Print

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

[Lyn Farel]

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3197.0

I definitly understand that the discussion about drugs legality was totally off topic and so, had to be removed. Now, why in the catacombs ? You say it yourself in the mod post :

"Off-topic. Please feel free to create a separate thread if you want to discuss Drug legalization/comparative justice systems/etc."

Why not splitting the thread ? I did not find the discussion particularily offensive or rule breaking, and maybe even a little interesting.

I do not understand either why you came to that conclusion :

"Please tread carefully when it comes to RL religion, politics, and other controversial issues. There are lots of forums for debating that kind of thing, this isn't one of them."

"It isn't something we always enforce strictly, but in general doing things that look like flame-baiting based on nationality and the like are frowned on."

I did not see any flamebaiting here. So it is also stated that this forum is not a place for that kind of discussion. If this is the real reason involved, then why not telling it instead of pointing out flamebaiting ? Also, totally out of curiosity, what are the rules stating when it starts to be legit to catacomb that kind of discussions, and when it is not ? I am a little confused here. If it is frowned upon, why allowing it ?

We also have 2 different topics mixed in that moderated thread bit, the first one being about comparing two national jail systems, the other one about drugs. That does not make any sense to me. What I see is a broad moderation hammer taking out of the topic the first part that may have had to be deleted, then sweeping the rest in the movement because it was just off topic.

Not that I do particularily care about that part on drugs, but I just do not understand anything.

[Morwen Lagann]

I can't really speak to Silver's decision beyond the fact that a report was made about the off-topic posts and action was taken.

Personally, I probably would have tried to split the thread into two without binning the new one, but I was busy last night and wasn't available to deal with the report myself when it was submitted.

[Silver Night]

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3197.0

I definitly understand that the discussion about drugs legality was totally off topic and so, had to be removed. Now, why in the catacombs ? You say it yourself in the mod post :

"Off-topic. Please feel free to create a separate thread if you want to discuss Drug legalization/comparative justice systems/etc."

Why not splitting the thread ? I did not find the discussion particularily offensive or rule breaking, and maybe even a little interesting.

I do not understand either why you came to that conclusion :

"Please tread carefully when it comes to RL religion, politics, and other controversial issues. There are lots of forums for debating that kind of thing, this isn't one of them."

"It isn't something we always enforce strictly, but in general doing things that look like flame-baiting based on nationality and the like are frowned on."

I did not see any flamebaiting here. So it is also stated that this forum is not a place for that kind of discussion. If this is the real reason involved, then why not telling it instead of pointing out flamebaiting ? Also, totally out of curiosity, what are the rules stating when it starts to be legit to catacomb that kind of discussions, and when it is not ? I am a little confused here. If it is frowned upon, why allowing it ?

We also have 2 different topics mixed in that moderated thread bit, the first one being about comparing two national jail systems, the other one about drugs. That does not make any sense to me. What I see is a broad moderation hammer taking out of the topic the first part that may have had to be deleted, then sweeping the rest in the movement because it was just off topic.

Not that I do particularily care about that part on drugs, but I just do not understand anything.

Basically, the initial post that started the derail was also the one with the flamebaiting (stuff that says, 'Look at these statistics that show this country (my country) is better than this country (your country). Aren't they interesting?' qualifys as flame baiting - particularly when those statistics are used to then draw a broad, negative generalization about the country in question.) I apologize if that wasn't clear.

Moderation can happen for more than one reason, and given how the derail started out, I thought if people would like to continue the discussion, they could do it with a better start than that. It also, as you observed, was a derail that was itself then derailed. So rather than go through and try to separate the two, I again figured a fresh start would be better.

[Mizhara]

The post wasn't flamebait. The post said in clear language that "here's some interesting numbers. I can't draw too distinct conclusions from them, but I think they're indicative.". The post also said clearly that it was a response to claims and statements about the justice system in my country. Fairly clearly, anyway. If that's flamebait, you should go back through the thread and remove those statements too. I found them more than acceptable, but by the standards you judged my post, they should be outright shitposting to you Silver.

No? Of course not. It's not "flamebait" if it's something you agree with.

[Katrina Oniseki]

No? Of course not. It's not "flamebait" if it's something you agree with.

I believe the correct term would then be "controversial" or maybe even "incendiary" if you likely spicy pyrotechnic words. 

[Silver Night]

The post wasn't flamebait. The post said in clear language that "here's some interesting numbers. I can't draw too distinct conclusions from them, but I think they're indicative.". The post also said clearly that it was a response to claims and statements about the justice system in my country. Fairly clearly, anyway. If that's flamebait, you should go back through the thread and remove those statements too. I found them more than acceptable, but by the standards you judged my post, they should be outright shitposting to you Silver.

No? Of course not. It's not "flamebait" if it's something you agree with.

Actually, I happen to agree with your post, Mizhara. Kindly avoid assigning motivations and beliefs without evidence (or, ideally, at all since it is rarely productive).

My personal opinion on the flaws of the US justice system is beside the point. The off-topic posting was reported, and there was, additionally, flame bait there. For both of those reasons, it was moderated.

If you care to look at the catacombs, there was already another post, from the same thread, moderated for its content regarding Norway's justice system. If there are other posts that you feel break the guidelines, feel free to report them. The moderators can't read every thread or post, so we often do miss things. Any reports will be considered and moderation will happen as needed.

[Bacchanalian]

FWIW, I was the one who reported it (or one of them) and I specifically said that the thread should probably be split as the discussion had deviated from the original topic.

[orange]

The post wasn't flamebait.

No? Of course not. It's not "flamebait" if it's something you agree with.

I consider use of terms like "Muricah" to be disrespectful and pretty effective flamebait.

[Bacchanalian]

The post wasn't flamebait.

No? Of course not. It's not "flamebait" if it's something you agree with.

I consider use of terms like "Muricah" to be disrespectful and pretty effective flamebait.

You're overly sensitive.  I'm 'murrican" and use the term. 

[Victoria Stecker]

The post wasn't flamebait.

No? Of course not. It's not "flamebait" if it's something you agree with.

I consider use of terms like "Muricah" to be disrespectful and pretty effective flamebait.

You're overly sensitive.  I'm 'murrican" and use the term. 

This is toeing the fine line where it's ok for me to make fun of myself, not necessarily ok for you to make fun of me. generalizing the US justice system as "JAIL ALL THE PEOPLE! FOR LIFE!", while not nearly as far off the mark as I'd like it to be, is still a bit much.

[orange]

The post wasn't flamebait.

No? Of course not. It's not "flamebait" if it's something you agree with.

I consider use of terms like "Muricah" to be disrespectful and pretty effective flamebait.

You're overly sensitive.  I'm 'murrican" and use the term. 

This is toeing the fine line where it's ok for me to make fun of myself, not necessarily ok for you to make fun of me. generalizing the US justice system as "JAIL ALL THE PEOPLE! FOR LIFE!", while not nearly as far off the mark as I'd like it to be, is still a bit much.

Just because two black Americans call each other nigger does not make it ok for me to do the same.

[Bacchanalian]

Which is why if you were using the term yanqui puto I'd be offended. 

Maybe I'm less sensitive than some.  I grew up in a Latin American country as an American during a time when said country was drowning under IMF debt for which blame was left squarely at the feet of the United States.  There were many shades of gray in that environment.  Someone could generalize about how much they hated my country without including me in their generalization.  They could even generalize about how obnoxious my compatriots all were without including me (and be right--what the fuck is it about American tourists wearing socks and fucking sandals?  and fanny packs?  wtf?). 

v0v

[scagga]

It's hard to be 'fair' in moderation due to limited information available to the moderator. It's easier to work by ideals.  If it quacks, it is a shitpost.