Print

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

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

How much of the following post:

This seems to be the crux of your point.

The trouble is, this doesn't do a terribly good job of reflecting things factually. There's seventy six replies including yours above, but what they maintain isn't based on their number; it's based on their content.

I've read them and spoken to the posters elsewhere in some cases. I'm going to break it down for you, here, because it seems you're reading a starkly different thread than I am.

People don't really like it when I do things like this, for some reason. It strikes them as unfair, as if I am cheating in presenting an argument by the numbers.

Here's a list of all the posters in the thread, broken into groups by opinions and positions they've espoused and arranged in their individual groups by order of appearance:

These are the people who, in the context of this thread alone, either supported the idea from the start or had their concerns addressed directly in a way they found satisfactory as far as I could surmise from their posts here and from ingame conversations:

1. Lillith
2. Izzy
3. Kaldor
4. Kaleigh
5. Saxon
6. lallara
7. Havvo
8. Ze'ev
9. Saxon
10. Jules
11. Lou
12. Vieve
13. Tomahawk Bliss (whom I hesitate to mention as I expect that in doing so, I will have it turned against me by same.)
14. Hamish

These are people who are either on the fence about it/in a position of compromise or in disagreement with something other than anything I have presented, or fact, or haven't spoken up again in the course of the thread:

1. Silver (who said something like 'let's see what happens, Ashar.')
2. Arvo Katsuya (who was last heard seeking compromise)
3. Seriphyn (who specified nothing until I asked ingame, and I remember the answer was pretty middling in its relevance)
4. Svetlana Scarlet (who has a different conception of the channel and conference than I do, and this matters because my conception of the conference shapes the conference more directly than anyone else's)

These are people that are or were in firm disagreement at the time of their last post:

1. Casi (who left in a huff after being told that 'seeming compromise' and real compromise were simply not the same thing because that was too unbearable, and is also not a user of the channel in question)
2. Merdaneth (who is raising a point about the number of responses in the thread as his main argument, and not about sentiments expressed)
3. The Cosmopolite (who is on bad terms with me currently, and so far has not contradicted me in claiming he's not a user of the channel in question)

You want me to not do something because a few people, so far, have come to me to express some irritation, at first?

Really?

I don't buy that irritating a couple of people for ten minutes by having someone else fuck something up or misrepresent me is a sinker for this concept.

I also don't buy that three to six people's objections over something should stop me pleasing a group ten to twenty times their size - ten beforehand, I might add - for the sake of not mildly irritating three to six people, for the same reason I don't buy not telling you out of character that your playstyle needs to go or your roleplay is wrong - or listen to people that tell ME that.

'Cause what it's all coming across, chiefly, is 'your perception of the purpose and function of this chunk of the setting we share is wrong! And you need positively everyone's permission to impact it to any extent.'

To which I can only say, really? Why? Why isn't it enough to let dozens of people have a party in the community pool on tuesdays if you get it back to normal the day after? The hard rules of the community let them do it - is it really their responsibility to go knocking on every door and gaining permission?

I don't really think it is.

Contains content that breaks rule three?

I don't see a lot of it, and as such I don't know what Lou was thinking when she moved it, so I'm going to ask for it to be highlighted specifically.

Taking down a large post when a line of it is problematic is kinda bullshit if you're removing chunks. I wrote the damn thing in good faith.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Tried to talk to Lou, talked to Havvo instead because Lou wasn't available, shit was resolved, am given the go-ahead to repost the whole post minus two lines.

This moderation of whole posts is kind of irritating.

[Louella Dougans]

It was the bits about casiella and cosmopolite.

and what i was thinking, when moving it, was the thing about "snipping" tiny bits, which would damage the readability of the rest of it.

also, people seemed agitated, and i didn't think i had enough time to do it right

[Havohej]

Irritating though it may be, people also get irritated when we temp-lock active threads to go through and 'snip-moderate' without missing anything and without new replies being made while we're working (which could lead to the thread going out of control).  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[scagga]

Irritating though it may be, people also get irritated when we temp-lock active threads to go through and 'snip-moderate' without missing anything and without new replies being made while we're working (which could lead to the thread going out of control).  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

This is one reason why I supported letting people get offended / riposting first, rather than taking action before people start getting rowdy. That way there is little room for doubt as to why you are taking action, ergo less fear of over-moderation and more user trust in the appropriateness of moderation decisions.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Nah, Scagga.

Damnned if you do, damnned if you don't, but not damnned if you document everything well and explain everything in sufficient detail, in my case.

I want to know what was offensive, I want to know why, and I want to know what can be reposted, below my catacombed post which is almost wholly acceptable, and then I want to repost it and get back to the discussion as quickly as possible.

I think we all want that.

WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT? THEY WANT JOBS. NOT HANDOUTS, HAND-JOBS.

[scagga]

Nah, Scagga.

Damnned if you do, damnned if you don't, but not damnned if you document everything well and explain everything in sufficient detail, in my case.

I want to know what was offensive, I want to know why, and I want to know what can be reposted, below my catacombed post which is almost wholly acceptable, and then I want to repost it and get back to the discussion as quickly as possible.

I think we all want that.

WHAT DO THE PEOPLE WANT? THEY WANT JOBS. NOT HANDOUTS, HAND-JOBS.

I'm not discounting your argument or that of Havohej's, they are both valid.  My rationale is based on personal preference for 'some' discord to be expressable in a controlled manner, because I think it lowers stress levels. I think that if the rules for intervention are left to be subjective, and this is clear, we can have more risque discussions with more room for interaction. 

I'm not saying 'let bedlam reign', I'm of the opinion that users should know that mods may decide to react differently to the same offense.  If a slightly offensive post isn't reacted to / reported, or is responded to in a controlled manner, the moderators could occassionally let them slide in the interests of interesting conversation. Users should know they are taking a risk with potentially harsh consequences when they post offensively. I know this opens the door to a good deal of moderator bias though...so I probably just dug myself a hole.