Liberal police state - Printable Version

Hydaelyn Role-Players

Liberal police state - Printable Version

+- 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: Liberal police state (/showthread.php?tid=11677)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RE: Liberal police state - McBeefâ„¢ - 05-19-2015

(05-18-2015, 11:56 PM)Aya Wrote: Ridiculousness and silliness.Â Our moderators do the absolute best they can.Â They're wonderful people, volunteer people doing the best they can to carry out a set of expectations based upon some sense of what the community wants.Â It will vary from person-to-person, that simply can't be helped!

Give them a break.Â Just get along, sheesh, its not that complicated.

Yes, and if it can't be helped 10 times than I am banned permanently. Also "Just get along" implies the other side is interested in getting along. Or that they won't misinterpret your words.

RE: Liberal police state - Fox - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 12:10 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 11:56 PM)Aya Wrote: Ridiculousness and silliness.Â Our moderators do the absolute best they can.Â They're wonderful people, volunteer people doing the best they can to carry out a set of expectations based upon some sense of what the community wants.Â It will vary from person-to-person, that simply can't be helped!

Give them a break.Â Just get along, sheesh, its not that complicated.

Yes, and if it can't be helped 10 times than I am banned permanently. Also "Just get along" implies the other side is interested in getting along. Or that they won't misinterpret your words.

Incorrect.

Quote:At 10 warning points, you will be temporarily banned from the site for one week.

All consequences last for 1 week. However, once you have reached 10 warning points, you will receive a warning PM from the administrator as a final warning regarding your behavior. If you commit another violation at 10 warning points once your automatic temporary ban is removed or if you reach 10 warning points again, you will be banned from the site on an increasing scale:
2 weeks
1 month
3 months
Permanently
If you reach 20 warning points in a period of one year, you will be permanently banned from the site, no matter how many times you received consequences in the past.

It's 20.
http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread.php?tid=9032&pid=177399#pid177399

RE: Liberal police state - Mercer - 05-19-2015

So, just reflecting on how punishment and rules are built I came to the following conclusion.

As it currently stands, posting an image macro without context or says something that could offend someone is a 1 point warning out of 10. There are many things that can accumulate to that 10 points, but for the time being let's keep this focused to the rule at hand.

So that means a person would have to post 10 different image macros or 10 different offending comments to earn a ban. However, bans in the RP-C are temporary and work on a sliding scale. It would mean a week long break from the site, then the person is able to return.

From there they start at 0/10 points again. Moderators watch this person closely, but they have effectively wiped the slate clean of the person's record. No harm, no foul. If that person accumulates another 10 points, they instead receive a two week ban, unless the behavior was within a year then it's a permanent ban.

So a person would actually have to break the rules 20 times or more before any lasting punishment would be inflicted.

RE: Liberal police state - Zyrusticae - 05-19-2015

(05-18-2015, 11:49 PM)Oswin Wrote: I don't see what the problem with that is, unless it comes down to not wanting to self censor.

Evidently, there are also individuals who feel it is impossible to simply show basic respect to other posters as human beings when any level of disagreement is reached, which I find to be a very odd position to take.

Yes, some people might take offense easily and may consider even simple disagreements to be such, but those disagreements are not actionable. Only if it is clear from the perspective of multiple people can you be actioned for making a post that is clearly and obviously inflammatory (and remember, warnings and even bans can be appealed). There is a visible distinction between a simple disagreement and a post that is designed in such a way as to belittle the viewpoint or the viewpoint's holder, often in a crass fashion. Unless one of the mods goes off the rails, there will never be a point where you get warned just for disagreeing with someone. Never.

We have a problem on the RPC, and it does no one any favors to somehow pretend that being hands-off is the direction to take when that so clearly has not worked for it thus far. If you have a specific example of a moderator action that is questionable, clearly, as this thread has shown, you can take it up with the mods and have them reconsider the action and possibly the rule being enforced. Until that happens, speaking in such vagaries as "what if someone gets offended?!" doesn't help anything and only serves to paint your intentions in a suspicious light.

RE: Liberal police state - K'nahli - 05-19-2015

(05-18-2015, 11:36 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:

Show Content

Length

(05-18-2015, 11:24 PM)K Wrote:

Show Content

SpoilerIt might also be worth mentioning that any, one warning issued by a moderator can quite easily be an action which they had really wished to avoid entirely. It's not simply an issue of "Was this inappropriate/breaching the rules?". Nine times out of ten, posts that get warned are lingering in a grey area where one person might consider something that was said as a harsh but ultimately harmless voicing of opinion, while another might see it as something that is heedlessly careless and something to be made an example out of... to make a point of the matter that such inconsiderate behaviour, which repeatedly tends to toe the line of what's tolerable and what isn't, is simply not something that should be enabled.

Shouldn't the moderators, then, be erring on the side of believing the best about the person in question, instead of erring on the side of believing the worst about said poster?

Quote:If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

I really...really really...really...really think this is an unfortunate position to take. Â Yes, people who are blunt and direct in their posts can absolutely be misread, but I think it is a mistake to make the poster solely responsible for other people misreading what they're saying. Â People can read anything into anything, and your position is really open to abuse.

If I don't like someone, 9 times out of 10, I'm going to read even a relatively harmless post by that person as being something awful. Â If I like someone, short of them going off and spouting cuss words 3 ways from Sunday and calling people names, I'm probably not going to see anything they say as "bad." Â Because I like them, and I know they wouldn't mean it in a bad way.

Telling people they cannot be blunt or honest is just...it's a bad road to take. Â Saying that you're going to base infractions based on the tone you are reading into the post itself is incredibly subjective and will probably end up being really unfair to a lot of people.

If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but that's how it's coming across from what I saw in your post.

Personally, I do tend to be more forgiving of people drifting through the grey areas, even frequent offenders. The problem is that there are only so many times you can make excuses for someone and let them get away with a post or two before it comes time that they really need to learn that their behaviour is not okay and will not be acceptable. Moderators are supposed to remain neutral and unbiased in all matters. There is no real reason for them to believe the worst out of anyone unless experience has proven that they clearly do not mean well by their posts in general, so I don't think I am alone in initially not believing the worst of someone.

As for the response to my comment on blunt posts, I think you are reading far to deeply into it. My comment was largely directed towards those whom are blatantly careless with their posts, to the point that it's arguable if there could even have possibly been a positive interpretation to it. I commented on this in a little more detail further down but in short, personally I have no real issue with people who are blunt in their writing.

I never intended to nor would dare to tell anyone to not speak bluntly if it is in their nature to. So long as it's not aggressive then I am completely okay with it. For those who are wildly excessive with it, then it of course will inevitably come down to a judgement call based on one's interpretation of it. A thief will typically not admit to being a thief after all. For cases where any one of us are in doubt or feeling biased one way or another, we always ask for a second, third and fourth opinion. There is no fairer you can get than that for matters like these.

In any case, I apologise for being unclear. I just.... reallly wanted to go to bed right before I even checked the forum... however long ago that was by now, so I'll blame my lack of clarity on that if it's okay!

(05-18-2015, 11:31 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 11:24 PM)K Wrote: If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

And if you earn 10 of them you'll be permanently banned :c. So the only way to not get warnings is to be vague and indirect?

I'll admit that even I found the ten warning setup quite harsh given it's 365 day decay span but I understand the reasoning for which it was implemented. Perhaps it is something that can be put up for re-evaluation though honestly speaking, I do not like to overly sympathise with people whom consistently earn warnings to begin with.

Albeit, perhaps that is easier for me to say though as someone whom is probably more lenient than others.

Edit:
As was pointed out, it's actually 20. I think the initial suggestion was ten however, so I got confused.

(05-18-2015, 11:36 PM)Edda Wrote:

Show Content

Length

(05-18-2015, 11:31 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 11:24 PM)K Wrote: If you choose to exercise a blunt and very direct manner when you post, then be sure that you are prepared to be (mis)interpreted for bearing unnecessary animosity and potentially earn yourself avoidable infractions.

And if you earn 10 of them you'll be permanently banned :c. So the only way to not get warnings is to be vague and indirect?
I was wondering the same thing myself. Being blunt and using a dry sense of humor always has a time and a place, despite not always being a bad/aggressive thing. And yet, it seems like passive aggression is the preferred modus operandi here - at least that is how it seems to me. Perhaps it is because bluntness is much easier to detect, and easier to misconstrue as an attack.

It is as you said, it has as a time and a place. And in this topic, one that shouldn't even exist mind you, it is especially distasteful. The only reason that this topic wasn't closed at the first page was because Melkire was willing to overlook the rules for this singular instance to give people a chance to speak out about a certain issue.

I firmly stand in the defence of people whom don't favour typing "over-friendly" posts so I have no problem with blunt posts in general. The problem is that some people use their raw manner of speaking as an excuse for getting away with snide and rude comments that other people otherwise would not.

All that I meant by my post was that if you choose to be overly blunt and direct in your posts to the point that you're pushing the boundaries of tolerable content, then don't be surprised if you wind up with a warning or two, regardless of whether you meant it negatively or not. You don't have to be nice to people, just don't be rude to them.

RE: Liberal police state - Aya - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 12:10 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Yes, and if it can't be helped 10 times than I am banned permanently. Also "Just get along" implies the other side is interested in getting along. Or that they won't misinterpret your words.

Ten times is very generous (and I would anticipate should anyone actually reach that threshold, there would be a moderator review before anyone were actually banned... no one involved in the admin of this forum seems to be the type to want to ban anyone - even for a week!).Â There's no reason to be so harsh toward the moderators, or to start ridiculously entitled threads for the explicit purpose of attacking them for doing exactly what they were asked to do (obviously not in the manner the OP wishes, but that's exactly my point - disagreement over such a minor action as a warning should not be grounds for getting bent out of shape).Â Our moderators are volunteers, doing the best they can, and offering the community an outsized share of their time, energy, and effort.

Its like screaming at the guy who volunteered to referee your sporting event for free.

If you have a problem with moderation, take it to a polite PM.

RE: Liberal police state - ArmachiA - 05-19-2015

How about just rewording the rule to one word/one image/one gif replies? Honestly posting "lol" after someone's long explanation about something is JUST as dismissive and adding that there needs to be more than one word, one gif, or one image macro to your reply would probably solve a lot of problems.

Obviously, threads that state "Use gif for whatever reason." would be exempt if you decide to keep them around (Which I assume you are) so just make a note that those types of threads are exempt from the rules.

(just a suggestion, most forums I go to flat out ban image macros for being annoying but *shrug*)

RE: Liberal police state - K'nahli - 05-19-2015

(05-18-2015, 11:42 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 11:39 PM)Oswin Wrote: I'm personally shocked that there are ten strikes for behavior that people can take as rude or offensive. Past groups I've been a part of were three strikes.

It's not about being passive aggressive or bold, it's about speaking in ways that can be taken as offensive. There should be a decorum of respect when speaking to one another so that people in the community aren't being offended or driven out.

Okay, sure.

But what offends me may not offend you. Â And what offends you may not offend me.

How, precisely, are we to decide what is actually offensive and what is not?

For that matter, with some people, simple disagreement, no matter how politely stated, is offensive. Â Are we to bow and scrape to people who can't deal with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with them?

You can be civil, and yet still not be polite. Â In most forums I have been a part of, civility is the rule, not politeness. Â Civility is much, much easier to distinguish, and allows for people to get offended over things like disagreements without disorder breaking out.

Objectively, as a group.

It has been stated numerous times in the rules discussion thread(I believe so anyways), that disagreements and debates are highly encouraged if anything. No-one is expected to or asked to pat one another on the back for instances where there may be a strong clash of opinions.

Floating back to the point of deciding if GIFs are allowed based on the OPs decision... I honestly don't see that being something we'll be happy to allow. There was a unique case with Natalie's topic recently solely for the fact that she was trying to promote healthy conversation with a volatile topic and placed a number of rules to prevent the thread from being locked. The key word, of course, being "unique".

Promoting an attitude where anyone can decide on the rules within their own topic is not a road we want to go down, as valid as the idea on a singular level may seem.

RE: Liberal police state - McBeefâ„¢ - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 12:12 AM)Foxberry Wrote:
(05-19-2015, 12:10 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(05-18-2015, 11:56 PM)Aya Wrote: Ridiculousness and silliness.Â Our moderators do the absolute best they can.Â They're wonderful people, volunteer people doing the best they can to carry out a set of expectations based upon some sense of what the community wants.Â It will vary from person-to-person, that simply can't be helped!

Give them a break.Â Just get along, sheesh, its not that complicated.

Yes, and if it can't be helped 10 times than I am banned permanently. Also "Just get along" implies the other side is interested in getting along. Or that they won't misinterpret your words.

Incorrect.

Quote:At 10 warning points, you will be temporarily banned from the site for one week.

All consequences last for 1 week. However, once you have reached 10 warning points, you will receive a warning PM from the administrator as a final warning regarding your behavior. If you commit another violation at 10 warning points once your automatic temporary ban is removed or if you reach 10 warning points again, you will be banned from the site on an increasing scale:
2 weeks
1 month
3 months
Permanently
If you reach 20 warning points in a period of one year, you will be permanently banned from the site, no matter how many times you received consequences in the past.

It's 20.
http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread.php?tid=9032&pid=177399#pid177399

You get 2 points for every warning.

RE: Liberal police state - Fox - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 12:48 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: You get 2 points for every warning.

I miss-read what you meant then, I apologize.

RE: Liberal police state - McBeefâ„¢ - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 12:21 AM)Aya Wrote:
(05-19-2015, 12:10 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Yes, and if it can't be helped 10 times than I am banned permanently. Also "Just get along" implies the other side is interested in getting along. Or that they won't misinterpret your words.
Ten times is very generous (and I would anticipate should anyone actually reach that threshold, there would be a moderator review before anyone were actually banned... no one involved in the admin of this forum seems to be the type to want to ban anyone - even for a week!).Â There's no reason to be so harsh toward the moderators, or to start ridiculously entitled threads for the explicit purpose of attacking them for doing exactly what they were asked to do (obviously not in the manner the OP wishes, but that's exactly my point - disagreement over such a minor action as a warning should not be grounds for getting bent out of shape).Â Our moderators are volunteers, doing the best they can, and offering the community an outsized share of their time, energy, and effort.

Its like screaming at the guy who volunteered to referee your sporting event for free.

If you have a problem with moderation, take it to a polite PM.

I 100% disagree with this and I think you're willfully misinterpreting what is going on here.

I am not saying I have any issue with the moderatiors, I'm saying I have issues with the /rules/. It's not screaming at the Ref, it's wondering if the rules of the game should be changed.

/No one/ is saying they have issues with the moderators, they have issues with how the rules are stated and interpreted. This is the /same/ exact issue which keeps shutting down threads and it's very ironic it is cropping up here as well.

DISAGREEMENT IS NOT AN ATTACK

It is disagreement. Equating the two of them seems to a be a widespread phenomenon on this site. I very much deny your claim that there is anything wrong about disagreeing with the rules and thinking they should be changed.

RE: Liberal police state - Aya - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 12:55 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I 100% disagree with this and I think you're willfully misinterpreting what is going on here.

I 100% agree with your very original post in this thread, and think the title of the thread alone is an attack upon the Moderators and their intent rather than an attempt to broach discussion of the rules.Â

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the rules, and if that's what the OP intended he had routes of doing so without taking a shot at the moderators in the process.

RE: Liberal police state - McBeefâ„¢ - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 01:03 AM)Aya Wrote:
(05-19-2015, 12:55 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: I 100% disagree with this and I think you're willfully misinterpreting what is going on here.
I 100% agree with your very original post in this thread, and think the title of the thread alone is an attack upon the Moderators and their intent rather than an attempt to broach discussion of the rules.Â

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the rules, and if that's what the OP intended he had routes of doing so without taking a shot at the moderators in the process.

Yes, but I believe the discussion has moved beyond that. We've sort of already established that despite the thread's rocky start, it is becoming a genuine discussion of the issues.

Do you think it's wrong to disagree with the rules?

RE: Liberal police state - Aya - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 01:04 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Yes, but I believe the discussion has moved beyond that. We've sort of already established that despite the thread's rocky start, it is becoming a genuine discussion of the issues.

Do you think it's wrong to disagree with the rules?

No, but I disagree with your assessment of the discussion which seems quite heavily focused on the intent and judgement of the moderators over the course of the fifth and sixth pages of the thread.

RE: Liberal police state - McBeefâ„¢ - 05-19-2015

(05-19-2015, 01:07 AM)Aya Wrote:
(05-19-2015, 01:04 AM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: Yes, but I believe the discussion has moved beyond that. We've sort of already established that despite the thread's rocky start, it is becoming a genuine discussion of the issues.

Do you think it's wrong to disagree with the rules?
No, but I disagree with your assessment of the discussion which seems quite heavily focused on the intent and judgement of the moderators over the course of the fifth and sixth pages of the thread.

I think it is because the rules are quite written quite vaguely, and are very open to interpretation.

And interpretation that if you interpret differently compared to a mod, is 1/10 of the way towards a /permanent/ ban in a year.

So many people, including myself, are arguing for either more concise rules, or looser interpretations of them, which acknowledge the context of posts.

I prefer looser interpretations, which we had before, and everything seemed to work out ok.

Oh, and I also believe the permanent ban system should be on a case by case basis, instead of a set rule.