Feedback for moderation policy post

[111]

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.

[Aduu Avagnar]

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?

statement of opinion does not make it an attack.

 

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.

[Faye]

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.

[Kellach Woods]

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.

[111]

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?

statement of opinion does not make it an attack.

 

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:

 

 

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.

[Aduu Avagnar]

 

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?

statement of opinion does not make it an attack.

 

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:

 

 

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.

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.

[111]

 

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.

[Aduu Avagnar]

 

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.

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.

 

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.

[Kellach Woods]

assuming the worst of other posters is how we got into this mess in the first place.

[FreelanceWizard]

 

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.

[111]

assuming the worst of other posters is how we got into this mess in the first place.

 

I blame Square Enix, clearly they are responsible.

 

If only they'd remove housing, white mages, and dragoons from the game, then there would be no arguments, and nothing to be offended about!

 

Oh, wait... lalafell strength.

[111]

 

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.

 

Thank you for the clarification then.

 

However forgive me for feeling the rules are being changed. If the enforcement is being changed that means the rules are being changed.

 

As a crude example, several states outlaw sodomy, but is one thing to outlaw it, and another to actively try to police people for it.

 

There are a few rules I was either never aware of, or that were not actively upheld, so to me it feels like this is somewhat of a change.

[K'nahli]

"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.

 

No no, you'll always find a way to offend someone. There's no really avoiding that and there's no sure way to keep everyone from feeling targeted at one point or another. The key word in that example was the plural. Having said that, even if your point is entirely legitimate and a single person is getting agitated about it then please do at least consider paying closer attention to how you word your next posts and/or clarify that you are not trying to be difficult/rude.

 

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

 

It's subjective to context. Though you are right that it can very often be a legitimate comment that I am sure I have said plenty of times myself. I was simply referring to it in the circumstances where you are attempting to rudely discredit a poster or their topic and very possibly antagonise them.

 

Offended is not the same as offensive. I'm not sure if your being deliberately obtuse or what, but at this point it seems there isn't any reasoning with you.

 

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.

 

I think Natalie has legitimate concerns. Please give her the benefit of the doubt, I can see how certain things can be quite unclear.

 

Because editing posts is also punishable <_<

 

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.

 

No, you misunderstand. In fact, altering a post because people didn't like it's phrasing or were misinterpreting it would be highly encouraged. If people were reporting you for making a very vicious and rude post or two, however, and you denied having said anything of the sort, then you are covering your own trail to try and evade repercussions for stepping out of line. That's what is against the rules.

 

Think of it like creating an alternate account just to make a flame post.

[ArmachiA]

assuming the worst of other posters is how we got into this mess in the first place.

 

This is true, honestly. I think you kinda hit the nail on the whole issue right there.

[FreelanceWizard]

However forgive me for feeling the rules are being changed. If the enforcement is being changed that means the rules are being changed.

 

As a crude example, several states outlaw sodomy, but is one thing to outlaw it, and another to actively try to police people for it.

 

There are a few rules I was either never aware of, or that were not actively upheld, so to me it feels like this is somewhat of a change.

 

That's fair. I think there's actually a few things that people may not have been aware of, partially because of our frankly spotty enforcement in some regards. Part of the policies post was to help eliminate concerns in that regard and get everyone on the same page.

[ShoggMommy]

I imagine that the mods won't be 'searching' for it. Rather if they see something amiss or if they are alerted to it they will look at it and make the call from there. Does that sound right?

[Alothia]

That sounds about right, Foxberry. We don't have time to sit there and read every post in every thread every day. If something comes up in the mod alerts, we read it, read the context, try to get a feel for it.

 

Sometimes we don't do anything because sometimes it is people reading tone where there isn't any.

 

Sometimes we move things and ask people to watch what they're typing.  

 

That's still going to stay the same. It's just now we'll be more consistent, and the asking people to watch, may come with a warning. 

 

At least that's how my modbrain sees it.

[Bopdoot]

This seems safe and sound to me, though I'm a fairly new member.

 

My ONLY concern is how the point system labels the person accruing points.  People have bad days, people also can word things improperly.  We all know tone and intent can often be lost via text.  I guess I'm worried that people who have "points" are going to be looked at as upstarts even if what they did were minor infractions.

 

I'm assuming the mods are above this, but I felt like it warranted a note..As someone who suffered something like this before in this community.  I'll keep things anonymous and brief, but in a nutshell I made a joke in poor taste assuming people would know it was a joke based on context.  They didn't and got offended, even after I apologized.  And after more genuine apologies on my end I was still the victim of a witch hunt.  ONE MONTH LATER the "mod" of this situation told me that he viewed me as a drama starter and troublesome person over this one situation that (as I said before) I had genuinely apologized over.  It felt more like a "we just don't like you" than a "you were being offensive" situation...It was unfair and honestly bothered me, and I'm fairly hard to bother on the internet lol.

 

Anyways, my point is: as long as we're not vilifying people that have warnings and treating them differently or MODERATING them differently or in a biased way, everything should be golden.  Just because LouieSueSteven89 may have made a few poorly-mannered responses over the past couple months does not mean we should automatically assume he's an upstart or an "asshole" (to use the token phrase).

 

That is all! :cactuar:

[ChewableMorphine]

Oh hey this looks like a normal thread with a wholesome topic not about triggers or any other asinine things not related to roleplay on FFXIV's Balmung serv-- 

 

I threw money at a forum hoping to be able to discuss anything freely as so long as it falls under reasonable rules and guidelines and from what I read this is turning into the next Gamergate. Under what circumstances would posting in your signature another means to contact the user be wrong or even questionable. Especially when you can flat out put it in your profile. Triggers are just a means for sheltered folks to stay more sheltered and penned in their little safety box instead of accepting that there are things on the internet that they don't like. It's depressing and an unhealthy way with coping with what makes you uncomfortable. In addition, if there is a link to something like say, a five second audio clip related to the user's character (I'm obviously talking about my sig link), is that illegal? Do I need to tag it? Don't even try to disregard anything I say as argument bait either, because I'm actually pretty rustled by this and would want to toss in my five cents before I pop out to browse the less self-destructive threads on the forum. Serious shame for not going a week without some thread that will rustle some chump's tailfeathers. That's what the moderators should focus on. Get tighter on threads that erupt into things like this, because it just turns into a big shitstorm that causes users to quarrel among one another. 

 

But what do I know? I'm just a stupid teenager, right guys? :thumbsup:

[111]

Oh hey this looks like a normal thread with a wholesome topic not about triggers or any other asinine things not related to roleplay on FFXIV's Balmung serv-- 

 

I threw money at a forum hoping to be able to discuss anything freely as so long as it falls under reasonable rules and guidelines and from what I read this is turning into the next Gamergate. Under what circumstances would posting in your signature another means to contact the user be wrong or even questionable. Especially when you can flat out put it in your profile. Triggers are just a means for sheltered folks to stay more sheltered and penned in their little safety box instead of accepting that there are things on the internet that they don't like. It's depressing and an unhealthy way with coping with what makes you uncomfortable. In addition, if there is a link to something like say, a five second audio clip related to the user's character (I'm obviously talking about my sig link), is that illegal? Do I need to tag it? Don't even try to disregard anything I say as argument bait either, because I'm actually pretty rustled by this and would want to toss in my five cents before I pop out to browse the less self-destructive threads on the forum. Serious shame for not going a week without some thread that will rustle some chump's tailfeathers. That's what the moderators should focus on. Get tighter on threads that erupt into things like this, because it just turns into a big shitstorm that causes users to quarrel among one another. 

 

But what do I know? I'm just a stupid teenager, right guys? :thumbsup:

 

There are a lot of words here but I'm not sure what the argument you're trying to make with them is.

[Alothia]

We did say that links in sigs can't be for promotion...like trying to sell something on another site or get people to sign up for things with referrals. I'm pretty sure that that's somewhere in this thread.

 

Also...I don't...I can't...

 

I don't even know where to begin with responding to your post, so I'm not going to. I'll let someone else handle it.

[ShoggMommy]

We did say that links in sigs can't be for promotion...like trying to sell something on another site or get people to sign up for things with referrals. I'm pretty sure that that's somewhere in this thread.

 

Also...I don't...I can't...

 

I don't even know where to begin with responding to your post, so I'm not going to. I'll let someone else handle it.

 

Yeah, Freelance I think said on page one or two that artists' commissions are fine in sigs, but things like GoFundMe's, (I'm going out on a limb here with that) or "Buy my tickets to the next Nicks games" aren't allowed.

[Dravus]

Whilst it's true that some people are too sensitive it's also true that some people are far too quick to brand any attempt at stamping down on nasty behaviour as 'pandering to Tumblr' or whatever other similar phrase they can muster to similar effect.

[FreelanceWizard]

Yeah, Freelance I think said on page one or two that artists' commissions are fine in sigs, but things like GoFundMe's, (I'm going out on a limb here with that) or "Buy my tickets to the next Nicks games" aren't allowed.

 

Yep. Artist commissions are fine. Links to your character, to your FC, to another fan site, or what have you are fine. Even a GoFundMe or Kickstarter could be fine if you ask permission first (for your art project? Yes! For your medical bills? Yes! For your L33t Startup Project? Possibly!). It's just making clear what will happen to bots and spammers. We all know you can't just make a fake account to spam the forum. The policies on that stuff, in the name of transparency, specify that that's not okay.

 

At any rate, Flynt, your signature is fine. If you want to replace it with an embedded video, that's fine too. As I've said, there's no reason to get worked up about this. We're just clarifying things and trying to make things transparent. If you've not run into trouble before, you won't now.

[OttoVann]

Lol what the fuck