Print

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

[Havohej]

Silver and I, as Administrators (which is a little different from Global Moderator or Moderator in the sense of SMF's software) quite literally can do anything.  For instance, I could accidentally a whole account.  Grey Names on Parade.

We don't only because we care about the community that we, with input from this community and help of the other moderators, have built and which over the last three years they have lovingly maintained.  You see, we didn't just open a convo ingame and pull all of these kid-glove molly-coddling rules out of our asses.  This was all discussed by a lot of interested parties, most of whom are not part of the moderation staff (which is quite small), and some consensuses were reached and incorporated into the finished product, and then outlined as clearly as possible in a series of Sticky posts that we encourage everyone to read at least once.

That same caring for the community prompted my statement of intent.  It was a statement of intent not only for you all to see, but for the team to see.  As of yet, only one team member has expressed misgivings and after discussion with him, I've tempered the approach I mean to take - somewhat.  My primary interest remains preserving Backstage and refusing to allow, through inaction or perceived tolerance, anything that would or could set this forum on a slippery slope to Chatsubo's fate.

Total posts 125316 | Total topics 4930 | Total members 1211
Most users ever online was 138 on Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:53 pm

We haven't even come close to those numbers, yet.  It was an excellent achievement and a wonderful resource in its day, and I'm glad that it's still online if for nothing other than the valuable lore posts and topical discussions of Eve's PF and its player-created RP history.  If I knew how to contact whoever is paying for the hosting, I would offer to host a mirror for it or at least store a backup of its database just in case, lest it be lost forever one day.

And now it's dead, because a very small handful of people were permitted to do and say whatever they pleased, regardless of the forum's posted rules.

Of course, Silver, Ghost, Jek and Ciarante are more than welcome to either PM me here, convo/message me ingame or post in the Moderators' Office board on this topic and express disagreement with what, I'm certain, seems a draconian stance on what to some seems to be a very big and natural part of Eve.

I agree on that point, by the way.  But Backstage is not Eve.  I can't pod people here or ransom their CNRs.  Here, we have no pods, no faction battleships.  Here we have real life people trying to utilize and enjoy a public resource without having to worry about being griefed - that's supposed to be for ingame and the Eve-O forums, not here.

Our Mission Statement, as posted by Silver in the Sticky in Reception:

What is Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com?

Backstage is a place for EVE players to discuss aspects of EVE-Online, particularly as they pertain to role-playing, in an open and mature environment.  Old and new, pirate and bear - all are welcome!

Our intention is to offer a culture that encourages discussion over argument and mutual respect over enmity through the use of clear posting guidelines along with explanations of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable; meaningful discussion is to be valued above theatrics and hyperbolic argument in pursuit of 'winning' threads..  The main idea here is that while IC people might be enemies, the forum is OOC and as such people should act like adults discussing their mutual hobby.

Some excerpts from the FAQ, as posted by Silver in the Sticky in Reception:

FAQ - Polite Posting - Our Culture

Culture:
You are here as the player, not the as the character. We expect that, regardless of the personality of your character, you will behave as an adult and respect the other members of this community.

Racist, sexist and homophobic remarks will not be tolerated. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.

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.

This isn't America with the First Amendment protection of free speech, where hate groups can march with police protection if they only apply for a permit two weeks in advance.  This isn't even the Gallente Federation with its idealism and egalitarianism (as that is a fictional place with Megathrons, so this obviously isn't that).  This is Backstage.

Finally, I will quote the PM you sent to an Administrator of this forum:

Thus why I stated that my post was almost guaranteed to be cata'ed at some point, I knew it would happen and my only surprise here is how long it took. It is utterly irrelevant to me if I do one day end up banned-for-life from this forum or whatever for crossing the line one-to-many times, because when I do it's likely going to be for stating an opinion that is considered illegal on these boards.

Would suck for me, but I will not repress my own opinions for the sake of the forum's tolerance for honest expression that is negative in nature.

I have sent you this mail because I feel it's fair I inform you of this.

Heh.  I feel it's fair to inform you of this:

Follow our rules and guidelines, respect the forum culture we've established and maintained since 2010 mostly successfully, or kick rocks.

[Lyn Farel]

1. I have made my case clear above. I do not feel it to be fair that any one mod get to assign more severe punishment for anything because that leads members to not only having to avoid doing X Y Z covered by forum rules, but also it leads to having to avoid doing them, while also watch out for A B and C because mods 1 2 and 3 specifically hate those things and will perma-ban you on the second offense if you ever dare do them. All it would take then would be one first-time offence for a first strike then after that, several years of potentially pristine forum behavior can be snuffed out due to one slip of the memory of what happens to you if you do that.

I may be a bit dense of course, but I still fail to understand what is the difference between being banned after 2 or 3 blatant violations or after 10219382983 of those, except the time it will take to eventually come up to the ban. If someone can't self moderate enough to prevent the second time to happen, why would it not happen a 3rd, then a 4th, and then a 10219382983th ?

What's the difference eventually ? How can someone slip on something this obvious ?

2. My recent week-long ban has nothing to do with this. I observed a tread regarding the Stonites and what people though of them and had a choice - I could voice my opinion on them that I knew was universally negative and would get me mod action regardless of how I phrased it. "The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]" is assigning motives to other no matter how you look at it or phrase it and on Backstage that is frowned on. My options were to voice my opinion and take a slap for it, or remain quiet, letting the forum rules practically censor my viewpoint on the matter. People likely would have opted for option B, I opted for option A because the idea that the forum would deny me the right to speak my mind when input was offered did not sit well with me. Likely a dumb move because several months prior I received a warning due to my sharing of my universally negative views on the Goons and other things. Regardless, that whole episode is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

"The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]"

"The [insert group] may seem to me - and maybe i'm wrong, that's mostly the feeling that their actions inspire to me - that they seek one thing, which could really be perceived as [insert goal] even if that's true or not."

I am pretty sure that the 2nd statement would never have been reported or even moderated, ever. Considering that I also reported the whole thread (not your post especially) as a clear YDIW in my eyes, I can understand that the subject was already a slippery slope. Honestly I am still quite baffled by the way half of the answers bashed Ston in all impunity in this thread. I am not sure how I would react when stumbling on a post like that about myself or my RP.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I am not sure how I would react when stumbling on a post like that about myself or my RP.

I would be breaking the springs on the report button if I found one like that about me and my RP. The whole thread was a YDIW thread. I reported it as soon as I saw it. Surprised any of it survived as long as it did.

[BloodBird]

At least Havo, we understand each other. I know what this forum is for and I have enjoyed it's existence for a good long while. Should I get perma'ed from it at some point I won't be crying about it because frankly, it would prove that myself and this forum is not compatible. Many have reached this conclusion in the past, many will in the future. There might well be a day for me as well.

"The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]"

"The [insert group] may seem to me - and maybe i'm wrong, that's mostly the feeling that their actions inspire to me - that they seek one thing, which could really be perceived as [insert goal] even if that's true or not."

I am pretty sure that the 2nd statement would never have been reported or even moderated, ever.

I am. The two are exactly the same, the only difference is the second one is drowned in sugar-coating. Ofc, if doing that makes a statement that is effectively motive assignment acceptable I will have to start being better at that.

[Makkal]

I am not sure how requesting information on a group is akin to suggesting they're not RPing correctly.

[Silver Night]

The mod team saw a distinction there - and also between 'They are RPing wrong' and 'This is how I see their RP, and I wish I could interact with them this way but they don't seem interested', which is why the reports of the whole thread as YDIW were not acted on.

[Vieve]

I am not sure how I would react when stumbling on a post like that about myself or my RP.

I would be breaking the springs on the report button if I found one like that about me and my RP.

I wouldn't.  Sure, I wouldn't mind if other people viewing the thread reported it, but I'd more likely just ignore the post and block the poster.  I'll admit I might be a little crazy for believing that people shouldn't be afraid of sharing constructive criticism via PM, instead of in front of an audience.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

At least Havo, we understand each other. I know what this forum is for and I have enjoyed it's existence for a good long while. Should I get perma'ed from it at some point I won't be crying about it because frankly, it would prove that myself and this forum is not compatible. Many have reached this conclusion in the past, many will in the future. There might well be a day for me as well.

"The [insert group] have proven they only seek one thing, that one thing is [insert goal]"

"The [insert group] may seem to me - and maybe i'm wrong, that's mostly the feeling that their actions inspire to me - that they seek one thing, which could really be perceived as [insert goal] even if that's true or not."

I am pretty sure that the 2nd statement would never have been reported or even moderated, ever.

I am. The two are exactly the same, the only difference is the second one is drowned in sugar-coating. Ofc, if doing that makes a statement that is effectively motive assignment acceptable I will have to start being better at that.

No, they are not the same. The first statement is saying a group has a particular intention and holding it up as a fact. The second is speaking of the writer's perceptions of that group, and acknowledges that they might be wrong.

Constructive debate seeks to find a consensus, or to provide perspectives on matters that others may not have considered. Merely being insulting about a person or group generally means they stop listening  to you, at best. At worst you get someone annoyed enough to go looking for ways to annoy you right back.

[Lyn Farel]

I am not sure how requesting information on a group is akin to suggesting they're not RPing correctly.

Imo the OP was perfectly fine. Half of the answers, not so much.

You asked information about Ston. People chose to tell that Ston was annoying/doingitwrong because of x or y, instead of just dumping the requested info.

It would have been maybe a little better of Ston had actually asked for feedback, and got it. Here, it's not the case.

The mod team saw a distinction there - and also between 'They are RPing wrong' and 'This is how I see their RP, and I wish I could interact with them this way but they don't seem interested', which is why the reports of the whole thread as YDIW were not acted on.

That's quite white washing the whole thread I think. Some might have been, but others, not so much. I just have to open it again to find this :

The content they are delivering hasn't changed in the last year or so, it's the same posts ad nauseum for twenty or thirty pages. The single addition of "ad nauseam" is enough to twist the meaning of the whole otherwise acceptable sentence by painting it quite negatively with a good deal of YDIW.

One of the few organizations where my OOC and IC dislikes line up perfectly. I am not sure how that is considered by the rules here but I am not sure that someone writing somewhere that he/she does not like person X OOCly is good form. Like if I said "I don't like Silver Night" somewhere in one of my posts... Is that ok because Ston is not here ?

that's how obnoxious they've become.

Pretty much standing in the same corner as  most others here - concept is moderately interesting, execution is meh at best.

Personally, they've fallen back to "minor curiosity/slight annoyance" now that they keep their spamming to a single thread; endlessly buffing a single thread is, in my opinion, no worse than the separate threads of repetitive topics we get on the IGS so often.

[Silver Night]

It was a judgment call on the part of the mod team. We will simply have to disagree.

[BloodBird]

No, they are not the same. The first statement is saying a group has a particular intention and holding it up as a fact. The second is speaking of the writer's perceptions of that group, and acknowledges that they might be wrong.

Constructive debate seeks to find a consensus, or to provide perspectives on matters that others may not have considered. Merely being insulting about a person or group generally means they stop listening  to you, at best. At worst you get someone annoyed enough to go looking for ways to annoy you right back.

I really don't see a big distinction between them and both leads to the same basic statement as far as I see it. I guess that is where part of my problem lies.

[Havohej]

Yes.  I agree that it is where part of your problem lies.  The distinction is laid out fairly well in the FAQ sticky in Reception, which I've already linked to in this thread.  Most of the other regular users of this forum seem to have a pretty firm grasp of it.

I wonder if you've ever bothered to read it, or if your devil-may-care "I'll post what I want and let the mods sort it out" attitude has precluded you from doing so.

[Lyn Farel]

It was a judgment call on the part of the mod team. We will simply have to disagree.

What is a judgement call, exactly ?

[Silver Night]

Basically it's what we do as mods: Make judgements about whether posts or threads break the rules. Sometimes it is clear cut, and sometimes it isn't. 'Judgement call' is a phrase most often used when you have to decide something and it isn't totally clear cut.

[Morwen Lagann]

This link (2nd definition in particular, since we do have objective measurements to go by in most cases) should help if Silver's response isn't clear enough.

Note that it's not always a subjective decision, but we do often take posting history and the like into account - someone with a long history of posting YDIW is more likely to have reported posts looked at more closely in that regard than a first time "offender".