Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Vikarion on 02 Nov 2010, 09:54
-
Soooo...I was actually rather enjoying the argument, at least until some people forgot the rules.
Should I try again, or forget it?
-
If you do, give it a few days first. Let us addicts get our EVE fix first. ;)
Damn extended patch-day downtimes. :lol:
-
I was enjoying the discussion too till I apparently hurt someones feelings. But please continue and I'll STFU and just listen this time.
-
You can try again, if you would like, of course.
but, modhat:
[mod]I would urge everyone to review the Rules, FAQ, and even use the Catacombs as a resource to see the kind of things that are considered unacceptable (and why) before posting.In general: Flames, insults, flame-bait, and things that just say someone else is 'doing it wrong', stating your own opinions as fact, assigning motives to other players, etc. Disagreeing is fine, but please make it constructive.I, and I think the rest of the mods, realize this is a 'hot-button' issue, and people do have strong feelings about it. The rules of the forum still apply, however. [/mod]
-
I'm really not in the mood for what you assume is a flame. I stated very clearly that I was trying to be civil, and yet you think I was flaming Jade. My question is why?
Anyways, this was the question :
I would like to hear what people's boundaries are between IC and OOC as this has come up (apparantly not for the first time).
I will start.
If someone says it's OOC knowledge, you are not to use it in RP without explicit permission. Otherwise, if someone RP's or plays a certain character in a corp, etc., it's IC knowledge.
-
[mod]I can go through and post what the issues were in your posts specifically, Eran, if you want. I didn't because there were a lot of issues in that thread in general, but I understand that can make it unclear why something was modded, or even if it was the intended target of moderation (which is why we generally take out only the offending posts. There were just a lot of issues in this particular thread).We always appreciate when people try to be civil, and I think we are all aware that it isn't always easy.I think Morwen's suggestion of letting people cool down a bit before taking another try at the topic in a more general way is a good one.[/mod]
-
Gonna have to ask the mods be less efficient once more. All the juicy threads are locked by the time I get home from work... :cry:
-
Gonna have to ask the mods be less efficient once more. All the juicy threads are locked by the time I get home from work... :cry:
I have to admit I felt the same. :D I do understand the mod decision though. I think it sounds like a good idea to wait a bit till people calm down and then retry the IC/OOC divide thing.
-
Gonna have to ask the mods be less efficient once more. All the juicy threads are locked by the time I get home from work... :cry:
I gave up half way in the thread. When you get the message that while you were typing your reply 6 new posts were made you know its time to give up.
On topic, I think it was one of the more civil threads I have read regarding that specific topic.
-
Unfortunately, I'd liked to have shared my opinions on this as well, but agree that the thread needed to be locked as it wasn't so much rolling as avalanching downhill.
Given time, I'd very much like to see a more reasoned, slower-paced (if such a thing as possible) and far more polite discussion of this, as it's something the community obviously has very heavy opinions on this, and discussions simply getting stomped out before they can be fully talked over isn't going to help the situation either.
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3217/3015062728_6b27f9a6ae.jpg)
-
Unfortunately, I'd liked to have shared my opinions on this as well, but agree that the thread needed to be locked as it wasn't so much rolling as avalanching downhill.
Given time, I'd very much like to see a more reasoned, slower-paced (if such a thing as possible) and far more polite discussion of this, as it's something the community obviously has very heavy opinions on this, and discussions simply getting stomped out before they can be fully talked over isn't going to help the situation either.
I appreciate what you are saying, and think it is accurate of the situation. I would propose that moderators use the moderating equivalent of a M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)) on inappropriate posts a bit more before locking the thread...alternatively:
Other options to consider with/or above to control such a discussion:
- Lock and reopen thread after 30 minutes for enforced 'time out', at increasing increments if necessary. This calms the discussion and gives people more time to think before posting. I think it sends the message that the discourse is at variance with desired quality more strongly.
- Consider temporarily excluding those who cannot control their passions, which can be done in writing and penalties enforced if those excluded make posts (e.g. selectively removing their access to a forum section for a period of time).
My observation is that the backstage community bears a kind of unwarranted collective punishment in such cases. I think that the penalties should focus on selectively pressuring offenders.
-
I think that the thread being locked was inevitable, and if the consensus is that this was one of the more civil threads on the topic, then I'm glad I've avoided other discussions on the issue.
I think one of the mods being told to fuck themselves for no reason was the real low point.
-
I recused myself from moderating this particular issue, but I totally supported what the mods in question had to do.
At the same time, I'd like to see reasoned discussion of the issues without devolving into "OMG $PLAYER IS A @#%$!" This discussion may need to occur in the future, perhaps, but I'd like to think that the sort of environment that Backstage promotes can host such a discussion.
We frequently need to remember that the purpose of an exchange of views ultimately will be understanding, rarely conversion. That goes double between the individuals in the conversation.
-
I appreciate the suggestions, Scagga. I do think that pre-emptively excluding anyone from talking about a specific topic is a bit problematic.
We do try to use 'snip' editing where it's, well, basically feasible. When a thread reaches a stage where 90% of the posts in it have been reported by someone for something, a portions of those posts are inappropriate in their entirety, and most of the others refer to those posts ... 'snip' editing does become a herculean task and when the end result is likely to look like a smattering of posts that no longer make sense without context and a smattering of others reduced to a patchwork of sentences, locking the thread and moving the whole thing becomes really the only practical option.
I'm also, personally, beginning to agree a little with a view expressed in the early discussion of these forums about 'snip' moderation: knowing that a mod will edit your post to remove the insults, flames and trolling but leave the rest intact removes incentive to self moderate and exercise a little common sense. It actually takes a lot less time to read through a post you've composed and delete things than it does for a mod to carefully, in the interests of transparency, move each offensive sentence to the catacombs. So every over-the-line post is, in a way, a statement to the moderators that 'hey, your time is worth about 1/5 of mine!'.
Time out locks have been used in the past, and are of varying popularity: I got five PMs in a minute after locking a thread for a 'time out', and the opinion was firmly expressed that posters felt they had been sent to the 'naughty chair'. I note too that a mod posted in the thread earlish on, with mod hat on, pointing out the potential for the whole thing to go pearshaped downhill without a canoe or whatever, and some posters expressed a sense of grievance at the intervention.
I'd also like to point out, as a general observation, that moderators have a lot more difficulty 'cleaning' and 'pruning' a thread when people respond to flames or to flamebait. Just report the post, and if a mod isn't there to deal with it right that second, take a deep breath and give yourself a cooldown period.
-
Well, I ask because - although I didn't start the thread - I do think it is an issue that people could come to a resolution on, and if any place can do it, this one can.
It should go without saying, but people need to understand that someone's stance on RP issues has no bearing on the kind of person they are in real life. Nor does your limited interaction with someone in Eve give you carte blanche to pronounce judgment on them, their lifestyle, their morality, etc.
From my point of view, the strict moderation here isn't designed to keep people from being offended, but to eradicate the irrelevant dickery that removes the potential for logical, reasoned discussion.
-
The mods job would be much easier if someone could come up with a webutility to measure "irrelvant dickery" and "logical, reasoned discussion" by universally accepted standards :P
-
I, for one, enjoy teasing out this topic. It's at the heart of a lot of RP issues, and I've had some good discussions about it, including with Cia and Else while the thread here was running, and with Jade Constantine in LM OOC at the beginning of the year when the topic was hot on IGS.
I think one of the reasons it can be difficult to discuss is that the realities are often complex and nuanced. I happen to think that hypocrisy isn't the worst sin there is, and that the areas where we don't necessarily want to be consistent are often the ones that are most interesting.
Those factors mean I'd like to find ways to talk about IC-and-OOC without assuming that the most important thing is to adopt a consistent overall position which will, most likely, always or never deal with certain problem cases. Describe the different sorts of things we'd like our approaches to be able to cope with, but accept that sometimes our responses are conditional, depending on the characters/players/circumstances.
If we do manage to resume the discussion, could we find a way to say "hm, X and Y seem to be inconsistent: how does that work for you?" as a genuine question trying to open up the next stage of things?
-
I think the problem with today's thread is the historic one that its always inflamatory to begin such discussions with an incident one feels strongly about. And beginning with the hypothesis that another player is "cheating" because they have different standards and approaches to RP is never going to fly terribly well.
This ic/ooc journal thing has rattled on for years though and likely always will because it represents a differing experience of RP from players descended from different schools of the hobby (tabletop vs larp for one example).
As always I'm very happy to discuss this with anybody in a reasonable tone and respectful debate.
-
It should go without saying, but people need to understand that someone's stance on RP issues does not necessarily have bearing on the kind of person they are in real life.
Fixed that one for you old chap.
-
I appreciate the suggestions, Scagga. I do think that pre-emptively excluding anyone from talking about a specific topic is a bit problematic.
We do try to use 'snip' editing where it's, well, basically feasible. When a thread reaches a stage where 90% of the posts in it have been reported by someone for something, a portions of those posts are inappropriate in their entirety, and most of the others refer to those posts ... 'snip' editing does become a herculean task and when the end result is likely to look like a smattering of posts that no longer make sense without context and a smattering of others reduced to a patchwork of sentences, locking the thread and moving the whole thing becomes really the only practical option.
I'm also, personally, beginning to agree a little with a view expressed in the early discussion of these forums about 'snip' moderation: knowing that a mod will edit your post to remove the insults, flames and trolling but leave the rest intact removes incentive to self moderate and exercise a little common sense. It actually takes a lot less time to read through a post you've composed and delete things than it does for a mod to carefully, in the interests of transparency, move each offensive sentence to the catacombs. So every over-the-line post is, in a way, a statement to the moderators that 'hey, your time is worth about 1/5 of mine!'.
Time out locks have been used in the past, and are of varying popularity: I got five PMs in a minute after locking a thread for a 'time out', and the opinion was firmly expressed that posters felt they had been sent to the 'naughty chair'. I note too that a mod posted in the thread earlish on, with mod hat on, pointing out the potential for the whole thing to go pearshaped downhill without a canoe or whatever, and some posters expressed a sense of grievance at the intervention.
I'd also like to point out, as a general observation, that moderators have a lot more difficulty 'cleaning' and 'pruning' a thread when people respond to flames or to flamebait. Just report the post, and if a mod isn't there to deal with it right that second, take a deep breath and give yourself a cooldown period.
Thanks for the feedback. I may have not given a clear account of what I meant in the original post. My views on moderation haven't changed all that much since we had our backstage backstage (see what I did there?) discussions. I'll put more time into it this evening.
-
With respect to the subject matter raised this morning - I naturally agree with the statement re: snip moderation, as evidenced by our previous discussions on the matter.
Regarding temporarily excluding someone from a discussion, I would agree that pre-emptively excluding someone would be potentially problematic. However, if threads were going downhill largely due to repeat offenses commited by one poster despite warnings, it would not be unreasonable to have their temporarily exclusion from the thread considered. On reflection however, I can see it as a deeply embarrassing kind of punishment and would now think it as a method that would do more harm than good.
-
The mods job would be much easier if someone could come up with a webutility to measure "irrelvant dickery" and "logical, reasoned discussion" by universally accepted standards :P
That's easy. "Logical, reasoned discussion" is when I make a post. "Irrelevant dickery" is when someone disagrees.
See? Very simple. Very logical. Don't try to disagree.