Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Jade Constantine on 27 Jun 2011, 08:50
-
I have to confess I'm getting a little bit tired of seeing the same people swearing and shouting and stamping their feet on these forums and getting continually moderated (posts sent to the catacombs) and just going back and doing the same thing again and again and again.
This stuff is a waste of moderator time and must be really frustrating to the admins here.
Could we all just excercise a little more control over tempers and learn not to post while angry?
Please.
-
Hear hear!
*raises glass of spiced wine*
-
It would indeed be nice if folks would restrain themselves. We don't like having to move posts, and we really don't like having to suspend repeat offenders.
-
If you have specific 'repeat offenders' in mind, make a list of them and make it a public request or private warnings.
This generalized 'we', 'you' and 'them' passive-aggressive crap is pointless.
-
Oh, we do send out private warnings. Public warnings usually should be covered by Catacombs stuff.
But it doesn't hurt to get a little reminder that, yes, even when you make good points, they should be made politely.
-
The problem there comes with interpretation. There's a lot of over-reaction going on from some moderators, and a lot of under-reaction to other things. Asking for more self-moderation is mostly pointless when you never know what gets a moderator's panties in a twist all of a sudden, especially when other posts of similar nature was never reacted to.
Asking for self-moderation? Sure... Will it happen? Doubt it. Not as long as moderation is as inconsequent as here.
-
Self-moderation can be challenging at times. :o
-
The problem there comes with interpretation. There's a lot of over-reaction going on from some moderators, and a lot of under-reaction to other things. Asking for more self-moderation is mostly pointless when you never know what gets a moderator's panties in a twist all of a sudden, especially when other posts of similar nature was never reacted to.
Asking for self-moderation? Sure... Will it happen? Doubt it. Not as long as moderation is as inconsequent as here.
See this? Prime example, Mizhara.
Your tone in this is very antagonistic. You're expressing yourself with language that is likely to be taken personally. Such as "panties in a twist" and your statement regarding the pointlessness of this "passive-aggressive crap."
It is typically considered proper procedure (both in forum moderation and in businesses) to discipline privately and praise publicly. The only time someone should be called out in public is when they have continued to act out despite several private warnings.
While you might have a valid point regarding how to help improve moderation, the tone you're using to express your point isn't constructive, it's flippant and dismissive.
-
The problem there comes with interpretation. There's a lot of over-reaction going on from some moderators, and a lot of under-reaction to other things. Asking for more self-moderation is mostly pointless when you never know what gets a moderator's panties in a twist all of a sudden, especially when other posts of similar nature was never reacted to.
Asking for self-moderation? Sure... Will it happen? Doubt it. Not as long as moderation is as inconsequent as here.
See this? Prime example, Mizhara.
Your tone in this is very antagonistic. You're expressing yourself with language that is likely to be taken personally. Such as "panties in a twist" and your statement regarding the pointlessness of this "passive-aggressive crap."
It is typically considered proper procedure (both in forum moderation and in businesses) to discipline privately and praise publicly. The only time someone should be called out in public is when they have continued to act out despite several private warnings.
While you might have a valid point regarding how to help improve moderation, the tone you're using to express your point isn't constructive, it's flippant and dismissive.
The problem with your statement, Raze, is that it'll sound even worse to Miz' as it does to me, and even I'd not fall short to call it patronizing.
Edit:Opps, forum ate my second paragraph!
And thats what it all boils down to, namely that communication with anonymous people on the internet through text is terrible at conveying emotions and subtitles - thus the need for a dedicated moderator team such as on this forum ;)
-
Perhaps it is patronizing.
I don't really see a better for me to express the point, though my intention in the post isn't to make Mizhara angry or otherwise attack them. I was simply trying to point out that the diction used in a post will often play a part in how it's perceived by others.
-
Perhaps it is patronizing.
I don't really see a better for me to express the point, though my intention in the post isn't to make Mizhara angry or otherwise attack them. I was simply trying to point out that the diction used in a post will often play a part in how it's perceived by others.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly. In an ideal world we would do just that - but sadly this world isn't ideal and we'll have to suffer each others (and our owns) failings.
-
If you have specific 'repeat offenders' in mind, make a list of them and make it a public request or private warnings.
This generalized 'we', 'you' and 'them' passive-aggressive crap is pointless.
Maybe, but eventually you just have to take a look in the catacombs and make a count for yourself, I think.
-
I just had a look in the catacombs. It'd be nice if the moderation was actually for something I'd done.
I've read through those two posts repeatedly, and found no instance of me saying anyone was doinitrong. When there's multiple interpretations of factions, there'll always be different ways people perceive various entities, each as valid as the other. How is it saying 'urdoinitrong' when you're just saying "From where I'm standing, it doesn't look like an Amarrian corp.". It's a valid freakin' opinion, and as long as I'm not telling KotMC to change or 'doitrite', I'm damn well entitled to said opinion.
-
I am not a moderator, but I think the following line might be what triggered the action:
As for "Die slaver..." there's just not enough of it. Everyone and their cat seem to be liberal hugglefuckers these days, looking for every conceivable excuse not to be hostile to their enemies.
That's my guess anyways, not sure.
-
Unless someone think I'm right, I don't see why anyone would take it as 'urdoinitrong'.
-
I don't see any suggestion that Mizhara, or anyone else, is not entitled to his opinions. The issue has much more to do with HOW you say it rather than WHAT you say. From the FAQ:
Q: So you want us to act all lovey-dovey?
A: Yes. Deal with it.
Q: Doesn't being polite to people I disagree with make me a hypocrite?
A: No. It makes you a grown-up.
Q: Isn't that against my right to free speech?
A: Right again. Deal with that, too.
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.
Q: What about free and frank debate?
A: Strange as it may seem, given some of the forums on the internet, but it is possible to have an honest exchange of views without being rude, hostile, offensive, aggressive or bullying. That kind of behaviour destroys communities, virtual and otherwise, and Will Not Be Tolerated.
That seems to me to cover the current situations fairly well.
-
That's better, and actually understandable. I don't mind being moderated for breaking certain rules.
I do mind being moderated for something I didn't do, which was say 'urdoinitrong'.
Thanks Casiella, for the clarification.
-
To be clear why I am carefully explaining what I find wrong in both of your posts, it is actually because I reported one of them (no need to report both).
Raze pointed out a part that was worth moderating I think. If not a "ur doing it wrong", it was obviously insulting in many ways and breaching the rules. Might be also a "ur doing it wrong" if we take into consideration that it might also mean that you find despicable the people you are refering to.
Also, knowing you were refering to KotMC and probably other liberal stuff in this sentence : "All this non-Amarrian stuff proclaiming to be the 'twue' Amarr ways gets old and boring to interact with after a while. ", it is a blatant example of "ur doing it wrong" here, or if not, again, an insult.
I might also suggest that when you say things like "KotMC isn't an Amarrian corp anymore, from what I can tell. ", to at least add a "I think" somewhere, instead of stating something like it was an immutable truth, which it is not to everybody.
I just had a look in the catacombs. It'd be nice if the moderation was actually for something I'd done.
Actually your two posts were not moderated yet when I wrote my last message, I was not refering to you precisely, just saying if you want lists of people 'repeat offenders', just take a look at the catacombs. But of course, you claim that the moderation is biased, so...
-
I think 'urdoingitwrong' posting should be allowed in threads that specifically say it is allowed in the OP.
-
From my personal perspective, it's not the OP's place to change the ruleset based on some concept of "thread ownership".
-
I think 'urdoingitwrong' posting should be allowed in threads that specifically say it is allowed in the OP.
Are you talking about threads where the op specifically asks responders to critique their own specific roleplay? (ie tell me how I'm doing it wrong?)
-
From my personal perspective, it's not the OP's place to change the ruleset based on some concept of "thread ownership".
I think the rules are too conservative for the whole posting population and that areas of flexibility within reason to cater to its subsets is a good thing.
-
I think 'urdoingitwrong' posting should be allowed in threads that specifically say it is allowed in the OP.
Are you talking about threads where the op specifically asks responders to critique their own specific roleplay? (ie tell me how I'm doing it wrong?)
That would work. In general to e.g. discuss Amarr roleplay - and be able to criticise other people's impressions of the concepts so long as their argumentation is supported by evidence.
If someone can use a reasoned argument to discount someone else's position on a subject, I do not see why that should be a target for moderation.
-
That would work. In general to e.g. discuss Amarr roleplay - and be able to criticise other people's impressions of the concepts so long as their argumentation is supported by evidence.
If someone can use a reasoned argument to discount someone else's position on a subject, I do not see why that should be a target for moderation.
If people can use a reasoned argument, I see no reason why they would need to phrase it as 'you're doing it wrong' rather than 'I disagree with the way you see it.' As far as I've seen, most instances of "you're doing it wrong" have been given as statements rather than opinions and have lacked the reasoned argument backing them up.
Now, if the moderation has gotten so strict that reasoned disagreement isn't permitted, we'd have an issue, but I've yet to see anything that was well-reasoned and respectful and still looked like it said "you're doing it wrong."
-
Imagine a situation in which a new player contrives a background and asks for help fleshing it out. Perhaps he doesn't quite understand the "genetic lottery" aspect to capsuleers, or misunderstands something fundamental about what the Caldari are like, or even creates something of a Mary Sue. We can respond with links to appropriate chronicles, friendly discussion about how many players view the State, or gentle suggestions about perhaps toning down some areas of a character and finding ways to round him out a little. These all fall well within the guidelines of the site and provide real value to the OP's request.
Alternately, we can bitch and moan about n00bs not paying attention, flame him for not already knowing what other players have developed, or flat-out accuse him of having created a Mary Sue character. These are all things that will lead to moderation, but you can avoid them through judicious exercise of your brain.
TL;DR: There's a huge gulf between "well, since you asked, here are some other things to consider and areas to improve" and "urdoinitrong".
-
Imagine a situation in which a new player contrives a background and asks for help fleshing it out. Perhaps he doesn't quite understand the "genetic lottery" aspect to capsuleers, or misunderstands something fundamental about what the Caldari are like, or even creates something of a Mary Sue. We can respond with links to appropriate chronicles, friendly discussion about how many players view the State, or gentle suggestions about perhaps toning down some areas of a character and finding ways to round him out a little. These all fall well within the guidelines of the site and provide real value to the OP's request.
Alternately, we can bitch and moan about n00bs not paying attention, flame him for not already knowing what other players have developed, or flat-out accuse him of having created a Mary Sue character. These are all things that will lead to moderation, but you can avoid them through judicious exercise of your brain.
TL;DR: There's a huge gulf between "well, since you asked, here are some other things to consider and areas to improve" and "urdoinitrong".
So if someone responded to this hypothetical misguided n00b in a discussion where they expressed such misguided views, would one be beyond the accepted standards of backstage postage to reply mid-discussion with something like this:
"That [information] you base your view upon is incorrect, I refer you to this [article linked], this one this one this one this one (with short explanations to outline their relevance)."
------------
How about replying to this statement:
Noob: "All Amarr are female because I've only seen female Amarrians"
Enlightened poster: "You're wrong, here's a link to the character creation page. Surely you know that prior to Glorious make benefit empress Jamyl we had a male emperor?"
Would the respondent there be moderated for telling someone that their opinion was wrong?
-
As I told someone else privately recently, our decisions frequently come down to how you say it, not just what you say.
Actually, assuming that the enlightened poster phrased his response politely, we'd be more likely to remind the noob that "it's a big cluster" and he shouldn't make those sorts of assumptions for other people.
-
As I told someone else privately recently, our decisions frequently come down to how you say it, not just what you say.
Actually, assuming that the enlightened poster phrased his response politely, we'd be more likely to remind the noob that "it's a big cluster" and he shouldn't make those sorts of assumptions for other people.
I was actually asking if what I had written (verbatim with imagination for the stuff in parentheses) would be subject to moderation.
-
How about replying to this statement:
Noob: "All Amarr are female because I've only seen female Amarrians"
Enlightened poster: "You're wrong, here's a link to the character creation page. Surely you know that prior to Glorious make benefit empress Jamyl we had a male emperor?"
Would the respondent there be moderated for telling someone that their opinion was wrong?
The part I bolded and underlined is where this argument goes wonky. When something is verifiable like that, it's not an opinion. Counsel is leading the witness.
-
Self-moderation in all things, including self-moderation?
-
Scagga, I'd like to think you could find a more polite way of phrasing your hypothetical response. I don't want to get into "pre-clearance" because then somebody will inevitably say "but this is almost just like the other thing", when it may actually differ significantly.
I think we're all smart enough here to figure out how to disagree without being a pain. ;)
-
All this talk about how to dance around the literal rules of the forum instead of following the spirit of the rules of the forum seems to me like practice rounds on how to sharpen your forum-fu, so you can insult people without being moderated.
-
.
As far as I've seen, most instances of "you're doing it wrong" have been given as statements rather than opinions and have lacked the reasoned argument backing them up.
Let me quote this as I think it is a very important point more people should be aware of. Especially for negative statements or disagreements is it crucial to add arguments and/or examples if you want to do anything more than insult the other person. Besides, there is no discussion if there are no arguments.
I learned this through my PhD, maybe Victoria did too, but it is something I wish more people in general paid attention to.
Ps. there was a time when scientists told each other “youredoingitwrong” too.
-
Well, firstly, I have nothing at all against someone specifically asking for constructive criticism and remarks to one's background/roleplay, and isn't it already allowed ?
On the other hand, I would not like to see some "thread ownership" as you said that the OP can use to litterally short circuit the forums rules. For the simple reason that you will eventually end with people slandering other people in their own little thread "because they can" and, that will quickly be followed by the offended party opening its own personnal thread to slander back. Very sane situations, isn"t it ?
Secondly, there are in my eyes 2 kinds of "ur doing it wrong" syndromes :
- The first one that could be spitted on the face of your hypothetical neophyte/novice, that could for example say that his character is not inside a pod when flying. Well you can point this out politely by the rules of the forum or just tell him to stfu because he is doing it wrong. Well, the point is that he is in any case here (which is not an excuse to be rude ofc).
- The second one that can be mostly find on these forums, concerning points of the PF that are debatable, not clear enough, or highly subject to personnal interpretations and feelings. I mean by that that everyone generally agrees on what is said litterally by the PF and the core statements about something, but they might heavily disagree between each other on conclusions, deductions, interpretations on how this little PF fact is represented in the life of New Eden, etc. Think to the last thread on the Voluval for example. Or just the moderated thread on "KotMC people are imperial loyalists ? C/D". Examples are legion. In that second case, you just can't be more loose with the people or it will quickly turn into a bloodbath for the simple reason that a lot of people want to impose his own interpretation to others that are not following it.
-
How about replying to this statement:
Noob: "All Amarr are female because I've only seen female Amarrians"
Enlightened poster: "You're wrong, here's a link to the character creation page. Surely you know that prior to Glorious make benefit empress Jamyl we had a male emperor?"
Would the respondent there be moderated for telling someone that their opinion was wrong?
The part I bolded and underlined is where this argument goes wonky. When something is verifiable like that, it's not an opinion. Counsel is leading the witness.
What if the listener is allergic to factual arguments, then they move to accuse you of veiled urdoingitwrong'ing for using them?
Many people on this forum express views that are factually wrong. They are opinions, and in my view it's ok for opinions to be wrong so long as when they are expressed in a discussion, it is acceptable to point out that they are incorrect.
-
Scagga, I'd like to think you could find a more polite way of phrasing your hypothetical response. I don't want to get into "pre-clearance" because then somebody will inevitably say "but this is almost just like the other thing", when it may actually differ significantly.
I think we're all smart enough here to figure out how to disagree without being a pain. ;)
Oh of course, what well thought-out reply I might add. We ought to play chess some time.
-
Many people on this forum express views that are factually wrong. They are opinions, and in my view it's ok for opinions to be wrong so long as when they are expressed in a discussion, it is acceptable to point out that they are incorrect.
In my experience, 'factually wrong' is very often in the eye of the beholder.
-
How about replying to this statement:
Noob: "All Amarr are female because I've only seen female Amarrians"
Enlightened poster: "You're wrong, here's a link to the character creation page. Surely you know that prior to Glorious make benefit empress Jamyl we had a male emperor?"
Would the respondent there be moderated for telling someone that their opinion was wrong?
The part I bolded and underlined is where this argument goes wonky. When something is verifiable like that, it's not an opinion. Counsel is leading the witness.
What if the listener is allergic to factual arguments, then they move to accuse you of veiled urdoingitwrong'ing for using them?
Many people on this forum express views that are factually wrong. They are opinions, and in my view it's ok for opinions to be wrong so long as when they are expressed in a discussion, it is acceptable to point out that they are incorrect.
I generally don't see facts and opinions being interchangable like that. If something is factually incorrect, it's not an opinion - it's a mistaken belief. Example: If I say that slavery occurs, I'm stating a fact. If I say that slavery should occur or is right, I'm stating an opinion. Facts are statements of reality - the way things demonstrably are. Opinions are value judgments. If you disagree with someone, it may be because they have their facts wrong (“All Amarrians are women”), in which case you can politely point to the evidence that they are mistaken. More likely it is a difference of interpretation of the ‘facts’ known as EVE PF.
"UR DOIN IT RONG" is usually a statement of opinion made as a statement of fact.
The reason this occurs so often in EVE is that we have so few facts. We have PF which is incomplete and a great deal of which is open to interpretation. When someone thinks that their interpretation is 'correct' and other interpretations are 'wrong,' we run into these conflicts. So we end up with people behaving as if they are stating facts when in fact they are not.
If something actually is fact, it should be possible to point to it and say, "this is the truth, this is the proof." An example of fact would be that the Amarrian Navy went toe-to-toe with the Jovians and got its ass handed to it. This is a matter of historical record, unless you want to claim that said record is falsified, it's a fact.
If something can be argued against, it's probably not a fact. We run into grey areas with something like this:
"KotMC is not an Amarrian corporation." This is something people can argue over, and treating it like a fact is inappropriate. For explanation of why, I’m going to be a little ridiculous.
“Electus Matari is an Amarrian alliance.” This is something pretty much everyone can agree is false, but that doesn’t make it a fact. Why? Because some hypothetical individual could come along and say, “Based on their pro-Amarr policies and the manner in which they treat pirates and those who disagree with them, I consider Electus Matari to be Amarrian.” Now, we’d look at this person like they had three heads and were speaking in tongues, but the point is that in that sense, whether EM is Amarrian is a judgment, not a fact.
Going back to the KotMC argument (not because I want to keep flogging the dead horse but because it makes such an excellent example of this), that doesn’t mean that you can’t say that KotMC isn’t Amarrian – it means that you can’t state it like fact.
Unproductive: “KotMC just isn’t an Amarrian corp, why is this causing such controversy? They just aren’t. It’s not like EM would get mad if we said they weren’t Amarrian, they aren’t and everyone knows it.”
Productive: “I don’t consider KotMC to be an Amarrian Corporation and this is why:
“Based on X,Y,Z (it helps if you back up your argument, but remember that most PF is open to interpretation, as we’ve seen with the different interpretations in the Sacrifice thread), I think Amarrian Corporations should be characterized by the following things A, B, and C. KotMC is, in my opinion, characterized by D, E, and F. Based on this, despite being comprised of primarily Amarrians, professing loyalty to the Empire, and fighting in the Amarr Militia, I don’t consider KotMC to be an Amarrian corp.”