Who would make for good moderators in the D&D forum?

You, sir, are in need of a timeout.

 

I don't know. People have said that it was over the line, uncivil, etc. I'm fine with people expressing that wrong opinion. I hope you are right that nobody thinks it should be moderated.

 

I would definitely support you as moderator. That was well done, sir.

 

I don't think it should necessarily be externally moderated, but personally attacking someone for their religious beliefs instead of arguing the points they make is something that should be self-moderated. That kind of nonsense just invites more personal attacks and less actual discussion.....and I thought the idea was to make the D&D less toxic. I get that you might personally agree with attacking people for having Christian beliefs in unrelated conversations, but can't you still see in principle how it's counter productive and potentially toxic? You might get a laugh out of like minded people by saying that someone's viewpoint can't be taken seriously because they are female, or gay, or black, or believe that Muhammad was anything other than a pedophile scam artist warlord.....but that kind of talk is not only inherently toxic (and in some countries illegal) but it also doesn't further a discussion about unrelated topics so it would be best for the forum if personal attacks on protected classes be avoided. I honestly don't think that's asking too much.

This issue just highlights how difficult it would be to moderate a forum like this, you'd have to find a moderator who would be willing and able to see beyond their personal opinions in order to be fair to those who might see things differently.

 

Nook's comment wasn't hostile or uncivil, but it was mostly a strawman that was irrelevant and derailed the thread.

 

I love how often "equal" is conflated with "identical".

It's the part of vicious cynicism I find most appealing...

 

There is a world of difference (to me) between someone pointing that they feel like a comment was uncivil and something requiring moderator action. That goes back to the different views expressed on this thread of what people want from a moderator or moderator for the D&D (including not wanting one). Yes, some would prefer a more hands on approach in which case it would need to be applied the same way to posters one agrees with or disagrees with. I think if that was put in place, we would likely end up arguing over what was a moderator offense and what wasn't (by that I mean people could in good faith have legitimate different views, not pretextual ganging up for one group over another). Sorry, more lobbying for a hands off approach.

 

I feel a little dense, but I don't think I fully follow what you are saying here and am legitimately interested. Your point flew over my head. Would you mind giving it another go? Not being snarky.

 

I actually agree with you. While I have no intentions of replying and getting into a religious debate in that thread, I had no issue with what he said even though I disagree with it.

 

...never feel dense when you're honestly inquisitive. At least that's my feeling.

And decorum or formality is no indicator, to me, of honesty.

A simple example might be the idea that having equal rights to, say, own a firearm or cast a ballot is not identical to how both of those practices, in application, manifest in society.

"Equal" is theoretical, principally, to me. "Identical" (where in actual practice, theories are proven or disproven, and where humanity exists in tangibility) is observational, replicable, and transitory. Exactly how human beings tend to live their lives...

I say it often (because somebody said it before I did): No idea descends into manifestation without an imperfection.

Just me.

Might be wrong...more than likely (depending on the forum) I might be.

But I learned a long time ago to stick to what I know, as opposed to discounting what I don't know.

...and just between us...snark isn't my problem.

Bad jokes and bad puns are...

 

Is there any way to achieve the decorum that is desired without targeteing personal attacks and name calling? Really?

Whatever other standards are adopted, surely this one must be at the top of the list, or this exercise is certain to fail.

 

I agree he should have not went that route and it was really an attempt to attack me rather than the post he responded to because I assume he had no good response. That being said, if I am going to put my religious beliefs out in a debate forum, then they are open game to be used to criticize me. It would make more sense to do it in an actual religious debate rather than using it as a piss poor commentary about a post he apparently could not come up with a decent response for. My skin is much thicker than that so I did not take the bait. While I do believe he should "self moderate" himself and not post crap like that in an unrelated thread, it is also my responsibility to "self moderate" and not dignify such a post with a response. If I was a moderator, I would not have done anything there unless it caused an argument that was descending out of control. It takes two to let something get out of control.

 

While I think this response is admirable, you have to understand that not everyone on this forum will have the thick skin that you do and so there's a very strong possibility that when people attack others for their association to protected categories it will lead nowhere good. I just feel like the best course is to set rules that are not to be broken and I think a good one would be that you are not allowed to personally attack a poster for their protected status. Don't go off topic to attack a person's race, sex, color, religion, national origin/ancestry, age, physical/mental disability, or veteran status. That wouldn't mean those topics of discussion were off limits, it just means personal attacks based on those things would be off limits. If there was a discussion about your religion, people should feel free to question or even mock tenets of that religion, what they shouldn't do is use your religion as an insult against you in an unrelated discussion.....just as you shouldn't do that to anyone else.

If we want a less toxic D&D, that one rule would all but eliminate most of it.

 

fixed it for you

 

That would be great IMO, but it would probably be too strict for a lot of D&D posters. If all personal attacks were banned outright, there would be several people that would no longer have anything at all to contribute and it would fundamentally change the D&D into a place where sensitive topics are legitimately discussed instead of being a place for monkeys to fling poo at one another. I just don't think we're ready for that radical of a change.

 

I agree with your assessment but disagree that the main point of the D&D is to fling poo

 

I agree with his assessment and also with yours. It would be better if the poo-flinging were stopped. This is presumably what Clutch was expressing concern about. If he wants to reform it, then great. But there is no way to do that without putting the kibosh on personal attacks and name calling.

 

If I were king and I had to put people on a timeout, I'd make them watch this

 

Only if a moderator is more of a debate judge than a censor, or an umpire calling a foul ball to keep the game going. It's not worthy of ejecting him from the game, so to speak - it was just a good example of playing the man and not the ball.

cml750 didn't bring his religious views into the argument he was making. If he had done that, then I think Nook's comments would have been fair game, but he didn't, they weren't, they aren't related to the discussion at hand, and diving into that rabbit hole is unfair to everyone interested in staying on topic.

 

Jebus a ton of you old men are babies.