Print

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

[Ciarente]

I generally disapprove of Napanii because a) it is redundant as automatic translators in the NEOCOM automatically parse everything into standard language anyway, and takes all native affectations into account b) while players may think that the use of Napanii gives it flavor, I think it serves to intimidate newer Caldari RPers who are starting out and may think that they're doing it wrong because they don't know anything about Napanii and there is no reliable nor comprehensive reference/source for it

Dav, if you'd posted that, mods wouldn't have batted an eye. 

Your post wasn't moderated because of what you think, it was moderated because of what you said. 

And 'I break the rules because when I break the rules moderators moderate me for breaking the rules, so why not break the rules?' sort of answers itself, don't you think?

[Davlos]

I'm willing to bet half of my tax return from IRS that it would get commuted to post hell because of "Urdoinitwrong". I'm being profiled and I have no problem acknowledging that.

[Ciarente]

Then why don't you prove me wrong by keeping your posts in line with rules, which include the polite posting culture set out in the FAQ?

[Lyn Farel]

If a mod has a problem with something highly subjective, I would suggest to first contact the user to sort things out before, or discuss it between the mod team (though that last solution does not always seem to be enough apparently).

Well, actually, we pretty much always discuss things between the mod team. Which is why I find people singling out one moderator or another fairly hilarious. In both the instances under discussion at the moment, there was a consensus reached between mods before action was taken.

As for the suggestion that the mod team should contact the user, well, for one thing, that leaves a reported post up while reports continue to come in, for another it is an additional impost of time and work on volunteer and uncompensated moderators, for another, the end result would be that the original post would be gone and an acceptable post in its place (if the post could be made acceptable) which is an option to anyone who has a post moved to the catacombs already.

The final argument against it is that in the past, when the forum was new and we did try to talk problem posters through the standards, rules, guidelines and FAQ privately, there were instances where those individuals misquoted (and I don't mean 'out of context' either) and/or paraphrased what mods said in those conversations to misrepresent the moderation team and 'score points' in discussions of moderation.

Now we discuss things within the moderation team, and take action.  As a result, FYI, the moderator who catacombs a post may not, and in fact probably is not, the first moderator to either flag a post for moderator discussion or note on a report thread that they think action should be taken.

Fair enough.

[Morwen Lagann]

Nobody in this forum takes my opinions seriously and the mods are very fond of relegating almost all of my posts to post hell anyway, so why should I bother substantiating my opinion?

I generally disapprove of Napanii because a) it is redundant as automatic translators in the NEOCOM automatically parse everything into standard language anyway, and takes all native affectations into account b) while players may think that the use of Napanii gives it flavor, I think it serves to intimidate newer Caldari RPers who are starting out and may think that they're doing it wrong because they don't know anything about Napanii and there is no reliable nor comprehensive reference/source for it c) I readily admit that it smells of weeaboo, and it makes me laugh. Is that a thought crime?

I come from a state where thought crime is a real and tangible crime that can get me incarcerated indefinitely without trial, and if this forum wants to have a cadre of Internal Security Department operatives, I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

Actually, we take your opinions seriously, or would at least like to. Pretty sure I've stated a few times that I agree with your sentiment. I just don't agree with the way it was expressed, and neither do the forum's rules.

The reason your post was moderated is that it reeked of what you listed in C (sentiment about 'weeaboos') enough that the rest of the point was overshadowed by the YDIW. If not for that, I can comfortably state that I probably would have left your post alone. If the other mods who saw the report hadn't agreed with my assessment, I would've left it alone. That I knew your posting habits and usual attitude well enough to know with almost complete certainty that you did mean "you're doing it wrong, weeaboos" just meant that it was easier to report the post for other mods to look at it before one of us took action if appropriate.

This isn't a case of "thought crimes". We don't really know or care about what you're thinking in your head. We care about what you post.

[Khloe]

I generally disapprove of Napanii because a) it is redundant as automatic translators in the NEOCOM automatically parse everything into standard language anyway, and takes all native affectations into account b) while players may think that the use of Napanii gives it flavor, I think it serves to intimidate newer Caldari RPers who are starting out and may think that they're doing it wrong because they don't know anything about Napanii and there is no reliable nor comprehensive reference/source for it ...

I would have agreed with you if I had the opportunity.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I'm being profiled and I have no problem acknowledging that.

In what way?

[Pieter Tuulinen]

I generally disapprove of Napanii because a) it is redundant as automatic translators in the NEOCOM automatically parse everything into standard language anyway, and takes all native affectations into account b) while players may think that the use of Napanii gives it flavor, I think it serves to intimidate newer Caldari RPers who are starting out and may think that they're doing it wrong because they don't know anything about Napanii and there is no reliable nor comprehensive reference/source for it c) I readily admit that it smells of weeaboo, and it makes me laugh. Is that a thought crime?

a and b are both points that I could go into detail refuting, but they're kind of moot in this case, since you weren't being moderated for having an opinion on Napaani, even if I feel it's illfounded.

c on the other hand sums it up nicely. God knows why someone should be labelled a 'weeaboo' for scattering a few phrases of a mostly Finnish inspired language into their RP, but it's a pejorative term and since the only valid response is 'Fuck you' it's clearly flame bait.

I come from a state where thought crime is a real and tangible crime that can get me incarcerated indefinitely without trial, and if this forum wants to have a cadre of Internal Security Department operatives, I'd rather not have anything to do with it.

Pretty sure you got modded for what you posted, not for what you thought.

[scagga]

Is it worth trying alternative methods prior to binning posts, e.g. mod warnings (privately or in the thread)?

[Ciarente]

As for the suggestion that the mod team should contact the user, well, for one thing, that leaves a reported post up while reports continue to come in, for another it is an additional impost of time and work on volunteer and uncompensated moderators, for another, the end result would be that the original post would be gone and an acceptable post in its place (if the post could be made acceptable) which is an option to anyone who has a post moved to the catacombs already.

The final argument against it is that in the past, when the forum was new and we did try to talk problem posters through the standards, rules, guidelines and FAQ privately, there were instances where those individuals misquoted (and I don't mean 'out of context' either) and/or paraphrased what mods said in those conversations to misrepresent the moderation team and 'score points' in discussions of moderation.

[scagga]

As for the suggestion that the mod team should contact the user, well, for one thing, that leaves a reported post up while reports continue to come in, for another it is an additional impost of time and work on volunteer and uncompensated moderators, for another, the end result would be that the original post would be gone and an acceptable post in its place (if the post could be made acceptable) which is an option to anyone who has a post moved to the catacombs already.

The final argument against it is that in the past, when the forum was new and we did try to talk problem posters through the standards, rules, guidelines and FAQ privately, there were instances where those individuals misquoted (and I don't mean 'out of context' either) and/or paraphrased what mods said in those conversations to misrepresent the moderation team and 'score points' in discussions of moderation.

Missed that in the skim-read, thanks. 

I hope the quoted events are not an absolute contraindication to retrying previous methods.  Surely the 'culture' of the community has changed since the days it was fresh off chatsubo?

[Ciarente]

Surely the 'culture' of the community has changed since the days it was fresh off chatsubo?

One hopes. However, the issues of leaving the post up for an indeterminate amount of time and the additional workload on moderators remain. Also, as I should have mention in my earlier post, it is actually less transparent.