Print

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

[Mazca]

A subject for discussion.

I suspect this is a case by case assessment by the mod team, but then it is a highly subjective call so there is openings for misunderstandings and favourism so to speak. Is it an issue of if in doubt mod, or if in doubt get a second oppinion or whats the deal?

Obviously this inquiry is rooted in a personal experience during the day, but since it regards a modded post I am not sure I can bring it up?

regards

[Havohej]

since it regards a modded post I am not sure I can bring it up?

You can always bring it up!

It's very subjective... but if you note in the rules and guidelines pages (and sticky posts, for that matter), we're very up front about the fact that the spirit of the rules is more important to us than their letter and that many things are/will be very much subjective and very case-by-case.

So far, the general practice has been "If it reads like an attack, it probably is."  There have been posts that all of us read which did not read like attacks, but then they were reported.  When such a post is reported, it generates a thread in a closed forum area (our report system doesn't spam PM or email). 

In these automatically generated report threads, we see the comment the reporting member makes as well as the quoted text of the reported post (which we can click through to see the rest of the thread for context).  Sometimes that's all it takes and a mod will act on the report immediately.  Other times, a mod may still not be sure action is warranted and will post their opinion in the generated thread and see what other mods think of it.  It only takes one of us to read the report and review the post and say "Yeah... I can see where the reporter is coming from here; given this new understanding I do believe that there was malicious intent or if not malicious intent then that the post was accidentally inappropriate to this forum." and they'll take action.  If we all* agree that the post doesn't warrant action then nobody mods it.

*Within reason.  If over the course of three or four days only three of us have commented on a report thread, but all three have said they don't think it warrants action, we close that report.

[Mazca]

You can always bring it up!

Having asked for a second oppinion I'll wait and see if anything comes from that.

It's very subjective... but if you note in the rules and guidelines pages (and sticky posts, for that matter), we're very up front about the fact that the spirit of the rules is more important to us than their letter and that many things are/will be very much subjective and very case-by-case.

So far, the general practice has been "If it reads like an attack, it probably is." 

So reading something like an attack would also require an assessment of the poster, and making a snap judgement regarding the intend being either tongue in cheek, or a jab in disguise??

[Casiella]

One of the problems in this sort of environment with jesting is that, due to linguistic differences, skill on the part of the writer, or the limitations of the medium, other people may not realize that a post was made in jest, even if the object of the joke did.

So then it starts either to alter the tone of the site, or result in (possibly baseless) accusations of favoritism: "Mazca made the same kind of post..." "Yes, but he was just joking." "But he said it! It should be okay!"

I wish for a little less prevalence of third-grade reasoning within Internet forum culture, but we all know that's no more than a pipe dream.

[Ciarente]

It certainly helps the moderators to be a specific as possible in making a report. What may be 'clear' to you, reading a post, due to the context of a long history, may not be at all clear to the moderation team, coming to a post 'cold'.

[Havohej]

It certainly helps the moderators to be a specific as possible in making a report. What may be 'clear' to you, reading a post, due to the context of a long history, may not be at all clear to the moderation team, coming to a post 'cold'.

This.  Really, it's at the core of Backstage's Mission Statement, Rules and FAQ Guidelines.  Everyone needs to be mindful of what they're about to post and if there's any room for doubt of good intentions, remove it before clicking "Post" or refrain from clicking that button altogether.  I've found myself typing over a thousand words just to read back over it and, not being able to re-word something without losing its meaning, junk the post altogether and think go back to a thread later (if at all).

[Mazca]

OK then since I have heard no news from the western front (eeh or something) I'd like to get back to my case.

Mind you, I had no intention of making a tongue in cheek post to Merd in the YWSO station post. to me it was as a bright happy and good spirited post helping those that had taken Merds post and started making IC refutations. It was however deemed Hostile and accompanied with a 'formal warning' (this was apparently also due to crossposting with a general warning to the entire thread) however regarding the context within which the post was written I find that highly suspicious. (post can be reviewed in the catacombs by those interested, to judge for themselves)

I started thinking of this thread when I later saw someone calling a post on IGS a 'soapopera on crack'. I mean... no offence, but if the mods are going to be consistent in calling hostility or regard something derisive, or use words in a perjorative sense, wouldn't it be helpfull to have some sort of arrangement to avoid random subjectivity. like a second opinion or wait for the supposed offended party to report or something along those lines??

 

[Ciarente]

Modding will inevitably be subjective to some degree or other. While we do try to discuss reported posts where possible, the fact that posters and mods come from different timezones means that it can lead to extensive delays. Leaving a post for a day or so while moderators debate it would, in my opinion, undermine the idea of moderation.

[Misan]

I'm a bit confused about how Merd's post could be taken as IC. First this forum is entirely OOC (at least for now, pending the IC sections) and it should be assumed that the content in any post is OOC. When reading Merdaneth's post it was pretty clear to me that he was stating Merdaneth's(c) perceptions of the situation. There is no reason to get into IC refutations or arguments over those comments, as they are matters of opinion and are not being stated as truths.

Anyway, my 0.02 ISK on that part of the situation.

[Mazca]

I'm a bit confused about how Merd's post could be taken as IC. First this forum is entirely OOC (at least for now, pending the IC sections) and it should be assumed that the content in any post is OOC. When reading Merdaneth's post it was pretty clear to me that he was stating Merdaneth's(c) perceptions of the situation. There is no reason to get into IC refutations or arguments over those comments, as they are matters of opinion and are not being stated as truths.

Anyway, my 0.02 ISK on that part of the situation.

Agreed. And i replied to those that would respond to him with IC arguments that his choosen position was perfectly resonable for him to take... no more no less. and yet here I am trying to dig into why I needed a formal warning... 

[Kaleigh Doyle]

It's rather amusing to see people talking about what their character would think about a situation and then someone else following up with a "Well my character thinks X." It's almost like roleplay interaction, with all that messy roleplay to muddy things up.

How about actually writing a player opinion on a subject without inflecting what your character would think and save it for actual interaction? *crazy*

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

<snip>
I started thinking of this thread when I later saw someone calling a post on IGS a 'soapopera on crack'. <snip>

That would be me. As I recall I explain my thinking behind that remark later in the same discussion.

Having gone back and checked the rules and FAQ, as far as I can tell it's OK to make it clear that you don't like something as long as you also make it clear that it's also OK for others to disagree with your opinion.

[Ciarente]

Agreed. And i replied to those that would respond to him with IC arguments that his choosen position was perfectly resonable for him to take... no more no less. and yet here I am trying to dig into why I needed a formal warning... 

I didn't mod that post so I can't give you a 'definitive' answer but if I had been the first mod to it, I would have modded it on the 'personal attack' ground. It reads, to me, as if the second line of that post is an attack on another player's RP, especially with the inclusion of 'Creative.' which is very often used to call into question someone's good faith, i.e. 'creative accounting' for tax-evasion.

We ask posters to this forum to consider how their words will be received and exercise extra care in expressing themselves politely.

[Mazca]

if I had been the first mod to it, I would have modded it on the 'personal attack' ground. It reads, to me, as if the second line of that post is an attack on another player's RP, especially with the inclusion of 'Creative.'

Right, well given the context in which you arrived at that conclution you will forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt. For the sake of argument though, would you, considering the general warning by havohej in that thread, crossposted, (though percieved as after) issued a formal warning based on your subjective perception of hostile intent? And further, are the formal warnings issued at the discression of the mod based on the severity of the offence, and/or other factors?