Originally posted by RagnorakI wasn't 'testing' Robomod - why do you believe that?
Well by using the F word to "test" Robomod was a good start.
Complaining about the unfairness of the current system after getting a ban that you must have known was coming, so as to get stricter moderator policies in place was a good continuation.
Continuing to stir the pot to try to get more rigid, draconian moderation in place a month after the event is the icing on the cake.
D
I wasn't complaining about the unfairness of the current system - I was questioning the foundation on which the current moderation regime is based.
And I absolutely was not aiming for more draconian moderation. If you believe I was aiming for more draconian moderation you have completely misunderstood the meaning of the post. I was pointing out that when subjective values are imposed on things like swear words, general things like 'what' can be discussed tend to be next. It was a warning.
Apart from that, good post. Well worth the recs.
Originally posted by ivangriceIf I remember correctly, Darvlay started a thread saying that Robomod must be on the blink, because he had said eff in the forums in the previous couple of hours. Then a few users all weighed in with their own profanity containing cuss words for whatever reason. BUT, the thread was started as a challenge to robomod.
I wasn't 'testing' Robomod - why do you believe that?
I wasn't complaining about the unfairness of the current system - I was questioning the foundation on which the current moderation regime is based.
And I absolutely was not aiming for more draconian moderation. If you believe I was aiming for more draconian moderation you have completely misunder ...[text shortened]... d tend to be next. It was a warning.
Apart from that, good post. Well worth the recs.
You are complaining about the system, as it is subjective and there are no written rules saying what you can or can't say (see your quotes below). You have said a couple of times (maybe in jest) that we need a list of banned words and banned topics. So, it seems to me that you are calling for an entirely objective moderation system, with clear written rules and lists of words/topics that can be discussed in the forums. This kind of rigid system is pretty draconian in my eyes.
"There are many words that some people find offensive. The solution is that the Mods remove all posts using these words (I'll helpfully skate over the fact that we don't know what these words are).
There are many topics that some people find offensive. What's the solution here?"
"Once we have a list of banned words, we can then start on the list of banned topics..."
Swear words have never been allowed in the forums. Are you saying that just because you got a ban that suddenly there is going to be tighter moderation on what topics can be discussed? Why do you think your banning is going to have such a huge impact on the moderation policies of the site, which in my eyes haven't changed recently. They've just been reiterated.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakIt's probably a good idea not to ascribe others' motives to specific individuals.
If I remember correctly, Darvlay started a thread saying that Robomod must be on the blink, because he had said eff in the forums in the previous couple of hours. Then a few users all weighed in with their own profanity containing cuss words for whatever reason. BUT, the thread was started as a challenge to robomod.
You are complaining about the system ...[text shortened]... e site, which in my eyes haven't changed recently. They've just been reiterated.
D
The comments were pointed, not in jest.
My banning from the Forums is not the major issue for me. It's the whole concept of consistent, transparent moderation. A rigid system is at least predictable.
You say swear words have never been allowed in these Forums. Agreed, but jumbled swear words (a la the well-known High Street clothes retailer) and the use of asterisks used to be allowed; Russ's recent ruling states that this is no longer allowed. I'm not sure that this counts as a 'reiteration'.
One of Russ's moderation principles is: "...if you would not repeat your post word for word to your mother, then don't post it!"
As I was saying, I'd like consistency and transparency.
Oh yes, please also note that I didn't find it necessary to call anyone an 'idiot' during this debate. Refreshing, isn't it?
Originally posted by RagnorakHey D for Dick. Leave me out of it. I only started that thread because I was bored and killing time before I left work, not to "challenge robomod".
If I remember correctly, Darvlay started a thread saying that Robomod must be on the blink, because he had said eff in the forums in the previous couple of hours. Then a few users all weighed in with their own profanity containing cuss words for whatever reason. BUT, the thread was started as a challenge to robomod.
2 edits
Originally posted by ivangriceRuss wants to leave some wiggle room for posting. You are pressing for total erasure of any post with any word right down to idiot... Robomod can be adjusted, and that is all you are pushing towards.
It's probably a good idea not to ascribe others' motives to specific individuals.
The comments were pointed, not in jest.
My banning from the Forums is not the major issue for me. It's the whole concept of consistent, transparent moderation. A rigid system is at least predictable.
You say swear words have never been allowed in these Forums. Agr t necessary to call anyone an 'idiot' during this debate. Refreshing, isn't it?
Is everyone who speeds down your street pulled over and given a ticket, or is it just the people that get caught? You are asking for radar guns and cameras on every street corner with this complaining of yours.
P-
What happened to the Forum Posting Clock? I posted this AFTER my post in the Robomod thread.... Strange...
Originally posted by ivangriceIt's the whole concept of consistent, transparent moderation. A rigid system is at least predictable.
You say swear words have never been allowed in these Forums. Agreed, but jumbled swear words (a la the well-known High Street clothes retailer) and the use of asterisks used to be allowed; Russ's recent ruling states that this is no longer allowed. I'm not sure that this counts as a 'reiteration'.
One of Russ's moderation principles is: "...if you w ...[text shortened]... d it necessary to call anyone an 'idiot' during this debate. Refreshing, isn't it?[/b]
So you want clear, written rules, with lists of allowed words and topics. ie: An impersonal system where nothing is open to interpretation, and mods have to go by the letter of the law. Sounds pretty draconian to me, and a huge step backwards from out current system
As far as I'm concerned, using asterix' was never allowed. It was tolerated until some upstarts complained about their bannings and now the rule has been tightened up. A step closer to your ideal system of tighter moderation. Congrats to you.
Re the idiot thing. I think you'll find that you attributed that to yourself. I just said that the mods have to deal with idiots, and you decided that applied to you. Well done on being objective.
My point was that we have a good system of moderation which has worked for years. Suddenly, you get banned for swearing (which I presume you're not denying), you start threads complaining, the rules get tightened, and you start more threads looking for further tightening of the rules.
I think you've lost sight of the fact that the mods are volunteering to do this. While you're playing chess or watching animal porn, or doing whatever floats your boat, the Mods could be sitting there removing posts for a couple of hours, while the forums are under attack, as Cackhead did a number of times. Keep that in mind the next time you berate a mod for posting a sleeping smiley to a post asking for a list of banned topics.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI want predictability. Why is that so draconian? It appears to me that you want it both ways - let's keep things relaxed until someone is punished for overstepping an unknown line.
[b]It's the whole concept of consistent, transparent moderation. A rigid system is at least predictable.
So you want clear, written rules, with lists of allowed words and topics. ie: An impersonal system where nothing is open to interpretation, and mods have to go by the letter of the law. Sounds pretty draconian to me, and a huge step backwards ...[text shortened]... te a mod for posting a sleeping smiley to a post asking for a list of banned topics.
D[/b]
As far as you're concerned the use of asterisks (Asterix is a Gaul) was never allowed. Well, that's great for you and your little world, but asterisks were allowed. I saw them. They were real.
Re the idiot thing: I think you'll find that you explicity answered my question 'In what way have I behaved idiotically?' Review the thread. Well done on being plain wrong.
Why do you insist on stating that I am looking for further tightening of the rules? Did you not understand what I meant by 'pointed comments'?
I don't understand how the actions 'Cackhead' (who he?) did have a bearing on this discussion.
A poor response from you, but still I refrain from calling anyone an idiot (but I did like the ad hominem attack re animal porn...classy).
Originally posted by RagnorakWhat's more draconian - a system with clear rules where you know "if you do X, Y will happen", or a system where a post which in your and most other people's eyes isn't even remotely offensive can lead to a ban without an explanation? I would prefer a system in which interesting topics which can't be discussed without using certain words wouldn't be forbidden to discuss, but if they are not allowed, I would rather know that before I get a ban. (Obviously I am not talking about the "robomod-test-bans" here. As for those, the whole thing might never have come up (at least I know I wouldn't have posted in that thread) if it wouldn't be kept secret for some reason how exactly robomod works.)
So you want clear, written rules, with lists of allowed words and topics. ie: An impersonal system where nothing is open to interpretation, and mods have to go by the letter of the law. Sounds pretty draconian to me, and a huge step backwards from out current system
Originally posted by NordlysThis is an English site. So English laws apply.
What's more draconian - a system with clear rules where you know "if you do X, Y will happen", or a system where a post which in your and most other people's eyes isn't even remotely offensive can lead to a ban without an explanation? I would prefer a system in which interesting topics which can't be discussed without using certain words wouldn't be forbidde ...[text shortened]... hat thread) if it wouldn't be kept secret for some reason how exactly robomod works.)
I accept this.