Print

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

[Casiella]

I don't see any suggestion that Mizhara, or anyone else, is not entitled to his opinions. The issue has much more to do with HOW you say it rather than WHAT you say. From the FAQ:

Q: So you want us to act all lovey-dovey?
A: Yes. Deal with it.

Q: Doesn't being polite to people I disagree with make me a hypocrite?
A: No. It makes you a grown-up.

Q: Isn't that against my right to free speech?
A: Right again. Deal with that, too.

Q: Isn't all this subjective?
A: Yes. The Mods do their best to be fair, but inevitably, this is a subjective standard. Another thing for you to Deal With.

Q: What about free and frank debate?
A: Strange as it may seem, given some of the forums on the internet, but it is possible to have an honest exchange of views without being rude, hostile, offensive, aggressive or bullying. That kind of behaviour destroys communities, virtual and otherwise, and Will Not Be Tolerated.

That seems to me to cover the current situations fairly well.

[Mizhara]

That's better, and actually understandable. I don't mind being moderated for breaking certain rules.
I do mind being moderated for something I didn't do, which was say 'urdoinitrong'.

Thanks Casiella, for the clarification.

[Lyn Farel]

To be clear why I am carefully explaining what I find wrong in both of your posts, it is actually because I reported one of them (no need to report both).

Raze pointed out a part that was worth moderating I think. If not a "ur doing it wrong", it was obviously insulting in many ways and breaching the rules. Might be also a "ur doing it wrong" if we take into consideration that it might also mean that you find despicable the people you are refering to.

Also, knowing you were refering to KotMC and probably other liberal stuff in this sentence : "All this non-Amarrian stuff proclaiming to be the 'twue' Amarr ways gets old and boring to interact with after a while. ", it is a blatant example of "ur doing it wrong" here, or if not, again, an insult.

I might also suggest that when you say things like "KotMC isn't an Amarrian corp anymore, from what I can tell. ", to at least add a "I think" somewhere, instead of stating something like it was an immutable truth, which it is not to everybody.

I just had a look in the catacombs. It'd be nice if the moderation was actually for something I'd done.

Actually your two posts were not moderated yet when I wrote my last message, I was not refering to you precisely, just saying if you want lists of people 'repeat offenders', just take a look at the catacombs. But of course, you claim that the moderation is biased, so...

[scagga]

I think 'urdoingitwrong' posting should be allowed in threads that specifically say it is allowed in the OP.

[Casiella]

From my personal perspective, it's not the OP's place to change the ruleset based on some concept of "thread ownership".

[Jade Constantine]

I think 'urdoingitwrong' posting should be allowed in threads that specifically say it is allowed in the OP.

Are you talking about threads where the op specifically asks responders to critique their own specific roleplay? (ie tell me how I'm doing it wrong?)

[scagga]

From my personal perspective, it's not the OP's place to change the ruleset based on some concept of "thread ownership".

I think the rules are too conservative for the whole posting population and that areas of flexibility within reason to cater to its subsets is a good thing.

[scagga]

I think 'urdoingitwrong' posting should be allowed in threads that specifically say it is allowed in the OP.

Are you talking about threads where the op specifically asks responders to critique their own specific roleplay? (ie tell me how I'm doing it wrong?)

That would work.  In general to e.g. discuss Amarr roleplay - and be able to criticise other people's impressions of the concepts so long as their argumentation is supported by evidence.

If someone can use a reasoned argument to discount someone else's position on a subject, I do not see why that should be a target for moderation.

[Victoria Stecker]

That would work.  In general to e.g. discuss Amarr roleplay - and be able to criticise other people's impressions of the concepts so long as their argumentation is supported by evidence.

If someone can use a reasoned argument to discount someone else's position on a subject, I do not see why that should be a target for moderation.

If people can use a reasoned argument, I see no reason why they would need to phrase it as 'you're doing it wrong' rather than 'I disagree with the way you see it.' As far as I've seen, most instances of "you're doing it wrong" have been given as statements rather than opinions and have lacked the reasoned argument backing them up.

Now, if the moderation has gotten so strict that reasoned disagreement isn't permitted, we'd have an issue, but I've yet to see anything that was well-reasoned and respectful and still looked like it said "you're doing it wrong."

[Casiella]

Imagine a situation in which a new player contrives a background and asks for help fleshing it out. Perhaps he doesn't quite understand the "genetic lottery" aspect to capsuleers, or misunderstands something fundamental about what the Caldari are like, or even creates something of a Mary Sue. We can respond with links to appropriate chronicles, friendly discussion about how many players view the State, or gentle suggestions about perhaps toning down some areas of a character and finding ways to round him out a little. These all fall well within the guidelines of the site and provide real value to the OP's request.

Alternately, we can bitch and moan about n00bs not paying attention, flame him for not already knowing what other players have developed, or flat-out accuse him of having created a Mary Sue character. These are all things that will lead to moderation, but you can avoid them through judicious exercise of your brain.

TL;DR: There's a huge gulf between "well, since you asked, here are some other things to consider and areas to improve" and "urdoinitrong".

[scagga]

Imagine a situation in which a new player contrives a background and asks for help fleshing it out. Perhaps he doesn't quite understand the "genetic lottery" aspect to capsuleers, or misunderstands something fundamental about what the Caldari are like, or even creates something of a Mary Sue. We can respond with links to appropriate chronicles, friendly discussion about how many players view the State, or gentle suggestions about perhaps toning down some areas of a character and finding ways to round him out a little. These all fall well within the guidelines of the site and provide real value to the OP's request.

Alternately, we can bitch and moan about n00bs not paying attention, flame him for not already knowing what other players have developed, or flat-out accuse him of having created a Mary Sue character. These are all things that will lead to moderation, but you can avoid them through judicious exercise of your brain.

TL;DR: There's a huge gulf between "well, since you asked, here are some other things to consider and areas to improve" and "urdoinitrong".

So if someone responded to this hypothetical misguided n00b in a discussion where they expressed such misguided views, would one be beyond the accepted standards of backstage postage to reply mid-discussion with something like this:

"That [information] you base your view upon is incorrect, I refer you to this [article linked], this one this one this one this one (with short explanations to outline their relevance)."

------------

How about replying to this statement: 

Noob: "All Amarr are female because I've only seen female Amarrians"
Enlightened poster: "You're wrong, here's a link to the character creation page.  Surely you know that prior to Glorious make benefit empress Jamyl we had a male emperor?"

Would the respondent there be moderated for telling someone that their opinion was wrong?

[Casiella]

As I told someone else privately recently, our decisions frequently come down to how you say it, not just what you say.

Actually, assuming that the enlightened poster phrased his response politely, we'd be more likely to remind the noob that "it's a big cluster" and he shouldn't make those sorts of assumptions for other people.

[scagga]

As I told someone else privately recently, our decisions frequently come down to how you say it, not just what you say.

Actually, assuming that the enlightened poster phrased his response politely, we'd be more likely to remind the noob that "it's a big cluster" and he shouldn't make those sorts of assumptions for other people.

I was actually asking if what I had written (verbatim with imagination for the stuff in parentheses) would be subject to moderation.

[Kohiko Sun]

How about replying to this statement: 

Noob: "All Amarr are female because I've only seen female Amarrians"
Enlightened poster: "You're wrong, here's a link to the character creation page.  Surely you know that prior to Glorious make benefit empress Jamyl we had a male emperor?"

Would the respondent there be moderated for telling someone that their opinion was wrong?

The part I bolded and underlined is where this argument goes wonky. When something is verifiable like that, it's not an opinion. Counsel is leading the witness.

[Ulphus]

Self-moderation in all things, including self-moderation?