Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Pieter Tuulinen on 04 Jul 2013, 15:26
-
Dear Mod-Team
Something I've encountered recently is the moderation of posts and topics according to the inclusion of certain Eve memes. I'm not saying that there were no content related reasons for moderating those posts, but it's becoming clear that the use of certain memes as shortcuts to express concerns or opinions is being attacked by the moderator team and I wondered what the thinking was behind this?
In case this isn't deliberate policy, and in the interests of disclosure, I should mention that I was recently modded for using the term 'unique snowflake' whilst I see Havojec theatening to permaban the next person to use the term 'HTFU'. Perhaps there are other examples?
Could the Mod-Team comment on whether such a policy does, indeed, exist and if so which terms of expression are on the list?
-
First, snowflakes.
There is a history of the phrase "beautiful and unique snowflake" being used to disparage players, and roleplayers in particular, for 'going against the grain' of generally accepted archetypes/tropes/what-have-you.
RPer A: I wanna play the only Amarrian to not like slavery.
RPer B: Well aren't you just a beautiful and unique snowflake.
RPer A: :( I'm only trying to have a little fun, it's not hurting anyone.
RPer B: You're doing it wrong.
Note also that we do not approve of YDIW arguments on this board (my own use of the 'doing it wrong' phrase being quite tongue-in-cheek in the discussion of whether or not having friends in EVE is 'doing it wrong' - of course we're all going to have friends in EVE, it's a Massively Multiplayer Online game).
So, yeah, 9 out of 10 times, a snowflake comment is going to get modded. When I read your snowflake post, the first feel I got from it was negative, so I *snip*'d it.
Second, HTFU.
This forum was created for several reasons. One of those reasons was that the EVE RP Community needed (we felt, and still feel) a venue where it could discuss the game and RP within the game in an OOC manner without having to HTFU in order to post or participate in discussions in said venue. EVE is a hard enough game for our characters without having to be real-life ice men/women in order to talk to other players. Typically, the use of HTFU is an ad hominem attack employed when all other arguments seem to be failing, or when one simply has no more valid opinion to offer.
Poster A: I don't like this, because whyever.
Poster B: Yeah, well, you're a pussy and you need to HTFU.
Even if Poster B doesn't say "you're a pussy", it's implied just by the use of HTFU. Suddenly, Poster A feels much less welcome and comfortable in this forum community and we will not tolerate that.
I, especially, have a bug up my ass about the use of HTFU on this board (despite the fact that I have and do use it in other, more appropriate places). And since I'm back out of jail, and since it's made clear that it's unacceptable in the Rules and FAQ, and since apparently folks have become aware that I made that warning in the Catacombed post, yes.
If I see you tell someone to HTFU and you have been previously moderated or warned - formally or informally as Mr. Smuggles had been, I will P-Ban you.
-
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose encouraging people not to use phrases like 'snowflake' and 'HTFU' forces them to think harder about what they're trying to say as they word it differently.
Again. Not saying there weren't content-related reasons for moderation. In my own case I felt ambivalent enough about the tone of the post that I tracked down the other party ingame to talk about it well before it was moderated.
-
You're welcome :)
I appreciate your understanding and not taking it personally that your own post was modded.
-
Would extending this to all internet/EVE memes be appropriate as well?
Mainly for the aforementioned reason of wording things differently and thinking harder about the content of your post.
-
I'm going to guess that the problem isn't that it's a meme, but that it's a shorthand for something rather negative.
If I respond to a post with 'cool story, bro' or 'tl;dr,' I am using a meme to belittle or criticize another poster. If I respond with '+1,' 'that was over 9,000,' or '10/10 would bang again,' it's a positive, friendly reaction, even if I didn't put much thought or time into the post.
-
Well, yeah. Nobody ever complained because a compliment wasn't sufficiently defined, eh? :)
Since criticism hurts feelings I suppose it needs to be carefully constructed, so that the specifics of what the criticiser is talking about are given proper boundaries, otherwise the person being criticised is going to interpret it as a general attack.
-
Bingo. As well as some third party observers.
Like mods.
-
First, snowflakes.
*SNIP*
If I see you tell someone to HTFU and you have been previously moderated or warned - formally or informally as Mr. Smuggles had been, I will P-Ban you.
So in short, if anyone has previously been slapped for using 'HTFU' (I am assuming here you reffer to being modded for the use of this specific meme not having ever been modded before for anything) in any way happen to do so again, even by accident or a casual gesture out of habit or whatever, if anyone, ANYONE who has previously been modded for this EVER forget, (and don't remember and instantly run off to edit that part of their post out) they will be permanently banned by you because you PERSONALLY have beef with the meme?
How is that even remotely fair? Are we to be at the mercy of the whims of individual mod's and their pet peeves now? I don't use the meme myself but others do. After being modded once all it takes is one slip, perhaps even years later when they forgot about it, even if for only 5 minutes, and they are out for good?
*EDIT* For some reason I find it needed to add this. I've read your post 4 times over by now and I still stand by the above post's conclusion, even if I have a nagging suspicion that I've got it very wrong. At this point I *have* been awake for nearly 40 hours straight so I can't exclude the option that I simply read it wrong or whatever, but there it is. I'll be back to read any clarification or re-read the original post again when I (hopefully) have got some sleep.
-
How can someone "slip" again when he perfectly knows that meme is moderated, since he has been warned or modded before for the exact same thing ?
Sometimes I don't understand. Do people learn of their mistakes ?
-
How can someone "slip" again when he perfectly knows that meme is moderated, since he has been warned or modded before for the exact same thing ?
Sometimes I don't understand. Do people learn of their mistakes ?
The proper response for being modded for using HTFU after this would be to HTFU. 8)
-
How can someone "slip" again when he perfectly knows that meme is moderated, since he has been warned or modded before for the exact same thing ?
Sometimes I don't understand. Do people learn of their mistakes ?
No, people very often do not. That's why we use an escalating series of consequences for repeat offenders.
Without naming names, I can tell you that most people who are moderated more than once or twice are usually being moderated for the same things over and over again.
The rules are there for you, the poster, to self-moderate before hitting post. The moderators are not supposed to be a maid service. Just because we will clean up after you take an explosive shit all over the forums does not mean that we should have to when you are perfectly capable of aiming into the metaphorical toilet.
The occasional poster with the "I'm going to be moderated for this, but I'm going to post it anyway" attitude is also particularly aggravating. If someone is posting with this attitude, they are doing it horrifically wrong, and they will likely find themselves taking forced breaks from posting in short order.
-
... take an explosive shit all over the forums ...
(http://i.imgur.com/A4wA2nq.jpg)
-
I was going to say much of what Morlag said, but he said it, so... yeah.
In response to Bloodbird's direct question: No, you didn't read it wrong.
Yes, I will permaban repeat offenders of the use of HTFU on this board.
In one sense, perhaps this is just me with a super-specific pet peeve. In another sense, it is one of the specific reasons this board was created: the fact that anyone who responded negatively to anything a certain clique said or did on the old forum was told to HTFU or some derivitive thereof.
We will not have it on Backstage. All are welcome to post their opinions here and must be able to do so without having to deal with shitposters telling them how wrong they are and how they need to HTFU or quit Eve or whatever other stupid shit some asswipe wants to spew out of their Internet-Anonymity protected mouths.
Seeing as how this was nearly a month ago and there's been no post in the Moderators' Office to the effect of "No, Havo, that's too much D:" I'm going forward with the assumption that I've got full support of my co-admin, Silver, and the rest of the Moderation Team on this issue.
-
To be fair Havohej, I agree entirely with the premise of this board and that we neither need a space for poo-flinging nor for shittalking. However, seeing as this topic references what I got moderated for, I feel quite turned off by being referred to as 'Shitposter' and other assorted niceties simply for using these four letters along constructive suggestions. No worries, I'll use more and fancier words for the same information next time.
-
To be fair Havohej, I agree entirely with the premise of this board and that we neither need a space for poo-flinging nor for shittalking. However, seeing as this topic references what I got moderated for, I feel quite turned off by being referred to as 'Shitposter' and other assorted niceties simply for using these four letters along constructive suggestions. No worries, I'll use more and fancier words for the same information next time.
Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but pretty sure that the moderation team is capable of telling the difference between someone who occasionally lets slip out some less polite ways of expression, and someone who is deliberately flipping off the rules to piss people off. I don't think you've got filed away as an irredeemable shitposter yet. ^.^
-
I'm pretty confident. But then tell me, where was in this case the difference between that one misstep and people who do ye olde YDIW and HTFU-flaming routine all the time? Because I don't see that influx of 'shitposting' that has happened lately and had to be stomped on by mods that would warrant these words.
-
Couple of things.
First:
The idea that all words that convey the same information are entirely equivalent doesn't fly here. Read the FAQ, in particular:
Q: Doesn't being polite to people I disagree with make me a hypocrite?
A: No. It makes you a grown-up.
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.
Q: So I can't disagree with anyone's RP?
A: Sure you can disagree. Just do it politely, I'll even venture to say nicely, and remember that they have as much right to their opinion as you have to yours. For example: Player A writes: "I see the Intaki as space hippies." Player B answers: "Of course they aren't space hippies, there are no hippies in Eve." That would be the WRONG way to answer. The RIGHT way would be something like "Really? I see the Intaki as more techno-buddhists. That's how I play my character, but hey, it's a big Cluster, right?"
There are some other relevant bits there. If you can't post what you want to say in a polite, guideline-friendly way, then you might need to reconsider posting. 'Telling it how it is' or 'but I'm totally right' or 'I'm just speaking bluntly' are not good excuses for breaching the rules and guidelines. You don't have to use more, or fancier words. We have modded people who used more, fancier words to break the guidelines too. You just have to use words that are polite, and don't look like trolling or flamebait.
Second:
The difference between a single misstep and people who do it all the time is that people who do it all the time enjoy consequences which you don't see, in the form of warnings and bans. A single misstep will generally be moderated. Being moderated doesn't mean - by itself - that the mods consider you a shitposter. It just means you have a post that broke the rules. Unless it is particularly egregious, or in a thread that has already been modded for the same reason, or something like that (like if an admin announces that you should stop using HTFU in many contexts, which was already a rule, and you decide to do it in a blatant way), you probably won't be warned or banned or otherwise penalized beyond being moderated. If you then continue to break the rules - particularly the same rule - you will get warnings, bans, and generally speaking you will creep onto our list of shitposters. We don't announce warnings, we don't announce bans, but they do happen. We also keep track of posters who seem to wander close to or over the line frequently, and it's fairly easy to spot the shitposters because they have pages of history in the section of the forum where we track these things.
-
Silver, you mention that people that do things like constantly tell people to HTFU gets "modded, warnings and bans" - That's fair. That is direct action for repeated offenses, and you do get a sliding scale where you get educated on the fact that this is not acceptable, and eventually a more severe round of punishment. However in Havo's case he specifically states that if anyone posts a HTFU post they get their first strike from him, and if they ever do so again, the second offense won't be another mod action and possibly a warning or even a temp-ban, it will be an instant banned-for-life removal.
This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the moderation team that moderates, warns and temp-bans before possibly bringing out the account-wiping sledgehammer. Havo basically offers nothing in this regard for his personal pet-peeve, he notes the first offense (and likely warns you) then if you EVER do so again, perhaps like I said, years down the line in a short moment of forgetting this fact (and being nicer about it by politely using other words than a direct HTFU) then that person is out of Backstage forever.
Again, to me this seems like we now need to start worrying about specific things being punished far more severely and permanently by specific mods, when all other mods follow a standard in all other cases. I know HTFU is covered by the rules (and should not be done as such) but if anyone does, they would likely have to HOPE that you or Morwen or another mod "just" mods it away and offers a formal warning as opposed to letting Havo remove the offender for good.
Basically what I want is a standard of fairness here, not some things being treated worse by some mods.
-
Ah, okay, I think there is a misconception here. The mod team generally doesn't act by themselves. When you receive a warning or a ban - and in most cases even when it is just moderation - it has been discussed by at least 3-4 members of the mod team. Warnings and bans usually involve virtually the entire mod team. Whoever actually presses the button, if you get banned then it means that a ban was the consensus among the mods.
If receiving a warning for something that is clearly and explicitly against the rules after doing it once (and actually, in addition to HTFU, this would include things like name calling, using slurs, etc as well.) is insufficient to keep you from doing it again, then escalating directly to a permaban or other serious action against your account seems entirely fair to me. In fact, some of those things (egregious use of slurs, for example) would be sufficient for a perma on the first offense. Noone except you is typing and hitting post.
Now, just because a permaban is on the table doesn't mean that is 100% going to be the response. Built into Backstage is room for the mods to exercise a certain amount of judgement about a given situation, since every situation is different. That is also why any kind of warning or ban generally does involve discussion among the mods. I would generally say, though, that if you are modded for it then you should make a small effort to remember not to post it again.
-
Your house, your rules Silver. I don't disagree with modding in these cases at all, and prefer a forum that doesn't degrade into permanent flamewars, too. I simply don't think my posting qualified as "whatever [..] stupid shit some asswipe wants to spew out of their Internet-Anonymity protected mouths." and that is what I took offense of. For all that's true you can outlaw the term "Pony" in this forum.
-
I didn't see anyone saying that about your posting. I saw that in reference to shitposting, in the context of not allowing it to continue happening through multiple warnings and instances of moderation (as opposed to the announced low tolerance we have for it) when it is egregious so as to maintain the atmosphere of the board. As far as I know, your posting doesn't qualify as egregious shitposting.
Edit: Also, I'm curious about why you edited out the part of that statement that made it clear exactly what kind of behavior it referred to?
Edit2: Also, a quick scan of the catacombs did not show where you were moderated for the referenced behaviors - can you please link it?
-
Basically what I want is a standard of fairness here, not some things being treated worse by some mods.
Is this so that you can keep to your stated philosophy of "I know I'm going to get modded/tempbanned for this, but I don't care" when posting and hopefully not have to worry about the actual permaban?
Whether you post an HTFU or not, you have to realize that your leash in particular is very, very short right now. Frankly, I find your entire participation in this thread up to this point disingenuous.
Your house, your rules Silver. I don't disagree with modding in these cases at all, and prefer a forum that doesn't degrade into permanent flamewars, too. I simply don't think my posting qualified as "whatever [..] stupid shit some asswipe wants to spew out of their Internet-Anonymity protected mouths." and that is what I took offense of. For all that's true you can outlaw the term "Pony" in this forum.
It didn't, and you were not being referred to by that comment.
EDIT: For that matter, no specific poster was.
-
Basically what I want is a standard of fairness here, not some things being treated worse by some mods.
Is this so that you can keep to your stated philosophy of "I know I'm going to get modded/tempbanned for this, but I don't care" when posting and hopefully not have to worry about the actual permaban?
Whether you post an HTFU or not, you have to realize that your leash in particular is very, very short right now. Frankly, I find your entire participation in this thread up to this point disingenuous.
Your house, your rules Silver. I don't disagree with modding in these cases at all, and prefer a forum that doesn't degrade into permanent flamewars, too. I simply don't think my posting qualified as "whatever [..] stupid shit some asswipe wants to spew out of their Internet-Anonymity protected mouths." and that is what I took offense of. For all that's true you can outlaw the term "Pony" in this forum.
It didn't, and you were not being referred to by that comment.
EDIT: For that matter, no specific poster was.
I'm pretty sure that any specific poster who did qualify would already have a permaban, really.
-
If that was how you interpreted my comment about taking explosive shits all over the forum, Desi, that was not quite how it was intended, and it certainly was not directed at you.
-
I didn't see anyone saying that about your posting. I saw that in reference to shitposting, in the context of not allowing it to continue happening through multiple warnings and instances of moderation (as opposed to the announced low tolerance we have for it) when it is egregious so as to maintain the atmosphere of the board. As far as I know, your posting doesn't qualify as egregious shitposting.
Edit: Also, I'm curious about why you edited out the part of that statement that made it clear exactly what kind of behavior it referred to?
Edit2: Also, a quick scan of the catacombs did not show where you were moderated for the referenced behaviors - can you please link it?
I've snipped the word 'other' out because it wasn't relevant to the point, which is the vibe I am getting about treating the issue that spawned this thread as if this was indeed internet trolling and shitposting on the lowest of all levels. I can agree that you don't want this to escalate until that's the case there, but that was never the issue with the thread that got canned (not cata'd, my bad). Anyways, I didn't like the choice of words by Havohej there, but since it seems to be a rather subjective problem I'll just HTFU myself and let's keep it at that. ;)
-
If permaban is the consequence of the second HTFU, I don't think the consequence of the first HTFU should be a mere warning, but something more memorable. Old habits can die hard, after all, and a consequence that leaves an impression can help in preventing repeats.
-
Basically what I want is a standard of fairness here, not some things being treated worse by some mods.
Is this so that you can keep to your stated philosophy of "I know I'm going to get modded/tempbanned for this, but I don't care" when posting and hopefully not have to worry about the actual permaban?
Whether you post an HTFU or not, you have to realize that your leash in particular is very, very short right now. Frankly, I find your entire participation in this thread up to this point disingenuous.
Havo, your opinion in tihs matter has been noted. However there are two topics here, only the first one is relevant to this tread.
1. I have made my case clear above. I do not feel it to be fair that any one mod get to assign more severe punishment for anything because that leads members to not only having to avoid doing X Y Z covered by forum rules, but also it leads to having to avoid doing them, while also watch out for A B and C because mods 1 2 and 3 specifically hate those things and will perma-ban you on the second offense if you ever dare do them. All it would take then would be one first-time offence for a first strike then after that, several years of potentially pristine forum behavior can be snuffed out due to one slip of the memory of what happens to you if you do that.
2. My recent week-long ban has nothing to do with this. I observed a tread regarding the Stonites and what people though of them and had a choice - I could voice my opinion on them that I knew was universally negative and would get me mod action regardless of how I phrased it. "The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]" is assigning motives to other no matter how you look at it or phrase it and on Backstage that is frowned on. My options were to voice my opinion and take a slap for it, or remain quiet, letting the forum rules practically censor my viewpoint on the matter. People likely would have opted for option B, I opted for option A because the idea that the forum would deny me the right to speak my mind when input was offered did not sit well with me. Likely a dumb move because several months prior I received a warning due to my sharing of my universally negative views on the Goons and other things. Regardless, that whole episode is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.
Havo when you made your above post, to me that smelled like nothing but willful abuse of moderator power. At the time I forgot that all mods (or at least most) look over any reported posts and warnings/bans/moderation action is agreed upon by consensus among the mods on these boards, so you literally CAN'T perma-ban anyone on a second HTFU offense even if you wanted to - other mods have to agree. Ergo, it's not your sole decision to make, and my concerns in this matter are unwarranted.
My leash in particular is very, very short right now? So what does that mean, should I fear any mod-action for speaking my mind in this tread regarding this topic? Can I expect that I will be able to get involved in topics as normal so long as I don't break forum rules again or should I watch my tongue because I was recently banned? Don't threaten me without cause.
You find my participation in this thread up to this point disingenuous? Well that's to bad Havo, there is nothing I can do about that other than not posting, and I don't know of any forum rules that states one is not allowed to post after a ban is lifted. This topic and the above has nothing to do with each other, and now that my reason for getting involved in this tread is resolved there is no need for further input, other than direct responses, I guess.
-
The reason you were banned, since you bring it up, is that you have a pattern of going 'I'm going to get modded for this but I'll say it anyway'. Which indicates you not only are breaking the rules, but doing so on purpose and with full awareness that you are posting in a way you shouldn't. And actually Havo literally could ban someone for whatever. He consults with other moderators, however, because we do in fact follow some basic rules. In this case, there is general agreement that someone who decides to post something like HTFU a second time after being warned is pretty much in line for a ban. This is because the sentiment is directly inimical to the spirit of the forum.
You aren't being threatened without cause. You are being warned that the fact that you seem to think you can break the rules at will - that is, you have established a pattern of breaking them in ways that clearly show it is in no way accidental - means that you are well on your way to more serious action against your account.
In a situation in which your options are:
1) Don't post something that breaks the forum rules
2) Post something that you know breaks the forum rules because you totally feel like you're right, and anyway, *censorship*
You seem to consistently choose 2. What you don't seem to understand is, when you sign up for a private forum, with rules, you are signing up for those rules. So really: If you don't want to follow them, don't post. It's extremely simple.
I don't see Havo suggesting you don't post, I see him suggesting that you are posting disingenuously. I tend to agree, given that you seem to be expressing outrage over being modded for breaking the rules, after posting something along the lines of 'I'm going to break the rules.' That might also be why you have a short leash - because you have not only been modded many times, but several times for the same thing. Going back, I count 4 different threads where you indicated you knew you were breaking the rules and decided to make that clear and then post anyway.
Finally, suggesting that Havo is threatening you for speaking in this thread is, once again, choosing to assign negative motives to other players. Ironically, since Havo has been gone for several years, he has the least reason to have an opinion one way or another about you, because unlike the rest of the mods, he hasn't had to mod you.
-
The reason you were banned, since you bring it up, is that you have a pattern of going 'I'm going to get modded for this but I'll say it anyway'. Which indicates you not only are breaking the rules, but doing so on purpose and with full awareness that you are posting in a way you shouldn't.
Wrong. I have a pattern of going "I might get modded for this." If memory serves the last time was the only time I genuinely knew I would get modded. Again IIRC, we have been over this before, it is an old issue (that I personally have) and thus why I feel this problem might repeat in not to long. Regardless, This forum and myself don't seem to be perfectly compatible partially due to my lacking communication skills. It's clear even from your reply here.
And actually Havo literally could ban someone for whatever.
No he can't, because
He consults with other moderators, however, because we do in fact follow some basic rules. In this case, there is general agreement that someone who decides to post something like HTFU a second time after being warned is pretty much in line for a ban. This is because the sentiment is directly inimical to the spirit of the forum.
Havo, on his own, does not ban anyone just like so. By your own claim he can't out-right find a reported post that violates the rules and then just /ban the offender just like so - it has to go through the rest of you, and at the end if the agreement is "Ban him/her" then it hardly matters who pushes the actual button. This is the point I was making - Havo made it seem (back when I did not remember that mods need consensus to take action) that he alone could just ban anyone on sight for an offense, supposedly without input from the rest of you. This was proven wrong however and I acknowledged that.
You aren't being threatened without cause. You are being warned that the fact that you seem to think you can break the rules at will - that is, you have established a pattern of breaking them in ways that clearly show it is in no way accidental - means that you are well on your way to more serious action against your account.
Fair enough. When Havo stated that "my leash was short" all I got from was effectively "you have been banned before be mindful of what you say." A take-away from that is that posting on these boards can be hazardous to me from now on. Ofc in a way he's right, because if I keep breaking the rules I will get removed at some point, but the impression I got was that I should mind my involvement IN THIS PARTICULAR TREAD. Most likely he was talking in a general forum-wide sense though.
In a situation in which your options are:
1) Don't post something that breaks the forum rules
2) Post something that you know breaks the forum rules because you totally feel like you're right, and anyway, *censorship*
You seem to consistently choose 2. What you don't seem to understand is, when you sign up for a private forum, with rules, you are signing up for those rules. So really: If you don't want to follow them, don't post. It's extremely simple.
Again, only the post I made about the Stonites was a fully knowable offense. The reasons for that are irrelevant, but the 'tendency' you mention is not to out-right violate the rules on purpose, the reason I have been mentioning that I might get modded for posts made is because I have made posts that, I knew were likely borderline, but I did not know all the different ways it could be interpreted by others, so I felt it was fair to effectively state that "I make this post trying to stick with the rules but I agree it might be borderline." [thus it might be modded] Beyond the Stonite post I have never intended to intentionally break the rules, the previously modded post was the only exception to this.
I don't see Havo suggesting you don't post, I see him suggesting that you are posting disingenuously. (1) I tend to agree, given that you seem to be expressing outrage over being modded (2) for breaking the rules, after posting something along the lines of 'I'm going to break the rules.' That might also be why you have a short leash - because you have not only been modded many times, but several times for the same thing. Going back, I count 4 different threads where you indicated you knew you were breaking the rules and decided to make that clear and then post anyway.
1. I read his statement as "You are posting disingenuously in this tread" not "this forum" - my offence was from the belief that he claimed that because I had been banned before, my involvement in this tread (where I responded to a completely separate topic with no self-serving motives) is dishonest and not in good faith.
2. I have never intended to express outrage over being modded because I have never raged over being modded. I know perfectly why I have been modded. I can read, and I can work out the legitimate reasons why I was modded in any and all cases on these boards. I have never been angry with being modded, I have however in the past brought up arguments with situations I feel are unfair, we had a long argument over the case with Morwen some time back and this tread I got involved with because I got the impression Havo wanted to utilize his modding powers to out-right perma-ban people for what was effectively his own pet-peeve. That was proven incorrect however so again, case closed as far as I am concerned.
As for the rest of your statement here I've replied to the impressions about my habits above.
So...
You got the impression I was raging over moderation. That is simply wrong so I messed that one up.
You got the impression that I intentionally broke the rules while even stating that I knew I was and did so anyway. That too is quite simply not what I intended so I messed that up as well.
Again, I have never meant to either deliberately break the rules (barring one recent example that I will freely admit to) and I have never bitched about being modded when I have, because as far as I have been able to see all mod actions so far have been fair, even if we have had arguments about this in the past.
-
Silver and I, as Administrators (which is a little different from Global Moderator or Moderator in the sense of SMF's software) quite literally can do anything. For instance, I could accidentally a whole account. Grey Names on Parade.
We don't only because we care about the community that we, with input from this community and help of the other moderators, have built and which over the last three years they have lovingly maintained. You see, we didn't just open a convo ingame and pull all of these kid-glove molly-coddling rules out of our asses. This was all discussed by a lot of interested parties, most of whom are not part of the moderation staff (which is quite small), and some consensuses were reached and incorporated into the finished product, and then outlined as clearly as possible in a series of Sticky posts that we encourage everyone to read at least once.
That same caring for the community prompted my statement of intent. It was a statement of intent not only for you all to see, but for the team to see. As of yet, only one team member has expressed misgivings and after discussion with him, I've tempered the approach I mean to take - somewhat. My primary interest remains preserving Backstage and refusing to allow, through inaction or perceived tolerance, anything that would or could set this forum on a slippery slope to Chatsubo (http://www.eve-chatsubo.com)'s fate.
Total posts 125316 | Total topics 4930 | Total members 1211
Most users ever online was 138 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:53 pm
We haven't even come close to those numbers, yet. It was an excellent achievement and a wonderful resource in its day, and I'm glad that it's still online if for nothing other than the valuable lore posts and topical discussions of Eve's PF and its player-created RP history. If I knew how to contact whoever is paying for the hosting, I would offer to host a mirror for it or at least store a backup of its database just in case, lest it be lost forever one day.
And now it's dead, because a very small handful of people were permitted to do and say whatever they pleased, regardless of the forum's posted rules.
Of course, Silver, Ghost, Jek and Ciarante are more than welcome to either PM me here, convo/message me ingame or post in the Moderators' Office board on this topic and express disagreement with what, I'm certain, seems a draconian stance on what to some seems to be a very big and natural part of Eve.
I agree on that point, by the way. But Backstage is not Eve. I can't pod people here or ransom their CNRs. Here, we have no pods, no faction battleships. Here we have real life people trying to utilize and enjoy a public resource without having to worry about being griefed - that's supposed to be for ingame and the Eve-O forums, not here.
Our Mission Statement, as posted by Silver in the Sticky in Reception:
What is Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com?
Backstage is a place for EVE players to discuss aspects of EVE-Online, particularly as they pertain to role-playing, in an open and mature environment. Old and new, pirate and bear - all are welcome!
Our intention is to offer a culture that encourages discussion over argument and mutual respect over enmity through the use of clear posting guidelines (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=14.0) along with explanations of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=16.0); meaningful discussion is to be valued above theatrics and hyperbolic argument in pursuit of 'winning' threads.. The main idea here is that while IC people might be enemies, the forum is OOC and as such people should act like adults discussing their mutual hobby.
Some excerpts from the FAQ, as posted by Silver in the Sticky in Reception:
FAQ - Polite Posting - Our Culture
Culture:
You are here as the player, not the as the character. We expect that, regardless of the personality of your character, you will behave as an adult and respect the other members of this community.
Racist, sexist and homophobic remarks will not be tolerated. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.
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.
This isn't America with the First Amendment protection of free speech, where hate groups can march with police protection if they only apply for a permit two weeks in advance. This isn't even the Gallente Federation with its idealism and egalitarianism (as that is a fictional place with Megathrons, so this obviously isn't that). This is Backstage.
Finally, I will quote the PM you sent to an Administrator of this forum:
Thus why I stated that my post was almost guaranteed to be cata'ed at some point, I knew it would happen and my only surprise here is how long it took. It is utterly irrelevant to me if I do one day end up banned-for-life from this forum or whatever for crossing the line one-to-many times, because when I do it's likely going to be for stating an opinion that is considered illegal on these boards.
Would suck for me, but I will not repress my own opinions for the sake of the forum's tolerance for honest expression that is negative in nature.
I have sent you this mail because I feel it's fair I inform you of this.
Heh. I feel it's fair to inform you of this:
Follow our rules and guidelines, respect the forum culture we've established and maintained since 2010 mostly successfully, or kick rocks.
-
1. I have made my case clear above. I do not feel it to be fair that any one mod get to assign more severe punishment for anything because that leads members to not only having to avoid doing X Y Z covered by forum rules, but also it leads to having to avoid doing them, while also watch out for A B and C because mods 1 2 and 3 specifically hate those things and will perma-ban you on the second offense if you ever dare do them. All it would take then would be one first-time offence for a first strike then after that, several years of potentially pristine forum behavior can be snuffed out due to one slip of the memory of what happens to you if you do that.
I may be a bit dense of course, but I still fail to understand what is the difference between being banned after 2 or 3 blatant violations or after 10219382983 of those, except the time it will take to eventually come up to the ban. If someone can't self moderate enough to prevent the second time to happen, why would it not happen a 3rd, then a 4th, and then a 10219382983th ?
What's the difference eventually ? How can someone slip on something this obvious ?
2. My recent week-long ban has nothing to do with this. I observed a tread regarding the Stonites and what people though of them and had a choice - I could voice my opinion on them that I knew was universally negative and would get me mod action regardless of how I phrased it. "The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]" is assigning motives to other no matter how you look at it or phrase it and on Backstage that is frowned on. My options were to voice my opinion and take a slap for it, or remain quiet, letting the forum rules practically censor my viewpoint on the matter. People likely would have opted for option B, I opted for option A because the idea that the forum would deny me the right to speak my mind when input was offered did not sit well with me. Likely a dumb move because several months prior I received a warning due to my sharing of my universally negative views on the Goons and other things. Regardless, that whole episode is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.
"The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]"
"The [insert group] may seem to me - and maybe i'm wrong, that's mostly the feeling that their actions inspire to me - that they seek one thing, which could really be perceived as [insert goal] even if that's true or not."
I am pretty sure that the 2nd statement would never have been reported or even moderated, ever. Considering that I also reported the whole thread (not your post especially) as a clear YDIW in my eyes, I can understand that the subject was already a slippery slope. Honestly I am still quite baffled by the way half of the answers bashed Ston in all impunity in this thread. I am not sure how I would react when stumbling on a post like that about myself or my RP.
-
I am not sure how I would react when stumbling on a post like that about myself or my RP.
I would be breaking the springs on the report button if I found one like that about me and my RP. The whole thread was a YDIW thread. I reported it as soon as I saw it. Surprised any of it survived as long as it did.
-
At least Havo, we understand each other. I know what this forum is for and I have enjoyed it's existence for a good long while. Should I get perma'ed from it at some point I won't be crying about it because frankly, it would prove that myself and this forum is not compatible. Many have reached this conclusion in the past, many will in the future. There might well be a day for me as well.
"The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]"
"The [insert group] may seem to me - and maybe i'm wrong, that's mostly the feeling that their actions inspire to me - that they seek one thing, which could really be perceived as [insert goal] even if that's true or not."
I am pretty sure that the 2nd statement would never have been reported or even moderated, ever.
I am. The two are exactly the same, the only difference is the second one is drowned in sugar-coating. Ofc, if doing that makes a statement that is effectively motive assignment acceptable I will have to start being better at that.
-
I am not sure how requesting information on a group is akin to suggesting they're not RPing correctly.
-
The mod team saw a distinction there - and also between 'They are RPing wrong' and 'This is how I see their RP, and I wish I could interact with them this way but they don't seem interested', which is why the reports of the whole thread as YDIW were not acted on.
-
I am not sure how I would react when stumbling on a post like that about myself or my RP.
I would be breaking the springs on the report button if I found one like that about me and my RP.
I wouldn't. Sure, I wouldn't mind if other people viewing the thread reported it, but I'd more likely just ignore the post and block the poster. I'll admit I might be a little crazy for believing that people shouldn't be afraid of sharing constructive criticism via PM, instead of in front of an audience.
-
At least Havo, we understand each other. I know what this forum is for and I have enjoyed it's existence for a good long while. Should I get perma'ed from it at some point I won't be crying about it because frankly, it would prove that myself and this forum is not compatible. Many have reached this conclusion in the past, many will in the future. There might well be a day for me as well.
"The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]"
"The [insert group] may seem to me - and maybe i'm wrong, that's mostly the feeling that their actions inspire to me - that they seek one thing, which could really be perceived as [insert goal] even if that's true or not."
I am pretty sure that the 2nd statement would never have been reported or even moderated, ever.
I am. The two are exactly the same, the only difference is the second one is drowned in sugar-coating. Ofc, if doing that makes a statement that is effectively motive assignment acceptable I will have to start being better at that.
No, they are not the same. The first statement is saying a group has a particular intention and holding it up as a fact. The second is speaking of the writer's perceptions of that group, and acknowledges that they might be wrong.
Constructive debate seeks to find a consensus, or to provide perspectives on matters that others may not have considered. Merely being insulting about a person or group generally means they stop listening to you, at best. At worst you get someone annoyed enough to go looking for ways to annoy you right back.
-
I am not sure how requesting information on a group is akin to suggesting they're not RPing correctly.
Imo the OP was perfectly fine. Half of the answers, not so much.
You asked information about Ston. People chose to tell that Ston was annoying/doingitwrong because of x or y, instead of just dumping the requested info.
It would have been maybe a little better of Ston had actually asked for feedback, and got it. Here, it's not the case.
The mod team saw a distinction there - and also between 'They are RPing wrong' and 'This is how I see their RP, and I wish I could interact with them this way but they don't seem interested', which is why the reports of the whole thread as YDIW were not acted on.
That's quite white washing the whole thread I think. Some might have been, but others, not so much. I just have to open it again to find this :
The content they are delivering hasn't changed in the last year or so, it's the same posts ad nauseum for twenty or thirty pages. The single addition of "ad nauseam" is enough to twist the meaning of the whole otherwise acceptable sentence by painting it quite negatively with a good deal of YDIW.
One of the few organizations where my OOC and IC dislikes line up perfectly. I am not sure how that is considered by the rules here but I am not sure that someone writing somewhere that he/she does not like person X OOCly is good form. Like if I said "I don't like Silver Night" somewhere in one of my posts... Is that ok because Ston is not here ?
that's how obnoxious they've become.
Pretty much standing in the same corner as most others here - concept is moderately interesting, execution is meh at best.
Personally, they've fallen back to "minor curiosity/slight annoyance" now that they keep their spamming to a single thread; endlessly buffing a single thread is, in my opinion, no worse than the separate threads of repetitive topics we get on the IGS so often.
-
It was a judgment call on the part of the mod team. We will simply have to disagree.
-
No, they are not the same. The first statement is saying a group has a particular intention and holding it up as a fact. The second is speaking of the writer's perceptions of that group, and acknowledges that they might be wrong.
Constructive debate seeks to find a consensus, or to provide perspectives on matters that others may not have considered. Merely being insulting about a person or group generally means they stop listening to you, at best. At worst you get someone annoyed enough to go looking for ways to annoy you right back.
I really don't see a big distinction between them and both leads to the same basic statement as far as I see it. I guess that is where part of my problem lies.
-
Yes. I agree that it is where part of your problem lies. The distinction is laid out fairly well in the FAQ sticky in Reception, which I've already linked to in this thread. Most of the other regular users of this forum seem to have a pretty firm grasp of it.
I wonder if you've ever bothered to read it, or if your devil-may-care "I'll post what I want and let the mods sort it out" attitude has precluded you from doing so.
-
It was a judgment call on the part of the mod team. We will simply have to disagree.
What is a judgement call, exactly ?
-
Basically it's what we do as mods: Make judgements about whether posts or threads break the rules. Sometimes it is clear cut, and sometimes it isn't. 'Judgement call' is a phrase most often used when you have to decide something and it isn't totally clear cut.
-
This link (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/judgment_call#English) (2nd definition in particular, since we do have objective measurements to go by in most cases) should help if Silver's response isn't clear enough.
Note that it's not always a subjective decision, but we do often take posting history and the like into account - someone with a long history of posting YDIW is more likely to have reported posts looked at more closely in that regard than a first time "offender".
-
Ya'll a bunch of sensitive special snowflakes. All doing it wrong in their own special way, frankly you all need to harden the fuck up a little.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d0a5b901287d1a4083abd09e706735ce/tumblr_mi0kx52PIv1rmbokmo1_400.gif)
-
I have been wanting to say something for a few days on this thread, as I have moderated/adminned in other places longer than I want to admit.
With that said. I am notgoing to say anything, as the moderators reading and posting again and again here know what I am thinking already.
in addition.. go Rick James!
-
The entire post.
o\
-
The entire post.
o\
I dunno, I thought it was a pretty accurate summation of the moderator stance on the use of things like that. :P
-
?
-
If permaban is the consequence of the second HTFU, I don't think the consequence of the first HTFU should be a mere warning, but something more memorable. Old habits can die hard, after all, and a consequence that leaves an impression can help in preventing repeats.
I may not have been clear with this on that post, but I'd love to get some mod feedback on this. 8)
-
Oh, yes. After speaking to Morlag ingame a few days ago, I'm more inclined to drop a 3-day on the first offense. I think that should be memorable enough so that when the next time a poster thinks they want to tell someone to HTFU, they'll think twice about it.