Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: scagga on 10 Jul 2011, 10:25
-
Link to catacombs: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2558.0
How does my post qualify for moderation? I can't see any unconstructive or 'urdoingitwrong', which is the reason given for the post being moderated.
-
I think that reading the entire moderator statement, instead of focusing only on the first few words and ignoring the rest, would help.
-
I think that reading the entire moderator statement, instead of focusing only on the first few words and ignoring the rest, would help.
Yes, I think that would help get some worthwhile replies to my question.
-
I've taken your advice and read the moderator comment a second time. My question stands.
Replies removed solely not to cause confusion; please feel free to restate your own reasons constructively.
However, I'd like to expand my quesiton. I'd very much like to hear an explanation as to how my post can be considered unconstructive (the semicolon implies they are considered so), and how my post can be moderated on grounds that it could 'create confusion'. That second problem is the creation of the moderator and not grounds to moderate my post. I can't see a plausible explanation for a rule or principle being broken in my post. A thread isn't a hedge to be trimmed just to 'look' better on a whim.
-
Your post replied directly to one that was removed due to moderation.
Removal of the moderated post but not yours and the other(s) replying to it directly would have caused confusion because you were replying to something that did not exist. This is not an unusual course of action on these boards, and happens quite frequently.
You are free to repost, provided that it also follows guidelines.
How is this difficult to understand?
-
Your post replied directly to one that was removed due to moderation.
Removal of the moderated post but not yours and the other(s) replying to it directly would have caused confusion because you were replying to something that did not exist. This is not an unusual course of action on these boards, and happens quite frequently.
You are free to repost, provided that it also follows guidelines.
How is this difficult to understand?
It is difficult to understand because the threshold for moderation is so low sometimes that I feel I am being subjected to the whims of an oestrogen-soaked pillow. One sentence in my post was a question asking for clarification of a term used in a moderated post that in itself was of no objectionable quality. There is no need to go in with a flamethrower on that.
-
I would say in this case it would have been easier (IMO) to simply edit out that line, but as general policy we try to avoid snipping out pieces from posts unless absolutely necessary. As far as the moderation of the OP of that post I think that calling an approach to RP "bullshit" is quite clearly not constructive. Judging by Mata's response that perception isn't just limited to the moderators.
-
I would say in this case it would have been easier (IMO) to simply edit out that line, but as general policy we try to avoid snipping out pieces from posts unless absolutely necessary. As far as the moderation of the OP of that post I think that calling an approach to RP "bullshit" is quite clearly not constructive. Judging by Mata's response that perception isn't just limited to the moderators.
The important point is that I cannot see a plausible justification to bin the whole post. On the question of confusion, moderation should not cater to the lowest IQ - the post is not confusing even in the absence of the posts that came immediately prior to it.
This complaint isn't just about a disagreement with a moderator decision. Time and time again the moderators are unnecessarily heavy-handed in using their power. In this example, my post was condemned at the drop of a hat, despite not containing any objectionable material. An single allusion to a post that was moderated is not grounds to destroy a whole post.
This kind of moderating behaviour is not 'moderate', and furthermore is disrespectful of a contributor to a discussion. It is third-world policing; snap reactions with batons and teargas instead of a dignified bobby politely asking someone to alter their behaviour if needed.
If there is something that is objectionable in a person's post that does not appear malicious, a modicum of politesse would include contacting the poster about it. When moderation is done in this way it has been done here, it alienates and angers posters and makes them feel wronged.
Moderators should not moderate because they personally disagree with the views of a poster. Moderators should not be a vehicle for destroying discussions. If Laerise had been contacted and asked to modify his tone, we could have had a discussion about what he meant by 'cuddle me', which is a term I still do not understand in context.
The moderation on this forum is bereft of visible checks and balances. I am becoming aware of an increasing number of posters who are dissatisfied with the way moderation is undertaken here. Someone who thinks he or she is unimpeachable may well come here and say 'if you don't like it, leave', but that takes the same steps that was seen with Chatsubo and is a CCPesque quality reply.
During the design phase of these forums I suggested that moderators have a 'term' of office, or if concerns were raised about them they could be reviewed / elected. There are no such measures in place to give the options for the community to express their wishes. I think moderators should be rotated at intervals so that the rubbish ones don't have to be embarrassingly voted/complained out, or cause too much damage to the community here.
I am getting tired of seeing moderation occuring on the most drawn-out interpretations of the rules. Please can this grievance be addressed.
-
Uhm, if you read the original message, it states that the additional comments in response to the removed post were removed as well because it would look odd to have people replying to a missing post. You weren't modded out of disagreement or anything.
-
Uhm, if you read the original message, it states that the additional comments in response to the removed post were removed as well because it would look odd to have people replying to a missing post. You weren't modded out of disagreement or anything.
Kaleigh, please give me a sign that you're reading the thread.
-
Scagga, what Morwen said. Your post was not inappropriate in any way. However, we regularly remove replies that directly reference an inappropriate post we're removing, and that's why I invited you to repost the rest of your comment (that didn't reference the post we had to remove).
I apologize for not having made that more clear.
-
Also, further reviewing the thread, I'll thank you to treat me with the same courtesy and respect I treat you, rather than as a "estrogen-soaked pillow". (For the record, I'm male, not that that matters in this case.)
Were this in any other thread, that would have led to more direct moderator action, rather than just getting caught up as a necessary follow-on to someone else's issue.
-
Scagga, what Morwen said. Your post was not inappropriate in any way. However, we regularly remove replies that directly reference an inappropriate post we're removing, and that's why I invited you to repost the rest of your comment (that didn't reference the post we had to remove).
I apologize for not having made that more clear.
Well I disagree with your judgement and would like an explanation as to why that is your decision, because the explanation given in the moderator comment is lacking. You are also fallible.
-
I cannot explain why you disagree with my judgment that your post was not inappropriate. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your question.
-
Also, further reviewing the thread, I'll thank you to treat me with the same courtesy and respect I treat you, rather than as a "estrogen-soaked pillow". (For the record, I'm male, not that that matters in this case.)
Were this in any other thread, that would have led to more direct moderator action, rather than just getting caught up as a necessary follow-on to someone else's issue.
One doesn't need to be female to be likened to an oestrogen-soaked pillow. It is a metaphor to describe the lack of rationality perceived in the judgements being passed.
I think your moderator activity in the thread this relates was disrespectful, so I think we're posting on equal terms here.
-
I cannot explain why you disagree with my judgment that your post was not inappropriate. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your question.
I cannot see a plausible basis for my post being inappropriate.
The only reference made to a moderated post is in the first sentence, which is a query about a term that I do not understand, which I do not see how, judged on its own merits, could be called 'inappropriate'. Inappropriate how? to who?
The rest of the post, barring that sentence, is entirely on topic. Deleting a post is a last resort. You are not using any gradation in your moderator behaviour to make your reactions proportional.
-
YOUR POST WAS NOT INAPPROPRIATE. I'd already stated that, and you disagreed with that judgment. Did you misread it somehow?
I find your suggestion that being "female-like" describes a "lack of rationality" highly offensive and sexist. However, in the interests of transparency and fairness, I'll leave any determination about the disposition of that comment to the rest of the staff (as is normal practice, obviously).
So at this point, I have no idea what you're complaining about and don't intend to respond unless you have something to point out other than the fact that I'm fallible, something I'd already acknowledged in this thread and that you're upset that, as we normally do, I removed your post simply in the process of cleaning up a thread and invited you to repost the rest of your comment. I don't like to snip-moderate, as Misan noted earlier. My comment, however unclear, was intended to communicate that you should feel free to repost the rest of your comment.
Alternately, if you're telling me that you think I should step down as a moderator, please state so concisely along with reasons why that should happen beyond a desire for term limits.
To restate: I sincerely apologize for not having made that clearer in the initial moderation comment and thus wasting everyone's time here.
-
YOUR POST WAS NOT INAPPROPRIATE. I'd already stated that, and you disagreed with that judgment. Did you misread it somehow?
Yes, I'm sorry, I misread it as 'appropriate', not 'inappropriate'.
I find your suggestion that being "female-like" describes a "lack of rationality" highly offensive and sexist. However, in the interests of transparency and fairness, I'll leave any determination about the disposition of that comment to the rest of the staff (as is normal practice, obviously).
It's not sexist because it has nothing to do with being male or female, as I outlined in a previous post. Both males and females have oestrogen, and excessive oestrogen is associated with over-emotionality, much like excessive testosterone is associated with aggressive behaviour. The fact that women generally have more oestrogen than men does not make my metaphor sexist unless you feel you must see it that way.
So at this point, I have no idea what you're complaining about and don't intend to respond unless you have something to point out other than the fact that I'm fallible, something I'd already acknowledged in this thread and that you're upset that, as we normally do, I removed your post simply in the process of cleaning up a thread and invited you to repost the rest of your comment. I don't like to snip-moderate, as Misan noted earlier. My comment, however unclear, was intended to communicate that you should feel free to repost the rest of your comment.
Alternately, if you're telling me that you think I should step down as a moderator, please state so concisely along with reasons why that should happen beyond a desire for term limits.
I am complaining that you are using unnecessary, disrespectfully heavy-handed techniques to do something that could easily be done via another method. There seems to be no liaising with posters about their tone, moderation goes straight towards deletion. A tangential reference to a post that is later moderated and the post is condemned....this is generally poor moderation technique and is a contributing factor to dissatisfaction with this forum.
I am not telling you that you need to step down. I think it would be helpful for you to refer to some websites moderation tips and consider what they say. Here's a few links for you:
http://www.communityspark.com/how-to-effectively-moderate-forums/
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum103/336.htm
About stepping down as a moderator - I don't want to single you out. I think it is a generally good idea if moderators have a term of service, which will help keep moderators in touch with the user base and maintain a moderation team based on merit and community standing rather than cronyism. That is the recipe for a stronger, happier community.
To restate: I sincerely apologize for not having made that clearer in the initial moderation comment and thus wasting everyone's time here.
I understand your position. I would be very grateful if you could resurrect my post with the area in question (the first sentence) removed, as that is the only area that is referring to another post.
-
Moderators, including myself, often contact posters privately about tone and related issues. Sometimes this takes the form of an official warning, of course, but I personally prefer just to send a friendly note to ask somebody to keep an eye on how they say what they say. This happens more than you might know precisely because it's private. After all, we're not here to embarrass anyone.
It seems to me that you consider 'snip-moderation' a lesser response, which I can understand. However, doing so actually removes the text in question rather than leaves it visible in another area. So I feel that moving posts is less heavy-handed than deleting portions of them. This can lead to all sorts of issues, ranging from removing the wrong bits to removing bits that the author would have preferred to reword. In a general sense (not here), this could even lead to changing the actual significance of a post, but I'd never do that and I can't think of anyone here who would. (I've been on sites where that could and did happen, sadly.)
-
Moderators, including myself, often contact posters privately about tone and related issues. Sometimes this takes the form of an official warning, of course, but I personally prefer just to send a friendly note to ask somebody to keep an eye on how they say what they say. This happens more than you might know precisely because it's private. After all, we're not here to embarrass anyone.
It seems to me that you consider 'snip-moderation' a lesser response, which I can understand. However, doing so actually removes the text in question rather than leaves it visible in another area. So I feel that moving posts is less heavy-handed than deleting portions of them. This can lead to all sorts of issues, ranging from removing the wrong bits to removing bits that the author would have preferred to reword. In a general sense (not here), this could even lead to changing the actual significance of a post, but I'd never do that and I can't think of anyone here who would. (I've been on sites where that could and did happen, sadly.)
If you're worried that you can't tell what's wrong with the post then the basis that you're calling the post out is very weak.
I asked laerise, in one of my sentences, 'what does cuddle me mean?' Because Laerise's post was moderated, mine was binned outright without any attempt to contact me. Can you see how ridiculous that is? People don't like having their posts deleted off-hand like that. It's not like the content of my post was pornographic or vile in any other way...
You need to show that there is some kind of proportionality in your responses. If you respect your posters you respect what they put their effort into posting. If there is something you'd like a poster to adjust you can contact them. If the issue is critical it is acceptable to deleted/lock/whatever. It clearly isn't a critical issue and 'confusion' from one sentence certainly isn't supposed to be the concern of a moderator, nor grounds to bin a post of someone else's thoughts.
-
Scagga,
When I read that, I go the impression that it wasn't you who was moderated. The moderator basically explained that your post was removed because it quoted Laerise's (and subsequently leaving it in the thread would cause confusion and allow other people to quote your quote in order to continue responding to Laerise.)
That's what I get out of it, anyway.
-
Raze has it exactly right.
At this point, unless there are new issues, I see no reason to keep repeating myself to explain this particular action.
-
Scagga,
When I read that, I go the impression that it wasn't you who was moderated. The moderator basically explained that your post was removed because it quoted Laerise's (and subsequently leaving it in the thread would cause confusion and allow other people to quote your quote in order to continue responding to Laerise.)
That's what I get out of it, anyway.
Here's the original content: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2558.0
I didn't quote anything, I asked a question at the beginning of my post in relation to a term that Laerise used. That was enough to get my post deleted from the discussion when a moderator decided to delete Laerise's post. I can't confirm whether Laerise was contacted about his tone prior to that happening. I certainly wasn't.
I don't see how the 'confusion' from a single sentence is such a critical issue that necessitates immediate deletion of a post, that lumps it in with actual objectionable material and tars someone's constructive contributions to a discussion. If this is the quality of moderation that is accepted on these forums, it needs to change as it is sub-par. As a member of the community here I have an interest in the good management of these forums, otherwise I'd be silent and simply pack off. If the moderators don't take on board and act on valid criticism of their performance they are adding to a reserve of disgruntlement that is not in the long-term interests of this community.
I would appreciate it if moderators were less defensive when questioned, and would make more efforts to be respectful to the community. They are in a position where they can easily piss off a lot of people, especially if they seem to consistently read the worst meaning in people's posts and interpret offense in language before anyone in the actual discussion does...
-
Raze has it exactly right.
At this point, unless there are new issues, I see no reason to keep repeating myself to explain this particular action.
You and Raze are both wrong. That you agree with each other doesn't change that.
-
As far as the moderation of the OP of that post I think that calling an approach to RP "bullshit" is quite clearly not constructive. Judging by Mata's response that perception isn't just limited to the moderators.
For the record, I consciously chose to reply rather than report. *wry smile*
-
It's standard procedure to move posts that reply directly to moderated posts to help keep threads from becoming a mess, with references to things that are no longer there and to prevent accidental 'editorializing' by moderators (the same reason we don't generally remove only offending 'parts' of posts, but instead move entire posts in about 90% or situations - we are trying to make sure that we don't inadvertently make it seem like someone is saying something they aren't.)
I'm not sure what your issues with this is, Scagga, given that with the effort involved in this thread, you could have re-posted your post, sans the reference to the post that was moderated, about 20 times.
-
It's standard procedure to move posts that reply directly to moderated posts to help keep threads from becoming a mess, with references to things that are no longer there and to prevent accidental 'editorializing' by moderators (the same reason we don't generally remove only offending 'parts' of posts, but instead move entire posts in about 90% or situations - we are trying to make sure that we don't inadvertently make it seem like someone is saying something they aren't.)
I'm not sure what your issues with this is, Scagga, given that with the effort involved in this thread, you could have re-posted your post, sans the reference to the post that was moderated, about 20 times.
Silver, I feel like I'm conversing with people who can only think in algorithms and rhetoric. I was hoping that your eventual post here would show that you were actually thinking about what was happening are would reply in context to the situation. You should be trying to find out what the hell the anger is about instead of quoting standard procedure like some army official excusing some fuckup that occured despite standard procedure.
My issue with this is moderation in this manner does not engage brain, and your reply is evidence that you haven't read my posts in this thread, or are consciously trying to ignore the points that I am raising. You are far worse that Cosmo was at dealing with complaints - at least he provided an answer to the complaint. If I disagreed he would argue the point and do so in a manner to actually address the substance of my argument, even if I disagreed with his logic.
If 'standard procedure' includes nuking posts because of a single sentence (that the moderator is scared will lead to confusion) then that needs to change. There is no mess that would have occured from letting my post be. There should be moderator discretion, rather than a 'procedure' that a moderator just follows without thinking of what they are doing. Suggesting that people just follows procedures suggests that moderators are not expected to think.
Chucking people's posts out without contacting them for such flimsy reasons is sledgehammer moderation, like excising a mole on someone's forehead and cutting off half their face...without their consent.
- Removing posts should be a last resort, not a first measure.
- You should contact people to change their posts, especially if the issue is non-critical.
- Try to respect your posters instead of binning their posts because a single sentence could 'confuse' a mentally subnormal person.
You wonder why I make a fuss over such a decision? I make a small post asking for explanation, and every subsequent reply is more and more idiotic, repeatedly failing to acknowledge any mistake or even try to see things from a point of view other than their own. That serves the further infuriate a complainant.
If there is nothing you can see through any effort you make - I want to repropose the concept of moderators having terms of service.
-
I agree with Scagga, if a small bit of a post is related to another moderated post and is considered inappropriate does not mean that the whole post has to be deleted, especially if the rest of the said post is relevant.
EDIT : reviewing the post in question again, I wonder why this can be considered as "Highly unconstructive and full of 'urdoinitrong. Replies removed solely not to cause confusion; please feel free to restate your own reasons constructively." :
I roleplayed because it answered an existential reason, and provided motivation, goals, and a point from which to relate to other players.
Note: I was roleplaying before I knew what roleplaying was. The chap who sold me the idea of starting to play EvE told me the storyline and gave me the idea that Sebiestor were the long-lost scions of Russian, who still used projectiles despite contemporary technological advancement in nearby nations, hence Scagga Laebetrovo.
Sorry for the cheesy comparison, but you do not remove a cancerous body part by killing the whole patient.
-
While I agree with you Lyn, what's to stop Scagga from just reposting that particular part of his response, which is exactly what the moderator said to do anyways? it's a big deal over nothing, the moderator has already made it clear that Scagga isn't being moderated here, all he has to do is repost that part of his post and the issue resolves itself.
-
If I may?
I think that instead of ripping it all out, what could have been done better is what moderators seem having no trouble to do with me, which is to contact me when a small part of a post is inappropriate/problematic/whatever, and ask me to pull it before just blindly moderating. One line of Scagga's post was referencing a removed post. The rest was valid yes, but I think that removing it wholesale and telling him to repost sets a bad precedent. Its unneeded. If the mods communicate a bit better with everyone its something we could avoid.
-
And I want a care package tied up with a silver bow and some glitter on top too. And if you don't do that, and you inconvenience me again, it's pistols at dawn!
Seriously Scagga, making a minor inconvenience tantamount to grave dishonor is a joke, and insulting everyone else about it only makes it even more absurd.
-
While I agree with you Lyn, what's to stop Scagga from just reposting that particular part of his response, which is exactly what the moderator said to do anyways? it's a big deal over nothing, the moderator has already made it clear that Scagga isn't being moderated here, all he has to do is repost that part of his post and the issue resolves itself.
Raze, I put effort into explaining good reasons why 'just reposting' was not an adequate solution. I think you've ignored that reply, and are engaging with the thread to simply give an opinion rather than discuss the issues being raised.
Let me give you an analogy. You fill in an application form, and because there is a minor error, the form is ripped up at the office you submit it to without any discussion or notification to you. The only way you can find out that this happened was by calling (i.e. checking). Do you think it is not better for the office to contact you about it, especially if you could make the change and avoid having to repeat the application?
I'm arguing on basis of principle. The actual damage is nothing, much like the damage done if a moderator decides to delete 10 perfectly fine threads. But what that represents is poor quality moderation, and that why there is a discussion going on here about that.
If you want to defend the moderators on the basis that the 'harm done' by their actions is small, that is fine. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether what they are doing is right.
-
And I want a care package tied up with a silver bow and some glitter on top too. And if you don't do that, and you inconvenience me again, it's pistols at dawn!
Seriously Scagga, making a minor inconvenience tantamount to grave dishonor is a joke, and insulting everyone else about it only makes it even more absurd.
Now you're just being provocative. Do you work for social services or some allied healthcare profession?
-
You'll have to clue me in as to how this is relevant to the topic at hand.
-
You'll have to clue me in as to how this is relevant to the topic at hand.
I will when you explain how your post is a) relevant and b) constructive.
-
While I agree with you Lyn, what's to stop Scagga from just reposting that particular part of his response, which is exactly what the moderator said to do anyways? it's a big deal over nothing, the moderator has already made it clear that Scagga isn't being moderated here, all he has to do is repost that part of his post and the issue resolves itself.
I am looking for another way to describe it but I can't find it : well, what you describe to me is mostly what I call "moderator lazyness". Usually you do not alienate your memberbase by forcing them to repost sane and clean parts of a post and making it look like a blind moderator sledgehammer. I have seen plenty forums where moderators just send PMs to the user before acting, or simply just edit themselves the post to remove the unwanted bit out of it.
Add to that it is highly unproductive as you first have to delete something (here its even more : move it to another section, here the catacombs), then tell the guy to repost the good part (I hope they keep a copy of the good part, unless you even want the guy to rewrite it all ! @_@), if you actually bother to tell him to do so...
Eventually, the good part will almost never be reposted.
[edit : mistakes and typos]
-
It isn't that I haven't read your responses Scagga. I have read them, and I disagree.
From what I have seen, you simply don't allow any position other than yours is valid. Which is fine, but it is going to ultimately be frustrating for you.
-
It isn't that I haven't read your responses Scagga. I have read them, and I disagree.
From what I have seen, you simply don't allow any position other than yours is valid. Which is fine, but it is going to ultimately be frustrating for you.
Show me a cogent counter-argument to my viewpoint that I have not debunked.
Point me to a viewpoint that is more valid than mine and I will accept your statement.
-
On the contrary, Scagga...I read the entire thread before I posted at all.
I read you posts and I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is why it has to become this big of a deal?
Sure, the moderators could've sent you a PM and said "please change this post" meanwhile it remains on the boards for people to respond to until you have a chance to get the message and edit the post. You could counter argue and say that they could've just gotten rid of the first inappropriate comment and let you edit yours later, but the fact remains that they chose this particular course of action in order to avoid a long(er) discussion in relation to the moderated post.
You could easily have just copy and pasted what you wrote and reposted it and been done in all of about two minutes with no issue. There's no reason to keep going on about it. The moderator has already answered your challenge and told you why they made their decision and what could be done about it.
That's my point.
If you want to continue making the point that they could've handled the situation better by sending you a PM, that's fine. I can agree with that. I simply don't agree that continuing to make a giant deal out of it like this is constructive or necessary.
-
On the contrary, Scagga...I read the entire thread before I posted at all.
I read you posts and I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is why it has to become this big of a deal?
The issue is compounded when replies from moderators are consistently defensive, discompassionate and do not display an attitude that they want to be helpful to the users and find a solution. Why can't they acknowledge that things could be done better and they will work to do so in the future? Why can't they show respect to posters? - it's no effort on their part to be kind to someone who has reasons to feel wronged and just replace their post. Why do they have to be so rigid and bureaucratic about it? (properly follow proper protocols...)
The staff seem to just want to stand by their actions and tell the person complaining 'well we did everything right because we can quote xyz rule/protocol and you should just do pqrs'. This betrays the fact that little thought went in to moderating, which is a delicate task and must be done in a consciencious, consistent manner. Posts in this thread reveal that other members of the community get better treatment, and there are complaints about consistency in moderation. Why are they taking the same steps as chatsubo did? These things piss me off far more than the issue itself. Backstage is grossly underperforming and my intention is to improve it. Moderators aren't selfless white knights, I'm confident that people would rise to the opportunity if an opening was made - I know I would.
Sure, the moderators could've sent you a PM and said "please change this post" meanwhile it remains on the boards for people to respond to until you have a chance to get the message and edit the post. You could counter argue and say that they could've just gotten rid of the first inappropriate comment and let you edit yours later, but the fact remains that they chose this particular course of action in order to avoid a long(er) discussion in relation to the moderated post.
Please, take a moment to think about it in context. How potentially damaging was the content that they wanted removed? Did I post somethign vile, pornographic, forum-breaking? How necessary was it to bin the post? Should moderation be so aggressive? Is it worth pissing someone off by binning their whole post on a whim without contacting them?
I put it to you a second time - if I hadn't rechecked the thread, I would have never known my post had been removed. That in itself is poor moderation, especially because the moderator in question admitted there was nothing inappropriate with my post.
You could easily have just copy and pasted what you wrote and reposted it and been done in all of about two minutes with no issue. There's no reason to keep going on about it. The moderator has already answered your challenge and told you why they made their decision and what could be done about it.
The answers are unsatisfactory, as you can see from the replies I am giving. Just because they reply to my complaint doesn't mean they have actually made good points.
You confuse me with your logic. Let me put it to you like this - someone steals something from you of little value. You can replace it, so the fact that someone steals something of small value from you is ok. I'm arguing about a principle, not about the quantity of damage done.
What the moderator in question has done is wrong, and that is why this thread is here. If they can't explain why they aren't wrong in a cogent manner, then I will press the issue. It isn't just about this scenario. I have been quietly facepalming to myself about so many moderator decisions...I'm just fed up.
If you want to continue making the point that they could've handled the situation better by sending you a PM, that's fine. I can agree with that. I simply don't agree that continuing to make a giant deal out of it like this is constructive or necessary.
If the moderators replied to me with those words, I would have stopped long ago. If the moderator had said, 'yeah, I could have done that better, next time I'll pm you. Sorry for pissing you off', I'd have been more than satisfied. Can you see that tone anywhere?
-
You believing that you have debunked something doesn't mean that it has been debunked, Scagga.
The policy is and has been that when someone has a response to moderated material we will generally move their post to the catacombs and tell them they can repost. The reason we don't generally PM people instead is that we don't know when that person will receive that PM, and we want to avoid the aforementioned confusion, or people responding to the response, etc which leads to the thread becoming a mess, which is what we are trying to avoid.
There have been specific situations where we PMed people - usually when they posted something that was borderline (as far as the rules were concerned) rather than when they responded to moderated material and asked them to change it. All of that is situational, and one of the things that this board allows is for moderators to not take a one-size-fits-all approach to moderation (though we do have a couple of fairly strong guidelines, including the one that suggests we not moderate only parts of posts, for example.)
In most situations, including the one we are discussing, we feel it is better to avoid the potential issues of references to posts that are no longer there in the however-long-it-takes for a person to log back in and see a PM. Particularly give the effort involved in hitting ctrl-c and ctrl-v is about the same effort involved in highlight > delete, without those potential complications. I understand that the difference is you changing it yourself rather than the moderators doing it, but we will continue to put the health of the board above your personal sensibilities in this matter.
I don't need you to 'accept my statement', and I understand that you see it as a big difference.
You can certainly disagree with the policy, but I'm not sure that insulting moderators and assuming that the only possible reason we wouldn't change our mind is because we can't understand or didn't read what you wrote, or because we are being stubborn and defensive, is the best way to go about things.
While I understand that this is upsetting for you, that isn't sufficient reason for the policy to change. You being upset doesn't mean that the policy is wrong.
-
That is the most reasoned reply I've seen in this thread, Silver. I agree with the principles you raise, but I think you need to consider moderator communication as part of the courtesy we expect on these forums. It's all nice to expect posters to be polite and courteous to one another, but I think likewise it is only reasonable to expect the same if not more of a moderator.
I don't have doubts that you or any of the moderators want backstage to flourish. I have made recommendations in this thread and hope you and the rest of the staff will consider them. There is discomfort with aspects of how things are run. Lots of small irritations eventually lead to something (sometimes it is difficult to see), and considering your position I think it is reasonable to expect you to want to hear suggestions.
-
I'm certainly happy to hear suggestions, but please keep in mind that doesn't mean that they will be implemented.
As for moderator courtesy, I want to reiterate something that I believe was mentioned earlier: Being a backstage moderator is a largely thankless volunteer gig. We aren't better because we are volunteers, and we aren't selfless as it is obviously in our interest to have a place where we can discuss our mutual hobby, and that's pretty much why we're here. But we also aren't compensated financially for do a job which is often extremely irritating (I actually pay for the privilege, in point of fact).
So, while courtesy is certainly encouraged (and staying within the guidelines and rules is obviously a must) if a moderator is curt or very direct or what have you because they have had an unpleasant day, or because they get frustrated or whatever, or because they are trying to communicate more clearly some point. Well. I will certainly be docking their pay.
All of that said, if you do see a moderator post that is actually in breach of the guidelines or rules, then please report it.
-
On the contrary, Scagga...I read the entire thread before I posted at all.
I read you posts and I understand where you're coming from. What I don't understand is why it has to become this big of a deal?
Sure, the moderators could've sent you a PM and said "please change this post" meanwhile it remains on the boards for people to respond to until you have a chance to get the message and edit the post. You could counter argue and say that they could've just gotten rid of the first inappropriate comment and let you edit yours later, but the fact remains that they chose this particular course of action in order to avoid a long(er) discussion in relation to the moderated post.
You could easily have just copy and pasted what you wrote and reposted it and been done in all of about two minutes with no issue. There's no reason to keep going on about it. The moderator has already answered your challenge and told you why they made their decision and what could be done about it.
That's my point.
If you want to continue making the point that they could've handled the situation better by sending you a PM, that's fine. I can agree with that. I simply don't agree that continuing to make a giant deal out of it like this is constructive or necessary.
I disagree with that, as explained in my former post (I will not repeat it). This way of doing can be an unproductive fuckfest sometimes, and a total lack of transparency.
And I am not sure anybody is doing a big deal out of it, though it can be frustrating when people are just unable to understand each other for different reasons (obviously Scagga and I are very cartesian people and have difficulties to cope with posts thought in a different way : factual people vs formal people).
The policy is and has been that when someone has a response to moderated material we will generally move their post to the catacombs and tell them they can repost. The reason we don't generally PM people instead is that we don't know when that person will receive that PM, and we want to avoid the aforementioned confusion, or people responding to the response, etc which leads to the thread becoming a mess, which is what we are trying to avoid.
There have been specific situations where we PMed people - usually when they posted something that was borderline (as far as the rules were concerned) rather than when they responded to moderated material and asked them to change it. All of that is situational, and one of the things that this board allows is for moderators to not take a one-size-fits-all approach to moderation (though we do have a couple of fairly strong guidelines, including the one that suggests we not moderate only parts of posts, for example.)
In most situations, including the one we are discussing, we feel it is better to avoid the potential issues of references to posts that are no longer there in the however-long-it-takes for a person to log back in and see a PM. Particularly give the effort involved in hitting ctrl-c and ctrl-v is about the same effort involved in highlight > delete, without those potential complications. I understand that the difference is you changing it yourself rather than the moderators doing it, but we will continue to put the health of the board above your personal sensibilities in this matter.
With a genuine curiosity here, why can't you moderate only parts of posts ? This seems to me the perfect and logical thing to do. Why alienating the members by asking them to repost (if they even are warned that they have been moderated or do not visit the catacombs) ? Why killing the valuable work for the sake of killing the part that has to be killed, then asking to repost that valuable work ? I probably lack of info here, but I find this quite... yes, definitly unproductive and repetitive.
-
I realize it can seem counter-intuitive. Primarily it's there to prevent moderators from accidentally changing the intent of someone's post, 'editorializing' or appearing to. And as mentioned, I don't think making people use ctrl-c/ctrl-v so that they can repost the parts of their post they want to, if they want to, is tantamount of 'killing' their post.
-
While probably not a constructive post on my part, +1 to Scagga.
-
If you feel the need to mod something just ctrl+c / ctrl+v yourself maybe? ;)
-
Biased moderator 2 : laerise 0
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2662.msg38454#new
Good job for not moderating Lyn's flaming btw - sometimes I really wonder why I still care :bash:
-
Poor and biased moderation on Backstage? Say it isn't so. No point arguing it though. There's never been any acknowledgment of shitty moderation here and the admin/mod team never will acknowledge it. It's the price to pay for not having seen that particular buddy-club forming sooner and calling it out. Now? It's too late.
-
Eh, the thing is, this is backstage. The whole point is that you are required to be respectful of people even if you think they don't deserve it. If you felt that Lyn's "Amarrian Empire =/= Spanish Inquisition" post was disrespectful, you should report it. Or you can respond to it, but not with flaming. Responding to something that is questionably disrespectful with something that is blatantly disrespectful is going to get the post moderated, period. That's not news to anyone.
In this case, it's a shame, because there was some good stuff sandwiched between the flames, but oh well. The whole point of this forum is that you can't flame someone just for disagreeing with you, even if you know you're right and have the evidence to back it up. Done properly, you can demonstrate that someone is completely full of shit without actually saying so - and if you must say so, do it in a PM.
-
To Ryven and Malcolm: Maybe you two ought to have a glance at the ruleset before posting? The irony of trashtalking someone while breaking the ruleset in ways that makes me, Laerise and all the other moderated people look positively timid is mindboggling. PMs exist for a reason.
Victoria: What flames? You have to interpret that post ridiculously liberally to find any flames. I too acknowledge that Laerise can get abrasive, but this is ridiculous.
-
The irony wasn't lost on me. That made it more humorous to me. I think it is interesting, though, that people get upset at being moderated. I fully expect my previous post to be moderated for referencing the previous post which I assume will be modded as well. Hence an illustration, an effective method of explanation.
Seems my post wasn't so ignorant after all. Hmmm.
-
Victoria: What flames? You have to interpret that post ridiculously liberally to find any flames. I too acknowledge that Laerise can get abrasive, but this is ridiculous.
Mmm... flaming might be a stronger word than needed.
Extremes prove nothing but your inability to provide factual evidence contrary to Lallara's post lyn.
p.s.: Some respect for your fellow posters would be nice Lyn, not only is your (non)argument very weak, it also displays a blatant disrespect for lallara's reply to nico.
This is, however, disrespectful and adds nothing to the discussion. If Lyn's disrespect were so blatant, report it and let the mods deal with it. Calling her out on it does nothing useful.
Honestly, if you leave those two sentences out (or type them to get it out of your system and then delete them before hitting post) it's a good post on the subject. But with those two in there, it's gone in a matter of minutes.
-
To Ryven and Malcolm: Maybe you two ought to have a glance at the ruleset before posting? The irony of trashtalking someone while breaking the ruleset in ways that makes me, Laerise and all the other moderated people look positively timid is mindboggling. PMs exist for a reason.
Irony? I knew the post would be modded when I wrote. I reported it myself, to be quite frank. The point was that I said it anyway because I felt it needed to be said and I don't get upset about getting moderated because I believe they do the best they can with the mess they're given to moderate.
Irony would have been if I thought I was justified in saying it while breaking all the rules and doing the same things that get other people moderated, and then turning around and complaining to the moderators because my post was moderated. That's irony.
-
Eh, the thing is, this is backstage. The whole point is that you are required to be respectful of people even if you think they don't deserve it. If you felt that Lyn's "Amarrian Empire =/= Spanish Inquisition" post was disrespectful, you should report it. Or you can respond to it, but not with flaming. Responding to something that is questionably disrespectful with something that is blatantly disrespectful is going to get the post moderated, period. That's not news to anyone.
In this case, it's a shame, because there was some good stuff sandwiched between the flames, but oh well. The whole point of this forum is that you can't flame someone just for disagreeing with you, even if you know you're right and have the evidence to back it up. Done properly, you can demonstrate that someone is completely full of shit without actually saying so - and if you must say so, do it in a PM.
This. You do not have to make an outrage everytime I am involved in something Laerise, even knowing how you seem to dislike me for some reason, backstage is not a place to settle one's accounts with each other, like Ryven and Malcolm just did unfortunately.
Now that I look back at my post, it looks indeed a little weak. I just had almost nothing to answer to Lallara "certainties over everything" and I perfectly now that I avoid debating with him for the simple reason I know it will go nowhere. So I should definitly have kept myself silent, because my post looks like a troll now, even if it was really not the intention. But, the idea was still here : if I said so it is mostly because I strongly felt that Lallara's statements could be summarized or tldr-ed in the single statement I made. For that, I support the request for my post to be moded.
You have my apologies for not having thought more before posting that, because honestly, it was totally genuine.
Victoria: What flames? You have to interpret that post ridiculously liberally to find any flames. I too acknowledge that Laerise can get abrasive, but this is ridiculous.
Then we may have different feelings about it. I just came back and saw Laerise's post deleted, so I can assure you it was not even me that reported it, though I would have reported it if I had the time to do so. Maybe the biased moderator team did it itself... :roll:
Instead of always blaming the admin team, that I am absolutely not part of this mythic and infamous "buddy club" you are refering to (I am quite new to backstage, at the opposite of RP), a little introspection could help. Much like I did just above, admitting that I did something probably stupid or not thought well before (and even asking myself for my post to be moded). It is a fact that a lot of people find your assertions, you and Laerise, often inflammatory or disrespectful, and this is why you often get moded. I highly doubt this is a matter of biased moderation. Even if one of Laerise moderated posts on another matter was recognized to have been moderated over nothing, I do not think this is a good idea to make it a generality.
It is probably a matter of scale of sensibilities here I suppose, because I do not see where the issue could be otherwise. So please allow me to point out what I find disrespectful, and at the contrary on what Laerise is right to my opinion :
Extremes prove nothing but your inability to provide factual evidence contrary to Lallara's post lyn.
Definitly, as I said above, if I had something to say, I should have stated it clearer, or said nothing, even if with a little decyphering you can easily see what I pointed out.
Though this very statement is agressive, don't you think ? "YOUR INABILITY". You were right to tell me that, but not in that aggressive stance, I think.
The amarr faction, like all the other factions as well, does not have a 100% fitting real life counter part, no matter how much people try to push it into the roman/byzanteene cliche.
Again, I am perfectly aware of this, always, but it was indeed right to point this out because even if the analogy was purely made for illustration purposes, it does not seem the case in my post for the simple reason that I did not even try to back it up with a little more arguments.
Also, if you really must use (erraneous) descriptions like "church rule", then I'd like to remind you that especially if it IS a "church rule" there will NO room to wiggle in at all. What constitues orthodoxy is solely the descision of the theology council - and the speakers of truth.
This (emphasis put in bold), is indirectly but definitly to my eyes a blatant "ur doing it wrong" to every other people that disagree with this statement, me included. This is stating directly that your view is the only valid one, and this breaches to my eyes a lot of the forum rules.
It would be nice if those who look into amarr RP could take a step back and realise that
This is condescending and disrespectful, implying that people "do not realise things", while you obviously have taken a step back and realize what they do not. It may be true, or not, but it does not justify the tone.
p.s.: Some respect for your fellow posters would be nice Lyn, not only is your (non)argument very weak, it also displays a blatant disrespect for lallara's reply to nico.
Definitly, thus why I apologized above, because I honestly did not realize it until now. If I had something good and clever to take out of the whole post, this would be this part. Thank you for pointing this out to me.
-
I'm starting to think this is simply a culture / language problem.
-
In what language does does the word baby also mean bathwater?
-
Yeah, you speak chatsu- ohh...nevermind. :oops:
-
A community-run forum can choose its moderators. A run-community has its moderators prescribed.
-
Give a man a ban and he'll be miserable for a short while. Teach a man to ban and he'll be miserable every day he sees another debate thread.
-
:eek: