+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Off-Topic (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: Feedback for moderation policy post (/showthread.php?tid=11381)
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - ArmachiA - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:47 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.
A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.
That's isn't the definition of passive aggressive. I'm being quite blunt. it seems to me your are looking for arguments
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Faye - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:47 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.
A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.
Blatantly stating a fact or opinion isn't passive aggression. If you think that's passive aggression, I can understand your concern with the rules.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - FreelanceWizard - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I don't believe he has said that. What he has said that if you make a point, and it's offensive, and you continue to make it, you can be punished. A fact which is irrespective of the quality and pertinence of the point.
If I said that, or if I implied that, I apologize. That wasn't my intent. I believe K'nahli made a point to that effect, but then clarified. Make a provocative point if you want. Just because sure it's provocative because of the point you're making, not because it's aimed to insult people or to be intentionally and broadly rude and offensive.
And again, just because someone reports a post and says they find it offensive does not mean you will get a warning for it.
Since this thread has moved since I wrote that, to your example, Natalie, you would not get warned for that. Anyone who whipped back around and said, "Screw you, you're an asshat," to that would get the warning. Simple as that. I can go over more examples with you over PM if you'd like.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Kellach Woods - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:47 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.
A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.
Report, move on.
Best way to deal with it.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:48 PM)ArmachiA Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:47 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.
A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.
That's isn't the definition of passive aggressive. I'm being quite blunt. it seems to me your are looking for arguments
Ok so just a regularly aggressive personal attack then?
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:49 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:29 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I don't believe he has said that. What he has said that if you make a point, and it's offensive, and you continue to make it, you can be punished. A fact which is irrespective of the quality and pertinence of the point.
If I said that, or if I implied that, I apologize. That wasn't my intent. I believe K'nahli made a point to that effect, but then clarified. Make a provocative point if you want. Just because sure it's provocative because of the point you're making, not because it's aimed to insult people or to be intentionally and broadly rude and offensive.
And again, just because someone reports a post and says they find it offensive does not mean you will get a warning for it.
Since this thread has moved since I wrote that, to your example, Natalie, you would not get warned for that. Anyone who whipped back around and said, "Screw you, you're an asshat," to that would get the warning. Simple as that. I can go over more examples with you over PM if you'd like.
Thank you for clarifying, that fixes a lot of concerns I had.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Aduu Avagnar - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:49 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:statement of opinion does not make it an attack.(04-30-2015, 09:48 PM)ArmachiA Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:47 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.
A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.
That's isn't the definition of passive aggressive. I'm being quite blunt. Â it seems to me your are looking for arguments
Ok so just a regularly aggressive personal attack then?
It looks like you are looking for arguments, over opinions and facts that were clarified. Whether or not this is the case is another matter, this is what it looks like.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Faye - 04-30-2015
As an aside, mods, I feel for you. Keep up the good work. You're awesome. It's a pity people always have to assume the worst.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Kellach Woods - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:50 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:49 PM)FreelanceWizard Wrote: just because someone reports a post and says they find it offensive does not mean you will get a warning for it.
Thank you for clarifying, that fixes a lot of concerns I had.
If it was automated it would be abused to hell and back. I don't think I've ever seen forum software that had such a badly designed report button that would automatically warn anyone who was on the receiving end of a report.
Report's just a ping to the mods saying "someone believes this goes against the rules, and this is the reason they gave" - it's up to them to do something about it. Chances are, people who'd be so outraged that they'd get mad over a moderator not automatically giving out warnings like it was candy are going to do something stupid in the thread anyway, and get an infraction themselves.
Shooting themselves in the foot, as it were.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 09:53 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:49 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:statement of opinion does not make it an attack.(04-30-2015, 09:48 PM)ArmachiA Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:47 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:46 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: I edit all the time just to make sure my post is clear, I highly doubt I'll be punished for it. Now you're just looking for arguments.
A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.
That's isn't the definition of passive aggressive. I'm being quite blunt. Â it seems to me your are looking for arguments
Ok so just a regularly aggressive personal attack then?
It looks like you are looking for arguments, over opinions and facts that were clarified. Whether or not this is the case is another matter, this is what it looks like.
Well to start, I was responding to this post:
(04-30-2015, 09:24 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: Also, why do you feel the need to warn about the inflammatory content? Why is it necessary? Seriously I do not get that point at all. Just yolo post, edit it out if you realize that's not what you wanted to say upon reread. Like I just did.
However if someone makes a point that ends up generating a warning, and then they edit it later, even if it's because they changed their mind, suddenly that becomes an offence. I was never saying that someone making grammatical corrections is punishable.
Changing a post that says something offensive, mean, rulebreaking, into one that does not break the rules IS against the rules.
As far as I understand.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Aduu Avagnar - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 10:01 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:You could simply go back, and put in a note saying *this opinion has been changed, please disregard this point* that would not generate a warning, as the flow has not been changed, nor has the point that generated the argument in the first place.(04-30-2015, 09:53 PM)Nako Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:49 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:statement of opinion does not make it an attack.(04-30-2015, 09:48 PM)ArmachiA Wrote:(04-30-2015, 09:47 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: A prime example of the sort of passive aggressive personal attacks that these policies will not fix.
That's isn't the definition of passive aggressive. I'm being quite blunt. Â it seems to me your are looking for arguments
Ok so just a regularly aggressive personal attack then?
It looks like you are looking for arguments, over opinions and facts that were clarified. Whether or not this is the case is another matter, this is what it looks like.
Well to start, I was responding to this post:
(04-30-2015, 09:24 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote: Also, why do you feel the need to warn about the inflammatory content? Why is it necessary? Seriously I do not get that point at all. Just yolo post, edit it out if you realize that's not what you wanted to say upon reread. Like I just did.
However if someone makes a point that ends up generating a warning, and then they edit it later, even if it's because they changed their mind, suddenly that becomes an offence. I was never saying that someone making grammatical corrections is punishable.
Changing a post that says something offensive, mean, rulebreaking, into one that does not break the rules IS against the rules.
As far as I understand.
Please, mods, Freelance, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that it was editing a post once an argument had been started, in order to claim that you didnt say what they are claiming you said.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - McBeefâ„¢ - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 10:05 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote: You could simply go back, and put in a note saying *this opinion has been changed, please disregard this point* that would not generate a warning, as the flow has not been changed, nor has the point that generated the argument in the first place.
Please, mods, Freelance, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that it was editing a post once an argument had been started, in order to claim that you didnt say what they are claiming you said.
Just to reiterate, this is a thread about MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES. I don't think it's odd that I might have misconceptions or confusion about these new rules in it.
I get that you might assume the worst of me, but please, give me the benefit of the doubt and assume any misconceptions of mine are held in good faith.
That's the whole reason I'm asking these questions, after all.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Aduu Avagnar - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 10:08 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:That wasn't an attack on you, I am trying to explain them in the way that I understood them, and asked for clarification from the powers that be, in case that was the wrong understanding.(04-30-2015, 10:05 PM)Nako Wrote: You could simply go back, and put in a note saying *this opinion has been changed, please disregard this point* that would not generate a warning, as the flow has not been changed, nor has the point that generated the argument in the first place.
Please, mods, Freelance, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that it was editing a post once an argument had been started, in order to claim that you didnt say what they are claiming you said.
Just to reiterate, this is a thread about MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES. I don't think it's odd that I might have misconceptions or confusion about these new rules in it.
I get that you might assume the worst of me, but please, give me the benefit of the doubt and assume any misconceptions of mine are held in good faith.
That's the whole reason I'm asking these questions, after all.
I don't assume the worst of you, hell, there is roughly 2 people on this website that I assume the worst of, and thats due to prior encounters that went very, very, south.
though to my knowledge, the rules haven't been modified, only the policing of said rules.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - Kellach Woods - 04-30-2015
assuming the worst of other posters is how we got into this mess in the first place.
RE: Feedback for moderation policy post - FreelanceWizard - 04-30-2015
(04-30-2015, 10:08 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:(04-30-2015, 10:05 PM)Nakoli Chalahko Wrote: You could simply go back, and put in a note saying *this opinion has been changed, please disregard this point* that would not generate a warning, as the flow has not been changed, nor has the point that generated the argument in the first place.
Please, mods, Freelance, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that it was editing a post once an argument had been started, in order to claim that you didnt say what they are claiming you said.
Just to reiterate, this is a thread about MODIFICATIONS TO THE RULES. I don't think it's odd that I might have misconceptions or confusion about these new rules in it.
I get that you might assume the worst of me, but please, give me the benefit of the doubt and assume any misconceptions of mine are held in good faith.
That's the whole reason I'm asking these questions, after all.
With respect, the rules have not been modified. The policies just clarify and standardize how we're going to be enforcing them. It's always been against the rules to go mess up a thread using the edit function in bad faith -- and as Nako'li pointed out, the editing rule specifically deals with bad faith editing of posts, such as editing your post to delete something and then claiming you never said it, or just obliterating posts using the edit function as an end run around the mod-only delete function. Editing in good faith -- to clarify, to self-moderate, or even to just strikethrough an opinion you've changed -- is fine. We want people to do that.
I believe the reasoning section in the post talks about the above, but if it's not clear, I can certainly expound a bit more there.