piratesrox
SOLDIER Third Class
The use of words expressing more than that of their literal intention! Now that. Is. Irony.
Posts: 712
|
Post by piratesrox on Jan 18, 2009 18:49:13 GMT
Well, as we said in the first post, we go with the most common interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not. That's right, comrades. For the common good. =] Common as decided by them, not us. =D
|
|
|
Post by marilena on Jan 18, 2009 19:08:58 GMT
Oh, I see. That proves your point completely. Now that we've seen the extent of maturity we're bound to encounter if we do as you say, we're absolutely convinced. Fascinating, really, just how many things a lovely little banner such as the above can illustrate, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by lynnreist on Jan 18, 2009 19:15:59 GMT
Tiresome, pirates.
There was one thing I didn't quite get in your post, Pied. When you say you will step in when a post goes too far-- does too far consist of a post that might lead to a flame war, or is it the very obvious beginning of a flame war. There's a difference, I believe.
This is not to say that either is wrong, I was just curious. It would make sense, for censoring purposes to cut people off in an argument before the snarkiness escalates to blatant insults, but if, like it has been said, it is not the objective of the moderators to censor us, then allowing people to tiptoe around a highly touchy subject should be perfectly alright, until, that is, those involved cross the line.
That being said, once that line has been crossed, someone is bound to have been insulted already, and that cannot be reversed. Mods will obviously be appealed to straight away and/or retaliation will have been made.
Needless to say, I'm on the fence. I have had no problem with the moderation on this board any moreso than any other forum.
|
|
|
Post by piedflycatcher on Jan 18, 2009 19:47:34 GMT
When you say you will step in when a post goes too far-- does too far consist of a post that might lead to a flame war, or is it the very obvious beginning of a flame war. It depends on context, really, and the nature of the post. But generally, when we think that posts are heading that way, we'll step in just to remind people to be a bit more careful with their phrasing. When posts get to the point that a flame war has obviously started or is obviously threatening to start, yes, that is too far. If that happens, that's when we might have to warn people, edit/delete posts, or lock the thread. Of course, we hope that things won't get to that point. That's why we speak up a bit before, so people know where they stand.
|
|
Renolvr
SOLDIER First Class
I've decided that some things are worth the pain.
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by Renolvr on Jan 19, 2009 10:35:26 GMT
*I have a craptastic internet connection that got cut off coz of a storm and now coz it keeps snowing >_<*
I'm not saying that seniorority matters more, but I find it a little insulting that I could be told to respect someone's opinion despite the fact that they'll disregard mine and refuse to even acknowledge my right to have an opinion. I realise that a lot of my talk in this thread focuses on opinions and such, but this site contains a lot of debates, so for me it's a key factor. And call me selfish or self-centered, you wouldn't be the first, but I find it insulting also that I've been a member since, coming up on a year, I think, and then just-joined-members come along and set their own opinions and views in stone. And I may be reprimanded for not considering their happiness then.
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 19, 2009 11:00:52 GMT
I regret that I wasn’t here when the thread started. I would have stepped right up and said, “Yes. Me. I complained.” In general, since my arrival here in July, I have noticed that the moderation is much more strict than I have encountered on any other discussion board of which I have been a member. But, more specifically, I complained about a post of mine that was mod edited on the 8th. My problem is not that there are rules and that the moderators must enforce them. That’s fine. My problem is the narrow-minded way in which problems are perceived by the moderators here, and the heavy-handed way in which they are dealt with. To put it more simply: I was accused of flaming another board member, and without being asked to edit my own post, or warning me privately – or publicly by name rather than with a general now kids, be nice – or slapping me with any of the actual disciplinary measures available to them, mods cut the post down to one line. Might I add, it was not a flame. We’ve all seen flamey. This wasn’t flamey. It was simply abrupt and impolite. I frankly do not care what some thin-skinned and pig-headed debate-monger thought upon seeing a recrimination aimed straight at him or her, it was no flame. So, without accusing me officially of any sort of wrongdoing by actually punishing me, The Powers of the site de facto treated me as a wrongdoer by ripping my words right out of my mouth and chucking them into the trash where no one could hear me. And I frankly feel that it was absolutely the wrong response to the situation. As Mengde said so clearly and so rightly on Page 1, it is absurd that we are not allowed to call a spade a spade on this site simply because it might not be nice to do so. Forcing people to bite their tongues when a truth needs to be stated, simply because that truth isn’t a happy one, accomplishes nothing in the way of improving the atmosphere of a site. Rather, you get this terrible unspoken tensions are boiling under the surface vibe that new members absolutely, absolutely pick up on whether anyone wants to admit it or not. You think that’s conducive to a friendly, welcoming board? Hell no. Maybe I’m a rabble-rouser for saying these things, but I don’t see it that way. I am as interested as any of you responsible-types in figuring out how to make this board a better place that invites newcomers. And flat-out, cracking down on people’s posts down to the tone of voice in which they are intended is not the way to accomplish that. And yeah, this whole “most common interpretation” thing is just plain rubbish. There is no common standard here. Only one person-in-charge’s opinion enforced by a team of police figures. If there was a common standard, none of us would know what that is since there has never been an open discussion on the subject. When you say you will step in when a post goes too far-- does too far consist of a post that might lead to a flame war, or is it the very obvious beginning of a flame war. It depends on context, really, and the nature of the post. But generally, when we think that posts are heading that way, we'll step in just to remind people to be a bit more careful with their phrasing. When posts get to the point that a flame war has obviously started or is obviously threatening to start, yes, that is too far. If that happens, that's when we might have to warn people, edit/delete posts, or lock the thread. And here, right here, is hypocracy. Because you're saying you'll only step in and act after a certain point, but in my specific case you jumped right to what you call your last resort well before that. Do you not see why people are accusing you of showing preferrential treatment to unestablished newcomers while cracking down too hard on those who have been around a while?
|
|
|
Post by Moira Rose on Jan 19, 2009 11:08:57 GMT
I say that moderating ought to be kept to the barest minimum. We may be trying to filter out some more offending things, but I still believe in freedom of expression. Just because something's not very nice to say, it doesn't mean it doesn't need to be said. When you point something that's flawed/wrong/just crap in someone's post, you're bound to be impolite, offensive even. But I hope the forum can accept that some things need to be said, and to bang in your point, sometimes sarcasm and some cutting remarks should be tolerated.
I don't think moderators should go around merely looking out for swear words, "offensive" points made, or things they think are flames. True, the definition of flaming may be subjective but really guys, try to understand where some of us are coming from. Sometimes, it's necessary, and trust us to discern when it is.
|
|
|
Post by Hope on Jan 19, 2009 11:47:25 GMT
*Steps forward nervously* I'm kind of new around here, so I've hung back from saying anything because I've felt it isn't my place. However, I am planning to stick around, so I do have an interest in what the site is like.
It may be that you're right Vulcan. and that most new members have noticed an unpleasant atmosphere, but that hasn't been my experience. Quite the contrary, I've found this site more than any other to be pleasant and friendly. It could be insincerity, as people have said, but if so it's very convincing. Everyone seems to really like one another, and you're so welcoming of new people that join. Before this debate even emerged I'd wondered whether that nice atmosphere was partially down to the tight moderating because rightly or wrongly personal attacks can and do cause offense and bad feeling.
I agree with Pied's comment that attacks should be directed at people's comments, not at the people themselves. I can't imagine why we'd ever need to criticise people on here, for the most part we don't even know them personally. Comments of course are different. And Moira, I disagree that personal criticsm helps to make a point. I think if anything its a distraction from what we disagree with - which should be the comment, and that aside, most of us are writers, surely we should be able emphasise our points just fine without them.
In short, my vote is for moderation to continue as normal.
|
|
|
Post by YACCBS on Jan 19, 2009 16:11:08 GMT
I'm rather in the middle on this one.
While I understand how frustrating it is to argue with what is basically a brick wall of irrationality, I don't feel it's necessary to start attacking the person themselves. Yes, their argument is stupid, and we should be able to say so freely and without punishment or censorship. But if you wanna call the person themselves an idiot or take a jab at their mother, do it in a PM. Insulting a person on a board is the equivalent of screaming at someone in the middle of a crowded street. No matter how much the person deserved it, it's not pleasant to listen to, and tends to make people cross the road to avoid it.
Plus it'll feed any trolls that pop up.
TL;DR: Criticize the argument. Got a problem with the person, PM them. And I'm think the modding has been pretty good, though there's been some editting that was IMO unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 21, 2009 0:11:57 GMT
So, all you people who say that things are fine, are you just missing the fact that moderators have been chopping posts simply because they were unkind?
Yes, we should be nice to each other. It's true. But that's an entirely different issue than the existence of Niceness Police.
|
|
Renolvr
SOLDIER First Class
I've decided that some things are worth the pain.
Posts: 1,312
|
Post by Renolvr on Jan 21, 2009 1:08:28 GMT
I actually want to back up Vulcan on something she said about posts being cut. A while a go, I got into an argument with Pied in the Wine Cellar - and ended up with a warning for hositlity, only after I had lost my cool and demanded that she either stop contradicting and finding fault in the majority of my posts, or warn me - so she warned me. But what did my nut in, was how I then got a pm telling me I was out of order, and then literally most of my posts being straight out deleted, not even edited. So then I had another warning level, on top of two others to bear with, while I had no words to show for it - and by taking my words away, I looked like an idiot who lost her cool over nothing. And while opinions differ on whether I was right to lose my cool or not - I'm human...we tend to do those things every once in a while huns.
|
|
|
Post by Pen Against Sword on Jan 21, 2009 1:29:30 GMT
So, all you people who say that things are fine, are you just missing the fact that moderators have been chopping posts simply because they were unkind? Yes, we should be nice to each other. It's true. But that's an entirely different issue than the existence of Niceness Police. Yeah, uh, I have to say I saw the posts that have been cut before they were cut, and I knew that something was going to happen, but I had no idea they would actually be eliminated for "meanness." (Or "flaming" or something.) I took high offense to that, and I think that lets me know just how fluffy and cuddly I have to be in order to have my opinions heard. I, personally, thought that the posts that were cut weren't nice, but I saw absolutely not reason why they should've been deleted. They were not personal attacks. EDIT TO ADD: I realize they weren't my posts that were cut and that if the posters themselves had problems they should've PMed administration, but I think I am allowed to have an opinion on them despite that because I think I can base how I might be handled (if it came to that) on how the other members of this forum are treated. Just a disclaimer there.
|
|
|
Post by YACCBS on Jan 21, 2009 1:40:50 GMT
So, all you people who say that things are fine, are you just missing the fact that moderators have been chopping posts simply because they were unkind? Examples? I don't mean that sarcastically, it's just that the only one I ever noticed in the six months I've been here that I thought was an unfair mod was your post in the Shipping Wars (about an ostrich, its head, and some sand, if I recall). What other ones have there been?
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 21, 2009 1:44:21 GMT
That's for other people to step up and cop to -- because I know there have been private, off-the-record complaints, besides mine -- but they seem to have lost their nerve. 'Cept you, Ren.
|
|
|
Post by Pen Against Sword on Jan 21, 2009 1:46:16 GMT
If I recall correctly, Sai's post was also cut, YACCBS. Just, y'know, for the record.
|
|