Blame Social Justice Warriors for Donald Trump

[Volourn]

"f course I had Bruce quotes in my signature that, yes, I suppose were rather bullying. I never really thought of it as bullying, but I suppose it fits the bill well enough."

 

Wait. Having someone quoted in your signature is now bullying? COME ON.

[Bartimaeus]

You should see all the posts I spend significant time writing where I pedantically point out errors, attack fatuous logic and tell people off...which I then delete before posting them.  I understand the need to vent.  I vent all the time.  I just don't end up posting the vent for everyone to see.

 

If you find yourself unable to not respond to another poster, I recommend really giving them what-for then hitting "cancel". Works great - there are people who think I'm level-headed enough to be a mod (thanks Malcador!).

 

But I often love those kinds of posts...although I don't like it when it's done ad nauseam like it seems some of us have been doing lately, and I probably wouldn't love it if you did it to me, and I'm sure you've had opportunity... And really, this just ties into the general point I made way earlier in the thread about basic civility to one another...there's just that little difficulty of "not being a massive hypocrite" that I'm struggling with...so I guess your way is probably better.

[Bartimaeus]

"f course I had Bruce quotes in my signature that, yes, I suppose were rather bullying. I never really thought of it as bullying, but I suppose it fits the bill well enough."

 

Wait. Having someone quoted in your signature is now bullying? COME ON.

Specifically framed in such a way that it's clearly just to make fun of the person being quoted, I would say so, yes. I mean, that seems like bullying to me.

[Amentep]

Since we already had Amentep doing his old man routine

Get off my lawn!

 

Let me elaborate a little, back on Interplay we had two kinds of moderators. Those who would simply go and lock a thread when it drifted off-topic and those who actually bothered to split and merge threads where it was appropriate. I always disliked it when a thread that spawned an interesting discussion was locked with the comment "if you want to talk about this, make a new thread" and thought it was unfair to the original thread starters that often due to no fault of their own the threads they made got killed. Those moderators where well within their rights and only enforced Interplay's community ruleset.

 

Here it seems that neither happens, threads get only locked once they get out of hand pages wise for some reason or another (if it really is performance, well, welcome to 2016, take the person responsible to the lobby and make them the new concierge). So to be honest I can kind of understand Barti when he complains about thread derailing, but I also believe that harsher moderation he demands isn't the solution.

 

So back to the point, obviously I was a moderator of the other group. I don't think I ever locked a topic unless it was complete garbage from the get go. Sure it was more work for me (the IPLY forum also was much, much larger than this one) but I'd like to think that "my" posters appreciated the effort. Interplay certainly did because we once got a free game of our choice from their library for all the work we were doing. That we kind of unanimously picked Lionheart out of all things is probably worthy of a topic of its own.

 

Of course if this forum can't split threads the point is moot. If it can however then as I said before, this thread might be a great example. This discussion about moderation has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic even if everyone inlcuding the original poster is participating and it kind of deserves its own thread, and in my experience a split thread is kind of like the worm myth that both sides live on. Except for real, obviously. Worms just every now and then survive having half their body cut in half. Errr...

 

I always appreciated (and indeed tried to follow) the idea of cultivating a thread if it got derailed very quickly by splitting off the derail and the original thread into their own threads. Not really sure about the capabilities of the board, but you'd think merging and/or separating threads would be expected in board software now.

 

 

 

You should see all the posts I spend significant time writing where I pedantically point out errors, attack fatuous logic and tell people off...which I then delete before posting them.  I understand the need to vent.  I vent all the time.  I just don't end up posting the vent for everyone to see.

 

If you find yourself unable to not respond to another poster, I recommend really giving them what-for then hitting "cancel". Works great - there are people who think I'm level-headed enough to be a mod (thanks Malcador!).

 

But I often love those kinds of posts...although I don't like it when it's done ad nauseam like it seems some of us have been doing lately, and I probably wouldn't love it if you did it to me, and I'm sure you've had opportunity... And really, this just ties into the general point I made way earlier in the thread about basic civility to one another...there's just that little difficulty of "not being a massive hypocrite" that I'm struggling with...so I guess your way is probably better.

 

Some posts I don't cancel; if I have a good point I'll just edit it or re-edit it.  Or I may type up my vent but then cancel it and come back in a few hours and type a legit post.

 

Very rarely do I actually get so vexed by a poster here that I really have to rant.  In fact I think I only have two posters (maybe three) in my ignore list because, for the most part, everyone here is either ok or I can just skip their posts without suffering knee-jerk-itis.

[Volourn]

"Specifically framed in such a way that it's clearly just to make fun of the person being quoted, I would say so, yes. I mean, that seems like bullying to me."

 

*shakes head*

[majestic]

Very rarely do I actually get so vexed by a poster here that I really have to rant.  In fact I think I only have two posters (maybe three) in my ignore list because, for the most part, everyone here is either ok or I can just skip their posts without suffering knee-jerk-itis.

The people here have nothing on posters like Karzak or Caelis who had the unique ability to enrage even the most gentle souls. Actually Caelis was the only one who ever made it on my ignore list, because unlike Karzak his silly trolling wasn't even on topic.

[Gfted1]

For a peek behind the curtain, we regular mods can: Edit Title, Pin, Lock, Move, Merge or Delete a topic. Maybe higher-ups can Split. Dunno.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, found the Split button.

[Leferd]

 

Very rarely do I actually get so vexed by a poster here that I really have to rant. In fact I think I only have two posters (maybe three) in my ignore list because, for the most part, everyone here is either ok or I can just skip their posts without suffering knee-jerk-itis.

The people here have nothing on posters like Karzak or Caelis who had the unique ability to enrage even the most gentle souls. Actually Caelis was the only one who ever made it on my ignore list, because unlike Karzak his silly trolling wasn't even on topic.

Karzak was the perennial Troll MVP.

[Amentep]

I could take Karzak as long as the topic wasn't dual wielding for rogues, then my eyes would glaze over and I'd fall unconscious.

 

I remember Caelis mostly as a spammer, not a serious poster.

[Leferd]

His pounding on dual wielding thieves was pretty epic.

[213374U]

You should see all the posts i spend significant time writing were I pedantically point out errors, attack fatuous logic and tell people off...which I then delete before posting them.

Yeah, same here. Problem is hitting "cancel" after hitting "post" doesn't work so well. I blame poor impulse control.

 

 

Let me elaborate a little, back on Interplay we had two kinds of moderators. Those who would simply go and lock a thread when it drifted off-topic and those who actually bothered to split and merge threads where it was appropriate. I always disliked it when a thread that spawned an interesting discussion was locked with the comment "if you want to talk about this, make a new thread" and thought it was unfair to the original thread starters that often due to no fault of their own the threads they made got killed. Those moderators where well within their rights and only enforced Interplay's community ruleset.

 

Here it seems that neither happens, threads get only locked once they get out of hand pages wise for some reason or another (if it really is performance, well, welcome to 2016, take the person responsible to the lobby and make them the new concierge). So to be honest I can kind of understand Barti when he complains about thread derailing, but I also believe that harsher moderation he demands isn't the solution.

 

Again: PM the mod who locked the thread, ask them to clean it up and re-open it, or split the salvageable part into a new discussion. I've done it a few times and they always granted my request -- even when I was the chief culprit of the topic taking a nosedive. Curating a topic that has gone completely off the rails is a waste of time if nobody is interested in it anymore, so lockdown by default makes sense, because the decision is rarely final.

Edited May 4, 2016 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

Go on, don't stop now. What rules should be in place? Care to give an example of what kind of discussion, or posts, should not be tolerated?

 

 

 

"Should not be tolerated" is approaching the problem from the wrong angle. I don't want less discussion, I want better discussion. Rules that facilitate a constructive exchange of ideas. Mods who step in before problems become problems. Research says that the overwhelming majority of toxic behavior is coming from people who are otherwise perfectly civil - this suggests that you could probably get great results simply by reminding them to conduct themselves with decorum when things start to turn nasty, before their brain kicks into full-on poo-flinging mode.

[Malcador]

Rather amused at people acting like this place is like Usenet of lore or something when it comes to "poo flinging" and so on. Forum is meant to be a bit of fun, not like any of this is achieving anything real.

 

 

And looking at what should not be tolerated is really the right approach,no ? Mods are enforcement and rules are negative not positive.

 

Also have to consider the kind of person who really wants to be an active mod like you outline is not going to be a good one.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

And looking at what should not be tolerated is really the right approach,no ? Mods are enforcement and rules are negative not positive.

 

Also have to consider the kind of person who really wants to be an active mod like you outline is not going to be a good one.

 

 

There's a subtle difference between "not tolerated" and "disincentivized". "Not tolerated" makes it sound like I want to ban people for the things I believe the rules should discourage. It's like... calling the other guy a liar in a debate is sure as hell not going to help the discussion proceed in a constructive manner (it's actually pretty much granted to blow up at that point), but "interpreting others' posts in bad faith and using needlessly inflammatory language are not tolerated" makes it sound like you'd throw someone out basically for getting frustrated.

 

"Active moderation is bad moderation" is a stupid meme. In my experience, the more active the moderation, the better the signal-to-noise ratio of a forum. Now, you can argue that signal-to-noise ratio isn't the most important metric by which to measure the quality of a forum, but... the validity of that statement really varies on a case-by-case basis.

[Malcador]

Don't see much difference other than disincentivized being a sanitized version of not tolerating. Practical results will be the same, you get the hammer for misbehaving

 

Active moderation usually means you get people that like doing that, more often than not they tend to be power trippy folk in my experience, is what I meant.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Don't see much difference other than disincentivized being a sanitized version of not tolerating. Practical results will be the same, you get the hammer for misbehaving

 

 

But that's kind of my point: if you intervene in time, there is no need for people to get the hammer to begin with. Spending some time and effort on prevention generally tends to pay off down the line, I'd be surprised if the principle didn't apply to forum discussions.

 

 

Active moderation usually means you get people that like doing that, more often than not they tend to be power trippy folk in my experience, is what I meant.

 

 

Well, if that's what it takes to make the goddamn trains run on time...

 

(Which Mussolini didn't.)

Edited May 4, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

In any case, you still need to detail a list of stuff you don't want to see, be you intolerant of it or just wanting to discourage.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

In any case, you still need to detail a list of stuff you don't want to see, be you intolerant of it or just wanting to discourage.

 

Well, I quite like rpg.net's rules and guidelines. Paraphrasing and leaving out a lot of really specific sub-clauses that would make little sense here:

 

- Be a good citizen of the forum. Trolling or otherwise sabotaging the peace of the board damages the quality of discussion and is not acceptable. Being “right” is not an excuse to engage in behaviour that degrades others' experience.

 

- Do not make attacks against other gamers. Challenging arguments and ideas is fine, but not attacking the people holding them. This includes attacks on an individual poster, or groups that any reasonable person would assume to plausibly include fellow forum members. Video game industry professionals are assumed to be users of the site for this purpose. Racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic posts will not be tolerated.

 

- Your posts should contribute to discussion. Post in the appropriate forum.

 

- The staff moderates to the spirit of the rules and the context at hand. Conforming to the rules to the letter is not a magic talisman against moderation if your posts are bad for the forum.

Edited May 4, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Volourn]

Here's one: Take your own advice. You are amongst the worst for every single one of your points. Why so hypocritical?

[Guard Dog]

Honestly I don't get what the beef is here. I really only post in WoT these days but it's very rare I see a post that I'd consider insulting, or bullying, or an ad hominem attack on anyone. Yeah sure it can get a little heated and maybe a little mean on rare occasions but nothing to get in a twist over. 

 

If words written on the internet by someone you don't know and will likely never meet really upsets anyone I'd suggest growing a thicker skin.

[Zoraptor]

 

I have Bruce in ignore list as well but I will fight to death to let him derail whatever he wish

 

 

That's ass-backwards logic. "The right of a person to ruin a discussion is more valuable than the desire of others to see the discussion un-ruined" is putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The principle is what it always is- there's a right (or 'right' since the forums are private property) to freedom of expression within certain rules. If the rules aren't infringed then if you don't like what the other person is saying you need to build a bridge and get over it or buy a pack of cards and deal with it. However, there is neither a right to be listened to nor a right to be replied to. Don't do either and problem solved, one way or the other. [redacted] either replies to himself all the time until he gets bored, creates alts to talk to himself, stops doing immense quantities of the lowest effort posts possible to try and get people to reply or just leaves. Having said that it's not like [redacted] hasn't admitted outright to trolling- posting solely to get a response, especially from those who are ignoring him. Guess I could have reported him then, but snitches get stitches and that would damage my valuable self image of battling The Man in all his forms.

 

Really though, all the tools for dealing with problems exist, it just needs people agreeing there is a problem and actually using- and sticking to using- the tools available instead of complaining to mods/ admins about the unfairness of it all in an abstract form.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Zoraptor

[Gfted1]

Ive always heard the saying used as "snitches wind up in ditches" but I like that one too.

[Malcador]

Ive always heard the saying used as "snitches wind up in ditches" but I like that one too.

Always heard the opposite. You're in Chicago aren't you?

[Tigranes]

We've split threads in the past, and maybe we should do it more. Although on paper we have a large moderating team, the most out of control threads tend to grow superfast (e.g. the Pillars trans saga where people were posting 50 times a second), and sometimes if we get a heads up from someone in the community we can come in and do something appropriate (e.g. if half the people in here were still wanting to talk about Trump/SJW).

 

 

Believe it or not, the Too Many Pages bug is a real thing. Crazy, I know.

 

The line of reasoning Barti's made the last few pages is one that other posters have raised in the past, publicly and privately. The price/risk of a low-friction moderation is, indeed, that you get bad spikes in the signal-to-noise ratio at times. In fact, this is precisely the Trump problem at the moment: the basic rules allow him to say the things he says, but they are often so untrue and idiotic that the subsequent discussion gets poisoned. But at what point can you say to someone: 'you haven't broken any rules, you may not even have meant to troll anybody, but you're just so stupid/annoying/provocative that we're going to have to restrict the way you post'? I'm not sure that I, personally, have a good answer to that.

[213374U]

 

...Quality something something Taylor Swift popularity something something...

True story: I consider 1989 to be the best pop album in over 20 years. So do many others who aren't the stereotypical teeny bopper fan..

 

Eh. I'm more of a Pink guy myself...