the worst possible situation doesn't mean much, and excusing the people involved in that behavior can lead to all sorts of problems.
If "accept your relationship for what it is" is talking about your attitude, then yeah. You should look on the bright side of life. But framing the problem like that makes it sound like their behavior is actually NBD, when in fact it's a mild to moderate (YMMV) form of emotional abuse.
I don't have the slightest idea if the thing Adam wants can succeed or not. It is clear that most of the regulars around here are not bothered by the things he wants to avoid, but perhaps we would perfectly happy to participate in the [serious] threads and have our fun in the other 99% of the forum.
I fully agree.
-
I don't think my claim is far off the mark, referring back to earlier threads, particularly in his discussion with SCSN. Maybe he never outright stated it, but there were several posts that made this conclusion with textual evidence. Go back and read those; make it a game if you want.
As the person who wrote the posts, and the sole source of all information, intent, and mental and physical work that went into making them, I can say definitively what my intent was and was not. Do you really think you know better than me?
I'd believe you if you showed me some evidence, but seeing as how you just said "go back and pick apart Adam's posts and see if you can find implications that support my point" as your best source of evidence, I'm still not convinced. I still have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Link a specific post, link a thing I said that supports your conclusion and couldn't possibly mean anything else. These would be compelling things, what you said is not compelling.
How many times have I said in this thread that I don't think I'm the best person to be the actual moderator of this? You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that directly contradict your stupid theory about my intentions that you think you know better than me. I honestly don't see how I'm not supposed to take this as a personal attack.
And this is exactly the kind of crap I'd like to not have to deal with when I'm trying to have a productive conversation. His comments are off-topic, non-constructive, and personal in nature. What value does it add to the conversation? You really need to back up what you said or apologize.
I'm not saying I shouldn't be questioned, but I'm not the one who brought up the idea that my opinion shouldn't be questioned. I'm the one who has asked for people to clarify what they mean so it can be talked about, and people like you are the ones who have failed to actually do so.
I would venture to bet that it's exactly this type of post that gives jsh the impression he got.
-
...
Man, all I'm really trying to say is that people don't necessarily mean you ill will, even when what you get isn't what you planned to get. Both in online forums and in real life.
Okay so I'm making a more relevant point here: it's a forum, people post, free posting is better, you're not always going to like it, and that's all okay. I hold that the benefit of open posting/discussion outweighs the negatives.
-
I would venture to bet that it's exactly this type of post that gives jsh the impression he got.
Maybe you can enlighten me as to what is the issue here?
-
- In general splitting communities is bad. It happens anyway, due to wanting to focus on a smaller area, or people having problems with the site owner, or people wanting less moderation. Wanting more moderation, not so common, but here you are. I think I was better off with BGG having all the Dominion traffic, but then there are benefits to having dedicated forums. Currently Dominion is mostly discussed here, then on reddit, then at BGG, then at the German forums. Those pretty much make sense; this site is dedicated, reddit talks about everything, BGG covers all games, and the German forums are in German. It would be better to combine the non-German traffic but there will always be people on BGG who prefer staying there and ditto for reddit.
I think this forum is rather unique in that there is a dedicated community of probably the best Dominion players in the world. All the other places you've mentioned are mainly just randos popping in to ask rules questions.
-
Completely serious suggestion: Could we just get a "Hide Post" button? Don't like the post, just ignore it and move on. Nobody's forcing you to engage them. I realize reading the same shitty post over and over can be quite the mental and emotional drain, so there's value in letting the user hide them. Similar to the collapse post function in Reddit.
All the people that only want serious posts on their threads can just hide the rest from view. Takes no effort, everyone gets what they want.
-
I would venture to bet that it's exactly this type of post that gives jsh the impression he got.
Maybe you can enlighten me as to what is the issue here?
Because it feels like when someone posts a statement about you, what they get in response is a rant. It looks a lot like you take offense to people disagreeing with you. Now I hesitate to say that, because I've seen that said before, and it gets a certain type of response:
As the person who wrote the posts, and the sole source of all information, intent, and mental and physical work that went into making them, I can say definitively what my intent was and was not. Do you really think you know better than me?
I've seen this post (by which, I mean, the same content in almost the same words) maybe about four times. It's clear that people are misinterpreting you. But honestly, every time I see this I'm surprised, because when I read the posts that get this response, I read it as someone trying to understand where you're coming from, and you ranting at their audacity to assume they know what you're feeling and thinking. But really I don't get it.. isn't the point of posting on a forum to share with others what you're feeling or thinking? They're not telling you what you're feeling: they're telling you what they think you're feeling. They can be wrong at that, and you can try to clarify. I don't see you clarifying much: I see you arguing.
How many times have I said in this thread that I don't think I'm the best person to be the actual moderator of this? You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that directly contradict your stupid theory about my intentions that you think you know better than me. I honestly don't see how I'm not supposed to take this as a personal attack.
This just strikes me as straight up hypocritical. Specifically your stupid theory and I honestly don't see how I'm not supposed to take this as a personal attack.
And this is exactly the kind of crap I'd like to not have to deal with when I'm trying to have a productive conversation. His comments are off-topic, non-constructive, and personal in nature. What value does it add to the conversation? You really need to back up what you said or apologize.
(emphasis mine)
Again, your tone and words are a lot more of an attack than what was originally said, unless I grossly misunderstood. Moreover, I don't think his comments are off-topic. And this is like.. I mean, this is what does it:
I'm trying to have a productive conversation
Your conversations are productive, but other peoples' are crap, off-topic, non-productive, stupid, personal attacks. Is it really that hard to see how someone can read your post and see it as you not wanting different viewpoints?
I just.. if he's wrong, he's wrong, but I don't think he was the one doing attacking. Every time I read your posts where there's disagreement, you come off (to me) as way more antagonistic than those you're talking with.
-
it feels like when someone posts a statement about you, what they get in response is a rant. It looks a lot like you take offense to people disagreeing with you. Now I hesitate to say that, because I've seen that said before, and it gets a certain type of response:
Well I hope I don't make you regret your post. I liked your post because you actually have reasons for what you say and it can actually be talked about.
As the person who wrote the posts, and the sole source of all information, intent, and mental and physical work that went into making them, I can say definitively what my intent was and was not. Do you really think you know better than me?
I've seen this post (by which, I mean, the same content in almost the same words) maybe about four times. It's clear that people are misinterpreting you. But honestly, every time I see this I'm surprised, because when I read the posts that get this response, I read it as someone trying to understand where you're coming from, and you ranting at their audacity to assume they know what you're feeling and thinking.
So it's no secret, I don't like it with people assume things about me, especially when I know that those assumptions are false (I have an unfair advantage, being myself and everything). I read it as someone who has already determined what I'm thinking and feeling and is not open to all of the evidence that already exists to the contrary. I don't think people should assume then know what I'm thinking and feeling when it's not the same thing as what I told them I'm thinking and feeling. When those assumptions question my integrity, I take it personally.
The one in this thread, IMO, fell into that category -- does anyone disagree with this? Let me be clear: jsh's post did not contain any justification for what he said (in fact what he says is directly contradicted by evidence I showed), and its content questions my integrity. No matter how politely he said it, I'm still convinced that it is a personal attack. I gave my reasons and nobody has shown me anything that refutes them. I've asked several times for this, but nothing has come up.
Other ones, well it's possible I may have overreacted to some of them (I even said that in the OP about a particular one), are you saying this about all of them? Like, I can't exactly go review all of my posts and look for things that people could get mad about, it's hard for me to do that because I'm me and I don't know what I'm looking for. If you point to a particular one I can address it. It seems very possible to me that I took something like this as a personal attack for similar reasons, and based on the stuff below, I may have used some words that made it harder for people to understand what I was trying to say.
How many times have I said in this thread that I don't think I'm the best person to be the actual moderator of this? You can't just ignore the parts of what I say that directly contradict your stupid theory about my intentions that you think you know better than me. I honestly don't see how I'm not supposed to take this as a personal attack.
This just strikes me as straight up hypocritical. Specifically your stupid theory and I honestly don't see how I'm not supposed to take this as a personal attack.
And this is exactly the kind of crap I'd like to not have to deal with when I'm trying to have a productive conversation. His comments are off-topic, non-constructive, and personal in nature. What value does it add to the conversation? You really need to back up what you said or apologize.
(emphasis mine)
Again, your tone and words are a lot more of an attack than what was originally said, unless I grossly misunderstood. Moreover, I don't think his comments are off-topic. And this is like.. I mean, this is what does it:
I'm trying to have a productive conversation
Your conversations are productive, but other peoples' are crap, off-topic, non-productive, stupid, personal attacks.
So if I don't say crap or stupid, is everything else OK? I'm willing to accept that I should have used better words than those. It also might have had some value in reinforcing the community's view that I should not be the one with the authority over what is considered "off-topic", so "non-productive" may not apply either.
OTOH, I will stand behind that his post was a personal attack. I'll stand behind that it was off-topic. My choice of words doesn't change these facts.
Is it really that hard to see how someone can read your post and see it as you not wanting different viewpoints?
I just.. if he's wrong, he's wrong, but I don't think he was the one doing attacking. Every time I read your posts where there's disagreement, you come off (to me) as way more antagonistic than those you're talking with.
There are several posts before that where I responded positively to other peoples' ideas -- they were constructive and not all of them jived with my OP. Jsh's post was clearly different to me, so yes it is hard for me to see that. I'll take your word for it that this is where the disconnect is, so thank you for telling me.
I mean, if it's all about two words I used, then people are missing the content of his post and my responses to it. Is that really the cause of this entire misunderstanding? Like, if you told me it was, I'd believe you, but that seems really strange to me.
-
All this forum needs is another moderator or two. Theory does a good job, but he doesn't catch everything, especially on posts that aren't reported.
The borrow thread is a good example of a thread that needed moderation. The discussion quickly became off topic and vitriolic, and should have been dealt with regardless of whether it had a [serious] tag or not.
-
It's just a few words, but rather the overall tone. I don't think jsh was quite correct in what he said, but I do think I see where he comes from.
I will try to type up a more detailed post tomorrow
-
...I'll stand behind that it was off-topic...
I just want to respond to this first because I think this is what worries people about your proposal the most, as evidenced by Withweaver, Deadlock, and jsh's comments. (I'd provide quotes, but I'm bad at posting, which is why I never do it.)
I'm going to try to explain why jsh's comments seem on topic.
If I am understanding correctly, the topic is "A place for more moderated discussion." In each of jsh's posts (disregarding whether he is personally attacking you or not) he gives at least one reason why he thinks a place such as that would be a bad idea in each of his posts. This is on topic.
Maybe you hoped that this paragraph:
Some people think that having moderated discussion is a bad thing, I would say to those people that they are not required to read or participate in moderated discussion. If those people are worried that nobody would participate in moderated discussion, then I would say to those people that silence is preferable to irrelevant noise. If those people choose to disagree with that statement, then I respect their opinion and would like to remind them that they are not required to read or participate in this moderated discussion, and also to please consider that other people out there may have a different opinion and would like to have a place to talk under these guidelines.
says that this is not the thread to discuss whether such a place is a good idea or not. But it doesn't actually say that. Therefore, I do not see why jsh's posts should be considered off-topic.
Finally, you suggest this is just evidence that you shouldn't be the one to moderate these things, but that suggests that another moderator wouldn't remove posts like jsh's. If that's the case, would this hypothetical space on the forum even serve the function that you want it to?
Edit: Since there's no reason for you to have any idea who I am, I just want to also add that I appreciate your presence in this community, Adam, and hope that even if this solution doesn't pan out I hope you can find a way to stick around. :)
-
I am firmly for the status quo. I think theory does a fine job of moderating the actual trolls and flamers (who are few and far between). I would strongly prefer that Dominion-related discussion not be split into two subforums. I don't see any need for restrictions on what folks can post where (apart from what's already in place, I mean), and I say that as someone who has been on the receiving end of this sort of off-topic deluge. I once made a thread in the variants forum for a fan card called "Monopoly", and of course the thread was instantly full of Monopoly (the game) related jokes. But here's the thing: the jokers were not to blame for a lack of discussion about my card. If someone wanted to post an opinion, off-topic posts wouldn't stop them. In reality the card idea just didn't merit discussion.
And this is a point that I think bears repeating: we have no evidence that heavier moderation would actually improve the quality of discourse. A [serious] tag may stop someone from posting a joke, but it won't make them post insightful Dominion commentary instead. And someone who was going to post both might instead post neither. Also, just because a topic gets derailed, that doesn't stop people from posting more on-topic discussion afterward. If the thread doesn't get back on topic, it's because nobody has anything they want to contribute at that time, not because of the intervening chaff.
-
Maybe it's not clear? I'm talking about the following exchange:
If what you are actually seeking in the depth of your heart (it's not easy to admit) is a place where your own perspective is champion, a blog is a great environment. Just look at ww's. Nothing wrong with it.
I don't know where you got this idea. Did I say something that makes you believe this is the case? If so, please point it out so I can make it clearer. If not, then please don't put words in my mouth (or WW's mouth for that matter).
I don't think my claim is far off the mark, referring back to earlier threads, particularly in his discussion with SCSN. Maybe he never outright stated it, but there were several posts that made this conclusion with textual evidence. Go back and read those; make it a game if you want. Adam is taking the perspective that his conception of how discussion should go is the way it 'should' be, even when he is one of the only people making the argument.
This is what I have an issue with. The rest of his stuff is fine -- I don't really agree with it but I don't have a problem with him saying it. When I'm talking about an inappropriate thing that was said, that's off-topic and offensive and blah blah blah, it's this. I'm not talking about the other stuff he said and I'm not talking about any of the stuff anybody else said. Has this been an area of confusion? If so, I hope it is no longer an area of confusion. Tripwire, I don't believe I actually disagree with any of what you said...
Finally, you suggest this is just evidence that you shouldn't be the one to moderate these things, but that suggests that another moderator wouldn't remove posts like jsh's. If that's the case, would this hypothetical space on the forum even serve the function that you want it to?
I don't know how many times I have to say this -- I'm not looking for a place where I can delete the posts of people who disagree with me. That is not what I want. What I want is not a place where I can delete the posts of people who disagree with me.
I have no idea why people think this is what I want. It's not what I want. In fact, I want quite the opposite. It is Jsh who suggested that this is what I want, and all I have done is deny that and continue to show evidence that this is not what I want. What you have quoted is in fact some of that exact evidence that this is not what I want. You are correct that this is not what I would want! I never wanted that! I have asked for examples of where I have said or implied that this is what I want but none have been provided for me; I suspect this is partially because this is not what I want.
Like, whatever outlets I'm going to have for Dominion are going to happen or not happen regardless of what goes on here (btw, it's a podcast, not a blog, and it's a long way off). The reason I would want to post here is precisely to have people tell me things about Dominion so that I can get better at Dominion. If I just wanted people to agree with me, why would I want that? I would already think I'm the best person in the world at Dominion. I am not. I'm not even close.
To summarize, I'm looking for a place on the forums where discussion about Dominion can take place without the added noise of scout jokes, or other off-topic posts. Disagreement is just fine, in fact it's the whole point. My opinion should not be valued more than the opinions of others unless it turns out that I am demonstrably correct (don't worry, this will never happen).
I am firmly for the status quo.
I am firmly for whatever is best, regardless of whether or not it is what we're currently doing.
we have no evidence that heavier moderation would actually improve the quality of discourse.
This thread. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12757.0) I had high hopes for it and planned to post tons of useful things in there. I no longer even read this thread because I got frustrated with all of the off-topic discussion that happened there. Part of the reason we don't have this evidence is that nobody has gone looking for it. Once there's enough information here to make a decent/relevant poll on the topic, I plan to make such a poll and we will have evidence if that evidence exists.
And I'm even willing to say that if such a poll does not reveal enough people who are interested in this, I'd count that as evidence that this isn't a good idea (even though that's probably not entirely true). If that happens, I will stop pushing for this and I will shut up about it (I probably won't post on F.DS anymore).
If people are so confident that nobody is interested in this and it's a bad idea and it will never work, then this poll should reflect that and those people will have exactly what they want. I'm really not moved by statements that aren't backed up by anything when we can just have these results and know for sure.
-
we have no evidence that heavier moderation would actually improve the quality of discourse.
This thread. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12757.0) I had high hopes for it and planned to post tons of useful things in there. I no longer even read this thread because I got frustrated with all of the off-topic discussion that happened there. Part of the reason we don't have this evidence is that nobody has gone looking for it. Once there's enough information here to make a decent/relevant poll on the topic, I plan to make such a poll and we will have evidence if that evidence exists.
Have you looked at that thread lately? It's been pretty much entirely suggestions about neat card interactions recently. Jokes come and go, and if people are interested in the topic, they'll post interesting things. And it didn't even need any moderation to get back on topic. :)
-
This thread. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12757.0) I had high hopes for it and planned to post tons of useful things in there. I no longer even read this thread because I got frustrated with all of the off-topic discussion that happened there.
That's unfortunate because people continue to post little "combos" in that thread to this day. I actually think that the thread is evidence of some of the things LastFootnote suggests, such as the fact that threads can return to a topic after going off topic for a while.
That being said, the fact that you have stopped posting in there despite feeling like you have more things to post is also evidence that off-topic chatter will prevent some people from making substantive posts.
I look forward to the poll.
PPE: And wero beats me to it. Man lurking's so much easier :P
-
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
It is the nature of a forum to be public. We cannot choose who responds to our posts and what opinions they have.
-
we have no evidence that heavier moderation would actually improve the quality of discourse.
This thread. (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12757.0) I had high hopes for it and planned to post tons of useful things in there. I no longer even read this thread because I got frustrated with all of the off-topic discussion that happened there. Part of the reason we don't have this evidence is that nobody has gone looking for it. Once there's enough information here to make a decent/relevant poll on the topic, I plan to make such a poll and we will have evidence if that evidence exists.
I'm not sure if you've forgotten, but you brought up your concerns in that thread (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=12757.msg484301#msg484301) and I think your concerns were adequately addressed in the discussion after that. Stuff that you decided was "off-topic" really didn't seem that way, given the thread title and even some of the examples you posted yourself. And I thought you eventually understood that the intent of the thread was unclear, even to you:
I'm all for keeping this thread useful, but I am confused as to what is expected of it.
Me too, brah. Me too. :-\
Re: the proposal in the OP, I'm neutral on the idea but I don't really see the need. When an OP is sufficiently serious (e.g. a good article) then the discussion tends to remain serious. Discussion will branch out at times, but that's natural in any productive discussion and longer off-topic discussions can get forked into new threads as long as they get reported. I think that's really all that's needed.
-
To summarize, I'm looking for a place on the forums where discussion about Dominion can take place without the added noise of scout jokes, or other off-topic posts.
If you don't want to see those off-topic posts, that's fine and reasonable. You could scroll on past them. Maybe you could find ignore list software that works with these forums; a browser plug-in. Ignore lists would be great.
If you don't want me to see those off-topic posts, well, I am so strongly against that. Cover your ears for yourself! It's just so... unfriendly... to want something not to exist that other people are enjoying but which you don't.
BGG is more heavily moderated than here. You could try posting a thread for Dominion discussion there. See what happens. It's easy; I've posted threads there myself. Despite werothedisdainful's dismissal, there are for sure good players on both reddit and BGG. Including some people you know from here.
-
You hide the Ozles and Witherweavers and never know what you're missing.
You're missing some great god-damned content, let me tell you.
I don't see ignore lists being very useful when looking to read serious discussion.
What if it's some high profile players that you'd normally want to read Dominion advice from like Stef or SCSN who are steering discussion in an unwanted place. A prime example is the running game that MF sucks (for the record, I still want to reserve judgement on whether I feel this is actually the case, but it's getting hard to do so). If big players are making dismissive remarks about MF, then everyone will want to jump in. If you're looking for proper discussion as to the reasons why MF is not doing a good job, you'll eventually want to ignore many posters because they're all being flippant about the topic.
It cuts the other way too. What if Ozle comes along and make insightful posts about Moat? I want to be there for that. We are all capable of posting serious discussion that is worth considering regardless of apparent player skill.
If a separate board with heavier moderation comes along then dies, well we'd still have this forum. What would be have to lose by trying it out?
-
I don't see ignore lists being very useful when looking to read serious discussion.
What if it's some high profile players that you'd normally want to read Dominion advice from like Stef or SCSN who are steering discussion in an unwanted place. A prime example is the running game that MF sucks (for the record, I still want to reserve judgement on whether I feel this is actually the case, but it's getting hard to do so). If big players are making dismissive remarks about MF, then everyone will want to jump in. If you're looking for proper discussion as to the reasons why MF is not doing a good job, you'll eventually want to ignore many posters because they're all being flippant about the topic.
It cuts the other way too. What if Ozle comes along and make insightful posts about Moat? I want to be there for that. We are all capable of posting serious discussion that is worth considering regardless of apparent player skill.
Meh. I don't sympathize at all. Stef doesn't owe you his serious posts; Ozle doesn't owe you his lack of serious posts. If there's a thread you aren't enjoying, you can ignore just that thread too. If you're worried about missing insightful Ozle posts, ignore via the scroll wheel rather than an ignore list.
If a separate board with heavier moderation comes along then dies, well we'd still have this forum. What would be have to lose by trying it out?
You're free to try the experiment yourself, right now. I already posted the Zetaboards link.
-
werothedisdainful
*taps monocle on velvet armchair with upraised pinkey*
-
I don't see ignore lists being very useful when looking to read serious discussion.
What if it's some high profile players that you'd normally want to read Dominion advice from like Stef or SCSN who are steering discussion in an unwanted place. A prime example is the running game that MF sucks (for the record, I still want to reserve judgement on whether I feel this is actually the case, but it's getting hard to do so). If big players are making dismissive remarks about MF, then everyone will want to jump in. If you're looking for proper discussion as to the reasons why MF is not doing a good job, you'll eventually want to ignore many posters because they're all being flippant about the topic.
It cuts the other way too. What if Ozle comes along and make insightful posts about Moat? I want to be there for that. We are all capable of posting serious discussion that is worth considering regardless of apparent player skill.
Meh. I don't sympathize at all. Stef doesn't owe you his serious posts; Ozle doesn't owe you his lack of serious posts. If there's a thread you aren't enjoying, you can ignore just that thread too. If you're worried about missing insightful Ozle posts, ignore via the scroll wheel rather than an ignore list.
If a separate board with heavier moderation comes along then dies, well we'd still have this forum. What would be have to lose by trying it out?
You're free to try the experiment yourself, right now. I already posted the Zetaboards link.
It's funny, I personally only tend to skip over walls of text with my scroll wheel, only going back to it if it was really important to the discussion. I guess that means I like the less verbose blunt statements and the jokes?
But like I don't agree with ban lists for posters because of what you described. I can just walk out of a thread I do not enjoy or skip posts I do not want to read. I'm bound to find other threads where the posters that were causing trouble in one thread are livening up things.
That doesn't mean I can't understand when someone else gets annoyed that a thread they really liked isn't generating the intended discussion. But then there's no guarantee the thread won't die early without the humour sprinkled in just because the topic ran it's course early.
-
To summarize, I'm looking for a place on the forums where discussion about Dominion can take place without the added noise of scout jokes, or other off-topic posts.
If you don't want to see those off-topic posts, that's fine and reasonable. You could scroll on past them. Maybe you could find ignore list software that works with these forums; a browser plug-in. Ignore lists would be great.
If you don't want me to see those off-topic posts, well, I am so strongly against that. Cover your ears for yourself! It's just so... unfriendly... to want something not to exist that other people are enjoying but which you don't.
Are ignore lists even possible? I don't want to ignore people, I would want to ignore posts. Ignoring people seems counterproductive.
I have to read a post before I know whether or not it's off-topic. After reading 10 off-topic posts in a row it gets very tiring. It really doesn't seem like too much for me to ask for there to be one place where these off-topic posts aren't. I'm not preventing anyone else from posting them or reading them, I'd just rather they do it somewhere else. It's like people don't want me to be able to have a serious discussion about Dominion because they post off-topic stuff, so there's this other place for that.
Clearly what I'm asking for is too much, but I genuinely don't understand why. They can have their place where they make their jokes, I have my place where I can have my quiet discussion. Nobody is forcing anybody to post in either, they just exist for different purposes. If nobody likes my place, then fine, nobody likes it and we don't have to have it.
BGG is more heavily moderated than here. You could try posting a thread for Dominion discussion there. See what happens. It's easy; I've posted threads there myself. Despite werothedisdainful's dismissal, there are for sure good players on both reddit and BGG. Including some people you know from here.
Whether or not I do this doesn't have much to do with what I'm suggesting here. Are you suggesting things for me other than F.DS because you just want me to leave and you feel bad? I don't get it. I don't see what my relationship with F.DS has to do with any of this stuff. I stated the reasons why I want to continue posting here, those are the reasons. Am I missing something?
Meh. I don't sympathize at all. Stef doesn't owe you his serious posts; Ozle doesn't owe you his lack of serious posts. If there's a thread you aren't enjoying, you can ignore just that thread too. If you're worried about missing insightful Ozle posts, ignore via the scroll wheel rather than an ignore list.
Umm, so you suggested ignore lists, but now since ignore lists aren't perfect we don't want them anymore. I'm really confused.
So imagine that, I started a thread with a goal of coming up with what a more moderated subboard would look like here and we haven't talked about that in quite some time. I'd really like to pull the discussion back to that so we can have a poll and stop speculating about the results of it before it even exists, but there's been like two pages of other stuff in between. How many people are going to make it this far into the thread to give useful feedback? How many people will read the first page, see that the conversation has gone in a different direction that they aren't interested in, and stop reading? If only there were a way to split this other discussion into a separate thread so everything was more organized.
Like, should I start a new thread here? Posting about what the poll needs to look like seems entirely senseless to me. The kind of people who would actually have helpful feedback have stopped reading by this point. I started this thread so that one day I wouldn't have to deal with exactly what this thread has become.
Anyways, I know this isn't good, but here's what I'm thinking for the poll:
Question: would you participate in a more moderated sub-board on F.DS?
1. Yes, I would probably post in it.
2. I would probably read it, and maybe I would post in it.
3. I would probably read it, but it's unlikely that I would post in it.
4. I probably wouldn't read it, but I think it's a good idea to have one.
5. I don't know whether or not I would read or post in it.
6. I don't want anything to do with it, but it's fine with me if it exists.
7. I think it's a bad idea because nobody will read or post in it and it will just die.
8. I think it's a bad idea for some other reason (explain in comments).
I don't like this for a few reasons. First, options 5 and 6 seem very similar to just not responding, but that's probably OK. Is there a way to require an explanation for option 8? I don't want people to have to jump through hoops just to vote for a thing, but at the same time if there's an actual legitimate reason for 8 then I want to know about it -- it seems to me that the existence of this thing couldn't possibly harm anyone (it should be easy to ignore) but if there's something I'm missing then that seems really important.
And the big problem for me is the actual question: to someone who doesn't read this thread, what does that question even mean? I could give a short description of that in the OP but I don't know what that short description would look like. Without an adequate description, I feel like most people would just pick answer 5, which is not a terribly useful answer; it just means the poll wasn't good enough.
If this was the poll, I'd look for a decent number of responses between answers 1-4.
There have been a few ideas presented but instead of talking about the merits of each one we've gone on this tangent. I guess I can try and summarize the ideas that seem like they have the most traction?
1. Separate subforum with moderators (who are not Adam, I am no longer willing to do this) who move or delete posts that don't belong.
2. Adding moderators to an existing board (Articles? This wasn't really made clear) who move or delete posts that don't belong.
3. Somehow improve the use of the [serious] tag. This one doesn't seem fleshed out to me, I don't quite understand how this would work.
-
Adam, I'm one of your biggest fans. I've gotten my wife and kids saying things like "for funsies". I subscribe to you on Twitch and YouTube.
Nonetheless, you can't legislate attitude! I can't say I love it either when I see a response like Is it Moat? and it gets a bunch of upvotes, but hey, it's what people want! And if they don't want it, well the conversation will just die, change topic and stop getting upvotes, and then the behavior will change too.
There is definitely good Dominion content even in the short "snarky" comments. I'm coming to grips with the fact that a lot people on here have writing and speaking styles which I may find offensive at first blush, but seeing enough of it, I'm convinced it's just their style. No degree of moderation of a post is going to change the style of the posts.
I actually really like the idea of a "collapse post" button or a "hide post" button (I'm pretty sure BGG has something like this) so that you don't have to read any post you don't like. This can even flag to mods so that if enough people hide a post it can be investigated as flaming/trolling.
-
I'd vote for number one as long as people couldn't create moderated threads whenever they felt like it, but instead had to state a clear and meaningful purpose for why it needed to be moderated (probably to theory or someone else with fully vested moderating powers)
-
Nonetheless, you can't legislate attitude! I can't say I love it either when I see a response like Is it Moat? and it gets a bunch of upvotes, but hey, it's what people want! And if they don't want it, well the conversation will just die, change topic and stop getting upvotes, and then the behavior will change too.
There are threads that stay on topic. None of those are threads that I start. Maybe it's because I ask for them to stay on topic and then people feel the need to troll me. If this is to be glorified as "what people want" well I'm not one of those people and you can't make me become one of those people. It's absolutely beyond me how anyone could possibly think that is a good thing, but I guess people do.
This is not who I am, I am the type of person who will actually respect the wishes of other people even if I don't understand or agree with them, at least as long as it's not hurting me. All of the arguments you all have presented about free speech and less moderation, I mean none of those are as compelling to me as wanting to just do what people ask for. I don't expect anybody who actually posts in this thread to understand my perspective, this isn't for those people. You can all vote no on this poll and that's fine.
I'd vote for number one as long as people couldn't create moderated threads whenever they felt like it, but instead had to state a clear and meaningful purpose for why it needed to be moderated (probably to theory or someone else with fully vested moderating powers)
I have no problems with this. Is this something that would make people feel better?
-
For example:
Here is something that a person could suggest doing. A dominion debate, in which, two people ( lets call them Fets and Cim) meet together in a thread to debate, let's say "which card is better." Both forum members are assigned a side and then need to follow the rules of debate to try and demonstrate their side. It would be good for the forum to have such a conversation I think. And to have it a setting where 1. It is easily readable 2. Isn't interrupted and 3. One side doesn't have an unfair advantage by having others posts applicable points for them. So this would need a setting that is moderated. There can be another thread where people could talk while the debate is taking place (scouts honor that the participants don't cheat and look) and could be opened up post debate for further discussion.
It could be possible to do this in a non-moderated setting, but that would rely on all forum members following the rules and hoping that they know them.
This is just an example. I am sure there are others and so I ask is the above scenario off-putting or disturbing in any way? Is freedom of speech ( whatever that term even means in a forum setting, I don't know) restricted? Does it help or hurt the community?
Those are the questions that the person deciding would have to answer.
-
This is baseless speculation, but I think the people you may need to poll are the (potential) moderators. I believe, if this more moderated place existed, people would absolutely read it, there would most likely be enough people inclined to post there for there to be content. (At least to start with. Its life span will depend on many things.) However, if there aren't moderators available who want to dedicate time to police things there, it won't actually be more moderated. There may be others willing to put time into this effort, but from the general response in this thread, it appears you (Adam) are the most strongly interested party, but don't feel like you can do the moderating.
For this reason, I would recommend the #3 option. I involves updating and explaining the definition of the tag. You might need to work with theory or some of the moderators to refine that definition to something they agree upon for moderation purposes. Then you (and anyone else using the tag) will need to loosen their "Report to moderator" clicking finger because that is probably the best way to bring something you believe is off topic to their attention.
-
Question: would you participate in a more moderated sub-board on F.DS?
1. Yes, I would probably post in it.
2. I would probably read it, and maybe I would post in it.
3. I would probably read it, but it's unlikely that I would post in it.
4. I probably wouldn't read it, but I think it's a good idea to have one.
5. I don't know whether or not I would read or post in it.
6. I don't want anything to do with it, but it's fine with me if it exists.
7. I think it's a bad idea because nobody will read or post in it and it will just die.
8. I think it's a bad idea for some other reason (explain in comments).
It's a bad idea because it splits discussion about the same topic into two separate areas, and potentially splits the community, all so that you don't have to see posts that inexplicably enrage you.
EDIT: Also, I think it's clear that such a thing wouldn't actually solve your problem, since any reasonable moderator will have a much looser definition of "on-topic" than you do. Case in point: this thread. Almost every post has been on-topic, yet you claim it should be subdivided.
-
I totally agree with you, funkdoc. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I don't want to hear people who disagree with me.
i think where some of us got that impression was the fact that in one of those threads, you straight-up said something like "why can't people who disagree with me just keep quiet and not keep posting publicly?" (paraphrasing, gotta leave for work soon). i understand what you're getting at, but some of your choice in words hasn't been a good look for what you're trying to communicate. i'm sure they didn't come from the best place emotionally, so clarifying now is a good thing =)
only other thing i'll say is that i actually wanted to make a thread suggesting someone do a dominion podcast, so good shit to you for already getting there. i think blogs and forums are gradually becoming a thing of the past and podcasts are the future (really, the present as well) since we can enjoy those while working out or cleaning the house or what have you. i'm even lucky enough to have a job where i can listen to anything from the internet all day, and i'm far from the only one in these kinds of communities.
-
Tangentially, I've been reading some of the Neat and Potentially Useful Thread and reading what you (Adam) state as desirable in your replies, it sounds like you might want to consider creating wiki pages for that kind of things, with related (free) discussion threads. (I guess few people would actually use the Talk page, would they?). Or you could have [serious] discussion in the Talk page, or whatevs.
Anyway, it looks like you wanted a neat list of interesting card interactions made from community effort, and also to have it kept tidy and readable, and that's hard in a Forum environment, regardless of moderation. Wikis just hit the spot, and we could use some more general contribution to DSwiki in my opinion.
Edit: wording.
-
Tangentially, I've been reading some of the Neat and Potentially Useful Thread and reading what you (Adam) state as desirable in your replies, it sounds like you might consider to create wiki pages for that kind of things, with related (free) discussion threads. (I guess few people would actually use the Talk page, would they?). Or you could have [serious] discussion in the Talk page, or whatevs.
Anyway, it looks like you wanted a neat list of interesting card interactions made from community effort, and also to have it kept tidy and readable, and that's hard in a Forum environment, regardless of moderation. Wikis just hit the spot, and we could use some more general contribution to DSwiki in my opinion.
Why didn't you suggest this several months ago? Where have you been all my life?
I demand you go back in time and rectify this.
you straight-up said something like "why can't people who disagree with me just keep quiet and not keep posting publicly?" (paraphrasing, gotta leave for work soon).
Obvs I can't actually address this without knowing what you're talking about. I will wait patiently for clarification if you choose to provide it.
OTOH, if I said those exact words, I can guarantee you I was being sarcastic. This may be possible.
-
I honestly didn't (and still don't) understand why people can't just say nothing when they disagree with me
Not that it matters to me (see above and below) but if you don't like what I'm saying or that I'm saying anything, the most appropriate way to deal with that is just to keep quiet
-
I think it would be a good a solution to have the possibility to mark a post you're writing as non-serious, and everyone can select in his profile wether he wants to see these no-serious posts. Most likely this isn't easy to do with forum software though.
-
I think it would be a good a solution to have the possibility to mark a post you're writing as non-serious, and everyone can select in his profile wether he wants to see these no-serious posts. Most likely this isn't easy to do with forum software though.
I think it would be better to err on the other side, with "non-serious" as the default, and posts need to be flagged as "serious". Otherwise folks will forget to (or choose not to) mark them as "non-serious" and a nuclear meltdown will ensue.
-
I don't think serious and non-serious can be separated, even in principle. A total dedication to utmost ernst quickly develops, of its own accord, a humorous undertone, whereas a cunning joke can contain more novel truth than a few hundred scriptures.
Of course one can identify with ease the extremes at both ends, but in practice almost everything will lie somewhere in between. And where any line to be drawn would be arbitrary, I prefer to draw no line at all.
-
Are ignore lists even possible? I don't want to ignore people, I would want to ignore posts. Ignoring people seems counterproductive.
I don't know what software currently exists for ignore lists for the style of forum f.ds uses. They are for sure possible on forums elsewhere.
People tend to lean towards being people who post jokes often or rarely, who analyze cards or just don't, and so on. Other people have had great success with ignore lists.
Clearly what I'm asking for is too much, but I genuinely don't understand why. They can have their place where they make their jokes, I have my place where I can have my quiet discussion. Nobody is forcing anybody to post in either, they just exist for different purposes. If nobody likes my place, then fine, nobody likes it and we don't have to have it.
So make it already.
Whether or not I do this doesn't have much to do with what I'm suggesting here. Are you suggesting things for me other than F.DS because you just want me to leave and you feel bad? I don't get it. I don't see what my relationship with F.DS has to do with any of this stuff. I stated the reasons why I want to continue posting here, those are the reasons. Am I missing something?
I don't need you to go anywhere; in fact I think it's great that you get to post these posts that I disagree with. I don't feel bad, except about how often this one kitten is scratching me. But I am going to continue to push for f.ds to not be the place you want it to be.
Umm, so you suggested ignore lists, but now since ignore lists aren't perfect we don't want them anymore. I'm really confused.
Dude, markusin said, what if I miss a serious Ozle post? It's the price one pays for being so upset at joke Ozle posts. It's not much of a complaint about ignore lists.
So imagine that, I started a thread with a goal of coming up with what a more moderated subboard would look like here and we haven't talked about that in quite some time.
Well you could have made your serious forum first, then started the thread there!
Like, should I start a new thread here?
Given what appear to be your goals: no. That thread will not stick to your personal concept of the topic any better than this one did. If you just like starting threads though, go for it, you're not hurting anybody.
8. I think it's a bad idea for some other reason (explain in comments).
It either fails or splits the community. It's bad for me but that doesn't mean it's bad for you. People get to start forums to try to split communities, just like people get to post in threads on f.ds without being approved by a judge of on-topicness.
1. Separate subforum with moderators (who are not Adam, I am no longer willing to do this) who move or delete posts that don't belong.
Again you can make the forums any time you feel the urge, although I don't know who you will get to moderate.
2. Adding moderators to an existing board (Articles? This wasn't really made clear) who move or delete posts that don't belong.
The boards do provide a way to ignore subforums (so I could do that to avoid having my posts deleted and then quitting the forums, yes we can all trot out these visions of enraged posters finding other stuff to do on their computers), but since we get value from Articles, I am against messing it up.
3. Somehow improve the use of the [serious] tag. This one doesn't seem fleshed out to me, I don't quite understand how this would work.
This one seems hopeless.
-
There are threads that stay on topic. None of those are threads that I start. Maybe it's because I ask for them to stay on topic and then people feel the need to troll me.
When you complain about what to you seems to be an off-topic post, that off-topic post of yours makes complaining about the thread the topic of the thread. So, when you do that, yes, you are sabotaging your threads. Threads aren't automatically less on-topic just because of the name on the OP though.
This is not who I am, I am the type of person who will actually respect the wishes of other people even if I don't understand or agree with them, at least as long as it's not hurting me. All of the arguments you all have presented about free speech and less moderation, I mean none of those are as compelling to me as wanting to just do what people ask for.
The wishes of other people are to post what they want, exactly what they want, exactly to the degree that they want to. That seems so amazingly clear. You want people to respect your wish of your wishes being more important than theirs?
-
And where any line to be drawn would be arbitrary, I prefer to draw no line at all.
I am with you as this applies to posts, but not in general. It is frequently useful to draw a line even though you know it will be arbitrary.
-
And where any line to be drawn would be arbitrary, I prefer to draw no line at all.
I am with you as this applies to posts, but not in general. It is frequently useful to draw a line even though you know it will be arbitrary.
Can't disagree with you there... I frequently doodle (http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/07/doodling-for-cognitive-benefits/398027/).
-
PPE: seven replies were posted while I was sitting here trying to decide whether or not I even wanted to post this. It's a new record!
I honestly didn't (and still don't) understand why people can't just say nothing when they disagree with me
So just like I say, I don't understand something. Let me try and explain what I don't understand (because I still don't understand it)
The disagreement in question (I think? It's a little difficult to get the context from this) was about this disconnect between two viewpoints:
I believe that if a thread doesn't generate on-topic discussion, it's OK if the thread just goes silent. I would prefer this to having only off-topic discussion present in the thread.
Many other people seem to believe that filling the thread with off-topic discussion is preferable to this.
The particular thread in question is the one where I was trying to collect data about ratings and stuff for MF. SCSN's posts did not contribute to finding data, they only whined about how hard it would be to do so. All of this other issues were addressed in the OP.
I realize that some people think there was a relevant part to his post. I disagree, but luckily this doesn't actually matter in terms of clarifying what I'm trying to say. It is my viewpoint (and I still believe this) that literally the only thing his post accomplishes is it deters people from collecting and posting data. It would have been better for him to not say anything.
It's like if Qvist was posting about his cards lists for the first time and asked people to go to his website and do the ordering, and then Will Smith comes in and says "that's a lot of work, I don't think you should ask anyone to do that kind of work, it's destroying the community and it's counterproductive." Nobody is making anybody do anything, but at the same time Mr. Smith had actually deterred people from ready any further into the thread and Qvist will get less results because of it. What Will Smith did is rude, counterproductive, and things would have been better if Will Smith didn't make his post.
Look, you don't have to agree with what I just said, I'm just clarifying what I meant. I think I'm right, and I genuinely don't understand any of the arguments that have been presented to me for why I'm not right here. I don't know if I really want to argue that right now, but luckily it's not up to me. People will argue with me and tell me how wrong I am regardless, it's the internet! Isn't that great? (spoiler alert, I don't think it is, it makes me not want to make this post but I feel like I have to)
Could I have worded this better? Sure, it's tough for me to figure out exactly what I'm saying and I'm me. I suppose it's not reasonable for me to expect other people to figure it out.
Not that it matters to me (see above and below) but if you don't like what I'm saying or that I'm saying anything, the most appropriate way to deal with that is just to keep quiet
This is a reference to the fact that I'm not going to read that thread for replies, so if you want me to actually read something you type, posting it in that thread is not an appropriate way to do it, since I won't read the things in there.
I can see how someone who automatically thinks the worst of me and looks for reasons to hate me in every single word that I type could take this quote with no context whatsoever and assume that I don't want people to disagree with me on anything in life.
Could I have worded that more carefully? Uhh, yes, I certainly could have done that for those people I was just talking about. I mean, me reading it again after a couple of days thinks it's perfectly clear, TBH. Right now it feels like most people on the forum would rather assume the worst of me than ask for clarification (I really don't feel like I should have had to word this more carefully, and even if I had, it's really frustrating that it took all of this to get to where we are now). Does it have to do with the fact that my opinions aren't popular? That's like the dumbest reason ever. Just because I like my steaks cooked well done doesn't mean I can't drive myself safely to work.
-
I can see how someone who automatically thinks the worst of me and looks for reasons to hate me in every single word that I type could take this quote with no context whatsoever and assume that I don't want people to disagree with me on anything in life.
Could I have worded that more carefully? Uhh, yes, I certainly could have done that for those people I was just talking about. I mean, me reading it again after a couple of days thinks it's perfectly clear, TBH. Right now it feels like most people on the forum would rather assume the worst of me than ask for clarification (I really don't feel like I should have had to word this more carefully, and even if I had, it's really frustrating that it took all of this to get to where we are now). Does it have to do with the fact that my opinions aren't popular? That's like the dumbest reason ever. Just because I like my steaks cooked well done doesn't mean I can't drive myself safely to work.
It's a well-accepted fact in psychology that what you say is much more clear to yourself than it is to others, and even that sentence makes perfect sense to you, it's extremely unclear to me and evidently to other people in this thread. People aren't understanding what you said because they aren't you, not because they hate you. That quote is extremely unclear (considering what it actually was supposed to mean).
http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/why-its-hard-to-explain-things-inferential-distance/
--------------------------------
I think what AdamH is trying to say is this (please correct me if I'm off-base):
A thread is started by a person who has some purpose in mind for what posts should be in it: for example "discussion of scout", "discussion of this article", "jokes about otters", "memes", etc, and that posters in that thread should respect the wishes of the OP or not post.
This does not preclude disagreement with the OP in some respects: for example "discussion of scout" could include people arguing against the OP that Scout is worse than secret chamber, or "discussion of this article" could include the author of the article defending his article against criticism, and then critics could critique the defense.
It does preclude posting disagreement on whether the thread should exist or other posts not fitting the intent of the thread - it is in this context that "people should say nothing" when they disagree with the OP.
I don't speak for AdamH, but if this is what he means to say, then having a rewording may be useful to help the discussion be clearer.
-
I can see how someone who automatically thinks the worst of me and looks for reasons to hate me in every single word that I type could take this quote with no context whatsoever and assume that I don't want people to disagree with me on anything in life.
Could I have worded that more carefully? Uhh, yes, I certainly could have done that for those people I was just talking about. I mean, me reading it again after a couple of days thinks it's perfectly clear, TBH. Right now it feels like most people on the forum would rather assume the worst of me than ask for clarification (I really don't feel like I should have had to word this more carefully, and even if I had, it's really frustrating that it took all of this to get to where we are now). Does it have to do with the fact that my opinions aren't popular? That's like the dumbest reason ever. Just because I like my steaks cooked well done doesn't mean I can't drive myself safely to work.
It's a well-accepted fact in psychology that what you say is much more clear to yourself than it is to others, and even that sentence makes perfect sense to you, it's extremely unclear to me and evidently to other people in this thread. People aren't understanding what you said because they aren't you, not because they hate you. That quote is extremely unclear (considering what it actually was supposed to mean).
http://everydayutilitarian.com/essays/why-its-hard-to-explain-things-inferential-distance/
Every day I get more and more reminders as to why I could have never been in a field like this and chose to work with computers for a living. The computer always does exactly what you tell it to do, and there is a discrete way to tell it exactly what you want.
I think what AdamH is trying to say is this (please correct me if I'm off-base):
Yeah this is really close. I can't think of any issues I have with this.
-
SCSN's posts did not contribute to finding data, they only whined about how hard it would be to do so.
Really Adam, you want to go there again? Well, if you're asking this nicely I can't help but comply.
My post in that thread was helpful and provided a useful datapoint, something that was crystal clear to everyone but you, and something that would have been clear to you—a man who once had a functional mind—had you not been so filled with rage that you're still spilling over when you're rising from your chair.
But of course I'm the one whining. After all, I'm the one here making all these threads about this forum being such a horrible place, about people making jokes (the utter horror!) and crying about them not being impressed with MF's breakthrough-achievements, insulting them in the process while feigning victimhood himself.
If you can't handle a dissenting opinion, if the picture of an otter so deeply offends you that you go running to your mommy with tear-streaming eyes, if the mere sight of a possible Moat (even censored to protect you) inspires in you such furious madness that you demand a personal forum to hide from the big bad world beyond your cave, if you are incapable of handling the tragic fact that the people inhabiting this world are far more independent, humorous and enterprising than the meek and obediently bland caricatures you expect them to be—if all that is so troublesome to you, why don't you just follow through with what you set out to do in the first place?
Go lock yourself up in your echo chamber, where your marvelous opinion reverberates for all eternity.
User was warned for this post.
-
I realize that some people think there was a relevant part to his post. I disagree, but luckily this doesn't actually matter in terms of clarifying what I'm trying to say. It is my viewpoint (and I still believe this) that literally the only thing his post accomplishes is it deters people from collecting and posting data. It would have been better for him to not say anything.
Most people thought SCSN's comment was relevant and on-topic in that thread. That suggests that most moderators would also consider it relevant and on-topic. Would you have been happy with theory's decision if he had explicitly ruled that it was perfectly fine?
-
If you can't handle a dissenting opinion, if the picture of an otter so deeply offends you that you go running to your mommy with tear-streaming eyes, if the mere sight of a possible Moat (even censored to protect you) inspires in you such furious madness that you demand a personal forum to hide from the big bad world beyond your cave, if you are incapable of handling the tragic fact that the people inhabiting this world are far more independent, humorous and enterprising than the meek and obediently bland caricatures you expect them to be—if all that is so troublesome to you, why don't you just follow through with what you set out to do in the first place?
Go lock yourself up in your echo chamber, where your marvelous opinion reverberates for all eternity.
This is a marvel to read (and I wish I had your writing skills), but I think it definitely qualifies as a personal attack.
"But of course I'm the one whining." If you mean this literally, again, there isn't necessarily exactly one person whining, so using the word "the" here is misleading. If by effect, the way it is framed makes it sound like the fact that adam is complaining means that you aren't.
SCSN's posts did not contribute to finding data, they only whined about how hard it would be to do so.
My post in that thread was helpful and provided a useful datapoint [...]
I can't find the thread now, but I expect from the way both of you are discussing this that you said something like "It is completely within MF's capabilities to easily find cases where this bug happened, so we shouldn't have to do it." This certainly is a valid point that should be brought to the discussion about the bug, but it does not "contribute to finding data", and that is what I expect he was complaining about.
-
I realize that some people think there was a relevant part to his post. I disagree, but luckily this doesn't actually matter in terms of clarifying what I'm trying to say. It is my viewpoint (and I still believe this) that literally the only thing his post accomplishes is it deters people from collecting and posting data. It would have been better for him to not say anything.
Most people thought SCSN's comment was relevant and on-topic in that thread. That suggests that most moderators would also consider it relevant and on-topic. Would you have been happy with theory's decision if he had explicitly ruled that it was perfectly fine?
Would I have been happy with it, umm probably not, but I think that would be the right call. I can't find the quote (I thought it was in the OP but it's not) but somewhere I said this: I've since learned that I set that thread up for failure by expecting something that's impossible and I accepted my share of the blame for what ended up happening.
Someone asked me to clarify what I meant by that quote, which requires the knowledge of what I was thinking at the time, which is the only reason I brought it up. I didn't really want to bring it up again because, well, you know.
-
I'm not sure if it is good to copy this in here or not, but I think people making judgements of this particular exchange should be judging it based on how they assume it went based on comments made here.
So here's what we can do to actually help:
If you play on MF, use automatch, and get paired with somebody who you feel doesn't meet the criteria of your search, please post the following information about that game (as much of this as you can come up with):
- The automatch criteria you used
- Your MF name
- Your rating on the MF leaderboard
- Your opponent's MF name
- Your opponent's rating on the MF leaderboard
getting the ratings before the game is ideal, but you might have to check the leaderboard after the game is over to get this info. The important thing is that both ratings are collected at the same time and we know when they were collected.
- Game log
You can't find your opponent's rating unless you have the patience to scroll through literary hundreds of pages of that thing they call their leaderboard and read through thousands of names.
I do, however, have experienced countless of games where I get matched against guys with iso level -27 or worse (it goes as low as -72) and gained 0 MF rating points after a win.
-
I don't really care about the SCSN v. AdamH drama. I think it's pretty irrelevant to this topic, as it is to nearly all topics, and it does not interest me.
Accordingly I have enabled Ignore Lists on the forum, accessible here: http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore; You may now automatically ignore all posts of anyone you don't want to see - though I believe posts from administrators and the moderator of a particular forum are still visible. I believe I speak for many of us when I say that I hope these two gentlemen agree to Ignore each other and move on with their lives.
Meta-discussion about your ignore list (including, but not limited to, "I have ignored X! She is a useless sack of woogly weasels!", or "Should I just ignore Y? He is a pointless bag of derpy dromedaries!") is unproductive and not permitted. Keep it to yourself.
On a more positive note Buddy Lists are also introduced; I don't know what they do, but apparently we can be buddies now.
-
This is my new favorite thread; it has earned me the following badge of honor:
SheCantSayNo,
You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members in regards to the message:
Re: A place for more moderated discussion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?msg=540501).
Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.
Regards,
The Dominion Strategy Forum Team.
Thanks to all who nominated my contributions, I will not dissapoint you in the future.
-
This is my new favorite thread; it has earned me the following badge of honor:
SheCantSayNo,
You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members in regards to the message:
Re: A place for more moderated discussion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?msg=540501).
Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.
Regards,
The Dominion Strategy Forum Team.
Thanks to all who nominated my contributions, I will not dissapoint you in the future.
I'm sure you have a lot of things to be proud about, hell I could list many myself. But really this is not one of them.
-
Also, as to the actual topic of the thread, I appreciate the concerns with people not wanting to splinter discussion. I still don't see what the problem is with labeling a thread [Serious], then relying both on our good faith to not post "can't all be the best moat ever" while reporting any posts that violate that request. We could start by trying out a [Serious] General Discussion thread.
-
This is my new favorite thread; it has earned me the following badge of honor:
SheCantSayNo,
You have received a warning for insulting other users and/or staff members in regards to the message:
Re: A place for more moderated discussion (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?msg=540501).
Please cease these activities and abide by the forum rules otherwise we will take further action.
Regards,
The Dominion Strategy Forum Team.
Thanks to all who nominated my contributions, I will not dissapoint you in the future.
I'm sure you have a lot of things to be proud about, hell I could list many myself. But really this is not one of them.
The original patch took me a weekend; this took me well over three years.
-
The original patch took me a weekend; this took me well over three years.
I, personally, don't think you deserve the badge, because you didn't take the opportunity to mix in a mine/mint joke. Also, "utter horror" could have been "otter horror".
-
Also, as to the actual topic of the thread, I appreciate the concerns with people not wanting to splinter discussion. I still don't see what the problem is with labeling a thread [Serious], then relying both on our good faith to not post "can't all be the best moat ever" while reporting any posts that violate that request. We could start by trying out a [Serious] General Discussion thread.
What punishment will there be if we spoil a discussion of spoils, ruin a serious argument about ruins, or trash talk graverobbers?
-
We could start by trying out a [Serious] General Discussion thread.
Well, we do already have an RSP subforum...
-
Also, as to the actual topic of the thread, I appreciate the concerns with people not wanting to splinter discussion. I still don't see what the problem is with labeling a thread [Serious], then relying both on our good faith to not post "can't all be the best moat ever" while reporting any posts that violate that request. We could start by trying out a [Serious] General Discussion thread.
What will happen is, someone will think something is a reasonable reply (like, "but there's no way to see their rating, so what you ask is not possible"), and someone else will not think it is reasonable, and unless your decision as a moderator is "oops [serious] doesn't actually mean anything" then you are hurting the forums. If it became a common thing then people would start another site, say "dominionsalvation," where they wouldn't have to deal with that nonsense. Man I can pledge right now to post a picture of an otter in every [serious] thread. Serious threads are fine; [serious] threads are poison.
That's my experience! I would link you to examples on other forums, but those urls have been taken over by people looking to make a tiny amount of ad revenue from links to long-dead sites.
And banning talk of ignore lists, it's well-intentioned, but mostly the only time people talk about them is to joke about them, and some of those people won't have seen your post or won't remember that they can get in trouble for making a joke, and so ultimately it punishes Top Posters.
-
Man I can pledge right now to post a picture of an otter in every [serious] thread.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/25/1f/34/251f346f70c7ae897d062a920780c736.jpg)
I actually think [serious] is fine. The key thing would be where the arbitrary line is drawn to determine what is serious enough, and we'd have to trust the mod's judgement there. I think your doomsday scenario applies when that line is drawn in the wrong place, but it's pretty easy to just cut out all the cheap memetic jokes, especially when that's the entirety of a post.
-
Ultimately forums serve two entities - the owners and the posters. The owners can make the calls, have whatever forums they want; people who don't like it can go elsewhere, start their own forums, not be parasitic. But then there's the posters; if the forums don't please the posters then they do in fact go elsewhere. Forums exist for the people who use them, or stop existing.
I have seen multiple forum sites die in my day. In fact only one of them was due to [serious] and such. Still it did happen and seems so clearly awful to me. You have ignore lists, you ignore Ozle, his silly post shows up in some thread, it's fun for him and maybe some other people, and not hurting you, unless your scroll wheel is giving you arthritis.
But I mean, it's theory's site, and people are here for now. I'm here until it starts sucking, or I'm banned for civil disobedience.
-
or I'm banned for civil disobedience.
No way dude, I already put you on my buddy list.
-
I believe I speak for many of us when I say that I hope these two gentlemen agree to Ignore each other and move on with their lives.
On a more positive note Buddy Lists are also introduced; I don't know what they do, but apparently we can be buddies now.
Yeah I couldn't agree more.
The description of these things is a little, umm, non-descriptive. I'm quite curious as to what is actually happening, particularly with the buddy lists, but this would require some experimentation and is most certainly off-topic.
-
Also, as to the actual topic of the thread, I appreciate the concerns with people not wanting to splinter discussion. I still don't see what the problem is with labeling a thread [Serious], then relying both on our good faith to not post "can't all be the best moat ever" while reporting any posts that violate that request. We could start by trying out a [Serious] General Discussion thread.
I don't think a [Serious] General Discussion thread would work; General Discussion is, by definition, about anything. I have absolutely no idea what would be allowed there or not.
-
Also, as to the actual topic of the thread, I appreciate the concerns with people not wanting to splinter discussion. I still don't see what the problem is with labeling a thread [Serious], then relying both on our good faith to not post "can't all be the best moat ever" while reporting any posts that violate that request. We could start by trying out a [Serious] General Discussion thread.
I don't think a [Serious] General Discussion thread would work; General Discussion is, by definition, about anything. I have absolutely no idea what would be allowed there or not.
Well, a serious Random Stuff (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11293.0) was tried out, and then people stopped posting in it.
-
Well, a serious Random Stuff (http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=11293.0) was tried out, and then people stopped posting in it.
The system works!
-
1. I would rather get mildly annoyed by ten "Scout is a bad card" jokes than let one brilliant joke go unposted.
2. Man scout is a bad card. I was just thinking about this in the scout thread when someone was like would you take a free scout with your Duchy and I was all no! no I don't want a free scout. and I take free duchesses like all the time, I am not picky.
3. If we start having threads with [Serious], inevitably it's going to happen that someone posts something a little tangential or edge-casey and the OP of the thread is all "but I put a serious tag!" and that thread will then turn into this thread that we are having right now, boooo.
4. Even if we could avoid (3), I'm concerned that [Serious] will actively cause threads not-labeled with [Serious] to disintegrate into junk.
5. But no seriously, it's bad. Like, it has +1 Action, you would think, how can a cantrip be the worst card? But it's still the worst card, in spite of that +1 action. I'm actually coming around to it being worse than Transmute.
6. I don't see a lot of value in long consistent threads. I recognize that this is controversial, but for most threads, either
a. The first post is an article with bunches of good advice, and I read the comments once and occasionally get a small marginal benefit over if I had just read the article,
or
b. The thread is a list of tips that are all good but don't really need to be in one place for any compelling reason. It never matters when these threads derail, and in any event they become obsolete and hidden.
7. I prefer a non-democratic resolution to these problems; there's a reason theory is benevolent dictator for life. Voting just means more time discussing this instead of other stuff, and eh.
-
I take free duchesses like all the time, I am not picky.
Me too. Almost every time I regret after, but it's so hard to control yourself in the heat of the moment!
-
I take free duchesses like all the time, I am not picky.
Me too. Almost every time I regret after, but it's so hard to control yourself in the heat of the moment!
Scout is non-terminal, that's a big deal. You also necessarily have some green in your deck when you pick up a Scout this way. I would guess that I would get Scouts this way more often than I would get Duchesses. I am actually very interested in trying this out now.
-
Navigator is better than Scout.
And Navigator is shit.
-
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/059/903/DICQ4RS6EROC2S6TDQ57ELZGIJ42NFE4.jpg)
-
Oh for the days when I only had Intrigue, and Ironworks-Great-Hall-Scout "engines" felt insanely powerful.
-
5. But no seriously, it's bad. Like, it has +1 Action, you would think, how can a cantrip be the worst card? But it's still the worst card, in spite of that +1 action. I'm actually coming around to it being worse than Transmute.
Scout isn't a cantrip because it doesn't draw.
-
Also, as to the actual topic of the thread, I appreciate the concerns with people not wanting to splinter discussion. I still don't see what the problem is with labeling a thread [Serious], then relying both on our good faith to not post "can't all be the best moat ever" while reporting any posts that violate that request. We could start by trying out a [Serious] General Discussion thread.
What will happen is, someone will think something is a reasonable reply (like, "but there's no way to see their rating, so what you ask is not possible"), and someone else will not think it is reasonable, and unless your decision as a moderator is "oops [serious] doesn't actually mean anything" then you are hurting the forums. If it became a common thing then people would start another site, say "dominionsalvation," where they wouldn't have to deal with that nonsense.
Man, I was thinking about that place every other AdamH post I read in here. The style in which it finally got a direct mention really cracked me up.
Love you to death Donald.
-
Yuma proposed a cool idea. Let's do it.
A dominion debate, in which, two people ( lets call them Fets and Cim) meet together in a thread to debate, let's say "which card is better." Both forum members are assigned a side and then need to follow the rules of debate to try and demonstrate their side
I'll propose a format. Please guide me where to post this proposal if there's a more appropriate place.
Please see the debate format below. I'm sure there are problems with the proposed format, including the incredibly bland topic statement and choices. I would be happy to have suggestions, though I hope to avoid lengthy permutations of format discussions before trying out a debate.
Is anyone else interested to see a debate like this happen? Also, please call out or PM me if you'd be willing to be the debater for either side (but don't start marking arguments on either side yet please).
Possibly the correct answer to the topic question is obvious, and then I get to be embarrassed for suggesting it, and we can pick something else. I was trying to create something clearly defined, with the added benefit that we can check simulations.
A post at the top of the debate thread will introduce the debate, list the debate rules/format and schedule, and the request that people other than the debaters not post in the thread before the end of the debate.
Debate Format:
Each of two debaters will write opposing posts at an agreed time (scouts honor not to read the other post first) beginning with
"In a 2 player Province and Estates game, where 'Rabbles Buyer' can buy no kingdom cards other than Rabbles, and 'Ghost Ships Buyer' can buy no kingdom cards other than Ghost Ships. I would choose to be Rabbles/Ghost Ships buyer because: ..."
The post is expected to contain only formatted text. Maximum 2000 characters.
Each debater has one hour to write a rebuttal post, also max 2000 characters, to refute the post of the opposing debater, and otherwise support his argument as he/she see fit.
Debate Posts may not include simulation results (but these will be included in post-debate discussion).
After 1 hour has passed from the scheduled debate time, or both debaters have posted rebuttals, others can (will hopefully) start posting in the thread, and those posts can be further arguments on either side, discussion of the good and bad arguments, who articulated their argument more effectively overall, or pictures of otters.
At or near this time, a related poll will be opened (open for 48 hours), and linked in the thread, which will determine the winner of the debate. The poll choices are:
- I'd buy only Rabbles over only Ghost Ships, and the Rabble argument was more effective at influencing my opinion (Credit Rabbles Debater)
- I'd still buy only Rabbles over only Ghost Ships, but the Rabble argument was not more effective or I have no opinion on the effectiveness of the arguments (Credit Ghost Ship Debater)
- I'd buy only Ghost Ships over only Rabbles, and the Ghost Ship argument was more effective (Credit Ghost Ship Debater)
- I'd still buy only Ghost Ships over only Rabbles, but the Ghost Ship argument was less effective or I have no opinion on the effectiveness of the arguments (Credit Rabbles Debater)
- I still don't know which I would choose, but the Rabble argument was more effective (Credit Rabbles Debater)
- I still don't know which I would choose, but Ghost Ship argument was more effective (Credit Ghost Ship Debater)
- I still don't know which I would choose, and both arguments were ineffective or I don't know which argument was more effective