Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => Moderation Discussion => Topic started by: Ollie on 05 Nov 2013, 18:09
-
It's always bad to begin with a disclaimer but here it is anyway (and in two parts no less):
1. I have no disagreements with the fact the entire thread was catacomb'd (except that it probably should have happened far sooner, but mods are human and all that)
2. No disagreement with the reasoning given for my post being modded either - I reported the post(s) I thought crossed the line, then made my post, thought about immediately deleting it and couldn't be bothered to go ahead and do that as I had other things to take care of. Fair call from the mods.
My question then is why wasn't the thread modded sooner?
If we look at the OP it's been modded as flamebait/YDIW from the outset. I think few would disagree with that on an objective read-through - what Andreus said wasn't necessarily wrong or anything but the way he phrased it crossed the lines drawn by the mod team.
The second post - a response to the flamebait OP - was made by the mod who, about a day later, finally decided "weapons grade flamebait" had been deployed. The mod is a smart and experienced operator. It seems hard to believe they looked at that OP and failed to initially see it as the flamebait they eventually modded it as before replying.
I understand that mods reserve the right to not only apply the rules as stated but also as interpreted within the context of the discussion taking place. However, instead of making that first response wouldn't either modding immediately or contacting Andreus privately to see if he wanted to rephrase his statement have been a more reasonable way to do things?
-
I've got work to do, so I'm going to attempt to be brief (and probably fail).
1. I have no disagreements with the fact the entire thread was catacomb'd (except that it probably should have happened far sooner, but mods are human and all that)
I did not catacomb "the entire thread". I catacombed approximately 25 posts starting in the general area where reports were targeted, based on a specific point that was, beyond being the earliest post that was reported, pretty clearly ground zero for the subsequent spiral. Furthermore, as stated elsewhere (in the catacombed section, in fact), prior to yesterday morning, only one report was ever submitted by anyone about any post in that thread at all, and not only was it not Lyn as I confirmed for him, the report was disagreed with by every moderator who chose to look at it, and discarded (subsequently ignored) as a result.
2. No disagreement with the reasoning given for my post being modded either - I reported the post(s) I thought crossed the line, then made my post, thought about immediately deleting it and couldn't be bothered to go ahead and do that as I had other things to take care of. Fair call from the mods.
To be fair, I shouldn't have included that note in your post when it was tossed into the bin with the rest, since we're technically not supposed to disclose that information. The point made there still stands, as we both seem to agree: Don't report one or more posts and then respond to them, and don't respond to posts you think should be reported.
My question then is why wasn't the thread modded sooner?
There are, at last count, six active members of the eight-person moderation team. Another is available on request for forum tweaks and software updates as needed, and another is taking an extended break from EVE.
However, despite there being six of us, not all of us care to spend our entire day watching the forum like a bunch of hawks. On any given day, only some of us are going to check the forum - I check it several times a day because I'm bored as fuck at work and often have 5-10 minutes to spare between assignments and builds and all that jazz. I can't speak to the others, who may only have the opportunity first thing in the morning or in the evening.
In this particular case, as I stated already, nobody reported anything in the thread that was deemed to be worth looking at until yesterday morning; furthermore, I had elected to avoid participating in moderation in this thread on the grounds that I had been personally targeted by the guy and didn't feel like dealing with people bitching and whining if I did take action. (Irony abounds, of course, I still got people bending over and spraying shit at me anyway.)
On top of that, none of the other moderators seemed to find any issues in the thread until yesterday either.
If we look at the OP it's been modded as flamebait/YDIW from the outset. I think few would disagree with that on an objective read-through - what Andreus said wasn't necessarily wrong or anything but the way he phrased it crossed the lines drawn by the mod team.
The second post - a response to the flamebait OP - was made by the mod who, about a day later, finally decided "weapons grade flamebait" had been deployed. The mod is a smart and experienced operator. It seems hard to believe they looked at that OP and failed to initially see it as the flamebait they eventually modded it as before replying.
I did not initially feel his post qualified as flamebait. It was rude and condescending and (imo) based on a crock of bullshit, but not flamebait. And I'd already taken the position I would avoid having a hand in moderation in the thread, and would let the five other mods handle it if necessary.
I only took action a whole day later, because the thread took a very sharp turn off a cliff overnight while I was asleep, and when I logged into EVE to check mail before leaving for work, I was greeted by people fucking screaming about the thread ingame, spamming reports at the system, and bitching at me to do something about it.
So I had two choices: let it continue getting worse while waiting for another moderator to deal with it, or apply cleansing fire to the newly-problematic portion of the thread after I got to work. Since the former was clearly not an option and would only have resulted in more panty-twisting and pissing and moaning directed my way because none of the other moderators were around or likely to be anytime soon, I chose the latter. I scanned through the reports (6 reports, spanning 4 different posts), decided that Andy's post was the root of the problem since everything after it was responding to it or responses to it, and nuked everything onward.
I understand that mods reserve the right to not only apply the rules as stated but also as interpreted within the context of the discussion taking place. However, instead of making that first response wouldn't either modding immediately or contacting Andreus privately to see if he wanted to rephrase his statement have been a more reasonable way to do things?
Reasonable, maybe. Productive, no: again, I didn't see it as flamebait at the time, but I also neither have the time nor the patience for that shit, especially after him making several rule-breaking posts in a row later on. He made some comments in the catacombed section that if I were to direct at him would more or less sum up my view, and probably that of others, on that.
-
Clarification : can we not use those hyperbolic wordings like "fucking screaming about the thread", "spamming reports at the system" and "bitching at me" unless that's really what you think ?
Because if filling only 2 VERY different reports is spamming reports at the system (Maybe other people did as well ? But did they spamm them ? I didn't...), then maybe I shall stop using that report button at all ? And then i'm told I fill no reports... Make up your minds people.
If also just signaling the thread on the OOC channel and telling that it might need moderation before turning into nuclear holocaust is fucking screaming about the thread and bitching at you, then maybe I should remain silent and laugh watching it degenerate to no end and then quietly listen to the mods asking for people to report and help them moderate with more ease as it should be ?
If you need to vent your frustration as a mod - which is understandable - I would appreciate if it's not at the expense of the users of this forum... :ugh:
-
Morwen is pretty clearly not complaining about people reporting the thread (though maybe complaining a little about people bothering him elsewhere) - he is explaining why he felt compelled to take action even though as a thread participant he would usually wait to let another mod do it, and in spite of an intial assessment that the thread started out within the rules.
-
I agree with his explanation and it was me that noticed on OOC that something had to be done, and he clearly stated "I can't I have answered in that post already". It's not my point.
He may be not complaining about people reporting the thread, but why using those words then ? Because as it currently reads it's exactly telling me (and others probably) that we are an annoying pain in the ass "spamming the system", "fucking screaming" and "bitching at him", his words.
-
When I get jumped in multiple channels about it immediately after logging in, what do you think my response is going to be when I'm trying to get one thing done so I can leave for work?
I made that "hands off" statement, then looked at the forum quickly and decided "fuck conflict of interest, that shit is getting stamped on when I get to work if nobody's gotten to it yet". And I did. Against my original better judgement, because people whined at me to do it when nobody else was around to do so.
I don't give two shits whether you, or anyone else for that matter, approve of my impression of the situation when I logged into EVE Monday morning. The feeling I got from being jumped on immediately was that I would be incapable of just looking at the posts and reports on the forum and making a judgement call of whether to do anything about it from that alone.
I did something I didn't want to do out of potential conflict of interest issues (because people asked me to anyway), which people very frequently complain about, and now I'm getting bitched at by the people who asked me to do it?
-
You know Lyn I might take your wounded virgin act regarding Morwens language a bit more serious if it weren't for the fact that your hands aren't much cleaner, wether by design or not.
We've been down this road before I feel. Call is made and you jump into it trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
First it's Morwens call, then it's Morwens language and tone that you (Not "we". I see no one but you making these claims. If there are others then let them speak for themselves or provide sources) take offense at.
Silver gave you this (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4883.msg78554#msg78554) advice and I urge you to read it again.
Whatever you do:
Don't report and reply. All it does is make me think you're trying to get a final dig in before moderation and try to "win" the topic.
-
When I get jumped in multiple channels about it immediately after logging in, what do you think my response is going to be when I'm trying to get one thing done so I can leave for work?
I made that "hands off" statement, then looked at the forum quickly and decided "fuck conflict of interest, that shit is getting stamped on when I get to work if nobody's gotten to it yet". And I did. Against my original better judgement, because people whined at me to do it when nobody else was around to do so.
I don't give two shits whether you, or anyone else for that matter, approve of my impression of the situation when I logged into EVE Monday morning. The feeling I got from being jumped on immediately was that I would be incapable of just looking at the posts and reports on the forum and making a judgement call of whether to do anything about it from that alone.
I did something I didn't want to do out of potential conflict of interest issues (because people asked me to anyway), which people very frequently complain about, and now I'm getting bitched at by the people who asked me to do it?
I said above and will say again that I fully support your moderation action. I'm just a bit baffled to read the language your used above to describe our reactions as users.
You know Lyn I might take your wounded virgin act regarding Morwens language a bit more serious if it weren't for the fact that your hands aren't much cleaner, wether by design or not.
We've been down this road before I feel. Call is made and you jump into it trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
First it's Morwens call, then it's Morwens language and tone that you (Not "we". I see no one but you making these claims. If there are others then let them speak for themselves or provide sources) take offense at.
Silver gave you this (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=4883.msg78554#msg78554) advice and I urge you to read it again.
Whatever you do:
Don't report and reply. All it does is make me think you're trying to get a final dig in before moderation and try to "win" the topic.
1) If it sounds like a wounded virgin act, then it is an inability on my behalf to make it sound otherwise. I shall try to fix this then, my apologies, since that is not the intention. I just do not understand why such language from a moderator is still tolerated, and will continue to point it out until something is done about it. It's highly disrespectful at the very least. And if you are still not convinced, put yourself in my shoes for once, start reporting things out of line, and then go read derogatory and insulting comments on your reporting. Maybe it sounds like a wounded virgin act, but trying to derail the subject to how I look is pretty fail in terms of addressing the point.
2) You consider it a molehill, I consider it a moderately serious issue, or even serious considering that yep, indeed, I am not the only one to have a grief with that. Well, they do not voice their concerns, fine, that's just me then. But i'm pretty sure you will find enough posts on the catacombs or that moderation section (Bloodbird comes to mind, but not only him) where people explicitly complained about that aggressive, or passive aggressive behaviour that should not happen coming from a mod.
3) Every time a concern about the moderation is voiced, or a specific individual in the moderation team, then another one or more usually come to his help. It makes it feel like an echo chamber where defending mod honour seems more important than acting righteously. What I mean is that I am still waiting to see a mod reprimanded for crude and inappropriate language, or aggressive answers (which is close to abuse of authority).
4) I reported the "crock of bullshit" part, which is completely independent of the derogatory hyperboles used and discussed here. I will keep that in mind for the future though since I thought it was going to cause problems, and apparently it does. But anyway reporting does not work when it's about moderation issues, from experience. Why should I use something that is disregarded every time ?
Edit : also, could you specify what you mean by that my hands aren't much cleaner ?
-
You also clearly did not read my post carefully.
I stated my opinion that his post was based on a crock of bullshit - that is, the false assumption that nobody had bothered trying to talk to the guy - not that his post itself was a crock of bullshit, in the context of "I saw his post as XYZ but not Q, so I responded instead of hitting it with the 'fuck off to the catacombs' bat."
There is only so far I'm willing to extend the "language barriers" excuse before I start calling it a deliberate campaign to find any excuse to report any post I make, Lyn.
-
Um, I've defended some of Morwen's stuff before, but looking at the catacombed thread, it seems to me that Morwen was breaking the rules more than Andreus, at least on the first page. And how does "you could have talked to him" break the rules of this forum? Is there some sort of rule that none of us can pretend to have a better solution than anyone else?
Maybe there's some sort of implication that I'm missing.
Now, if implying that other forum users might not have used the best method of working out a problem is in and of itself a violation of the rules of the forum, then shut it down, guys, it's time to go home. Better ban Silas for asking how to make Eve exciting again. That thread on what music you are listening to? Yeah, you're implying that your music is better than other's.
Really, this looks like someone didn't like being upstaged or disagreed with. Perhaps someone's opportunity for moral outrage was being removed.
Certainly, some posts needed modding. But ones like this one: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5493.msg90016#msg90016 (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=5493.msg90016#msg90016) ? Really? I've seen people post far more pointed and nasty things, and the moderators defend their decision not to mod it. And this was called "flamebait"? You'd have to really want to get mad to find that post very offensive in tone or content.
And since when is flamebait defined by people's responses to it? If I post about toleration, and six neo-nazis post after me (no, I'm not calling this similar, just reducing to the absurd), is my post then flamebait? Andy's post is very reasonable: why not try talking to the guy? I, too, am surprised that you hadn't tried, if you found his RP so offensive. This "flame-bait after the fact" idea, complete with warnings and/or bans, is nothing more than an attempt to justify punishment for unforeseen consequences. It's entirely arbitrary. Anything you say can be responded to badly, and, whee, there we go, you were flame-baiting.
And yeah, it's a principle-of-the-thing sort of situation. Could Andy's first post have been more nicely put? Sure. But I've seen plenty of meaner posts that weren't found offensive, and, moreover, his post didn't deserve to be shit on. A reasonable response might have been "well, I concluded from his style that he wasn't interested in dialogue". Instead we got "It's a very simple concept: if you want people to actually engage you in serious discussion and talk to you rather than calling you a godmodding troll, you don't shitpost in the manner he was." from Morwen. Which, incidentally, is apparently not flame-bait. The distinction eludes me, here.
-
Actually, Vikarion, you are right, sort of. That thread shouldn't have been allowed to go on as long as it did. The reason it did is that the character in questions is apparently essentially some sort of obscene caricature of an Amarrian that even CCP has pretty much labeled a troll, and who is in addition engaged in things that likely run afoul of the TOS.
We have a very low tolerance for 'X is terrible' threads, however this character seems like they might slip in under it - Andreus pointed this out, actually, in one of the modded posts where he mentioned that if it was someone else it would have been modded previously. This handily ignores the fact that it isn't about someone else, just as your reduction to the absurd ignores the fact that it isn't a different post we are talking about, it is a specific post.
However while I think the posts that were catacombed should have been catacombed, I also think that whether or not the person deserves all the negativity heaped upon them, the thread itself doesn't serve a useful or constructive purpose. Not particularly for the sake of Slaver Filth, but for the sake of the atmosphere of the board - which I don't think that that thread lives up to or serves. As such, I'm locking the whole thing.
-
You also clearly did not read my post carefully.
I stated my opinion that his post was based on a crock of bullshit - that is, the false assumption that nobody had bothered trying to talk to the guy - not that his post itself was a crock of bullshit, in the context of "I saw his post as XYZ but not Q, so I responded instead of hitting it with the 'fuck off to the catacombs' bat."
There is only so far I'm willing to extend the "language barriers" excuse before I start calling it a deliberate campaign to find any excuse to report any post I make, Lyn.
It was rude and condescending and (imo) based on a crock of bullshit, but not flamebait.
Pretty much reads into "it was imo based on a crock of bullshit". Can I too write that what someone says is (imo) based on a crock of bullshit ? If it's not the post itself that is a crock of bullshit, but the facts it's based upon it makes it suddenly ok ? You may well think that the facts are a crock of bullshit, but it's similar to what is already written in the polite posting culture of this forum : you can think that someone, his arguments, or his facts, are wrong, stupid, or whatever, but that doesn't make you right to tell him that it is. Disagreeing with you doesnt make them wrong, etc etc.
Actually I do not think that you ever tried to even understand what was the issue to begin with. Like most people here you are a great guy with whom I have had nice chats and interesting discussions over the years. And some RP too. I hold NOTHING against you, why would I ever want to run a campaign or slander or whatever vendetta you seem to think i'm so fond of ?
Tbh I don't even know anymore how I could say it. The only thing I have been asking is for the moderation to take care in the form it takes at times. I'm just asking to read less unecessarily aggressive moderation because that does a huge disservice to the moderation credibility itself when it comes to deal with the real culprits, the trolls and the likes that use that as a (valid) tu quoque. I have seen some things that were not very respectful. That last case comes in mind as well.
Maybe I just do not have the same definition/notion of respect ? Sometimes I feel that the moderation answers in kind, like "fight fire with fire" or "an eye for an eye". It's wrong imo. Don't treat users like that.
That said now, whether it works or not - I have lost hope for quite some time now - i'm so tired of this that I will just stop caring altogether because it's becoming extremely unhealthy.
-
Andy's post is very reasonable: why not try talking to the guy? I, too, am surprised that you hadn't tried, if you found his RP so offensive.
I'm surprised people would talk to someone OOCly specifically because they found another person's RP offensive. I mean, if you're a moderator and you're banning someone for being offensive, I can understand having a duty to explain the situation, but otherwise, I'm not sure why I'd tell someone why I'm not engaging with them.
If I'm going to contact someone OOCly, it's likely because I've had a positive experience RPing with them.
-
In practice yes, and in the case of Slaver Filth it was so huge that nobody ever thought it could be genuine in the first place. Can't really blame the community for not reaching out to him... I guess he was kindof the exception that trolled us so far that he was actually maybe not a troll...
But considering that I too have seen countless cases of cumbersome newcomers with very few clues on how to handle RP, total novices, sometimes doing things that are well... you know what I mean... that genuinely because they do not know better, I tend to think that trying to see if the guy is a troll or not in the first place is always a good idea and there is nothing to lose in the process, only to gain a new motivated RPer if he answers positively.
-
This proves I should probably not be playing EVE. I even got along with and RPed with the obvious troll.
Am I just impossible to disgust or piss off anymore?
-
This proves I should probably not be playing EVE. I even got along with and RPed with the obvious troll.
Am I just impossible to disgust or piss off anymore?
(http://simplemedicinecenter.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/challenge-accepted.jpg)
-
This proves I should probably not be playing EVE. I even got along with and RPed with the obvious troll.
Am I just impossible to disgust or piss off anymore?
Well, I didn't RP with him, but I wasn't pissed off or disgusted either.
-
This proves I should probably not be playing EVE. I even got along with and RPed with the obvious troll.
Am I just impossible to disgust or piss off anymore?
/me raises hand to join this club
Only thing that can really piss me off most of the time is blatant, unrepentant stupidity. I found the guy amusing, though his meta-level screwery with the wiki and such caused much rolling of eyes.
I've kind of always believed a thick skin was an important prerequisite for this game, but apparently mine is thicker than most? *shrug*
-
The other Eve forum I read has a thread named "Autism General". A thick skin is something I'm quite proud of having, and Eve has definitely been a major part of forming it :P
-
The other Eve forum I read has a thread named "Autism General". A thick skin is something I'm quite proud of having, and Eve has definitely been a major part of forming it :P
FHC is a special place.
-
The other Eve forum I read has a thread named "Autism General". A thick skin is something I'm quite proud of having, and Eve has definitely been a major part of forming it :P
FHC is a special place.
Lurking4evar.
-
The other Eve forum I read has a thread named "Autism General". A thick skin is something I'm quite proud of having, and Eve has definitely been a major part of forming it :P
Sup.
-
The other Eve forum I read has a thread named "Autism General". A thick skin is something I'm quite proud of having, and Eve has definitely been a major part of forming it :P
Sup.
I refuse to register on FHC because the thought of Sofia with mod powers fucking terrifies me.
-
She is a usually benevolent (doesn't give a shit) moderator from what I've seen. Of course, I have no idea which sub-forum she actually moderates, because that would require paying attention.
-
I'm not actually a mod any more, fairly thankful of it too. Was a global mod, then scaled back to serious business and W&P (I made that thread which you're referring to, and it's totally accurate).
EntroX might ask me to do it again at some point though. Might even say yes.
-
Thanks for the response, Morwen. If I understand it (and can summarise it) correctly the reasoning is basically that you changed your mind on it (Andy's post that is) being flamebait in the context of an escalating explosion of posts that contravened the rules. If that's accurate, that's perfectly understandable and a good answer to the question I asked.
To clarify a couple of things from your response post:
1. I have no disagreements with the fact the entire thread was catacomb'd (except that it probably should have happened far sooner, but mods are human and all that)
I did not catacomb "the entire thread". I catacombed approximately 25 posts starting in the general area where reports were targeted, based on a specific point that was, beyond being the earliest post that was reported, pretty clearly ground zero for the subsequent spiral.
Yeah, that was my derp. I was reading the forum through a smartphone app. For some reason it either showed Andy's post as being post #1 in that thread or I read it as such - I was multitasking at the time. For some reason I thought this was a separate thread to the one it was actually a part of. Sorry for any confusion that chain of events caused.
To be fair, I shouldn't have included that note in your post when it was tossed into the bin with the rest, since we're technically not supposed to disclose that information.
I know where you're coming from (rules/ethics for mod staff, etc) but I wasn't concerned by that at all. I don't report too much (at least I don't think I do) and I've no problem with people knowing when I do or what I do it for. Like I should have said in the original - no harm, no foul and no offense taken on my part.
-
That's basically it, yes - and I wouldn't have been the one to moderate it if there had been any indication any of the other moderators would have shown up before it spiraled even further.
There wasn't any such indication, so, I did. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :psyccp: