|
Post by ladyvaltaya on Jan 21, 2009 14:00:39 GMT
And agree, I received a warning for being "hostile" towards the mod after I lost my cool - fine, I'd rather not have gotten it, but I did and can't do much about it at this moment in time. And truth be told, I'd probably deserved it, what I didn't deserve was receiving no pms regarding what was said in the thread, and that my stuff was going to be cut. I received on afterwards though to tell me it had been cut. Leaving me looking like an idiot who got a warning over nothing seems my words had been taken from me. Ren, I don't want to open up any old wounds by commenting here, but I think you've grown as a poster on this forum. That's good, and I'm not saying that has anything to do with us as site staff. I'm just sorry that you still feel a lingering mistrust toward us, because I don't know how to fix it. This is for everyone, I must admit I'm the laziest member of the mod team, because I have so many other commitments in other sites and in my real life outside the web. As mods, we've only ever tried to maintain a level of civility around GA that makes it a place that all members- new and established, as well as guests, can feel welcome in. Personally, it makes me angry when I visit sites where every other line in every single thread is a personal attack on one member or another. I think it is ridiculous and I don't want to read their little testosterone induced p******* contest.
|
|
|
Post by piedflycatcher on Jan 21, 2009 14:08:24 GMT
There's a lot to respond to here, so I'll try to keep it as brief as possible. 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. Not a flame? Well, it was certainly rude, inflammatory and a personal attack. Indeed, I received a PM from a member complaining about flames in that thread. I responded by removing the offensive content - because, well, I don't know what kind of reaction you were expecting to that post, but as we've already said, it is the moderators' job to try and prevent flame wars, and that's exactly what I was doing. It wasn't cut just because it was mean or whatever, it was cut because it would only escalate more conflict. Incorrect. There were no less than three posts from moderators in that thread, reminding people to be civil. In actual fact, you made your post right after a post from me asking people to stop with the personal attacks. Your post went ahead and completely ignored that. Really, after three attempts at asking people politely to calm down, does it surprise you that we went one step further after that? There was no preferential treatment going on. Both new and old members were told to calm down. Yes, we should be nice to each other. It's true. But that's an entirely different issue than the existence of Niceness Police. I don't know what this thing about niceness is. The rules do not require you to be nice; they require you to be civil. There is a difference. I don't suppose that this post I'm writing now will end up being particularly nice, but I will at least be civil. See now - Sai's posts being cut REALLY p****d me off! She is a judge - and forgive me now for saying this those of you who may hold it against me seems I'm not a judge - but what a total and blatent over-rule of her authority as a staff member! Well, judges are not staff members. Sai is a moderator, however, and the reason her post got moderated was because she was doing the very thing we had moderated other people for. Her post was definitely not as inflammatory as Vulcan's, but it doesn't reflect well on moderators in general and I think it would have been unfair of me to act on Vulcan's post and leave Sai's just because she is a moderator. Pied, I have watched you snip and growl, and flat out threaten members with points, locking posts, bans, for things that /hardly/ deserve to be. I have seen you, Mari, not even two weeks ago, bear your teeth and bring down the 'threat' hammer. When someone does something that displeases you, you bring it out with anger, by post cuts, by subtle, or sometimes not so subtle, threats. And yet, if anyone else was to take so much as a step to express their own opinion with dislike or anything marginally insulting, they are thrust into a corner and told that they can't come out until they play nice. And yet, they is no check to see if one of the admins or moderators (though I have yet to see a moderator take a step over what they should and should not be doing) are complying with their own rules. I take issue with this. Staff members have for the most part been entirely civil - even admirably civil, considering some of the things which have been said to them. You seem to be mixing up rudeness with enforcing the rules. You can check my posts in the Shipping thread again if you want - the content of my posts was never insulting. Another thing - what bright spark came up with the idea that mods weren't supposed to be in this thread? It has to to moderating, it says so in the title - or is that another form of shipping/canon argument? Mods should post here, and not be told or "advised" not to. Another examply of how contradictory things have become... And why are some staff members allowed to post here while others don't? Which goes back to your point of the rules applying to everyone. Um, nobody has said anything about moderators not posting in this thread. And no staff members are disallowed from posting here. Just because not all of the staff members have actually posted in this thread yet, please do not assume that there is some nefarious reason for that. It seems to me that there is a lot of exaggeration going on here. In actual fact, there is not that much moderation going on in general. The Shipping Wars thread was one exception, for reasons which I am sure everyone can understand. But nearly all threads go on their merry way without any kind of interference from moderators at all. Out of all the forums I frequent, GA is neither less nor more strict than any of them.
|
|
|
Post by Mengde on Jan 21, 2009 14:59:19 GMT
Not a flame? Well, it was certainly rude, inflammatory and a personal attack. Indeed, I received a PM from a member complaining about flames in that thread. I responded by removing the offensive content - because, well, I don't know what kind of reaction you were expecting to that post, but as we've already said, it is the moderators' job to try and prevent flame wars, and that's exactly what I was doing. It wasn't cut just because it was mean or whatever, it was cut because it would only escalate more conflict. That post was, as you are so fond of saying, quite "civil." Vulcan said, and I think I quote pretty accurately from memory, that the member in question was an intolerant and arrogant argument-monger who had only started posting in order to promote their own opinion, without ever taking into consideration those of the other members. A personal attack? Maybe. But it was civil. I don't know what standards of civility you are judging by, but by mine she was controlling herself quite well. And I cannot stomach the fact that you summarily deleted her post without any warning simply because the member in question got butthurt and whined to you about it. Not only that, but while the member may not have cursed or been flat-out aggressive, they were certainly not civil towards any of the people they were arguing with. They were arrogant and rude and certainly deserved everything they had coming to them. That's why I say your idea of "civility" is ridiculous. If I wanted to, I could call anybody on these boards a f**king a**hole and dress it up in polite language and "civil" terms. That wouldn't change the fact that I was calling them a fornicating sphincter. Civility does not automatically engender "niceness." And lastly, I know not many will agree with me on this, but I believe seniority should play a part in arbitrations of this kind. The longer a member has been on the boards, the more opportunity they have had to grow and to prove they're not a Goddamned moron. A relative newcomer should have their opinions considered and every courtesy extended as long as they do the same, but if there arises a conflict and the wellbeing of the forum is threatened (a bit melodramatic, but bear with me), preference should be given to the more senior member. Why? Because if you favor the new member who hasn't made any friends, you will p**s off everyone who likes the older member. Then you'll have a mess of drama on your hands and things will just escalate. Does this sound familiar? I'm not even being ironic here. EDIT: For clarification in the last paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by ladyvaltaya on Jan 21, 2009 15:15:01 GMT
That, my dear, is exactly why we don't want it said on a thread. Stick it in a PM where it is between YOU and the "fornicating sphincter".
|
|
|
Post by Sylla on Jan 21, 2009 15:52:41 GMT
Hmm, there seems to be quite a lot going on here. I'll see if I can focus on a few points clearly. Firstly: And I cannot stomach the fact that you summarily deleted her post without any warning simply because the member in question got butthurt and whined to you about it. Not only that, but while the member may not have cursed or been flat-out aggressive, they were certainly not civil towards any of the people they were arguing with. They were arrogant and rude and certainly deserved everything they had coming to them. We've been over this, you know. (Er, not literally you and me, of course.) Pied has explained several times why she did what she did. She modified Vulcan's post because if a member - however recent they are - feels they are being flamed, they have the right not to have to see the offending post every time they drop by the thread. Yes, perhaps modifying the post wasn't the wisest course of action (especially given the present furor) - and we've listened to Vulcan's complaint and will keep it in mind in the future. There's not much more we can do about it. Personally, I agree that the member (or members) was/were being argumentative and overbearing, even to the point of rudeness - but I don't think that stepping in and insulting them was the right course of action. Now, most people who have been on here a while know that I tend to state my position rather forcefully, especially when I get a little riled. (Just look at the 'Nuclear Warfare.' thread and you'll see what I mean.) So with this in mind, I can sympathize when someone feels that another member is being bone-headed, or arrogant in their argument, or whatever. Personally, I think that, past a certain point, it's fine to say so - in fact, it kind of has to be said. But invective is not permissable. That's what we mean when we ask for civility or common courtesy, and we mods will step in and remind people to be civil when the tone of the posts in a thread is getting overly belligerent. Hmm, I know there was another point I wanted to make... but I've forgotten now. Oops. Edit: Double negative fixed. =P
|
|
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 21, 2009 17:18:59 GMT
And it was working great. Not broke, don't fix it.
My personal opinion in this topic is TL;DR, but I don't blame it all on Pied. Whoever said that is silly. I love Pied. <3
I think that moderation should really only come into play when posters are stopping another poster's posting. Even then, I think the fact that they have the right to snip a post, or even outright delete it is disgustingly fascist.
This is the INTERNET. You can't make people be nice on the INTERNET.
Nor should you actually take it serious as to think you can. To be honest, that's what annoys me most about the moderation on this board. The srs. What do I mean by srs? Well, when you see an off topic post that is in no way derailing the thread, why warn? It was funny, people laughed, or it wasn't and it was ignored. These things have a way of working themselves out.
Chances are we're gonna get a flux of new members too, when this 7 remake eventually happens, so we need to sort it out before then. I'm an admin on another board, so I know the limitations and powers an admin has at his or her disposal. I think it's time for a change, says I.
|
|
|
Post by ladyvaltaya on Jan 21, 2009 19:04:35 GMT
Again... Where do you get the idea we want you to be nice? We just want you to be civil, then you may agree to disagree all you want.
Do arguments get more childish than this one? Try taking my lunch money on the playground, I dare ya.
|
|
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 21, 2009 19:11:35 GMT
Do arguments get more childish than this one? Try taking my lunch money on the playground, I dare ya. Ooooh, are we degenerating? Because I'm no good at taking playground money. I will, however, put a dog turn in your satchel for free! And hide cigarettes in your desk! If you're REALLY good, I might even make out with your (Suitably aged) sister behind the bike sheds! =D Did Pirates just take the moral high ground? Yes. Yes he did!
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 21, 2009 21:11:13 GMT
Sylla, my cut post made no use of invective. It was, as Mengde observed, very carefully worded, and very civil, and also very blunt in its expression of my displeasure with the situation, which I felt needed to be stated. I don't think it should be any mystery what response I was attempting to provoke, Pied. I was quite obviously trying to force the trolls to read my post and to consider that their behavior was unacceptable -- to probably just about everyone following the thread, but more specifically to me at least.
The problem with the whole "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" idea is that, if you stick to that, there are an awful lot of necessary things that end up never being said.
I almost can't believe I'm saying this, but I completely agree with pirates' post and in fact many of the ideas there are things I put in my PM of complaint to Pied following the edit of my post. And it's not that we're examining a very small spot too closely, we are in fact trying to take a look at a wider pattern here that clearly exists whether those who are content see it or not, whether the authority figures who think they are in the right think we should shut up about it or not. I've got to say, Sai excepted, that the response of mods and admin in this thread has generally been very disappointingly blinkered and self-righteous.
And no, Mengde's argument was not a childish one. Nor was it even an argument. It was simply an observation of fact, a commentary on human nature.
|
|
|
Post by ladyvaltaya on Jan 21, 2009 21:17:15 GMT
And I'll say it again, that is what PM's are for. When politeness has been ineffective, send the offending poster a PM.
If you have a problem with someone, the whole forum doesn't need to know about it.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Jan 21, 2009 21:17:54 GMT
Did Pirates just take the moral high ground? Yes. Yes he did! I, good sir, am floored. I tip my hat to you. Basically, I stumbled in on this whole thing at the tail end of it. I feel bad because part of the whole reason the Shipping Wars thread blew up so much was my meddling, and then I had to leave and work 12 hour days and wasn't much up to posting. Basically, I dislike choosing sides. I see the merits of both sides; however, I am more inclined to come down agreeing with Sai's camp. It's not that I encourage rudeness; you guys know that's not how I roll. It's more along the lines that I am annoyed by people who will cry "FLAME! FLAAAAME!" any time they are roughly disagreed with - these are the kind of people who get beat up in the real world, for trying to make people look bad (on the flip side of that, people like me - people who tend to say it like it is and think about phrasing later - tend to get beat up a lot for our mouths). Basically, it all comes down to which is the bigger sin: losing civility, or being unable to take criticisms against your arguments like a big boy. My opinion is that the second one is the bigger offense in the grand scheme of things. And that is JUST my opinion. I mean, VulcanElf and I have had our tiffs in the past, but we sucked it up like adults, and we can get along just fine if need be. It's one of those things that makes one an adult - being able to take criticism and brush it off. I can understand deleting swear words or if someone came in and was like "I LIKE RAPING BABIES" or something pretty much everyone agrees is offensive. The problem I have is that where there's a gray line - the personal criticism thing - I think it's best to wait until something outright offensive and not possibly offensive is said. I would also like to take this time to say that while Reno and Kisara have never been my favorite posters (nor my least favorite), they really really have grown a lot as people and forum members, and I'm really quite proud of them. Reno, you expressed yourself incredibly well up there.
|
|
|
Post by YACCBS on Jan 21, 2009 21:46:18 GMT
I've got to say, Sai excepted, that the response of mods and admin in this thread has generally been very disappointingly blinkered and self-righteous. They're being self-righteous because they're defending and explaining their actions? Blinkered, because they've responded to the specific points that have come up? What exactly do you want them to do? Go back in time and fix every little thing they've done that's been complained about? They've admitted that mistakes have been made, that they are not, in fact, perfect. I, personally, would be far more disappointed if they rolled over and started apologizing profusely for every word they've ever typed. Obviously change is needed. Obviously there are problems with the current system. I can only imagine how frustrating it is to have your opinion editted, your words deleted, and without any indication why until after the fact. But we can't go back in time and take back what's already been done. So rather than continuing to dwell on every single unpleasant thing in this forum's history, why don't we start talking about what changes are needed? It seems one of the major concerns is that people who are modded aren't notified until afterwards. Perhaps the mod, rather than immediately delete the post, could PM the poster and give them, say, an hour to change it themselves, with the original post included in the PM. If the poster doesn't do it in time, the mod can edit it, notify the poster that it has now been editted, and that way the original poster still has the original post so they can reword it and repost it. Suggestions, folks. We know the problem(s) now, so let's start tying to fix it.
|
|
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 21, 2009 21:56:26 GMT
So rather than continuing to dwell on every single unpleasant thing in this forum's history, why don't we start talking about what changes are needed? Suggestions, folks. We know the problem(s) now, so let's start tying to fix it. I think the answer here is clear.
|
|
|
Post by Jeanneandheralters on Jan 21, 2009 21:56:50 GMT
I like that idea YACCBS. It's a very good idea.
There's been many a time where I've gone back and edited my own post because I thought something could be taken offensively and thus could potentially get in trouble for it. Now, I've probably got odd ideas about what can and can not be offensive. That doesn't matter though, I'm the one on the forum no one listens to... There is a metaphoric thing I accidentally made up this morning that could adequately describe this forum.
The cookies demand justice for many an alleged drowning of innocent cookies in milk.
|
|
|
Post by La Editor on Jan 21, 2009 22:07:33 GMT
(@pirates: sir, you need a haircut.)
I also like Yaccy's idea. It sort of seems like the major problem is, like she said, being edited without consent. The mods PMing the posters might not stop things from blowing up, but it all sort of depends. I really do like that idea, however, and I think it would cause a lot less grief.
I know this is only a side idea, and very case-specific, but I think that it might be a good idea to make it clear to people registering that tolerating other view points is necessary to participate in discussions (or something similar). I think a lot of anger stemmed from the intolerance seen in the Shipping Wars topic, so maybe it's a small suggestion, but I think it will help in the long run.
I suggest Mengde gains administrative powers for one day.
|
|