Print

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

[Lyn Farel]

Respect other users of Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com. Do not make attacks, either in the forums or through Private Messages. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups. Racist, ageist, sexist, homophobic (including the use of "gay" as a pejorative) and other slurs are prohibited. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups.

Above is a rule that is against namecalling. Now this alone is grounds in my mind to deal with that post.

There is more though:

FAQ - Polite Posting - Our Culture

Culture:
This forum is an OOC place for EVE roleplayers to discuss the game and roleplaying. It is a place to exchange ideas and share information. It is a place for positive, polite debate. It is a place for discussion, not arguments.

Calling people names is not polite. Neither is it positive.

Those are the things I looked at when I decided to mod the post. Now I posted that Isis is welcome to post again without the offending bit.
I'm rather certain Isis could without detracting from the message the post tries to convey.

Personal stories has nothing to do with the issue. Nor has any of my many ingame mistakes, or anyone elses for that matter.
I'm certain we can reference such things without calling those that makes such mistakes various names.

There are no "We" in this. I decided to mod this and I don't care of someones in or out of game affiliations. For me there's one thing: Is this post following the rules and spirit or not?
To ascribe me any other motivation is insulting.

Thank you for the clarification. I understand a little better.

Still not sure what to think of it though. I do usually not consider untargeted name calling (as long as it remains soft !) as unrespectful, but that's me. I also understand that it can be interpretated as breaking the rules here, so I have nothing to say on the matter.

[Vikarion]

Respect other users of Backstage@EVE-Inspiracy.com. Do not make attacks, either in the forums or through Private Messages. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups. Racist, ageist, sexist, homophobic (including the use of "gay" as a pejorative) and other slurs are prohibited. Ad hominem attacks are prohibited. Challenging ideas is fine, but do not attack individuals or groups.

Above is a rule that is against namecalling. Now this alone is grounds in my mind to deal with that post.

There is more though:

FAQ - Polite Posting - Our Culture

Culture:
This forum is an OOC place for EVE roleplayers to discuss the game and roleplaying. It is a place to exchange ideas and share information. It is a place for positive, polite debate. It is a place for discussion, not arguments.

Calling people names is not polite. Neither is it positive.

Those are the things I looked at when I decided to mod the post. Now I posted that Isis is welcome to post again without the offending bit.
I'm rather certain Isis could without detracting from the message the post tries to convey.

Personal stories has nothing to do with the issue. Nor has any of my many ingame mistakes, or anyone elses for that matter.
I'm certain we can reference such things without calling those that makes such mistakes various names.

There are no "We" in this. I decided to mod this and I don't care of someones in or out of game affiliations. For me there's one thing: Is this post following the rules and spirit or not?
To ascribe me any other motivation is insulting.

Well, I didn't intend to start a multi-page thread, but I suppose I did.

Look, goons get a lot of hate. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't. But since I've been noting that Isis has received much flak for essentially being a goon from some quarters, it's not unreasonable to ask whether a mod's motivation is as clean and pure as might be hoped. That sort of thing is why we have a moderation discussion forum.

To be insulted by that means you should not be a mod. This forum gives a lot of power to the mods, so it also gives an area to question them. I didn't call you names, I asked if we are modding people because of their associations in-game.

This is perhaps not as inflammatory as it looks. The goons are known to be major trolls, so one might suspect trolling or insult more regularly. Not to make a moral comparison, but it's similar to how you might not want a shoplifter in your store, even if they haven't stolen from you. So, we might hate goons because they tend to be trolls. Or we might decide that everyone has a right to a blank slate here.

As to the rules, the rules prohibit ad hominem attacks, and calling groups or individuals names. But the only group Isis referenced was a possible group defined by the named behavior. This isn't an actual, concrete entity, it is no one in particular. It's like me saying "people who cross the street without looking are idiots". This isn't calling anyone or any group an idiot, it's directly defining a behavior as stupid.

When Isis states that "Are some scrublords going to get in a carrier they have no business flying? Of course...", that's not calling a person or group a name. It's indirectly referencing the stupidity of an action in the context of the probability of that action. It's similar to "are some idiots going to cross the street without looking? Of course."

But this isn't calling people - as in, you, me, or the Chicago Bulls - names. It's simply referring to an action as a stupid one. I've seen other people do it here, I've seen mods do it here. Hell, in this post:

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3910.msg62722#msg62722

...Morwen states that Bloodbird - very specifically, as opposed the the entirely abstract nature of Isis's post - can't act like an adult, and needs to be hand-held. That got an "ok, whatever" from everyone, including me. And yeah, mods can do whatever they want. But there's a definite disconnect between that being "sure, fine" and this being "Oh my god, Isis said the other, other, "S" word." Since when is scrublord a "slur", anyway? Do we really want to incorporate every negative term into that infamous category? Is it really as bad as, say, a racial or homophobic slur?

And just to reiterate, getting offended that someone would question your motivation in the location established for that purpose is not entirely understandable. If you don't like anyone talking back, then don't have a forum for talking back.

[Jekaterine]

Well, I didn't intend to start a multi-page thread, but I suppose I did.

Look, goons get a lot of hate. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't. But since I've been noting that Isis has received much flak for essentially being a goon from some quarters, it's not unreasonable to ask whether a mod's motivation is as clean and pure as might be hoped. That sort of thing is why we have a moderation discussion forum.

To be insulted by that means you should not be a mod. This forum gives a lot of power to the mods, so it also gives an area to question them. I didn't call you names, I asked if we are modding people because of their associations in-game.

This is perhaps not as inflammatory as it looks. The goons are known to be major trolls, so one might suspect trolling or insult more regularly. Not to make a moral comparison, but it's similar to how you might not want a shoplifter in your store, even if they haven't stolen from you. So, we might hate goons because they tend to be trolls. Or we might decide that everyone has a right to a blank slate here.

As to the rules, the rules prohibit ad hominem attacks, and calling groups or individuals names. But the only group Isis referenced was a possible group defined by the named behavior. This isn't an actual, concrete entity, it is no one in particular. It's like me saying "people who cross the street without looking are idiots". This isn't calling anyone or any group an idiot, it's directly defining a behavior as stupid.

When Isis states that "Are some scrublords going to get in a carrier they have no business flying? Of course...", that's not calling a person or group a name. It's indirectly referencing the stupidity of an action in the context of the probability of that action. It's similar to "are some idiots going to cross the street without looking? Of course."

But this isn't calling people - as in, you, me, or the Chicago Bulls - names. It's simply referring to an action as a stupid one. I've seen other people do it here, I've seen mods do it here. Hell, in this post:

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3910.msg62722#msg62722

...Morwen states that Bloodbird - very specifically, as opposed the the entirely abstract nature of Isis's post - can't act like an adult, and needs to be hand-held. That got an "ok, whatever" from everyone, including me. And yeah, mods can do whatever they want. But there's a definite disconnect between that being "sure, fine" and this being "Oh my god, Isis said the other, other, "S" word." Since when is scrublord a "slur", anyway? Do we really want to incorporate every negative term into that infamous category? Is it really as bad as, say, a racial or homophobic slur?

And just to reiterate, getting offended that someone would question your motivation in the location established for that purpose is not entirely understandable. If you don't like anyone talking back, then don't have a forum for talking back.

That you decide to tar me with the same "You're Anti Goon" brush that is used in "some quarters" must have a basis somewhere. Please show where or the argument is null and void when it comes to this and future instances.
Just so the argument is proven valid or false I ask you to back it up when it comes to the other Mods and Admins.

Your view on my suitability is noted. Again you say you're just caring about the impartiality of the Mods and Admins. That this has been cast into doubt regarding the Goons has to have a basis in something. Show us the sources for this worry.

You're correct that we as humans might have generalized conceptions of people of various groups and natures. Again I'd have to ask you for proof that we in general aren't giving people a blank slate and me in particular. Especially when it comes to Goons but generally when it comes to other groups.

You're nitpicking when you, in my mind, should lift your head to the bigger view. Could Isis have made that post and the point he wanted made without the words "Scrublord" and "Idiots"?
In what way do they add to a positive posting culture?

In my case the Answers are:
Yes and they don't.
This is why I moderated the post and explicitely said that it could be reposted without the insults.

In your example with Morwen no one reported that post, in this case someone did. Could someone have acted without a report in the Morwen case?
Of course but no one did. I was not a Mod at that time even. There lies the difference that in one case,as you say yourself: no one cared. In this case someone did.
Am I misinterpreting you in that you're claiming doublestandards?
That Morwen got away for being Morwen and Isis was modded due to ingame affiliations?
If I am correct I'll yet again ask for you to prove that. If this isn't your argument then I apologise for misinterpreting you.

Insulted not offended.
It's not about talking back. It is,frankly, that you're making a claim here and you're no backing it up.
You're saying that we're modding based on ingame affiliation and in this case it is Anti Goon. So where are the sources?
I'm not talking about: "Lol Goons" here when they manage to do something hilarious.
I'm talking about: "Those bastards are destroying the game and all that is holy and I, [Insert Admin or Mod of Backstage], will misrepresent my position and do all I can to make their life a living hell on the forums and out of game. This I swear by the blood of my ancestors".

Or do you believe that we're biased as all hell? If this is the case and you have no inherent trust in us I have to ask:
Why are you here subjecting yourself to the whims of tyrants and petty oppressors?
I mean if this is the case you really think we'd:
A: Admit it?
B: Have a suddden epiphany and mend our wicked ways?

[Samira Kernher]

Extreme censorship doesn't create a positive posting culture, either. It creates hostility where there otherwise wouldn't have been any, which thus encourages people to act out more in the future as they stop respecting the moderating team.

Moderation shouldn't be binary. Intent and potential/actual impact should be considered. In this event, the intent was to describe a certain kind of poor player behavior, not to personally target or attack any specific individual or group, and the impact on "positive posting culture" was null until the decision was taken to remove it.

The moderation, in this event, has served to create a negative posting environment. That indicates that the moderation was in error, even if it was done strictly by the rules. Liberal interpretation of the spirit of the rules is better than rigid adherence to the literal writing of them. You'll even note that the rules/FAQ say that the intent is to reduce the amount of moderation needed, yet this forum has more moderation per thread than most others I've been part of.

Less is more.


As for the bias argument, I don't think that should have any bearing on this discussion. Whether bias exists or not is irrelevent, the actual moderation decision is what's important.

[Niraia]

Why are you here subjecting yourself to the whims of tyrants and petty oppressors?

I'm glad you asked, I'd have been banned ;D

[Lyn Farel]

In your example with Morwen no one reported that post, in this case someone did. Could someone have acted without a report in the Morwen case?
Of course but no one did. I was not a Mod at that time even. There lies the difference that in one case,as you say yourself: no one cared. In this case someone did.

Are you kidding me ? That post has been reported, and again after explanation with Silver.

I am starting to suspect that some reports never make it to the mod team...

[Alizabeth]

Wow, I just saw this.  I reposted the original, sans scrublord.  Yeah, I kinda shrugged, as I used it as "lord of scrubs" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrub a term that I actually took with me from WoW.  There was actually a guild:  "Scrublords and Loot Whores"  Ironic as we were all top players.  I was intending to reference people that specifically fly ships they should not.  At TheMittani.com we call them ALOD-awful loss of the day.  Horribly fit ships killed in hilarious ways are what we look for. 

Whatever, I reposted, moved on.   

[Jekaterine]

Extreme censorship doesn't create a positive posting culture, either. It creates hostility where there otherwise wouldn't have been any, which thus encourages people to act out more in the future as they stop respecting the moderating team.

Moderation shouldn't be binary. Intent and potential/actual impact should be considered. In this event, the intent was to describe a certain kind of poor player behavior, not to personally target or attack any specific individual or group, and the impact on "positive posting culture" was null until the decision was taken to remove it.

The moderation, in this event, has served to create a negative posting environment. That indicates that the moderation was in error, even if it was done strictly by the rules. Liberal interpretation of the spirit of the rules is better than rigid adherence to the literal writing of them. You'll even note that the rules/FAQ say that the intent is to reduce the amount of moderation needed, yet this forum has more moderation per thread than most others I've been part of.

Less is more.


As for the bias argument, I don't think that should have any bearing on this discussion. Whether bias exists or not is irrelevent, the actual moderation decision is what's important.

Extreme censorship?
Where is the extremism in removing namecalling with the caveat that the post can be reposted without the namecalling.
Something I note Isis has done according to his own post above.
You might want to find a better example of this extreme censorship because I see none.
This hostility is something I do not see from Isis post above.
Do you feel hostile?
Who are all these people you claim will act out due to the removal of the words that were moderated?

Here is the moderated post.
Here it is without the namecalling.

Tell me how this is "extreme censorship" and what the post has lost in value according to you.

Agreed that moderation needs fingerspitsgefühl (sp?). Where our views differ is that you say that namecalling is ok as long as no particular group or player is specifically targetted. I disagree and so do the rules.

According to you it has created a negative posting culture. To me it hasn't. This would be because you feel namecalling is ok in some cases and I don't.
We can agree to disagree on that point.

Intent of rules and how reality turns out are different. Many countries have harsh and extreme penalties. The intent is that the harshness will make such offenses less likely. Reality shows us otherwise.

Less is more? If you're implying that less moderation or rules lead to better discussion and posts then this is another point we'll have to disagree on.

I did not bring up the bias argument. I merely responded to it with how absurd I think it is.

Are you kidding me ? That post has been reported, and again after explanation with Silver.

I am starting to suspect that some reports never make it to the mod team...

I'll be honest and state I didn't really look that hard, just a quick once over at the page of dates corresponding to Morwens post. I was on my way out and might've missed it.
I think you can put your suspicions to rest. I've a hard time believeing some special script is running to make sure reports regarding some disappears into a memory hole.

I'd like to thank you for the thanks you gave regarding my clarification.

Wow, I just saw this.  I reposted the original, sans scrublord.  Yeah, I kinda shrugged, as I used it as "lord of scrubs" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrub a term that I actually took with me from WoW.  There was actually a guild:  "Scrublords and Loot Whores"  Ironic as we were all top players.  I was intending to reference people that specifically fly ships they should not.  At TheMittani.com we call them ALOD-awful loss of the day.  Horribly fit ships killed in hilarious ways are what we look for. 

Whatever, I reposted, moved on.   

As you're moving on so will I.
Unless a particularly stellar post pops up and catches my eye.

[Alizabeth]

Just a quick note, before we move on.  Isis is a girl.  Thanks!

[Nicoletta Mithra]

It's "Fingerspitzengefühl".

Having said that, I guess it doesn't hurt to opine a bit in regard to the topic at hand:
I think that stating a truism isn't name calling. "People who fly ships they shouldn't be in are idiots" is as close to a truism as one can get. Name-calling is, in my book, stating that x is y, where x is a specific group of people that is designated descriptively and y is a normative, derogative adjective or an adjective with otherwise negative connotations.

If I compare the sentence as before the moderation and after, the only difference I see is one of senseless political correctness in one single term. Sure, the moderation doesn't hurt much, but it seems quite to be an overreaction to me, as is seen by the triviality of the solution.

[Lyn Farel]

Are you kidding me ? That post has been reported, and again after explanation with Silver.

I am starting to suspect that some reports never make it to the mod team...

I'll be honest and state I didn't really look that hard, just a quick once over at the page of dates corresponding to Morwens post. I was on my way out and might've missed it.
I think you can put your suspicions to rest. I've a hard time believeing some special script is running to make sure reports regarding some disappears into a memory hole.

The last bit about reports mysteriously never making it was sarcasm, because atm I am a little puzzled about that. People having complained for ages about that specific series of posts and the mod team always answering that no reports have been made.

If you want me to make yet another one to check it out, I will do it gladly.

[Morwen Lagann]

People complaining about a post, and people actually reporting the post, are very different things. There are many cases where people have complained about posts (or posters) but never actually reported them. That is the situation you are dealing with there. There's also the case of people making noise about a post but not actually reporting it until after the mods have said "nobody reported it and we didn't see anything wrong with it." (Yes, we do see exactly when you make your reports, in addition to the date the post was originally written. This actually happens with reasonable frequency - you'd be surprised how many times a post gets reported 2-3 weeks afterward, with nobody having made a single complaint through the reporting system up until that point.)

Every post that is reported has its very own unique thread generated in a "Reported Posts" subforum in the moderator area that contains all reports submitted for that post. However, the M in SMF doesn't stand for "Magical": complaining about posts or posters without actually submitting a report won't generate anything for us.

I don't always have the time to check the forums while at work (though I've got very little on my plate at the moment, hence the activity); I've frequently had to tell people to STFU and report posts like they're supposed to instead of kvetching to me about them on MSN so that I could deal with it when I got home, or another moderator could if they had a chance first.

We try to cover everything, but when the forum is very active we're not going to get everything immediately on our own - that's what the reporting system is for in the first place: drawing our attention to problem areas so they can be prioritized as necessary.

If people are just whining about a post without reporting it, and the mod team doesn't see anything wrong with the post in question, we're going to disregard the complaints because clearly you don't care enough to follow the proper procedures.

Not to mention, you're not supposed to respond to something you report - this also contributes, because a lot of people who have trouble with that policy just say "screw it" and respond instead of reporting.

[Lyn Farel]

Yes, I know that, thank you very much.

[BloodBird]

Wow, I just saw this.  I reposted the original, sans scrublord.  Yeah, I kinda shrugged, as I used it as "lord of scrubs" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scrub a term that I actually took with me from WoW.  There was actually a guild:  "Scrublords and Loot Whores"  Ironic as we were all top players.  I was intending to reference people that specifically fly ships they should not.  At TheMittani.com we call them ALOD-awful loss of the day.  Horribly fit ships killed in hilarious ways are what we look for. 

Whatever, I reposted, moved on.

You are not an authority to dictate what people should and should not fly.

I will admit I personally groan when a player flies something they are massively under-skilled to do anything with effectively, but it's their mistake to make, their ISK to lose, their lesson to learn. I'll offer advice, I'll tell them why this is not the smartest thing, but I will never try to dictate what they fly, if they still opt to fly it, that is their right.

[Alizabeth]

*Shrugs* I'm not sure how the urdoinitwrongm8 rule applies to actual gameplay mechanics.  Example: http://kb.snuffboxcorp.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=52309
Would anyone disagree with me that the pilot is clearly doing something wrong?  With RP, I am very, very much in the corner of "live and let live" (Although ICly Aliza hates everyone.) but for game mechanics, ~sometimes~ someone needs to be told: "dude, you have effed up so hard that the KB crashed."  (Alright, phrased a little nicer. *holds hands, sings kumbaya*)  Only after they understand that they did it wrong, will they be receptive to advice. 

When I mailed the pilot to get his perspective on the loss, I made sure to tell them that I know it sucks being on the wrong end of a kill mail (and I know, I've been there) but that I would be happy to talk to him after the interview and go over some ship fitting basics.

I really would like to hear the mods weigh in on gameplay mechanics here with regard to urdoinitwronging.