[Discussion] - The norms in regards to group aspersions

[Luminesa]

I will rectify that clarity momentarily.

The problem is that the two derogatory elements are not inherently connected to the subject, which in this case was Christianity, and that the likelihood being in this case far more likely indicates leniency towards how one can phrase it. Another question that immediately comes to mind is will there then be a hard cap on the quantity that is indirectly inferred in case of a bad-faith argument? Probability is on the up, but if a person where to infer " A majority of hardcore Christians are islamophobic asshats" or "Millions of Christians are islamophobic asshats." would then it violate from having gone to probability inducing to numbers, in said case over 50%? Or is only probability the sanctioned model?

I just see a hundred ways said sanction can turn out horrible for forum discourse.

So essentially...what happens now...is any group can say whatever they want about a group...and they can simply cover it by saying they only spoke about SOME people in a group. a la, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So Trump could come on this website now and essentially say such reprehensible things, under the guise of, "But I was not saying ALL Mexicans are rapists."

[East Catalina]

I will rectify that clarity momentarily.

The problem is that the two derogatory elements are not inherently connected to the subject, which in this case was Christianity, and that the likelihood being in this case far more likely indicates leniency towards how one can phrase it. Another question that immediately comes to mind is will there then be a hard cap on the quantity that is indirectly inferred in case of a bad-faith argument? Probability is on the up, but if a person where to infer " A majority of hardcore Christians are islamophobic asshats" or "Millions of Christians are islamophobic asshats." would then it violate from having gone to probability inducing to numbers, in said case over 50%? Or is only probability the sanctioned model?

I just see a hundred ways said sanction can turn out horrible for forum discourse.

So essentially...what happens now...is any group can say whatever they want about a group...and they can simply cover it by saying they only spoke about SOME people in a group. a la, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So Trump could come on this website now and essentially say such reprehensible things, under the guise of, "But I was not saying ALL Mexicans are rapists."

They also have to mention that some of them tend to be rapists.
It's probably false but it sure as hell isn't clearly identifying them.
venn diagram

[Luminesa]

So essentially...what happens now...is any group can say whatever they want about a group...and they can simply cover it by saying they only spoke about SOME people in a group. a la, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." So Trump could come on this website now and essentially say such reprehensible things, under the guise of, "But I was not saying ALL Mexicans are rapists."

They also have to mention that some of them tend to be rapists.
It's probably false but it sure as hell isn't clearly identifying them.
venn diagram

...That diagram...

[Chrinthanium]

They also have to mention that some of them tend to be rapists.
It's probably false but it sure as hell isn't clearly identifying them.
venn diagram

...That diagram...

Yeah....

The statements....Some illegal immigrants do bring drugs. Some illegal immigrants do bring crime. Some illegal immigrants are murderers. Some illegal immigrants are rapists. Some illegal immigrants are Mexican.... These are all, according to police statistics, true statements. All illegal immigrants are rapists... is not true since you can review that information and find sometimes the only thing an illegal immigrant does is illegally immigrate.

For example: some gay folks want to see Christianity outlawed. I'm certain I can find enough people to justify that statement. to state all gay folks want to see Christianity outlawed... well, you couldn't prove that because not all want that. Some do, however. I know a few.

[Wallenburg]

If you want to report Monitor, report her. I don't see anything else to discuss. Mods have no responsibility or obligation to be professional when posting just like any other player. If you feel too intimidated to stand against someone's opinion because their name is in red or blue, then that's a problem with you, not with them.

[Luminesa]

If you want to report Monitor, report her. I don't see anything else to discuss. Mods have no responsibility or obligation to be professional when posting just like any other player. If you feel too intimidated to stand against someone's opinion because their name is in red or blue, then that's a problem with you, not with them.

Nobody's intimidated.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

If you want to report Monitor, report her. I don't see anything else to discuss. Mods have no responsibility or obligation to be professional when posting just like any other player. If you feel too intimidated to stand against someone's opinion because their name is in red or blue, then that's a problem with you, not with them.

That's a rather ignorant sort of statement, all things considered. Were someone intimidated, the discussion wouldn't have been brought up. That said, sometimes people do feel threatened, intimidated, or otherwise wary of posting something they feel will bring either undue attention on them, create a perceived bias, or get them in trouble - due to either having seen things pan out, had something happen to them, or taken a mod post to mean that they will suffer some consequence or other, whether or not they're reading said post correctly or not. These sorts of things have happened. We've got a thread in Moderation at the moment about a player who feels they've been unduly singled out and forbidden to post in a forum, while being confused as to what all the strictures are. Whether the player is being deliberately obtuse, or the mods haven't been clear, or this may be a bad call I couldn't say, but it's an example of at least some of this nonetheless.

I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't report things due to a perceived bias on the parts of some moderators or a general team stance. I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't get a fair hearing on a report, and so haven't made it and either simply played on, or gradually stopped playing altogether. I've had players tell me about all manner of situations that have either kept them from reporting, have curtailed their play, have caused them concern for their safety within the game - and outside of it, believe it or not, and granted, along with that, have heard all manner of frivolous bs about it all as well. Point is, to simply state 'well that's your problem' is a bit naive at worst, and disingenuous at best. There have been situations that gave players reason for concern, for one reason or other. So lets not sit back and smugly assume that they don't exist, hm?

[Lady Scylla]

If you want to report Monitor, report her. I don't see anything else to discuss. Mods have no responsibility or obligation to be professional when posting just like any other player. If you feel too intimidated to stand against someone's opinion because their name is in red or blue, then that's a problem with you, not with them.

Nobody's intimidated.

I am. I mean, have you seen a talking ship before? What's next, a talking house?

[Chrinthanium]

If you want to report Monitor, report her. I don't see anything else to discuss. Mods have no responsibility or obligation to be professional when posting just like any other player. If you feel too intimidated to stand against someone's opinion because their name is in red or blue, then that's a problem with you, not with them.

That's a rather ignorant sort of statement, all things considered. Were someone intimidated, the discussion wouldn't have been brought up. That said, sometimes people do feel threatened, intimidated, or otherwise wary of posting something they feel will bring either undue attention on them, create a perceived bias, or get them in trouble - due to either having seen things pan out, had something happen to them, or taken a mod post to mean that they will suffer some consequence or other, whether or not they're reading said post correctly or not. These sorts of things have happened. We've got a thread in Moderation at the moment about a player who feels they've been unduly singled out and forbidden to post in a forum, while being confused as to what all the strictures are. Whether the player is being deliberately obtuse, or the mods haven't been clear, or this may be a bad call I couldn't say, but it's an example of at least some of this nonetheless.

I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't report things due to a perceived bias on the parts of some moderators or a general team stance. I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't get a fair hearing on a report, and so haven't made it and either simply played on, or gradually stopped playing altogether. I've had players tell me about all manner of situations that have either kept them from reporting, have curtailed their play, have caused them concern for their safety within the game - and outside of it, believe it or not, and granted, along with that, have heard all manner of frivolous bs about it all as well. Point is, to simply state 'well that's your problem' is a bit naive at worst, and disingenuous at best. There have been situations that gave players reason for concern, for one reason or other. So lets not sit back and smugly assume that they don't exist, hm?

To counter that a bit, it is well known that if you do not feel comfortable making a public report, you can use a GHR which cannot be edited or deleted by the mods.

Nobody's intimidated.

I am. I mean, have you seen a talking ship before? What's next, a talking house?

Blaat is a talking sheep and he's a moderator.

[Lady Scylla]

That's a rather ignorant sort of statement, all things considered. Were someone intimidated, the discussion wouldn't have been brought up. That said, sometimes people do feel threatened, intimidated, or otherwise wary of posting something they feel will bring either undue attention on them, create a perceived bias, or get them in trouble - due to either having seen things pan out, had something happen to them, or taken a mod post to mean that they will suffer some consequence or other, whether or not they're reading said post correctly or not. These sorts of things have happened. We've got a thread in Moderation at the moment about a player who feels they've been unduly singled out and forbidden to post in a forum, while being confused as to what all the strictures are. Whether the player is being deliberately obtuse, or the mods haven't been clear, or this may be a bad call I couldn't say, but it's an example of at least some of this nonetheless.

I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't report things due to a perceived bias on the parts of some moderators or a general team stance. I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't get a fair hearing on a report, and so haven't made it and either simply played on, or gradually stopped playing altogether. I've had players tell me about all manner of situations that have either kept them from reporting, have curtailed their play, have caused them concern for their safety within the game - and outside of it, believe it or not, and granted, along with that, have heard all manner of frivolous bs about it all as well. Point is, to simply state 'well that's your problem' is a bit naive at worst, and disingenuous at best. There have been situations that gave players reason for concern, for one reason or other. So lets not sit back and smugly assume that they don't exist, hm?

To counter that a bit, it is well known that if you do not feel comfortable making a public report, you can use a GHR which cannot be edited or deleted by the mods.

I am. I mean, have you seen a talking ship before? What's next, a talking house?

Blaat is a talking sheep and he's a moderator.

Talking sheep aren't unusual.

[Luminesa]

That's a rather ignorant sort of statement, all things considered. Were someone intimidated, the discussion wouldn't have been brought up. That said, sometimes people do feel threatened, intimidated, or otherwise wary of posting something they feel will bring either undue attention on them, create a perceived bias, or get them in trouble - due to either having seen things pan out, had something happen to them, or taken a mod post to mean that they will suffer some consequence or other, whether or not they're reading said post correctly or not. These sorts of things have happened. We've got a thread in Moderation at the moment about a player who feels they've been unduly singled out and forbidden to post in a forum, while being confused as to what all the strictures are. Whether the player is being deliberately obtuse, or the mods haven't been clear, or this may be a bad call I couldn't say, but it's an example of at least some of this nonetheless.

I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't report things due to a perceived bias on the parts of some moderators or a general team stance. I have had players tell me they felt they couldn't get a fair hearing on a report, and so haven't made it and either simply played on, or gradually stopped playing altogether. I've had players tell me about all manner of situations that have either kept them from reporting, have curtailed their play, have caused them concern for their safety within the game - and outside of it, believe it or not, and granted, along with that, have heard all manner of frivolous bs about it all as well. Point is, to simply state 'well that's your problem' is a bit naive at worst, and disingenuous at best. There have been situations that gave players reason for concern, for one reason or other. So lets not sit back and smugly assume that they don't exist, hm?

To counter that a bit, it is well known that if you do not feel comfortable making a public report, you can use a GHR which cannot be edited or deleted by the mods.

I am. I mean, have you seen a talking ship before? What's next, a talking house?

Blaat is a talking sheep and he's a moderator.

That's not really a counter, but it does make a point. Though every time I've gone to the mods about forum-side things in a GHR, they've told me I'm doing it wrong and have chased me off. The only one who has really ever answered my GHRs about Forum-side issues is [violet]. So I can say for myself that I've felt less confidence in the mods this year than I have in previous years, possibly because I've felt the feeling that I'm merely a bother, rather than a member of a community with a voice.

[Bears Armed]

[I mean, have you seen a talking ship before? What's next, a talking house?

Well, I do remember reading a report from an early D&D campaign, way back in 1970s,in which one of the players' characters had become a 'Were-house'...

[Chrinthanium]

To counter that a bit, it is well known that if you do not feel comfortable making a public report, you can use a GHR which cannot be edited or deleted by the mods.


Blaat is a talking sheep and he's a moderator.

That's not really a counter, but it does make a point. Though every time I've gone to the mods about forum-side things in a GHR, they've told me I'm doing it wrong and have chased me off. The only one who has really ever answered my GHRs about Forum-side issues is [violet]. So I can say for myself that I've felt less confidence in the mods this year than I have in previous years, possibly because I've felt the feeling that I'm merely a bother, rather than a member of a community with a voice.

Maybe that's what we need.... a forum-side violation report that isn't public. Perhaps a way to submit a GHR-like thing but for forum-side violations. I don't know the mechanics of how that'd work or what kind of volume that would cause moderation, but it is at least, in my humble opinion, a valid option... maybe?

[Luminesa]

That's not really a counter, but it does make a point. Though every time I've gone to the mods about forum-side things in a GHR, they've told me I'm doing it wrong and have chased me off. The only one who has really ever answered my GHRs about Forum-side issues is [violet]. So I can say for myself that I've felt less confidence in the mods this year than I have in previous years, possibly because I've felt the feeling that I'm merely a bother, rather than a member of a community with a voice.

Maybe that's what we need.... a forum-side violation report that isn't public. Perhaps a way to submit a GHR-like thing but for forum-side violations. I don't know the mechanics of how that'd work or what kind of volume that would cause moderation, but it is at least, in my humble opinion, a valid option... maybe?

I like it.

[Chrinthanium]

Maybe that's what we need.... a forum-side violation report that isn't public. Perhaps a way to submit a GHR-like thing but for forum-side violations. I don't know the mechanics of how that'd work or what kind of volume that would cause moderation, but it is at least, in my humble opinion, a valid option... maybe?

I like it.

Maybe there should be a caveat that it should only be used for those who do not feel comfortable making a public report in moderation? Again, I'd definitely have to defer to a Mod to see if that is even a remotely viable option.

[Luminesa]

I like it.

Maybe there should be a caveat that it should only be used for those who do not feel comfortable making a public report in moderation? Again, I'd definitely have to defer to a Mod to see if that is even a remotely viable option.

It might just be my personal anxiety. I don't like to fight, I would rather settle an issue quietly and move-along.

[Lady Scylla]

Maybe there should be a caveat that it should only be used for those who do not feel comfortable making a public report in moderation? Again, I'd definitely have to defer to a Mod to see if that is even a remotely viable option.

It might just be my personal anxiety. I don't like to fight, I would rather settle an issue quietly and move-along.

Note to self: Do not eat any soup Luminesa makes.

[Charlia]

Just use puppets to report things, guys.

[Chrinthanium]

Just use puppets to report things, guys.

Unless you're really good, the mods can usually tell who owns what puppet from what I understand.

[Charlia]

Just use puppets to report things, guys.

Unless you're really good, the mods can usually tell who owns what puppet from what I understand.

Yes? I wasn't intending this method as a means of keeping your identity secret from the mods. It would just make it so that the normal people around you wouldn't get after you for reporting them or whatever, which I have seen happen. Reduces some of the 'oh, I can't report this' feeling, since you're essentially anonymous unless you're really obvious about it.

[Lockdownn]

That's not really a counter, but it does make a point. Though every time I've gone to the mods about forum-side things in a GHR, they've told me I'm doing it wrong and have chased me off. The only one who has really ever answered my GHRs about Forum-side issues is [violet]. So I can say for myself that I've felt less confidence in the mods this year than I have in previous years, possibly because I've felt the feeling that I'm merely a bother, rather than a member of a community with a voice.

Maybe that's what we need.... a forum-side violation report that isn't public. Perhaps a way to submit a GHR-like thing but for forum-side violations. I don't know the mechanics of how that'd work or what kind of volume that would cause moderation, but it is at least, in my humble opinion, a valid option... maybe?

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=394258

Specifically: viewtopic.php?p=30335170#p30335170

[Luminesa]

It might just be my personal anxiety. I don't like to fight, I would rather settle an issue quietly and move-along.

Note to self: Do not eat any soup Luminesa makes.

My soups are actually not bad. And if you don't like my soup, I make good Mac and cheese.

[USS Monitor]

That's not really a counter, but it does make a point. Though every time I've gone to the mods about forum-side things in a GHR, they've told me I'm doing it wrong and have chased me off. The only one who has really ever answered my GHRs about Forum-side issues is [violet]. So I can say for myself that I've felt less confidence in the mods this year than I have in previous years, possibly because I've felt the feeling that I'm merely a bother, rather than a member of a community with a voice.

Maybe that's what we need.... a forum-side violation report that isn't public. Perhaps a way to submit a GHR-like thing but for forum-side violations. I don't know the mechanics of how that'd work or what kind of volume that would cause moderation, but it is at least, in my humble opinion, a valid option... maybe?

The GHR system already can be used that way. Creating a separate channel to submit forum-related ones wouldn't really improve anything. I haven't looked at Lumi's GHRs or how they were handled so I can't comment on that, but from a technical standpoint, there's no reason to add a new system.

[Charlia]

Note to self: Do not eat any soup Luminesa makes.

My soups are actually not bad. And if you don't like my soup, I make good Mac and cheese.

I think what she meant was that since you'd rather settle an issue quietly, your soup is probably poisoned. XD

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Yeah ... another layer of repetition? Can't see it as doing much of anything save complicating things further. Puppets? Not always doable, especially when they need a thread owner to make or verify a report, such as in the RP forums and what not.

GHRs ... well, there you get into trickier territory, and hence my reiteration of ye olde consistency argument. That hasn't always gone well for some. Sometimes because they've not made an honest report (happens), or spammed the GHR with idiocy, or lied, or misrepresented, or even just not understood how to utilize the GHR system. YMMV, as always, neh? Which may be part of the problem. Not /my/ problem anymore, but potentially /a/ problem, from what folks are saying/suggesting/what have you.

As for some of the rest, well the public is covered, but that doesn't do a lick of good if you don't have any idea what game mod may be going over the list, which will take the time to deal with your report, what their mindset is, what your history with them is, if you have issues there, what have you - all things that have been brought up over the course of years with varying measures of truth to them. Or at least varying measures of people's perceptions. The only thing holding anything down there is that there is a record that moderators cannot erase, where all their actions are logged (pretty sure that's long-known publicly available info that's been repeated by mods for some time now or wouldn't be repeating it here, btw), and anyone with the correct access can at least track and hold accountable. So long as someone bothers to do it anyway. No idea what's done on the admin side.