Seems like you are giving all the power to one side in that case and not really solving the underlying issue.
Not all issues can be resolved (or, arguably, should be resolved) by intervention of a third party or a tool. Among the few times I've seen someone announce they'd put someone on the Ignore list several were - in my opinion - unwarranted. Or, less charitably said, to me it didn't feel like there was enough of an underlying issue. But again, I don't really see any circumstances for myself where I'd think moderation failed me and my only recourse would be putting someone on Ignore yet others might - and I can understand that. the Ignore list is there, I can only assume, for interpersonal (emotional) stuff. That's not something easily handled by moderation.
Isn't that kinda the point of moderation?
The point of moderation is to making sure everybody abides by the rules. Beyond that, moderators can certainly try (and they do, as far as I can tell) to get everybody to play nice, but if two users are arguing without actually breaking those rules there's not a lot they can (or should) do other than asking them to be polite and, as the case may be, ignore each other if they really can't get along.
I guess...ignoring does not really solve much in the long run is the main issue. I think what others and myself would like to see is if a person isn't breaking the rules per say but is not really contributing to the discussion in a positive way. Yes I know this is subjective but thats why you have human moderators and not bots...so they can see when something/someone isn't contributing to the discussion in good faith and removes them from the thread. Ideally it would work that you just remove people from a thread and not the entire site...just to allow conversation to continue to happen but with more productive dialogue.
I can certainly see the appeal in this, but subjective moderation is a pretty sketchy notion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I can certainly see the appeal in this, but subjective moderation is a pretty sketchy notion.
All moderation is subjective. Necessarily. Moderators have to make judgements about what is and is not in-bounds. They're human, and (at least currently) need to be human.
All moderation is always subjective. There is no such thing as objective moderation, until and unless moderation is entirely automated and left to V.I. systems. Given how that goes any time somebody tries it - this is me staring firmly at YouTube's various automated systems and the endless misery they've created - I don't think anybody wants that.
What people want is impartial moderation, which is easier to achieve inasmuch as it is (theoretically) actually possible. However, it relies on clearly communicated and easily understood guidelines and rules and consistent application of those rules, which (personal opinion incoming) has not traditionally been a strong suit of this website. Improvements happen, but...well. The issue is compounded when people who've been a passionate part of a given hobby for many decades find their notions challenged by a younger generation that may not share their ideals but have discovered the game with the zeal of a fresh convert.
I quite thoroughly agree with the issue Urth raised in his original post - the "Ignore" tool is a terrible idea and should never be used in lieu of actually dealing with troubles. Sedge states the moderation team has never issued orders to place someone on the Ignore list and make use of that tool, but in defense and furtherance of the original point of the thread, the difference between lowercase-i "ignore this user" and capital I "Ignore this user", when coming from the mouth of someone granted the authority to permanently revoke your access to the service on a whim, is often so fine as to be meaningless. It's safer to take the instruction literally and use the Ignore tool than to risk your access to the service. It just is, however much that may pain someone in the moment and however poor the tool actually is.
I can certainly see the appeal in this, but subjective moderation is a pretty sketchy notion.
All moderation is subjective. Necessarily. Moderators have to make judgements about what is and is not in-bounds. They're human, and (at least currently) need to be human.
The judgments are, but they're based on objective bounds as much as possible. "Not really contributing in a positive way" is not objective at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I quite thoroughly agree with the issue Urth raised in his original post - the "Ignore" tool is a terrible idea and should never be used in lieu of actually dealing with troubles. Sedge states the moderation team has never issued orders to place someone on the Ignore list and make use of that tool, but in defense and furtherance of the original point of the thread, the difference between lowercase-i "ignore this user" and capital I "Ignore this user", when coming from the mouth of someone granted the authority to permanently revoke your access to the service on a whim, is often so fine as to be meaningless. It's safer to take the instruction literally and use the Ignore tool than to risk your access to the service. It just is, however much that may pain someone in the moment and however poor the tool actually is.
It definitely seems like sloppy language. To expect anyone to think one is referring to "ignoring a user" instead of using the "ignore" function when said advice is given in a moderator action is not realistic. Of course when you're told to ignore a user you will assume you are being told to use the ignore function.
If that is not the intention of the moderator communications I highly recommend changing the discourse ever so slightly as to be more clear.
On the other hand, I have also heard of times when users have been ordered to Ignore others to "keep the peace". That is, when a user is seen to be continually at odds with another, they can be told to permanently Ignore others so that heated discussions don't take place. I don't feel this is a productive use: At best, it may save the moderators some time (which I can appreciate, having moderated other channels voluntarily in the past). However, against this it stifles the open and honest debate we see in these channels, and can make a confusing mess of threads where people do not answer each other because they are ignoring each other.
Reading a thread and seeing the same two or three people having a heated discussion on yet another side-topic to the original reason for a thread (and quite often the same argument that they had a few weeks or months ago as a digression in another thread) does not sound like "open and honest debate" to me, since neither side in those "discussions" ever changes their view.
I can certainly see the appeal in this, but subjective moderation is a pretty sketchy notion.
All moderation is subjective. Necessarily. Moderators have to make judgements about what is and is not in-bounds. They're human, and (at least currently) need to be human.
The judgments are, but they're based on objective bounds as much as possible. "Not really contributing in a positive way" is not objective at all.
(I want to be clear, we might be having a semantic argument, and I don't mean to really criticize you or the mods on this.)
From my perspective, if you're not differentiating between "contributes positively" and "contributes negatively" using your subjective judgement, you're not moderating, you're just a traffic cop. People talk about arguments being "in bad faith" because they're deceptive, but intended to look legit. Catching that requires all sorts of subjective reasoning, and catching/stopping it is important, to keep a community healthy.
I can certainly see the appeal in this, but subjective moderation is a pretty sketchy notion.
All moderation is subjective. Necessarily. Moderators have to make judgements about what is and is not in-bounds. They're human, and (at least currently) need to be human.
The judgments are, but they're based on objective bounds as much as possible. "Not really contributing in a positive way" is not objective at all.
(I want to be clear, we might be having a semantic argument, and I don't mean to really criticize you or the mods on this.)
From my perspective, if you're not differentiating between "contributes positively" and "contributes negatively" using your subjective judgement, you're not moderating, you're just a traffic cop. People talk about arguments being "in bad faith" because they're deceptive, but intended to look legit. Catching that requires all sorts of subjective reasoning, and catching/stopping it is important, to keep a community healthy.
(Replying here to show which thread of discussion I'm commenting on.)
I think Yurei said it best, what we are really after is impartial moderation. That bad behaviour is treated equally and that everyone gets a "fair" moderation. This is somewhat achieved by the ability to appeal bans and strikes which IMO is a good thing.
Another thing to remember though is that this is a privately owned forum and we've all agreed to follow the rules set up by DnD Beyond when we joined. If DDB and its mods wants to remove posts that they don't see as constructive, they have the right to do so. After all, this forum is in a way a part of their product and marketing of said product and I can absolutely see why they wouldn't want the forum to just be a mess of squabbles and bickering (which I don't think it is, btw) since that kind of stuff will scare people away. Or at the very least dissuade new people if they see that innocent questions about bending the rules for fun's sake or if you can play a good gnoll get met with harsh and in some cases almost bullying replies of basically "NO! That's not RAW and according to an second edition book from 30 years ago..." or "You're having fun wrong!"
That said, I really appreciate these kinds of discussions and also a big thanks to the mods giving their input.
So I'm going to take a different stance in this thread(while addressing the thread title), it relates to moderation but it takes a bit to get there.
I think these forums are pretty bloody toxic and most people don't know how to check themselves before they wreck themselves.
Reading a thread and seeing the same two or three people having a heated discussion on yet another side-topic to the original reason for a thread (and quite often the same argument that they had a few weeks or months ago as a digression in another thread) does not sound like "open and honest debate" to me, since neither side in those "discussions" ever changes their view.
This is a moderation problem because off topic doesn't get enforced. This, what I am doing right now, is off topic technically. Tangents are REAL on these forums and people don't reel themselves in. Then a thread spirals out of control and you typically see the same common posters in there perpetuating the same cycles. Honestly, it's not just "the bad ones" either, it's users people would consider "good", but they perpetuate the cycle. If you're complicit in the cycle, you're just as "at fault" as those whose opinions might be considered derisive. Report and move on, and if it doesn't get removed, cool, but by replying to it, you bring attention and further replies which in turn keeps it going.
Kind of like this thread. Same common posters(myself included!) are the ones speaking up about solutions, but then we all keep doing the same shit. Vicious cycles suck.
On the topic of the thread title, the ignore feature? Honestly, I'd have far less of a problem with these forums if people tried to stay on topic and not devolved into side conversations. Which is why I bothered replying to this post specifically, because I wanted to tie it back in.
Reading a thread and seeing the same two or three people having a heated discussion on yet another side-topic to the original reason for a thread (and quite often the same argument that they had a few weeks or months ago as a digression in another thread) does not sound like "open and honest debate" to me, since neither side in those "discussions" ever changes their view.
I can certainly understand that perspective. Heck, I'm fed up with that kind of thread, and I take part in them.
The problem is that these are often around topics which people feel very strongly about. It is very difficult not to get involved when somebody starts saying things which go against fundamental principals you hold dear. And personally, I love the fact that this site allows such debate, as much as it drives me up the wall that I "have to" get involved once again. These are issues which should be discussed.
Personally, from a moderation standpoint, I would love to see a light-touch way to deal with these threads. The simplest would be to apply a label to them and allow users to ignore those threads. They could also be moved to a different forum, possibly even split off from the original topic. If possible, adding an automated "Warning: This topic is likely to lead to arguments" when posting regarding a.... controversial topic might be helpful. These would allow the arguments to continue while disturbing the "normal" users as little as possible.
The other option I can see would be booting users from a particular thread (not the whole forum) if they are derailing the subject. However, I think this would need to be handled carefully and transparently, as it would need to be seen to be fair and unbiased. (Note: this is a big thing with all the moderation on this site. I expect that the moderation is probably very fair and unbiased as it is, but it doesn't always seem that way because it all happens behind closed doors. Transparency would be incredibly helpful in showing users that the moderators are acting fairly, as well as in educating users as to where the lines are by observing moderator action against others)
On a side note, I would like to thank everyone (especially the moderators) for contributing here in such a constructive manner. I think it's very important to have these discussions, but it's not easy. Most of us come here to discuss our hobby, not argue about rules.... sorry, not to argue about forum rules or the application of them.
I think moderation is already quite well done on this forum, if not a bit too well done sometimes where something gets redacted that really shouldn't have been in my opinion.
What I think is lacking in the moderation is keeping people focused on the topic of a thread.
On the topic of the thread title, the ignore feature? Honestly, I'd have far less of a problem with these forums if people tried to stay on topic and not devolved into side conversations. Which is why I bothered replying to this post specifically, because I wanted to tie it back in.
I don't disagree with you. This is really difficult, though. Conversation will naturally drift between topics. It is perfectly natural to find a conversation has shifted from the original topic to a completely different one after a few pages. We do this all the time in our day to day lives.
I would say that certain forums, particularly those like Rules & Mechanics, should probably be kept strictly on topic. However, something like here, General Discussion? Threads here should be discussions which are allowed to evolve naturally and follow whatever path they take. A big jump into a vastly different subject should still be considered OT, but not natural drifts.
Discussions being derailed by another argument about an emotionally charged subject should be dealt with, but how is a different story. Asking or telling people to Ignore each other wouldn't be the right way IMHO (although the mods have said they don't do that, so my information in opening this thread may not have been correct)
I haven't had an occasion to ignore anybody myself, but I would expect that the Ignore feature is to filter out people (and I want to say this isn't based on anyone on here that I've seen) who doesn't contribute to discussions, is abrasive and rude, but doesn't flout any guidelines so isn't going to have their behavior addressed.
Perhaps it comes down to "That's offensive" and "I'm offended" as a difference. Offensive things should be directly dealt with by the moderators, and things which specific people find offensive (EG, someone being offended that someone is discussing evolution because they don't believe in it) is down to them whether they want to ignore the user and stop seeing their content.
So I wonder if the issue is in people thinking that the Ignore feature is for dealing with people who are being genuinely offensive, which should be dealt with by mods and the rules, instead of it being for your own benefit if someone was frequently making comments which aren't specifically offensive but which offend your own beliefs enough for you to no longer wish to see these comments.
In short: Ignore is if you specifically don't want to see what someone has to say. Moderator intervention is for if what someone has to say is going against the rules, or is clearly offensive.
In short: Ignore is if you specifically don't want to see what someone has to say. Moderator intervention is for if what someone has to say is going against the rules, or is clearly offensive.
That's correct. Ignore doesn't replace moderation, it's available in addition to moderation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In short: Ignore is if you specifically don't want to see what someone has to say. Moderator intervention is for if what someone has to say is going against the rules, or is clearly offensive.
That's correct. Ignore doesn't replace moderation, it's available in addition to moderation.
True. I'm not saying that Ignore should be removed from the site. The original point of this was that people (possibly mistakenly) thought they had been advised (or even ordered) by moderators to use the Ignore feature long-term, which I don't think is an appropriate use. It should be available for a user to use, and moderators should remind people that the feature exists when appropriate. It should always be a personal choice to do so, though, and users shouldn't feel forced or pressured into using it.
In short: Ignore is if you specifically don't want to see what someone has to say. Moderator intervention is for if what someone has to say is going against the rules, or is clearly offensive.
That's correct. Ignore doesn't replace moderation, it's available in addition to moderation.
True. I'm not saying that Ignore should be removed from the site. The original point of this was that people (possibly mistakenly) thought they had been advised (or even ordered) by moderators to use the Ignore feature long-term, which I don't think is an appropriate use. It should be available for a user to use, and moderators should remind people that the feature exists when appropriate. It should always be a personal choice to do so, though, and users shouldn't feel forced or pressured into using it.
I would like to stress that a moderator would never recommend ignoring (lowercase i) or Ignoring (the actual site feature) a user instead of applying appropriate moderation to them. However, it's not an uncommon occurrence for someone to dislike another user or what they have to say while said user violates no site rules and there is nothing actionable for a moderator to act on. And that's the key part; actionable content.
The moderation team operates on two principles; the rules should be visible to everyone (as they are here) and any moderator action should be supported by being able to point to a piece of content, and point to the rule it violates. This ensures fairness; we cannot expect people to follow rules they cannot possibly be aware of (however, that does not make ignorance an excuse, the rules are accessible to everyone)
When someone doesn't break a rule, or doesn't do so in a way that's actionable for a moderator, but it still behaving in a way another user does not want to engage with, we are still empathetic to that. So while we can't act, we will still take measures to help the users how best we can; reminding them that disengaging is always an option (especially when it comes to your own safety and self care) and that the ignore function can automatically hide problematic users.
Ultimately the moderation team is not all powerful; we have rules and guidelines that intentionally limit when, where and how we can act and make sure these are visible to all users. Want to avoid getting a message from a mod? Follow those rules. Have a problem with a user that doesn't break those rules? The moderators cannot do anything beyond listening to you and providing advice. However, we are always listening. If you reach out to us and say "I'm having this problem with this user" we will be there to listen to you. The moderation team is here for you as a community.
Thanks Davyd. Yeah, when I opened this thread, it was mainly because of the comments in the previous thread which suggested that people had been asked or told to put other users on Ignore (for whatever reason). If this doesn't actually happen, then the original point of this thread is covered off.
That said, I think there is still value in the conversation taking place here.
Thanks Davyd. Yeah, when I opened this thread, it was mainly because of the comments in the previous thread which suggested that people had been asked or told to put other users on Ignore (for whatever reason). If this doesn't actually happen, then the original point of this thread is covered off.
That said, I think there is still value in the conversation taking place here.
It's important to note that while the moderation team may never intend for it come across as they're saying "we're not going to moderate, just ignore them", that does not invalidate that's how it may feel to someone, especially when they're having a negative forum experience.
As such, this has been a great eye opener for us mods about how to better communicate our intent when supporting the community. We never want to be dismissive of someone's negative forum experience; it is always our intent to act when we should and support when we can.
Much like on Discord and Reddit, the ignore feature here isn't a real ignore feature, it's an 'empower the abuser' feature. For it to be a proper block, it has to work like blocking does on Twitter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can certainly see the appeal in this, but subjective moderation is a pretty sketchy notion.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
All moderation is subjective. Necessarily. Moderators have to make judgements about what is and is not in-bounds. They're human, and (at least currently) need to be human.
All moderation is always subjective. There is no such thing as objective moderation, until and unless moderation is entirely automated and left to V.I. systems. Given how that goes any time somebody tries it - this is me staring firmly at YouTube's various automated systems and the endless misery they've created - I don't think anybody wants that.
What people want is impartial moderation, which is easier to achieve inasmuch as it is (theoretically) actually possible. However, it relies on clearly communicated and easily understood guidelines and rules and consistent application of those rules, which (personal opinion incoming) has not traditionally been a strong suit of this website. Improvements happen, but...well. The issue is compounded when people who've been a passionate part of a given hobby for many decades find their notions challenged by a younger generation that may not share their ideals but have discovered the game with the zeal of a fresh convert.
I quite thoroughly agree with the issue Urth raised in his original post - the "Ignore" tool is a terrible idea and should never be used in lieu of actually dealing with troubles. Sedge states the moderation team has never issued orders to place someone on the Ignore list and make use of that tool, but in defense and furtherance of the original point of the thread, the difference between lowercase-i "ignore this user" and capital I "Ignore this user", when coming from the mouth of someone granted the authority to permanently revoke your access to the service on a whim, is often so fine as to be meaningless. It's safer to take the instruction literally and use the Ignore tool than to risk your access to the service. It just is, however much that may pain someone in the moment and however poor the tool actually is.
Please do not contact or message me.
The judgments are, but they're based on objective bounds as much as possible. "Not really contributing in a positive way" is not objective at all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It definitely seems like sloppy language. To expect anyone to think one is referring to "ignoring a user" instead of using the "ignore" function when said advice is given in a moderator action is not realistic. Of course when you're told to ignore a user you will assume you are being told to use the ignore function.
If that is not the intention of the moderator communications I highly recommend changing the discourse ever so slightly as to be more clear.
Reading a thread and seeing the same two or three people having a heated discussion on yet another side-topic to the original reason for a thread (and quite often the same argument that they had a few weeks or months ago as a digression in another thread) does not sound like "open and honest debate" to me, since neither side in those "discussions" ever changes their view.
(I want to be clear, we might be having a semantic argument, and I don't mean to really criticize you or the mods on this.)
From my perspective, if you're not differentiating between "contributes positively" and "contributes negatively" using your subjective judgement, you're not moderating, you're just a traffic cop. People talk about arguments being "in bad faith" because they're deceptive, but intended to look legit. Catching that requires all sorts of subjective reasoning, and catching/stopping it is important, to keep a community healthy.
(Replying here to show which thread of discussion I'm commenting on.)
I think Yurei said it best, what we are really after is impartial moderation. That bad behaviour is treated equally and that everyone gets a "fair" moderation. This is somewhat achieved by the ability to appeal bans and strikes which IMO is a good thing.
Another thing to remember though is that this is a privately owned forum and we've all agreed to follow the rules set up by DnD Beyond when we joined. If DDB and its mods wants to remove posts that they don't see as constructive, they have the right to do so. After all, this forum is in a way a part of their product and marketing of said product and I can absolutely see why they wouldn't want the forum to just be a mess of squabbles and bickering (which I don't think it is, btw) since that kind of stuff will scare people away. Or at the very least dissuade new people if they see that innocent questions about bending the rules for fun's sake or if you can play a good gnoll get met with harsh and in some cases almost bullying replies of basically "NO! That's not RAW and according to an second edition book from 30 years ago..." or "You're having fun wrong!"
That said, I really appreciate these kinds of discussions and also a big thanks to the mods giving their input.
So I'm going to take a different stance in this thread(while addressing the thread title), it relates to moderation but it takes a bit to get there.
I think these forums are pretty bloody toxic and most people don't know how to check themselves before they wreck themselves.
This is a moderation problem because off topic doesn't get enforced. This, what I am doing right now, is off topic technically. Tangents are REAL on these forums and people don't reel themselves in. Then a thread spirals out of control and you typically see the same common posters in there perpetuating the same cycles. Honestly, it's not just "the bad ones" either, it's users people would consider "good", but they perpetuate the cycle. If you're complicit in the cycle, you're just as "at fault" as those whose opinions might be considered derisive. Report and move on, and if it doesn't get removed, cool, but by replying to it, you bring attention and further replies which in turn keeps it going.
Kind of like this thread. Same common posters(myself included!) are the ones speaking up about solutions, but then we all keep doing the same shit. Vicious cycles suck.
On the topic of the thread title, the ignore feature? Honestly, I'd have far less of a problem with these forums if people tried to stay on topic and not devolved into side conversations. Which is why I bothered replying to this post specifically, because I wanted to tie it back in.
I can certainly understand that perspective. Heck, I'm fed up with that kind of thread, and I take part in them.
The problem is that these are often around topics which people feel very strongly about. It is very difficult not to get involved when somebody starts saying things which go against fundamental principals you hold dear. And personally, I love the fact that this site allows such debate, as much as it drives me up the wall that I "have to" get involved once again. These are issues which should be discussed.
Personally, from a moderation standpoint, I would love to see a light-touch way to deal with these threads. The simplest would be to apply a label to them and allow users to ignore those threads. They could also be moved to a different forum, possibly even split off from the original topic. If possible, adding an automated "Warning: This topic is likely to lead to arguments" when posting regarding a.... controversial topic might be helpful. These would allow the arguments to continue while disturbing the "normal" users as little as possible.
The other option I can see would be booting users from a particular thread (not the whole forum) if they are derailing the subject. However, I think this would need to be handled carefully and transparently, as it would need to be seen to be fair and unbiased. (Note: this is a big thing with all the moderation on this site. I expect that the moderation is probably very fair and unbiased as it is, but it doesn't always seem that way because it all happens behind closed doors. Transparency would be incredibly helpful in showing users that the moderators are acting fairly, as well as in educating users as to where the lines are by observing moderator action against others)
On a side note, I would like to thank everyone (especially the moderators) for contributing here in such a constructive manner. I think it's very important to have these discussions, but it's not easy. Most of us come here to discuss our hobby,
not argue about rules.... sorry, not to argue about forum rules or the application of them.So, yeah, thank you everyone :)
I think moderation is already quite well done on this forum, if not a bit too well done sometimes where something gets redacted that really shouldn't have been in my opinion.
What I think is lacking in the moderation is keeping people focused on the topic of a thread.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I don't disagree with you. This is really difficult, though. Conversation will naturally drift between topics. It is perfectly natural to find a conversation has shifted from the original topic to a completely different one after a few pages. We do this all the time in our day to day lives.
I would say that certain forums, particularly those like Rules & Mechanics, should probably be kept strictly on topic. However, something like here, General Discussion? Threads here should be discussions which are allowed to evolve naturally and follow whatever path they take. A big jump into a vastly different subject should still be considered OT, but not natural drifts.
Discussions being derailed by another argument about an emotionally charged subject should be dealt with, but how is a different story. Asking or telling people to Ignore each other wouldn't be the right way IMHO (although the mods have said they don't do that, so my information in opening this thread may not have been correct)
I haven't had an occasion to ignore anybody myself, but I would expect that the Ignore feature is to filter out people (and I want to say this isn't based on anyone on here that I've seen) who doesn't contribute to discussions, is abrasive and rude, but doesn't flout any guidelines so isn't going to have their behavior addressed.
Perhaps it comes down to "That's offensive" and "I'm offended" as a difference. Offensive things should be directly dealt with by the moderators, and things which specific people find offensive (EG, someone being offended that someone is discussing evolution because they don't believe in it) is down to them whether they want to ignore the user and stop seeing their content.
So I wonder if the issue is in people thinking that the Ignore feature is for dealing with people who are being genuinely offensive, which should be dealt with by mods and the rules, instead of it being for your own benefit if someone was frequently making comments which aren't specifically offensive but which offend your own beliefs enough for you to no longer wish to see these comments.
In short: Ignore is if you specifically don't want to see what someone has to say. Moderator intervention is for if what someone has to say is going against the rules, or is clearly offensive.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
That's correct. Ignore doesn't replace moderation, it's available in addition to moderation.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
True. I'm not saying that Ignore should be removed from the site. The original point of this was that people (possibly mistakenly) thought they had been advised (or even ordered) by moderators to use the Ignore feature long-term, which I don't think is an appropriate use. It should be available for a user to use, and moderators should remind people that the feature exists when appropriate. It should always be a personal choice to do so, though, and users shouldn't feel forced or pressured into using it.
I would like to stress that a moderator would never recommend ignoring (lowercase i) or Ignoring (the actual site feature) a user instead of applying appropriate moderation to them. However, it's not an uncommon occurrence for someone to dislike another user or what they have to say while said user violates no site rules and there is nothing actionable for a moderator to act on. And that's the key part; actionable content.
The moderation team operates on two principles; the rules should be visible to everyone (as they are here) and any moderator action should be supported by being able to point to a piece of content, and point to the rule it violates. This ensures fairness; we cannot expect people to follow rules they cannot possibly be aware of (however, that does not make ignorance an excuse, the rules are accessible to everyone)
When someone doesn't break a rule, or doesn't do so in a way that's actionable for a moderator, but it still behaving in a way another user does not want to engage with, we are still empathetic to that. So while we can't act, we will still take measures to help the users how best we can; reminding them that disengaging is always an option (especially when it comes to your own safety and self care) and that the ignore function can automatically hide problematic users.
Ultimately the moderation team is not all powerful; we have rules and guidelines that intentionally limit when, where and how we can act and make sure these are visible to all users. Want to avoid getting a message from a mod? Follow those rules. Have a problem with a user that doesn't break those rules? The moderators cannot do anything beyond listening to you and providing advice. However, we are always listening. If you reach out to us and say "I'm having this problem with this user" we will be there to listen to you. The moderation team is here for you as a community.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Thanks Davyd. Yeah, when I opened this thread, it was mainly because of the comments in the previous thread which suggested that people had been asked or told to put other users on Ignore (for whatever reason). If this doesn't actually happen, then the original point of this thread is covered off.
That said, I think there is still value in the conversation taking place here.
It's important to note that while the moderation team may never intend for it come across as they're saying "we're not going to moderate, just ignore them", that does not invalidate that's how it may feel to someone, especially when they're having a negative forum experience.
As such, this has been a great eye opener for us mods about how to better communicate our intent when supporting the community. We never want to be dismissive of someone's negative forum experience; it is always our intent to act when we should and support when we can.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Much like on Discord and Reddit, the ignore feature here isn't a real ignore feature, it's an 'empower the abuser' feature. For it to be a proper block, it has to work like blocking does on Twitter.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.