Print

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

[scagga]

I cannot explain why you disagree with my judgment that your post was not inappropriate. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your question.

I cannot see a plausible basis for my post being inappropriate.

The only reference made to a moderated post is in the first sentence, which is a query about a term that I do not understand, which I do not see how, judged on its own merits, could be called 'inappropriate'.  Inappropriate how? to who?

The rest of the post, barring that sentence, is entirely on topic.   Deleting a post is a last resort.  You are not using any gradation in your moderator behaviour to make your reactions proportional. 

[Casiella]

YOUR POST WAS NOT INAPPROPRIATE. I'd already stated that, and you disagreed with that judgment. Did you misread it somehow?

I find your suggestion that being "female-like" describes a "lack of rationality" highly offensive and sexist. However, in the interests of transparency and fairness, I'll leave any determination about the disposition of that comment to the rest of the staff (as is normal practice, obviously).

So at this point, I have no idea what you're complaining about and don't intend to respond unless you have something to point out other than the fact that I'm fallible, something I'd already acknowledged in this thread and that you're upset that, as we normally do, I removed your post simply in the process of cleaning up a thread and invited you to repost the rest of your comment. I don't like to snip-moderate, as Misan noted earlier. My comment, however unclear, was intended to communicate that you should feel free to repost the rest of your comment.

Alternately, if you're telling me that you think I should step down as a moderator, please state so concisely along with reasons why that should happen beyond a desire for term limits.

To restate: I sincerely apologize for not having made that clearer in the initial moderation comment and thus wasting everyone's time here.

[scagga]

YOUR POST WAS NOT INAPPROPRIATE. I'd already stated that, and you disagreed with that judgment. Did you misread it somehow?

Yes, I'm sorry, I misread it as 'appropriate', not 'inappropriate'.

I find your suggestion that being "female-like" describes a "lack of rationality" highly offensive and sexist. However, in the interests of transparency and fairness, I'll leave any determination about the disposition of that comment to the rest of the staff (as is normal practice, obviously).

It's not sexist because it has nothing to do with being male or female, as I outlined in a previous post.  Both males and females have oestrogen, and excessive oestrogen is associated with over-emotionality, much like excessive testosterone is associated with aggressive behaviour.  The fact that women generally have more oestrogen than men does not make my metaphor sexist unless you feel you must see it that way.

So at this point, I have no idea what you're complaining about and don't intend to respond unless you have something to point out other than the fact that I'm fallible, something I'd already acknowledged in this thread and that you're upset that, as we normally do, I removed your post simply in the process of cleaning up a thread and invited you to repost the rest of your comment. I don't like to snip-moderate, as Misan noted earlier. My comment, however unclear, was intended to communicate that you should feel free to repost the rest of your comment.

Alternately, if you're telling me that you think I should step down as a moderator, please state so concisely along with reasons why that should happen beyond a desire for term limits.

I am complaining that you are using unnecessary, disrespectfully heavy-handed techniques to do something that could easily be done via another method.  There seems to be no liaising with posters about their tone, moderation goes straight towards deletion.  A tangential reference to a post that is later moderated and the post is condemned....this is generally poor moderation technique and is a contributing factor to dissatisfaction with this forum.

I am not telling you that you need to step down.  I think it would be helpful for you to refer to some websites moderation tips and consider what they say.  Here's a few links for you:
http://www.communityspark.com/how-to-effectively-moderate-forums/
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum103/336.htm

About stepping down as a moderator - I don't want to single you out.   I think it is a generally good idea if moderators have a term of service, which will help keep moderators in touch with the user base and maintain a moderation team based on merit and community standing rather than cronyism.  That is the recipe for a stronger, happier community.

To restate: I sincerely apologize for not having made that clearer in the initial moderation comment and thus wasting everyone's time here.

I understand your position.  I would be very grateful if you could resurrect my post with the area in question (the first sentence) removed, as that is the only area that is referring to another post.

[Casiella]

Moderators, including myself, often contact posters privately about tone and related issues. Sometimes this takes the form of an official warning, of course, but I personally prefer just to send a friendly note to ask somebody to keep an eye on how they say what they say. This happens more than you might know precisely because it's private. After all, we're not here to embarrass anyone.

It seems to me that you consider 'snip-moderation' a lesser response, which I can understand. However, doing so actually removes the text in question rather than leaves it visible in another area. So I feel that moving posts is less heavy-handed than deleting portions of them. This can lead to all sorts of issues, ranging from removing the wrong bits to removing bits that the author would have preferred to reword. In a general sense (not here), this could even lead to changing the actual significance of a post, but I'd never do that and I can't think of anyone here who would. (I've been on sites where that could and did happen, sadly.)

[scagga]

Moderators, including myself, often contact posters privately about tone and related issues. Sometimes this takes the form of an official warning, of course, but I personally prefer just to send a friendly note to ask somebody to keep an eye on how they say what they say. This happens more than you might know precisely because it's private. After all, we're not here to embarrass anyone.

It seems to me that you consider 'snip-moderation' a lesser response, which I can understand. However, doing so actually removes the text in question rather than leaves it visible in another area. So I feel that moving posts is less heavy-handed than deleting portions of them. This can lead to all sorts of issues, ranging from removing the wrong bits to removing bits that the author would have preferred to reword. In a general sense (not here), this could even lead to changing the actual significance of a post, but I'd never do that and I can't think of anyone here who would. (I've been on sites where that could and did happen, sadly.)

If you're worried that you can't tell what's wrong with the post then the basis that you're calling the post out is very weak.

I asked laerise, in one of my sentences, 'what does cuddle me mean?'  Because Laerise's post was moderated, mine was binned outright without any attempt to contact me. Can you see how ridiculous that is?  People don't like having their posts deleted off-hand like that.  It's not like the content of my post was pornographic or vile in any other way...

You need to show that there is some kind of proportionality in your responses.  If you respect your posters you respect what they put their effort into posting.  If there is something you'd like a poster to adjust you can contact them.  If the issue is critical it is acceptable to deleted/lock/whatever.  It clearly isn't a critical issue and 'confusion' from one sentence certainly isn't supposed to be the concern of a moderator, nor grounds to bin a post of someone else's thoughts.

[Raze Valadeus]

Scagga,

When I read that, I go the impression that it wasn't you who was moderated. The moderator basically explained that your post was removed because it quoted Laerise's (and subsequently leaving it in the thread would cause confusion and allow other people to quote your quote in order to continue responding to Laerise.)

That's what I get out of it, anyway.

[Casiella]

Raze has it exactly right.

At this point, unless there are new issues, I see no reason to keep repeating myself to explain this particular action.

[scagga]

Scagga,

When I read that, I go the impression that it wasn't you who was moderated. The moderator basically explained that your post was removed because it quoted Laerise's (and subsequently leaving it in the thread would cause confusion and allow other people to quote your quote in order to continue responding to Laerise.)

That's what I get out of it, anyway.

Here's the original content: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2558.0

I didn't quote anything, I asked a question at the beginning of my post in relation to a term that Laerise used.  That was enough to get my post deleted from the discussion when a moderator decided to delete Laerise's post.  I can't confirm whether Laerise was contacted about his tone prior to that happening.  I certainly wasn't.

I don't see how the 'confusion' from a single sentence is such a critical issue that necessitates immediate deletion of a post, that lumps it in with actual objectionable material and tars someone's constructive contributions to a discussion.  If this is the quality of moderation that is accepted on these forums, it needs to change as it is sub-par.  As a member of the community here I have an interest in the good management of these forums, otherwise I'd be silent and simply pack off.  If the moderators don't take on board and act on valid criticism of their performance they are adding to a reserve of disgruntlement that is not in the long-term interests of this community.

I would appreciate it if moderators were less defensive when questioned, and would make more efforts to be respectful to the community.  They are in a position where they can easily piss off a lot of people, especially if they seem to consistently read the worst meaning in people's posts and interpret offense in language before anyone in the actual discussion does...

[scagga]

Raze has it exactly right.

At this point, unless there are new issues, I see no reason to keep repeating myself to explain this particular action.

You and Raze are both wrong.  That you agree with each other doesn't change that.

[Matariki Rain]

As far as the moderation of the OP of that post I think that calling an approach to RP "bullshit" is quite clearly not constructive. Judging by Mata's response that perception isn't just limited to the moderators.

For the record, I consciously chose to reply rather than report. *wry smile*

[Silver Night]

It's standard procedure to move posts that reply directly to moderated posts to help keep threads from becoming a mess, with references to things that are no longer there and to prevent accidental 'editorializing' by moderators (the same reason we don't generally remove only offending 'parts' of posts, but instead move entire posts in about 90% or situations - we are trying to make sure that we don't inadvertently make it seem like someone is saying something they aren't.)

I'm not sure what your issues with this is, Scagga, given that with the effort involved in this thread, you could have re-posted your post, sans the reference to the post that was moderated, about 20 times.

[scagga]

It's standard procedure to move posts that reply directly to moderated posts to help keep threads from becoming a mess, with references to things that are no longer there and to prevent accidental 'editorializing' by moderators (the same reason we don't generally remove only offending 'parts' of posts, but instead move entire posts in about 90% or situations - we are trying to make sure that we don't inadvertently make it seem like someone is saying something they aren't.)

I'm not sure what your issues with this is, Scagga, given that with the effort involved in this thread, you could have re-posted your post, sans the reference to the post that was moderated, about 20 times.

Silver, I feel like I'm conversing with people who can only think in algorithms and rhetoric.  I was hoping that your eventual post here would show that you were actually thinking about what was happening are would reply in context to the situation.   You should be trying to find out what the hell the anger is about instead of quoting standard procedure like some army official excusing some fuckup that occured despite standard procedure.

My issue with this is moderation in this manner does not engage brain, and your reply is evidence that you haven't read my posts in this thread, or are consciously trying to ignore the points that I am raising. You are far worse that Cosmo was at dealing with complaints - at least he provided an answer to the complaint.  If I disagreed he would argue the point and do so in a manner to actually address the substance of my argument, even if I disagreed with his logic.

If 'standard procedure' includes nuking posts because of a single sentence (that the moderator is scared will lead to confusion) then that needs to change.  There is no mess that would have occured from letting my post be.  There should be moderator discretion, rather than a 'procedure' that a moderator just follows without thinking of what they are doing.  Suggesting that people just follows procedures suggests that moderators are not expected to think.

Chucking people's posts out without contacting them for such flimsy reasons is sledgehammer moderation, like excising a mole on someone's forehead and cutting off half their face...without their consent.

- Removing posts should be a last resort, not a first measure. 
- You should contact people to change their posts, especially if the issue is non-critical.
-  Try to respect your posters instead of binning their posts because a single sentence could 'confuse' a mentally subnormal person.

You wonder why I make a fuss over such a decision?  I make a small post asking for explanation, and every subsequent reply is more and more idiotic, repeatedly failing to acknowledge any mistake or even try to see things from a point of view other than their own.  That serves the further infuriate a complainant.

If there is nothing you can see through any effort you make - I want to repropose the concept of moderators having terms of service.

[Lyn Farel]

I agree with Scagga, if a small bit of a post is related to another moderated post and is considered inappropriate does not mean that the whole post has to be deleted, especially if the rest of the said post is relevant.


EDIT : reviewing the post in question again, I wonder why this can be considered as "Highly unconstructive and full of 'urdoinitrong. Replies removed solely not to cause confusion; please feel free to restate your own reasons constructively." :

I roleplayed because it answered an existential reason, and provided motivation, goals, and a point from which to relate to other players.

Note: I was roleplaying before I knew what roleplaying was.  The chap who sold me the idea of starting to play EvE told me the storyline and gave me the idea that Sebiestor were the long-lost scions of Russian, who still used projectiles despite contemporary technological advancement in nearby nations, hence Scagga Laebetrovo. 

Sorry for the cheesy comparison, but you do not remove a cancerous body part by killing the whole patient.

[Raze Valadeus]

While I agree with you Lyn, what's to stop Scagga from just reposting that particular part of his response, which is exactly what the moderator said to do anyways? it's a big deal over nothing, the moderator has already made it clear that Scagga isn't being moderated here, all he has to do is repost that part of his post and the issue resolves itself.

[Saede Riordan]

If I may?

I think that instead of ripping it all out, what could have been done better is what moderators seem having no trouble to do with me, which is to contact me when a small part of a post is inappropriate/problematic/whatever, and ask me to pull it before just blindly moderating. One line of Scagga's post was referencing a removed post. The rest was valid yes, but I think that removing it wholesale and telling him to repost sets a bad precedent. Its unneeded. If the mods communicate a bit better with everyone its something we could avoid.