Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vikarion]

Well, I ask because - although I didn't start the thread - I do think it is an issue that people could come to a resolution on, and if any place can do it, this one can.

It should go without saying, but people need to understand that someone's stance on RP issues has no bearing on the kind of person they are in real life. Nor does your limited interaction with someone in Eve give you carte blanche to pronounce judgment on them, their lifestyle, their morality, etc.

From my point of view, the strict moderation here isn't designed to keep people from being offended, but to eradicate the irrelevant dickery that removes the potential for logical, reasoned discussion.

[Ciarente]

The mods job would be much easier if someone could come up with a webutility to measure "irrelvant dickery" and "logical, reasoned discussion" by universally accepted standards

[Matariki Rain]

I, for one, enjoy teasing out this topic. It's at the heart of a lot of RP issues, and I've had some good discussions about it, including with Cia and Else while the thread here was running, and with Jade Constantine in LM OOC at the beginning of the year when the topic was hot on IGS.

I think one of the reasons it can be difficult to discuss is that the realities are often complex and nuanced. I happen to think that hypocrisy isn't the worst sin there is, and that the areas where we don't necessarily want to be consistent are often the ones that are most interesting.

Those factors mean I'd like to find ways to talk about IC-and-OOC without assuming that the most important thing is to adopt a consistent overall position which will, most likely, always or never deal with certain problem cases. Describe the different sorts of things we'd like our approaches to be able to cope with, but accept that sometimes our responses are conditional, depending on the characters/players/circumstances.

If we do manage to resume the discussion, could we find a way to say "hm, X and Y seem to be inconsistent: how does that work for you?" as a genuine question trying to open up the next stage of things?

[Jade Constantine]

I think the problem with today's thread is the historic one that its always inflamatory to begin such discussions with an incident one feels strongly about. And beginning with the hypothesis that another player is "cheating" because they have different standards and approaches to RP is never going to fly terribly well.

This ic/ooc journal thing has rattled on for years though and likely always will because it represents a differing experience of RP from players descended from different schools of the hobby (tabletop vs larp for one example).

As always I'm very happy to discuss this with anybody in a reasonable tone and respectful debate.

[scagga]

It should go without saying, but people need to understand that someone's stance on RP issues does not necessarily have bearing on the kind of person they are in real life.  

Fixed that one for you old chap.

[scagga]

I appreciate the suggestions, Scagga. I do think that pre-emptively excluding anyone from talking about a specific topic is a bit problematic.

We do try to use 'snip' editing where it's, well, basically feasible. When a thread reaches a stage where 90% of the posts in it have been reported by someone for something, a portions of those posts are inappropriate in their entirety, and most of the others refer to those posts ... 'snip' editing does become a herculean task and when the end result is likely to look like a smattering of posts that no longer make sense without context and a smattering of others reduced to a patchwork of sentences, locking the thread and moving the whole thing becomes really the only practical option.  

I'm also, personally, beginning to agree a little with a view expressed in the early discussion of these forums about 'snip' moderation: knowing that a mod will edit your post to remove the insults, flames and trolling but leave the rest intact removes incentive to self moderate and exercise a little common sense. It actually takes a lot less time to read through a post you've composed and delete things than it does for a mod to carefully, in the interests of transparency, move each offensive sentence to the catacombs. So every over-the-line post is, in a way, a statement to the moderators that 'hey, your time is worth about 1/5 of mine!'.

Time out locks have been used in the past, and are of varying popularity: I got five PMs in a minute after locking a thread for a 'time out', and the opinion was firmly expressed that posters felt they had been sent to the 'naughty chair'. I note too that a mod posted in the thread earlish on, with mod hat on, pointing out the potential for the whole thing to go pearshaped downhill without a canoe or whatever, and some posters expressed a sense of grievance at the intervention.

I'd also like to point out, as a general observation, that moderators have a lot more difficulty 'cleaning' and 'pruning' a thread when people respond to flames or to flamebait. Just report the post, and if a mod isn't there to deal with it right that second, take a deep breath and give yourself a cooldown period.      

Thanks for the feedback.  I may have not given a clear account of what I meant in the original post.  My views on moderation haven't changed all that much since we had our backstage backstage (see what I did there?) discussions.  I'll put more time into it this evening.

[scagga]

With respect to the subject matter raised this morning - I naturally agree with the statement re: snip moderation, as evidenced by our previous discussions on the matter.

Regarding temporarily excluding someone from a discussion, I would agree that pre-emptively excluding someone would be potentially problematic.  However, if threads were going downhill largely due to repeat offenses commited by one poster despite warnings, it would not be unreasonable to have their temporarily exclusion from the thread considered. On reflection however, I can see it as a deeply embarrassing kind of punishment and would now think it as a method that would do more harm than good.

[Vikarion]

The mods job would be much easier if someone could come up with a webutility to measure "irrelvant dickery" and "logical, reasoned discussion" by universally accepted standards

That's easy. "Logical, reasoned discussion" is when I make a post. "Irrelevant dickery" is when someone disagrees.

See? Very simple. Very logical. Don't try to disagree.