Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Ciarente on 21 Apr 2010, 05:59
-
[There was originally a mod-box from Ciah here that read as follows.]Please stay away from 'urdoingitwrong' territory.[/end modbox contents.] I wasn't IN urdoingitwrong territory, and what's worse is, we talked online and you know it, so. Continuing!
I can't see how saying someone's approach to RP "is idiotic" is not saying that their approach is wrong. Certainly, if I read something saying "The idea that RP can take place in chat channels instead of space battles is idiotic" I would read that as an attack on the way I RP.
The argument put forward in favor a different approach is just as strong without the moderated sentence - which, given you flagged it to moderators, I can't help but feel you knew was over the line, or close to it.
The tone we are trying to set for this forum is one of mutual respect and civility, where we can disagree without calling each other names. Ideas you don't agree with are not, ipso facto, idiotic, they are simply ideas you don't disagree with.
We also ask posters to remember that their words are being read by a range of people of different views and backgrounds, and consider the way their posts will impact on others.
I link, again, the FAQ (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?action=page;id=4)
Please bring discussion of moderation to this board in future.
-
Also noteworthy here:
Rule 10: Respect our decisions. The moderation team reserves the right to warn, suspend, or permanently ban users judged to be acting against the spirit of the rules, even users conforming to the letter. In other words, don't try skirting the rules to "win" threads.
Rule 10b: All moderator decisions may be appealed to the staff. Appeals against moderator decisions should be made through the Moderation Discussion forum where it will be addressed by the admins. Do not respond to the moderator action in the thread where it was posted.
-
'Kay.
If I say you're doing something stupid and acknowledge your right to do something stupid, that doesn't necessarily make you stupid unless you first assume you're incapable of change, or distinguishing yourself from your actions.
Now.
If I say you're doing something fucking stupid and acknowledge your right to do something fucking stupid, that doesn't necessarily make you fucking stupid unless you first assume you're incapable of change, or distinguishing yourself from your actions.
If one of the above paragraphs feels more troubling to you than the latter, go and delete all that shit you guys put up about latitude to use strong language. Especially you, Havvo, concerning the word 'fuck.'
And frankly, when I make less work for one of you by NOT posting a thread to the mod discussion board for the sake of your time after talking to one of you directly, do some editing, am told in private that my forum-fu is WRONG, and acknowledge the input, it merely feels like I'm being slowly tarred and feathered in public.
There's offensively inoffensive, and then there's impossibly inoffensive. If you want good content and habits from me, you can at the very least drop the redundancies; if this thread was really about general policy because you understood (as, honestly, you well should have) that I acknowledged your input, simply change its title to something regarding policy clarification.
-
Ciarente's moderation action wasn't based on your use of profanity, it was based on describing someone's approach to RP as idiotic.
This thread was not created spontaneously or redundantly, it was the only way to create a 'split' topic for the discussion of the moderation action (which you initiated with the comment quoted by Ciarente in the OP) without moving the entire post to this board; Cia left the post in place for the sake of its quality and relevance to the discussion thread it was posted in. Cia's intention here was to address your comment in keeping with our whole 'transparent as possible' thing and explain the reasoning behind her action, instead of just brushing your comment off. :)
We'd ask that in the future, rather than commenting on the moderation in the original thread (or post, as the case may be), members (not just you) open a thread here for that discussion with a link to the post(s) in question in the original thread.
-
If I say you're doing something stupid and acknowledge your right to do something stupid, that doesn't necessarily make you stupid unless you first assume you're incapable of change, or distinguishing yourself from your actions.
Personally, if you say I'm doing something stupid, right there the whole thing stops. Not only does that violate guidelines to my (possibly incomplete) understanding, I don't listen to anything that refers to me as stupid. And toeing the line by calling my "actions" stupid doesn't really help any.
(This is a general "you" and "me," as I'm just addressing the general point. I wasn't in the original thread. :) Don't hate!)
This is also why I refuse to read any of the "$ACTIVITY For Dummies" books, or their ilk. Starting off with denigrating the folks to whom you are talking is, generally, a non-starter.
-
How do you take strong criticism then, Casiella? I would say you don't take it well if the word choice is central to your decision to pay it any attention.
Ciarente's moderation action wasn't based on your use of profanity, it was based on describing someone's approach to RP as idiotic.
Again, which we spoke of, privately. Hence, the first strike of redundancy.
This thread was not created spontaneously or redundantly, it was the only way to create a 'split' topic for the discussion of the moderation action (which you initiated with the comment quoted by Ciarente in the OP) without moving the entire post to this board; Cia left the post in place for the sake of its quality and relevance to the discussion thread it was posted in.
Then the topic of the thread did not match the title; the title, in fact, was related to a different set of actions and suggested, in and of itself, that the matter was rather greater in its relation to my interaction than it turned out to be. Considering, you know, things were settled.
Altering thread titles is possible; their impact on appearances merits this kind of a lot. So therein is generated the second count of redundancy, and an inkling that it was intentional.
Cia's intention here was to address your comment in keeping with our whole 'transparent as possible' thing and explain the reasoning behind her action, instead of just brushing your comment off. :)
If you're something it for the sake of record-keeping and transparency, mark it as such. This breed of section is possessed of kind of a potent reputation on boards, traditionally. When I start a thread in a mod section about altering the content added by someone specific, I work to make my intent clear. That's something I didn't see done originally; it is something I can understand, but the next user you slip up with may be rather less resilient.
We'd ask that in the future, rather than commenting on the moderation in the original thread (or post, as the case may be), members (not just you) open a thread here for that discussion with a link to the post(s) in question in the original thread.
For about the fourth time, I heard you the first time. If you want to underscore this for the userbase in general, alter the FAQ to give rule 10b more visibility, start a thread devoted to the subject, or generally don't single me out over and over and over again. I am an outlier in tone, form, posting habits, and a few other factors; the userbase in general may not tally their experience with mine.
-
Hey Ashar, maybe you should just take a small step back and ask yourself why you, of all people, seem to be the one who is running into moderation the most consistently.
Your contributions show that you are quite capable of rational and critical analysis, so maybe a period of self reflection would save both you and the mods some trouble here. :)
-
Nah, Lae, I'm good.
...And, frankly, if something fits the definitive profile of idiocy, which is that it smack of a lack of education or willful ignorance, or that it invite ridicule, I'm not seeing a lot of utility in denying me the use of one word where otherwise I should have to apply many.
That's sort of crackbrained.
-
How do you take strong criticism then, Casiella? I would say you don't take it well if the word choice is central to your decision to pay it any attention.
Yes, as my wife frequently points out to me (and as my father did when I was an asshole teenager): it's not just what you say, it's how you say it.
You may define "strong criticism" differently than I do, but I certainly believe that one can express categorical disagreement without being rude.
-
Then the topic of the thread did not match the title
The topic of the thread is moderation in the Amarr Bloc thread. I don't understand what you mean by the topic not matching the title.
We'd ask that in the future, rather than commenting on the moderation in the original thread (or post, as the case may be), members (not just you) open a thread here for that discussion with a link to the post(s) in question in the original thread.
For about the fourth time, I heard you the first time.
Bolded a piece of my original text for emphasis that might not have been clear enough previously.
-
Ashar, words don't just have definitions, they have connotations. That last bit matters when using a word like "idiocy" or similar.
-
Nah, Lae, I'm good.
...And, frankly, if something fits the definitive profile of idiocy, which is that it smack of a lack of education or willful ignorance, or that it invite ridicule, I'm not seeing a lot of utility in denying me the use of one word where otherwise I should have to apply many.
That's sort of crackbrained.
A few games here might help, leading you to eternal bliss: www.webdiplomacy.net
<3 ashar
-
We'd ask that in the future, rather than commenting on the moderation in the original thread (or post, as the case may be), members (not just you) open a thread here for that discussion with a link to the post(s) in question in the original thread.
Bolded a piece of my original text for emphasis that might not have been clear enough previously.
Yeah, emphasizing three words in a parenthetical form somewhere in a sea of other input doesn't equate to fundamentally affecting the feeling evoked in a user.
The topic of the thread is moderation in the Amarr Bloc thread. I don't understand what you mean by the topic not matching the title.
What I mean is, the topic has been covered elsewhere and is, by your own admission, concerned primarily with transparency. The wider context of leaving labels to a specific incident in place is then more of beating a user about the head and shoulders; it has not felt more like a general statement to a userbase because of said three words in parentheses. I'd go as far as saying it's less like one, but really ought to be one.
However, I suggest we table this, opinions and all, until the moderator who originally posted in the thread has the chance to say whatever else she might seek to.
And yeah, on a certain level, I'm telling you how to carry out your responsibility - much as Lillith had, and with a degree of experience fulfilling that sort of responsibility elsewhere. However, it's intended as input at this point, if that were unclear.
And Scagga, you're a silly man of Arabian extraction.
-
Yeah, emphasizing three words in a parenthetical form somewhere in a sea of other input doesn't equate to fundamentally affecting the feeling evoked in a user.
My point was that this request is made to the entire community... not just you.
The topic of the thread is moderation in the Amarr Bloc thread. I don't understand what you mean by the topic not matching the title.
What I mean is, the topic has been covered elsewhere
I understand that this makes you feel targeted, which is unfortunate and I apologize for that. At the same time, as per the quoted text in the OP, whether it was discussed elsewhere or not you initiated a discussion of moderation on the forum that needed to be duly addressed on the forum by making the comment in an edit of the post.
And yeah, on a certain level, I'm telling you how to carry out your responsibility - much as Lillith had, and with a degree of experience fulfilling that sort of responsibility elsewhere. However, it's intended as input at this point, if that were unclear.
Your opinions are noted.
-
And Scagga, you're a silly man of Arabian extraction.
I'm not semitic, you semite so-and-so.
-
And Scagga, you're a silly man of Arabian extraction.
I'm not semitic, you semite so-and-so.
Don't worry Scagga, you're safe from Standartenführer Hans Landa :)
-
I understand that this makes you feel targeted, which is unfortunate and I apologize for that.
Cool. That's all better.
However, it's intended as input at this point, if that were unclear.
Your opinions are noted.
Heh. Let me refine that a bit; it was intended as benign input handed up from a member of the userbase, not DO IT THIS WAY BECAUSE input.
And Scagga, you're a silly man of Arabian extraction.
I'm not semitic, you semite so-and-so.
You're a hamite so-and-so, then.
-
You're a hamite so-and-so, then.
I also like ham.
It is delicious.
-
...Heh.
I guess once you go black, you never go back.