Print

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

[Ciarente]

We all have words or phrases that are shorthand for a great deal of compressed meaning.

As familiar as those terms may be to us and to our IG circle, when posting on Backstage it's important to remember that the readership is far wider and the shorthand unfamiliar.

We do not weigh moderation decisions on 'but I didn't mean it to sound the way it sounded', but on how it sounded.

The best way to avoid the modstick of loving correction is to make sure you clarify terms and phrases that carry specific meanings for you above and beyond their more common use.

As an example, although I might use the phrase 'Minmatar loyalist corp' in character or in an OOC conversation in game to distinguish some corporations for 'Republic loyalist corps', if I were to post here, for example, that "corporation X is no longer a Minmatar loyalist corp" I would get, and deserve to be, modded. 

[Mizhara]

Why does that deserve moderation? It's simple uttering of opinion with no malicious content. If there's need for clarification of the opinion, I'm sure people'd ask. This is kind of ridiculous to be honest. Where is the malicious content? Where's the offense? Where's the flame, the flamebait, the rule breaking? Going over that with a fine toothed comb, I can't find a single rule applicable to this.

[Laerise [PIE]]

So, does this also mean we may not call any corp a pirate corp, even when they act like one? 

Edit: Edit after breakfast: Bah, no need for tinfoil

[Ciarente]

A useful guide as to whether phrasing and nomenclature is appropriate is to ask yourself if your post shows OOC respect for the organisations or players you're describing.

To specifically address the example of piracy, VETO, for example, is a self-described pirate corp. I quote from the corp description: "Veto Corp has also been linked to tens of thousands of cases of border region piracy..."

Would I describe Veto as a pirate corp in a post on these boards? Yes.

Rote Kapelle, on the other hand, although ICly set negative to my character and her corporation because of their IC definition of 'piracy', RP as I understand it as revolutionaries in the cause of freedom. Whatever my character's IC opinions of their behaviour, I would not call them 'pirates' OOCly.

If I were discussing, say, TS-F, a corporation specifically affiliated to one of the 'pirate factions' i.e. non-Empire factions, I might describe them as a 'pirate faction' corporation, but not as 'pirates', because, again, their RP is not 'we are pirates' but 'we serve Sansha.'

And, to put it in the same terms as the originally moderated post, saying "Pirates include Veto, The Bastards - and at the very end of the spectrum maybe Ghost Festival, although it is debatable if they still do count as pirates" would earn the loving attention of your moderation team, as it is OOCly dismissive of the RP of the players in that corporation and does not respect their right to define and describe their RP for themselves.

I hope that clears things up for you and will assist you ensuring future posts are within the guidelines and standards of the boards.
 

[Mizhara]

tl;dr: Nuh uh!

Or on a more serious note, there was no cause for moderation but now we're inventing OoC disrespect for others that never existed in the first place. And more importantly, disrespecting the definitions others may have. This is an MMO. Others can call Miz a terrorist on these boards and it'd be true to them. Me asking to have that moderated would be disrespectful to their RP and their persons, because they have the right to said viewpoint on Mizhara. So in short, the moderators are showing disrespect to a perfectly valid viewpoint in order to protect another's viewpoint that was never even uttered to begin with.

Good stuff. This is where things turn from diligent moderation to censorship and thought police.

[Ciarente]

Others can call Miz a terrorist on these boards and it'd be true to them. Me asking to have that moderated would be disrespectful to their RP

This is an OOC board. Asking players to frame their opinions with respect for other players has nothing to do with opinions held and expressed by characters.

[Mizhara]

Read the rest of the post too. And it doesn't change that I was talking about their OoC viewpoint. They can have the OoC viewpoint that Miz is a terrorist IC. Me demanding such a viewpoint moderated is disrespectful to them as players and their RP. YOU and the rest of the moderators doing moderation in this particular manner are disrespectful to these people who give out their viewpoints on these boards, when it's moderated without ensuring there is actual malicious intent or disrespect in the content.

Like I said... this is crossing the line from sensible moderation to censorship and thought police.

[Myyona]

I agree with the moderators on this point.

If somebody wrote: “Ataraxia Pharmacies is debatable a humanitarian focused corporation.” I would take offence too. From my point of view; there is nothing to debate, our corporation description and all public communiqué on IGS clearly states that we are a humanitarian focused corporation.

By adding it is ‘debatable’ you are clearly indicating that you think there are valid arguments that contradict the statement. This is in effect saying that you think parts of my RP are wrong, which we all know is a big no-no on this forum. Something I am very thankful for.

Sure everything is debatable, but what make this forum great are exactly the limitations it put on that.

[Lyn Farel]

I agree with the moderation.

What is disrepectful is not to report that kind of things, but to let people OOCly criticize IC stuff. This is just unsane. Almost like confusing OOC with IC.

[Laerise [PIE]]

I agree with the moderation.

What is disrepectful is not to report that kind of things, but to let people OOCly criticize IC stuff. This is just unsane. Almost like confusing OOC with IC.

Inventing criticism where there is none does not make for a compelling argument Lyn.

For comparison, if a mouse calls itself cat, does this mean you shan't call it mouse, but cat?

[Laerise [PIE]]

A useful guide as to whether phrasing and nomenclature is appropriate is to ask yourself if your post shows OOC respect for the organisations or players you're describing.

It does not show discrespect.

To specifically address the example of piracy, VETO, for example, is a self-described pirate corp. I quote from the corp description: "Veto Corp has also been linked to tens of thousands of cases of border region piracy..."

Would I describe Veto as a pirate corp in a post on these boards? Yes.

Rote Kapelle, on the other hand, although ICly set negative to my character and her corporation because of their IC definition of 'piracy', RP as I understand it as revolutionaries in the cause of freedom. Whatever my character's IC opinions of their behaviour, I would not call them 'pirates' OOCly.

If I were discussing, say, TS-F, a corporation specifically affiliated to one of the 'pirate factions' i.e. non-Empire factions, I might describe them as a 'pirate faction' corporation, but not as 'pirates', because, again, their RP is not 'we are pirates' but 'we serve Sansha.'

Actions ingame should be labeled as such - if I perform actions commonly called piracy by the eve community, then I will be called a pirate IC as well as OOC.

And, to put it in the same terms as the originally moderated post, saying "Pirates include Veto, The Bastards - and at the very end of the spectrum maybe Ghost Festival, although it is debatable if they still do count as pirates" would earn the loving attention of your moderation team, as it is OOCly dismissive of the RP of the players in that corporation and does not respect their right to define and describe their RP for themselves.

It is not dismissive and I would rather not be called someone who is lacking in respect for anyone. Rather it is you who is dismissive of me and my style of writing.

I hope that clears things up for you and will assist you ensuring future posts are within the guidelines and standards of the boards.

No, actually it does not clear up anything - and I would much preferr if you would not aim veiled threats at me, thank you very much.

[Laerise [PIE]]

I agree with the moderators on this point.

If somebody wrote: “Ataraxia Pharmacies is debatable a humanitarian focused corporation.” I would take offence too. From my point of view; there is nothing to debate, our corporation description and all public communiqué on IGS clearly states that we are a humanitarian focused corporation.

By adding it is ‘debatable’ you are clearly indicating that you think there are valid arguments that contradict the statement. This is in effect saying that you think parts of my RP are wrong, which we all know is a big no-no on this forum. Something I am very thankful for.

Sure everything is debatable, but what make this forum great are exactly the limitations it put on that.

And this is where the problem lies. Kotmc's public actions in the last months have not been at all aligned with what is called "an amarr bloc corporation". Just because some people might not understand what this means does not mean that anyone is demeaning anyones RP, it is simply stating facts.

Example: If you smuggled drugs while doing your humanitarian stuff / harvested organs from those died at your hospital ships / did something else that does not exactly align with your humanitarian agenda - does that not warant the expression "arguably humanitarian" ?

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I think it's pretty simple here. Trying to tell other players/organizations what they are or aren't, regardless of fact/truth/opinion, is pretty much a violation of the rules.

[Wanoah]

It very much sounds to me like the original moderation was the result of a straightforward misunderstanding that has now been cleared up. It should be equally straightforward, mod tools permitting, to fix. No offence was intended, and more importantly, no offence was taken because there was nothing to be offended by.

I wouldn't normally comment on moderation where I have no direct interest, but what concerns me here is precedent as much as anything. I think it becomes problematic if you put your moderation hat on and put yourself in the shoes of some imaginary soul that might be offended by something and act on that basis. With the best will in the world, that is simply not sustainable, however well-intentioned, and it can lead to a certain degree of overzealousness.

Overzealousness also tends towards having a chilling effect on discussion. What I sometimes see on Backstage is the same sort of effect you see resulting from all those well-intentioned attempts at political correctness. It always starts with a genuine attempt to show consideration and balance and ends with blackboards being called chalkboards to avoid offending anyone...except that is so patronising that it is offensive to anyone with an IQ into the double digits.

I don't play the 'political correctness gawn mad' card as some kind of cover for a desire to spout offensive nonsense at every opportunity either. I am very much for political correctness in general because I have seen how positive an enforced shift away from the toxic language of the past can be. It's just that you have to watch very closely to make sure it doesn't just become a form of censorship and stifling to any kind of discourse.

[Saede Riordan]

I think it's pretty simple here. Trying to tell other players/organizations what they are or aren't, regardless of fact/truth/opinion, is pretty much a violation of the rules.

That wasn't the case though, no one was telling KOTMC their RP was wrong or that they weren't who they said they were, they were expressing their opinion on them to another group. I see know issue with that.