Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Vikarion on 13 Feb 2013, 11:36
-
Ok, a recent post by Isis (here: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4119.0) was modded for being offensive. I'm not too sure how this violates the rules. Sure, calling a specific person a scrublord or idiot is bad, but we all have been one from time to time, and I don't think Isis was calling anyone in particular an idiot or scrublord. Are we going to remove any reference to the possibility of people being idiots?
I've been an idiot before, when I lost my Caldari Navy Raven to the old lofty scam when I was a newb. And there are definitely people with capitals who use them not entirely intelligently. Is referencing the fact that people can be foolish against the rules now?
Or are we just modding people who are goons because we hate goons?
-
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Scrublord
-
I agree with Vikarion, Isis didn't actually reference anyone in particular, and the game (any game) is full of idiots in any guise, as well as reasonable people. Saying it is full of idiots doesn't mean anyone in particular that may be reading the post is one of those I refer to, it just means some are. No?
-
In other words, the term was technically an insult directed at pretty much every single EVE player in existence. The targets of insults do not have to be members of the forum (or, in fact, RPers) for it to be a violation of the rules.
With that in mind, I'm not seeing the moderation decision there to tell her to remove it and repost as not being justified.
-
Are some scrublords
I think this is far from referring every single EVE player in existance. It doesn't even reference all the scrublords in EVE.
-
How is this any different than "prepare your anus" meme?
Which is thrown around this forum a lot.
Btw. any meme regarding "Rape" should definetly be NOT endorsed in any way or form, that includes passive endorsement by lack of moderation btw. :s
-
How is this any different than "prepare your anus" meme?
Which is thrown around this forum a lot.
Btw. any meme regarding "Rape" should definetly be NOT endorsed in any way or form, that includes passive endorsement by lack of moderation btw. :s
Anal sex is not inherently rape.
-
It doesn't matter. The term itself is still an insult, and can be applied to nearly every person who plays EVE by its definition alone.
Is it that hard to replace it with "people who play by their own rules"? Just because a term might be acceptable to use elsewhere does not mean it is here.
Jek, in accordance with the policy regarding moderator discretion, chose to offer Isis the option of reposting minus the part of the post that was reported as insulting to other players.
He did not have to do this. He did anyway. This is a mountain being made out of a grain of sand on a piece of paper.
As for your comment, Laerise, there's Katrina's point, and there's the fact that reporting posts that are three weeks old is a waste of your time and ours, especially ones that nobody else had cared to report in that time. At that point if there were something legitimately worthy of our attention it would'be been caught and dealt with already.
-
Mind you tone Morwen. As a moderator you are supposed to further the cause of the community, not lord over it.
Yes, I take offense in the meme and I see no reason to be talked down to by anyone in this regard.
Edit:
Also Morwen, if you had bothered to put "Prepare your anus" into that meme search you would have found out very quickly that is, indeed, closely related to "You're gonna get raped". http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/prepare-your-anus
About
“Prepare Your Anus” is an expression often used to caption image macros featuring photographs of intimidating-looking characters. The image macros are meant to illicit a disturbing or creepy reaction, similar to the “You Gonna Get Raped” series.
Origin
One of the earliest known instances of the phrase “prepare your anus” was posted by Team XBox Forums[1] member tenaciousdave as the title of a thread containing a news story speculating that humans will encounter aliens within two decades. The earliest known image macro including the phrase was submitted to the Internet humor site FunnyJunk[3] by user RussianPerson on October 21st, 2009, which featured a screenshot of a CGI chipmunk from the 2007 comedy film Alvin and the Chipmunks (shown below).
Spread
On May 6th, 2010, the Internet news blog UpRoxx[2] published a post featuring several notable examples titled “Prepare Your Anus”, which included a photograph of an Ewok creature from the Star Wars science fiction franchise (shown below). The image macro contained a watermark from the captioning site Meme Generator,[4] but it is unclear when the “Rape Ewok” generator page was created.
Instead of looking into my valid report of an infraction you chose to discard my report without any further thought, which does not speak for your quality or ability as a moderator. Maybe you should take a quiet moment and think about this since it's not the first time you have reacted this way. (Aka. Condescending attitude towards forum members and discarding reports of people who are not part of your "friend circle" without further investiation.)
-
My personal opinion of you, or any other member of Backstage is irrelevant. Note some of the things I've moderated are attacking people that, frankly, I don't care about - if my personal opinions of members of the forum (or those of any of the other moderators) were relevant to the job of moderation, I guarantee there would be a much smaller number of posters here.
You have a habit of submitting reports that multiple moderators beside myself don't feel qualify as violations of the rules. That is relevant to the issue at hand.
So is reporting a post that's three weeks old. At that point, we're not going to do anything because if the moderation team had decided something needed to be done, it would've been done between two and three weeks before you reported it.
We're not blind. We do actually see all of the posts in a reasonable timeframe. The thing is, we're not going to act on every report - there's this magical part of the rules called "Moderator Discretion" which pretty clearly states that not all reports will be addressed with moderator action. If one or more of us choose not to act on something, that is our right as moderators.
-
I have to agree with all above. I sincerely did not understand why it was moderated when I first read it this afternoon and still do not get it.
You could admit, at least, that mistakes happen from time to time. :roll:
Edit : I would also like to point out that the mountain being made out of a little grain of sand is a very poor excuse in my book. Why modding it in the first place if it was so unsignificant ?
-
Have to agree with Vikarion. There was really no reason to remove Isis' post. It'd be like removing a post for someone saying, "people are stupid," or, "My boss is an ass," or similar comments. That seems awfully trivial.
Just because a post has one little insult in it, doesn't make it a bad post in need of removal or changing. People aren't that sensitive.
This is a mountain being made out of a grain of sand on a piece of paper.
That better explains the modding decision than the complaints, IMO. Just because the moderator might have 'offered the poster a chance to repost without the offending word' doesn't make it right, because the post didn't need to be removed to start with.
Moderators should be there to prevent or stop serious personal attacks or arguments between members, not enforce an uncompromising interpretation of the rules (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid). Censorship of this level does nothing but cause drama, not prevent it.
-
Yes.
And if the moderation feels a literal interpretation of the rules is necessary, then the law should be applied to everyone regardless of personal relations, factional allegiances or any other external factors.
-
Respect other users of Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com. Do not make attacks, either in the forums or through Private Messages. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups. Racist, ageist, sexist, homophobic (including the use of "gay" as a pejorative) and other slurs are prohibited. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups.
Above is a rule that is against namecalling. Now this alone is grounds in my mind to deal with that post.
There is more though:
FAQ - Polite Posting - Our Culture
Culture:
This forum is an OOC place for EVE roleplayers to discuss the game and roleplaying. It is a place to exchange ideas and share information. It is a place for positive, polite debate. It is a place for discussion, not arguments.
Calling people names is not polite. Neither is it positive.
Those are the things I looked at when I decided to mod the post. Now I posted that Isis is welcome to post again without the offending bit.
I'm rather certain Isis could without detracting from the message the post tries to convey.
Personal stories has nothing to do with the issue. Nor has any of my many ingame mistakes, or anyone elses for that matter.
I'm certain we can reference such things without calling those that makes such mistakes various names.
There are no "We" in this. I decided to mod this and I don't care of someones in or out of game affiliations. For me there's one thing: Is this post following the rules and spirit or not?
To ascribe me any other motivation is insulting.
-
Removing the post made sense to me, I've seen (and made) similar remarks that disparaged a broad and undefined swath of EVE's player base that were moderated. Accept that calling them scrublords (or drooling masses in my case) didn't actually add anything useful to the post and re-write it without that part.
-
Respect other users of Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com. Do not make attacks, either in the forums or through Private Messages. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups. Racist, ageist, sexist, homophobic (including the use of "gay" as a pejorative) and other slurs are prohibited. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups.
Above is a rule that is against namecalling. Now this alone is grounds in my mind to deal with that post.
There is more though:
FAQ - Polite Posting - Our Culture
Culture:
This forum is an OOC place for EVE roleplayers to discuss the game and roleplaying. It is a place to exchange ideas and share information. It is a place for positive, polite debate. It is a place for discussion, not arguments.
Calling people names is not polite. Neither is it positive.
Those are the things I looked at when I decided to mod the post. Now I posted that Isis is welcome to post again without the offending bit.
I'm rather certain Isis could without detracting from the message the post tries to convey.
Personal stories has nothing to do with the issue. Nor has any of my many ingame mistakes, or anyone elses for that matter.
I'm certain we can reference such things without calling those that makes such mistakes various names.
There are no "We" in this. I decided to mod this and I don't care of someones in or out of game affiliations. For me there's one thing: Is this post following the rules and spirit or not?
To ascribe me any other motivation is insulting.
Thank you for the clarification. I understand a little better.
Still not sure what to think of it though. I do usually not consider untargeted name calling (as long as it remains soft !) as unrespectful, but that's me. I also understand that it can be interpretated as breaking the rules here, so I have nothing to say on the matter.
-
Respect other users of Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com. Do not make attacks, either in the forums or through Private Messages. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups. Racist, ageist, sexist, homophobic (including the use of "gay" as a pejorative) and other slurs are prohibited. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups.
Above is a rule that is against namecalling. Now this alone is grounds in my mind to deal with that post.
There is more though:
FAQ - Polite Posting - Our Culture
Culture:
This forum is an OOC place for EVE roleplayers to discuss the game and roleplaying. It is a place to exchange ideas and share information. It is a place for positive, polite debate. It is a place for discussion, not arguments.
Calling people names is not polite. Neither is it positive.
Those are the things I looked at when I decided to mod the post. Now I posted that Isis is welcome to post again without the offending bit.
I'm rather certain Isis could without detracting from the message the post tries to convey.
Personal stories has nothing to do with the issue. Nor has any of my many ingame mistakes, or anyone elses for that matter.
I'm certain we can reference such things without calling those that makes such mistakes various names.
There are no "We" in this. I decided to mod this and I don't care of someones in or out of game affiliations. For me there's one thing: Is this post following the rules and spirit or not?
To ascribe me any other motivation is insulting.
Well, I didn't intend to start a multi-page thread, but I suppose I did.
Look, goons get a lot of hate. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't. But since I've been noting that Isis has received much flak for essentially being a goon from some quarters, it's not unreasonable to ask whether a mod's motivation is as clean and pure as might be hoped. That sort of thing is why we have a moderation discussion forum.
To be insulted by that means you should not be a mod. This forum gives a lot of power to the mods, so it also gives an area to question them. I didn't call you names, I asked if we are modding people because of their associations in-game.
This is perhaps not as inflammatory as it looks. The goons are known to be major trolls, so one might suspect trolling or insult more regularly. Not to make a moral comparison, but it's similar to how you might not want a shoplifter in your store, even if they haven't stolen from you. So, we might hate goons because they tend to be trolls. Or we might decide that everyone has a right to a blank slate here.
As to the rules, the rules prohibit ad hominem attacks, and calling groups or individuals names. But the only group Isis referenced was a possible group defined by the named behavior. This isn't an actual, concrete entity, it is no one in particular. It's like me saying "people who cross the street without looking are idiots". This isn't calling anyone or any group an idiot, it's directly defining a behavior as stupid.
When Isis states that "Are some scrublords going to get in a carrier they have no business flying? Of course...", that's not calling a person or group a name. It's indirectly referencing the stupidity of an action in the context of the probability of that action. It's similar to "are some idiots going to cross the street without looking? Of course."
But this isn't calling people - as in, you, me, or the Chicago Bulls - names. It's simply referring to an action as a stupid one. I've seen other people do it here, I've seen mods do it here. Hell, in this post:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3910.msg62722#msg62722
...Morwen states that Bloodbird - very specifically, as opposed the the entirely abstract nature of Isis's post - can't act like an adult, and needs to be hand-held. That got an "ok, whatever" from everyone, including me. And yeah, mods can do whatever they want. But there's a definite disconnect between that being "sure, fine" and this being "Oh my god, Isis said the other, other, "S" word." Since when is scrublord a "slur", anyway? Do we really want to incorporate every negative term into that infamous category? Is it really as bad as, say, a racial or homophobic slur?
And just to reiterate, getting offended that someone would question your motivation in the location established for that purpose is not entirely understandable. If you don't like anyone talking back, then don't have a forum for talking back.
-
Well, I didn't intend to start a multi-page thread, but I suppose I did.
Look, goons get a lot of hate. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't. But since I've been noting that Isis has received much flak for essentially being a goon from some quarters, it's not unreasonable to ask whether a mod's motivation is as clean and pure as might be hoped. That sort of thing is why we have a moderation discussion forum.
To be insulted by that means you should not be a mod. This forum gives a lot of power to the mods, so it also gives an area to question them. I didn't call you names, I asked if we are modding people because of their associations in-game.
This is perhaps not as inflammatory as it looks. The goons are known to be major trolls, so one might suspect trolling or insult more regularly. Not to make a moral comparison, but it's similar to how you might not want a shoplifter in your store, even if they haven't stolen from you. So, we might hate goons because they tend to be trolls. Or we might decide that everyone has a right to a blank slate here.
As to the rules, the rules prohibit ad hominem attacks, and calling groups or individuals names. But the only group Isis referenced was a possible group defined by the named behavior. This isn't an actual, concrete entity, it is no one in particular. It's like me saying "people who cross the street without looking are idiots". This isn't calling anyone or any group an idiot, it's directly defining a behavior as stupid.
When Isis states that "Are some scrublords going to get in a carrier they have no business flying? Of course...", that's not calling a person or group a name. It's indirectly referencing the stupidity of an action in the context of the probability of that action. It's similar to "are some idiots going to cross the street without looking? Of course."
But this isn't calling people - as in, you, me, or the Chicago Bulls - names. It's simply referring to an action as a stupid one. I've seen other people do it here, I've seen mods do it here. Hell, in this post:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3910.msg62722#msg62722
...Morwen states that Bloodbird - very specifically, as opposed the the entirely abstract nature of Isis's post - can't act like an adult, and needs to be hand-held. That got an "ok, whatever" from everyone, including me. And yeah, mods can do whatever they want. But there's a definite disconnect between that being "sure, fine" and this being "Oh my god, Isis said the other, other, "S" word." Since when is scrublord a "slur", anyway? Do we really want to incorporate every negative term into that infamous category? Is it really as bad as, say, a racial or homophobic slur?
And just to reiterate, getting offended that someone would question your motivation in the location established for that purpose is not entirely understandable. If you don't like anyone talking back, then don't have a forum for talking back.
That you decide to tar me with the same "You're Anti Goon" brush that is used in "some quarters" must have a basis somewhere. Please show where or the argument is null and void when it comes to this and future instances.
Just so the argument is proven valid or false I ask you to back it up when it comes to the other Mods and Admins.
Your view on my suitability is noted. Again you say you're just caring about the impartiality of the Mods and Admins. That this has been cast into doubt regarding the Goons has to have a basis in something. Show us the sources for this worry.
You're correct that we as humans might have generalized conceptions of people of various groups and natures. Again I'd have to ask you for proof that we in general aren't giving people a blank slate and me in particular. Especially when it comes to Goons but generally when it comes to other groups.
You're nitpicking when you, in my mind, should lift your head to the bigger view. Could Isis have made that post and the point he wanted made without the words "Scrublord" and "Idiots"?
In what way do they add to a positive posting culture?
In my case the Answers are:
Yes and they don't.
This is why I moderated the post and explicitely said that it could be reposted without the insults.
In your example with Morwen no one reported that post, in this case someone did. Could someone have acted without a report in the Morwen case?
Of course but no one did. I was not a Mod at that time even. There lies the difference that in one case,as you say yourself: no one cared. In this case someone did.
Am I misinterpreting you in that you're claiming doublestandards?
That Morwen got away for being Morwen and Isis was modded due to ingame affiliations?
If I am correct I'll yet again ask for you to prove that. If this isn't your argument then I apologise for misinterpreting you.
Insulted not offended.
It's not about talking back. It is,frankly, that you're making a claim here and you're no backing it up.
You're saying that we're modding based on ingame affiliation and in this case it is Anti Goon. So where are the sources?
I'm not talking about: "Lol Goons" here when they manage to do something hilarious.
I'm talking about: "Those bastards are destroying the game and all that is holy and I, [Insert Admin or Mod of Backstage], will misrepresent my position and do all I can to make their life a living hell on the forums and out of game. This I swear by the blood of my ancestors".
Or do you believe that we're biased as all hell? If this is the case and you have no inherent trust in us I have to ask:
Why are you here subjecting yourself to the whims of tyrants and petty oppressors?
I mean if this is the case you really think we'd:
A: Admit it?
B: Have a suddden epiphany and mend our wicked ways?
-
Extreme censorship doesn't create a positive posting culture, either. It creates hostility where there otherwise wouldn't have been any, which thus encourages people to act out more in the future as they stop respecting the moderating team.
Moderation shouldn't be binary. Intent and potential/actual impact should be considered. In this event, the intent was to describe a certain kind of poor player behavior, not to personally target or attack any specific individual or group, and the impact on "positive posting culture" was null until the decision was taken to remove it.
The moderation, in this event, has served to create a negative posting environment. That indicates that the moderation was in error, even if it was done strictly by the rules. Liberal interpretation of the spirit of the rules is better than rigid adherence to the literal writing of them. You'll even note that the rules/FAQ say that the intent is to reduce the amount of moderation needed, yet this forum has more moderation per thread than most others I've been part of.
Less is more.
As for the bias argument, I don't think that should have any bearing on this discussion. Whether bias exists or not is irrelevent, the actual moderation decision is what's important.
-
Why are you here subjecting yourself to the whims of tyrants and petty oppressors?
I'm glad you asked, I'd have been banned ;D
-
In your example with Morwen no one reported that post, in this case someone did. Could someone have acted without a report in the Morwen case?
Of course but no one did. I was not a Mod at that time even. There lies the difference that in one case,as you say yourself: no one cared. In this case someone did.
Are you kidding me ? That post has been reported, and again after explanation with Silver.
I am starting to suspect that some reports never make it to the mod team...
-
Wow, I just saw this. I reposted the original, sans scrublord. Yeah, I kinda shrugged, as I used it as "lord of scrubs" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrub a term that I actually took with me from WoW. There was actually a guild: "Scrublords and Loot Whores" Ironic as we were all top players. I was intending to reference people that specifically fly ships they should not. At TheMittani.com we call them ALOD-awful loss of the day. Horribly fit ships killed in hilarious ways are what we look for.
Whatever, I reposted, moved on.
-
Extreme censorship doesn't create a positive posting culture, either. It creates hostility where there otherwise wouldn't have been any, which thus encourages people to act out more in the future as they stop respecting the moderating team.
Moderation shouldn't be binary. Intent and potential/actual impact should be considered. In this event, the intent was to describe a certain kind of poor player behavior, not to personally target or attack any specific individual or group, and the impact on "positive posting culture" was null until the decision was taken to remove it.
The moderation, in this event, has served to create a negative posting environment. That indicates that the moderation was in error, even if it was done strictly by the rules. Liberal interpretation of the spirit of the rules is better than rigid adherence to the literal writing of them. You'll even note that the rules/FAQ say that the intent is to reduce the amount of moderation needed, yet this forum has more moderation per thread than most others I've been part of.
Less is more.
As for the bias argument, I don't think that should have any bearing on this discussion. Whether bias exists or not is irrelevent, the actual moderation decision is what's important.
Extreme censorship?
Where is the extremism in removing namecalling with the caveat that the post can be reposted without the namecalling.
Something I note Isis has done according to his own post above.
You might want to find a better example of this extreme censorship because I see none.
This hostility is something I do not see from Isis post above.
Do you feel hostile?
Who are all these people you claim will act out due to the removal of the words that were moderated?
Here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4119.0) is the moderated post.
Here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4095.msg65589#msg65589) it is without the namecalling.
Tell me how this is "extreme censorship" and what the post has lost in value according to you.
Agreed that moderation needs fingerspitsgefühl (sp?). Where our views differ is that you say that namecalling is ok as long as no particular group or player is specifically targetted. I disagree and so do the rules.
According to you it has created a negative posting culture. To me it hasn't. This would be because you feel namecalling is ok in some cases and I don't.
We can agree to disagree on that point.
Intent of rules and how reality turns out are different. Many countries have harsh and extreme penalties. The intent is that the harshness will make such offenses less likely. Reality shows us otherwise.
Less is more? If you're implying that less moderation or rules lead to better discussion and posts then this is another point we'll have to disagree on.
I did not bring up the bias argument. I merely responded to it with how absurd I think it is.
Are you kidding me ? That post has been reported, and again after explanation with Silver.
I am starting to suspect that some reports never make it to the mod team...
I'll be honest and state I didn't really look that hard, just a quick once over at the page of dates corresponding to Morwens post. I was on my way out and might've missed it.
I think you can put your suspicions to rest. I've a hard time believeing some special script is running to make sure reports regarding some disappears into a memory hole.
I'd like to thank you for the thanks you gave regarding my clarification.
Wow, I just saw this. I reposted the original, sans scrublord. Yeah, I kinda shrugged, as I used it as "lord of scrubs" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrub a term that I actually took with me from WoW. There was actually a guild: "Scrublords and Loot Whores" Ironic as we were all top players. I was intending to reference people that specifically fly ships they should not. At TheMittani.com we call them ALOD-awful loss of the day. Horribly fit ships killed in hilarious ways are what we look for.
Whatever, I reposted, moved on.
As you're moving on so will I.
Unless a particularly stellar post pops up and catches my eye.
-
Just a quick note, before we move on. Isis is a girl. Thanks!
-
It's "Fingerspitzengefühl".
Having said that, I guess it doesn't hurt to opine a bit in regard to the topic at hand:
I think that stating a truism isn't name calling. "People who fly ships they shouldn't be in are idiots" is as close to a truism as one can get. Name-calling is, in my book, stating that x is y, where x is a specific group of people that is designated descriptively and y is a normative, derogative adjective or an adjective with otherwise negative connotations.
If I compare the sentence as before the moderation and after, the only difference I see is one of senseless political correctness in one single term. Sure, the moderation doesn't hurt much, but it seems quite to be an overreaction to me, as is seen by the triviality of the solution.
-
Are you kidding me ? That post has been reported, and again after explanation with Silver.
I am starting to suspect that some reports never make it to the mod team...
I'll be honest and state I didn't really look that hard, just a quick once over at the page of dates corresponding to Morwens post. I was on my way out and might've missed it.
I think you can put your suspicions to rest. I've a hard time believeing some special script is running to make sure reports regarding some disappears into a memory hole.
The last bit about reports mysteriously never making it was sarcasm, because atm I am a little puzzled about that. People having complained for ages about that specific series of posts and the mod team always answering that no reports have been made.
If you want me to make yet another one to check it out, I will do it gladly.
-
People complaining about a post, and people actually reporting the post, are very different things. There are many cases where people have complained about posts (or posters) but never actually reported them. That is the situation you are dealing with there. There's also the case of people making noise about a post but not actually reporting it until after the mods have said "nobody reported it and we didn't see anything wrong with it." (Yes, we do see exactly when you make your reports, in addition to the date the post was originally written. This actually happens with reasonable frequency - you'd be surprised how many times a post gets reported 2-3 weeks afterward, with nobody having made a single complaint through the reporting system up until that point.)
Every post that is reported has its very own unique thread generated in a "Reported Posts" subforum in the moderator area that contains all reports submitted for that post. However, the M in SMF doesn't stand for "Magical": complaining about posts or posters without actually submitting a report won't generate anything for us.
I don't always have the time to check the forums while at work (though I've got very little on my plate at the moment, hence the activity); I've frequently had to tell people to STFU and report posts like they're supposed to instead of kvetching to me about them on MSN so that I could deal with it when I got home, or another moderator could if they had a chance first.
We try to cover everything, but when the forum is very active we're not going to get everything immediately on our own - that's what the reporting system is for in the first place: drawing our attention to problem areas so they can be prioritized as necessary.
If people are just whining about a post without reporting it, and the mod team doesn't see anything wrong with the post in question, we're going to disregard the complaints because clearly you don't care enough to follow the proper procedures.
Not to mention, you're not supposed to respond to something you report - this also contributes, because a lot of people who have trouble with that policy just say "screw it" and respond instead of reporting.
-
Yes, I know that, thank you very much.
-
Wow, I just saw this. I reposted the original, sans scrublord. Yeah, I kinda shrugged, as I used it as "lord of scrubs" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrub a term that I actually took with me from WoW. There was actually a guild: "Scrublords and Loot Whores" Ironic as we were all top players. I was intending to reference people that specifically fly ships they should not. At TheMittani.com we call them ALOD-awful loss of the day. Horribly fit ships killed in hilarious ways are what we look for.
Whatever, I reposted, moved on.
You are not an authority to dictate what people should and should not fly.
I will admit I personally groan when a player flies something they are massively under-skilled to do anything with effectively, but it's their mistake to make, their ISK to lose, their lesson to learn. I'll offer advice, I'll tell them why this is not the smartest thing, but I will never try to dictate what they fly, if they still opt to fly it, that is their right.
-
*Shrugs* I'm not sure how the urdoinitwrongm8 rule applies to actual gameplay mechanics. Example: http://kb.snuffboxcorp.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=52309
Would anyone disagree with me that the pilot is clearly doing something wrong? With RP, I am very, very much in the corner of "live and let live" (Although ICly Aliza hates everyone.) but for game mechanics, ~sometimes~ someone needs to be told: "dude, you have effed up so hard that the KB crashed." (Alright, phrased a little nicer. *holds hands, sings kumbaya*) Only after they understand that they did it wrong, will they be receptive to advice.
When I mailed the pilot to get his perspective on the loss, I made sure to tell them that I know it sucks being on the wrong end of a kill mail (and I know, I've been there) but that I would be happy to talk to him after the interview and go over some ship fitting basics.
I really would like to hear the mods weigh in on gameplay mechanics here with regard to urdoinitwronging.
-
It's pretty simple. "I would do it X way, because ... "
-
It's pretty simple. "I would do it X way, because ... "
This is where my mouth gets me in trouble. I complete that sentence in my head (you know the first thing that comes to mind): "because Im not retarded." :D
I guess so, but there are some cases on gameplay (because mechanics are so much more concrete then lore) that a clear: "you have erred in your ways of ship fitting," is warranted. Like a revelation whos low slots are allllllll heatsinks. Every. Last. One.
-
And there are many other places to express such sentiments.
-
Jektarine, you seem to be taking this personally. I'm not under the illusion that you acted in a vacuum.
Nor did I expressly question your intentions personally. I questioned whether the moderation team "we" was being too harsh on Isis because of Isis's involvement with the goons. In my second post, I clarified this, and you took it personally again. I did not even make a claim. I asked if we - as in, the board - have a bias against goons preemptively, as some do. In regards to the basis for this, I noted that one might quite reasonably have such a policy based on the public behavior of particular goons, and GSF in general.
Now, you've stated that you believe that the post could have been better without the portion which stimulated the moderation. Sure. But my point with Morwen wasn't to criticize Morwen (I agreed with Morwen) but to point out that other posters have stated things closer to an infraction of the rules than Isis's post. If we are to assume that Morwen's post, rather a more personal insult than Isis's, is not an infraction, then why is the very general and abstract post of Isis a violation of the rules? I don't know Isis, Isis has done nothing for me, it just seemed unfair.
I think some of your other statements are essentially a straw-man, so I'll simply give my view of the moderation team: I think that Cia, Morwen, and Silver Night are fairly busy individuals with lives of their own who nonetheless generously give time to moderate the boards. However, I also think that they are human, and can have biases and make mistakes. Or it's possible that they interpret the rules differently, and that's their prerogative. I haven't seen enough of Ghost Hunter to know much about him.
I posted because I thought that, under the rules and previous experience, Isis was getting moderated more strictly than others.
-
As if the case with almost all moderation action, multiple mods agreed before action was taken on the post.
-
Vik, I didn't look too closely at your second post (and, in fact, really have only referenced the OP regarding this thread), but I feel I need to correct you on something regarding the post of mine you linked to - I actually meant a more general audience beyond Bloodbird even though he was the primary intended target for that post - there were a LOT of people who were needing unnecessary hand-holding to figure out exactly what they did wrong, and at some point it does become unreasonable to expect us to continue to hold your hand and explain to you what you did wrong, over and over and over again, like you're a child.
As for the issue of wording, well, look at the description that Katrina provided. Isis posted "scrublord," not "scrub." The term "scrublord" could be used to refer to a very, very large number of EVE players by the provided definition. While the irony of one "scrublord" calling out another group of players as being just that is highly amusing (Goons have a pretty high concentration of them by that definition and they are hardly ashamed of it), it's still insulting and the term itself involves the "urdoinitrong" attitude. So we said "this is bad, you can repost if you fix it". We didn't need to say what was wrong with it, but Jek erred on the side of caution and did anyway.
(Technically, her changed post still has hints of urdoinitrong, given that everyone pays their $15/month and is therefore entitled to play the game how they wish within the limits of game mechanics and the EULA/TOS, but I'm not going to waste time on it.)
We don't necessarily have a bias against goons here (the mods don't collectively, and whether we like goons or not, we're not going to use it as a metric for moderation), but there's definitely what I would consider a bias against people who are proven troublemakers. You were gone from the game for a while so it's not too surprising that you missed some of the history and drama that got things to this point, but, to be my usual blunt self, a lot of people here don't like Isis or want to interact with her, and they have very good reasons not to (which I will not go into here); her membership in GSF is merely icing on the cake in comparison for these people. If anything is causing 'bias' against her here, it's her own actions both here on the forum and ingame.
Do note she's still posting, however. We're still going to do things by the book, which means that as long as she doesn't break the rules and cause us a headache, she gets to stay. Whether anyone else likes it or not. And before anyone suggests this is just for her, it's the same for anyone else. The only way anyone is going to be forcibly and permanently removed from these forums is repeated violations of the rules despite warnings and short-term bans.
Also, give Jek a break. We're aware he used to be (is) a mod on Chatsubo, and the various levels of festering drama-sores that involved. If we didn't think he was up to the task we wouldn't have offered him the job. And on the record, I can't remember a single moderation decision made on backstage that he disagreed with and made noise about - in fact all I can remember are many cases of him approving of moderator actions taken on Backstage. So I think he'll do just fine. Give him some time to get used to things, please.
-
As if the case with almost all moderation action, multiple mods agreed before action was taken on the post.
I understand that. That's why I used "we" (trying to avoid an accusative "you"). I think that that's a good system, and I think that you guys (Silver, Morwen, Cia), on the whole, do a good job. My protest really was against this one particular case.
-
Morwen, thanks. That's very helpful, and you're awesome. I'll amend my understanding of the rules, then.
Since you ask so nicely, I'll withhold judgment on Jek for now, and removed that more critical paragraph from my earlier post.
-
I still <3 you, Morwen.
That said, I think game mechanics debates should be a little less strict that RP lore debates. It's one thing to say that "People in xyz corp are bad abc faction members because of qrs reasons." Yeah, Eve is a big place and there is definitely another side. In terms of mechanics, as long as it's not personal (posting a loss mail and subjecting them to ridicule) I really don't see the harm. If I were to make the statement that putting faction small auto cannons on a talos is a dumb thing to do--well, there's not really much to debate about that. ((In before some smart aleck comes up with the one, single, scenario where that's a good idea.)) It's not personal, just discussing a hypothetical.
-
You asked for clarification of what's expected from posters on this forum and got it. You're entitled to your opinion: the mods do not share it, nor will we moderate according to it.
-
And on the record, I can't remember a single moderation decision made on backstage that he disagreed with and made noise about - in fact all I can remember are many cases of him approving of moderator actions taken on Backstage.
So I think he'll do just fine.
Can you clarify that bit please ?
-
((In before some smart aleck comes up with the one, single, scenario where that's a good idea.))
I have actually seen this done, except it was medium t2 autocannons, double webs, an armour tank and a tornado. Those frigates never saw it coming :lol:
-
And on the record, I can't remember a single moderation decision made on backstage that he disagreed with and made noise about - in fact all I can remember are many cases of him approving of moderator actions taken on Backstage.
So I think he'll do just fine.
Can you clarify that bit please ?
What's to clarify?
Jek has done nothing but give the strong impression that he's capable of understanding and following the rules and policies of Backstage, that he agrees with the policies as they stand, is willing to enforce them, and that he isn't likely to go running around banning people for lulz.
Unlike Cia, who apparently needs to have her nuke launch keys taken away again. :lol: