TRPG General Chat

« first day (4626 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (491 days later) »

M__

12:02 AM

Meta is really where a site can come to an agreement (or not) on specific issues and is akin to a working/draft document, but it's not an official report. So linking Meta posts after the event as singular justification doesn't help. Okay Meta has broader scope, but in context to the discussion (from Meta), that in my opinion is its basic role. If that is not how the site sees it ... again that needs to be in "site tour" etc ... etc ....

Yuuki

12:30 AM

@NautArch heyhey

doppelgreener

12:56 AM

Meta is a place for conversation and organisation about the site itself and serves myriad purposes to that end. It can be reports, it can be formalized agreements, it can present reports and accounts that we use to inform and guide us.

If it's about organizing and managing and curating and guiding mainsite, meta does that thing, and using it or referencing it to do that thing is entirely valid.

Meta does not require linking within the help pages to be relevant or recognized, and it having discoverability issues does not reduce its relevance — the discoverability is why people will link to it.

This stuff I am saying now also does not need to be in site tour or help pages to be valid here.

Feeds

1:25 AM

TTRPGkids: TTRPGkids is going to Origins Game Fair!

posted on May 31, 2023 by Steph C.

TTRPGkids is going to be at Origins Game Fair from June 23 - June 25! Come say hi and join TTRPGkids and several AMAZING guests for talks and games throughout the weekend! Continue reading “TTRPGkids is going to Origins Game Fair!”…

Hot RPG Questions

Q: Does the level 4 Serpentis power include the level 2 and 3 powers?

The level 4 Serpentis power allows the vampire to transform into a hideous snake-creature. Does this also include the Typhonic Maw and Serpent's Flesh powers? IE when the level 4 power is invoked, does the vampire also gain the benefits of the other two? BTW this question refers to the 20th Anniv...

Thomas Markov

2:27 AM

-53

Q: What is the network policy regarding AI Generated content?

Earlier this week, Stack Exchange released guidance to moderators on how to moderate AI Generated content. What does this guidance include?

discussion mod-agreement-policy policy

Thomas Markov

2:46 AM

“AI detectors might be xenophobic, so we’ve decided to allow AI content.”

NautArch

3:22 AM

@M__ What requests/expectations do you think we're deviating from? Can you link to those?

NautArch

3:46 AM

@Yuuki speaking of hey-hey, turns out Alan tudyk is coming to an event near me

Yuuki

@NautArch oh, that sounds cool

3 hours later…

Trish

7:16 AM

@ThomasMarkov but the communiites overwhelmingly said on their own not to allow it.

4 hours later…

doppelgreener

10:51 AM

For everyone else equally infuriated by this decision, strike discussions have started up. — Zoe stands with Ukraine 15 hours ago

Q: Discussion: Network policy regarding AI Generated content

A new Network policy regarding AI Generated content was recently announced by Stack Exchange. As discussion is not currently permitted on such posts, please discuss the policy in the answers here so that we have a single place for discussion and feedback regarding the policy. (also I asked Journe...

discussion policy chatgpt

A: Discussion: Network policy regarding AI Generated content

New policy can be summarized with "You are allowed to moderate AI generated content, but you are not allowed to use anything to detect such content including your own brain." AI generated content cannot be moderated using regular approach used for low quality content because it does not fall und...

This first sentence sure rings true for me.

I reported a post yesterday that has multiple clear and unambiguous indicators of being GPT generated — the same format, content, literary tics, etc. It has 99.80% confidence in being AI generated — not high confidence but the maximum score. It was from a user that's done this multiple times. We have a community policy banning this. The mods declined the flag saying they could only act on it if the user directly admitted it.

Mithical

That's what SE has decreed, yep.

doppelgreener

I've half a mind to just start posting GPT content in protest on this site and others. Stack wants it, they can have it. Except I don't want to do that to all of you.

Thomas Markov

@doppelgreener we can delete such content ourselves, unless it starts getting upvoted.

AncientSwordRage

11:55 AM

@ThomasMarkov it's quite possible it will get upvoted

doppelgreener

@ThomasMarkov we can, if it's downvoted, but we cannot escalate it to moderation for corrective action nor can we have mods suspend a user posting GPT content routinely. Without support from above available, it becomes a Sisyphean task.

@doppelgreener I've followed this invite and I'll be joining this strike.

@doppelgreener And I won't be doing this because it won't be effective. Protest is essentially creating inconvenience to require change. However, the inconvenience must ultimately affect those making the decisions. Those who made the decisions to allow AI content assuredly don't use Stack Exchange so they will not be affected or inconvenienced by this action, so this won't be an effective way to create inconvenience and will open anyone doing this up to arbitrary repercussions.

AncientSwordRage

12:41 PM

@doppelgreener I mean, if you posted enough it pushed everyone away ... maybe then but that's a lot of collateral

nitsua60

12:52 PM

@doppelgreener Understand the impulse, and am grateful for your wise restraint =D

2 hours later…

NautArch

2:28 PM

@M__ I've continued the discussion on your meta post, but if you'd rather chat in general, we can do that, too.

M__

2:53 PM

@NautArch thanks easy either way, just the meta post said "continue in chat" ... I'll respond at the end of the day.

Hot RPG Questions

3:29 PM

Q: Do you provoke an AoO when you evoke a beam with the spell Sunbeam?

During our last game session our cleric used the spell Sunbeam which reads: For the duration of this spell, you can use a standard action to evoke a dazzling beam of intense light each round. We had a discussion about whether the action "evoking a beam" provokes an attack of opportunity. It doe...

spells dnd-3.5e opportunity-attack

Glazius

3:58 PM

I can see where they're coming from. "You're using a chatbot" is not an absolutely provable accusation, just to beyond a reasonable doubt. Bad chatbot posts are bad for existing reasons; unsupported, don't answer the question, and so on. Users who keep making bad posts and don't try to correct them are already bannable.

NautArch

@Glazius So just mark as low quality post and don't actually say AI?

This an An Instance of a low quality post :P

Glazius

Yeah, pretty much. It's like... deliberately using a chatbot to get fake Internet points is too much of a bad thing to keep it casually top of mind as a stock close reason?

Of course I'm saying this as a member only of this community, and mostly of the weird niche questions nobody wants fake Internet points for anyway. Maybe the problem is already real bad elsewhere.

NautArch

4:14 PM

@Glazius Yeah, I'm only active on this stack and we've only had minimal, obvious, and bad AI posts.

2 hours later…

AncientSwordRage

6:29 PM

@NautArch some of the issues raised on meta (not by me, so I went be discussing here) are that the flags are very low quality flags, ChatGPT is excellent at looking like pretty decent quality even if it's actually nonsense

M__

@NautArch The code of conduct on commenting has just changed here: rpg.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment I need to read your last comment on the meta post first. What I propose is discuss the matter here and provide a combined summary on the meta comment. I will respond last thing tomorrow at the latest. My response will combine the new code of conduct on RPG commenting with all previous answers.

NautArch

6:51 PM

@M__ my only other suggestion is to approach this with a goal of learning and not of proving yourself right.

2 hours later…

Thomas Markov

8:44 PM

I’m typically pretty consistent about providing feedback for downvotes, but I’m considering being much more selective, possibly stopping altogether.

There is a pattern on our site of users (broadly, collectively) bemoaning lack of downvote feedback and bemoaning negativity and critical feedback when it is given. Since it’s much easier for me to flag comments NLN than provide feedback, I’m leaning toward less feedback.

« first day (4626 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (491 days later) »

all rooms