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?
Apparently, yes, because that's what the moderation team has openly stated in this thread. It's what's been communicated countless times.
Why should I? I'm not the problem.
Since they(moderation team) aren't going to change how they moderate, this cycle perpetuates. Why continue in the same cycle? Why subject yourself to the same shit you consider to be toxic? If you aren't willing to be an agent of change, they you have to accept the status quo for what it is and be bound by it's limitations.
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.
This is already being done, but the grey area that things exist is the problem most people have trouble working with. You understand it, you know why it's there, you just want something that won't happen.
RAW, the negative posters are following the rules.
RAI, the negative posters might be baiting you, but they're still following the rules.
Rule of Cool/Rules as Fun, the discussion blows.
The irony to all of this, those negative posters are ALL RAW when it comes to their interpretation of most things, which is why they're still here. Call D&D players a lot of things, but we like to espouse the fact that we know the rules and how to apply them.
So now the onus shifts to us, as the userbase, to decide on how to interact with those disruptive voices.
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.
Take a look at this thread then, where most people are going well IM NOT THE PROBLEM, IT'S THEM and I'd beg to differ.
Every post I've made in this thread is part of the problem. I'm going to localize it to one thread, because the conversation has shifted. That being said, if I get moderated 20 times for being off topic? So be it, I earned that.
The irony to all of this, those negative posters are ALL RAW when it comes to their interpretation of most things, which is why they're still here. Call D&D players a lot of things, but we like to espouse the fact that we know the rules and how to apply them.
Being a talented rules lawyer doesn't make you immune to DM rulings. The same applies to moderator rulings. And make no mistake, moderators have to apply subjective judgement, just like DMs.
The irony to all of this, those negative posters are ALL RAW when it comes to their interpretation of most things, which is why they're still here. Call D&D players a lot of things, but we like to espouse the fact that we know the rules and how to apply them.
Being a talented rules lawyer doesn't make you immune to DM rulings. The same applies to moderator rulings. And make no mistake, moderators have to apply subjective judgement, just like DMs.
No, but when you know for a fact that all the DMs here, aka the mod staff, are going to be RAW to the bone and not RAI or RAF? You know how to play the game. It's our fault if we keep playing a "rigged game that we don't like".
The only alternative is to change how you play the game around those, while still keeping in line with those RAW notions.
Since they(moderation team) aren't going to change how they moderate, this cycle perpetuates. Why continue in the same cycle? Why subject yourself to the same shit you consider to be toxic? If you aren't willing to be an agent of change, they you have to accept the status quo for what it is and be bound by it's limitations.
Except that there are more than two options. Your claim that it's basically "deal with it or leave" is based on a false premise. There are other ways. This thread is an example of that.
So now the onus shifts to us, as the userbase, to decide on how to interact with those disruptive voices.
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.
Take a look at this thread then, where most people are going well IM NOT THE PROBLEM, IT'S THEM and I'd beg to differ.
Every post I've made in this thread is part of the problem. I'm going to localize it to one thread, because the conversation has shifted. That being said, if I get moderated 20 times for being off topic? So be it, I earned that.
So why do you continue? If you are part of the very same problem that you, presumebly, dislike, why not change yourself? Or leave, if that is the only other option you advocate?
Yes the ignore function allows the other person to say whatever they want without chance of counter. The function isn't perfect but allows me to focus on those people that do matter and I can converse with them. I hold it to the moderators to control the riffraff.
You have to realize that if they bother you enough to ignore them, then what they have to say is moo.
It's like a cow's opinion.
It just doesn't matter.
It's moo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The irony to all of this, those negative posters are ALL RAW when it comes to their interpretation of most things, which is why they're still here. Call D&D players a lot of things, but we like to espouse the fact that we know the rules and how to apply them.
Being a talented rules lawyer doesn't make you immune to DM rulings. The same applies to moderator rulings. And make no mistake, moderators have to apply subjective judgement, just like DMs.
No, but when you know for a fact that all the DMs here, aka the mod staff, are going to be RAW to the bone and not RAI or RAF? You know how to play the game. It's our fault if we keep playing a "rigged game that we don't like".
The only alternative is to change how you play the game around those, while still keeping in line with those RAW notions.
I'm pretty sure the entire point of this thread (and the other thread) is asking for the mods to change.
So why do you continue? If you are part of the very same problem that you, presumebly, dislike, why not change yourself? Or leave, if that is the only other option you advocate?
Take a look at my post history. I typically speak up in threads like this, and then once in great while post elsewhere, and then otherwise I shut the **** up. I'm happy to offer my prospects of change, but I am just a single voice. I do take my own advice though a vast majority of the time.
I'm pretty sure the entire point of this thread (and the other thread) is asking for the mods to change.
Oh I totally understand the intent. I've been present in those threads. Those cries have fallen on what I wouldn't call deaf ears, but those ears aren't able to effect change. I spoke earlier about how I feel these forums are an afterthought most of the time, and I wish they weren't. You can keep screaming into the void, but the void doesn't reciprocate.
Isaiah 5:20-24:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent. Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Change LORD to Moderators and Holy one to Fandom, and there we are.
So why do you continue? If you are part of the very same problem that you, presumebly, dislike, why not change yourself? Or leave, if that is the only other option you advocate?
Take a look at my post history. I typically speak up in threads like this, and then once in great while post elsewhere, and then otherwise I shut the **** up. I'm happy to offer my prospects of change, but I am just a single voice. I do take my own advice though a vast majority of the time.
So you don't really take your own advice, thus help perpetuating the very same kind of behaviour you claim to be against? That strikes me as rather counterproductive.
So why do you continue? If you are part of the very same problem that you, presumebly, dislike, why not change yourself? Or leave, if that is the only other option you advocate?
Take a look at my post history. I typically speak up in threads like this, and then once in great while post elsewhere, and then otherwise I shut the **** up. I'm happy to offer my prospects of change, but I am just a single voice. I do take my own advice though a vast majority of the time.
So you don't really take your own advice, thus help perpetuating the very same kind of behaviour you claim to be against? That strikes me as rather counterproductive.
Right. I understand the logic here. Disprove the one person speaking and their words come tumbling down. Like I said though. I personally made an exception in this thread to illustrate a point since this topic wants to talk about change via the ignore feature. I think that's short sighted when the moderators won't do what we want. In most other threads, and I say most because no one is perfect, I try not to devolve into off topic.
The problem with attempting to stick completely on topic is that's not how conversation or discussions work. Topics change naturally. Unless you are going to actively and continuously monitor threads and react quickly to any deviation, the way a chairperson in a meeting would (or at least should), this is not going to happen. And if you are going to do that, it is no longer a discussion.
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.
I don't know if I'm the exception, but I generally ignore signatures on posts, even if they are in bold.
All I tend to see is the same few people having "heated discussions"/argument. Even if it is between friends, this doesn't come across in the forum posts. It just generally gets me to stop reading that thread because of the 10+ pages of few people discussing something that isn't even close to the topic's original intent - it gets too difficult to find posts which ARE on topic.
Yes, conversations will drift, but some of the threads drift wildly away from the original topic, so they may as well be another thread - or even just link back to the previous thread on which the same argument occurred (and in which nobody changed their point of view).
So why do you continue? If you are part of the very same problem that you, presumebly, dislike, why not change yourself? Or leave, if that is the only other option you advocate?
Take a look at my post history. I typically speak up in threads like this, and then once in great while post elsewhere, and then otherwise I shut the **** up. I'm happy to offer my prospects of change, but I am just a single voice. I do take my own advice though a vast majority of the time.
So you don't really take your own advice, thus help perpetuating the very same kind of behaviour you claim to be against? That strikes me as rather counterproductive.
Right. I understand the logic here. Disprove the one person speaking and their words come tumbling down.
Not sure what you mean by that. I asked a simple question, nothing else. Are you going to answer the question or just switch the subject?
Like I said though. I personally made an exception in this thread to illustrate a point since this topic wants to talk about change via the ignore feature. I think that's short sighted when the moderators won't do what we want. In most other threads, and I say most because no one is perfect, I try not to devolve into off topic.
And how do you think that's contributing to solving the problem? Just trying to understand your behaviour here.
I've already answered the quesiton and made it clear what my stance was. I'm a single voice, and I already do the things I've said. This type of topic has been made many times, and I pointed out most times in agreement with some of the voices here my thoughts on moderation. Yellow posters come in and clarify the stance, as happens most if not all of the time that hey, these are the rules and how we're going to enforce them. Others keep posting some variant of "Why can't it be something else?" or " This needs to change!"
Then the mods stopped replying.
Funny how that works.
It's clear as day that what is being asked of the moderation team isn't going to happen. So to an earlier post I made, and now back to this one, we as a userbase have three options. Try to band together to stop giving those disruptive voices the platform they want, leave the forums, or shut the **** up and accept the status quo for what it is. I will do option one, but if I'm the only person doing it, it doesn't work.
This is the first topic where I've flipped my script to stop placing all of the onus on the moderation team, because we're the ones who cause the moderation team to have to act/react. Again, I can't be the only one to be successful in this though.
(This post isn't addressing anyone specifically, but 'users' in general)
What I've gathered so far is that the moderation team is being asked to subjectively remove/infract/ban users as we see fit under the premise of "Non-constructive".
I asked it a fair bit ago, but who's to say that I don't find your posts constructive and begin implementing this punishment process upon you? Does not every user here find their own posts to be productive to the discussion? Would you really have me start administering bans on what I personally feel doesn't belong or toes the line of 'off-topic'?
I'm happy to learn more about this, but I'm really not understanding how this is a more desired system than providing posted rules & guidance that we moderate by. Are we all under the impression that we won't be the individuals moderated by this proposed system and everything will be grand? 😬 Yikes. Does the left-wing think I'll suspend all the right-wing posters and vice-versa?
Mind you, I'm also posing questions and suggestions to provoke more thought.
Does the left-wing think I'll suspend all the right-wing posters and vice-versa?
Anything identifiable as either wing goes against the Rules & Guidelines' prohibition on political opinions so technically, yes, they should both think exactly that. ;-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
(This post isn't addressing anyone specifically, but 'users' in general)
What I've gathered so far is that the moderation team is being asked to subjectively remove/infract/ban users as we see fit under the premise of "Non-constructive".
I asked it a fair bit ago, but who's to say that I don't find your posts constructive and begin implementing this punishment process upon you? Does not every user here find their own posts to be productive to the discussion? Would you really have me start administering bans on what I personally feel doesn't belong or toes the line of 'off-topic'?
I'm happy to learn more about this, but I'm really not understanding how this is a more desired system than providing posted rules & guidance that we moderate by. Are we all under the impression that we won't be the individuals moderated by this proposed system and everything will be grand? 😬 Yikes. Does the left-wing think I'll suspend all the right-wing posters and vice-versa?
Mind you, I'm also posing questions and suggestions to provoke more thought.
Right, so everyone has their own idea on what constructive or off topic is, and I think it's fair to say my ideas are probably a bit more linear and very specifically defined than most.
I think what people actually want is very clear defined reasons why "certain people" aren't moderated, and honestly, I don't think that will happen. It's literally a rule that moderation discussions don't get discussed, and people want to openly discuss them. People want to know why in a thread where you have 9 users YELLING at one, why the one is allowed to continue posting. They want the mod team to be public front facing and explain why that person isn't breaking the rules. That's a lot of work. It also puts the mod team in an uncomfortable public position, and being blunt I don't even know all of you yellow posters are paid or just volunteers. I know SOME are paid, I just don't know if ALL are paid.
That also goes against the spirt of moderation though, and also empowers/emboldens that user. Same token, it disenfranchises those who FEEL that the one is breaking the rules, and now the mods say they aren't, publicly, and they go "Well shit, guess my opinion doesn't matter"
Very slippery slope, and a bunch of things I just don't think are even potentially on the table.
I don't think anyone is asking for content to be moderated based on opinion, more that we would like to have a discussion about what behaviours might be considered to require moderator intervention.
For instance, there are many posts which appear on here which are, for the want of a better word, bait. They are a form of trolling. They seem to be posted in order to provoke a response, and it is very difficult not to respond to them (and even then very difficult to keep the response civil)*. I have seen occasions where that response has been deleted and the poster banned, but the bait post is left as is.
I find it hard to believe these posts are good faith, constructive additions to the discussion, although its possible that they are. However, whether posted in good faith or not, they will derail the conversation. Either that, or they will leave other community members fuming and holding in their frustration, which is also a less than ideal outcome.
* Yes, I know the "grown up" way to deal with baiting posts is not to rise to them, but we are all fallible humans. We have flaws and weaknesses. For instance, one of mine is that I feel compelled to point out a logical flaw in an argument, whether that flaw has any impact on the validity of the argument or not. I can fight against that, but it is really hard work top stop myself and I will often fail. Many feel the same about such baiting posts, and they can have a big enough effect to cause them to say things which provoke moderator action.
As a final point, I do agree that there need to be clearly understandable rules for everyone to follow, and we shouldn't leave it down to individual moderator opinion. That said, I don't think we do as things stand. We have a very vague set of guidelines, and it is pretty easy to overstep and attract the ire of the moderators without realising. What one person sees as "Non Constructive", for example, can be very different to what another does. So, moderators are already making regular subjective judgements (unless there is a much more detailed set of rules which the mods have access to and we don't).
Same token, it disenfranchises those who FEEL that the one is breaking the rules, and now the mods say they aren't, publicly, and they go "Well shit, guess my opinion doesn't matter".
Disenfranchisement would mean a right or privilege being taken away, and to be frank I don't know whether users should have a right to affect moderators' decisions. And by "I don't know" I mean I really don't think so. We can make appeals, certainly, and that's a right we should have, but there should be no expectation of that appeal necessarily carrying weight. Moderation needs to be impartial. There's always going to be a subjective side to it - that's unfortunate but also unavoidable. It absolutely can't be "well, let's let the users decide for themselves and give them 2nd-hand moderation rights to put weight behind what they decide".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I don't think anyone is asking for content to be moderated based on opinion, more that we would like to have a discussion about what behaviours might be considered to require moderator intervention.
For instance, there are many posts which appear on here which are, for the want of a better word, bait. They are a form of trolling. They seem to be posted in order to provoke a response, and it is very difficult not to respond to them (and even then very difficult to keep the response civil)*. I have seen occasions where that response has been deleted and the poster banned, but the bait post is left as is.
I find it hard to believe these posts are good faith, constructive additions to the discussion, although its possible that they are. However, whether posted in good faith or not, they will derail the conversation. Either that, or they will leave other community members fuming and holding in their frustration, which is also a less than ideal outcome.
* Yes, I know the "grown up" way to deal with baiting posts is not to rise to them, but we are all fallible humans. We have flaws and weaknesses. For instance, one of mine is that I feel compelled to point out a logical flaw in an argument, whether that flaw has any impact on the validity of the argument or not. I can fight against that, but it is really hard work top stop myself and I will often fail. Many feel the same about such baiting posts, and they can have a big enough effect to cause them to say things which provoke moderator action.
As a final point, I do agree that there need to be clearly understandable rules for everyone to follow, and we shouldn't leave it down to individual moderator opinion. That said, I don't think we do as things stand. We have a very vague set of guidelines, and it is pretty easy to overstep and attract the ire of the moderators without realising. What one person sees as "Non Constructive", for example, can be very different to what another does. So, moderators are already making regular subjective judgements (unless there is a much more detailed set of rules which the mods have access to and we don't).
Exactly....
Like is it nuanced to say that posts like:
Metagamers suck big hard and here is 10 reasons you are one
Is generally not really a good place to start a conversation? Is that person actually looking for a discussion or are they looking for a fight? Threads like this probably don't need to exist IMO.
Sometimes it is more nuianced than that:
No your stance is completely wrong for X reasons. I will now spend the next 10 posts stating that unless you can provide evidence that it isn't then you have to agree your fun is wrong. Obviously this is more subtle attempt at trolling but its trolling none the less....you are not entering the conversation to have a discussion....you are entering it to start a fight and one that you feel like there is a "winner" to.
This one takes more effort to work out but it still needs to be addressed....if 90% of a users posts are just antagonistic then yes you should just review that with them and ban them. Direct antagonism for the sake of it is not something people should have to put up with to take part in the discussions on popular topics.
Even if things get to the point where the 2 sides are both getting heated it might be better to just put the axe to the thread and call it. It seems to work better to do that than to let it burn on for 10+ pages with no good end point in sight because the 2 sides will just never see eye to eye.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Apparently, yes, because that's what the moderation team has openly stated in this thread. It's what's been communicated countless times.
Since they(moderation team) aren't going to change how they moderate, this cycle perpetuates. Why continue in the same cycle? Why subject yourself to the same shit you consider to be toxic? If you aren't willing to be an agent of change, they you have to accept the status quo for what it is and be bound by it's limitations.
This is already being done, but the grey area that things exist is the problem most people have trouble working with. You understand it, you know why it's there, you just want something that won't happen.
RAW, the negative posters are following the rules.
RAI, the negative posters might be baiting you, but they're still following the rules.
Rule of Cool/Rules as Fun, the discussion blows.
The irony to all of this, those negative posters are ALL RAW when it comes to their interpretation of most things, which is why they're still here. Call D&D players a lot of things, but we like to espouse the fact that we know the rules and how to apply them.
Take a look at this thread then, where most people are going well IM NOT THE PROBLEM, IT'S THEM and I'd beg to differ.
Every post I've made in this thread is part of the problem. I'm going to localize it to one thread, because the conversation has shifted. That being said, if I get moderated 20 times for being off topic? So be it, I earned that.
Being a talented rules lawyer doesn't make you immune to DM rulings. The same applies to moderator rulings. And make no mistake, moderators have to apply subjective judgement, just like DMs.
No, but when you know for a fact that all the DMs here, aka the mod staff, are going to be RAW to the bone and not RAI or RAF? You know how to play the game. It's our fault if we keep playing a "rigged game that we don't like".
The only alternative is to change how you play the game around those, while still keeping in line with those RAW notions.
Except that there are more than two options. Your claim that it's basically "deal with it or leave" is based on a false premise. There are other ways. This thread is an example of that.
So why do you continue? If you are part of the very same problem that you, presumebly, dislike, why not change yourself? Or leave, if that is the only other option you advocate?
Yes the ignore function allows the other person to say whatever they want without chance of counter. The function isn't perfect but allows me to focus on those people that do matter and I can converse with them. I hold it to the moderators to control the riffraff.
You have to realize that if they bother you enough to ignore them, then what they have to say is moo.
It's like a cow's opinion.
It just doesn't matter.
It's moo.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I'm pretty sure the entire point of this thread (and the other thread) is asking for the mods to change.
Take a look at my post history. I typically speak up in threads like this, and then once in great while post elsewhere, and then otherwise I shut the **** up. I'm happy to offer my prospects of change, but I am just a single voice. I do take my own advice though a vast majority of the time.
Oh I totally understand the intent. I've been present in those threads. Those cries have fallen on what I wouldn't call deaf ears, but those ears aren't able to effect change. I spoke earlier about how I feel these forums are an afterthought most of the time, and I wish they weren't. You can keep screaming into the void, but the void doesn't reciprocate.
Isaiah 5:20-24:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent. Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Change LORD to Moderators and Holy one to Fandom, and there we are.
So you don't really take your own advice, thus help perpetuating the very same kind of behaviour you claim to be against? That strikes me as rather counterproductive.
Right. I understand the logic here. Disprove the one person speaking and their words come tumbling down. Like I said though. I personally made an exception in this thread to illustrate a point since this topic wants to talk about change via the ignore feature. I think that's short sighted when the moderators won't do what we want. In most other threads, and I say most because no one is perfect, I try not to devolve into off topic.
The problem with attempting to stick completely on topic is that's not how conversation or discussions work. Topics change naturally. Unless you are going to actively and continuously monitor threads and react quickly to any deviation, the way a chairperson in a meeting would (or at least should), this is not going to happen. And if you are going to do that, it is no longer a discussion.
I don't know if I'm the exception, but I generally ignore signatures on posts, even if they are in bold.
All I tend to see is the same few people having "heated discussions"/argument. Even if it is between friends, this doesn't come across in the forum posts. It just generally gets me to stop reading that thread because of the 10+ pages of few people discussing something that isn't even close to the topic's original intent - it gets too difficult to find posts which ARE on topic.
Yes, conversations will drift, but some of the threads drift wildly away from the original topic, so they may as well be another thread - or even just link back to the previous thread on which the same argument occurred (and in which nobody changed their point of view).
Not sure what you mean by that. I asked a simple question, nothing else. Are you going to answer the question or just switch the subject?
And how do you think that's contributing to solving the problem? Just trying to understand your behaviour here.
I've already answered the quesiton and made it clear what my stance was. I'm a single voice, and I already do the things I've said. This type of topic has been made many times, and I pointed out most times in agreement with some of the voices here my thoughts on moderation. Yellow posters come in and clarify the stance, as happens most if not all of the time that hey, these are the rules and how we're going to enforce them. Others keep posting some variant of "Why can't it be something else?" or " This needs to change!"
Then the mods stopped replying.
Funny how that works.
It's clear as day that what is being asked of the moderation team isn't going to happen. So to an earlier post I made, and now back to this one, we as a userbase have three options. Try to band together to stop giving those disruptive voices the platform they want, leave the forums, or shut the **** up and accept the status quo for what it is. I will do option one, but if I'm the only person doing it, it doesn't work.
This is the first topic where I've flipped my script to stop placing all of the onus on the moderation team, because we're the ones who cause the moderation team to have to act/react. Again, I can't be the only one to be successful in this though.
(This post isn't addressing anyone specifically, but 'users' in general)
What I've gathered so far is that the moderation team is being asked to subjectively remove/infract/ban users as we see fit under the premise of "Non-constructive".
I asked it a fair bit ago, but who's to say that I don't find your posts constructive and begin implementing this punishment process upon you? Does not every user here find their own posts to be productive to the discussion? Would you really have me start administering bans on what I personally feel doesn't belong or toes the line of 'off-topic'?
I'm happy to learn more about this, but I'm really not understanding how this is a more desired system than providing posted rules & guidance that we moderate by. Are we all under the impression that we won't be the individuals moderated by this proposed system and everything will be grand? 😬 Yikes. Does the left-wing think I'll suspend all the right-wing posters and vice-versa?
Mind you, I'm also posing questions and suggestions to provoke more thought.
Anything identifiable as either wing goes against the Rules & Guidelines' prohibition on political opinions so technically, yes, they should both think exactly that. ;-)
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Right, so everyone has their own idea on what constructive or off topic is, and I think it's fair to say my ideas are probably a bit more linear and very specifically defined than most.
I think what people actually want is very clear defined reasons why "certain people" aren't moderated, and honestly, I don't think that will happen. It's literally a rule that moderation discussions don't get discussed, and people want to openly discuss them. People want to know why in a thread where you have 9 users YELLING at one, why the one is allowed to continue posting. They want the mod team to be public front facing and explain why that person isn't breaking the rules. That's a lot of work. It also puts the mod team in an uncomfortable public position, and being blunt I don't even know all of you yellow posters are paid or just volunteers. I know SOME are paid, I just don't know if ALL are paid.
That also goes against the spirt of moderation though, and also empowers/emboldens that user. Same token, it disenfranchises those who FEEL that the one is breaking the rules, and now the mods say they aren't, publicly, and they go "Well shit, guess my opinion doesn't matter"
Very slippery slope, and a bunch of things I just don't think are even potentially on the table.
I don't think anyone is asking for content to be moderated based on opinion, more that we would like to have a discussion about what behaviours might be considered to require moderator intervention.
For instance, there are many posts which appear on here which are, for the want of a better word, bait. They are a form of trolling. They seem to be posted in order to provoke a response, and it is very difficult not to respond to them (and even then very difficult to keep the response civil)*. I have seen occasions where that response has been deleted and the poster banned, but the bait post is left as is.
I find it hard to believe these posts are good faith, constructive additions to the discussion, although its possible that they are. However, whether posted in good faith or not, they will derail the conversation. Either that, or they will leave other community members fuming and holding in their frustration, which is also a less than ideal outcome.
* Yes, I know the "grown up" way to deal with baiting posts is not to rise to them, but we are all fallible humans. We have flaws and weaknesses. For instance, one of mine is that I feel compelled to point out a logical flaw in an argument, whether that flaw has any impact on the validity of the argument or not. I can fight against that, but it is really hard work top stop myself and I will often fail. Many feel the same about such baiting posts, and they can have a big enough effect to cause them to say things which provoke moderator action.
As a final point, I do agree that there need to be clearly understandable rules for everyone to follow, and we shouldn't leave it down to individual moderator opinion. That said, I don't think we do as things stand. We have a very vague set of guidelines, and it is pretty easy to overstep and attract the ire of the moderators without realising. What one person sees as "Non Constructive", for example, can be very different to what another does. So, moderators are already making regular subjective judgements (unless there is a much more detailed set of rules which the mods have access to and we don't).
Disenfranchisement would mean a right or privilege being taken away, and to be frank I don't know whether users should have a right to affect moderators' decisions. And by "I don't know" I mean I really don't think so. We can make appeals, certainly, and that's a right we should have, but there should be no expectation of that appeal necessarily carrying weight. Moderation needs to be impartial. There's always going to be a subjective side to it - that's unfortunate but also unavoidable. It absolutely can't be "well, let's let the users decide for themselves and give them 2nd-hand moderation rights to put weight behind what they decide".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Exactly....
Like is it nuanced to say that posts like:
Metagamers suck big hard and here is 10 reasons you are one
Is generally not really a good place to start a conversation? Is that person actually looking for a discussion or are they looking for a fight? Threads like this probably don't need to exist IMO.
Sometimes it is more nuianced than that:
No your stance is completely wrong for X reasons. I will now spend the next 10 posts stating that unless you can provide evidence that it isn't then you have to agree your fun is wrong. Obviously this is more subtle attempt at trolling but its trolling none the less....you are not entering the conversation to have a discussion....you are entering it to start a fight and one that you feel like there is a "winner" to.
This one takes more effort to work out but it still needs to be addressed....if 90% of a users posts are just antagonistic then yes you should just review that with them and ban them. Direct antagonism for the sake of it is not something people should have to put up with to take part in the discussions on popular topics.
Even if things get to the point where the 2 sides are both getting heated it might be better to just put the axe to the thread and call it. It seems to work better to do that than to let it burn on for 10+ pages with no good end point in sight because the 2 sides will just never see eye to eye.