Print

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

[BloodBird]

"Entirely self-explanatory."

No not really, because I'm apparently to dumb to see how this is correct, and as such I don't get it.

An explanation, prefferably with some details, would be nice, Morwen.

In the meantime, let's sugar-coat it with some absolute neutrality in tone. Let's try again.

[Katrina Oniseki]

Your first thread was sprinkled with italicized vulgarity at Desiderya's post. That sort of set the stage for the rest of your post to be read in a hostile tone. Yes, I get that it was mock-IC. Since you weren't actually posting IC, you didn't have to word it that way on an OOC board known for enforcing rules of civil discussion.

The next part of it openly called it a lie (again supposedly IC), and then you OOC started asking for sources to PF if it's not a lie. To me that sounds like you're trying to mask your OOC opinions of it being a lie by saying it supposedly IC. If that's not how you intended it, that's how it looked.

[Vikarion]

Whether you intended it or not, your post looked precisely like a "urdoingitwrong", AND like you were having trouble sorting out IC and OOC differences.

You could have expressed the exact same query like this:

"Hey guys, I'm having trouble finding evidence for the claim that the Caldari tried to negotiate for the return of Caldari Prime. Is this just an IC claim, or have I missed something?

[Morwen Lagann]

I figured we were all adults here, and that everyone was capable of reviewing the rules themselves given the hint I gave without the need for me to hold their hands and read the rules to them like a bedtime story. Apparently not.

It was entirely self-explanatory, and I even gave you an explanation anyway: the post positively reeked of "urdoinitrong" to the point that when someone mentioned they were about to report a thread I was able to tell them "Yes, I saw it, don't bother" and was able to respond "Yes" when they asked "Bloodbird's?" to make sure. Other people noticed it (Kat, Desi) and said something in the thread, which I also noted that they are not supposed to do.*

You frequently come across as extremely aggressive and confrontational in your posting, which contributed to the fact that whether you intended it or not, your post came across - to multiple people not just including myself - in a fashion that is against the rules of this forum. My job is not to figure out what your intent is (as, in fact, Silver occasionally has to remind me), it's to deal with how everyone else interprets your intent and where that fits in with the forum's rules. In fact, if your post is breaking the rules, unless it's borderline I generally don't care what your intent was simply because it's breaking the rules.

The forum has rules to encourage civil discussion. It's entirely possible to have a heated argument without breaking those rules. Your post violated several rules, and it (and its responses) was removed as a result.



* See a post that doesn't meet the rules? Report it and don't respond to it. Responding to it can invalidate reports you then subsequently make about that post. (Yes, I'm looking at a few people in particular who are guilty of this. You know who you are. Knock it off.)

[lallara zhuul]

There also may be a small misunderstanding here.

In other threads me, and several others, have strayed to more harsh views and language that have been brushed off as IC.

I believe the difference here is that those IC responses were never personal or directed at a singular person, just expressing a viewpoint with rhetoric that can be clearly seen as painted in the IC culture of the character portrayed.

It seems that the moderation team is aware of this trend and they are stepping on it hard in this case, because it may be that they do not want some strange offshoot of forum-fu develop where 'IC' is used to dance around the moderation.

If this is not the case, please disregard this whole post.

[JinOtsi]

So someone asking for clarification gets treated with haughty arrogance and derision from a moderator. Nor particularly surprising. When is the behaviour standards you're asking from others going to start applying to you guys? Some moderators in particular seem completely incapable of doing their jobs without acting worse than any of the offenders.

[Desiderya]

Bloodbird,

Your post can be summarized as using "Mock IC" to call my (And not Des's) statement bullshit. The question for PF regarding this claim is hidden behind an "unless", which fortifies the point that you're discarding what was said on an OOC level as well. And I am leaning myself out of the window far enough to claim that this is a rather objective analysis.

I was pretty sure that this wasn't the intention, but only because I usually apply goodwill to other people and I know of your habits of diving headfirst into situations like this.



edit:
I think that 'someone asking for clarification gets treated horribly' is quite an exaggeration.

[JinOtsi]

edit:
I think that 'someone asking for clarification gets treated horribly' is quite an exaggeration.

Good thing no one made that claim then.

[Desiderya]

Fine, you'll get the special treatment:

So someone asking for clarification gets treated with haughty arrogance and derision from a moderator.

I think this is quite an exaggeration for what has happened.

[JinOtsi]

And you're entitled to your opinion. As I am to mine.

[BloodBird]

I figured we were all adults here, and that everyone was capable of reviewing the rules themselves given the hint I gave without the need for me to hold their hands and read the rules to them like a bedtime story. Apparently not.

It was entirely self-explanatory, and I even gave you an explanation anyway: the post positively reeked of "urdoinitrong"

Well, aren't we arrogant.

I made this tread for the exact reasons posted above, namely the fact that I did not (at the time) quite get it, and wanted it spelled out to be absolutely sure. People were then kind enough to actually do that, underlying the issue that I had suspected at the time. Katrina posted first, and her post was technically enough. I decided to wait with responding however because I wanted the input of more than one person, to be sure.

In the time between making this tread and reading it again now, I re-read the cata'ed tread and gained a good grasp of what the issue was, and then when thinking of my re-make of said tread I went "why didn't I just do that to begin with? " So I got it back then, but decided to make absolutely sure because, as far as I'm aware, the best practice is constant repetition - in this case, hearing the 'why was this a stupid move' arguments from more than one source.

As far as I recall the original idea was basically to quote Des's IC post and make a mock-example of a typical denial responce, ala 'nu-hu, no publicly available info on this, I don't buy it' and then instantly clarifying that I wanted to converse about the topic and possibly hear about any PF sources that supported Des's IC claim. Ofc, I messed up horribly by fully forgetting exactly where I was posting that tread and how needlessly agressive and unclear it actually was, the above example likely would have been left alone because it's not quite so hostile. Or I could have just forgone the mock responce entierly, as I ended up doing anyway. As I said, it seemed like an acceptable idea at the time.

Here however we have a condensating mod basically telling me that I'm clearly not adult enough to get it, and that the supposedly self-explanatory reasons needed no further clarification. THE FACT THIS TREAD WAS MADE directly contradicts this claim: If it was indeed that clear then I would not have made this tread at all, because I would need no clarification.

Fine, you'll get the special treatment:

So someone asking for clarification gets treated with haughty arrogance and derision from a moderator.

I think this is quite an exaggeration for what has happened.

Bold is mine. Consider that responding to someone's opinion (witch differs from yours) with this arrogant attitude of "well, I'll give you the special treatment because clearly you don't get it" is needlessly agressive. JinOtsi stated an opinion and you, disagreeing, brushed it off because you don't agree.

As a matter of some fact, I happen to agree. Morwen's initial responce was, as far as I'm concerned, nedless agressive and arrogant, brushing my request for clarification off with what basically ammounts to "Are you a child? This is crystal clear!" Except it wasn't that clear to me and simply asking for clarification should not involve a verbal back-hand slap over the face as a responce.

This tread however has served it's purpose by now. Thanks everyone for your input. Hopefully it won't take to long for me to remember to double-check my creations before I post and remind myself that overtly agressive conduct is not appreciated on these boards, and to consider how a post can be read by outside parties.

[Desiderya]

As a matter of fact the special treatment considered of quoting the sentence without changes after Jinari said my changes totally weren't what was being said. Since empty quoting is bad I reposted the reason for quoting it in the first place, too: My own opinion about what I considered too harsh of a critique.
Note the words like "I" and "think", which, when combined, form the perfect symbiosis to successfully lead the reader to the conclusion that what follows is indeed a subjective opinion.

Morwen's initial responce was, as far as I'm concerned, nedless agressive and arrogant, brushing my request for clarification off with what basically ammounts to "Are you a child? This is crystal clear!" Except it wasn't that clear to me and simply asking for clarification should not involve a verbal back-hand slap over the face as a responce.

I agree, a simple request for clarification shouldn't involve that kind of action. What I considered bad form (reasons above) was the OP. You've responded in that thread in an even worse manner than you've started it, leading to moderation. Big surprise.

[BloodBird]

I was not reffering to the original, cata'ed tread. I was responding to Morwen's reply in this tread right here.

[Desiderya]

My mistake, then, I thought you (both) were indeed referring to the cata'd thread.
Apologies.

[BloodBird]

My mistake, then, I thought you (both) were indeed referring to the cata'd thread.
Apologies.

Accepted. Might explain why you though it was unreasonable to get annoyed with Morwen's responce. Had it indeed been in reply to her moderator action, it would be unreasonable to get angry.