Print

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

[Lillith Blackheart]

Me in this thread.

Edit: And for that matter, every post I've made on this forum. Also much of Ashar's posts, he's pretty blunt about things, too, though I find him to be equally non-combative.

[Laerise [PIE]]

Hey, I'm catholic! :p

Also, please decide if there's shit or poop in the title, its confusing to call up another thread every five minutes

[Lillith Blackheart]

Hahaha. That came about because I editted the first post and some people aren't replying to the first post. I will try to catch it whenever I reply to people!

[Lillith Blackheart]

I suspect the mods are feeling their way forward, and so occasionally might react slightly off from their ideal. It happens.

And, were I one of them, I don't know that I would take the OP as calm and level-headed (though I certainly can see the constructive bits within it).

Ahh, but see that's the thing. I was. I was speaking very bluntly, but my post wasn't combative. I was explaining what I saw and how I saw it, and what I feel could be done to rectify it and/or to improve it.

I was offering constructive criticism, and as I am not one that beats around the bush about things, I just dumped it out directly and bluntly.

This is where I think a divide lies. One can be blunt and non-combative. People tend to misread me, because they read into what it is I'm saying as an angry voice simply because there's no flowery language that makes them feel good.

I don't really like to mess around with that, and if that means that my style of speech is not welcome here I can gladly limit my posting to a bare minimum as I've no intention of disrupting what you're making here.

As I said, I'm not trying to shit on any of the moderators here. I understand clearly that there are learning curves and there is water-testing and so on.

I am, however, seeing a trend that concerns me as from my PoV it is swinging the pendulum too far to the opposite direction, causing precisely the opposite problem that they are moving away from.

So I am attempting to offer criticism to help them understand the perspective I am getting and why that perspective is coming about, so that they can then decide to tell me to piss off and that I'm out of line, or they can move forward to attempt to hit that middle-ground that I believe (possibly incorrectly) they are aiming for.

[Silver Night]

I ask because 'blunt' is often code for rude.

That may not be the case with you, of course. Let me quote a couple other bits of the FAQ though:

Q: What's the difference between debate and argument?
A: Debate or discussion involves people putting forward their ideas and opinions. Argument is when people start fighting over whose ideas or opinions are 'right'. For example, if you find yourself responding to a post with anything along the lines of 'You're wrong, because...', stop and think. Don't sit there working out what's wrong with someone else's idea. Propose your own, and tell us all the ways in which it's awesome. Everybody wins a discussion: nobody wins an argument.

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

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.

Now, getting your points across briefly and with clarity is certainly fine. A bare minimum of words used to convey what you want to convey without using flourishes and flowery language is even, perhaps, to be admired. Stating your opinions baldly and with emphasis is ok. Being rude is not, and there is a difference.

If someone has trouble judging what that difference is, in the context of the standards of this forum, then mods will use the tools at their disposal to make it more clear.

[Casiella]

I personally find many of Ashar's posts combative. Communication involves both the speaker's intent and the listener's perception, and in this case (and others), lots of perceptions go awry when "blunt" phrasing gets used.

[Silver Night]

I suspect the mods are feeling their way forward, and so occasionally might react slightly off from their ideal. It happens.

And, were I one of them, I don't know that I would take the OP as calm and level-headed (though I certainly can see the constructive bits within it).

Ahh, but see that's the thing. I was. I was speaking very bluntly, but my post wasn't combative. I was explaining what I saw and how I saw it, and what I feel could be done to rectify it and/or to improve it.

To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.

Saying 'I didn't mean it to be x' doesn't mean other people might not see it that way. That is why the FAQ encourages people to err on the side of 'lovey-doveyness'. I know there have been any number of times when I have posted something, and it has been taken in a completely different way than I intended.

[Lillith Blackheart]

To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.

To some people saying "God Bless You" when they sneeze is rude.

Saying 'I didn't mean it to be x' doesn't mean other people might not see it that way. That is why the FAQ encourages people to err on the side of 'lovey-doveyness'. I know there have been any number of times when I have posted something, and it has been taken in a completely different way than I intended.

Right, but the FAQ encourages people to be grown-ups. In any communication, be it on a forum or otherwise, as Casi said intent and perception matter, and can go awry.

If the people are grown-ups in a conversation face-to-face, the initial response if one didn't understand something or thought that someone was being combative would be to request clarification. In fact in sales or customer service (for example), the first thing you are taught is that when someone says something to you, you repeat to them what they just said as a paraphrased question, so that you limit the communication problems.

In any conversation or discussion between two adults, there will be numerous misunderstandings and mis-perceptions that will go on. I speak in the same tone of voice here that I do irl, and though on forums people give me crap about hostility from time to time, irl and in many forums that I have been on, I have no such problems, because those people ask.

I am one of those people that irl tends to have a sardonic sense of humor. I like a good dig, on someone or myself it doesn't matter. Occasionally I cross a line, occasionally that line is only crossed from the perspective of one person, however that person then says "Wow, that was a bit offensive" and the situation is then resolved like adults.

Take this thread as an example. Casi expressed displeasure with how I worded some of the OP. So I went back and fixed it for her to help clarify the intention of the post.

[Silver Night]

To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.

To some people saying "God Bless You" when they sneeze is rude.

The above seems, to me, dismissive. Is that how you intended it?

I'm simply trying to illustrate why some things that you think are reasonable may get you moderated. The thing about moderation is, of course, that it is unlikely that you can keep everyone happy with it. Comes with the job I guess.

I don't think the issue some might have with your initial post was the profanity, by the way.

In any case, I think I've made it as clear as it is likely to get. Hopefully people who are having trouble with the moderation on the boards will get a better idea of it as it is practiced. In the mean time, I can only recommend re-reading the Rules, FAQ, and Mission Statement.

[Lillith Blackheart]

To you your post didn't seem combative or rude. That doesn't mean that it might not seem that way to other people, Lilith. That is sort of the issue here.

To some people saying "God Bless You" when they sneeze is rude.

The above seems, to me, dismissive. Is that how you intended it?

Not exactly. More intended to make an example of what you stated in the following quote down below. If anything it was a "slippery slope" argument.

I'm simply trying to illustrate why some things that you think are reasonable may get you moderated. The thing about moderation is, of course, that it is unlikely that you can keep everyone happy with it. Comes with the job I guess.

Yes, administration is pretty thankless, and that sucks. I would like to stress again I'm really not trying to shit on you guys. I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I understand how much of a PITA it is. I'm actually trying to be constructive here.

I don't think the issue some might have with your initial post was the profanity, by the way.

I am more than willing; as has been evidenced throughout the thread I think, to take as much time and as much work clarifying anything I was saying to anyone that takes issue with anything I have said. I have infinite patience in attempting to be understood as intended.

The fact that people do not/will not/are not given the option to do so is, I think, the core of the issue that I am taking that spawned this thread.

In any case, I think I've made it as clear as it is likely to get. Hopefully people who are having trouble with the moderation on the boards will get a better idea of it as it is practiced. In the mean time, I can only recommend re-reading the Rules, FAQ, and Mission Statement.

So be it. Again, I'm not trying to take a proverbial poo on your proverbial heads or claim that things are being poorly managed or any such nonsense. I am simply attempting to offer a perspective you may not be personally privy to, as yours obviously is going to differ. That's all.

[Havohej]

Secondly, you're locking a thread on and off at random times when the thread isn't even heated. It is a simple, calm discussion about a topic which may be sensitive, but both sides of the discussion were very calm and neither was being nasty. They were simply offering their opinions and substantiating them.

The reason for the temp lock was a moderation was going to take place and by the time I could click Modify Post, two new posts had been made - one of which quoted the text that was going to be moderated.  To give myself time and avoid the thread from spiraling out of control surrounding that comment and becoming a situation that wouldn't be easily salvaged, I 'hit the pause button', so to speak, in order to give the thread a brief cooldown and make sure that a mistake wasn't made.

As frustrating as that might be, I believe it is much less frustrating than when a well-intentioned moderator removes a piece of text from one post while letting it stand in another.  Before the forum opened, there was a lot of discussion over whether we'd bother with *snip* moderation at all due to how easy it is to lose track of a thread people are actively posting in right that minute.  The end result was a loose guideline that left up to moderator discretion whether a post (or series of posts) were good enough on the whole to be saved by removing just a small bit of offensive text or whether said posts should be binned to the Catacombs as well as whether or not such an action would be followed be an outright thread lock.  It was also agreed upon that, if a mod should decide that it was worth taking the time to *snip*, they would temporarily lock the thread in order to do so as carefully and correctly as possible to prevent that action from creating a worse situation than already existed - which we've seen happen elsewhere under similar circumstances.

Does this apply only in the aspect of people having to be all butterflies and honey with people or does it also not apply to people being able to have a grown-up discussion about a topic that may be a bit sensitive?

I hope you'll agree that the text that was left intact (the great majority of it) is far from butterflies and honey or gumdrops and lollipops...

With regard to the difference between "I disagree" and "you are incorrect", I'll elaborate again that I see the two phrases as being quite different:

"I disagree" = I see your point, but I have a different opinion.

"You are incorrect" = I see your point and it is wrong, my opinion is the only correct one.

If I had said "You're wrong about this" that would be one thing, but that wasn't what was said or even hinted at, it was "I think you may have set up your categories incorrectly".

While I'm sure it may seem like a negligible difference, if you'd said "I think you may have...", it would've been a different matter entirely.  Adding the word "may" expresses respect for the fact that opinions other than yours "may" be correct.  The quote as posted was:

I think you have the two "Primary Views of thought" incorrectly set out in general [...]

(The full text is linked in the quote header for context, of course.)  Ghost could very well have responded with, "No, I think YOU'RE incorrect," and then who knows what wildness the thread may have spiraled off into as tempers grew progressively more heated in argument (rather than discussion).  Obviously, Ghost did not take your meaning to be combative or offensive and the thread continued civilly; no harm, no foul, as it were.

If the subject is something that can be factually discussed "ex: ice is cold", that's one thing.  If the subject is a matter of opinion (undocumented Schools of Sansha thought or whether or not PIE is a cult of personality, for example), it's a different thing entirely.  We don't want good discussions being bogged down and becoming arguments where one 'side' gets wrapped up in defending itself from the other 'side' which has become equally wrapped up in 'proving' its 'right-ness'.

As I expressed in the PM you reference, though, I didn't see it as intentional on your part and Ghost obviously wasn't put out by the wording, so all's well that ends well.  This "The rules are subjective" bit works both ways; we can subjectively choose to moderate based on the spirit of the rules and guidelines and we can subjectively choose not to moderate, again, based on the spirit of the rules and guidelines.

As Silver said, though, no punitive action was taken and no warning was recorded.  While I do understand why you would perceive it that way and apologize if I wasn't clear enough about the non-warning intention of the PM, I hope you'll understand that with the sort of atmosphere we're trying to create and how it contrasts with the sort of atmosphere most of the community is already used to, we're tending to want to err on the side of caution, especially early on.

Lastly, I'd like to say that I'm not personally offended by this thread (nor was I by the opinions you expressed in our exchange of PMs the other day ) and I appreciate the time you've taken to offer your insight as well as the insight itself.  I do agree that there is the potential for this forum to be over-moderated just as there is the potential for Chatsubo to be under-moderated.  Relevant to that concern, I think it's worth pointing out that as the forum's only three days old, I think the longer it goes and the more folks acclimate to a different "posting culture", the less moderation will be needed.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Despite the baffling title of the thread, I will grace it with my disturbing presence.

Lillith, you should know that there are always good odds that a thread I'm in will turn ugly.

When it's one I feel as strongly about as the Amarr Bloc thread, and when I've spoken to the admins about it before and they know the strength of my conviction as well as the acerbic depths my tone can shift into, well.

They're probably making the mistake of not banning me sooner.

Now. Had I been involved in more of the Smoke-Filled Room discussions where the framework of ideas that the forum was assembled over was hammered together, I'd have fought far more vehemently for this forum to best serve the sort of audience that was ten hairs away from an uncompromising, unreasonable, ethnic-slur-utilizing baboon that's right at home on the likes of 4chan's random board, and fuck the mod turnover that'd have caused. But things got decided otherwise.

Meaning...your point concerning the PM may well have been on the ball, but I doubt any power on earth short of the community showing some pretty repulsive true colors will move the team here away from trying to keep things amicable, and amicable to their standard or something only a few degrees from it, for quite some time. We'll just have to see if that's hidden wisdom or merely a fool's errand.

[Ashar Kor-Azor]

Also.

Text is an inherently cold medium. Lillith and I know that on some level, I expect.

But what you never know in a new environment is the precise cost of doing business. Here, it is rather high.

Admittedly, I feel it's higher than it REALLY needs to be, but my opinion is counterbalanced by a number of other people on the other side of the line.

If the mods here manage to keep things sufficiently amicable, welp. We'll get a bigger userbase, to some degree.

And honestly, all the moderation is transparent. All the moderation is reversible. You are posting in a forum where you can request that mod actions which have been committed with an eye to transparency be reconsidered by those who oversee the moderators; you have gotten answers.

It's better'n none.

EDIT: However, having just re-read the post in question as well as Havvo's argument, I think I'd have preferred it if the mods went ahead and waited for Ghost to respond in the expectedly bad way before pre-emtively pushing Lillith to alter posting behavior.

Mostly because it is expected that as Ghost and Lillith are both members of a tiny group of people that all know each other and are at least mildly familiar with each others' styles of interaction, and the thread deals with the very subject matter their group is concerned with, there is a broader context to the incident that is likely entirely responsible for Lillith's feeling a bit alienated when she's being pre-emptively modded in speaking to someone who knows her. Or him. Whatever goddamn gender you are, Lillith, I don't know.

Personally, I feel things like that should play some kinda factor.

[Casiella]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but in general I think this is where Backstage intends to differ from Chatsubo. Over there, this might be par for the course. Over here, they want to guide the conversation gently into a slightly different tone.

[Ciarente]

EDIT: However, having just re-read the post in question as well as Havvo's argument, I think I'd have preferred it if the mods went ahead and waited for Ghost to respond in the expectedly bad way before pre-emtively pushing Lillith to alter posting behavior.

Mostly because it is expected that as Ghost and Lillith are both members of a tiny group of people that all know each other and are at least mildly familiar with each others' styles of interaction, a

However, not everyone who reads these forums is part of that group or knows that Ghost and Lilith have such a history, and we're trying to create an atmosphere that is welcoming.

'Everyone who knows me knows I don't mean any harm' doesn't work when a new player checks out the site. They read the text 'cold'.