Print

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

[The Cosmopolite]

Is it possible on this forum?

We have a rule against paraphrasing subject to clarification.

We have a rule against interpretation of what people say subject to correction.

How do we even carry on a serious discussion here if we have to constantly quote and re-quote before responding?

It is part of the art of serious discussion to sum up one's interpretations of what others have been said and, crucially, be willing to be corrected on that interpretation. That latter point is the important and real issue. People who constantly paraphrase without accepting correction and clarification certainly should be moderated. But outright banning it without seeing whether intentions are good or not just destroys useful ways of discussing topics.

We're not allowed to do any of this because it is 'putting words in people's mouths'.

No. No it is not. It is stating what one understands the other person to have said.

That is very different.

People should be allowed to interpret another person's words. If they get it wrong and are corrected by the other person, they should accept that.

Having moderators jump in at the slightest little initial disagreement over intepretation is nonsensical.

I am now having to resort to reporting people for things I normally never would because I can't do anything else. I simply expect that if I say anything interpretative I am going to be moderated.

It's utterly ridiculous.

This forum needs a serious debate about this issue because it is strangling discussion before it even begins.

Furthermore, there is no fundamental difference between argument and debate. There is only good argument and bad argument; bad debate and good debate.

That formula of 'knowing the difference between argument and debate' is meaningless.

Cosmo

[Casiella]

May I respectfully suggest that Backstage came about, in part, because of disagreements with your views on forum moderation?

[Lillith Blackheart]

To Cosmo's defense, his interpretation of my statements was wrong, but I was floored to see the comments removed. I was misrepresented, but not with ill intent, and I was well aware of that. In absolutely no way should his representation of my views have been snipped out, as it was a valid misrepresentation asking for clarity. He had not done it to score points, it was his understanding of what I had stated.

So I replied, explained it wasn't at all what I was saying, and offered clarification.

That exchange never should have been moderated, as it was a cordial, carefully constructed conversational course.

Aside: Word games are fun, I worked hard on that alliteration.

[The Cosmopolite]

May I respectfully suggest that Backstage came about, in part, because of disagreements with your views on forum moderation?

What, really, does that have to do with me as a member of this forum asking that we at least have some flexibility when it comes to the terms of debate here?

Cosmo

[Silver Night]

There is a difference between paraphrasing someone or interpreting in order to clarify, and creating a straw man in order to extend their point in a direction which discredits it. While generally you can state your understanding and say 'is this right', if it looks like point scoring, it may be moderated.

We do tend to err on the side of caution, and as stated in the moderation thread, if you feel that you have constructive stuff that was removed, feel free to rewrite it within the guidelines and repost it.

[Casiella]

What, really, does that have to do with me as a member of this forum asking that we at least have some flexibility when it comes to the terms of debate here?

To restate and expand on my earlier comment: many of the users who've chosen to frequent this site instead of Chatsubo have done so precisely because our views on what constitutes proper terms of debate and a useful moderation policy differ materially from yours.

However, Silver's given an actual answer to the question, so I won't continue this particular discussion.

[The Cosmopolite]

What, really, does that have to do with me as a member of this forum asking that we at least have some flexibility when it comes to the terms of debate here?

To restate and expand on my earlier comment: many of the users who've chosen to frequent this site instead of Chatsubo have done so precisely because our views on what constitutes proper terms of debate and a useful moderation policy differ materially from yours.

However, Silver's given an actual answer to the question, so I won't continue this particular discussion.

Again, I ask what has that to do with me as a forum member here asking for some flexibility in the terms of debate here? What are you actually trying to say?

Are you saying that any view I have on forum moderation here is somehow automatically less valid because I happen to moderate a forum that has a different approach?

I want you to continue this because I don't think you should casually make such a remark and then walk away from it.

Cosmo

[The Cosmopolite]

There is a difference between paraphrasing someone or interpreting in order to clarify, and creating a straw man in order to extend their point in a direction which discredits it. While generally you can state your understanding and say 'is this right', if it looks like point scoring, it may be moderated.

That contradicts your moderation reason where you said that even saying something like 'subject to correction' or 'if I've understood correctly' is not acceptable.

I stated an interpretation as I understood it. It's not a straw man if in doing so I build in the possibility of being corrected.

How it can be point-scoring I really do not understand. I don't come to an OOC forum to score points.

In this context 'erring on the side of caution' is assuming that someone is trying to score points when they post here. How is that healthy?

Cosmo

[Silver Night]

The difference is moderator discretion.

If someone's argument looks like a straw man with 'subject to correction' scattered through it, it might be moderated. If someone is legitimately restating in the way they understand and don't say it (though it does help to make other people aware that you are willing to be corrected) it probably won't be moderated.

Scoring points, in this context, is in reference to using a straw man argument (with 'correct me if I'm wrong' cover or not) to disparage someone else's position and thereby bolster your own position.

I never said that saying 'subject to correction' or 'if I've understood correctly' are not acceptable. They can certainly be helpful, but including them will not mitigate breaches of the guidelines.

[The Cosmopolite]

But I made no straw man argument.

A straw man is where you make the strong claim someone has a position they don't have and then argue against that position. It can't be a straw man when you admit the possibility that your intepretation may be wrong. Why? Because it is a direct invitation to clarify the position which will tend to bind you to accept the clarification. The straw man is a poor way of arguing when deliberate but it's utterly bonkers to invite its immediate refutation by clarification.

I did not argue against any position other than the one that was quite clear: that some viewed OOC web addresses on IGS as IC content.

I didn't substantively argue against anything else and I was clear I wasn't going to argue with other apparent positions.

The major problem though, and it runs through your entire attitude to moderation, is that you tend to assume the worst when people are polite.

When you see 'forgive me', you assume an insult is going to follow. When you see, 'I am sorry', you assume a veiled attack. When you see, 'correct me if I am wrong', you see a straw man gambit.

What boggles my mind is that I am left feeling that being polite and open about this sort of thing is more likely to get you moderated than being sneaky.

How is that in any way right?

Cosmo

[Casiella]

Again, I ask what has that to do with me as a forum member here asking for some flexibility in the terms of debate here? What are you actually trying to say?

Are you saying that any view I have on forum moderation here is somehow automatically less valid because I happen to moderate a forum that has a different approach?

I want you to continue this because I don't think you should casually make such a remark and then walk away from it.

I'm trying to say what I actually said. I don't think your views on community and moderation are less valid than anyone else's. In a general sense, I respect the fact that you have been on the front lines for a long time and have shaped your views based on your own experience.

But, as I've stated, Backstage was formed partly as a reaction to perceptions of the atmosphere at Chatsubo. I wasn't involved in the creation of the site, but that's how I understood things when I joined. And certainly many of us have chosen to spend our time here instead of Chatsubo (and innumerable other places) because we like the atmosphere that the moderation here has created.

So I think that, while your views are not "automatically less valid", they should be viewed in context. Your views on moderation differed radically from some other EVE roleplayers. As a result, some of those other people created a site to discuss the same topics as yours does but with a different tone.

TL;DR: many folks, including me, will view with suspicion anything that sounds like "Backstage should do things the way the Chatsubo admin thinks they should be done."

[The Cosmopolite]

TL;DR: many folks, including me, will view with suspicion anything that sounds like "Backstage should do things the way the Chatsubo admin thinks they should be done."

Which in a nutshell is what I imagined you meant and I thank you for being honest enough to say it.

Nothing much I can do except express some real sadness that despite my attempts to come here and be an individual forum member, I can't be treated on my own terms as constributor here.

Cosmo

[Silver Night]

I think you may be mistaking what leads to moderation.

Indicating a willingness to be corrected doesn't. Nor does being polite.

A post that makes assumptions about what another poster thinks, and then builds on those assumptions often will. Had you not included 'correct me if I'm wrong' etc., the post would still have been moderated.

Including it doesn't automatically make the post not in breach. I would suggest that you certainly can build straw man arguments (or use similar strategies) and include 'correct me if I'm wrong'. I know I've done it before, in other venues.

It can help. But not including it wouldn't prevent moderation.

As I said, it ultimately comes down to moderator discretion, and we do sometimes err on the side of caution. You may, of course, disagree with our decisions.

[Mizhara]

Since there's already a thread here... about the moderated thread...

... for once, I can't see why my post got moderated. Usually, I can see something that got close to one of the broken rules, but I can't for the life of me find which rule I broke this time. This is just a request for one of those nifty moderator quoteboxes in the post that was removed.

That particular post I was actually kind of proud at keeping perfectly civil and (I thought) within the rules.

[Silver Night]

As I think I mentioned in the Catacombs thread, I just removed everything after a certain point. There were some constructive things in there that were moved along with everything else.

Toward the end of your post, there were a couple of things that were a bit borderline, as making suggestions about how people should RP is bound to be fairly sensitive. In particular the part about low brow humor - you probably should have made clear if you meant that it is a small point of distinction or if you meant that Jade employs low brow humor, which is a way it could have been read and would suggest that Jade was lying.

Making an effort to post within the rules is appreciated.

More generally, the board is founded on the idea that the mods will try to do the best they can to maintain the atmosphere of the board, and that they have the discretion to do that. We're only human, sometimes we will make mistakes. We do really appreciate that others also try to maintain that atmosphere, and understand other people make mistakes too. That's why formal warnings and bans are relatively rare - people do make mistakes, and the rules on this board are a lot more restrictive than on most other places on the internet. It can take a little getting used to.