RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

K'nahli · **05-19-2015, 12:21 AM**

(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.

Liberal police state

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes