Feedback for moderation policy post

[Kage]

I clearly should have appealed that 100% warning.

 

Thank you to the moderator staff :3

 

I know you are under a lot of pressure but there are a few of us who do really appreciate it. I also want to thank Melkire for having been able to give voice to some of the concerns that were made a week-ish ago. I know, myself, had wondered about speaking about it and instead went in a different talk space to do it. I found that I wasn't the only one thinking the same thing. Then someone else who never even saw my post, liked or reblogged it posted something in a similar vein.

 

I await the examples, and thank you!

[C'kayah Polaali]

I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

 

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

 

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

 

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

 

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

 

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

[Khadan]

I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

 

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

 

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

 

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

 

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

 

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

 

Ironically I think what she's saying is dissension in the sense that disagreeing with people and the in general 'popular opinion'. I don't think I've ever seen Natalie come off and call someone a jackass directly, for example. What she, and to the same extent I, are likely worried about is if disagreeing with the hive mind and holding an opinion that is for some reason 'unpopular', is going to be used as leverage to oust people from the 'community' because of a status quo being maintained in the hugbox. 

 

That, I feel, is a very relevant concern. I.e. the forums are either for discussion or they are for agreeing with what everyone says all the time no matter what because disagreement (or dissenting opinions, if you will) hurt people's feels or some such nonsense.

 

She's of course free to correct me if I'm wrong. For my part I'd much rather have a community with open discussion, debate, and discourse is not only common but encouraged while people who act unreasonably and go out of their way to shut discussions down for no other reason than 'just because' are the ones slapped down. As I learned as a youngin' in critical thinking circles "No topic is off limits to discussion; always exercise your right to be skeptical" This, as you can imagine, really rubs some people raw as it has in the past. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop being that way, but knowing if that's going to be a bannable offense is certainly a major point of concern. 

 

No one is advocating for "Why can't I be a dick to people and get away with it!". ;-P

[111]

I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

 

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

 

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

 

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

 

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

 

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

 

I understand your viewpoint, and I don't agree with it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

 

Is that insult? Or just a disagreement? It could be taken either way, depending on how the reader views it.

 

I personally would take a statement like that as just disagreement.

 

Anyway it doesn't matter as I'm board with the rules now, I'm sure I'll break them from time to time still, but I don't forsee myself doing it often enough to be permabanned.

[ShoggMommy]

 

Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

That's not an insult. But I'm coming from this as an artist. To critique something is not the same as insulting a person. It's say what you want about the work but don't insult the person.

 

Ie; saying "that is stupid because..." is different than "you are stupid."

[Edda]

I fully agree with Natalie. Especially on a site filled with RPers that tend to be hugboxing carebears, even polite dissension can be interpreted as an insult by the highly sensitive. While I do not disagree with the rules, I have hope that our moderators will not hastily perceive harsh disagreement as intentional nastiness.

[Aduu Avagnar]

I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

 

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

 

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

 

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

 

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

 

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

 

I understand your viewpoint, and I don't agree with it. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

 

Is that insult? Or just a disagreement? It could be taken either way, depending on how the reader views it.

 

I personally would take a statement like that as just disagreement.

 

Anyway it doesn't matter as I'm board with the rules now, I'm sure I'll break them from time to time still, but I don't forsee myself doing it often enough to be permabanned.

That is a critique, not an insult. You targeted what they were positing, not they themselves. and it was backed up by x y and z.

 

now if you had said, that is stupid because x y and z and people who think otherwise are stupid. Thats when it becomes an insult

[Aduu Avagnar]

I fully agree with Natalie. Especially on a site filled with RPers that tend to be hugboxing carebears, even polite dissension can be interpreted as an insult by the highly sensitive. While I do not disagree with the rules, I have hope that our moderators will not hastily perceive harsh disagreement as intentional nastiness.

These rules have always been here.

 

From the moment you signed up to the site, the rules were there. You agreed to abide by them by registering.

[FreelanceWizard]

 

Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

That's not an insult. But I'm coming from this as an artist. To critique something is not the same as insulting a person. It's say what you want about the work but don't insult the person.

 

Ie; saying "that is stupid because..." is different than "you are stupid."

 

This is actually a great example of something that would not, I repeat not, get a warning. You can call an argument stupid and explain why you think so. I'm not a fan of that phrasing, but it doesn't rise to the level of being actionable. What you can't do is say that it's stupid because the person making it role-plays something you don't like or because the poster is stupid.

 

With that said, let's look at another example. Calling a group of people "hugboxing carebears" as a means of dismissing an argument or concern is, in fact, the sort of thing that will get a warning. That's obviously intended to provoke, it doesn't add to the discourse, and it doesn't support any point. You could easily make the exact same point without doing that.

[K'nahli]

If you're being blunt and perhaps inconsiderate then you likely won't get an official warning.

If you're being rude and perhaps offensive then you likely will get an official warning.

 

If you're being blunt and inconsiderate on a regular basis, then you run the risk of earning an official warning on the basis that you're being consistently antagonistic and seemingly not learning when to back off from certain topic(s).

 

 

We all understand that some people are more lenient toward being brash and don't like sugar-coating their words. So long as it's not outright rude then you almost certainly won't be punished for such behaviour. If you fail to tone it down a bit or back out of a topic when it's clear that you're beginning to offend people rather than simply disagree with them, then you are venturing into punishable territory.

[ArmachiA]

I think dissension is healthy for a community, and I don't like permanent penalties placed on users who dissent.

 

That's just the long and short of it. Communities without some level of conflict end up stagnating into circlejerks and hugboxes. The trick is managing that conflict, to keep it from spiraling out of control, but also allow members to feel like they are not being censored.

 

Nat, did you know that people have managed to have discussions - complete with dissension and conflict - without falling back on petty insults and the like? There are examples stretching waaaaaaaay back in history!

 

I understand what you're trying to do. You're worried that you'll fail to consider the words you write, and you'll get shut out of this community. But you're going about it all wrong. Dissension is good. On that you and I (and pretty much everyone here) can agree. Conflict is fine. This discussion we're having right now? It's got dissension and conflict. Notice how neither of us has had to resort to insulting one another?

 

This is not a black and white issue, where there is one side that is filled with free-spirited people tossing around insults in the spirit of free speech and another side filled with 1984-esque thought police. Trying to cast it as such is simply ludicrous.

 

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

 

As someone who REGULARLY dissents in this community and tries her damnedest not to be rude about it. Agreed.

 

(And, for the record, I've only been warned once in the 3 ish years - 2 don't count I wasn't active - I've been here. You CAN dissent and not be mean about it. I'm pretty sure I have a reputation for being quite argumentative.)

[111]

 

Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

That's not an insult. But I'm coming from this as an artist. To critique something is not the same as insulting a person. It's say what you want about the work but don't insult the person.

 

Ie; saying "that is stupid because..." is different than "you are stupid."

 

This is actually a great example of something that would not, I repeat not, get a warning. You can call an argument stupid and explain why you think so. I'm not a fan of that phrasing, but it doesn't rise to the level of being actionable. What you can't do is say that it's stupid because the person making it role-plays something you don't like or because the poster is stupid.

 

With that said, let's look at another example. Calling a group of people "hugboxing carebears" as a means of dismissing an argument or concern is, in fact, the sort of thing that will get a warning. That's obviously intended to provoke, it doesn't add to the discourse, and it doesn't support any point. You could easily make the exact same point without doing that.

 

What if it is true though.

 

To Clarify, what if you do think a group of people is behaving a certain way?

 

Edit: Blagh ignore me, I'm just gonna keep on keepin on.

[Kage]

I'm very sure most people would consider me combative and argumentative.

 

I've... I think only gotten warnings from my edit-post-thread time. Admittedly it was the whole she-bang, but it was my one time. I think.

 

Having a dissenting opinion does not mean "Oh I don't like this topic. It's stupid and I'm going to post a bunch of LOLmemes to derail it."

[Dravus]

 

Again, insults are in the eye of the one who reads them. If I say, "This is a stupid point because x y and Z"

That's not an insult. But I'm coming from this as an artist. To critique something is not the same as insulting a person. It's say what you want about the work but don't insult the person.

 

Ie; saying "that is stupid because..." is different than "you are stupid."

 

This is actually a great example of something that would not, I repeat not, get a warning. You can call an argument stupid and explain why you think so. I'm not a fan of that phrasing, but it doesn't rise to the level of being actionable. What you can't do is say that it's stupid because the person making it role-plays something you don't like or because the poster is stupid.

 

With that said, let's look at another example. Calling a group of people "hugboxing carebears" as a means of dismissing an argument or concern is, in fact, the sort of thing that will get a warning. That's obviously intended to provoke, it doesn't add to the discourse, and it doesn't support any point. You could easily make the exact same point without doing that.

 

What if it is true though.

 

There's ways to imply the same thing in a less...aggressive/controversial manner. It's not a term I like myself - and I agree with the idea that a lot of role-players are far too sensitive.

 

If I feel the need to, however, I say just that: that I feel they're too sensitive.

[Khadan]

If you're being blunt and perhaps inconsiderate then you likely won't get an official warning.

If you're being rude and perhaps offensive then you likely will get an official warning.

 

If you're being blunt and inconsiderate on a regular basis, then you run the risk of earning an official warning on the basis that you're being consistently antagonistic and seemingly not learning when to back off from certain topic(s).

 

 

We all understand that some people are more lenient toward being brash and don't like sugar-coating their words. So long as it's not outright rude then you almost certainly won't be punished for such behaviour. If you fail to tone it down a bit or back out of a topic when it's clear that you're beginning to offend people rather than simply disagree with them, then you are venturing into punishable territory.

 

I underlined a few things that I would find concerning because it seems that this is where there might be a disconnect due to subjective interpretation. I've been accused of rudeness before when I speak in as neutral a 'tone' as I am, now. The problem that this line of reasoning perpetuates is that it becomes an issue of tone policing and that never ends well.

 

If you mean like blatant rudeness like calling people morons for disagreeing with you or making long-winded statements about their personality based on your own claims then yeah, I think that's pretty rude and should earn a slap on the chops. As Natalie and FreelanceWizard state, though, calling someone's argument stupid isn't an insult, it's kind of a tactless way to put it, yes, but it's not an insult. Ad Hominem or 'To the man' is when you attack the person rather than the argument or statement. I'm all for tackling arguments while tackling people, which does happen on occasion, isn't usually all that beneficial. 

 

I would put out that there's one caveat to that: pointing out someone's being a demonstrable jerk over a patterned series of events isn't necessarily an insult, either, though as I've learned recently that does seem to fall under the purview of the admins to handle that.

[Faye]

Are people seriously concerned that "don't be rude frequently" is a rule?

[Aysun]

Are people seriously concerned that "don't be rude frequently" is a rule?

 

The people who are concerned are the ones who violate that rule frequently, probably.

[cuideag]

I fully agree with Natalie. Especially on a site filled with RPers that tend to be hugboxing carebears, even polite dissension can be interpreted as an insult by the highly sensitive. While I do not disagree with the rules, I have hope that our moderators will not hastily perceive harsh disagreement as intentional nastiness.

These rules have always been here.

 

From the moment you signed up to the site, the rules were there. You agreed to abide by them by registering.

 

I think what Edda might be trying to say is that there are people who aren't actually breaking rules but will be punished/reported anyway by because of people who are looking for reasons to be offended.

 

snip snip

 

With that said, let's look at another example. Calling a group of people "hugboxing carebears" as a means of dismissing an argument or concern is, in fact, the sort of thing that will get a warning. That's obviously intended to provoke, it doesn't add to the discourse, and it doesn't support any point. You could easily make the exact same point without doing that.

 

I wonder if it's good to dismiss a concern because it wasn't worded nicely enough? Kind of seems like it is proving a point, but perhaps not the one you might be pushing for, friend.

 

The problem that this line of reasoning perpetuates is that it becomes an issue of tone policing and that never ends well.

 

DING DING DING

[Nebbs]

I would post a gif of munching popcorn but I think that would be taking the piss too much.

 

It's a forum it has rules and moderators to manage the smooth operation. I don't really get all this hair splitting for the sake of hair splitting.

 

It seems the rules have been clarified to add some consistency for moderators, not much more. No one should be surprised by the moderation that will follow.

 

Just apply Wheaton's Law and you should be okay

[ArmachiA]

Are people seriously concerned that "don't be rude frequently" is a rule?

 

The people who are concerned are the ones who violate that rule frequently, probably.

 

ding ding ding.

 

Again, I'll say it. I'm not really "nice" here. I'm blunt and word my arguments neutrally and speak freely. Usually my arguments are met with meme's and people being troll-y, like they are trying to shut down the argument because they don't agree with it. You don't agree with it, tell me you don't, don't be a jerk about it (Even worse don't be condescending which adds nothing to the convo beyond "Look how cool and detached I am."). This isn't rocket science.

[FreelanceWizard]

Kayllen, you can, of course, appeal a warning to me if you don't feel it was properly given. Being tactless won't get someone a warning unless it's blatant rudeness. Telling someone they're a jerk publicly falls under not making posts to call specific people out -- call someone a jerk if you must, but do it over PM.

 

Natalie, you and I both know there's lots of ways to word a post and still get the same point across. Graeham showed one example; you can take one subordinate clause out of the post I used as an example and be fine.

 

cuideag, I found that post to be a teachable moment about the exact sort of phrasing that we've let pass in the past but actually hasn't been okay and won't be okay now. If it came off as dismissive of the concern, I apologize, but I think I've been over the "reports do not instantly become warnings, and the mods aren't going to suddenly start blasting people with warnings for not being nice" several times now. I don't know how many other ways I can say it.

 

All, what it ultimately comes down to is whether you trust the mods and me to apply the rules and policies reasonably and fairly. If you don't, so be it, but then I must ask -- why are you still here?

[K'nahli]

I underlined a few things that I would find concerning because it seems that this is where there might be a disconnect due to subjective interpretation. I've been accused of rudeness before when I speak in as neutral a 'tone' as I am, now. The problem that this line of reasoning perpetuates is that it becomes an issue of tone policing and that never ends well.

 

If you mean like blatant rudeness like calling people morons for disagreeing with you or making long-winded statements about their personality based on your own claims then yeah, I think that's pretty rude and should earn a slap on the chops. As Natalie and FreelanceWizard state, though, calling someone's argument stupid isn't an insult, it's kind of a tactless way to put it, yes, but it's not an insult. Ad Hominem or 'To the man' is when you attack the person rather than the argument or statement. I'm all for tackling arguments while tackling people, which does happen on occasion, isn't usually all that beneficial. 

 

I would put out that there's one caveat to that: pointing out someone's being a demonstrable jerk over a patterned series of events isn't necessarily an insult, either, though as I've learned recently that does seem to fall under the purview of the admins to handle that.

 

I do not understand what you are getting at here. Are you implying that there is actually a method of tackling unfavourable posts/attitudes without being subjective in some form or another?

Moderators have to try and maintain a neutral ground and make the decisions on what is tolerable and what is not. These kinds of thing will never be entirely objective because everyone has a different version of what that means.

 

Calling someone's argument stupid or pointless would be considered blunt and inconsiderate(technically it's also a bit rude, yes, but I think people can get past that so long as it's not recurring).

 

Calling someone stupid and annoying for having a certain opinion is rude and encourages animosity. For obvious reasons, that is not tolerable and does not help the community in any shape or form.

 

 

I'm sorry if my previous post was unclear - as am I should this one be just as bad.

[111]

"If you fail to tone it down a bit or back out of a topic when it's clear that you're beginning to offend people rather than simply disagree with them, then you are venturing into punishable territory."

 

What if you offend someone simply by disagreeing with them?

 

I just think it's ok if someone reads a post and goes 'This makes me mad'.

 

I don't think people should get warnings for not always wording things in the most proscribed way. I think the focus should be on posting that impacts the discussion or is needlessly targeting an individual. For example spamming, personal attacks that have nothing to do with the situation at hand, posting non related things to stop a conversation.

 

If something is offensive to someone, but is appropriate to the conversation at hand, and doesn't personally attack another poster. My reaction would be "So what?"

 

As others have said, policing offence is just a road we shouldn't go down.

[PerkPrincess]

All' date=' what it ultimately comes down to is whether you trust the mods and me to apply the rules and policies reasonably and fairly. If you don't, so be it, but then I must ask -- why are you still here?[/quote']

 

Sadly because this happens to be the one centralized RP community that FFXIV has at the moment. There's Tumblrs for sure, but there's no real way to organize things.

[Edvyn]

if something is pointless why is it bad to call that thing pointless?

 

would it be considered reasonable to say "this has no point"? because that's what pointless means anyway

 

what about asking "where is your point"? or "i don't see a point"? this also pretty much means the same thing

 

pointless shouldn't be considered a rude word, even if used frequently - it's a valid descriptor in many cases, and people who are offended by being told their post was pointless should probably get a clearer point