Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Laerise [PIE] on 04 Apr 2011, 17:58
-
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2020.msg25306;boardseen#new
I don't see where I told anyone he/she/they was/were doing anything wrong...
-
I was primarily responding to:
2.) Liberals (PIE Inc., CVA - and on the very left end of the spectrum maybe Kotmc, although it is debatable if they still do count as amarr bloc) compared to hardliners, which have pretty much died out - except for maybe Lallara's Path of Thorns.
Emphasis mine, of course. :)
-
You still fail to explain why you think that that makes me tell them they're doing anything wrong.
The simple fact that Kotmc is harbouring open heretics in their ranks does differentiate them from what is traditionally known as the amarr bloc - me telling Kotmc they might well not be a part of the so called amarr bloc anymore does not mean they are doing anything wrong, just that they do things differently than the amarr bloc.
-
And why doesn't it fit with the amarrian bloc ?
PIE Inc and stuff are no liberals, they are orthodox centrists.
It's alright Lyn, you can lay off the IGS politicking here :) This thread should stay focused on the moderation issue, you can always start a new one.
-
Lyn, please don't rehash the actual issue here.
For both of you, and anyone else interested, I suggest a thread discussing the concept of "blocs", even focused on Amarr. Doing so without telling someone else that their own RP doesn't qualify for something is, of course, a sine qua non.
-
I'm in agreement with Laerise here, actually.
It was a perfectly valid post with no "urdoinitrong" or rules being broken. Overzealous moderation.
Oh, and PIE RP does not qualify as Tribalist RP.
/me awaits the catacomb hammer.
-
Nice try, Miz, but no catacomb hammer for that! :P
I appreciate that others may feel as Miz does: that we wield the Mallet of Loving Correction [1] a bit too freely. (And I know for certain that some folks feel that way primarily about me specifically.) Occasionally, a post falls within the nebulous threshold. Perhaps one person might feel it clearly violates the guidelines, someone else thinks it presents no issues whatsoever, and a third person might feel uncertain. By its very nature, forum moderation brings up all sorts of issues of fairness and objectivity/subjectivity.
And, like most everyone else here, I've spent countless hours with an unhealthy obsession on Internet fora, where the general culture allows much looser and free-flowing discussion. On other sites I frequent, or have frequented in the past, Laerise's post could serve as a shining example of (relative) restraint.
None of those sites are Backstage, for better or for worse.
Were I to tell Laerise that she cannot suggest in any way that, say, "membership" within a "bloc" might not be viewed by everyone in the same manner, I'd clearly have overstepped the bounds, both of my privileges here and general etiquette overall. Were I to tell Miz that opinions on moderation, including those that disagree with mine, cannot be expressed, I'd have overstepped them to the degree that Silver would almost certainly (and rightly) remove me from the staff.
The FAQ actually contemplates this precise issue.
Q: Isn't all this subjective?
A: Yes. The Mods do their best to be fair, but inevitably, this is a subjective standard. Another thing for you to Deal With.
While I certainly respect your feelings on the matter, please take just a moment to think about it from the perspective of a moderator charged with maintaining "a place to exchange ideas and share information.... for positive, polite debate... for discussion, not arguments."
As noted, situations like this one will "inevitably" arise. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line. This is, unfortunately, one of those situations.
Now to go put my daughter in bed.
[1]: With apologies to John Scalzi.
-
It's your forum and your call, but I don't see a problem with Laerise's post. It is debatable -- it could be an interesting debate, too -- and being core or fringe or outside an Amarr bloc isn't good or bad or doing it right or wrong as a roleplay stance, only different. (That it might be seen as good or bad for the characters inside the RP is a different matter.)
Is there some history of OOC squabbling which gives this a context beyond what's written?
(It turns out that Casiella's replied while I've been writing. I'm still posting, though. :) )
-
The Amarr bloc is a term that is very distinguishable from being simply 'Amarr RP'. As far as I remember its origins lie in a characterisation that was created by Jade Constantine for the closeknit Amarrian organisations of the time that held a line and had a generally orthodox way of interpreting Amarr RP. It was so catchy that those who had been labelled as the 'Amarr bloc' adopted the term.
Traditionally the Amarr bloc know who they are, examples of units to include would be PIE, 1PG, CVA (though at times more of an associate member in my humble view), and at times the Ammatar Free Corps I suppose and even at some point the Aegis militia folk.
Addendum:
So in essence, when someone like Laerise uses the term 'Amarr bloc', it is a term of culture that is frequently used between corps the term concerns. It is almost like an extended family way of thinking (all family members may have their quirks). There is exclusivity - you aren't considered 'Amarr bloc' in the traditional sense of the term unless you are part of a group that has close-working, trusting relations with the core corporations involved in it and uphold the unwritten ethical standards.
At the end of the day an outsider may see the term 'Amarr bloc' as Amarr RP and believe that saying someone is 'probably not amarr bloc' is offensive. I tend to view it as an objective state of fact.
-
Scagga, thanks for the clarification.
So this sort of leads me to conclude that, while Laerise meant nothing offensive by the statement in question, an outsider (like me, and undoubtedly others) might see it as heading in the wrong direction, rhetorically speaking.
-
Scagga, thanks for the clarification.
So this sort of leads me to conclude that, while Laerise meant nothing offensive by the statement in question, an outsider (like me, and undoubtedly others) might see it as heading in the wrong direction, rhetorically speaking.
In this case, are you going to do the right thing and revise your descision?
Also I'd like to hear the thoughts of at least one other moderator on this, since it seems to me that your personal point of view played a descisive role in your moderation of my statement. :)
fake edit: no offense, I just want clarification
-
The "right thing" is subjective: if folks feel like it's flamebait, it probably should stay moderated even if it wasn't intended as flamebait.
And obviously other moderators can chime in anytime. ;) :P
-
The Amarr bloc is a term that is very distinguishable from being simply 'Amarr RP'. As far as I remember its origins lie in a characterisation that was created by Jade Constantine for the closeknit Amarrian organisations of the time that held a line and had a generally orthodox way of interpreting Amarr RP. It was so catchy that those who had been labelled as the 'Amarr bloc' adopted the term.
Traditionally the Amarr bloc know who they are, examples of units to include would be PIE, 1PG, CVA (though at times more of an associate member in my humble view), and at times the Ammatar Free Corps I suppose and even at some point the Aegis militia folk.
Addendum:
So in essence, when someone like Laerise uses the term 'Amarr bloc', it is a term of culture that is frequently used between corps the term concerns. It is almost like an extended family way of thinking (all family members may have their quirks). There is exclusivity - you aren't considered 'Amarr bloc' in the traditional sense of the term unless you are part of a group that has close-working, trusting relations with the core corporations involved in it and uphold the unwritten ethical standards.
At the end of the day an outsider may see the term 'Amarr bloc' as Amarr RP and believe that saying someone is 'probably not amarr bloc' is offensive. I tend to view it as an objective state of fact.
True that. Back then I refered to the Amarr bloc for practical reasons - basically those entities that would wardec people who wardecced members of the bloc for mutual support - thus I saw the "amarr bloc" as a pretty formal coalition of amarr-aligned powers.
Of course FW torpedo'ed the concept right up the drive tubes.
-
Yeah, FW destroyed a lot of work.
Doesn't mean there can't be a future for the idea. It will just take more work.
The Amarr bloc didn't start out that way; the Minmatar were actually the first to get their acts together (rather contrary to our projected image of their squabbling nature), which kinda scared us Amarr groups into dropping our differences.
Even CVA and Aegis Militia, as much as our members disliked one another, as much as our goals were opposed, and as much as CCP/AURORA tried time and time again to turn us on each other :yar:, it was always the organisation of those aligned against us that drew us to cooperate and support each other.
If it weren't for that pressure (including some provided by the poster above me 8) ), the different Amarr groups would have torn each other's guts out long ago. We Imperials can be a combative folk...
-
The "right thing" is subjective: if folks feel like it's flamebait, it probably should stay moderated even if it wasn't intended as flamebait.
And obviously other moderators can chime in anytime. ;) :P
I am still waiting for clarification by another moderator than Casiella.
-
We all have words or phrases that are shorthand for a great deal of compressed meaning.
As familiar as those terms may be to us and to our IG circle, when posting on Backstage it's important to remember that the readership is far wider and the shorthand unfamiliar.
We do not weigh moderation decisions on 'but I didn't mean it to sound the way it sounded', but on how it sounded.
The best way to avoid the modstick of loving correction is to make sure you clarify terms and phrases that carry specific meanings for you above and beyond their more common use.
As an example, although I might use the phrase 'Minmatar loyalist corp' in character or in an OOC conversation in game to distinguish some corporations for 'Republic loyalist corps', if I were to post here, for example, that "corporation X is no longer a Minmatar loyalist corp" I would get, and deserve to be, modded.
-
Why does that deserve moderation? It's simple uttering of opinion with no malicious content. If there's need for clarification of the opinion, I'm sure people'd ask. This is kind of ridiculous to be honest. Where is the malicious content? Where's the offense? Where's the flame, the flamebait, the rule breaking? Going over that with a fine toothed comb, I can't find a single rule applicable to this.
-
So, does this also mean we may not call any corp a pirate corp, even when they act like one? :|
Edit: Edit after breakfast: Bah, no need for tinfoil
-
A useful guide as to whether phrasing and nomenclature is appropriate is to ask yourself if your post shows OOC respect for the organisations or players you're describing.
To specifically address the example of piracy, VETO, for example, is a self-described pirate corp. I quote from the corp description: "Veto Corp has also been linked to tens of thousands of cases of border region piracy..."
Would I describe Veto as a pirate corp in a post on these boards? Yes.
Rote Kapelle, on the other hand, although ICly set negative to my character and her corporation because of their IC definition of 'piracy', RP as I understand it as revolutionaries in the cause of freedom. Whatever my character's IC opinions of their behaviour, I would not call them 'pirates' OOCly.
If I were discussing, say, TS-F, a corporation specifically affiliated to one of the 'pirate factions' i.e. non-Empire factions, I might describe them as a 'pirate faction' corporation, but not as 'pirates', because, again, their RP is not 'we are pirates' but 'we serve Sansha.'
And, to put it in the same terms as the originally moderated post, saying "Pirates include Veto, The Bastards - and at the very end of the spectrum maybe Ghost Festival, although it is debatable if they still do count as pirates" would earn the loving attention of your moderation team, as it is OOCly dismissive of the RP of the players in that corporation and does not respect their right to define and describe their RP for themselves.
I hope that clears things up for you and will assist you ensuring future posts are within the guidelines and standards of the boards.
-
tl;dr: Nuh uh!
Or on a more serious note, there was no cause for moderation but now we're inventing OoC disrespect for others that never existed in the first place. And more importantly, disrespecting the definitions others may have. This is an MMO. Others can call Miz a terrorist on these boards and it'd be true to them. Me asking to have that moderated would be disrespectful to their RP and their persons, because they have the right to said viewpoint on Mizhara. So in short, the moderators are showing disrespect to a perfectly valid viewpoint in order to protect another's viewpoint that was never even uttered to begin with.
Good stuff. This is where things turn from diligent moderation to censorship and thought police.
-
Others can call Miz a terrorist on these boards and it'd be true to them. Me asking to have that moderated would be disrespectful to their RP
This is an OOC board. Asking players to frame their opinions with respect for other players has nothing to do with opinions held and expressed by characters.
-
Read the rest of the post too. And it doesn't change that I was talking about their OoC viewpoint. They can have the OoC viewpoint that Miz is a terrorist IC. Me demanding such a viewpoint moderated is disrespectful to them as players and their RP. YOU and the rest of the moderators doing moderation in this particular manner are disrespectful to these people who give out their viewpoints on these boards, when it's moderated without ensuring there is actual malicious intent or disrespect in the content.
Like I said... this is crossing the line from sensible moderation to censorship and thought police.
-
I agree with the moderators on this point.
If somebody wrote: “Ataraxia Pharmacies is debatable a humanitarian focused corporation.” I would take offence too. From my point of view; there is nothing to debate, our corporation description and all public communiqué on IGS clearly states that we are a humanitarian focused corporation.
By adding it is ‘debatable’ you are clearly indicating that you think there are valid arguments that contradict the statement. This is in effect saying that you think parts of my RP are wrong, which we all know is a big no-no on this forum. Something I am very thankful for.
Sure everything is debatable, but what make this forum great are exactly the limitations it put on that.
-
I agree with the moderation.
What is disrepectful is not to report that kind of things, but to let people OOCly criticize IC stuff. This is just unsane. Almost like confusing OOC with IC.
-
I agree with the moderation.
What is disrepectful is not to report that kind of things, but to let people OOCly criticize IC stuff. This is just unsane. Almost like confusing OOC with IC.
Inventing criticism where there is none does not make for a compelling argument Lyn.
For comparison, if a mouse calls itself cat, does this mean you shan't call it mouse, but cat?
-
A useful guide as to whether phrasing and nomenclature is appropriate is to ask yourself if your post shows OOC respect for the organisations or players you're describing.
It does not show discrespect.
To specifically address the example of piracy, VETO, for example, is a self-described pirate corp. I quote from the corp description: "Veto Corp has also been linked to tens of thousands of cases of border region piracy..."
Would I describe Veto as a pirate corp in a post on these boards? Yes.
Rote Kapelle, on the other hand, although ICly set negative to my character and her corporation because of their IC definition of 'piracy', RP as I understand it as revolutionaries in the cause of freedom. Whatever my character's IC opinions of their behaviour, I would not call them 'pirates' OOCly.
If I were discussing, say, TS-F, a corporation specifically affiliated to one of the 'pirate factions' i.e. non-Empire factions, I might describe them as a 'pirate faction' corporation, but not as 'pirates', because, again, their RP is not 'we are pirates' but 'we serve Sansha.'
Actions ingame should be labeled as such - if I perform actions commonly called piracy by the eve community, then I will be called a pirate IC as well as OOC.
And, to put it in the same terms as the originally moderated post, saying "Pirates include Veto, The Bastards - and at the very end of the spectrum maybe Ghost Festival, although it is debatable if they still do count as pirates" would earn the loving attention of your moderation team, as it is OOCly dismissive of the RP of the players in that corporation and does not respect their right to define and describe their RP for themselves.
It is not dismissive and I would rather not be called someone who is lacking in respect for anyone. Rather it is you who is dismissive of me and my style of writing.
I hope that clears things up for you and will assist you ensuring future posts are within the guidelines and standards of the boards.
No, actually it does not clear up anything - and I would much preferr if you would not aim veiled threats at me, thank you very much.
-
I agree with the moderators on this point.
If somebody wrote: “Ataraxia Pharmacies is debatable a humanitarian focused corporation.” I would take offence too. From my point of view; there is nothing to debate, our corporation description and all public communiqué on IGS clearly states that we are a humanitarian focused corporation.
By adding it is ‘debatable’ you are clearly indicating that you think there are valid arguments that contradict the statement. This is in effect saying that you think parts of my RP are wrong, which we all know is a big no-no on this forum. Something I am very thankful for.
Sure everything is debatable, but what make this forum great are exactly the limitations it put on that.
And this is where the problem lies. Kotmc's public actions in the last months have not been at all aligned with what is called "an amarr bloc corporation". Just because some people might not understand what this means does not mean that anyone is demeaning anyones RP, it is simply stating facts.
Example: If you smuggled drugs while doing your humanitarian stuff / harvested organs from those died at your hospital ships / did something else that does not exactly align with your humanitarian agenda - does that not warant the expression "arguably humanitarian" ?
-
I think it's pretty simple here. Trying to tell other players/organizations what they are or aren't, regardless of fact/truth/opinion, is pretty much a violation of the rules.
-
It very much sounds to me like the original moderation was the result of a straightforward misunderstanding that has now been cleared up. It should be equally straightforward, mod tools permitting, to fix. No offence was intended, and more importantly, no offence was taken because there was nothing to be offended by.
I wouldn't normally comment on moderation where I have no direct interest, but what concerns me here is precedent as much as anything. I think it becomes problematic if you put your moderation hat on and put yourself in the shoes of some imaginary soul that might be offended by something and act on that basis. With the best will in the world, that is simply not sustainable, however well-intentioned, and it can lead to a certain degree of overzealousness.
Overzealousness also tends towards having a chilling effect on discussion. What I sometimes see on Backstage is the same sort of effect you see resulting from all those well-intentioned attempts at political correctness. It always starts with a genuine attempt to show consideration and balance and ends with blackboards being called chalkboards to avoid offending anyone...except that is so patronising that it is offensive to anyone with an IQ into the double digits.
I don't play the 'political correctness gawn mad' card as some kind of cover for a desire to spout offensive nonsense at every opportunity either. I am very much for political correctness in general because I have seen how positive an enforced shift away from the toxic language of the past can be. It's just that you have to watch very closely to make sure it doesn't just become a form of censorship and stifling to any kind of discourse.
-
I think it's pretty simple here. Trying to tell other players/organizations what they are or aren't, regardless of fact/truth/opinion, is pretty much a violation of the rules.
That wasn't the case though, no one was telling KOTMC their RP was wrong or that they weren't who they said they were, they were expressing their opinion on them to another group. I see know issue with that.
-
I'd promised myself I wouldn't come back to post in this thread, since I'd said everything I thought I could say. I'm breaking my promise to myself, but making it again starting as soon as I finish this post. ;) (I will, as always, keep reading.)
Here's the thing. Something gets reported because somebody thinks it's offensive. Lots of discussion takes place around it, and as a result the eventual understanding is "but I didn't mean it to sound the way it sounded" (cf. Ciarente). Not everyone hears the same words in the same way, of course, so for some people it doesn't sound offensive, and for others it does.
Without making general statements about society at large, I will simply say that here on Backstage we bend over backwards to promote civil, respectful discourse. If a post seems uncivil or discourteous, we will moderate it, because that determination of discourtesy lies with the audience rather than the speaker. As the FAQ notes, this is subjective and may occasionally appear unfair, our best efforts to the contrary. That is the nature of the beast. Apparently, in this case, at least some of the moderation team and other members as well interpreted your post in that way.
However, I want to respond in particular to Laerise:
It is not dismissive and I would rather not be called someone who is lacking in respect for anyone. Rather it is you who is dismissive of me and my style of writing.
I hope that clears things up for you and will assist you ensuring future posts are within the guidelines and standards of the boards.
No, actually it does not clear up anything - and I would much preferr if you would not aim veiled threats at me, thank you very much.
If you would rather not be told you appear to lack respect, then you should likely adjust your "style of writing" so that it does not appear to lack respect. I understand that this may result in part from a language issue, but that does not change the fact that stylistic variations matter. Presentation and content, in other words.
And Cia made no veiled threats. I will be more explicit: if you (or anyone else, of course) post in a way that appears disrespectful, rude, or dismissive, Ciarente or any other member of the Backstage staff, including me, will "assist you" in making sure that those posts conform to the rules, either by moderating them or taking whatever action the staff deems necessary. I hope you don't think that's a veiled threat, but it certainly is an affirmation of our moderation stance and that it includes everyone.
If you don't want the moderators to remind you of that stance, then don't post in a way that will bring that level of attention.
-
I think it's pretty simple here. Trying to tell other players/organizations what they are or aren't, regardless of fact/truth/opinion, is pretty much a violation of the rules.
That wasn't the case though, no one was telling KOTMC their RP was wrong or that they weren't who they said they were, they were expressing their opinion on them to another group. I see know issue with that.
Sure it is, and she even admits it...
You still fail to explain why you think that that makes me tell them they're doing anything wrong.
The simple fact that Kotmc is harbouring open heretics in their ranks does differentiate them from what is traditionally known as the amarr bloc - me telling Kotmc they might well not be a part of the so called amarr bloc anymore does not mean they are doing anything wrong, just that they do things differently than the amarr bloc.
She's not telling them they're doing it wrong, but she's certainly telling them what they are. Opinion/fact/truth/reality, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant in the face of this.
It's possible to make an opinion without telling people what they are or aren't, but some people take offense to the notion. It's called curbing negative posting behavior that leads to flame-wars and other opinion battles that rarely end well, and can easily be rectified by presenting a viewpoint in a different manner.
-
The Amarr bloc is a term that is very distinguishable from being simply 'Amarr RP'. As far as I remember its origins lie in a characterisation that was created by Jade Constantine for the closeknit Amarrian organisations of the time that held a line and had a generally orthodox way of interpreting Amarr RP. It was so catchy that those who had been labelled as the 'Amarr bloc' adopted the term.
Traditionally the Amarr bloc know who they are, examples of units to include would be PIE, 1PG, CVA (though at times more of an associate member in my humble view), and at times the Ammatar Free Corps I suppose and even at some point the Aegis militia folk.
I think it's pretty simple here. Trying to tell other players/organizations what they are or aren't, regardless of fact/truth/opinion, is pretty much a violation of the rules.
That wasn't the case though, no one was telling KOTMC their RP was wrong or that they weren't who they said they were, they were expressing their opinion on them to another group. I see know issue with that.
Sure it is, and she even admits it...
You still fail to explain why you think that that makes me tell them they're doing anything wrong.
The simple fact that Kotmc is harbouring open heretics in their ranks does differentiate them from what is traditionally known as the amarr bloc - me telling Kotmc they might well not be a part of the so called amarr bloc anymore does not mean they are doing anything wrong, just that they do things differently than the amarr bloc.
She's not telling them they're doing it wrong, but she's certainly telling them what they are. Opinion/fact/truth/reality, whatever you want to call it, is irrelevant in the face of this.
It's possible to make an opinion without telling people what they are or aren't, but some people take offense to the notion. It's called curbing negative posting behavior that leads to flame-wars and other opinion battles that rarely end well, and can easily be rectified by presenting a viewpoint in a different manner.
So now we all have to add "I think" to everything we post - be it as a cop-out to do some veiled flaming or to make sure a constructive post is not moderated to death? Sounds good to me. :)
-
Go for it. :lol:
-
So now we all have to add "I think" to everything we post - be it as a cop-out to do some veiled flaming or to make sure a constructive post is not moderated to death? Sounds good to me. :)
Oddly, if you check the FAQ (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=16.0), you'll find at the end a "Short Guide to Polite Posting" that says basically this.
-
I agree with the moderation.
What is disrepectful is not to report that kind of things, but to let people OOCly criticize IC stuff. This is just unsane. Almost like confusing OOC with IC.
Inventing criticism where there is none does not make for a compelling argument Lyn.
For comparison, if a mouse calls itself cat, does this mean you shan't call it mouse, but cat?
Anyway, your argument is out of place and imo, means nothing much related to the matter. You can't compare objectives facts like mouses and cats with subjectives facts like what is an IC entity. It is not for nothing that we have a lot of IC political discussions around such matters, that have a lot of shades of grey and are all but cats and mouses.
In any case if your posts are reported it is mainly because some people, myself included, find your tone very assertive and often condescending/arrogant. We are not being IC here.
-
I was a bit sarcastic :)
Also Lyn, stop trying to flamebait me, tyvm.
-
Well this is a discussion about moderation, and your wording have been pointed out. I also pointed out what is the main issue for me. If you do not want to speak about that in a thread where you ask where is the problem, I don't know what else I could tell then. Not going to speak about cats and mouses.
-
Well this is a discussion about moderation, and your wording have been pointed out. I also pointed out what is the main issue for me. If you do not want to speak about that in a thread where you ask where is the problem, I don't know what else I could tell then. Not going to speak about cats and mouses.
This thread has made clear that the general opinion in regard to my statement/s is divided, as far as I am concerned the matter is settled.
Should you desire to continue the discussion on who is annoyed by what, please feel free to start another thread.
-
Again, very assetive and condescending. Division is not an excuse but the proof something is wrong somewhere.
And if division there is, that means it is NOT settled.
-
Again, very assetive and condescending.
Oh come on! I promised someone I wouldn't get deeper into it in this thread, but this one needs mention. If that is condescending and asseRtive, I need to question your definition on both words.
-
[mod]As Laerise has had her question answered, I will close this thread. Please feel to start a new one for any further questions, issues, or criticisms of the moderation here.[/mod]