Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Lyn Farel on 08 Jan 2014, 13:51
-
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5648.0 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5648.0)
Here, case being a player asking feedback on how people would feel on something organized by them. How would you turn and explain that your answer is negative for the exact same reasons evoked by Synthia ? Not that I share them or not, that's not my point, but how can one say :
"Considering how I feel treated by your corporation the last time on the same subject, I don't think I would feel positively about it."
And not being flagged for flamebait ?
-
You could try saying it exactly how you worded it in italics. That seems like a good answer to me.
-
Wow.
The issue simply is people act one way in game, and they are not allowed to act that way here.
Not that it solves anything.
-
You could try saying it exactly how you worded it in italics. That seems like a good answer to me.
I don't know, I find Synthia's answer a lot less flamebait than my italics summary... For once Synthia presents facts, where in my metaphorical and fictional example I only produce something out of thin air, which directly hints at personal drama and OOC private issues... without even explaining why, thus baiting the other one to 'fall for it'.
-
Perhaps a private message suggesting alteration to the tone would have been in order.
And an explanation as to what, exactly, is considered "flamebait" in that post.
Instead of binning it entirely, which is interpretable as setting the poster up for further action - If they reword the post, then that is a set-up for: "reposting modded content, account banned"
Or interpretable as censorship, or that Backstage no longer allows anything other than positive endorsement of every post.
-
I will say, while I found some of what Synthia implied to be irritating, I personally didn't feel like it was actually violating the rules. I disagree with what she says, but I don't really find it offensive or flamebaity.
-
Or interpretable as censorship, or that Backstage no longer allows anything other than positive endorsement of every post.
Nailed it.
-
There is a wide gulf between only allowing positive endorsement and moderating a post that says someone's corporation isn't impartial or professional, claims that members of said corporation were conducting themselves poorly OOC (which isn't to say they weren't, but our longstanding policy is don't drag vendettas here - which you know very well indeed, Synthia), etc. - particularly when the person posting has a long standing public feud with the OP. Read the FAQ and feel free to come back if you still have questions about why the post was out of line by our rules - which you sign on for when you register and decide to post.
That post would have never flown on Backstage (at least, if a mod saw it) at any point. We haven't become more restrictive. We're just still restrictive, by design.
-
Oh for the... >.>
If I am opening this message, it's not to curbstomp the mod team or bring any judgement of value. I am genuinely interested in how you would have worded the moderated content as per the feedback request ? That's an interesting case and it's not the first time I see that. Someones asks if people are interested or against, someone then answers why he is against.
Or is the answer to that dilemna to just answer nothing ?
I'm not questioning why it was moderated. It's rather obvious no ? :bash:
-
The best way for Synthia to word it would have been to not post at all. This should have been self-evident. This long-running feud between her and Saede has resulted in moderation in the past as well as warnings being handed out. Everyone involved there should know better. End of fucking story. In addition, anyone who seriously thinks we were going to let one of them start that shit up again and not do anything needs to get their heads examined and re-read the rules.
Lyn, that the only person you seem to do these threads for is me makes your motives suspect at best to a number of people - not just the moderation staff - and you should know that already. I don't have any obligation to justify or explain myself to you or anyone else except Silver, and frankly I am only posting here because I'm getting tired of this shit. The only people here who should not have been able to see the flamebait of the moderated post are people who can't read English at all or who genuinely have no idea that there was a long-running spat between those two. You don't fall into either of those categories - as I recall, you reported several posts the last time this shit flared up.
Regarding your posed question: your suggested version of the post was better, but we still probably would have moderated it because it still would have been flamebait - it begs the response of "oh, do tell" from people to spill details about shit that should be kept off of these forums. If not from Saede, from someone else who would've been more than happy to oblige and fan the flames.
Katrina and Esna had a much better way of approaching it (and summed up my own personal feelings on Saede's question in the process), though I might call Katrina's post borderline, all things considered. They didn't involve anything personal. No vendettas. Just a response that doesn't attack anyone or try to provoke a reaction.
-
Just as a point:
The fact that these posts go to Catacombs, and "Show unread" makes them show up to everyone anyway makes their moderation a moot point.
Now I (and everyone else who didn't know before) know all about a long standing "vendetta" etc, and that no one can talk it out here or basically anywhere else except behind people's backs where it will fester instead of being solved.
Because the "do tell" was spilled. Right here in this thread.
Which means, it will stand forever.
-
If the involved parties were capable of sorting their shit out without breaking the rules or causing a flamewar here, I doubt Silver or the other moderators would have a problem with it.
However, over the years I've yet to see an attempt be made on these forums that met that simple requirement, because the backbiting and thinly-veiled sniping/trolling that those threads contain - often within the first post - amounts to flamebait, and inevitably results in moderation and time in the catacombs.
At the end of the day we're not going to make an exception for any one feud over another. If people can do it without breaking the rules they are more than welcome to use this forum as a place to sort their shit out. If they can't, then they need to do it elsewhere. If THAT isn't an option, then the solution is pretty clear-cut: sort themselves out so they CAN follow the rules and do it here, or shut their gobs and get on with life.
-
While I would have no problem attempting to 'settle' the 'fued' whatever that means in this case, I'm well aware that CTCS are far from the only people in EVE who dislike me, and seeing how this is a videogame where you pick your friends, and not, say, international politics...
(http://i.imgur.com/MKq2rL7.jpg)
I'm at the point where I really don't care enough about the people who dislike me to dislike them back. I just don't care. If they want to cause problems, its on them.
-
I frequently check the Catacombs every time theres a new post for the juicy, dramatic, and most importantly uneditable bits that I otherwise would have been oblivious to.
Many posts that could possibly have been reworded or altered amicably with a warning are now in a timeless stasis, for all of us to gawk at.
Don't really have anything to add other than that.
-
I frequently check the Catacombs every time theres a new post for the juicy, dramatic, and most importantly uneditable bits that I otherwise would have been oblivious to.
Many posts that could possibly have been reworded or altered amicably with a warning are now in a timeless stasis, for all of us to gawk at.
Don't really have anything to add other than that.
It's not my favorite part of the forum, but it's pretty close. It's also helpful for finding out when something interesting is being discussed, because interesting topics usually lead to people crossing lines, even when there's no real drama involved.
-
People are generally welcome to repost within the rules if they want to put back up a re-edited version.
-
People are generally welcome to repost within the rules if they want to put back up a re-edited version.
We can always read the Catacombs for the non-watered-down posts. I'll give a hat tip to the overlords here for not nuking shit altogether; those of us who like people being themselves can still follow colorful people in all their glory in the Catacombs.
-
Until they get banned.
-
The best way for Synthia to word it would have been to not post at all. This should have been self-evident. This long-running feud between her and Saede has resulted in moderation in the past as well as warnings being handed out. Everyone involved there should know better. End of fucking story. In addition, anyone who seriously thinks we were going to let one of them start that shit up again and not do anything needs to get their heads examined and re-read the rules.
Lyn, that the only person you seem to do these threads for is me makes your motives suspect at best to a number of people - not just the moderation staff - and you should know that already. I don't have any obligation to justify or explain myself to you or anyone else except Silver, and frankly I am only posting here because I'm getting tired of this shit. The only people here who should not have been able to see the flamebait of the moderated post are people who can't read English at all or who genuinely have no idea that there was a long-running spat between those two. You don't fall into either of those categories - as I recall, you reported several posts the last time this shit flared up.
Regarding your posed question: your suggested version of the post was better, but we still probably would have moderated it because it still would have been flamebait - it begs the response of "oh, do tell" from people to spill details about shit that should be kept off of these forums. If not from Saede, from someone else who would've been more than happy to oblige and fan the flames.
Katrina and Esna had a much better way of approaching it (and summed up my own personal feelings on Saede's question in the process), though I might call Katrina's post borderline, all things considered. They didn't involve anything personal. No vendettas. Just a response that doesn't attack anyone or try to provoke a reaction.
Well, since apparently my report was apparently not deemed relevant, I will stop abstaining to answer further.
I am not here to have arguments with you and fall for your ad hominem and veiled snipes. If you do not want to believe that I genuinely asked the path to follow in such a situation (for which, if I remember correctly, this precise forum section exists in the first place), and what is the correct answer (which you gave, just after putting words and malevolent intentions in my mouth, was it then really necessary ?), then please abstain from your usual flamebaits, it's tiresome.
I'm past my crusade against a few sides of the moderation, I thought it was over, but apparently not. If so, I kindly ask that you bring your drama elsewhere so that we can start again in the future if that is your wish. But I am certainly not going to suddenly stop asking for advice to the moderation team simply because you have a grudge with me.
I got the message though.
___________________________
More to the point, thank you for the answer, if the answer is really "Just do not post in that case", since it's a little hard to discern the correct way to behave in all the white noise...