Print

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

[Lyn Farel]

That being said, how many characters have come into the summit as "Slaves" and are just there to shit things up? "Oh poor me, help me! I cant escape! Oh, well, I can, but my holder is so nice to me and... and... he touches me there!"

That is exactly it. This is what frustrates me so much with this current discussion. This is not about slavery, this is about people with discutable BDSM fantasies using slavery as a tool for their fantasies.

This is exactly why I have a lot of difficulties to cope with arguments in favor of a general ban of slavery, when slavery has very little to do with it eventually. If people are mods, they use their brains, they are not here to play the bureaucrat stupidly applying coercitive rules not even limiting OOC bad behavior (I am all for coercitive anti stupid OOC rules), but IC behavior. Do not take this as a judgement against the mods, they do their jobs. Take this as a remark against people trying to regulate everything even when unecessary, counterproductive, or just totally out of place. And here I do believe it is totally out of place.

I beg you again, do not start to shun decent slavers for what other morons do with slavery. But if you eventually do it, do not be surprised if you start to get a lot of IC flak for ostracism and loss of neutrality.

[Casiella]

Lyn, what is "discutable"?

And given the makeup of the moderator list and the owner of the channel, calling it IC would be more than a little myopic.

[Silas Vitalia]

Starfire and Lyn. have it exactly correct.

Slavery is not the issue, attention-whoring shittery is the issue.  Ban and move on. 

[Lyn Farel]

Lyn, what is "discutable"?

And given the makeup of the moderator list and the owner of the channel, calling it IC would be more than a little myopic.

Sorry, debatable. Too many french roots in english, its confusing.

[Casiella]

(Side note: English is the linguistic equivalent of the bastard child of a Norman knight and a Saxon bar wench. )

[Esna Pitoojee]

Some say English is a language which borrow words from other languages.

This is untrue.

English is language which ambushes other languages in the dark, drags them into an alley, clubs them over the head and steals any useful bits they may have.

- Praphrased from a novel I read once. Can't remember which now.



Back on topic: I believe that some of the moderators have an interest in having "rules" because it is easier for us to deal with offenders in the short term if we can point to a rule and say "...no, you violated THIS." than have to deal with the extended back-and-forth about moderator bias and what not.

At the same time, the best rules are the flexible ones, IMO.

So, it comes down to the apparent impartiality of the mod team vs. the ability to flexibly handle any situation. I'd love to lean more toward the latter, but if a mod moves without a specific rule being violated (and sometimes even with) it seems like an inevitability they'll be accused of moderator bias, arguments breed resentment, appeals will be tossed around forever, etc...

[Graelyn]

No Posted Rules.

Yes, people will then accuse the mods of Bias.

Fine.

Mod better be used to that sort of shit.

There's a certain person out there who, as soon as kicking/banning proceedings was mentioned, they aproached me with a diatribe that started with "...and I have a degree in American Law, and as per code This and That, evidence is necessary for..."

NO.

I THINK NOT.

[kalaratiri]

No Posted Rules.

There's a certain person who, as soon as kicking/banning proceedings was mentioned, they aproached me with a diatribe that started with "...and I have a degree in American Law, and as per code This and That, evidence is necessary for..."

NO.

I THINK NOT.

+1

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

+2, but then I'm biased. 

[Saede Riordan]

+3

[Katrina Oniseki]

+4

[NISYN Aelisha]

+5 As a degree holder myself, I will always look down on the academic flotsam who feel that it gives them the right to flex their muscles on a damned forum or game. 

Academic Hard Man personas should be saved for the peer review process, not a virtual entertainment environment. 

[Jev North]

I'm of the opinion that being an academic hard man and flexing your massive brain-muscle is perfectly legitimate if you're, you know. Right. Or at least contributing materially to the discussion.

Trying to dictate standards on someone else's venue is neither.

[Ava Starfire]

Im of the opinion a degree in something importantish doesnt make you not an idiot.

[NISYN Aelisha]

Im of the opinion a degree in something importantish doesnt make you not an idiot.

Couldn't agree more.  Not only that, the need to throw a few letters into the ring to validate your (the indirect use of the word!) argument is a red flag for a lack of well constructed argument.  In a virtual domain, with only text as our contribution to the landscape of a channel, the quality of one's contribution can be easily surmised without going "well what you said was meaningless s**t, but lets waive that because you sat through 3/4 years of education - if you even did at all". 

We're peers, sometimes friends (collectively speaking), role-playing or discussing role-play in an internet spaceship game.  Whether you're a BA, BEng King, Queen or Emperor doesn't matter.  You're just another dubiously implemented python client waiting to be blown to bits and told you aren't good enough in more ways than even the most inventive bootcamp Sarge can imagine.  So let's leave pretention aside and judge by action alone (individually and on 'topical' elements), as seems to be suggested by the moderators.  A blanket ban on a behaviour because of the few who ruin it, distasteful as it is, is the only way to prevent such infractions from being the sum total of debate and communication within a moderation team.  In a choice between a crippled administrative process and a few space slavers not playing leash and collar games on a chatroom, the answer is clear to me.