Advertisement
by Dakini » Tue Dec 16, 2014 8:41 pm
by Grenartia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:10 pm
Forsher wrote:Grenartia wrote:1. Actually, I'm still in contact with many of those former posters, and the consensus seems to be that the issue wasn't solely around "libertarians" (I've actually never heard them being specifically singled out),
1. Well, there was even a catchphrase, which would suggest that their recollections are somewhat off. At least in the sense that young libertarians were singled out.or "fascists", or "teenagers".
2. The fascists was just from your post now. 3. Aside from the whole eternal summer thing, fascism never really gets discussed as an issue with NSG in my opinion. 4. As to teenagers, are you being serious? Even the post The Corporation quoted earlier..."Edgy" certainly was a key part of it (because you can't be a troll without being edgy, at least not a good one), but not the only one. It was a combination of edgy teenagers posing as either fascists or as libertarians (and in one case, which I won't name names, a person who claimed to be the latter while actually saying things that were closer to the former), in order to troll (and admittedly, some trolls who legitimately were fascists or libertarians, but were still trolls).
5. Edginess was probably one of the central complaints. I would argue that people got so worked up about a specific combination those who possessed characteristics that were part of the combination got lumped in with the combination.2. I would disagree with that assertion, and say that where there's smoke (edginess), there's often fire (trolling).
I wasn't trying to say that it was exclusively a reason, but I see how that isn't made clear by what I wrote.3. I'll certainly concede that probably played some sort of role.
6. Comments like this are why I wrote, at the start of the post you replied to, "The problem is, I don't think you personally are/were what I've described as, "bitter, angry and personal" or, indeed, one of the posters whose arguments don't match with their actions (i.e. how you say we should post is how you do post)." If the poster awards are still around next year, I think I'm going to have to nominate you. Back to your post...4. Just semantics, but I'd say its more than a little unfair for an outsider to call The Cavern a "splinter forum". That implies that the mentality was purely "I'm gonna go build my own NSG, with blackjack! And hookers!". Which it wasn't. TC was established for members of a community that had flourished to keep in touch with each other.
7. Isn't it called the Batcavern?
8. From the perspective of someone who applied and failed to join, I think splinter forum is an appropriate description because it looks like it arose because a strong contingent of Generalites developed a forum philosophy that broke away from that of NSG and went to go make it a reality.5. I suppose that's fair.
It should be: with most of the vocal posters who frequented mod threads having a different stance to myself I needed to develop an idea that could cross the border (as it were). That's something I think the mods used to consider more than they do now... i.e. see if a poster's view changes to try and fit in with the thread's wider opinion, when it remains consistently troublesome, it's probably trollish. I think one of the posters who left for the aforementioned forum said something along these lines... but more framed in terms of "when all their posts are like this".NERVUN wrote:The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.
Surely it's worth a shot, right? I mean, new posters won't know the difference (hmm, I'm saying this a lot) and a lot of the ones that older posters complain about (and so, theoretically, more likely to get banned) aren't going to stick around for the long term anyway, and older posters will adjust their behaviour. Obviously, though, if you were to do this you'd have to say something like:
"We've recently reviewed our moderation standards and we'd like to apologise for some previous rulings which have been too lenient. From this point forwards, we'll be working to address these issues."
I'm not sure what exactly should be said, but it needs to make clear that there was something off in the past and that's why there's a change now... which should go some distance to eliminating posts like, "Why'd you ban me for saying that Nation X is a tit when Nation Y said the same thing three months ago and it was ruled fine!? Lrn2consistency mods."
Dakini wrote:I think one of the problems that moderation has which drives away certain posters is that some of the mods want to say that all opinions are equal, valid and worthy of argument. The problem with that is that they're really not. Some opinions are horrifically offensive and dehumanizing, but are allowed to persist in the name of "balance" or some nonsense.
If you allow people to argue "black people will be criminals/irresponsibly stupid if left to their own devices because that is their very nature, therefore slavery was good for them", then odds are some black members are going to be a touch offended and when moderation acts like this is a reasonable, non-trolling thing to say, they might not want to stay around a place where such opinions are considered worthwhile debate topics. If you allow people to argue that trans* people are mentally ill or worse and you treat that as a topic worth debating, you're going to see fewer trans* people hanging around a place where they feel dehumanized or unwelcome. If you're going to allow posters to go on tirades about how women are the absolute worst ever, you're going to see fewer women hanging around here.
Not all opinions are worth debate. Some opinions are just hateful bullshit (even if you've heard worse things at work) and should not be considered valid topics for debate. Unless you want a community full of trolls because they're the only ones left, that is.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:28 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Grenartia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:36 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:There is a line between having horrible, crappy, dehumanizing opinions that are near impossible to change, and trolling. One is explicitly intentional, meant to get a rise. The other is just something some view as very wrong, and others as very right - and I think that that's the Mod's issue here. Your radical dehumanizer who insults the existence of a group by describing them as mentally ill is another's perfectly rational fellow, whereas to them you're perhaps a believer in unholy, unnatural abominations. Now, I know where my own opinions fall, and you likely do too. It's also likely that you'll have a very hard time changing most of the views of someone else. What I seem them trying to encourage is exactly that, trying to change someone's views, the very point of debate. They try to encourage "arguing against the post" because what you might consider as pure drivel, not even worth the time to refute, is someone else's holy opinion. They try to encourage fighting opinions we disagree with using facts and sources, over moderation reports. That said, being a poor debater/user of flawed logic shouldn't be a punishable offence either. Don't think they're worth listening to? Block them. It doesn't mean they're a troll. DOesn;t mean they're out to get a rise. There's still a line, and one that's often redefined, and up to interpretation of that trick devil, intent. You've got, what, over a dozen mods total? Each looking at different people, from different backgrounds, in different moods and at different times of day, in different contexts and with different poster histories, all on top of often vague root rules. You've got a situation where interpretation of intent can vary wildly, which is why we have the appeals process, and why having only un-involved mods follow up on that is a thing. Even then, maybe they see a different intent than the poster meant, but there comes a point where you say "the average, reasonable poster would read this an attempt to get a rise, so that's what it's being ruled as."
While it's not always entirely "fair" or exactly equitable, it's pretty damn good for an often subjective state of affairs - because ultimately the line between trolling and poor opinions (in one's view) is a simple mixture of do they stick around to argue it, and moreso, do they do so merely to get a rise, or to try and convince you to change? THat's the line, IMO.
Also, as shown by the calls of some for stricter rulings, and others for looser, someone's always going to be unhappy. It's either an unfairly strict crackdown or too loose, with little to no middle ground for our lovely benevolent overlord to relax in
Just remember too, for every one questionable call you see, 100 or so other normal ones are made...
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Tue Dec 16, 2014 9:44 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Grenartia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:03 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Always exceptions. For example, both of those were referring to the mass harming of people, a general no-no on this site. It's got it's own debate going on, about where the line is drawn there, but there's clearly a line drawn somewhere there.
by United Marxist Nations » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:06 pm
Euroslavia wrote:United Marxist Nations wrote:May I open a separate discussion thread about advocating hypothetical acts of violence and terrorism?
EDIT: As for the "online" tags, are you sure? Euro is the only one I've ever seen with one; this really bugs me. I have to know, DLN.
I'm the only one, as far as I know, that doesn't use the 'stealth mode'.
The Kievan People wrote: United Marxist Nations: A prayer for every soul, a plan for every economy and a waifu for every man. Solid.
St. John Chrysostom wrote:A comprehended God is no God.
by United Dependencies » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:36 pm
NERVUN wrote:In general it goes Unofficial, official, 1 day ban, 3 day ban, week, DEAT.
But as always, it depends a great deal on what happened, who, etc.
The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by United Dependencies » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:40 pm
Euroslavia wrote:United Marxist Nations wrote:May I open a separate discussion thread about advocating hypothetical acts of violence and terrorism?
EDIT: As for the "online" tags, are you sure? Euro is the only one I've ever seen with one; this really bugs me. I have to know, DLN.
I'm the only one, as far as I know, that doesn't use the 'stealth mode'.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by NERVUN » Tue Dec 16, 2014 10:53 pm
United Dependencies wrote:NERVUN wrote:In general it goes Unofficial, official, 1 day ban, 3 day ban, week, DEAT.
But as always, it depends a great deal on what happened, who, etc.
My suggestion is to rid ourselves of the unofficial ban. The only difference between an unofficial ban and an official one is some red text and a number changes somewhere. If an action is worthy of a mod response, then we should warn players not to perform that action again.While we can hope that a warning would deter flamers and spammers, I would imagine that trolls and flame-baiters (by their very nature) are less concerned. Context would matter here, of course, and posters who are close to the line should perhaps be given a knock it off rather than a ban.
The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.
Well this is the problem that communities and community authorities everywhere face. The correct level of imposition on people's lives and livelihoods can't be divined so sometimes have to just move the line around a bit to figure where the appropriate place is. Add on to this that changing times and people mean that different levels of rules or restrictions may be appropriate at one time but not another. This is why town councils and legislatures exist.
While the last attempt to modify the rules met with poor results, I'd like to offer a different, but somewhat similar idea to address this issue:
I think what we may need is more clarification on the rules that have more nuance or are more difficult to enforce. Perhaps we could have more definite examples of trolling or flame-baiting. Or maybe instead of examples we could have a certain elements (or a rubric for our friends in the education system) that breaks down the actions that make up trolling or other such rules.
Site users could use some sort of public comment area or suggestion box to say that some specific behavior (say posts that deny the holocaust) should or shouldn't be considered as a rule violation. Then perhaps the site occasionally empanels a rules committee that looks over the number and quality of suggestions, the site policies set down by Max, and the mods own view of where the community should be going and decides whether or not to add or subtract to the above elements/guidelines/rubric.
I say this because I think this discussion desperately needs to get out of the theoretical of mods need to do more/less (without any idea what this is) and into specific actions that mods can take. I think the above suggestion will work because it allows us to be more specific without having to bring up/rehash old mod decisions.
If making such a guideline/list of examples/rubric/whatever is too much of an imposition on the mods, I'm definitely willing to donate my time to that effort.
by The Liberated Territories » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:24 pm
by United Dependencies » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:29 pm
NERVUN wrote:
While I am being somewhat tongue in cheek, I'm also seriously noting be careful what you wish for. Us going RAR! is great until we start going RAR on you, then it becomes Mod abuse and jackboots.
Couldn't really comment without seeing an example,
Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.
but I do caution about making the rules too restrictive. What we've found is that when we go TOO detailed most of the playerbase won't read them and thems that do, then tend to attempt to be annoying JUST within the line and when called, yell that we're being unfair.
This isn't to say your suggestion doesn't have merit, but it is a consideration to be aware of.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Alyakia » Tue Dec 16, 2014 11:54 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:Fortschritte wrote:I firmly believe that they are far, far to lenient on posters who intend to spam and troll the site. I've noticed that sometimes trollish posts are referred to as "opinions you should argue", and I think that's malarkey.
Sure, we could enforce more stringent anti-trolling rules, but what makes our opinions on what is trollish versus what is opinion more valuable than yours?Let's say for instance that I decide all religious posters are by definition trolls. Anyone posting anything faith-based gets warned and/or banned. Then I decide that all Democrats are trolls. Then I decide that anyone posting anything remotely anti-American is trolling. Let's toss in anyone with an opinion, pro or con, regarding LGBT naming conventions ... and while we're at it, both sides of the pony/brony debate. I'm sure we'd all enjoy the white male Republican American non-TV-watching forums that would be the end result of those choices.
Alternately, we could let everyone participate in the debates and determine for themselves who is worth responding to, and who has a valid or invalid opinion. What the hell, we could even try to convince someone to come over to our side of the argument, knowing full well in advance that it's probably futile. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy the debate ... and just maybe we'll open their eyes to some aspect of our version of the truth.
Now if I'm going to defend allowing people to post opinions that I find abhorrent, where do I draw the line? I know Republicans and Democrats, church-goers and atheists, gays and straights and otherqueers, bronies and brony-haters, Americans and furriners ... and for the most part they're nice people with their own sets of views. I even know and like some racists and anti-racists, who have valuable things to say even though I abhor some of their less pleasant opinions. And you can't tell me all gay-haters are trolls, when members of my own family had to hide their step-kids' gay orientation from my own father? I thought he was wrong, and tried to sway him ... but I didn't ban him from my house.
So yeah, those of you who think we aren't tough enough on trolls ... consider for a moment that there are almost certainly people on these forums you think YOU are trolling with at least one of your opinions. Should we ban you, or allow you to speak?
by Grenartia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:20 am
The Liberated Territories wrote:I don't know if they have "gone far enough" but there does seem to be biases against hard right wingers (Archeuland and Turtleshroom both got DEATed on the same day). Conspiracy?
by Grenartia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:28 am
United Dependencies wrote:NERVUN wrote:
While I am being somewhat tongue in cheek, I'm also seriously noting be careful what you wish for. Us going RAR! is great until we start going RAR on you, then it becomes Mod abuse and jackboots.
I feel like I'm a fairly reasonable person. I know I have disagreed with previous and current moderation policies, and while sometimes the issue can be frustrating, I don't think I've treated or accused the mods as not being interested in a good forum community.Couldn't really comment without seeing an example,
Let's look at an example (I would like to caution you that it's 1am EST for me and I've only taken a few minutes to cobble this together. This is just the roughest of ideas of what I'm thinking of):Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.
I look at this rule and I see two separate problems under the same rule so perhaps in the OSRS or in a separate appendix we include the following:
Intent to anger- A player who displays the following behaviors or commits the following actions can be said to be posting with the express purpose of angering other posters:
-consistently takes an opposing view in forum threads regardless of consistency with ideology or the facts presented in each thread
-consistently breaks from a thread's topic to make post about a pet ideology or favored subject
-consistently acts in a derogatory, impolite, or otherwise uncivil manner with posterswho contest the original poster's statements
etc. (as necessary)
Harmful opinion- a player who posts behaves in the following way is said to be trolling regardless of the sincerity of their beliefs:
-wishing violence on a group or subset of people
-declaring a group or subset of people to be inherently unequal or inferior to the rest of the population
-Altering the names of political parties or ideologies so as to make those names insulting to their users
etc. (also as necessary)but I do caution about making the rules too restrictive. What we've found is that when we go TOO detailed most of the playerbase won't read them and thems that do, then tend to attempt to be annoying JUST within the line and when called, yell that we're being unfair.
This isn't to say your suggestion doesn't have merit, but it is a consideration to be aware of.
To the former I will say:
This website isn't open to children. For the growing teenagers and adults here, they need to realize that the places and communities they live and will live in all have rules. If they elect not to read the rules, then they have only themselves to blame when they run afoul of those rules without realizing it.
For the latter: Trolls always try to dance on the line, it's what they do. Right now we have a less well defined line and I don't think it's helping. I think if we push the line towards more strict we can get more trolls and force the less obvious ones to behave in a more acceptable manner. The whole purpose of our rule system is to make a good community, if trolls have to behave in a way that's only somewhat annoying instead of outright antagonistic, then I think we'll be better off.
edit: and let me add onto the example above, if you say that the above is to strict or not strict enough, that's why I proposed a public thread or private suggestion box and occasionally empaneled rules committee. The forum can give comments about how specific behaviors should/shouldn't be against the rules and the mods can take that and everything else they have into consideration and decide whether a rules modification is necessary.
second edit: Now that I think about it, if your complaint is that nobody would read the rules, they wouldn't necessarily have too. The OSRS says posting with the intent to anger people isn't allowed and adds that some opinions are trolling still count even if they're sincere. So people who read that rule will still understand that they shouldn't post with the purpose of angering people. The further breakdown of the rules just makes it so that enforcement policy is part of forum record. It also gives us a chance to discuss the finer points of what is/ isn't trolling without having to rehash old mod decisions.
It follows in the same vein of current criminal law. I don't have to read or know the specifics of the definition or elements of murder link to get the general gist of what's going on.
Alyakia wrote:Frisbeeteria wrote:Sure, we could enforce more stringent anti-trolling rules, but what makes our opinions on what is trollish versus what is opinion more valuable than yours?Let's say for instance that I decide all religious posters are by definition trolls. Anyone posting anything faith-based gets warned and/or banned. Then I decide that all Democrats are trolls. Then I decide that anyone posting anything remotely anti-American is trolling. Let's toss in anyone with an opinion, pro or con, regarding LGBT naming conventions ... and while we're at it, both sides of the pony/brony debate. I'm sure we'd all enjoy the white male Republican American non-TV-watching forums that would be the end result of those choices.
Alternately, we could let everyone participate in the debates and determine for themselves who is worth responding to, and who has a valid or invalid opinion. What the hell, we could even try to convince someone to come over to our side of the argument, knowing full well in advance that it's probably futile. Doesn't mean we can't enjoy the debate ... and just maybe we'll open their eyes to some aspect of our version of the truth.
Now if I'm going to defend allowing people to post opinions that I find abhorrent, where do I draw the line? I know Republicans and Democrats, church-goers and atheists, gays and straights and otherqueers, bronies and brony-haters, Americans and furriners ... and for the most part they're nice people with their own sets of views. I even know and like some racists and anti-racists, who have valuable things to say even though I abhor some of their less pleasant opinions. And you can't tell me all gay-haters are trolls, when members of my own family had to hide their step-kids' gay orientation from my own father? I thought he was wrong, and tried to sway him ... but I didn't ban him from my house.
So yeah, those of you who think we aren't tough enough on trolls ... consider for a moment that there are almost certainly people on these forums you think YOU are trolling with at least one of your opinions. Should we ban you, or allow you to speak?
people would probably take you more seriously when you say this if you didn't occasionally make big posts like this defending peoples right to speak and how that isnt trolling only to end it with actually as it turns out while i was writing this post i banned the person in question for trolling.
and if you didn't try to imply that "perhaps the people that were raped/tortured to death deserved it" or "actually the death squads were correct and entirely necessary", all fun opinions we can find on NSG today, and "voting republican" were just the same and we are teetering on a slippery slope.
by Manisdog » Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:52 am
Cyrisnia wrote:They're pretty good most of the time.
I think the most irritated I've ever been at them is when Manisdog went on a anti-Euro streak for a good 2-3 days and one of the mods just let it slide as "he's from another culture" or something.
by Imperializt Russia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 4:58 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Manisdog » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:05 am
by The Batorys » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:34 am
Northwest Slobovia wrote:Nazi Flower Power wrote:
I disagree that the mods have gotten much more lenient. I can think of lots of things the mods allowed 4 years ago that they wouldn't allow now. We used to have pedophilia and zoophilia threads regularly, as well as much more leeway granted to Nazis.
I'm not entirely sure why there has been a shift toward a younger demographic and fewer women. Shutting down the rape thread and limiting discussions of mental illness probably didn't help. Those topics lent themselves to intelligent conversation. There may also be a cascade effect where a couple of good posters leave, and then their friends leave because so and so isn't here anymore and it's just not the same without them, and then their friends' friends leave, and so on. It's not necessarily something the mods did.
Well, there were a few bans which were, shall we say, not popular, and they precipitated some of the mass departures.
I lament the loss of so many veterans, but I don't think it's entirely due to insufficient modly whack-a-troll but -- I'm thinking of some of said bans -- inconsistent use of the banhammer. IMAO, a few posters got used to having posting styles that either went up to the "actionable" line or that routinely crept across it. For a long time, they got away with it, and people coped with that one way or another. And then, for various reasons, the mods started enforcing the rules, and those posters got hit hard, fast, and often, and they and the rest of us were surprised and angry when they got banned. (Again, IMAO.)
by The Batorys » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:41 am
United Dependencies wrote:I've always thought unofficial warnings were rather silly.
A warning isn't a punishment for anything, it's a warning. I think the mods could stand to throw out more warnings. I also think that actual punishment should escalate more quickly. Bans should be given out to posters after a single warning (so long as the two actions are within a reasonable amount of time relatively). I've also seen bans for less than a day given out previously, so if a ban is needed but a whole day is too much, then perhaps smaller times would be appropriate.
Also, I've said in the past and I'll say it again:
I believe that whatever the mods are using as a measuring stick to determine what is and is not trolling is letting to many trollish or just terrible posters through. Perhaps in the past such a lenient standard was necessary, but now I think we've got too many posters who have no interest in building a community around intelligent discussion of current issues and ideas. I think we've got too many posters who want every thread to be about their pet ideologies, or are just interested in getting a rise out of other posters here. I think the mods should adjust their standards so that we get more warnings, bans, and deletions for trolling.
by The Batorys » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:45 am
NERVUN wrote:The last time we tried that, everyone yelled at us for being too strict.
by The Batorys » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:48 am
Grenartia wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:There is a line between having horrible, crappy, dehumanizing opinions that are near impossible to change, and trolling. One is explicitly intentional, meant to get a rise. The other is just something some view as very wrong, and others as very right - and I think that that's the Mod's issue here. Your radical dehumanizer who insults the existence of a group by describing them as mentally ill is another's perfectly rational fellow, whereas to them you're perhaps a believer in unholy, unnatural abominations. Now, I know where my own opinions fall, and you likely do too. It's also likely that you'll have a very hard time changing most of the views of someone else. What I seem them trying to encourage is exactly that, trying to change someone's views, the very point of debate. They try to encourage "arguing against the post" because what you might consider as pure drivel, not even worth the time to refute, is someone else's holy opinion. They try to encourage fighting opinions we disagree with using facts and sources, over moderation reports. That said, being a poor debater/user of flawed logic shouldn't be a punishable offence either. Don't think they're worth listening to? Block them. It doesn't mean they're a troll. DOesn;t mean they're out to get a rise. There's still a line, and one that's often redefined, and up to interpretation of that trick devil, intent. You've got, what, over a dozen mods total? Each looking at different people, from different backgrounds, in different moods and at different times of day, in different contexts and with different poster histories, all on top of often vague root rules. You've got a situation where interpretation of intent can vary wildly, which is why we have the appeals process, and why having only un-involved mods follow up on that is a thing. Even then, maybe they see a different intent than the poster meant, but there comes a point where you say "the average, reasonable poster would read this an attempt to get a rise, so that's what it's being ruled as."
While it's not always entirely "fair" or exactly equitable, it's pretty damn good for an often subjective state of affairs - because ultimately the line between trolling and poor opinions (in one's view) is a simple mixture of do they stick around to argue it, and moreso, do they do so merely to get a rise, or to try and convince you to change? THat's the line, IMO.
Also, as shown by the calls of some for stricter rulings, and others for looser, someone's always going to be unhappy. It's either an unfairly strict crackdown or too loose, with little to no middle ground for our lovely benevolent overlord to relax in
Just remember too, for every one questionable call you see, 100 or so other normal ones are made...
However, certain opinions are not allowed here, and rightfully so. Like "all jews should be gassed or shoved into ovens", or "all women and children should be gangraped", for instance. Even if the person saying those things honestly believes them, and tries to convince others to change. And again, rightfully so.
by The Batorys » Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:49 am
Grenartia wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Always exceptions. For example, both of those were referring to the mass harming of people, a general no-no on this site. It's got it's own debate going on, about where the line is drawn there, but there's clearly a line drawn somewhere there.
nobody who wasn't themself a troll ever complained that there weren't enough trolls, on ANY forum
by Imperializt Russia » Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:11 am
Manisdog wrote:So, I am telling the moderators this, if you want to get rid of the flames and not have such questions asked than you can just stop preemptively two people from hostile countries from talking
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Grinning Dragon, Sarzonia, Vinslott
Advertisement