Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: BloodBird on 01 Jan 2013, 20:32
-
"Entirely self-explanatory." (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3908.0)
No not really, because I'm apparently to dumb to see how this is correct, and as such I don't get it.
An explanation, prefferably with some details, would be nice, Morwen.
In the meantime, let's sugar-coat it with some absolute neutrality in tone. Let's try again. (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3909.0)
-
Your first thread was sprinkled with italicized vulgarity at Desiderya's post. That sort of set the stage for the rest of your post to be read in a hostile tone. Yes, I get that it was mock-IC. Since you weren't actually posting IC, you didn't have to word it that way on an OOC board known for enforcing rules of civil discussion.
The next part of it openly called it a lie (again supposedly IC), and then you OOC started asking for sources to PF if it's not a lie. To me that sounds like you're trying to mask your OOC opinions of it being a lie by saying it supposedly IC. If that's not how you intended it, that's how it looked.
-
Whether you intended it or not, your post looked precisely like a "urdoingitwrong", AND like you were having trouble sorting out IC and OOC differences.
You could have expressed the exact same query like this:
"Hey guys, I'm having trouble finding evidence for the claim that the Caldari tried to negotiate for the return of Caldari Prime. Is this just an IC claim, or have I missed something?
-
I figured we were all adults here, and that everyone was capable of reviewing the rules themselves given the hint I gave without the need for me to hold their hands and read the rules to them like a bedtime story. Apparently not.
It was entirely self-explanatory, and I even gave you an explanation anyway: the post positively reeked of "urdoinitrong" to the point that when someone mentioned they were about to report a thread I was able to tell them "Yes, I saw it, don't bother" and was able to respond "Yes" when they asked "Bloodbird's?" to make sure. Other people noticed it (Kat, Desi) and said something in the thread, which I also noted that they are not supposed to do.*
You frequently come across as extremely aggressive and confrontational in your posting, which contributed to the fact that whether you intended it or not, your post came across - to multiple people not just including myself - in a fashion that is against the rules of this forum. My job is not to figure out what your intent is (as, in fact, Silver occasionally has to remind me), it's to deal with how everyone else interprets your intent and where that fits in with the forum's rules. In fact, if your post is breaking the rules, unless it's borderline I generally don't care what your intent was simply because it's breaking the rules.
The forum has rules to encourage civil discussion. It's entirely possible to have a heated argument without breaking those rules. Your post violated several rules, and it (and its responses) was removed as a result.
* See a post that doesn't meet the rules? Report it and don't respond to it. Responding to it can invalidate reports you then subsequently make about that post. (Yes, I'm looking at a few people in particular who are guilty of this. You know who you are. Knock it off.)
-
There also may be a small misunderstanding here.
In other threads me, and several others, have strayed to more harsh views and language that have been brushed off as IC.
I believe the difference here is that those IC responses were never personal or directed at a singular person, just expressing a viewpoint with rhetoric that can be clearly seen as painted in the IC culture of the character portrayed.
It seems that the moderation team is aware of this trend and they are stepping on it hard in this case, because it may be that they do not want some strange offshoot of forum-fu develop where 'IC' is used to dance around the moderation.
If this is not the case, please disregard this whole post.
-
So someone asking for clarification gets treated with haughty arrogance and derision from a moderator. Nor particularly surprising. When is the behaviour standards you're asking from others going to start applying to you guys? Some moderators in particular seem completely incapable of doing their jobs without acting worse than any of the offenders.
-
Bloodbird,
Your post can be summarized as using "Mock IC" to call my (And not Des's) statement bullshit. The question for PF regarding this claim is hidden behind an "unless", which fortifies the point that you're discarding what was said on an OOC level as well. And I am leaning myself out of the window far enough to claim that this is a rather objective analysis.
I was pretty sure that this wasn't the intention, but only because I usually apply goodwill to other people and I know of your habits of diving headfirst into situations like this.
edit:
I think that 'someone asking for clarification gets treated horribly' is quite an exaggeration.
-
edit:
I think that 'someone asking for clarification gets treated horribly' is quite an exaggeration.
Good thing no one made that claim then.
-
Fine, you'll get the special treatment:
So someone asking for clarification gets treated with haughty arrogance and derision from a moderator.
I think this is quite an exaggeration for what has happened.
-
And you're entitled to your opinion. As I am to mine.
-
I figured we were all adults here, and that everyone was capable of reviewing the rules themselves given the hint I gave without the need for me to hold their hands and read the rules to them like a bedtime story. Apparently not.
It was entirely self-explanatory, and I even gave you an explanation anyway: the post positively reeked of "urdoinitrong"
Well, aren't we arrogant.
I made this tread for the exact reasons posted above, namely the fact that I did not (at the time) quite get it, and wanted it spelled out to be absolutely sure. People were then kind enough to actually do that, underlying the issue that I had suspected at the time. Katrina posted first, and her post was technically enough. I decided to wait with responding however because I wanted the input of more than one person, to be sure.
In the time between making this tread and reading it again now, I re-read the cata'ed tread and gained a good grasp of what the issue was, and then when thinking of my re-make of said tread I went "why didn't I just do that to begin with? :bash:" So I got it back then, but decided to make absolutely sure because, as far as I'm aware, the best practice is constant repetition - in this case, hearing the 'why was this a stupid move' arguments from more than one source.
As far as I recall the original idea was basically to quote Des's IC post and make a mock-example of a typical denial responce, ala 'nu-hu, no publicly available info on this, I don't buy it' and then instantly clarifying that I wanted to converse about the topic and possibly hear about any PF sources that supported Des's IC claim. Ofc, I messed up horribly by fully forgetting exactly where I was posting that tread and how needlessly agressive and unclear it actually was, the above example likely would have been left alone because it's not quite so hostile. Or I could have just forgone the mock responce entierly, as I ended up doing anyway. As I said, it seemed like an acceptable idea at the time.
Here however we have a condensating mod basically telling me that I'm clearly not adult enough to get it, and that the supposedly self-explanatory reasons needed no further clarification. THE FACT THIS TREAD WAS MADE directly contradicts this claim: If it was indeed that clear then I would not have made this tread at all, because I would need no clarification.
Fine, you'll get the special treatment:
So someone asking for clarification gets treated with haughty arrogance and derision from a moderator.
I think this is quite an exaggeration for what has happened.
Bold is mine. Consider that responding to someone's opinion (witch differs from yours) with this arrogant attitude of "well, I'll give you the special treatment because clearly you don't get it" is needlessly agressive. JinOtsi stated an opinion and you, disagreeing, brushed it off because you don't agree.
As a matter of some fact, I happen to agree. Morwen's initial responce was, as far as I'm concerned, nedless agressive and arrogant, brushing my request for clarification off with what basically ammounts to "Are you a child? This is crystal clear!" Except it wasn't that clear to me and simply asking for clarification should not involve a verbal back-hand slap over the face as a responce.
This tread however has served it's purpose by now. Thanks everyone for your input. Hopefully it won't take to long for me to remember to double-check my creations before I post and remind myself that overtly agressive conduct is not appreciated on these boards, and to consider how a post can be read by outside parties.
-
As a matter of fact the special treatment considered of quoting the sentence without changes after Jinari said my changes totally weren't what was being said. Since empty quoting is bad I reposted the reason for quoting it in the first place, too: My own opinion about what I considered too harsh of a critique.
Note the words like "I" and "think", which, when combined, form the perfect symbiosis to successfully lead the reader to the conclusion that what follows is indeed a subjective opinion.
Morwen's initial responce was, as far as I'm concerned, nedless agressive and arrogant, brushing my request for clarification off with what basically ammounts to "Are you a child? This is crystal clear!" Except it wasn't that clear to me and simply asking for clarification should not involve a verbal back-hand slap over the face as a responce.
I agree, a simple request for clarification shouldn't involve that kind of action. What I considered bad form (reasons above) was the OP. You've responded in that thread in an even worse manner than you've started it, leading to moderation. Big surprise.
-
I was not reffering to the original, cata'ed tread. I was responding to Morwen's reply in this tread right here.
-
My mistake, then, I thought you (both) were indeed referring to the cata'd thread.
Apologies.
-
My mistake, then, I thought you (both) were indeed referring to the cata'd thread.
Apologies.
Accepted. Might explain why you though it was unreasonable to get annoyed with Morwen's responce. Had it indeed been in reply to her moderator action, it would be unreasonable to get angry.
-
"urdoinitrong" has never been acceptable posting behavior on this forum.
When two people in the thread post and explicitly call out the OP for being in poor form and "urdoinitrong", and I have a subsequent conversation with someone ingame that goes like this...
Them: "Mod-person, I'm about to go report a thread on Backstage"
Mod-person: "I/We already saw it, don't bother."
Them: "[Poster's thread]?"
Mod-person: "Yes."
... it should be pretty self-explanatory why it gets thrown in the catacombs as a result. You yourself say you went back and looked at the thread and could see what you did wrong. So why are you asking for an explanation when you already know that it was a combination of being excessively aggressive and confrontational in tone coupled with an unhealthy helping of urdoinitrong?
In any case, neither I nor any other member of the moderation staff should have to go through any post thrown into the catacombs and annotate each sentence with which rule(s) it breaks and how. It's a waste of our time, and frankly, more insulting to a poster's intelligence to do so, because they should be perfectly capable of understanding what the rules are and what they mean - they have to agree to them in order to post here in the first place, after all.
[...] Had it indeed been in reply to her moderator action, it would be unreasonable to get angry.
You seem rather annoyed by the moderator action to begin with, given you went and made this thread in response to it despite having an explanation in the post that you linked to and only partially quoted:
Urdoinitrong is not acceptable here. If you can't post without it at least looking like you tried to avoid urdoinitrong, don't post at all.
I shouldn't have needed to respond to your request for clarification at all, because you shouldn't have needed to make it in the first place - and not just because I'd given you a clarification already in the thread in the catacombs. You've ended up on the wrong side of the rules several times; you should know what the rules are, and what is and what isn't acceptable posting behavior by now without us needing to spell it out.
As an aside, Lallara has picked up on another issue that I didn't feel needed mentioning yet because it isn't a particularly widespread issue yet, but I might as well at this point: this is an OOC forum (for the moment, as we haven't added any IC sections yet*), not an IC one, and we are definitely not going to be tolerating forum-fu games based around posting IC or semi-IC or what have you. So, attacking someone's character "semi-IC" in the fashion done in the post that started this all is still against the rules and will still face moderator action.
* I can think of several reasons doing so would be a bad idea here or on any other forum hosted and run by players and not CCP or an uninvolved third party, not the least of which is "alts". Forum software always includes account and IP tracking, and not everyone is OK with people knowing who their alts are. No matter who the administration and moderation staff are, there's always going to be at least one person who doesn't want someone on the mod staff aware of who their alts are.
-
Bloodbird post was probabably of very bad form, aggressively turned, and all, and he seems to understands it and acknowledged it above.
However Morwen, I must concur with Jin, your own answer (thr first one) is arrogant, condescending, and totally out of place. You may have been right that it was obvious (or not, whatever, not the point here), but you are mod and enticed to behave a bit more professionally, I think.
You should actually take the time to explain in a calm fashion instead of answering with a flamepost. That only makes your answer sound highly hypocritical to me since you do not even bother to comply to what you preach (avoiding aggressive posts).
Also, stating things like "It was self explanatory", even by emphasizing the "was", does not make it self explanatory, since apparently someone does not understand. He may be just playing the idiot, or may not be, but what if he genuinely does not understand ?
-
Morwen, you seem to missunderstand.
First, I made a tread in a sub-par manner and it got cata'ed.
Then, I re-made the tread in a better fasion while at the same time made this tread here in the mod discussion area, and seconds after posting the new and improved tread, linked it to this mod discussion tread.
I then read the first post in this tread that Kat made and WHILE WAITING FORE MORE REPLIES I re-read the original, cata'ed tread and pretty much realized how I fucked up. (again)
Then you came along with your hypocritical post and reinforced that it was supposedly so simple to understand, ignoring the fact that I made this tread because I clearly did not understand how the original tread was a violation of the rules, even if I did understand the issue a couple hours after making the tread to begin with.
I did not realize my error and THEN make this tread asking for clarification despite knowing the answer, that would have been redundant, and a waste of time.
I don't need you, or any other mod, to spell the rules out to me - I can read them myself. I did not make this tread to complain that another tread of mine was modded, I kno whyit was modded, you said so clearly. I made this tread because I didn not realize at the time exactly HOW the modded tread was a breach of the rules. I do now, and I realized this a couple hours after making this tread.
Again, this tread has served it's purpose, and while I feel it was completely needless of you to be so arrogant in your reply, the answer and clarification I was looking for was delivered.
End of story, as far as I'm concerned.
-
I'm not misunderstanding at all. I did what you asked in your OP and gave you an explanation that shouldn't have needed to be asked for in the first place. Check the timestamps and post orders: you did not post to say you'd gone back and figured it out before I posted until after I had done so, so complaining that I came and did what you asked is just a little silly.
Was my first response aggressive? Sure. Not going to deny that. But it was also intentional. The aggression (and resulting hypocrisy) was the point, because it's how your original topic came across. It's also why I wrote a second, more calm post later on.
It's a bit of a contradiction of terms to say "I don't need the rules spelled out to me" in the same breath as saying that you originally made this thread to ask how your previous post broke the rules. The two aren't identical but they go hand in hand - if I'm going to explain to you how something breaks the rules, you bet I'm going also to go over the rule itself just to make sure the why is clear too.
-
I'm not misunderstanding at all. I did what you asked in your OP and gave you an explanation that shouldn't have needed to be asked for in the first place. Check the timestamps and post orders: you did not post to say you'd gone back and figured it out before I posted until after I had done so, so complaining that I came and did what you asked is just a little silly.
I was not complaining that you replied, because that's what I wanted you to do. I was complaining to you about the manner you replied in. Again, in the OP I asked for clarification for how my previous post violated the rules because at the time I may have realised why it was cata'ed (YDIW and needless aggressive attitude) but not exactly how it was YDIW and overtly aggressive. However, a couple hours after posting the OP I did, helped by reading Katrina's first reply to this tread. I could have responded then that I got it, but decided to wait for more replies. Then you replied.
Was my first response aggressive? Sure. Not going to deny that. But it was also intentional. The aggression (and resulting hypocrisy) was the point, because it's how your original topic came across. It's also why I wrote a second, more calm post later on.
Wait a second, you were intentionally aggressive with me because I had originally been aggressive and got my first post cata'ed? How is that supposed to help at all? Why did you even need to do the very thing I got modded for in the first place? Could you not have simply omited that part of your post and left the constructive bits be?
It's a bit of a contradiction of terms to say "I don't need the rules spelled out to me" in the same breath as saying that you originally made this thread to ask how your previous post broke the rules. The two aren't identical but they go hand in hand - if I'm going to explain to you how something breaks the rules, you bet I'm going also to go over the rule itself just to make sure the why is clear too.
Morwen, I can apprecaite that you re-state the rules, but I knew then and know now what the rules say, and in case I don't, or don't recall I know where to go look for a refresher. This is why I don't need the rules spelled out to me, especially not in such a condensating tone. When you said in your moderator comment that the tread was cata'ed due (among other things) YDIW attitudes, I took that at face value. Okay, so it was cata'ed due to that. But how was it that it came to that? How was it YDIW? What part was so aggressive?
I did not understand at the time so I made this tread and re-posted the original tread in a tone that I hoped was neutral and matter-of-factly, in order to get my intended request across without any fuss. Then I waited for a responce that would tell me how a post with no intentions of being aggressive and absolutely no intention of being blatantly YDIW was cata'ed as such. Couple hours later I had that answer and considered replying, but decided to await more than one responce. The idea was that if a few people told me how they interpited it and how it was bad the reason would be properly underlined to me, not just a possible revelation on my part and one single person's opinion.
After reading all the responses at a later time, including yours, I was sure that I fully grasped the core of the issue without error. However I was also, at that time rather perplexed by you; why was a mod being this aggressive and condensating towards a request to clarify exactly how I'd screwed up? At this point the whole thing was more about my lack of understanding for you aggression, because the original purpose (figuring out exactly how I messed up) had been satisfied.
And here we are. For the 3rd time, the original intention of this tread is over. Now I only wonder about your responses, and while I can guess, I can't know until I'm told the reasons. You are the only one who can do that.
-
Wait... now mods can behave aggressively and hypocritical as long as it is intentionnal and makes the point across ? :eek:
-
Wait... now mods can behave aggressively and hypocritical as long as it is intentionnal and makes the point across ? :eek:
Of course. Mods get to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want, rules or no rules. Nothing new under the sun.
-
Us <-> Them
Always works.
-
Wait... now mods can behave aggressively and hypocritical as long as it is intentionnal and makes the point across ? :eek:
Of course. Mods get to do pretty much whatever the fuck they want, rules or no rules. Nothing new under the sun.
Morwen was a bit more aggressive than I might have been, but given the circumstances, not inappropriately so I think. You are free to disagree, and if you see a mod (or anyone else) breaking the rules, please report it. If you've seen mods 'doing whatever the fuck they want' in contravention of the rules, I've not seen the reports from you regarding it, at least that I recall. Mods have in fact been both moderated, and removed from the moderation team in the past for breaking the rules, though.
If you see actual specific incidents of mods breaking the rules, report them. Otherwise, kindly don't attempt to flamebait the moderation team.
For the topic at hand, given the number of posts you have had moderated in the past, Bloodbird, I'm surprised that you did need clarification. I hope it is more clear now, and that you will let us know if you have further questions. As I think we have mentioned to you in the past, if you are unsure whether a post is going to fall afoul of the rules, you can PM a mod before hand to check. If you really had no idea that this post would be problematic, I'm not sure what other assistance we can offer you in the future to avoid being moderated again.
I will be asking the mod team to make sure and spell out a little more clearly what moderation is for in the future. We generally try, but sometimes what seems obvious to one person isn't to another. :)
-
Ah,
Chatsubo Backstage drama.
(http://i.imgur.com/RZM33.gif)
-
Not quite that much drama, I hope.
-
Fair enough, but I have however noticed a high probability for legit reports about moderators posts to be ignored over time.
-
For the topic at hand, given the number of posts you have had moderated in the past, Bloodbird, I'm surprised that you did need clarification.
That was just it. Improvement is made when you are concious of what get's burned and what get to stay. When you mess that up and get modded, and are not 100% clear on how you did it (leading to the post's creation in a bad way to begin with) clarification is useful for your understanding and improvement.
Also, Morwen's reply was "not inappropriatly aggressive given the circumstances" and there are times when a mod can be aggressive towards those modded for needless aggression? Doesn't that just set a bad double-standard when a mod get's to do what they mod others for?
I don't see how. No matter how much I may or may not have messed up in past or how much I did now, how is it a free ticket to act like the one you are supposed to be modding for that very same behaviour?
-
Dear lord.
Silver, Morwen, and the rest of the admin/mod team; all I can say is I hope you are able enjoy it, because I sure wouldn't be able to handle dealing with this.
-
You weren't modded for needless aggression (though I would suggest that your post was substantially more aggressive than Morwen's). Although the aggression didn't help, you were modded for calling another member a liar, YDIW, etc.
Lallara basically has the right of it (though the specific intent wasn't stepping on it hard here in particular, just that we are aware that 'IC' can be used as a trolling tool.)
And Lyn: Given you are not privy to the reports we get, you may not be aware exactly how high a proportion of all reports have no action taken. A report is not the same as mod action being taken.
-
I know, that is only in my own little experience.
-
Decided to dump this in this tread instead of making a new one as my point here will involve the events chronicled in this tread anyhow.
So, regarding Isis' tread (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4010.60) that was finally locked:
Hi. I'm on vacation in Yellowstone this week, and am at my computer maybe 2 hours out of the entire day (literally, 15 minutes after breakfast before going out and getting on the snowmobiles, and an hour and a half before/after dinner or before bed). I was hoping not to have to step in and deal with this kind of utter bullshit while I was out, but I guess I forgot that Silver has a job and tends not to get opportunities to check the forum during the day.
I hope you enjoy your vacation. ;) When you are done, you can deal with this - if you bother, simply an opinion and a statement.
The thread would've been locked ages ago otherwise, and as it stands I'm going to be strongly suggesting that a number of people who contributed to the problem instead of reporting posts/the thread and not posting be given formal warnings and/or short-term bans in the cases of people who have already had their warnings for this crap.
Personally, I would not mind a consequence for my actions under normal situations. But if it's coming from you, it feels very unfair. YOU will strongly suggest that a number of people get formal warnings or temp-bans for choosing entertainment at the cost of a fellow member instead of sticking to forum regulations? Again, if that was from practically any other mod, that would be fine. But not you. You see Morwen...
Pretty much everyone who's posted in this thread should know better.
...you should know better as well. As far as I'm concerned you blatantly and deliberately violated the very rules you are supposedly a mod for - in this very tread - in order to 'make a point' or whatever. Silver read this over and, as a fellow mod, practically brushed your offense under the rug. At that point I just said 'fuck it, can't be bothered' to myself and left the issue be. However, I find myself unable to NOT post this post in regards to your most recent ruling.
That is because, if you are the one to render judgment in this regard, then I would like to demand you too be judged by the same regulations that you uphold. Let Silver or any other mod deal out warnings and/or bans. You don't have the right to.
-
Actually, he does, because he's a mod.
Frankly, you are whining. I get the temptation, I once got upset, took my toys, and went home. It was actually kind of a good thing to do so, because it let me re-evaluate my posting style, whether I could post here in a civil manner, and if I should try. I decided to do better, came back, and while I've made a mistake once or twice, on the whole I have done better.
Morwen is exactly right about the content of the catacomb'd thread. The people inside it should have been posting better. And being harsh about modding is pretty much the one sort of harshness explicitly provided for on this board. Go read some of the founding documents - they do not overly vary in tone, I would opine, from the comments Morwen has made, although Morwen can occasionally be a little more brusque than most. And mods do have different guidelines when moderating - not only is that expected, but necessary. A mod's job is, for one, to tell a poster "urdoingitwrong". Another job is to call posters out on breaking the rules, harshly if necessary.
Violating the rules - while knowing that you are violating them - is "bullshit" and "crap". That's one of the ways we refer to violating rules. It's a negative thing. Expecting people to follow the rules and finding them not doing so is frustrating. You were warned in this very thread, right on the first page, not to respond to those breaking the rules. Precisely why do you think that this gives you the right to act the victim? Especially when other people came in, looked at your complaint, and went "nope, that's without merit".
Not only that, but saying that Morwen doesn't have the right to recommend such things? Who do you think you are, the owner of the board? That's an incredibly arrogant statement to make to someone who not only operates the board for your benefit, but operates it with specifically stated absolute authority. Your post doesn't have to be offensive to you to be modded, in posting on Backstage, you have agreed that only the mods need to take issue with it for it to be removed. That's part of the rules. The rules everyone posting here agreed to.
-
Part of me just wants to respond with a dealwithit.gif here, but the irony, utterly hilarious as it would be, would probably not be appropriate, so that part isn't getting to post. To all those who were expecting a witty burn when they saw I'd responded to the thread and are disappointed: Deal with it.
Vik pretty much explained the situation, so in case his response wasn't clear enough...
Regarding fairness: I don't care whether you think it's fair or not. Neither does Silver. In fact, your definition of "fair" in this case, is irrelevant. It is entirely up to him and I to decide what is "fair" for this situation; not you, and not anyone else who posted in the thread.
I'm aware that it might not be immediately transparent to some people here, yourself included, but I typically do not take moderation action in a unilateral manner except in particularly egregious cases. Two and a half pages of image macros (and no less than ten reports for posts in that thread) falls pretty clearly under that category, hence locking the thread. So would people throwing around racist or homophobic slurs. The point of stating that I will be suggesting moderation action to Silver should have made it immediately apparent that he will be involved in the decision and that no action will be taken without his consent to it. If that is still not clear to you, then I have no idea what will make it so.
Regardless: if someone breaks the rules and the mods (again, Silver and I, at the moment) make the decision to take action, your opinion (and those of anyone else on the receiving end of the mod action) regarding which moderator is "appropriate" for taking the action is entirely irrelevant. If Silver doesn't want/have time to do it, that means I do it. In short? Deal with it.
Edit - thanks, but my vacation would be a lot easier to enjoy if I didn't have to deal with this bullshit.
-
It's a bit ironic that the individuals that bitch the most about biased moderation are those with the greatest difficulty in maintaining self restraint with train-wreck threads.
-
Morwen is on vacation (and has a job) and I work somewhere north of 45 hours a week - occasionally more like 55 or 60. And we both have other things to do sometimes than mod (like errands, or spend time with our family, or, play Eve.) That means that moderation isn't always going to be instant. Sometimes it might even take a couple of days.
It also means, since we are the active mods, that one or the other of us is going to be doing it - whoever is available. I haven't had time to totally review the thread in question yet, but just looking at the many reports, I certainly support binning it.
If you have a problem with a mod, this is the right place to bring it up. That being said, using every time you get modded to try and dig up this same thread - where the circumstances have already been explained to you - is not appropriate. Saying 'You did this thing that I think was against the rules once, so I'm going to start shit every time you mod' is not appropriate.
If you think the mod team here is biased against you and they don't 'have the right' to mod you, don't post. If you post, you are subject to the mod team - and being subject to being moderated in general isn't something that's up for discussion (distinct, mind you, from discussion of specific instances of moderation - the way this thread started out.)
Disagreeing with Morwen, and then disagreeing with my assessment of Morwen's conduct doesn't make you right. It doesn't make me right either, but the issue has been addressed and the decision has been made. And while there have been mod decisions I was on the fence about int he past, this wasn't really one of them (the original situation that spawned this thread, or the new one). Also, if i wanted to 'brush under the rug' the way Morwen posted, it would be gone or edited. Instead we explained why. Again - disagreeing with your assessment of Morwen's post isn't brushing it under the rug. It's disagreeing.
I'm the admin, I pay for the site, so for better or worse I'm the final word on these things. Rehashing that you think that Morwen broke the rules - and mind you the circumstances have been discussed, reviewed, and explained at length here - to revive this thread is probably not the right move to get the rest of the moderation team (me, at the moment) on your side.
All that being said, I'll probably hand out any warnings or bans for the new thread, sometime in the next couple days, because generally warnings and bans involve a certain amount of discussion within the moderation team (because believe it or not, we do our best to avoid bias, and running these things past eachother is a mechanism for that), and also because Morwen is on vacation and should be able to skip the less pleasant parts of the job (for a little bit) like sending out warnings. (To the degree that something you don't get paid in anything except the satisfaction of a job well done is a job.)
-
With two active moderators.
You discuss violations.
This is not really unbiased.
(You need more mods and especially more variety in the mod team regarding play- and lifestyle.)
-
We are aware we need more mods. Though we do still sometimes make Ciarente come and look over things too.
That being said, the only bias I really have a chance to develop is, I think, related to the way people post here, since I don't interact with many people IG these days. At least most of the bias I develop.
I'm not really sure what you mean about needing mods with more variety in 'lifestyle' - unless you mean people with a little more time on their hands, in which case I agree. In terms of play style, I'm not really sure what you mean either.
-
I have personnally rarely had anything to say on how this forum is moderated.
Except when the moderation of mods themselves is involved (I have yet to see one being actually catacombed, and not just because his post was following a series of failposts).
That being said if you are looking for mods, and even if I have a job, I think that I still have time to devote to such a task. I may be a self righteous jerk but if I can help in any way I would be glad to do so.
It's a bit ironic that the individuals that bitch the most about biased moderation are those with the greatest difficulty in maintaining self restraint with train-wreck threads.
That's quite true and detrimental to those, but that is also a good ad hominem assertion to make. It doesnt adress the point.
-
It's worth pointing out that the number of times I've actually sent out official warnings to people is fewer than the number of fingers on one hand. Thumb included. Usually I ask Silver to do it. Also, I've had several posts catacombed before. Just because it happened either in threads you weren't reading or during a period of time where you weren't looking at the forum doesn't mean it didn't happen.
As to Gyra's point, it's a very valid one and one that's been brought up in the thread already. The people who whine the loudest about moderation are typically the people who get moderated the most because they are incapable of changing their posting habits to follow the rules for whatever reason.
I've already made multiple comments to Silver about us needing more mods. It'll get looked into after I'm back from my vacation on Friday. In the meantime, I don't actually have a job at the moment (contrary to Silver's expectation :P) so that means I'm the one who'll be the first-responder to reports during the day on weekdays.
And just so we don't have any omgQQ about that, here's a reminder from my last post: Except in particularly egregious or blatantly obvious cases such as two and a half pages of shitposting, I rarely take moderation action without getting confirmation from Silver, even if it's something like moving one post to the catacombs. And if he disagrees with me, I go with his decision.
People also need to remember that many reports are not acted on - the only time people complain is when we actually take action.
Odd that they respect the decision when we choose not to, tbh.
-
Where did I say it never happened ?
-
And where did I use the word never? (Hint: I didn't.)
You might not have said it explicitly, but rather than let the usual "omg qq mods suck forum anarchy 4eva" crowd take the implication and run with the "I didn't see it therefore it didn't happen" nonsense, I made sure you were aware that I've had posts catacombed before. I'm not the only mod it's happened to, either, by the way.
-
Haven't been around for long, so I can't have a full view of it, but as far as I've seen, this forum is actually pretty well moderated. After almost a month around, only one post has been sent to the catacombs, and it's unsurprising that it did. I don't see the point here. It's not like we were back in Chatsubo or something... ;)
-
I would like to apologise for my part in said thread. The only thing I can really say in my defense is that that form of trolling is not at all something I do regularly, and only when I can't resist it. It tends to be due to the content of the thread, which (no offense intended, I'm just stating it) in this case was fundamentally flawed for reasons that have already been discussed.
I think the moderators do a fantastic job here, and despite this being one of the only ways for me to communicate with the roleplaying community at large these days, I would be willing to take a short ban if necessary.
I apologise once again.
-
And where did I use the word never? (Hint: I didn't.)
You might not have said it explicitly, but rather than let the usual "omg qq mods suck forum anarchy 4eva" crowd take the implication and run with the "I didn't see it therefore it didn't happen" nonsense, I made sure you were aware that I've had posts catacombed before. I'm not the only mod it's happened to, either, by the way.
"It didn't happen" is the same thing. As I said, you only choose to read what you want, I never said it didn't happen / never happened / whatever.
I said that I never witnessed it myself. Take the conclusions you want but do not put words into my mouth, please.
Put it more clearly then, my mistake for not doing so : I am refering to several cases where I had to directly or indirectly face a mod aggressive behavior and answers blatantly violating the rules, either reported it or just stupidly answered to them, but no consequences so far.
I can understand that you personally feel targeted every time I bring it on the table since it is mostly about yourself, but I am not putting in question your position as a moderator or anything. I am saying that no matter how justified the mod team feels about a particular issue, a mod should never resort to break the rules himself to make his point across - at the risk of turning completely hypocritical - as you seem to do regularly, with the approval of Silver.
That is my issue, and I consider it important enough not to fall into the same shitty arguments we already had.
And no need to resort to hyperboles and caricatures all over again. What the hell with "forum anarchy 4eva" ? :/
-
~self moderation~
-
And where did I use the word never? (Hint: I didn't.)
You might not have said it explicitly, but rather than let the usual "omg qq mods suck forum anarchy 4eva" crowd take the implication and run with the "I didn't see it therefore it didn't happen" nonsense, I made sure you were aware that I've had posts catacombed before. I'm not the only mod it's happened to, either, by the way.
"It didn't happen" is the same thing. As I said, you only choose to read what you want, I never said it didn't happen / never happened / whatever.
I said that I never witnessed it myself. Take the conclusions you want but do not put words into my mouth, please.
Put it more clearly then, my mistake for not doing so : I am refering to several cases where I had to directly or indirectly face a mod aggressive behavior and answers blatantly violating the rules, either reported it or just stupidly answered to them, but no consequences so far.
I can understand that you personally feel targeted every time I bring it on the table since it is mostly about yourself, but I am not putting in question your position as a moderator or anything. I am saying that no matter how justified the mod team feels about a particular issue, a mod should never resort to break the rules himself to make his point across - at the risk of turning completely hypocritical - as you seem to do regularly, with the approval of Silver.
That is my issue, and I consider it important enough not to fall into the same shitty arguments we already had.
And no need to resort to hyperboles and caricatures all over again. What the hell with "forum anarchy 4eva" ? :/
While we generally don't discuss specific reports, since you raise the subject, I just went back through a year of the reports, and I only see 1 thread where you reported Morwen (twice). I actually modded Morwen, in that thread, based in part on your reports.
I can't really comment on other times where you responded instead of hitting the report button - which is why we encourage people to hit the report button rather than responding if they think a post is breaking the rules.
-
Took me over 3 hours to piece together this response, I really hope it clears up any and all issues present.
Haven't been around for long, so I can't have a full view of it, but as far as I've seen, this forum is actually pretty well moderated. After almost a month around, only one post has been sent to the catacombs, and it's unsurprising that it did. I don't see the point here. It's not like we were back in Chatsubo or something... ;)
Your not the only one who don't get the point. Clearly my communication skills are so fucking horrible I'll have to be completely dead-pan and direct to get my point across, so if that's what it takes, that's what will happen. Please allow me to try again.
I've left bold and italic lines in the below post to try and fully underline my meaning. Should ofc have done so to begin with, I am seriously wondering if I will have to do so all the time to get my meaning across without all the fuss and crap it generates at times.
Decided to dump this in this tread instead of making a new one as my point here will involve the events chronicled in this tread anyhow.
So, regarding Isis' tread (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4010.60) that was finally locked:
Hi. I'm on vacation in Yellowstone this week, and am at my computer maybe 2 hours out of the entire day (literally, 15 minutes after breakfast before going out and getting on the snowmobiles, and an hour and a half before/after dinner or before bed). I was hoping not to have to step in and deal with this kind of utter bullshit while I was out, but I guess I forgot that Silver has a job and tends not to get opportunities to check the forum during the day.
I hope you enjoy your vacation. ;) When you are done, you can deal with this - if you bother, simply an opinion and a statement.
I feel no ill-will for you personally and hope your vacation goes great. When you are finished, then you can deal with this - because if you deal with it now it may possibly sour your mood nedlessly. It's meant to be a simple statement and my opinion. No more, no less.
The thread would've been locked ages ago otherwise, and as it stands I'm going to be strongly suggesting that a number of people who contributed to the problem instead of reporting posts/the thread and not posting be given formal warnings and/or short-term bans in the cases of people who have already had their warnings for this crap.
Personally, I would not mind a consequence for my actions under normal situations. But if it's coming from you, it feels very unfair. YOU will strongly suggest that a number of people get formal warnings or temp-bans for choosing entertainment at the cost of a fellow member instead of sticking to forum regulations? Again, if that was from practically any other mod, that would be fine. But not you. You see Morwen...
If I get modded for anything, that's okay with me. I expect to be treated in accordance with the rules and do not mind this happening. However I get the personal, physical feeling that moderation action from Morwen specifically, in the service as a mod, is unjustified. The moderation action in the tread these quotes are taken from is not a problem, the whole tread they were from is irrelevant to my point.
Pretty much everyone who's posted in this thread should know better.
...you should know better as well. As far as I'm concerned you blatantly and deliberately violated the very rules you are supposedly a mod for - in this very tread - in order to 'make a point' or whatever. Silver read this over and, as a fellow mod, practically brushed your offense under the rug. At that point I just said 'fuck it, can't be bothered' to myself and left the issue be. However, I find myself unable to NOT post this post in regards to your most recent ruling.
That is because, if you are the one to render judgment in this regard, then I would like to demand you too be judged by the same regulations that you uphold. Let Silver or any other mod deal out warnings and/or bans. You don't have the right to.
Morwen is a moderator. Moderators uphold the rules. Moderators are expected to be better than violating those. Accidents happen and are dealt with. Morwen however deliberately broke the rules he enforces as a mod. I would expect this to be dealt with as well.
Silver Night, another mod, read this over and practically ignored it. This led to me feeling betrayed by the system because apparently I was to mind the rules and could expect to be modded if I stepped over them, but a mod who broke the rules deliberately got no reaction of note.
When this happened I decided to leave the matter alone for the time being. The original topic in this tread had been dealt with and while Morwen received no reaction for his actions I knew that eventually, some day, a situation might arise that prompted dealing with this again.
This has now happened. A whole tread that no-one should have bothered to respond to was finally (and justifiably) cata'ed and the fact the mod was Morwen made me feel wrong - in regards to the issue at hand here. I am now brining this up. I don't feel that Morwen has a right to mod others for a set of rules he can apparently violate at will. As far as I know there is only this one example of this, but it seems this is enough that I don't feel like I can just let this topic slide.
In short: The tread I got the quotes from has absolutely nothing to do with my point and this topic. This tread is now SOLELY about my impression about the moderation on these boards and apparent leniency in reaction towards a mod breaking the rules he mods others for. There is only one example of this so far however and it's in this tread.
I would like to point out that I have absolutely zero issues with being moderated, as it stands. If I get moderated, I can go review both the rules and my modded material and see the reasons for myself. I feel moderation here is quite fair and balanced... excepting this one deviation from the norm. Once this has been cleared up there will be no issues about moderation on Backstage for me.
@ Vikarion:
You missed my point. In fact, you 4-arrogant-paragraphs missed it.
I am NOT whining; I am complaining, at worst. Do you want to hear whining? This is whining: The mods are so unfair! I get modded all the time but you never see any mods get the hammer! Morwen modded me and then he broke the rules and then Silver didn't even punish him, that's soooo unfaaaaair - and so on.
I am not whining. I am raising a complaint about the one deviation I have seen from a perfectly fair moderation team and I'd like this cleared up. That is all.
@ Morwen
It seems you also missed my point, your post indicates this, especially the fact you think Vikarion explained it. Hopefully this will be a bit cleared above by now. I wouldn't know, I can't tell if my 'clarification' even makes things easier, as I keep failing in basic language skills.
I am not however, terribly amused by the fact you seem to think a 'deal with it' attitude is appropriate. I do however find it grimly amusing that I am in fact, 'dealing with it' by making this very post in this very tread that is now about an issue I have with the moderation team.
@ Gyra Rho
I may not be alone in your definition of 'those that bitch the most about biased moderation' but it seems in this case it was aimed specifically at me. I would like to point out that this tread is the first time I see an issue with the moderation team at all, and this is thus also the first time I bring this up. I am not 'bitching' about moderation, fair or no, I am bringing forth a complaint, and clearing up a misunderstanding that I am partially responsible for.
@ Kathrina Oniseki
Is this really needed Kat? Telling everyone to take any kind of deviation from expected mod behavior with a smile, or make a 'no rules' board for ourself? Is there no room for pointing out what we think are problems without being told to HTFU or GTFO?
@ Silver Night
I can understand that you and Morwen has jobs and lives to lead. I do too. As stated the locked topic that I lifted the quotes from has nothing to do really with this issue and neither is the the speed at replying to it. That's really all there is for me to say about that part.
If you have a problem with a mod, this is the right place to bring it up. That being said, using every time you get modded to try and dig up this same thread - where the circumstances have already been explained to you - is not appropriate. Saying 'You did this thing that I think was against the rules once, so I'm going to start shit every time you mod' is not appropriate.
I don't 'use every time I get modded' to try to dig up this tread - this is the FIRST time it has ever happened, and it is also the ONLY time it needs to be done. I have not stated anywhere or in any form that I will start this up every time Morwen happen to mod me, I stated that Morwen's authority as a mod is undermined, IN MY OPINION, because of the events of this tread. No, starting shit every time he opens his mouth to mod anything I'm involved with is not appropriate at all, thus why it has not happened and never will.
If you think the mod team here is biased against you and they don't 'have the right' to mod you, don't post. If you post, you are subject to the mod team - and being subject to being moderated in general isn't something that's up for discussion (distinct, mind you, from discussion of specific instances of moderation - the way this thread started out.)
I don't feel that the mod team is biased at all, least of all 'against' me. That has not been my concern at all either. I feel the mod team does a great job, minus this one time in this tread. As a poster I am indeed subject to the mod team and don't get to discuss that. That's fine. that's fair. And I'm not.
Discussing moderation, is indeed distinct from the first and second points of this tread. When I made this tread, it was to gain clarification for exactly WHY a post of mine was in need of modding. It was not to argue against the modding itself, I trusted and still trust moderation to be fair. When the clarification was made however, Morwen saw fit to break a rule he himself had modded me for. That did not seem fair at all and that's how the second point of this tread came to be, and that is still where we are now, this is merely a re-start of it.
Disagreeing with Morwen, and then disagreeing with my assessment of Morwen's conduct doesn't make you right.
I am not looking to be 'right'. You and Morwen are both mods. I did not, and have not, EVER disagree with Morwen or yourself in regards to what should and should not be moderated. I am not looking to be 'right' and have any kind of mod-action revoked. I am looking to figure out how Morwen's action was okay when me doing the same was not.
It doesn't make me right either, but the issue has been addressed and the decision has been made. And while there have been mod decisions I was on the fence about int he past, this wasn't really one of them (the original situation that spawned this thread, or the new one). Also, if i wanted to 'brush under the rug' the way Morwen posted, it would be gone or edited. Instead we explained why. Again - disagreeing with your assessment of Morwen's post isn't brushing it under the rug. It's disagreeing.
You addressed the issue and you made your decision. Your decision, as well as Morwen's, regarding the original "Diplomatic return of Caldari Prime" tread was completely correct and on the spot. I do not refute this, nor do I refute the locking of Isis's tread, what I have issue with and what I feel you brush under a rug, is how Morwen responded to a tread asking for clarification regarding a locked tread.
NOTE: I will fully admit that people tend to misunderstand what I mean. This is mostly my own fault. But this issue, at it's core, was that a mod responded with condensating arrogance to a request for clarity. Quotes below.
Entirely self-explanatory. Urdoinitrong is not acceptable here. If you can't post without it at least looking like you tried to avoid urdoinitrong, don't post at all. To others: if you think a thread is in poor form, report it instead of responding to it.
"Entirely self-explanatory." (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3908.0)
No not really, because I'm apparently to dumb to see how this is correct, and as such I don't get it.
An explanation, prefferably with some details, would be nice, Morwen.
In the meantime, let's sugar-coat it with some absolute neutrality in tone. Let's try again. (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3909.0)
I figured we were all adults here, and that everyone was capable of reviewing the rules themselves given the hint I gave without the need for me to hold their hands and read the rules to them like a bedtime story. Apparently not.
It was entirely self-explanatory...
The only reaction to this action from a different mod that I can find it from you, Silver:
Morwen was a bit more aggressive than I might have been, but given the circumstances, not inappropriately so I think.
And that's all there really was to it - I made a tread, people responded, Morwen responded, there was a series of posts arguing, you came along and declared that Morwen's reply was not 'inappropriately aggressive given the circumstances'.
The entire tread about this issue can be read here on page 1 and 2.
I'm still feeling iffy about the idea that a mod can do this:
Was my first response aggressive? Sure. Not going to deny that. But it was also intentional. The aggression (and resulting hypocrisy) was the point, because it's how your original topic came across. It's also why I wrote a second, more calm post later on.
Wait a second, you were intentionally aggressive with me because I had originally been aggressive and got my first post cata'ed? How is that supposed to help at all? Why did you even need to do the very thing I got modded for in the first place? Could you not have simply omited that part of your post and left the constructive bits be?
And it's not considered bad enough to be 'inappropriately aggressive given the circumstances'. As you wish.
You are the admin. You pay for the site, and I appreciate that. I make use of and enjoy myself on these boards, after all.
In closing, I'd like to state that I'm not trying to get anyone on my 'side' - I am not making camps here - I'm trying to make sense of your choice, obviously this is because I'm biased, (to my own viewpoint, ofc) but also because I can't see how you reached your conclusion regarding this issue.
You have no compelling reason - besides my sense of clarity on the topic - to tell me, but I'd like to know your reasoning for reaching your conclusion in this manner.
And that's it. That should clarify my problem in a satisfactory manner. I've spent a great deal of time going over this and if it's still not good enough, my skills are simply insufficient to get my message across.
Now, gonna do something else and get my mind of things for a bit...
-
@ Kathrina Oniseki
Is this really needed Kat? Telling everyone to take any kind of deviation from expected mod behavior with a smile, or make a 'no rules' board for ourself? Is there no room for pointing out what we think are problems without being told to HTFU or GTFO?
I guess it's not really needed. I'm just used to handling things that way, and it's worked out just fine for me so far. I guess on a larger scale it might not be the best way of doing things.
EDIT: Also I will scratch you with my kat claws for calling me "Kathrina" xD
-
Quick reply, as I'm at work - going back to what (I think) was the issue that you still had questions about, Bloodbird:
My evaluation and my understanding of the 'aggressive' post by Morwen was that it was an attempt (perhaps not a clear or well executed one, but I do think this was if anything rhetorical incompetence on Morwen's part, rather than malice :|) to illustrate by example.
I understand that it can be read the other way, and I apologize if my own replay to your concerns wasn't detailed enough. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
On the subject of 'Deal with it' - you should maybe read the FAQ.
Finally, I would like to remind everyone in the thread that just because this is the Mod Discussion forum doesn't mean the rules don't apply (and indeed that's the very subject ounder discussion in teh second half of this thread). Calling people (for example) whiners or arrogant is not the way to go, and moving forward in this thread will result in moderation.
-
Finally, I would like to remind everyone in the thread that just because this is the Mod Discussion forum doesn't mean the rules don't apply (and indeed that's the very subject ounder discussion in teh second half of this thread). Calling people (for example) whiners or arrogant is not the way to go, and moving forward in this thread will result in moderation.
Noted. I've deleted the content of my offending post.
-
And where did I use the word never? (Hint: I didn't.)
You might not have said it explicitly, but rather than let the usual "omg qq mods suck forum anarchy 4eva" crowd take the implication and run with the "I didn't see it therefore it didn't happen" nonsense, I made sure you were aware that I've had posts catacombed before. I'm not the only mod it's happened to, either, by the way.
"It didn't happen" is the same thing. As I said, you only choose to read what you want, I never said it didn't happen / never happened / whatever.
I said that I never witnessed it myself. Take the conclusions you want but do not put words into my mouth, please.
Put it more clearly then, my mistake for not doing so : I am refering to several cases where I had to directly or indirectly face a mod aggressive behavior and answers blatantly violating the rules, either reported it or just stupidly answered to them, but no consequences so far.
I can understand that you personally feel targeted every time I bring it on the table since it is mostly about yourself, but I am not putting in question your position as a moderator or anything. I am saying that no matter how justified the mod team feels about a particular issue, a mod should never resort to break the rules himself to make his point across - at the risk of turning completely hypocritical - as you seem to do regularly, with the approval of Silver.
That is my issue, and I consider it important enough not to fall into the same shitty arguments we already had.
And no need to resort to hyperboles and caricatures all over again. What the hell with "forum anarchy 4eva" ? :/
While we generally don't discuss specific reports, since you raise the subject, I just went back through a year of the reports, and I only see 1 thread where you reported Morwen (twice). I actually modded Morwen, in that thread, based in part on your reports.
I can't really comment on other times where you responded instead of hitting the report button - which is why we encourage people to hit the report button rather than responding if they think a post is breaking the rules.
I did not report Morwen's posts on this very thread ? oO
I thought I had.
-
I'll double check when I get home, but I don't see any report from you for this thread (actually, I don't see any reports for Morwen's post for this thread, which seems odd with all the discussion, so I will definitely double check).
-
I honestly don't remember now. Maybe I haven't.
EDIT : now I read the beginning again, it appears that I stupidly answered and probably did not report it. The moderation section is confusing for that.
-
I see your point Bloodbird. :)
-
@ Gyra Rho
I may not be alone in your definition of 'those that bitch the most about biased moderation' but it seems in this case it was aimed specifically at me. I would like to point out that this tread is the first time I see an issue with the moderation team at all, and this is thus also the first time I bring this up. I am not 'bitching' about moderation, fair or no, I am bringing forth a complaint, and clearing up a misunderstanding that I am partially responsible for.
It's not personal, rather a general observation made after considerable experience viewing this site. It's almost as bad as complaining about hyper-moderation, just after setting great examples of why strong moderation is needed. Or when someone apologizes for contributing to a thread after commenting that it was easily the 'best thread on backstage right now'. It's just a prime example of how enthralled humans are by conflict and drama, and why the looming specter of Chatsubo continues to haunt these halls.
But please, don't let me interrupt. The injustice must be purged!
-
Or when someone apologizes for contributing to a thread after commenting that it was easily the 'best thread on backstage right now'.
For the record, I am apologizing for making things difficult for the mods. I still think the thread was hilarious, and thats why I'm perfectly willing to accept a ban should the mods deem it necessary :)
-
But please, don't let me interrupt. The injustice must be purged!
You are not doing yourself any favors - park the high horse.
@ Silver Night
Noted. Perhaps next time I'll resort to mails and avoid a bit of drama...