1: Yes. Power is wielded by those who have the ability to effect change. Those who effect change are the ones willing and the ones with an audience. Why do you think the term "influencer" became so popular?
2: I don't give a shit who it is, but if you want change to happen, you have to be willing to participate in it's change. Not being willing means it doesn't happen.
Addendum: Why do you think you added your signature line? Was it for funsies? You got together with your friends to say hey, we want to have these SPIRITED debates, which is just an invitation to argue with you. People see it as a challenge. Even those you don't like. SPECIFICALLY those whom you've engaged with in the past and who you're probably ignoring now. Time to flip the script, if you want it to be different, you have to act different and you have to get people to act different with you.
1: Yes. Power is wielded by those who have the ability to effect change. Those who effect change are the ones willing and the ones with an audience. Why do you think the term "influencer" became so popular?
2: I don't give a shit who it is, but if you want change to happen, you have to be willing to participate in it's change. Not being willing means it doesn't happen.
Addendum: Why do you think you added your signature line? Was it for funsies? You got together with your friends to say hey, we want to have these SPIRITED debates, which is just an invitation to argue with you. People see it as a challenge.
It would seem that you want people to engage in their own form of moderation? I am not sure if that is in the spirit of the forums to encourage such behavior and how you would honestly expect people to adhere that with so many active users.
1: Yes. Power is wielded by those who have the ability to effect change. Those who effect change are the ones willing and the ones with an audience. Why do you think the term "influencer" became so popular?
2: I don't give a shit who it is, but if you want change to happen, you have to be willing to participate in it's change. Not being willing means it doesn't happen.
Addendum: Why do you think you added your signature line? Was it for funsies? You got together with your friends to say hey, we want to have these SPIRITED debates, which is just an invitation to argue with you. People see it as a challenge.
It would seem that you want people to engage in their own form of moderation? I am not sure if that is in the spirit of the forums to encourage such behavior and how you would honestly expect people to adhere that with so many active users.
You don't. You adhere with the biggest chunk of the most "engaging" users. The rest of the site will do their thing, but the people who post the most control the flow of conversation. If those people who are being disruptive continue to do that but don't get engaged, eventually they either get more forceful in their attacks, which leads to moderation. Or they leave.
Or they reform.
We all have to moderate ourselves, that is the spirit of any discussion forum. The ability for the user to self assess, realize what they are doing is wrong, and learn. Moderation teams don't want to step in because if they do, it means they are being forced to take a side. Even when being objective, it doesn't matter, a side was still taken.
1: Yes. Power is wielded by those who have the ability to effect change. Those who effect change are the ones willing and the ones with an audience. Why do you think the term "influencer" became so popular?
2: I don't give a shit who it is, but if you want change to happen, you have to be willing to participate in it's change. Not being willing means it doesn't happen.
Addendum: Why do you think you added your signature line? Was it for funsies? You got together with your friends to say hey, we want to have these SPIRITED debates, which is just an invitation to argue with you. People see it as a challenge.
It would seem that you want people to engage in their own form of moderation? I am not sure if that is in the spirit of the forums to encourage such behavior and how you would honestly expect people to adhere that with so many active users.
I don't draw the line as starkly as Spideycloned describes, but I've certainly at times chosen to ignore (small i-) other users for a while. Don't know that I'd call it moderation though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Third, Sposta and myself actually added the "Forum Loudmouth Club' thing at the behest of website moderation. We were getting reported and infracted for being Internet Fight Goblins with each other despite the fact that we're all buddies and it's simply how we do and what we enjoy with our conversations. One of us acerbically suggested that we add a disclaimer to our post saying "WE'RE FRIENDS, WE'RE NOT FIGHTING, LET US ROUGHHOUSE IN PEACE", and the mod team said "actually yeah, that would help." So we opted to do so via our signatures. It's ridiculous and none of us actually like it...but it's worked so far, so we keep the stupid thing around.
It's not meant to be an open challenge to the rest of the forum, though I suppose I can see where someone might strive to interpret it as such. It's more meant to be a pre-explanation - if you see someone with a Loudmouth Club line in their signature going at someone else with a Loudmouth Club line in their signature, just let them be. No matter how passionate they get, they're just having fun, and if at any point they stop having fun they're perfectly capable of self-regulating. Sposta and I, in particular, have run the forum equivalent of Pistols At Ten Paces more'n once (you're still wrong about Tasha's, frendo :P), but we're both still buddies and if shit gets too heated we know how to back it off.
Regardless. I guarantee you don't want people whose only distinction is "posts a lot" deciding who is and is not allowed to participate in the forums. That's a recipe for the worst kind of cliquism and the most unwelcoming environment possible. I don't want anybody to get banned or shunned or anything else, ideally. We all paid for this service, we shouldn't lose access to it outside of ******* up to a legally actionable degree. My post count shouldn't matter. Neither should yours. The only thing that should matter is the content of our words and whether we make a case worth listening to. Which is another reason the "Ignore" functionality of the website sucks - how am I supposed to know if a problem user has turned over a new leaf, mellowed out, and is worth listening to again if I can no longer judge the merit of their words?
So I'm going to call out one specific point you made first:
NO ONE here paid to use the forums. Not a single person. We pay for the content outside the forum, but you can get banned from the forum and still allowed to use your 5th edition content.
if you see someone with a Loudmouth Club line in their signature going at someone else with a Loudmouth Club line in their signature, just let them be. No matter how passionate they get, they're just having fun, and if at any point they stop having fun they're perfectly capable of self-regulating.
This is an attempt at self moderation, and it's bullshit. The literal interpretation of this is "If I have this in my signature line, I shouldn't get reported for MY spirited debate but YOURS isn't good enough because YOU don't have this in your signature line."
Site moderation shouldn't have to have users have a DISCLAIMER on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR POSTS. That's what they did to you. You now come with a warning tag.
Excuse me, what?
The other point, I absolutely want those people who post a lot to get together and figure shit out. If a good majority of those people agree that someone in their ranks is toxic, they can address that. They can speak to that person and try to get them to see reason, and if not, well, they don't have to talk to that person. Just because someone is loud doesn't mean they deserve a platform, but every person who is loud GETS a platform, and it's up to the rest of you to determine how big that audience truly is.
I've thoroughly enjoyed following this thread, fyi. :D
As I sit here thinking, I was curious if users could tell when others resided in 'Banned' status and thought to connect to a banned user's profile page via incognito - nope. I agree that it's hard to know if "justice is being done" when one observes no indication of action taken. Rest assured, there are/have been users that accumulate lengthy ban periods as detailed on the Site Rules & Guidelines page as a result of the reports put in for this 'abusive behavior'. The moderation framework as listed does work - reports very much get acted upon and infraction points add up. This would in essence lead up to and include the permanent removal of forum privileges. It's certainly never a good idea to retaliate oneself because one may feel that nothing is being done behind the scenes, as this is an incorrect assumption.
To touch on one other item I found interesting (which occurs very frequently):
Person B: "Quotes Person A: No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X."
Person A having ignored this person does not respond.
Person C: "Well I think that X could be good "
Person B: "No it isn't as we have already established X is bad and there has not been any claims otherwise to why X is good to refute my points."
Person B isnt breaking any rules but is obviously de-railing the conversation as they will no let anyone say X is acceptable because you have to "prove" it. Person A pretty much has to abandon the thread if they do not want to interact with Person B as they do not wish to engage with them or be moderated.
Now imagine Person B posts a lot in the area that you like to read/contribute. You have given all the power to Person B in this situation but they have not broken any rules but you have effectively allowed this person to lock another out of an area.
No, Person B isn't breaking any rules. However, Person B doesn't control what anyone else can say, nor do they run the conversation. There is no authority Person B holds over any user, discussion, or thread within this community. This user can post until they're blue in the face, but it makes absolutely no difference. As the last few posts touch on - why even bother responding to this user at all? Replace, "No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X," with "Rogues only wear Viking hats and have purple eyes." The opinion is just that - an opinion and nobody really should give it (or the user) the time of day. This is the essence behind the, "Just ignore the user" mentality. Let em swim in the kiddie pool alone and instead have meaningful discussions with the others who are capable.
If those people who are being disruptive continue to do that but don't get engaged, eventually they either get more forceful in their attacks, which leads to moderation. Or they leave.
Reminder: the Loudmouth Club is something we did to usselves. We're not generally super fond of it, no, but we made that choice. It's worked so far. If you want to engage in Spirited Debate, have at it. Hell, drop the line into your signature if you want. The only thing the Loudmouth Club does is alert mods (and other users) to err on the side of "ehh, they're probably fine" when we get into a tiff. You're basically waiving your 'right' to spurious moderation involving anyone else with said line.
And frankly, I probably should come with a warning tag. I'm a nasty spicy ***** and I know it. Entertaining and flavorful in small doses, hazardous to your health when overconsumed. People should know what they're getting into when I show up, and if the Loudmouth Club tagline does that too? Well, shit. Bonus.
And again - you don't want that nearly as much as you think you do. I've been on forums where popular/entrenched/Golden Child posters could basically dictate to the site team/mod staff what they wanted to have happen. It did not work well, it did not last long, and it was not pleasant.
I've thoroughly enjoyed following this thread, fyi. :D
As I sit here thinking, I was curious if users could tell when others resided in 'Banned' status and thought to connect to a banned user's profile page via incognito - nope. I agree that it's hard to know if "justice is being done" when one observes no indication of action taken. Rest assured, there are/have been users that accumulate lengthy ban periods as detailed on the Site Rules & Guidelines page as a result of the reports put in for this 'abusive behavior'. The moderation framework as listed does work - reports very much get acted upon and infraction points add up. This would in essence lead up to and include the permanent removal of forum privileges. It's certainly never a good idea to retaliate oneself because one may feel that nothing is being done behind the scenes, as this is an incorrect assumption.
To touch on one other item I found interesting (which occurs very frequently):
Person B: "Quotes Person A: No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X."
Person A having ignored this person does not respond.
Person C: "Well I think that X could be good "
Person B: "No it isn't as we have already established X is bad and there has not been any claims otherwise to why X is good to refute my points."
Person B isnt breaking any rules but is obviously de-railing the conversation as they will no let anyone say X is acceptable because you have to "prove" it. Person A pretty much has to abandon the thread if they do not want to interact with Person B as they do not wish to engage with them or be moderated.
Now imagine Person B posts a lot in the area that you like to read/contribute. You have given all the power to Person B in this situation but they have not broken any rules but you have effectively allowed this person to lock another out of an area.
No, Person B isn't breaking any rules. However, Person B doesn't control what anyone else can say, nor do they run the conversation. There is no authority Person B holds over any user, discussion, or thread within this community. This user can post until they're blue in the face, but it makes absolutely no difference. As the last few posts touch on - why even bother responding to this user at all? Replace, "No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X," with "Rogues only wear Viking hats and have purple eyes." The opinion is just that - an opinion and nobody really should give it (or the user) the time of day. This is the essence behind the, "Just ignore the user" mentality. Let em swim in the kiddie pool alone and instead have meaningful discussions with the others who are capable.
If those people who are being disruptive continue to do that but don't get engaged, eventually they either get more forceful in their attacks, which leads to moderation. Or they leave.
+1
They are controlling the conversation though. If you "Ignore" that person...then you wont see their response and all context is lost. Then if someone quotes them it just shows their post so its not even working as intended in that case. So the feature is just mostly useless at best or at worst completely disruptive.
If you want to ignore the person but others engage with them then you are now actively out of the conversation...so again they are controlling the situation. You say nobody should give it the time of day...but is that really what you want? people to just ignore people and not discuss at all? seems like a terrible approach IMO.
Wouldn't you rather either engage in the conversation yourself and show how proper discussion should go or actively remove people who do not want to discuss in a productive way?
but is that really what you want? people to just ignore people and not discuss at all? seems like a terrible approach IMO.
Wouldn't you rather either engage in the conversation yourself and show how proper discussion should go or actively remove people who do not want to discuss in a productive way?
Unfortunately, we cannot control others. Moderation cannot manifest in the shape of controlling the contributions, opinions/beliefs/values, or positivity of others. We must mature to a state to know whom not to interact with and whom to focus our energy upon.
Removing people who have strong opinions, not aligning with our own, is censorship. Imagine if the collective moderation team aligned with values in which you do not, causing you to be the one who was censored. Not fun.
As I sit here thinking, I was curious if users could tell when others resided in 'Banned' status and thought to connect to a banned user's profile page via incognito - nope.
You don't need to do that. Users lose their avatars when they are suspended. It's pretty easy to see that, but if you are that invested in getting someone banned, which is an entirely different topic, then you're also reporting users for the wrong reasons.
Reminder: the Loudmouth Club is something we did to usselves. We're not generally super fond of it, no, but we made that choice. It's worked so far. If you want to engage in Spirited Debate, have at it. Hell, drop the line into your signature if you want. The only thing the Loudmouth Club does is alert mods (and other users) to err on the side of "ehh, they're probably fine" when we get into a tiff. You're basically waiving your 'right' to spurious moderation involving anyone else with said line.
And frankly, I probably should come with a warning tag. I'm a nasty spicy ***** and I know it. Entertaining and flavorful in small doses, hazardous to your health when overconsumed. People should know what they're getting into when I show up, and if the Loudmouth Club tagline does that too? Well, shit. Bonus.
No, it's not. Action leads to reaction. It's like a game of D&D. Action - You were getting moderated all the time and the moderators told you that maybe you should put a disclaimer(this is what you said). Reaction - You put that disclaimer on to counterspell the posters attempt at casting Dispel User on you.
but is that really what you want? people to just ignore people and not discuss at all? seems like a terrible approach IMO.
Wouldn't you rather either engage in the conversation yourself and show how proper discussion should go or actively remove people who do not want to discuss in a productive way?
Unfortunately, we cannot control others. Moderation cannot manifest in the shape of controlling the contributions, opinions/beliefs/values, or positivity of others. We must mature to a state to know whom not to interact with and whom to focus our energy upon.
Removing people who have strong opinions, not aligning with our own, is censorship. Imagine if the collective moderation team aligned with values in which you do not, causing you to be the one who was censored. Not fun.
Extrapolating from this, they are actively saying certain disruptive voices WILL continue. They will NOT be silenced. Why? They follow the rules.
So now the onus shifts to us, as the userbase, to decide on how to interact with those disruptive voices.
As I sit here thinking, I was curious if users could tell when others resided in 'Banned' status and thought to connect to a banned user's profile page via incognito - nope. I agree that it's hard to know if "justice is being done" when one observes no indication of action taken.
I'm under the impression that banned people lose their avatar image when banned, so you can kinda sorta tell by that.
Rest assured, there are/have been users that accumulate lengthy ban periods as detailed on the Site Rules & Guidelines page as a result of the reports put in for this 'abusive behavior'. The moderation framework as listed does work - reports very much get acted upon and infraction points add up. This would in essence lead up to and include the permanent removal of forum privileges. It's certainly never a good idea to retaliate oneself because one may feel that nothing is being done behind the scenes, as this is an incorrect assumption.
(I think this would be more appropriate under the other, older thread.)
I'm generally of the opinion that it's good and correct for some penalties to be public. When abuse is public, having it called out in public, in an official capacity, leads to ~everyone learning to be better. (And means the resulting smoking crater of a thread is less confusing after-the-fact.)
<snip>
No, Person B isn't breaking any rules. However, Person B doesn't control what anyone else can say, nor do they run the conversation. There is no authority Person B holds over any user, discussion, or thread within this community. This user can post until they're blue in the face, but it makes absolutely no difference. As the last few posts touch on - why even bother responding to this user at all? Replace, "No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X," with "Rogues only wear Viking hats and have purple eyes." The opinion is just that - an opinion and nobody really should give it (or the user) the time of day. This is the essence behind the, "Just ignore the user" mentality. Let em swim in the kiddie pool alone and instead have meaningful discussions with the others who are capable.
(This is only kinda related, and may be just further topic drift. Sorry.)
So, here is my loose impression of something that may or may not happen:
A: All <type of players> suck, and shouldn't be allowed at the table, and books that cater to them shouldn't be published.
B: No, you suck, for saying that.
<B's post is removed, A's post remains>
Now, maybe that impression is dead wrong and it just never happens (but I'm pretty sure I've seen it happen a couple times). Technically, it's even following the site rules, because B's post was a "personal" attack, yet A's post isn't. Maybe the site rules are insufficient, or maybe mods don't have the time/energy to judge what counts as "trolling." Or maybe it just comes down to "A is more trigger happy with reporting than B." But it still seems like a moderation failure.
1: Yes. Power is wielded by those who have the ability to effect change. Those who effect change are the ones willing and the ones with an audience. Why do you think the term "influencer" became so popular?
2: I don't give a shit who it is, but if you want change to happen, you have to be willing to participate in it's change. Not being willing means it doesn't happen.
Addendum: Why do you think you added your signature line? Was it for funsies? You got together with your friends to say hey, we want to have these SPIRITED debates, which is just an invitation to argue with you. People see it as a challenge.
It would seem that you want people to engage in their own form of moderation? I am not sure if that is in the spirit of the forums to encourage such behavior and how you would honestly expect people to adhere that with so many active users.
Not only that, but the moderators seem to actively discourage forum users from such behaviour. I've seen posts deleted for people commenting that a post is off topic. If they found that users were actively organising protests and boycotts of users, I can't imagine they'd be that happy. It could even be seen as a form of bullying or abuse itself
So if I go "Metagamers are pieces of shit, and here's why" and I detail out and I'm being rational, I'm not attacking any specific person, I'm fine. If a person gets offended by that, this is the grey area. I didn't hit a specific person, but I did say something that will offend groups of people. Now if that is my thread title, it's probably going to get deleted. If it's a post within the thread, probably not AS LONG as it attempts to stay constructive it should be fine.
That's the bait post though.
Now the next person will go why are they pieces of shit, that's bloody awful, why would you call them that, that's mean? You're mean. That's an attack, and it gets moderated. As it should.
Now, if that post was made by one of your "Fave Five" on the pantheon of shitty posters who always start fights? Why even bother. Just ignore it. Deplatform them.
So if I go "Metagamers are pieces of shit, and here's why" and I detail out and I'm being rational, I'm not attacking any specific person, I'm fine. If a person gets offended by that, this is the grey area. I didn't hit a specific person, but I did say something that will offend groups of people. Now if that is my thread title, it's probably going to get deleted. If it's a post within the thread, probably not AS LONG as it attempts to stay constructive it should be fine.
That's the bait post though.
Now the next person will go why are they pieces of shit, that's bloody awful, why would you call them that, that's mean? You're mean. That's an attack, and it gets moderated. As it should.
I gather you see this example as "correct" but (to me) it's exactly the problem. "Bait post" means it's trolling, even if the site rules offer a piss-poor definition of "trolling" (for the record, they do, and also give a nonexistent definition of "harassment").
So it becomes a race to the report button.
Now, if that post was made by one of your "Fave Five" on the pantheon of shitty posters who always start fights? Why even bother. Just ignore it. Deplatform them.
Actually, "deplatform" would mean banning them. That's kinda the whole point.
So then you as a consumer, take your presence elsewhere.
First and foremost, D&D Beyond is a product to me. I pay to host my 5th Edition Toolset here, and the team does a WONDERFUL job with that.
That being said, these forums are an afterthought. I couldn't be more thoroughly convinced of this. The front page has content, because it's the gateway to my D&D 5th Content, but the forums, meh, the team doesn't care about. There are posts in very specific areas by the content creation team to make sure that shit isn't broken, but by and large there is no engagement. Stormknight replied to me about hey, I POST A LOT, and then only posts to the player base when they're talking about content that might be broken. Mellie only posts when there is an issue that might be a big deal because shes the community manager, and we're technically a community. Joe posting on the forums compared to BadEye is a hilarious concept. I am sure all of those people behind the scenes for what their task is, do a fantastic job. Just interacting with this community here? Doesn't happen.
The forums aren't their task, and therefore they don't give a shit UNLESS it threatens the bottom line. This translates to the moderation team I feel, who take a very hands off approach to what the community is, and really just stick to rule enforcement. This is the vibe I get whenever Davyd posts about hey, this is my opinion.
If the ignore feature isn't working for you because certain users ruin your experience, and then in tandem the site enforcement isn't to your liking, take your engagement elsewhere. Your posts here are owned by Fandom, and they can use the content for whatever the hell they want. Anything you post here can be translated to them for money in some way shape or form. So take your presence elsewhere. Show them that they aren't working for you by no longer being here. The ultimate ignore button, the entire site, gone.
but is that really what you want? people to just ignore people and not discuss at all? seems like a terrible approach IMO.
Wouldn't you rather either engage in the conversation yourself and show how proper discussion should go or actively remove people who do not want to discuss in a productive way?
Removing people who have strong opinions, not aligning with our own, is censorship. Imagine if the collective moderation team aligned with values in which you do not, causing you to be the one who was censored. Not fun.
I do not want to start a whole debate about freedom of speech but no, that is literally not censorship. The owners of this forum can set whatever rules they want regarding what is allowed to be said on here. If DDB wants to put in the rules that the word "ketchup" is verboten and using that word means automatic banning then no-one who agrees to those rules have a right to complain.
Again, the problem here isn't opinions, it's behaviour. It does make sense from a business point of view to make sure that as many people as possible feel welcome here. Otherwise they might just do what Spideycloned suggested and take their business elsewhere. And who would blame them?
So then you as a consumer, take your presence elsewhere.
First and foremost, D&D Beyond is a product to me. I pay to host my 5th Edition Toolset here, and the team does a WONDERFUL job with that.
That being said, these forums are an afterthought. I couldn't be more thoroughly convinced of this. The front page has content, because it's the gateway to my D&D 5th Content, but the forums, meh, the team doesn't care about. There are posts in very specific areas by the content creation team to make sure that shit isn't broken, but by and large there is no engagement. Stormknight replied to me about hey, I POST A LOT, and then only posts to the player base when they're talking about content that might be broken. Mellie only posts when there is an issue that might be a big deal because shes the community manager, and we're technically a community. Joe posting on the forums compared to BadEye is a hilarious concept. I am sure all of those people behind the scenes for what their task is, do a fantastic job. Just interacting with this community here? Doesn't happen.
The forums aren't their task, and therefore they don't give a shit UNLESS it threatens the bottom line. This translates to the moderation team I feel, who take a very hands off approach to what the community is, and really just stick to rule enforcement. This is the vibe I get whenever Davyd posts about hey, this is my opinion.
If the ignore feature isn't working for you because certain users ruin your experience, and then in tandem the site enforcement isn't to your liking, take your engagement elsewhere. Your posts here are owned by Fandom, and they can use the content for whatever the hell they want. Anything you post here can be translated to them for money in some way shape or form. So take your presence elsewhere. Show them that they aren't working for you by no longer being here. The ultimate ignore button, the entire site, gone.
but is that really what you want? people to just ignore people and not discuss at all? seems like a terrible approach IMO.
Wouldn't you rather either engage in the conversation yourself and show how proper discussion should go or actively remove people who do not want to discuss in a productive way?
Removing people who have strong opinions, not aligning with our own, is censorship. Imagine if the collective moderation team aligned with values in which you do not, causing you to be the one who was censored. Not fun.
I do not want to start a whole debate about freedom of speech but no, that is literally not censorship. The owners of this forum can set whatever rules they want regarding what is allowed to be said on here. If DDB wants to put in the rules that the word "ketchup" is verboten and using that word means automatic banning then no-one who agrees to those rules have a right to complain.
Again, the problem here isn't opinions, it's behaviour. It does make sense from a business point of view to make sure that as many people as possible feel welcome here. Otherwise they might just do what Spideycloned suggested and take their business elsewhere. And who would blame them?
1000% agree in no way is that censorship....and if you set a precedent and people choose not to follow it...well then they can choose to engage or not but at least you set standards of conduct that actually are conducive to good productive discussion.
Sure you can allow posts like: Metagamers literally eat human shit if you really want....but why would you?
Is that really something you want to encourage or have people associate with your product?
Do we really have to go with the "Dont come here looking for good discussion unless you are willing to on mass agree to silent treatment bad apples" approach?
Plus that leaves a whole lot of room for those who are bad apples, but somehow still manage to contribute meaningful discussion, along with the rotten stuff. We need moderation to actually moderate specific behavior, not just resort to moderating away whole posters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
1: Yes. Power is wielded by those who have the ability to effect change. Those who effect change are the ones willing and the ones with an audience. Why do you think the term "influencer" became so popular?
2: I don't give a shit who it is, but if you want change to happen, you have to be willing to participate in it's change. Not being willing means it doesn't happen.
Addendum: Why do you think you added your signature line? Was it for funsies? You got together with your friends to say hey, we want to have these SPIRITED debates, which is just an invitation to argue with you. People see it as a challenge. Even those you don't like. SPECIFICALLY those whom you've engaged with in the past and who you're probably ignoring now. Time to flip the script, if you want it to be different, you have to act different and you have to get people to act different with you.
It would seem that you want people to engage in their own form of moderation? I am not sure if that is in the spirit of the forums to encourage such behavior and how you would honestly expect people to adhere that with so many active users.
You don't. You adhere with the biggest chunk of the most "engaging" users. The rest of the site will do their thing, but the people who post the most control the flow of conversation. If those people who are being disruptive continue to do that but don't get engaged, eventually they either get more forceful in their attacks, which leads to moderation. Or they leave.
Or they reform.
We all have to moderate ourselves, that is the spirit of any discussion forum. The ability for the user to self assess, realize what they are doing is wrong, and learn. Moderation teams don't want to step in because if they do, it means they are being forced to take a side. Even when being objective, it doesn't matter, a side was still taken.
I don't draw the line as starkly as Spideycloned describes, but I've certainly at times chosen to ignore (small i-) other users for a while. Don't know that I'd call it moderation though.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Third, Sposta and myself actually added the "Forum Loudmouth Club' thing at the behest of website moderation. We were getting reported and infracted for being Internet Fight Goblins with each other despite the fact that we're all buddies and it's simply how we do and what we enjoy with our conversations. One of us acerbically suggested that we add a disclaimer to our post saying "WE'RE FRIENDS, WE'RE NOT FIGHTING, LET US ROUGHHOUSE IN PEACE", and the mod team said "actually yeah, that would help." So we opted to do so via our signatures. It's ridiculous and none of us actually like it...but it's worked so far, so we keep the stupid thing around.
It's not meant to be an open challenge to the rest of the forum, though I suppose I can see where someone might strive to interpret it as such. It's more meant to be a pre-explanation - if you see someone with a Loudmouth Club line in their signature going at someone else with a Loudmouth Club line in their signature, just let them be. No matter how passionate they get, they're just having fun, and if at any point they stop having fun they're perfectly capable of self-regulating. Sposta and I, in particular, have run the forum equivalent of Pistols At Ten Paces more'n once (you're still wrong about Tasha's, frendo :P), but we're both still buddies and if shit gets too heated we know how to back it off.
Regardless. I guarantee you don't want people whose only distinction is "posts a lot" deciding who is and is not allowed to participate in the forums. That's a recipe for the worst kind of cliquism and the most unwelcoming environment possible. I don't want anybody to get banned or shunned or anything else, ideally. We all paid for this service, we shouldn't lose access to it outside of ******* up to a legally actionable degree. My post count shouldn't matter. Neither should yours. The only thing that should matter is the content of our words and whether we make a case worth listening to. Which is another reason the "Ignore" functionality of the website sucks - how am I supposed to know if a problem user has turned over a new leaf, mellowed out, and is worth listening to again if I can no longer judge the merit of their words?
Please do not contact or message me.
So I'm going to call out one specific point you made first:
NO ONE here paid to use the forums. Not a single person. We pay for the content outside the forum, but you can get banned from the forum and still allowed to use your 5th edition content.
This is an attempt at self moderation, and it's bullshit. The literal interpretation of this is "If I have this in my signature line, I shouldn't get reported for MY spirited debate but YOURS isn't good enough because YOU don't have this in your signature line."
Site moderation shouldn't have to have users have a DISCLAIMER on EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR POSTS. That's what they did to you. You now come with a warning tag.
Excuse me, what?
The other point, I absolutely want those people who post a lot to get together and figure shit out. If a good majority of those people agree that someone in their ranks is toxic, they can address that. They can speak to that person and try to get them to see reason, and if not, well, they don't have to talk to that person. Just because someone is loud doesn't mean they deserve a platform, but every person who is loud GETS a platform, and it's up to the rest of you to determine how big that audience truly is.
I've thoroughly enjoyed following this thread, fyi. :D
As I sit here thinking, I was curious if users could tell when others resided in 'Banned' status and thought to connect to a banned user's profile page via incognito - nope. I agree that it's hard to know if "justice is being done" when one observes no indication of action taken. Rest assured, there are/have been users that accumulate lengthy ban periods as detailed on the Site Rules & Guidelines page as a result of the reports put in for this 'abusive behavior'. The moderation framework as listed does work - reports very much get acted upon and infraction points add up. This would in essence lead up to and include the permanent removal of forum privileges. It's certainly never a good idea to retaliate oneself because one may feel that nothing is being done behind the scenes, as this is an incorrect assumption.
To touch on one other item I found interesting (which occurs very frequently):
No, Person B isn't breaking any rules. However, Person B doesn't control what anyone else can say, nor do they run the conversation. There is no authority Person B holds over any user, discussion, or thread within this community. This user can post until they're blue in the face, but it makes absolutely no difference. As the last few posts touch on - why even bother responding to this user at all? Replace, "No that is incorrect. Because of W , Y and Z it is actually terrible for Rogue to take X," with "Rogues only wear Viking hats and have purple eyes." The opinion is just that - an opinion and nobody really should give it (or the user) the time of day. This is the essence behind the, "Just ignore the user" mentality. Let em swim in the kiddie pool alone and instead have meaningful discussions with the others who are capable.
+1
Reminder: the Loudmouth Club is something we did to usselves. We're not generally super fond of it, no, but we made that choice. It's worked so far. If you want to engage in Spirited Debate, have at it. Hell, drop the line into your signature if you want. The only thing the Loudmouth Club does is alert mods (and other users) to err on the side of "ehh, they're probably fine" when we get into a tiff. You're basically waiving your 'right' to spurious moderation involving anyone else with said line.
And frankly, I probably should come with a warning tag. I'm a nasty spicy ***** and I know it. Entertaining and flavorful in small doses, hazardous to your health when overconsumed. People should know what they're getting into when I show up, and if the Loudmouth Club tagline does that too? Well, shit. Bonus.
And again - you don't want that nearly as much as you think you do. I've been on forums where popular/entrenched/Golden Child posters could basically dictate to the site team/mod staff what they wanted to have happen. It did not work well, it did not last long, and it was not pleasant.
Please do not contact or message me.
They are controlling the conversation though. If you "Ignore" that person...then you wont see their response and all context is lost. Then if someone quotes them it just shows their post so its not even working as intended in that case. So the feature is just mostly useless at best or at worst completely disruptive.
If you want to ignore the person but others engage with them then you are now actively out of the conversation...so again they are controlling the situation. You say nobody should give it the time of day...but is that really what you want? people to just ignore people and not discuss at all? seems like a terrible approach IMO.
Wouldn't you rather either engage in the conversation yourself and show how proper discussion should go or actively remove people who do not want to discuss in a productive way?
Unfortunately, we cannot control others. Moderation cannot manifest in the shape of controlling the contributions, opinions/beliefs/values, or positivity of others. We must mature to a state to know whom not to interact with and whom to focus our energy upon.
Removing people who have strong opinions, not aligning with our own, is censorship. Imagine if the collective moderation team aligned with values in which you do not, causing you to be the one who was censored. Not fun.
You don't need to do that. Users lose their avatars when they are suspended. It's pretty easy to see that, but if you are that invested in getting someone banned, which is an entirely different topic, then you're also reporting users for the wrong reasons.
No, it's not. Action leads to reaction. It's like a game of D&D. Action - You were getting moderated all the time and the moderators told you that maybe you should put a disclaimer(this is what you said). Reaction - You put that disclaimer on to counterspell the posters attempt at casting Dispel User on you.
Extrapolating from this, they are actively saying certain disruptive voices WILL continue. They will NOT be silenced. Why? They follow the rules.
So now the onus shifts to us, as the userbase, to decide on how to interact with those disruptive voices.
I'm under the impression that banned people lose their avatar image when banned, so you can kinda sorta tell by that.
(I think this would be more appropriate under the other, older thread.)
I'm generally of the opinion that it's good and correct for some penalties to be public. When abuse is public, having it called out in public, in an official capacity, leads to ~everyone learning to be better. (And means the resulting smoking crater of a thread is less confusing after-the-fact.)
(This is only kinda related, and may be just further topic drift. Sorry.)
So, here is my loose impression of something that may or may not happen:
Now, maybe that impression is dead wrong and it just never happens (but I'm pretty sure I've seen it happen a couple times). Technically, it's even following the site rules, because B's post was a "personal" attack, yet A's post isn't. Maybe the site rules are insufficient, or maybe mods don't have the time/energy to judge what counts as "trolling." Or maybe it just comes down to "A is more trigger happy with reporting than B." But it still seems like a moderation failure.
Not only that, but the moderators seem to actively discourage forum users from such behaviour. I've seen posts deleted for people commenting that a post is off topic. If they found that users were actively organising protests and boycotts of users, I can't imagine they'd be that happy. It could even be seen as a form of bullying or abuse itself
So if I go "Metagamers are pieces of shit, and here's why" and I detail out and I'm being rational, I'm not attacking any specific person, I'm fine. If a person gets offended by that, this is the grey area. I didn't hit a specific person, but I did say something that will offend groups of people. Now if that is my thread title, it's probably going to get deleted. If it's a post within the thread, probably not AS LONG as it attempts to stay constructive it should be fine.
That's the bait post though.
Now the next person will go why are they pieces of shit, that's bloody awful, why would you call them that, that's mean? You're mean. That's an attack, and it gets moderated. As it should.
Now, if that post was made by one of your "Fave Five" on the pantheon of shitty posters who always start fights? Why even bother. Just ignore it. Deplatform them.
I gather you see this example as "correct" but (to me) it's exactly the problem. "Bait post" means it's trolling, even if the site rules offer a piss-poor definition of "trolling" (for the record, they do, and also give a nonexistent definition of "harassment").
So it becomes a race to the report button.
Actually, "deplatform" would mean banning them. That's kinda the whole point.
Why should I? I'm not the problem.
I do not want to start a whole debate about freedom of speech but no, that is literally not censorship. The owners of this forum can set whatever rules they want regarding what is allowed to be said on here. If DDB wants to put in the rules that the word "ketchup" is verboten and using that word means automatic banning then no-one who agrees to those rules have a right to complain.
Again, the problem here isn't opinions, it's behaviour. It does make sense from a business point of view to make sure that as many people as possible feel welcome here. Otherwise they might just do what Spideycloned suggested and take their business elsewhere. And who would blame them?
1000% agree in no way is that censorship....and if you set a precedent and people choose not to follow it...well then they can choose to engage or not but at least you set standards of conduct that actually are conducive to good productive discussion.
Sure you can allow posts like: Metagamers literally eat human shit if you really want....but why would you?
Is that really something you want to encourage or have people associate with your product?
Do we really have to go with the "Dont come here looking for good discussion unless you are willing to on mass agree to silent treatment bad apples" approach?
Plus that leaves a whole lot of room for those who are bad apples, but somehow still manage to contribute meaningful discussion, along with the rotten stuff. We need moderation to actually moderate specific behavior, not just resort to moderating away whole posters.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
There's no shift necessary for that. There's always an onus on us, as humans, to decide how we interact with those we morally disagree with.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].