PDA

View Full Version : If you going to moderate Part 2



Pages : [1] 2

Redleg
05-16-2004, 18:05
Still waiting for a response. It seems that Tosa closed the thread and stopped the conservation on an issue I deem to be critical to the fairness and treatment of all posters in this forum.

Is it taking time to respond because of the serious nature of my complaint. Or is it just being ignored and hope that it will go away.

CBR
05-16-2004, 18:18
Or because of weekend, family and good weather?

I have no doubt that Tosa will respond but Org is not a 24/7 service so please be patient.


CBR

Redleg
05-16-2004, 19:08
Patientience is not my strong point. But then again I also see the same type of behavior and moderators not responding to a PM and another message about posting styles coming up - when another poster in the tavern seems to be allowed to continue with their posting style.

Its about equal treatment.

Voigtkampf
05-16-2004, 19:41
Redleg,

you may PM me if you have anything to object, or just shout it out in the open. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there will be equal treatment for everyone. The same goes for everyone else. Show me a thread where you have been mistreated and if someone did you wrong, we'll straighten that out.

Redleg
05-16-2004, 20:14
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ May 16 2004,13:41)]Redleg,

you may PM me if you have anything to object, or just shout it out in the open. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there will be equal treatment for everyone. The same goes for everyone else. Show me a thread where you have been mistreated and if someone did you wrong, we'll straighten that out.
Its almost in every thread - the abuse and offensive languaged used torward the conservatives in the traven is very easy to see. They cloud it behind sacrism and emotioncons and say its just criticism. I can remember the number of times I have been called nazi, facist, racist, imperialist, and other such terms in politicial threads by so called liberials.

And when a couple of us started to responded with just as harsh language and aggressive terms we get cautioned and told to stop - where the liberial posters are allowed to continue to post in the exaxt same way.

Fair is fair - if you are going to allowed one side of the conservation to be aggressive - you have to allow the other side. If you are going to caution one side you have to caution the other.

The post I placed in the previous thread that was done by Papewaio is done all the time by so called liberials and critics. And absolutely nothing is done, and it has been going on for over 2 years now. Where if a conservative or even an American gets just as aggressive we always get cautioned.

Its a critical issue that must be address before what you have is just one group of individuals posting continued offensive posts and the other group just leaving the forum. IT will quickly degenrate into what I have seen in other forums. For the most part the moderators have attempted to do a decent job - and I don't mind being cautioned publicily or privatily by the moderators. But they must treat the other side in the exact same way.

Redleg
05-16-2004, 20:24
Quote[/b] ] A. Saturnus
You have a point Redleg, I should have said something when Pape wrote that.
However, it´s not that I have acted differently because what Pape said suits my views. In fact I find what he wrote silly and he would probably agree with me. It is probably true that I react more sensitive to racism than to anti-Americanism. But I don´t find blatant anti-Americanism more acceptable.
The main reason why I didn´t respond to Pape´s post is that Pape has an outstanding reputation. He has a habit of taking some points absurdly far. But when he does so it´s clear that he´s not entirely serious. Everyone who visits the Tavern only partly regularly knows that Pape is far from being anti-American. So I assumed that no one would take what he said serious. Maybe I was wrong doing so. But it´s so that if anyone had addressed Pape about what he wrote, he would never have let it come to something like a flame war. He would have explained what he meant very civilly.
You on the other hand are a usual suspect for a flame war participant. Often enough you have admitted that what you do was wrong, but you keep on doing it. You have shown that you are not unlikely to cause problems. Therefore it´s not surprising that moderators are more alert about what you post than what less troublesome members post.

I admit that I have acted unfair when I did not caution Pape, but from a view point of someone who has to take care that the Tavern doesn´t go out of hand, I think it´s somewhat understandable.




We have had the conversation before. Why do I get involved in arguements? Why do they get heated?

Now since you seem to be clouding your judgement because of the past - I will point it out to you. Everytime but twice in the last 3 years - the heated arguements have started because of something a liberial poster has stated that was openly offensive and no action taken by the moderators concerning that individual.

You want me to list the number of time someone has directly called me a racist, nazi, facist, and a few ohers.

You are allowing aggressive anti-american hate filled posting - but are only correcting and cautioning those that get very personal or attack anything else other then americans. THis is not the first time we have discussed this issue.

I made my point - I did it on purpose after I saw Papewaio's post and nothing done by the moderators. That Sanin set himself up with a offensive remark and left it opened ended and refused to answer the question and gave it a flippant dismissial only goes farther in proving the point. You want the forum to be respectful and peaceful on every subject other then when it concerns America, Americans, and a few other things I have seen.

The point remains if you are going to moderate - moderate. Everything handled in the same matter. It doesn't matter about the past of the individual - it matters about the context of the post that you are reviewing. Frankly several of Papewaio's post in the past are offensive and you now have explained why you let him get away with it.

I can point out most of the problems I have had with members on this forum. If you wish - I remember fairily well the names of those who consistantly use insulting terms in their posts. Or cloud insults behind sarcism and emotioncons.


And as for reputations - you have even said I normally give great posts. So I hope you are now beginning to see my point. You must as a moderator evalute each individual post on its content - not on the reputation of the poster. To let offensive posts get a walk from one individual - but correct others for posting the same way is not being a moderator. Its something else entirily.

Gregoshi
05-17-2004, 05:51
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 16 2004,15:24)]
Quote[/b] ]I made my point - I did it on purpose after I saw Papewaio's post and nothing done by the moderators.
That is exactly what you shouldn't do. Many times the retaliation is worse than the original offense. A retaliation also takes some/all of the focus off the offender and on to you. By taking justice into your own hands you become part of the problem, which is something you don't want if you are expecting us to deal with the offender. Help us by not making things worse.

What you should do is contact (PM) the moderator team for the forum where the offense took place. If you contact only one moderator, you run the risk of catching that person when they may be unavailable for a day or two. Simply state the topic, the patron, what they said that was objectionable and why. Don't rant and rave as that takes focus off the offense and on to your emotional state. That is not to say you can't show emotion toward the offense, just avoid expletive laden comments directed toward the offender or situation. PMing us helps us in two ways. First, we may have missed the post in question. Second, we may not have been aware of how offensive the post actually is.

Example: before the second Gulf War last year, when France was leading the effort to oppose a US-led invasion, we started to see many French/weak military/surrender jokes and comments in our forum. Such jokes/comments were so common that our French patrons were becoming highly agitated by the endless barrage. Some started flaming back in response and got themselves in trouble (see "what you shouldn't do" above). At first we felt they were being overly sensitive to harmless jokes. It wasn't until things came to a head and one French patron pointed out the high volume of French bashing that was taking place, that we realized that even the "harmless jokes" had ceased being harmless and had turned hurtful. After that we became much more sensitive to French bashing and worked to suppress these jokes and "just kidding" comments. So, contrary to what some might think, we can learn/adapt.

The premise of this topic is "if you are going to moderate, then moderate." The corollary is "help us moderate and let us moderate." Work with us and together we can make these forums a better place.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2004, 06:16
We shouldn't have to point it out as it is so consistent a blind man could see it. We point things out that are extremely offensive and get told no its not.

Papewaio
05-17-2004, 09:12
Redleg unless you are the Chief of Staff then the rant was not aimed at yourself.

The rant was a hyperbolic statement that took the trajectory of the current situation and hyped it up. Essentially I took the directoin and added massive amounts of boost to it... this distorts the situation but highlights the dangers. It was a vector that I have multiplied out.

I apologise to you if you think I am calling yourself a (neo)-Nazi or other disparaging slur.

solypsist
05-17-2004, 09:13
Keep in mind most of the Org staff are based in Europe.

for time keeping reasons, not as an explanation for their posting habits http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Redleg
05-17-2004, 13:33
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ May 17 2004,03:12)]Redleg unless you are the Chief of Staff then the rant was not aimed at yourself.

The rant was a hyperbolic statement that took the trajectory of the current situation and hyped it up. Essentially I took the directoin and added massive amounts of boost to it... this distorts the situation but highlights the dangers. It was a vector that I have multiplied out.

I apologise to you if you think I am calling yourself a (neo)-Nazi or other disparaging slur.
And its done consistently by other posters and when I or another conservatives do the same thing - we get cautioned.

We bring it up over and over again and the same basic unequal standard is always applied.

Yep Gregoshi - you are correct I should of PM the moderators, but been there done that and the same behavior is still allowed from many of the same posters.

Redleg
05-17-2004, 14:04
One of the things I am talking about is right here

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=18299 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=6;t=18299)

Offensive statements made and letting people get away with it, just because its another topic on religion.

that thread should of been closed immediately after the initial inflammatory comment. Because that is exactly what that subject always degresses to, someone getting on there making offensive anti-relgious statements without censor.

Its fine to be anti-something. But once you put offensive language in it, and the intitial offensive language was the term "f*cking." That can be taken only one way by many of us, as nothing other then an offensive comment.

Voigtkampf
05-17-2004, 14:14
Redleg, if that should happen again, someone calls you Nazi or fascist or similarly attacks you openly, PM all the moderators again, and I assure you that it will not be ignored. The same goes for everyone else here.

I don't care about personal views of other people. I have my own and I keep them my own. All I care about is decent behavior here and the attempt to remain civilized. Someone is pro/contra American invasion of Iraq? I couldn't care less about their opinion; all I care is about the fact that these forums remain peaceful and dignified and no cursing or foul language or inappropriate attacks will be allowed.

Gregoshi is right; honestly, when isn't he? Don't take justice in your own hands, because it doesn't work on the forums. In a bar, only the biggest and dumbest (mainly both) guys ever went after me, and I always thaught them a lesson they didn't forget anytime soon, my last blue eye I got was when I was thirteen, and only beating I got ever since would be the one when I was sparing with my sensei. But online, everyone is a hero in a negative sense of the word and tries to annoy you, hiding behind their avatars and smileys. Don't take that bait. On one occasion I logged on to a familiar CoD clan server, and found myself fighting three opponents (autobalance wasn't on back then). I easily kept winning match after match, but eventually they kept sticking together and I got shot down. Immediately one of them went ranting. "What'ya gonna do now, you *****?" Instead of cursing back, I have instantly made a screenshot, mailed it to the Administrator and guess what? THE BAN.


Ergo, everyone should know that the best way is to remain cool and never start flaming. I remember how new patrons used to say how cool this place is, no flame-wars et cetera? Well, I'd like to see such posts again.

Voigtkampf
05-17-2004, 14:24
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 17 2004,08:04)]One of the things I am talking about is right here

http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=18299 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=6;t=18299)

Offensive statements made and letting people get away with it, just because its another topic on religion.

that thread should of been closed immediately after the initial inflammatory comment. Because that is exactly what that subject always degresses to, someone getting on there making offensive anti-relgious statements without censor.

Its fine to be anti-something. But once you put offensive language in it, and the intitial offensive language was the term "f*cking." That can be taken only one way by many of us, as nothing other then an offensive comment.
I saw it and I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't. I'll PM the rest of the staff immediately and we'll see about this one. I promise, it won't go away just like that. Two fellas I would like to have a word with, oh, yes, sir.

Redleg
05-17-2004, 14:26
I just might - but I still expect action to be done considering my complaint.

If the moderators are going to continue to allow one side to get away with comments without censor, sanction, or public caution then the problem will continue. Just look at what happened in the link I posted. Same old bad behavior is allowed to happen.

That is the issue. Lets start seeing some balance in the traven and how the moderators deal with the offensive posts. Lets actually see the offensive comments disappear.

Then just maybe I can change my posting style back to a less aggressive and more civil tone. I started out that way several years ago - and have found myself getting more and more aggressive in my posts because of exactly the reasons I have mentioned.

But until then at least I am man enough to accept my censor, caution, and sanctions when I violate the terms of agreement of the forum. I just expect the moderators to have the same standards throughout - not one for one group and another for another group.

Dhepee
05-17-2004, 14:35
Just to reinforce what Voigtkampf said, if you see any name calling, anything that you deem offensive, contact all of the moderators. We all have different schedules. It is impossible to predict when one of us will be in the Tavern, for instance my home life keeps me out on the weekends but I am present for about 8 hours everyday during the week. A PM to all of us guarantees that at least one of us will see the issue and take care of it as soon as possible.

If something offends you do not retaliate, two wrongs don't make a right, PM all of the Tavern Moderators and we will take care of it.

I try to be as impartial as possible. I will not moderate based on my own opinions but on the content of the post. If someone makes an offensive statement I won't cut them any slack regardless of their opinions or whether I agree with other posts that they have made. An offensive post is an offensive post, bottom line, and we all try to take care of posts in a fair evenhanded manner.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-17-2004, 16:24
Quote[/b] ]Quote
Just a f*cking lunatic with some historical significance.


Certainly not the most inflammatory statement, but still, DemonArchangel, you could be a bit more respectful to the feelings of other members.

I think this shows our point. Certainky the moderator is aware of the complaint and gives the usual reply.

I then reiterate my complaint

Quote[/b] ]Quote
Certainly not the most inflammatory statement


Well it is to me and remember flame is in the eye of the beholder, I cannot think of any thing much worse I would rather he call me that. Then it wouldn't be as bad. Remember faith is a very personal thing. If I said Mohamed was a war mongering , child molesting lunatic I would consider that as bad and would probably and deservedly caught hell for it.

What happens? We get this


Quote[/b] ]muhammad was a war mongering, child molesting lunatic and a greedy one to boot, but of course, so were many, many, many,many,many other rulers

And this

Quote[/b] ]... jesus was a mentaly deranged idiot... if you ask me that is...

And not a word from the moderaters

Voigtkampf
05-17-2004, 17:20
Gawain, the topic is closed and the issue is being examined as we speak. Too bad I didn't see those posts earlier, but only after Redleg has brought them to my attention. It won't go quietly into the night.

Teutonic Knight
05-17-2004, 17:43
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ May 17 2004,12:20)]Gawain, the topic is closed and the issue is being examined as we speak. Too bad I didn't see those posts earlier, but only after Redleg has brought them to my attention. It won't go quietly into the night.
I think the question here, Voigtkampf, is why was it closed? To end the discussion? Or was it to protect the perpetrators from flaming? If it was merely the former, then why did the offenders not recieve a reprimand? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-speechless.gif


Too many coincidences for us to just brush this off...

Voigtkampf
05-17-2004, 17:52
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ May 17 2004,11:43)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ May 17 2004,12:20)]Gawain, the topic is closed and the issue is being examined as we speak. Too bad I didn't see those posts earlier, but only after Redleg has brought them to my attention. It won't go quietly into the night.
I think the question here, Voigtkampf, is why was it closed? To end the discussion? Or was it to protect the perpetrators from flaming? If it was merely the former, then why did the offenders not recieve a reprimand? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-speechless.gif


Too many coincidences for us to just brush this off...

Quote[/b] ]

DemonArchangel
btw JESUS WAS NOT THE SON OF GOD
Just a f*cking lunatic with some historical significance.



Lazul
... jesus was a mentaly deranged idiot... if you ask me that is...


This is why I closed the thread, TK. It should be obvious. I haven't heard anything from other moderators yet, but we are not 24/7 at the monitors, watching the Tavern. When we have counseled and decided what to do next, we will let you all know.

Teutonic Knight
05-17-2004, 18:41
I wasn't bashing you Voigtkampf, I was justing putting a question out into the open...

Gregoshi
05-17-2004, 19:19
I believe Tosa indicated he was going to be away for some family time. I've not seen him for a couple of days since that post.

Tosa will not let it drop as these types of issues are negatively affecting the forums. He implemented the Frontroom and supported the "club" threads recently in hopes these would ease some of the tensions, so I don't see him ignoring the issue at hand.

In the meantime, take a deep breath (everybody) and ponder what you can do to help alleviate the situation. I'm doing so too.

A.Saturnus
05-17-2004, 19:21
Redleg, I had gladly answered your PM but Tosa has asked not to do so. I think he will reopen the first thread about this issue when he´s back and we can discuss it there. Please be patient untill this happens.

Redleg
05-17-2004, 19:29
Once again its hard to be patient with something when it continues to spiral out of control on a constant rate, and it happened in the thread that I link here. It needs to be address and fix now - not some time in the future. I understand that Tosa has other obligations and commitments - so do we all.

But I get asked all the time to refrain from being aggressive in my responses, get caution publicly for the same posting style of more "liberal" posters and absolutely nothing is seen to be done to them.

The unfairness of it has begun to fester to a point that I have thought about leaving this forum to find another. But before I do that - I elected to bring it to everyone's attention.

Having it initially closed and then nothing done for 24 hours, just further frustrated me. So I chose to restart another thread to continue to voice - in my opinion - my very legitimate concerns.

Now I got to go to work - so for the next 10 hours I won't be available for comment.

Mount Suribachi
05-17-2004, 19:44
Redleg the mods are aware of peoples complaints and have said the issue is being dealt with, so for now we just have to wait and see what happens.

Redleg
05-18-2004, 06:23
I bring this up once again to illustrate a point, about my concerns on the direction the tavern has taken.


Quote[/b] ]Voigtkampf was entirely correct to close this topic. I just reopened it to place an explanation. I hope you can then understand my point of view.
Jesus is a historical person. For some people he´s an important figure for their believe. For others not. Calling him a lunatic is, from the viewpoint of the author, just a statement about a human being. As such I can´t see why it should be against the rules to make statements about this particular human being when you can the say the same thing about any other human being not part of the Org.
It wouldn´t be tolerant to put restrictions on members because of the beliefs of others. If I´d say "Beethoven was a loser" this could offend a lot of people. Should it be allowed? Is it offensive to say "god is dead"? Where is the line?
As I said, it is a sign of disrespect to speak this way when one knows how others take. But I think it´s also not a sign of respect to forbid others to say things because of your beliefs. A symbol may only be a symbol for you, please accept that others see it otherwise.
This is the reason why my initial reactions weren´t stronger. I hoped it would be possible for both sides to accept one another. Alas, it went different. Those who ignored my warning will be dealt with.


the line was crossed by the individual when he used the term "f***ing." when you add that word to a sentence you are no longer making an opinion - you have crossed into insulting and being offensive. Certain things should never be tolerated and using that word in context of any statement - makes that statement offensive or insulting.

While I agree that everyone should have the right to express their opinion - it should not cross clear establish lines of common decency and respect for other's beliefs. The use of foul language and certain terms insures that the comment can not be taken anyother way then as an insult.


Some of you are suggesting I wait to see what happens - but like I said earlier the point is beyond one of lets wait and see what happens - its a matter to be dealt with. I guess my only true choice at this time is to halt posting in the tavern since I see someone in one thread say "Dude, stop closing threads." Not a very mature statement from that individual. I refrained from blasting back at the individual - but could not refrain from commenting on his post.

Once again its become a very critical issue for me - one that a wait and see attitude will not cover.

Voigtkampf
05-18-2004, 06:44
Some things you cannot rush.

The Org is not a one-man-show; there has been progress, and we will see how things develop further. If we were to sit down together and counsel, it would be over within fifteen minutes, but like this, online, we have to wait until all of the staff has assembled.

I am now off for a work trip and will be back on Friday; that is simply the reality of our lives. Nobody is stalling you and covering up the issue, so I beg you once more for more patience.

Respectfully,

voigtkampf

Redleg
05-18-2004, 06:52
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ May 18 2004,00:44)]Some things you cannot rush.

The Org is not a one-man-show; there has been progress, and we will see how things develop further. If we were to sit down together and counsel, it would be over within fifteen minutes, but like this, online, we have to wait until all of the staff has assembled.

I am now off for a work trip and will be back on Friday; that is simply the reality of our lives. Nobody is stalling you and covering up the issue, so I beg you once more for more patience.

Respectfully,

voigtkampf
And I respectful ask to be allowed to vent in this thread in this forum instead of taking the issue out in the forum.

In this thread I can be more civil and controlled then I would in responding to some of the posts currently in the tavern.

Papewaio
05-18-2004, 08:35
F*cking has a different level of meaning in different countries/communities.

Other words in the Atlantic divide/around the world. Mind you with the internet it is blurring.

Fanny: Bum on one side. Female genitals on the other.
Fag: Gay men on one side. Cigarettes on one side.
FCUK: a clothing brand.

F*cking though is used to add emphasis (by those who don't have a particularly strong vocabulary mind you) it is used as an off colour adverb.

I think in relation to a sports match surrounded by mates it is okay. I don't think it should be used in reference to the Diety of anyone's religion other then Pan.

econ21
05-18-2004, 12:09
I agree the org should not accept swearing on the forums, but blanking out swearwords (f***) is on the borderlines here. Newspapers and now even UK tv trailers use that convention. I would favour the org taking a case specific approach to it.

Writing F**king about a deity (or individual org member) causes needless offence to many and so should not be acceptable.

However, I think I recently cursed the murderers of Mr Berg as b* somethings and don't think that should be moderated out.

I guess the standard should probably be whether a "reasonable person" could get offended or not.

Hosakawa Tito
05-18-2004, 15:54
To all, Tosa has apparently taken a much deserved vacation. He's probably THE hardest working administrator in this community. He will address this when he is available. In the mean time we need to be patient, if you've been 'suffering' for the last three years here, certainly you can wait a few more days.

Redleg, Gawain, etc... you assume that those members that have opposing views to your own have not been warned, carded, etc... by staff for breaking forum rules. That is totally untrue, and the ironic part of this; they probably feel they are being persecuted by staff and you guys are 'getting away with it'. The reason; we don't normally tell patrons that the member they had an altercation with was also warned, carded, etc... The first two cards are invisible to all but staff. So there seems to be a perception out there that I'm being held accountable, but everyone else isn't. Ask or pm your ideological opponents if they have been warned, carded, etc... by me or other staff in here, I think the answers will reveal that they have and in equal measure.

There is a hostile atmosphere in the Tavern that is directed at American foreign policy, and though there is justification for being angry and disgusted with the way this administration is bungling along, they don't operate in a vacuum, and neither do we. Patrons who strongly disagree with the US foreign policy post in anger, their anger comes out in how they word their post, people start to take things personal, the trouble begins. I've mentioned this in pm's with other staff that just like the hammering our French patrons went through a while back, this 'torture of a thousand cuts' that the US patrons are enduring now will ultimately lead to no good. There is damn little friendly debate, in fact, their seems to be a contest in earnest complete with a 'scoreboard' to tally the verbal bloodletting. Who have we to blame for this? I suggest we start by looking at that person in the mirror. We have met the enemy, and it is us. I wish I knew what the solution was, but I do know that it begins with each and every patron in the Tavern. It takes at least two to fight, we seem to have many more who are willing than that.

Redleg
05-18-2004, 16:02
Its actually pretty simple - don't allow it and then there is no misunderstanding that can happen from the different ways in which the word can be used. Profane words are just that - there defined as profane for a simple reason.


Main Entry: 1pro·fane
Pronunciation: prO-'fAn, pr&-
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): pro·faned; pro·fan·ing
Etymology: Middle English prophanen, from Latin profanare, from profanus
1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : DESECRATE
2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use
- pro·fan·er noun


F*** has several definations all of them obscene.

Function: verb
Etymology: akin to Dutch fokken to breed (cattle), Swedish dialect fokka to copulate
intransitive senses
1 usually obscene : COPULATE -- sometimes used in the present participle as a meaningless intensive
2 usually vulgar : MESS 3 -- used with with
transitive senses
1 usually obscene : to engage in coitus with -- sometimes used interjectionally with an object (as a personal or reflexive pronoun) to express anger, contempt, or disgust
2 usually vulgar : to deal with unfairly or harshly


Noun
1 usually obscene : an act of copulation
2 usually obscene : a sexual partner
3 a usually vulgar : DAMN 2 b usually vulgar -- used especially with the as a meaningless intensive


A reasonable person will always be offended by the use of such words even if it not the intent of the poster. The word in itself causes the intent of the person's post to be immediately taken as offensive.

the forum rules expressily state



Quote[/b] ]Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.


The forum rule states it very clearily the word profane.

the abusive terms have been going on now for several years. And has steadily gotten worse over time. Until it has gotten to the point that the politicial discussion have always broken down to useless name calling and other abusive terms used. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. But everytime I attempt to stop - someone begins again with abusive terms and the moderators don't seem to do anything to stop the ongoing abusive language.

Redleg
05-18-2004, 16:05
Quote[/b] (Hosakawa Tito @ May 18 2004,09:54)]To all, Tosa has apparently taken a much deserved vacation. He's probably THE hardest working administrator in this community. He will address this when he is available. In the mean time we need to be patient, if you've been 'suffering' for the last three years here, certainly you can wait a few more days.

Redleg, Gawain, etc... you assume that those members that have opposing views to your own have not been warned, carded, etc... by staff for breaking forum rules. That is totally untrue, and the ironic part of this; they probably feel they are being persecuted by staff and you guys are 'getting away with it'. The reason; we don't normally tell patrons that the member they had an altercation with was also warned, carded, etc... The first two cards are invisible to all but staff. So there seems to be a perception out there that I'm being held accountable, but everyone else isn't. Ask or pm your ideological opponents if they have been warned, carded, etc... by me or other staff in here, I think the answers will reveal that they have and in equal measure.

There is a hostile atmosphere in the Tavern that is directed at American foreign policy, and though there is justification for being angry and disgusted with the way this administration is bungling along, they don't operate in a vacuum, and neither do we. Patrons who strongly disagree with the US foreign policy post in anger, their anger comes out in how they word their post, people start to take things personal, the trouble begins. I've mentioned this in pm's with other staff that just like the hammering our French patrons went through a while back, this 'torture of a thousand cuts' that the US patrons are enduring now will ultimately lead to no good. There is damn little friendly debate, in fact, their seems to be a contest in earnest complete with a 'scoreboard' to tally the verbal bloodletting. Who have we to blame for this? I suggest we start by looking at that person in the mirror. We have met the enemy, and it is us. I wish I knew what the solution was, but I do know that it begins with each and every patron in the Tavern. It takes at least two to fight, we seem to have many more who are willing than that.
The main difference is that we get cautioned publicily by the moderators where I rarely see that done to others.

That is a big difference in the way things are handled and leads to preceptions that one side is indeed treated differently

Teutonic Knight
05-18-2004, 17:01
Quote[/b] ]The main difference is that we get cautioned publicily by the moderators where I rarely see that done to others.

And we've come full circle back to my question....

Redleg
05-18-2004, 18:37
To the moderators of the forum.

I posted a message in the tavern about how I plan to fix my bad behavior. I appreciate the oppurunity to post here in this forum, and I also appreciate that some of you allowed me to vent in this particlur thread.

Thanks - sometimes it just helps to vent when you begin to become overwhelmed.

A.Saturnus
05-19-2004, 00:08
Quote[/b] ]the line was crossed by the individual when he used the term "f***ing." when you add that word to a sentence you are no longer making an opinion - you have crossed into insulting and being offensive. Certain things should never be tolerated and using that word in context of any statement - makes that statement offensive or insulting.

While I agree that everyone should have the right to express their opinion - it should not cross clear establish lines of common decency and respect for other's beliefs. The use of foul language and certain terms insures that the comment can not be taken anyother way then as an insult.

I agree with you completely. The post in question was offensive, there can be no doubt about it. That´s why I told the author not to do it. But is has always been praxis that the first offensive post doesn´t immediately lead to a penalty. The people involved are usually offered at least one chance to change their behaviour. Only in extreme cases punishment comes on the spot. And such an extreme case is in my opinion not given because it´s only the vulgarity that violates the rules at all. As such we cannot see this as something worse than a direct insult.
This is as I see this issue. You can disagree with me, but I can only judge by what I think is right.

Redleg
05-20-2004, 03:17
Well I have gave it futher thought.

And in all honesty my initial points are still correct and need to be addressed. There is an atmosphere of hositility in the tavern that should not be there. Part of the problem is the nature of the discussions, part of it comes from the diverse politicial spectrums, the age of some of the patrons that post in the forum, and some from the actions of the moderators.

A couple of ideas that come to mind.

That we as forum patrons abide by the rules of the forum. The rules clearly state


Quote[/b] ]Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law

Some of the terms have different meanings to different people in different parts of the world. However common definations are available in web dictionaries for anyone to find. Profane, vulgar, and obscene language however is generally defined the same throughout the world. For instance the term F*** is considered obsence no matter how it is used and it should be constantly discouraged in its use on this forum.

Then everything else gets a little hazy - based upon one's own personal beliefs and opinions. That many of the posters from the United States get a little heated when certain terms are applied to different things. The same can be said of Europeans also. If I was to state certain comments concerning Europeans in the same why they refer to the United States - its almost for certain that I would upset at least half of the forum European population. Calling one's government facist and nazi falls within an offensive and abusive insult which many on this forum would find offensive if it was direct at their country's government.

Having said that if a poster informs a moderator that they found the post to be offensive - the moderator can not dismiss it as something that isn't offensive. If its offensive to someone - it has to be considered offensive and not dismissed. This has happen numerous times both in posted comments for the general forum in the tavern and thru PM where I have been told its not offensive and I am confusing hate for the US Government with the population in general. Well in certain terms are used over and over again - just maybe the line has become blurred by both.

Just because an European poster or European Moderator does not find something offensive when its direct at the United States - does not mean that an American does not find it offensive. We live in different parts of the world and different people have different ideas of what is offensive and what is not. SO if the complaint is made either by PM or for general knowledge in the tavern the moderators should not dismiss it, or allow the type of speech to continue.

So when someone complains about the speech it also might help if the moderators inform the complainer by PM that action has indeed been done and that they should inform the moderator immediately if it happens again.

Second thought goes along the lines of if a moderator happens to post in a thread that has potential to become very heated - they should refrain from making judgements on that particlur thread. Kind of like a judge reclusing (SP?) from a particlur case because of their own personal bias on it. With four moderators in the Tavern this should not be a hard task to accomplish. For instance if Tito posted in the thread that now becomes to abusive instead of making judgements - he should close the thread and inform the other moderators to make a judgement on the posts contain within the thread and then they could reopen it.

I think this will go far in helping to reduce some of the preceptions of unfair baised moderation that some of us have.

Papewaio
05-20-2004, 12:38
Actually F**K is also a clothing brand FCUK. Also it is not considered as vulgar as it used to be in Aus... overusage has diminished its clout. As for C**T that is as bad as ever but I am sure if it is said enough times it will diminish in offensive value... English/American is/are living languages.

I am sure a more literate patron can find examples of words that used to be very offensive and are now used in common parlance.

solypsist
05-20-2004, 13:36
Tosa is still on vacation, unfortunately.

A.Saturnus
05-20-2004, 14:29
I understand what you´re saying Redleg, the problem however is that there´s a fine line between inflammatory posting and personal opinion. It happens that people take offense at something that´s just an opinion and that shouldn´t be censored. That someone takes is in my view not enough to forbid something. With degrading comments directed at another member it´s easy to decide, with other offensive remarks it´s not so easy. There are cases where it´s obvious that something isn´t really offensive and those who object just want to forbid others to say it. In other cases it´s not at all obvious.
Your example of calling a government fascist is a borderline case. I readily understand that someone takes offense at that even when one isn´t a supporter of that government. But at the same time I think critique of a government is very important. I think we can agree that in some cases calling a government fascist is an accurate description. If one says Nazi Germany was fascist it wouldn´t be reasonable for me to take offense because there´s no doubt that it was fascist. If someone calls the German government of today fascist (which some do) I´d strongly disagree and I might even take offense but still I don´t think that should be censored. Criticizing governments is the most important part of free speech.
It´s important that we protect people from offense but also freedom of speech.

Redleg
05-20-2004, 17:05
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ May 20 2004,08:29)]I understand what you´re saying Redleg, the problem however is that there´s a fine line between inflammatory posting and personal opinion. It happens that people take offense at something that´s just an opinion and that shouldn´t be censored. That someone takes is in my view not enough to forbid something. With degrading comments directed at another member it´s easy to decide, with other offensive remarks it´s not so easy. There are cases where it´s obvious that something isn´t really offensive and those who object just want to forbid others to say it. In other cases it´s not at all obvious.
Your example of calling a government fascist is a borderline case. I readily understand that someone takes offense at that even when one isn´t a supporter of that government. But at the same time I think critique of a government is very important. I think we can agree that in some cases calling a government fascist is an accurate description. If one says Nazi Germany was fascist it wouldn´t be reasonable for me to take offense because there´s no doubt that it was fascist. If someone calls the German government of today fascist (which some do) I´d strongly disagree and I might even take offense but still I don´t think that should be censored. Criticizing governments is the most important part of free speech.
It´s important that we protect people from offense but also freedom of speech.
I would agree in principle - but it often goes to far.

An examble would be someone calling me a facist because I support actions of my government.

The line does indeed get blurry and its often crossed - because the above statement does happen a lot in the politicial discussions.

Another examble from a recent topic




Quote[/b] ]geez...hmmm...come to think of it, I think I remember some of the U.S. soldiers (evil evil men) forcing me to try to lick my anus, and sniff some of theres............

umm...

Am I on the news yet??.......

Can someone reimburse me with loads of money...

This can be taken several different ways - two of of them offensive to the person who reads it. Its a higly criticial statement made in a very aggressive way - but does not in my opinion violate the rules of the forum, even though I find it personally offensive. In a posting style that is almost assured of a inflammatory response from someone depending on how it is percieved.

And the following message shows just how certain statements get turned into inflammatory comments in a direct way.



Quote[/b] ]And again we see the desperate defence that the accusations must be malicious and mischeivous Becuase its quite unthinkable they might actually be true.

Look, this is now part of a recognised and PHOTOGRAPHED pattern of abuses by US forces. Almost every other party in the war has accused the US of such depravity, even its most loyal allies. The British military has publicaly stated that while it must fight WITH the Americans it sees no need to fight AS the Americans.

This is the reality. This is what is happening. But seeing these desperate defences trotted out again and again, its clear that America simply cannot be trusted to clean its own house.


Notice that someone now has turned it into a case of bashing instead of discussing the issue. The response right after this then becomes even more direct and personal because that is exactly the intent of this post to inflame someone with a different opinion. No longer is the discussion about the right and wrong of the issue as it is percieved by the different individuals within the forum, but a post that can be taken as a personal attack on other peoples thoughts. I have been guilty of this style in the past, and I recongize it for what it is.

Censorship is a concept that is mis-understood by many people. This is a public forum held by a private person or group of persons. You can censor material - because your forum rules state already what is allowed and what is not, its not censorship if your enforcing already established rules.

Only governments can censor, and violate freedom of speech. Moderators on a message forum already have the right to censor because the forum rules state what is allowed and what is not

A.Saturnus
05-21-2004, 19:51
Yes, as moderators we can and have to censor. But we don´t want to quelsh political discussion. Personally I can´t see why it shouldn´t be possible to discuss everything entirely civil. It´s not that becoming personal and offensive serves one´s argument in any way. But I also know that the topics in the Tavern are emotional and it´s not easy too restrict oneself. If we are too quick with censorship, it might get so frustrating that no one wants to engage in any serious discussions. Another point is that most people tend to see own posts as less offensive than those of others. It´s not uncommon that people feel as if we had it especially on them. Being stricter may increase overall fairness, but it may also increase the feeling of oppression some already have.
Another thing is that it often depends how a discussion goes on after a possible inflammatory comment. I remember that I used once a hyperbolic argument that some people took quite badly. They interpreted in way I didn´t mean at all. After noticing that there was a misunderstanding, I explained how I meant it and that it was only a hyperbole. No flame war occured. Something like that happens actually quite often. Now, I don´t want to appear lazy (well, I am) I think it´s always better when members sort out problems themselves. Usually we want to give them the opportunity to do that. We have to choose the lesser of two evils, stepping in to late is bad, but stepping in to soon also.

Believe me, a dictatorship would be heck of a lot easier. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Gawain of Orkeny
05-21-2004, 20:10
Quote[/b] ]Believe me, a dictatorship would be heck of a lot easier.

And what do we have here. Were you guys elected? I know Dephee certainly was not. At least not by us. The mods are sheriff judge and jury all rolled into one. Its worse than a dictatorship. If there are meetings they meet in secret and hand down secret decisions on people. Also if two or more people are having a problem and you punish both but don't tell anyone how are we to know you are being fair. I suppose we should just accept it on faith. I would say the mods are more like gods than dictators. Heaven forbid you anger the gods.

hrvojej
05-21-2004, 22:27
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 21 2004,15:10)]I suppose we should just accept it on faith.
I don't see what's the big surprise about that. We're all just guests here, and the moderators are the staff. They can be reasoned with, but ultimately they are in charge of this "institution". If you went to a bar that bans smoking, would it matter if the patrons in the bar vote that they would like to smoke anyway, or is it the staff/owner who's going to have a final word on it?

Gawain of Orkeny
05-22-2004, 02:39
Quote[/b] ]I suppose we should just accept it on faith.

I don't see what's the big surprise about that. We're all just guests here, and the moderators are the staff. They can be reasoned with, but ultimately they are in charge of this "institution".

So were the guards at stalag 17. There is no accountability here for them. They can do as they please and you have no recourse. If you are treated unfairly tuff luck. Arbitrary decisions decided upon and handed down in secret are worse than a dictatorship to me. I do not know how it works here but I wouldn't let anyone be a mod for more than a year. It is too much power and can go to ones head.


Quote[/b] ]If you went to a bar that bans smoking, would it matter if the patrons in the bar vote that they would like to smoke anyway, or is it the staff/owner who's going to have a final word on it?


Nope the government would have the final word. Plus at least they would have it very posted no smoking. The rules against flaming here are obviously far more obtuse. People can say things that you consider to be the worst insult you ever heard and be told little or nothing while you can poke a little fun at some one and practically be banned. So I guess your saying if you do not like how you are treated here don't bitch just pack your bags and get the hell out.

hrvojej
05-22-2004, 05:13
I did say they can be reasoned with, didn't I? Bottom line is, it's the administrators who decide what to do about the mods. Have you been to any other forums that don't have it this way?

This is not a state establishment, this is only an internet gaming forum after all. And I'm not saying that you should do anything, that's entirely up to you and totally not my thing to say or to meddle in your decisions. I personally hang around this forum because I like it here; on many other forums that I don't like for this or that reason I don't.

Voigtkampf
05-22-2004, 05:43
So I'm back from my trip and Tavern is still the hottest kitchen.

Gawain, like it or not, hrvojej is 100 % right.

The offenders mentioned before in this thread have been punished. I don't know whether the Org will switch to the system of public announcements of who was punished and for what, but I don't believe it; it would open another endless trail of debates and discussing and finally flaming upon whether the justice has been done and to what extent.

Gawain, one more reminder; even in democracy, the people do not rule - they choose their representatives that govern upon their behalf for a limited time period. Not every decision can be debated ad infinitum. And Org is just a gaming site for Total War fans, with a staff that tries to be fair and impartial to all of it's members.

Basically, this is how things work; you can like it or not, but you can't change it.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-22-2004, 06:39
Nope you cant fight city hall. Now some of you might think that I am rue or an inflammatory poster but I don't see it that way but I must be wrong. I think I am one of the apologetics people here although I am very opinionated and have a sarcastic sense of humor. I have been here for about 4 months and for almost 3 of them I have had the restriction of 255 seconds between posts and no editing. Why not just throw some one out at that point as posting is almost impossible. Now if someone could show me how I deserve this treatment while many others say things I find not only offensive but down right disgusting and get away with it is beyond me. It is totally arbitrary and if a mod doesn't like you your in trouble but if they do like you you can get away with murder. Its funny at the Net I am a Supreme court judge respected for my fairness and elected by my peers yet here I am an outcast go figure.

Gregoshi
05-22-2004, 07:27
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 21 2004,21:39)]So were the guards at stalag 17. There is no accountability here for them. They can do as they please and you have no recourse.
That was a cheap shot Gawain - and a cliche. There must be a universal law that at some point in discussions such as this somebody is required to make the Nazi comparison. Happens everytime. But, you aren't the first, nor will you be the last to say something like this. It is just frustrating to read that comment after spending countless hours volunteering our time to moderate these forums. There, had to get that off my chest.

You are incorrect on the accountability issue. We are accountable to Tosa, who runs this site. And he, in a sense, is accoutable to you. The Org forums have a generally good reputation as far as content and atmosphere are concerned. It obviously is in Tosa's best interest to maintain that reputation. If patrons start walking out the door and spreading the word that our forums are bad due to our iron-fisted, biased moderating, our audience will start to shrink, quality will go down and the forums will go on life-support. So Tosa has a vested interest in keeping the Org forums a good place to be.

As for the staff, except for BKS, we were all asked to help moderate the forums. The criteria is simple: is the patron a good, level-headed person? Specialized knowledge in some areas is also a consideration (Dungeon/Apothecary). There is never the question "what are their political/religious leanings?"

Who is the Org staff? We are here because we love the TW games. We all give up precious game time to moderate these forums. We are from all parts of the globe. We all have different occupations. We cover a very wide age range from teenager to the 50's. We are of both sexes (thanks to froggy) and a few of unknown types. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Our staff members have different levels of international/cultural experiences, from almost none to "globe trotter". We are not professional moderators. We receive no training. We are not here 24x7, nor do we have time to read every post in these forums. We moderate to the best of our ability and experience given the situations confronting us. And finally, we are not perfect. We are quite a diverse group. Tough getting any concensus bias from such a group I'd think.

BTW, you do have recourse. This topic is an example.

Last comment, the gist of this issue is that there is a bias against American, Christian conservatives. As I recall, that last batch of patrons who left our forums due our "biased" moderating were European liberals. I don't recall their religious leanings.

solypsist
05-22-2004, 08:05
We wear assassin's robes for a reason http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Gawain of Orkeny
05-22-2004, 08:43
Quote[/b] ]That was a cheap shot Gawain - and a cliche. There must be a universal law that at some point in discussions such as this somebody is required to make the Nazi comparison. Happens everytime. But, you aren't the first, nor will you be the last to say something like this

I did not mean to infer that anyone here was a Nazi and you have my apologies if thats how you thought I meant it. I guess it was a bad choice on my part to show how it looked to me like the mods were in total control of this instition with no one to answer to. Now with your information I stand corrected. I will take my complaint up with Tosa when he returns. What ever happens I want you all to know that I have enjoyed my time spent here more than at any other forum I have visited and want to thank you all for some of the best and most enlightning disscussions I can remember.

frogbeastegg
05-22-2004, 08:45
Gods? Does that make me a small deified amphibian?


Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 22 2004,02:39)]The rules against flaming here are obviously far more obtuse.
The rule runs: "Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times."

What would you suggest to improve it? A small note on what is considered to be each of those things, for example a list of banned swear words?

The rules are nothing to do with me, outside of my job to uphold them as best as possible, but I would think if enough people think they need refining or clarifying the request would at least be listened to.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-22-2004, 09:28
Well according to those rules 90% of the posts here should fall afoul of those rules.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-22-2004, 10:22
How about for starts not calling anyones religion or God derogatory names. You can say that you dont believe in it without insulting those who do. This is the most flagrant abuse I have noticed here yet some mods think its ok, Saying things like if you don't believe something like that Jesus was god then you can call him names on the basis that he is a historical figure. Thats fine if you don't believe he was god but if you do as many of us here do its quite apparently extremely inflammatory.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-22-2004, 10:47
Quote[/b] ]There must be a universal law that at some point in discussions such as this somebody is required to make the Nazi comparison.

It's called Godwin's Law. It states that whoever compares the other side in a debate in an internet forum to the Nazi's automatically loses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



Quote[/b] ]As for the staff, except for BKS, we were all asked to help moderate the forums.

Heh-you make it sound like I forced my way in.

Voigtkampf
05-22-2004, 12:43
Gregoshi; the man of wisdom and all-around "good guy". Ever since I joined the Org I could do nothing but agree with him.

Gawain, I for one have a strong tendency to act harsh when it comes to religion issues, and I will never allow that any deity or religion will be addressed to in a disrespectful or, more often, hateful manner. Christian, Orthodox, Islamist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, I respect all religions and will not tolerate no defamatory posts that will offend any of the large groups that come to the Org.


Interesting observation I feel compelled to share with all of you; I haven't noticed yet that a religious person would attack any other religious person and levitate his own religion above the other or accuse the other religion of being evil et cetera. That is, in my opinion, a good and sound development, and all the bashing and hateful posts comes from other groups, which I find to be unnecessary and most unfortunate to point out.

Gregoshi
05-22-2004, 15:33
Sorry BKS. You are actually the opposite. You are the "voice of the people". What can be better than that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

A.Saturnus
05-22-2004, 16:32
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 22 2004,11:22)]How about for starts not calling anyones religion or God derogatory names. You can say that you dont believe in it without insulting those who do. This is the most flagrant abuse I have noticed here yet some mods think its ok, Saying things like if you don't believe something like that Jesus was god then you can call him names on the basis that he is a historical figure. Thats fine if you don't believe he was god but if you do as many of us here do its quite apparently extremely inflammatory.
I don´t think any mod thinks that´s ok. As I stated before, I certainly don´t. What I wanted to bring to mind is this:
for you it´s extremely inflammatory, I understand that. For others it´s less inflammatory. Further above in this thread you say you don´t have the impression that your posts were that offensive. Again that is your view, that may not be the same as that of others. Do you think that the staff should always adopt your view? I guess not. Somehow we have to find a compromise. Compromises have the disadvantage that no one likes them.
Lately I got from some people the impression, as if they think I somehow have established an autocratic rule in the Tavern. That is not so. There are several other people that have a say as well. If you don´t agree with my view - which is likely the case - you have always the option to involve the rest of the staff into a case.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-22-2004, 17:03
Quote[/b] ]. Again that is your view, that may not be the same as that of others. Do you think that the staff should always adopt your view?

Of course you are correct my view or opinion is only correct as far as I am concerned. I don't think I am infallible or always correct for from it. My comments were supposed to be amusing while still being critical. Obviously I failed miserably. The problem is that the view of the mods is always correct or so it seems. If a mod thinks you did something wrong thats it you are done. I can understand where you are coming from. I just think that the punishment handed out is way out of line with my comments. Of course this again is only my opinion.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-22-2004, 21:31
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ May 22 2004,15:33)]Sorry BKS. You are actually the opposite. You are the "voice of the people". What can be better than that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Being unquestioned dictator http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Teutonic Knight
05-23-2004, 00:12
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 22 2004,16:31)]
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ May 22 2004,15:33)]Sorry BKS. You are actually the opposite. You are the "voice of the people". What can be better than that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Being unquestioned dictator http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Oh BKS, always bring a bit of insanity to an even insaner discussion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Papewaio
05-24-2004, 13:40
Moderators are chosen from the patrons who moderate without being moderators.

Also moderators come and go. One of the Site Admins got removed for abuse of priviledges. Others stand down because of personal reasons and cannot maintain the amount of time it takes to be here and see all the posts in a forum and maintain a level attitude.

It is really tough being a mod. You want to do the best, you want to keep as many people happy as possible, you don't want to be biased in the forum you moderate (I would not want to be a mod in the tavern it is where I let off steam).

You would be surprised at what the mods and admin will do to think of ways to have everyone be happy. To be fair and to try and not give themselves heart problems

The card system is so we don't have to go straight to banning a patron. Also the the Org is supposed to be neutral ground for the meeting of all. But just like in Highlander this gets violated from time to time.

Now we have patrons come and go. But on the whole we want all types of people to be present and a diverse population as possible.

Variety is the spice of life.

I would like to add it was slightly more polite when it was based on Shogun Total War... but then again it may just be nostagia and the lack of being a mod at the time that has me thinking that.

Redleg
05-24-2004, 14:13
yes it was indeed more polite several years ago. The increase in the level of insulting comments and the refusal to stop such comments by a few individuals have caused the atmosphere that is there now.

There are a few the will always use insults, profanity, and down right offensive terms to cause someone with a different political, cultural, or religious view to be offended. These individual know that their posting is offensive and they habitually do it on purpose. These type of posts are exactly what I have been talking about. They are allowed to go on and on, however when the other side is finely offended to the point that they respond in kind - who is it that gets publicily cautioned or censored.

Its never the orginial offender.

For examble another examble of a personal insulting post.


Quote[/b] ]edited to remove because of the nature of the quote at the moderators request.
A personal attack on what someone else posted in a religious thread. However this individual is consistantly allowed to post in just this matter, and then we wonder why people find offense and a double standard in who is allowed to say what.


and then there is this


Quote[/b] ]Quote (A.Saturnus @ May 22 2004,17:38)


Sjakihata,

Don´t you think this:
Quote
The topic is reopened under the restriction that only opinions are stated that are not meant to offend


and this:
Quote
a world famous lunatic


are somehow conflicting with each other?
Now, I might accept an apology if you swear that it took you more than 6 minutes to type that sentence.

nay, I am not going to apologize, as what I wrote is indeed my opinion about Jesus, and there is no way that I will apologize for my opinions



If I was to type that - it is almost a certainity that I would have a sanction placed upon my ability to post.

By the way I have seen Tosa make moderation comments concerning other subjects, and I am still waiting his views on this particlur subject.

TosaInu
05-24-2004, 19:23
Hello Redleg,

Sorry for not being able to reply within 2 hours after the temporary closure of the original topic as planned.

Where to start? What to say that hasn't been said already?
How to solve this?

Duke John
05-24-2004, 19:55
I am only a moderator in the Dungeon because I know alot about modding, so for the coming minutes forget my position.

When I grade posts to see wether they are civil or not, I mostly place them in a context of friendly real life conversation. You are in a bar with lots of different cultures and believes.
The topic is for example about Jesus and if someone says that he is a lunatic, don't you think that he gets dirty looks and is removed from the conversation for obviously being a trouble maker?
The same counts namecalling, at any level.

In the case of the person who called Jesus a lunatic he would have at least need to be given a ticket and his post should be edited to remove the insult.

There is freedom of speech, but that has a boundary, you cannot call the queen openly a ....go wild with your imagination.

And I will put my moderator hat on again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

A.Saturnus
05-24-2004, 21:22
The problem is some people become trouble maker because they point out things that need to be pointed out. Freedom of speech has boundaries, but thought control shouldn´t be one of it. As for the "ticket", the first two cards are privat.

Gregoshi
05-24-2004, 22:58
There are a couple of issues here.

1) There is a right way to say something, a wrong way and sometimes it is best to not say anything at all. Fictional example: via these forums, I'm trying to organize a meeting of MTW players to see the premier of the upcoming movie King Arthur. Quite a few people said they would attend. You happen to not think much of the idea. Your choice of alternatives is:

a) post a reply the wrong way: "You people are the biggest bunch of losers I've ever seen. The only reason you are going is event is because you have no life and none of you can get a date for Friday night. You can count me out."

b) post a more respectful reply: "I'm afraid I won't be coming to your movie event. You all have a good time though." Maybe even add something constructive: "But if we could include a MTW lan party with the trip, I'll try to come."

c) don't post anything at all. You aren't interested in the subject and can't contribute anything positive.

---

2) There are some individuals with the "talent" to insult another using perfectly innocent language. The words are all harmless but the underlying meaning is malicious. How do you determine if there was an undertone of ill intent? The words are innocent, but... As a moderator, are you reading more into the message than is really there? Or are you not seeing a hidden meaning that is "obvious" to others. It comes down to a pure judgement call. One side says "I never said such a thing" while the other says "I can't believe you are letting him get away with this" Do we have a clever baiter or someone who is overly sensitive? There is no clear cut answer. The moderator ends up going with their gut feeling on the issue or past experience with the individuals.

---

What most of these issues come down to is respect. Respect for each other and differing points of view. If we respect each other, we won't go out of our way to say something we know will hurt others. If we respect each other, we will take the time to discuss issues in such a way that no one will be offended. And finally, if we respect each other, we will consider whether or not our comments are constructive or destructive to a discussion before posting them. Note: "constructive" does not mean "agreeable".

Demon of Light
05-25-2004, 05:12
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ May 24 2004,13:22)]The problem is some people become trouble maker because they point out things that need to be pointed out.
A.Saturnus: I'm having a little trouble with your statement here. The English is murky but I can't come up with an interpretation other than that ******* wasn't being a trouble maker and that saying Christ was a lunatic was something that needed to be said. I'm sure this isn't correct so I seek clarification. What precisely is it that needed to be said? Is it religious in nature? Is it the same idea but said with more respect? I'm grasping here because I have no idea what meaning I might take from this.



Tosa Inu

Quote[/b] ]Where to start? What to say that hasn't been said already?
How to solve this?

I've got something cooking. I have a concept and I'm working on turning it into a viable plan. More details soon.

squippy
05-25-2004, 14:32
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 22 2004,04:47)]It's called Godwin's Law. It states that whoever compares the other side in a debate in an internet forum to the Nazi's automatically loses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
IIRC, Godwins Law does not actually state that; ity only says that as the post count climbs, the probability of a comparison with the Nazi's tends toward 1.

And I want to address this point. Its absurd IMO to assert that any comparison to the Nazi's is spurious and provocative. That, in fact, is a statement I find spurious and provocative.

Redleg complains that he has been called a Fascist, and I have done so. I believe that a good historical argument can be made demonstrating that much of Redleg's politics (and those of several other posters) accord with Fascist dogma and doctrine. Whether or not Redleg or anyone is offended by such a description is to me wholly irrelevant - the description may still be accurate. It is not KNOWINGLY defamatory.

Redleg, the moderators, or anyone, are entitled toi disagree with my analysis; they are NOT entitled to allege that my analysis is inflammatory or rhetorical.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-25-2004, 14:37
Godwin's Law Prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

From the Jargon dictionary.

Redleg
05-25-2004, 15:23
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 25 2004,08:32)]
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 22 2004,04:47)]It's called Godwin's Law. It states that whoever compares the other side in a debate in an internet forum to the Nazi's automatically loses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
IIRC, Godwins Law does not actually state that; ity only says that as the post count climbs, the probability of a comparison with the Nazi's tends toward 1.

And I want to address this point. Its absurd IMO to assert that any comparison to the Nazi's is spurious and provocative. That, in fact, is a statement I find spurious and provocative.

Redleg complains that he has been called a Fascist, and I have done so. I believe that a good historical argument can be made demonstrating that much of Redleg's politics (and those of several other posters) accord with Fascist dogma and doctrine. Whether or not Redleg or anyone is offended by such a description is to me wholly irrelevant - the description may still be accurate. It is not KNOWINGLY defamatory.

Redleg, the moderators, or anyone, are entitled toi disagree with my analysis; they are NOT entitled to allege that my analysis is inflammatory or rhetorical.


Calling me a facist is not something that I will tolerate from anyone. I am not a facist or a nazi, or several of the other degrading terms you like to apply when making your posts. You are attempting to label someone because they disagree with your politicial stance and methods. I am in actuallity a very conservative individual who believes that the federal government should be reduced and that local community governments should be more involved in the community social welfare. Very far from the facist dogma that you think I am because of my stance on international or foriegn policy of the United States.

The term is known to be defamatory just like several other terms. And you have been informed of that several times. There are many terms I could call you that fit the description of how I see your posts and they would fit a good description of you, which have been used in the past in a tit for tat arguement.

But each one of them are inflammatory and defamatory comments and they should not be tolerated in a civil discussion. The forum rules clearly spell out the terms of the usage of the forum by the patrons, and when we knowning or unkowning violate those terms the censor, sanctions, either public or private by the moderators should be passed out equally and without bais on the moderators part.

Thanks once again for showing the moderators exactly one of the points that needs to be moderated to prevent flamming of threads by the patrons of the traven.

Redleg
05-25-2004, 15:52
Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ May 24 2004,13:23)]Hello Redleg,

Sorry for not being able to reply within 2 hours after the temporary closure of the original topic as planned.

Where to start? What to say that hasn't been said already?
How to solve this?
The issue is still there and still needs to be resolved. Several points are already in both threads.

But to summarize some of my points.

1) If it violates the rules of the forum, then it should be treated like such - no matter what the intent of the poster if it violates the rules it must be treated as such.

2) Equally treatment of all patrons. If we are going to make public notices of caution on one person then everyone should recieve public caution for the nature of their posts. If one is only going to get private caution - then all get private caution.

Maybe a thread in the watchtower that explains when certain partons have gone to far over and over again and that public censor of their actions is requested by all patrons. This should only be done in the most extreme cases for patrons that refuse to follow the forum rules and complie with the requested changes by the moderators. This way the general community knows that this individual has had action taken against him and we can act accordingly and ignore the comments because we as patrons known now that the moderators are doing something about it.

3) Moderators of the traven should not moderate threads in which they are active particpants in the discussion. It leads to valid complaints of biased judgement if they have to take action because of a violation of the forum rules.

The rules of the forum are already well established and do not need to be changed. They just need to be equally enforced for all patrons. We need to stop the profanity in many patrons posts. There is only one way to take a comment with a profanity term in it, its a simple rule of civility that my parents told me many years ago.

Sjakihata
05-25-2004, 16:15
fair enough redleg, if you will not tolerate being called a fascist, then why do you call people liberals, pinkos and such names/labels, because that you do.

Redleg
05-25-2004, 16:24
Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ May 25 2004,10:15)]fair enough redleg, if you will not tolerate being called a fascist, then why do you call people liberals, pinkos and such names/labels, because that you do.
one - I don't call people pinko's, if I have it was most likely a tit for tat insult conversation. I have and will call some individuals socialist or communist especially if they call theirselves one of those terms.

two -Liberials because its not a degrading or inflammatory term. It describes a current politicial stance, just like if someone calls me a conservative - which would also be an accurate term, and not offensive. Some Liberial posters such as Tachikaze I have loads of respect for because they rarely use inflammatory or degrading terms when discussing an issue in regards to an individual poster. They often attack the idea - not the individual, its a big difference.

Three - the whole purpose of this thread is to halt the bad behavior of the past. Which is why I want to change my posting style for the most part, because I knew I was wrong, but the problem was not just me, but many of us, we were getting in tit for tat degrading and inflammatory posting that were going nowhere and was just breaking down the civility of the tavern to the point that it was either fix it, or leave.

Dhepee
05-25-2004, 16:30
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 25 2004,09:32)]Redleg complains that he has been called a Fascist, and I have done so. I believe that a good historical argument can be made demonstrating that much of Redleg's politics (and those of several other posters) accord with Fascist dogma and doctrine. Whether or not Redleg or anyone is offended by such a description is to me wholly irrelevant - the description may still be accurate. It is not KNOWINGLY defamatory.

Redleg, the moderators, or anyone, are entitled toi disagree with my analysis; they are NOT entitled to allege that my analysis is inflammatory or rhetorical.
By that logic then I can justify calling someone any name I please - as long as I can claim precedent. That is an open ended standard.

There is also historical precedent for most racial slurs; in that they are historically used against people that meet certain criteria and the terms describe qualities that a group of persons are historically believed to have. I could claim that how they take it is wholly irrelevant if I have precedent and the term is accurate.

Is that how we want to operate? Giving offense whenever we can dredge up some precedent to back up the offensive statement. I don't want the Org to work that way because it is patently disrespectful and offensive.

Not only that but most "historical precedents" are highly subjective so one person's definition of #### and another person's definition of #### could be very different but both could be supported by differing precedents.

Sjakihata
05-25-2004, 18:00
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 25 2004,17:24)]Liberials because its not a degrading or inflammatory term. It describes a current politicial stance
as does fascist or nazi, a current political stance, nothing inflammatory about that.

Gregoshi
05-25-2004, 18:31
Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ May 25 2004,13:00)]
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 25 2004,17:24)]Liberials because its not a degrading or inflammatory term. It describes a current politicial stance
as does fascist or nazi, a current political stance, nothing inflammatory about that.
Perhaps in their purist sense but there is inhumane brutality in those "political stances". The reality is that fascist and especially nazi have lots of negative baggage that go with them. Things like genocide... I'd put forth that if you ask most people around the world to describe what a nazi is and you will get words like "murders", "butchers", etc.

These fascist and nazi are examples of those words that you can claim innocence in using in their "pure" definition and at the same time have 99% of the people associate with it the common, offensive interpretation. The terms are two-edged swords but the (insulting) backhand swing cuts much harder and deeper than the (innocent) forehand. I'm sure if you thought just a little bit, you could find an acceptable substitute to drive home your point.

A.Saturnus
05-25-2004, 19:48
Quote[/b] ]
A.Saturnus: I'm having a little trouble with your statement here. The English is murky but I can't come up with an interpretation other than that ******* wasn't being a trouble maker and that saying Christ was a lunatic was something that needed to be said. I'm sure this isn't correct so I seek clarification. What precisely is it that needed to be said? Is it religious in nature? Is it the same idea but said with more respect? I'm grasping here because I have no idea what meaning I might take from this.

I wasn´t talking about that case. I meant that in a broader sense that we shouldn´t quelsh intellectually provokative ideas just because some don´t want to hear them. I think that it is possible to express thoughts about some things - and Christ is surely one of them - that some might find offensive simply because they contradict their world view. In the example above, this was not the case and it´s entirely understandable and justifiable that people took offense. I´m merely saying that we shouldn´t censor someone whenever someone else says he feels offended. The offended one must have a agreeable reason to demand the other one censored.

The_Emperor
05-25-2004, 20:47
Quote[/b] ] I have and will call some individuals socialist or communist especially if they call theirselves one of those terms.


Calling someone a Communist could be considered to be exactly the same level of severity as calling someone a Nazi... What with Stalin, the great purges and the brutal baggage that comes from the murky past of that political group.

It brings up images of the Cold War and the USSR, Stalin and all the rest of it.

True it doesn't pack the same punch as calling someone a Nazi, but then only the Nazis got stopped after commiting genocide... Stalin got away with it, and killed many more people.

Teutonic Knight
05-25-2004, 22:29
hey I'm a Papist Imperialist Warmongering Pig, and that's just what I call myself...


btw, my black shirt is in the wash right now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Colovion
05-25-2004, 22:56
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ May 25 2004,14:47)]True it doesn't pack the same punch as calling someone a Nazi, but then only the Nazis got stopped after commiting genocide... Stalin got away with it, and killed many more people.
THat's becasue Stalin was on the winning side and was able to input his propeganda into the history books instead of Hitlers.

In any case maybe we should take events as they happen instead of saying what once occured or may occur in the future. If something a mod does makes you upset perhaps PM the mod instead of a lynching party.

squippy
05-26-2004, 08:58
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 25 2004,09:23)]

Quote[/b] ] I am not a facist or a nazi, or several of the other degrading terms you like to apply when making your posts.

You are, in my opinion.


Quote[/b] ]I am in actuallity a very conservative individual who believes that the federal government should be reduced and that local community governments should be more involved in the community social welfare.

I'm well aware of this - it accords with a historical Fascist agenda.


Quote[/b] ] Very far from the facist dogma that you think I am because of my stance on international or foriegn policy of the United States.

Your support for the US's aggrssion is merely the most observable of the symptoms.


Quote[/b] ] The term is known to be defamatory just like several other terms.

So you're saying that an actually extant historical movement cannot be referenced? Why is that? Would you prefer we didn't explore reality, and didn't see the similarities? Are you hiding something?


Quote[/b] ] Thanks once again for showing the moderators exactly one of the points that needs to be moderated to prevent flamming of threads by the patrons of the traven.

Thats exactly why I wanted to address the point nose on. What you are actually calling for is censorship becuase you don't like the criticisms comiong your way. I suggest you should rather start taking responsibility for your political agenda rather than resorting to claiming that its insult for insult's sake.

squippy
05-26-2004, 09:07
Quote[/b] (Dhepee @ May 25 2004,10:30)]

Quote[/b] ] By that logic then I can justify calling someone any name I please - as long as I can claim precedent. That is an open ended standard.

By no means. You would have to demonstrate identiy, not precedent.


Quote[/b] ] There is also historical precedent for most racial slurs; in that they are historically used against people that meet certain criteria and the terms describe qualities that a group of persons are historically believed to have.

Whats belief got to do with anything? I'm not using a term on the basis that someone once used the term before; I am using it because it is the correct and accurate political jargon to describe a certain set of policies.

Look at he controversy ove Heinleins book "Starship Troopers". I can demonstrate without doubt that Starship Troopers promulgates a Fascist model of society, by citing Mein Kampf arguing for the same sort of society. It is invalid to suggest that such a criticism is based on personal hostility to Heinlein rather than the actual, material similarities in the texts.


Quote[/b] ] Is that how we want to operate? Giving offense whenever we can dredge up some precedent to back up the offensive statement.

You tell me - I find it highly offensive that you should suggest I make such comparisons in order to provoke offense. If you want an adult debate, I sugggest, you first have to listen to the other person, not merely discard their analysis on the arrogant presumption that its only made for rhetorical effect.

squippy
05-26-2004, 09:10
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ May 25 2004,12:31)]Perhaps in their purist sense but there is inhumane brutality in those "political stances". The reality is that fascist and especially nazi have lots of negative baggage that go with them. Things like genocide... I'd put forth that if you ask most people around the world to describe what a nazi is and you will get words like "murders", "butchers", etc.
Well, what term would you then propose we use for:
"the nationalist-militarist ideologies of national divine right prominent in the 30's in Germany and Italy"?

Mouzafphaerre
05-26-2004, 09:31
-
Re: If you going to moderate

It's a shame that the inappropriate speculative thread about Islam and Democracy has been polluting the Monastry for three days now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif It was called upon at the thread itself and the mods were PMed but it's still there.

I don't want to lose my faith in the ORG and its staff. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Ref: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=18651 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=18651)
_

Bhruic
05-26-2004, 09:41
You know, there seems to be a growing world trend that believes that individuals have some sort of "right" not to be offended. Especially here in North America (where I live, so I can best comment), various groups have a tendancy to claim they are being offended by something, and then attempt to squelch the material based on that claim.

I'd like to point out that there is, in fact, no such right. When it comes down to it, there is very little, if anything, that one can do that does not have the potential to offend someone. And that's perfectly ok. Because people also have something called "choice" that enables them to select whether or not they wish to partake of something that might be offensive. Now, if all of us were chained to our computers and forced to read every single thread on these forums, then the situation would be different.

I think the whole religious angle is a good place to go, because it tends to have fairly extreme positions. For example, I find the notion that Jesus was "the son of god" offensive. I truly do. To me, it's ludicrous to suggest that one of the many "christs" of the time, one of the many "christs" who got crucified, or even one of the many "christs" who got crucified and claimed to have resurrected with an empty tomb is the "true" son of god to be, well, silly is the most polite thing I can say. And then to have people turn around and try and use the bible (and the same "Jesus Christ") in an attempt to justify various positions, arguments, laws, etc is worse. Plain old offensive.

But at the same time, I don't go around the forum claiming that I'm being offended, and demanding that the "offenders" be sanctioned. Because I understand that these people likely believe in the truth of their beliefs, like I do, and recognize the fact that in order to have any true discussion, you have to have people who believe things that you don't.

Now, this should not be in any way taken to suggest that someone should be able to call you a "F***ing ***hole" and not be sanctioned. I just want to make clear the fact that calling "I'm offended" should never be sufficient reason to stifle someone else's thoughts. Nor should you operate under any expectations that you, personally, being offended is anything that other people should protect you from.

You do not have the right to not be offended.

Bh

frogbeastegg
05-26-2004, 10:15
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 25 2004,15:52)]We need to stop the profanity in many patrons posts. There is only one way to take a comment with a profanity term in it, its a simple rule of civility that my parents told me many years ago.
Agreed, bad language only enflames the discussion.

I find this one hard to mod on, one man's profanity is anothers normal language. Some words are very obvious, but some are less so. Take 'bastard' for instance, many do not consider that to be swearing any more, but some still do, and if you look in most dictionaries it is classed as profanity unless it is being used to comment on someone's parents status at the time of his birth.

I deplore swearing, but even I use bastard from time to time. I work on the basis of whether I have seen the term in a PG film/game/whatever or not, but that is hardly ideal and people have no crystal clear idea of what I will let go. It's not like there is a list of banned words people can consult.



To further Gregoshi's old point of polite, hard to pin down insults, well I am quite good at that myself. Recently someone launched an unprovoked attack on me in another forum, I could have stitched him up so nicely with just one comment. It would have been impossible to mod me without hitting him at least twice as hard, and it would have been extremely hard to justify modding me for my comment. How can you mod someone for posting a friendly comment, complete with http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif smiley to show it is sincere?

In the end I didn't bother, I just left the thread and put the person on my ignore list. Done correctly hidden insults are next to impossible to mod.

Redleg
05-26-2004, 12:17
Quote[/b] (Bhruic @ May 26 2004,03:41)]You know, there seems to be a growing world trend that believes that individuals have some sort of "right" not to be offended. Especially here in North America (where I live, so I can best comment), various groups have a tendancy to claim they are being offended by something, and then attempt to squelch the material based on that claim.

I'd like to point out that there is, in fact, no such right. When it comes down to it, there is very little, if anything, that one can do that does not have the potential to offend someone. And that's perfectly ok. Because people also have something called "choice" that enables them to select whether or not they wish to partake of something that might be offensive. Now, if all of us were chained to our computers and forced to read every single thread on these forums, then the situation would be different.

I think the whole religious angle is a good place to go, because it tends to have fairly extreme positions. For example, I find the notion that Jesus was "the son of god" offensive. I truly do. To me, it's ludicrous to suggest that one of the many "christs" of the time, one of the many "christs" who got crucified, or even one of the many "christs" who got crucified and claimed to have resurrected with an empty tomb is the "true" son of god to be, well, silly is the most polite thing I can say. And then to have people turn around and try and use the bible (and the same "Jesus Christ") in an attempt to justify various positions, arguments, laws, etc is worse. Plain old offensive.

But at the same time, I don't go around the forum claiming that I'm being offended, and demanding that the "offenders" be sanctioned. Because I understand that these people likely believe in the truth of their beliefs, like I do, and recognize the fact that in order to have any true discussion, you have to have people who believe things that you don't.

Now, this should not be in any way taken to suggest that someone should be able to call you a "F***ing ***hole" and not be sanctioned. I just want to make clear the fact that calling "I'm offended" should never be sufficient reason to stifle someone else's thoughts. Nor should you operate under any expectations that you, personally, being offended is anything that other people should protect you from.

You do not have the right to not be offended.

Bh
Well you missed understood what this is about.

Its not about not being offended - its about insuring that the rules of the forum are equally applied to all, and that they are indeed enforced.

Redleg
05-26-2004, 12:21
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 26 2004,02:58)]


Quote[/b] ] I am not a facist or a nazi, or several of the other degrading terms you like to apply when making your posts.

You are, in my opinion.


Quote[/b] ]I am in actuallity a very conservative individual who believes that the federal government should be reduced and that local community governments should be more involved in the community social welfare.

I'm well aware of this - it accords with a historical Fascist agenda.


Quote[/b] ] Very far from the facist dogma that you think I am because of my stance on international or foriegn policy of the United States.

Your support for the US's aggrssion is merely the most observable of the symptoms.


Quote[/b] ] The term is known to be defamatory just like several other terms.

So you're saying that an actually extant historical movement cannot be referenced? Why is that? Would you prefer we didn't explore reality, and didn't see the similarities? Are you hiding something?


Quote[/b] ] Thanks once again for showing the moderators exactly one of the points that needs to be moderated to prevent flamming of threads by the patrons of the traven.

Thats exactly why I wanted to address the point nose on. What you are actually calling for is censorship becuase you don't like the criticisms comiong your way. I suggest you should rather start taking responsibility for your political agenda rather than resorting to claiming that its insult for insult's sake.
Then Squippy I suggest you ignore my posts and I will ignore yours.

Because I think you are a communist under the same rules as Stalin, Marx, and a few others, and our conservations will never be civil. Because if I am a facist your are definetly a Stalinist communist.

If you call me a facist or any of the other names that you have in the past,I can assure you the conservation will go down hill very quickly. If it gets us both censored or sanction then so be it.

I can at least be adult enought to accept the consequences of my actions.

Bhruic
05-26-2004, 12:29
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 26 2004,07:17)]Well you missed understood what this is about.

Its not about not being offended - its about insuring that the rules of the forum are equally applied to all, and that they are indeed enforced.
No, surprisingly, I didn't miss what this was all about.

The basis for your claim that the rules aren't applied equally is that people are making "offensive" posts and not getting publicly called on it. My point was that you finding something offensive is not, by itself, sufficient cause for mod intervention.

I mean, take "The Conservative Club", for example. Nice post from "Devastatin Dave":

Its just hard when you have been working for the government your whole adult life, think that your doing good, then some leftists piece of fecal matter basically spits on you. Great post though Red...

Now where I come from, "leftists piece of fecal matter" would certainly qualify as both offensive and an insult. Should the mods be all over that? The fact that they aren't seems to suggest to me that they are applying the rules equally.

Bh

Redleg
05-26-2004, 13:16
Well unfortunately that type of post is exactly what the tavern has degenerated to over the last three years because the moderators have not followed the forum rules in preventing such type of posts.

And no it has not been fairily and equally allowed, where you pulled that quote from is a thread that was set up two or three months ago because of the inflammatory direction the tavern was taking. If Dave would of posted that anywhere else within the tavern - expect for that one thread - he would of indeed been cautioned or even sanctioned. Tosa allowed two threads - there is also a liberial thread - to give patrons a venue in which to vent without it degrading into another flame war between two opposing politicial viewpoints.

Bhruic
05-26-2004, 13:31
I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't follow. You claim that the mods aren't modding uniformly. I point out a situation that is similar to the ones you post from so-called "liberals" that are overlooked, and you dismiss it as a casual effect? What caused him to post what he posted is not at issue. The fact is, in a situation where one individual is posting something insulting and offensive to a group, the mods did not step in and overtly criticize. In other words, "justice", for the lack of a better word, was applied uniformly.

As for the purpose of that thread, I see nothing anywhere that suggests that it has any sort of special rules applied to it. The fact that so-called "conservatives" are encouraged to post there and so-called "liberals" are encouraged not to doesn't mean that either group is free to be any more (or less) offensive and insulting than usual.

Bh

Redleg
05-26-2004, 13:57
Quote[/b] (Bhruic @ May 26 2004,07:31)]I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't follow. You claim that the mods aren't modding uniformly. I point out a situation that is similar to the ones you post from so-called "liberals" that are overlooked, and you dismiss it as a casual effect? What caused him to post what he posted is not at issue. The fact is, in a situation where one individual is posting something insulting and offensive to a group, the mods did not step in and overtly criticize. In other words, "justice", for the lack of a better word, was applied uniformly.

As for the purpose of that thread, I see nothing anywhere that suggests that it has any sort of special rules applied to it. The fact that so-called "conservatives" are encouraged to post there and so-called "liberals" are encouraged not to doesn't mean that either group is free to be any more (or less) offensive and insulting than usual.

Bh
Well then voice your concerns as you did and the moderators and Tosa can sort it out.

Sometimes we can not see the trees because of the forest, and I have spent several years on this forum watching the abuse and receiving the abuse from some more aggresive posters, and have particpated and been cautioned, censored, and sanctioned by the moderators because of getting involved in tit for tat inflammatory discussions.

My perception over three years of being in the tavern shows a different picture then what you are seeing.

Bhruic
05-26-2004, 14:14
That certainly can be true. And I'm not disagreeing with your speaking up about it. If you perceive a real problem, then, by all means, bring it up (as you did). Personally, I find that boards which allow religious or political debates are going to have a degree of flaming and "offensiveness" on both sides. Not a good thing, but it seems somewhat unavoidable. And there is almost always the perception that the mods are on one side or the other. However, from what I've seen, the mods here do a fairly good job of being impartial. Not perfect, of course, they are human like the rest of us. But I believe they are really trying, and that's what I consider to be important.

Bh

Redleg
05-26-2004, 14:24
Quote[/b] (Bhruic @ May 26 2004,08:14)]That certainly can be true. And I'm not disagreeing with your speaking up about it. If you perceive a real problem, then, by all means, bring it up (as you did). Personally, I find that boards which allow religious or political debates are going to have a degree of flaming and "offensiveness" on both sides. Not a good thing, but it seems somewhat unavoidable. And there is almost always the perception that the mods are on one side or the other. However, from what I've seen, the mods here do a fairly good job of being impartial. Not perfect, of course, they are human like the rest of us. But I believe they are really trying, and that's what I consider to be important.

Bh
Yep the nature of the topic brings out the worst in many of us. One of the reasons that I brought this up was because many of the patrons are getting away from the forum rules and completely disregarding them. (I in fact am guilty of doing this).

I might be correct or even wrong, about my perception of favoritism, but that is just a secondary point.

The main point that I should of brought out first is that the forum rules need to be enforced uniformily and always by the moderators.

Thanks for bringing that point to the limelight verus the preception of favoritism.

squippy
05-26-2004, 15:09
Quote[/b] ] Because I think you are a communist under the same rules as Stalin, Marx, and a few others, and our conservations will never be civil. Because if I am a facist your are definetly a Stalinist communist.

But the difference is: you DO hold to the same analysis that Hitler and Stalin held, while I hold to neither analysis. Both of these are demonstrable.


Quote[/b] ] If you call me a facist or any of the other names that you have in the past,I can assure you the conservation will go down hill very quickly.

"The Truth? You can't HANDLE the truth."


Quote[/b] ] I can at least be adult enought to accept the consequences of my actions.

But you don't. I have called you on your anti-communist slander before, and so far you have neither withdrawn your slander nor done any research to support your claims.

I have also complained to the moderators about this and other slanders - such as the infamous and much-tolerated slander of 'anti-americanism' - and they have been largely silent. I have an outstanding complaint against Devestatin' Dave's spectacular homophobic hate-speech that has also been tolerated and left to stand.

So frankly Redleg, I think you're crying crocodile tears.

Redleg
05-26-2004, 16:07
And frankly Squippy you are showing one of my major complaints about the moderators. An uneven applying of the standards of the rules. There are several outstanding complaints about your posting style where you recently made an offensive comment about someone's story about death. I posted it here and then removed it at the request of a moderator. I have yet to see A.Saturnus make a ruling or restrict on you for that.

The truth is not what this complaint is about. Its about using abusive langauage and violating the rules of the forum when making your point. You want to make it a personal attack each and every time by using terms like facist and the others. There is a difference in that and we are both equally guilty of violating the rules.

however I wish to change some of my methods in posting and get the tavern back to a more civil method of discourse. Where from your use of terms - you are seeming to be unwilling to be civil. Then so be it.

But with every post you are making in this particlur thread - you are demonstrating very well the major complaint I have about the moderators not enforcing the stated rules of the forum.

econ21
05-26-2004, 16:56
I think the moderators should not be called in to adjudicate on political debates. Whether someone is a Communist, fascist, anti-American, Nazi, whatever is something that can and probably should be openly debated. For example, I think certain racist parties such as the UK (or French) National Front are essentially fascist, although they would vehemently deny it. Calling a normal conservative a fascist is sloppy and offensive, but probably has to be allowed if I am to have the freedom to use this label on those phonies like the National Front. The point is that these terms are essentially political and not words of abuse per se. I should have the right to call Redleg a fascist and Squippy a Communist, although I will not do so and absolutely do not believe they are. However, I should not have the right to direct swear words at them - that is not a necessary part of political debate. The mods seem to be drawing the line about right, in my opinion.

Some of the complaints in this thread seem ungrounded and others are very grey areas. Calling Jesus a lunatic is something I would not do[1], but I believe I should have the right to say something similar about rastafarian beliefs - come on, Haile Selassie - the Ethiopian king who presided over a famine in the 1970s - was divine? yeah, right. The Conservative Club referring to a liberal, not identified, as something not very pleasant again seems on the borderline - if the person was named or easily identifiable, it would be objectionable, but otherwise it seems just like letting off steam in the presence of like-minded people. Again, I would not do it but I would not call in the heavies either.

I think people should give the mods a break, perhaps especially by trying to watch their language and tone so that they need not get involved. The most effective debators can be devastating without being uncivil and indeed are typically more effective by relying on their eloquence - a rapier, not a cudgel.

[1]Edit: Gawain reminds me that it was the "F_king lunatic", not just "lunatic" - clearly that is something not in a grey area at all but pitch black.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-26-2004, 17:06
Excellent post Simon. It is not what is said but it is the intention of what is being said that matters to me. Now this sometimes is very hard thing to pin down. If your calling some one a Nazi or commie because you feel that they are and trying to show how this relates to a particular topic then that seems fine in my book. But if your intention is just to call some one a name and piss them off that is an entirely different matter. If you want to call Jesus a lunatic as was mentioned before remember that some may take offense and at least say IMO or give a reason for this statement. Calling Jesus or any other religious figure that people here may believe in a F__king lunatic should never be allowed. In short it is the intent of the message that counts.

TosaInu
05-26-2004, 17:50
Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ May 26 2004,03:31)]-
Re: If you going to moderate

It's a shame that the inappropriate speculative thread about Islam and Democracy has been polluting the Monastry for three days now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif It was called upon at the thread itself and the mods were PMed but it's still there.

I don't want to lose my faith in the ORG and its staff. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Ref: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=18651 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=18651)
_
Hello Mouzafphaerre,

Who did you PM?

Gawain of Orkeny
05-26-2004, 19:29
IMO when someone is sanctioned it should be posted some where for everyone to see. That is what they were sanctioned for and why. How can we tell if the Mods are doing a good job or being fair if they operate in secret. Do not tell me its because then others would pick on you. The mods should keep an eye out for that sort of behavior and warn others that it will not be tolerated. You can show when someone is close to being thrown out with a card isn't that worse? Imagine if our criminal justice system here worked like that and criminals were tried and punished in secret.
One question if one were to say that somebody was acting like a child is that inflammatory and should they be sanctioned for saying so? I mean you seem to be able to call someone a Nazi and get away with it. Which is worse and more inflamatory? I was sanctioed for saying some one was a lapdog and then again for saying that they were like a little puppy jumping up and down. I was just poking a little good natured fun at them but the mods obviously didn't see it that way.Is that worse than being called a Nazi? Redleg has been basically called by squippy a lackey for the US government is that acceptable? Were my comments more offensive than his? Where do we draw the line. By posting when people are sanctioned and why would go a long way in showing people where that line is.

A.Saturnus
05-26-2004, 20:36
The problem with equal treatment is that it´s not so obvious what is equal. Equalness would mean that under the same circumstances the reaction is the same. That is very well, but the circumstances are never the same. There´s never the same context to an offensive post. So every offensive post must be interpreted individually. And that is difficult. Take for example Dave´s "leftist piece of fecal". It might seem like a clear case of an offense, but it can easily interpreted in something entirely non-offensive. Maybe Dave wasn´t degrading any person with left political leanings, but actually talking of some strange sentient piece of fecal with left leanings. If a piece of fecal tells you that it´s in favour of social restructuring of society, wouldn´t the description "leftist piece of fecal" not be accurate and inoffensive? Of course, this is a forced interpretation but I´m merely saying that it´s most of the time not easy to decide, whether something has to be understood offensive, or whether the offended reaction is just an over-reaction.
On the other hand, labeling someone a "nazi" is always offensive, I think. You might say it can be an accurate description. I don´t doubt that it can be, but the point, here at the Org, is you can never ever claim that this description is indeed accurate. You do not even know which sex the person has you´re talking to. The other could be an alien or a robot. If someone speaks in favour of nazi ideas, that doesn´t necessary make him a nazi, because he could be devil´s advocate. You could only decide whether someone is a nazi if you knew whether this person also supports these ideas in real life. The description "liberal" is different because those that are labeled with it usually do not take it as an offense. If you call someone a liberal, you have reason to believe that he won´t be offended. If on the other hand, that person tells you that he would take it as an offense to be called liberal, then you shouldn´t do it.

Gregoshi
05-26-2004, 20:56
Quote[/b] ]It is not what is said but it is the intention of what is being said that matters to me.

BINGO Gawain hit the nail on the head. With that thought in mind, let's look at this comment from squippy:


Quote[/b] ]Well, what term would you then propose we use for:
"the nationalist-militarist ideologies of national divine right prominent in the 30's in Germany and Italy"?
How about not using a term or label at all, especially one that not only includes ideologies but also more prominent negative/offensive associations such as genocide, thuggery, etc. By using the term nazi you associate Redleg not just with the ideology but also the inhumane aspects of the nazi. Do you really think Redleg supports the idea of genocide? If you really did not intent to offend Redleg, you would have addressed the parts you find wrong about his stance, rather than use an offensive term to label him. By doing this you address the point you have issue with rather than taking the cheap way out and slapping a label on him. Who knows, if you do it right you might get him to re-think his position. Okay, that last comment might be quite a stretch, but it is worth a shot, isn't it? I do know labeling him a nazi won't change his mind at all.

Back to Gawain's point about intent, let's say you were to invite a Catholic friend over for dinner on Friday night. You know Catholics do not eat meat on Fridays. Are you going to serve meat only for dinner just because you don't share the same beliefs as your Catholic friend? No, at the very least you will provide a non-meat alternative out of respect to them. However, the way people are behaving in the Tavern, I suspect most of you would serve thick, juicy steaks just to "stick it" to them Catholics. Or, at the very least you would serve those steaks simply because you don't find having steak on Fridays offensive. Sounds rather rude, doesn't it?

On the flip side, we must stop assuming that every comment directed towards us is an intentional insult. Sometimes it is just a poor choice of words. Maybe the person was in a rush and hadn't thought it through completely or reviewed the post for unintentional meanings. If there is a comment that bothers you, a PM to that person asking for a clarification can often resolve misunderstandings. In the PM, don't accuse the person, but rather question them about their meaning and state what the perception of their message might be. I witnessed two patrons do this in the Tavern a few weeks ago and the misunderstanding was cleared up.

To repeat the overall message again: the problems in the Tavern come down to a lack of courtesy and respect for each other. As Simon alluded to in his excellent post, it is best for all if moderation starts with you.

A.Saturnus
05-26-2004, 21:14
There´s another thing to point out: if a moderator says in a thread that the way you´re heading is bad, that´s not a punishment. In fact, it´s a help for you. It´s a warning sign. When you see it, it´s a sign that you might get in trouble going on. It´s up to you how to react on it. If one gets this warning and the other not, the only one who´s maybe treated unfair is the one who doesn´t get it.
Punishments are increased flood control levels (of which the first two are privat), demotion or exculsion from the Org.

Gregoshi
05-26-2004, 21:28
Hmmm, Saturnus and Gawain slipped in ahead of me.

Regarding public announcements of disciplinary actions: the risk is that every action has the potential for sparking public debate over the fairness of the punishment. There is no court system here, just a group of moderators trying to do the best job they can. Specific decisions cannot be up for public debate otherwise the staff will be doing nothing but defending their decisions. (Note that this thread is not about a specific decision, but rather about a trend.)

That is a good point about the warnings Saturnus. Unfortunately, some do not heed them - or worse, intentionally defy them.

Redleg
05-26-2004, 21:42
It really all comes down to a simple principle - either enforce the rules or just ignore them completely. Moderators should function to insure the rules are not violated by anyone, and must take action to prevent them from being consistantly being violated.


Quote[/b] ]Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.


This rule explains well what is allowed and what is not.

ElmarkOFear
05-26-2004, 21:44
There is a lack of courtesy and it is by several of the patrons of the Tavern. However, not all of these have been warned or given sanctions. That is the underlying problem. Lay out the rules to all, lay out the warning, sanction process to all, then take action, even if it means sanctioning someone you like and agree with politically. If he is your real friend he will understand how difficult it is to moderate a forum. Especially one such as the Tavern.

The .com forum is extremely wild and unpredictable, and the moderators there must keep a tight vigil on the posters since there are always those who show up just to "Troll" or see what they can get away with. The moderators there are heavy handed and quick to stifle any insulting posts or offensive language.

This name calling, by all parties Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, must stop. Sarcasm should be allowed, as long as there is no cursing, name calling, or insult to an individual patron. Sure what is insulting to an individual may not be insulting to all, but you can most times know, by reading the posts, if the INTENT of the post was to offend. If there was no intent involved then requesting the patron to make another statement in the same thread in which he offended someone, is necessary. If the patron refuses, then you can rightfully assume he meant the post to be offensive.

For example: Squippy can play innocent, but I have read a lot of his posts and they are written to be offensive to those he does not agree with. Gawain also has posted in the same manner and admits it, as does Redleg. It would seem to me, if Gawain has gotten sanctioned, then Squippy and Redleg should have received sanctions as well as many of the participants in the .org. You say you have warned both sides, but if that was true, then it would have ended and we would not be having this discussion.

As moderators it is your job, to stop this. If you have to be heavy handed to all. No problem. Just make sure you ARE heavy handed to all and do not allow others to take advantage of those who have been sanctioned and cannot respond in kind.

Moderating is a tough job. It is thankless and there will be several patrons who do not like you. If you care what people think and cannot take criticism, then you should not be a moderator.

Teutonic Knight
05-26-2004, 21:45
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 26 2004,16:42)]It really all comes down to a simple principle - either enforce the rules or just ignore them completely. Moderators should function to insure the rules are not violated by anyone, and must take action to prevent them from being consistantly being violated.


Quote[/b] ]Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.


This rule explains well what is allowed and what is not.
yes Redleg, but it doesn't list specifically what all of these things mean. I vote that there should be a list put together of unacceptable language, and it should be posted along with the forum rules...

Redleg
05-26-2004, 23:30
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ May 26 2004,15:44)]There is a lack of courtesy and it is by several of the patrons of the Tavern. However, not all of these have been warned or given sanctions. That is the underlying problem. Lay out the rules to all, lay out the warning, sanction process to all, then take action, even if it means sanctioning someone you like and agree with politically. If he is your real friend he will understand how difficult it is to moderate a forum. Especially one such as the Tavern.

The .com forum is extremely wild and unpredictable, and the moderators there must keep a tight vigil on the posters since there are always those who show up just to "Troll" or see what they can get away with. The moderators there are heavy handed and quick to stifle any insulting posts or offensive language.

This name calling, by all parties Conservative, Liberal or otherwise, must stop. Sarcasm should be allowed, as long as there is no cursing, name calling, or insult to an individual patron. Sure what is insulting to an individual may not be insulting to all, but you can most times know, by reading the posts, if the INTENT of the post was to offend. If there was no intent involved then requesting the patron to make another statement in the same thread in which he offended someone, is necessary. If the patron refuses, then you can rightfully assume he meant the post to be offensive.

For example: Squippy can play innocent, but I have read a lot of his posts and they are written to be offensive to those he does not agree with. Gawain also has posted in the same manner and admits it, as does Redleg. It would seem to me, if Gawain has gotten sanctioned, then Squippy and Redleg should have received sanctions as well as many of the participants in the .org. You say you have warned both sides, but if that was true, then it would have ended and we would not be having this discussion.

As moderators it is your job, to stop this. If you have to be heavy handed to all. No problem. Just make sure you ARE heavy handed to all and do not allow others to take advantage of those who have been sanctioned and cannot respond in kind.

Moderating is a tough job. It is thankless and there will be several patrons who do not like you. If you care what people think and cannot take criticism, then you should not be a moderator.
Very well said Elmo.

Until the moderators decide and post what their consensus is, I have pretty much discussed and verbalize most of my thoughts on this issue.

TosaInu
05-27-2004, 00:16
Many warnings are private matters. Not seeing them on others doesn't mean there was no moderation action.

Of course a guy who already had several private warnings can get the visible 3rd card, while his 'opponent' only gets his first card which is invisible.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-27-2004, 00:31
Quote[/b] ]Many warnings are private matters. Not seeing them on others doesn't mean there was no moderation action.
All warnings should be public so that everyone will have a better idea of what is considered unacceptable behavior.


Quote[/b] ]Of course a guy who already had several private warnings can get the visible 3rd card, while his 'opponent' only gets his first card which is invisible.

That is the problem everyone thinks they are the only ones being punished. All warnings and punishments should be made with the offending post hi lighted. Then all can see whats happening. No discussion whether it was right or wrong needed but at least we can judge for ourselves if the mods are fair and have a better idea of what is not allowed. Of course this is just my opinion.

ElmarkOFear
05-27-2004, 00:50
What if the moderators were allowed to edit offending posts, removing the offensive parts, and then explain to the patron, "in public" why his post was inappropriate?

For example: Gawain calls me an Ugly%#@* in a post of his. The moderator could edit out the "Ugly%#)" statement and tell Gawain that:

***Name calling and personal insults are not acceptable behaviour in this forum. Please refrain from this in future posts***

Not only have you removed the offense, but you have also warned Gawain and the rest of the patrons that this type of behaviour is unacceptable.

If Gawain persists in calling me names or insulting me you could edit his offending post once more and state that:

***Sanctions will be given on the next offense***

It is clear, you are giving him a fair chance of changing his manner. Very fair and clear to all.

If he continues then issue sanctions or ban him.

Do this with everyone and you will not have any problem such as this. Nobody will say you are being unfair, and nobody will complain of favoritism. All is in the open and everyone knows what the moderators will not tolerate in the future.

This is just a suggested way of handling things and not a set of rules. Each moderator has his own style, but it should be made public when someone gets out of line.

I was a moderator here in the wilder days of STW and learned the hard way what not to do. hehe I am currently a moderator at the .com forums. This saves me money in 1-900 numbers since I get the abuse for free over there

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

ElmarkOFear
05-27-2004, 01:01
Tosa: I know you to be a very private person and I also know you try to be fair. However, your duty as adming is to get involved when things get out of hand with a patron and your moderators have tried everything short of sanctions to get the offending patron to stop misbehaving.

The moderators on the other hand, need be more outgoing, and be encouraged to edit posts and to serve public warnings. If a thread gets too far out of hand and everyone is getting emotional, the moderator should delete that thread in its entirety. No explanations needed. If the patrons want to continue the topic they can start another post, but if they continue to misbehave, then you start the editing/warning/warning/sanction process for the offending patron. I am not sure what powers the moderators are given here at the .org now, but I am assuming they are allowed to edit, close and move threads.

I feel your pain, especially the new moderators who want to do a good job and keep things running smoothly. Just remember you will take your lumps until you find your own unique style,THEN you will do great.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-27-2004, 01:03
Well thats basically what I said except the edit ting part. Only problem with the editing is then no one else will know what was wrong but at least the one being edited will.


Quote[/b] ]For example: Gawain calls me an Ugly%#@* in a post of his
Can I get away with calling you an Ugly Elmo?

ElmarkOFear
05-27-2004, 01:29
Only if you kiss me when you say it LOL wooot

Most times you can explain what "type" of offense it was and it will be enough for everyone to know what to avoid. They might not know you called me an Ugly#%*@, but they will know you called me something hehe

ElmarkOFear
05-27-2004, 01:46
Here is an example of a thread I had to edit comments and give a warning to participants:

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshogun....9.topic (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=4139.topic)

I edited 2 posts before too many saw it and could be offended and start a flame war. I then made a post of what type of offense it was and that it would not be tolerated in that section of the forum.

There was one KRONOS who questioned it, but more out of fear that HE made an offhand comment rather than another patron. So I had eliminated the offending part of the posts before he had read them. Job done.

Admittedly, we are more strict on such things at the forum, since it is the official CA/TotalWar forum, and your Tavern has to be much more lenient in lieu of its purpose, but the same methods can be applied in the Tavern as was applied in the post I had to take action on.

squippy
05-27-2004, 09:11
Quote[/b] ] By using the term nazi you associate Redleg not just with the ideology but also the inhumane aspects of the nazi. Do you really think Redleg supports the idea of genocide?

Yes, I do; I would not have used the term if I had not meant it. With slightly more nuance, I claim that Redlegs blind patriotism is qualitatively indistingiguishable from the blind patriotism exhibted by the Schutzstaffel; that his claims of the superiority of the West are equivalent to Nazi claims of racial supremacist, and that this supremacist agenda is what brings genocide about.

And I cite the war in Iraq, subsequent abuses, and Redleges unconditional support for these atrocities as supporting evidence for my case. I called a spade a spade, and I called it right.


Quote[/b] ] If you really did not intent to offend Redleg, you would have addressed the parts you find wrong about his stance, rather than use an offensive term to label him.

I did not use an offensive term - I used a historical term. And I have specifically addressed those concerns to Redleg and to others.

I say again, the presumption that such an analysis is offensive, or is intended to give offence, is rather self-regarding; its an attempt to dismiss the criticism by alleging that it arises from some other motive.

Devastatin Dave
05-27-2004, 09:53
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,03:11)]


Quote[/b] ] By using the term nazi you associate Redleg not just with the ideology but also the inhumane aspects of the nazi. Do you really think Redleg supports the idea of genocide?

Yes, I do; I would not have used the term if I had not meant it. With slightly more nuance, I claim that Redlegs blind patriotism is qualitatively indistingiguishable from the blind patriotism exhibted by the Schutzstaffel; that his claims of the superiority of the West are equivalent to Nazi claims of racial supremacist, and that this supremacist agenda is what brings genocide about.

And I cite the war in Iraq, subsequent abuses, and Redleges unconditional support for these atrocities as supporting evidence for my case. I called a spade a spade, and I called it right.


Quote[/b] ] If you really did not intent to offend Redleg, you would have addressed the parts you find wrong about his stance, rather than use an offensive term to label him.

I did not use an offensive term - I used a historical term. And I have specifically addressed those concerns to Redleg and to others.

I say again, the presumption that such an analysis is offensive, or is intended to give offence, is rather self-regarding; its an attempt to dismiss the criticism by alleging that it arises from some other motive.
Thank you Mr Stalin.

squippy
05-27-2004, 09:56
Go on Dave, fight the good fight.

May I ask the moderators why it is I appear to be unable to post to the Tavern? No such limitation appears to restrict Dav'es childish knee-jerk reaction to anything even remotely criticial of his state. Is there an explanation please?

Devastatin Dave
05-27-2004, 10:12
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 26 2004,09:09)]I have also complained to the moderators about this and other slanders - such as the infamous and much-tolerated slander of 'anti-americanism' - and they have been largely silent. I have an outstanding complaint against Devestatin' Dave's spectacular homophobic hate-speech that has also been tolerated and left to stand.
Actually I have been sanctioned for that my friend. Why can you call Redleg "Hitler" and can't call you Mr Stalin without you having a hissy fit? The funny thing is Redleg has posted the most civil discourse with you out of most that have disagreed with you and you call him names. I think its wonderful to see that you bloviate and get all "holier than thou" about everyone but you're too hypocritical to see your own actions. I'm a hypocrit, your a hypocrit, I'm a parinoid, capitalist, imperialist, homophobe nazi, and your a anti-american, pro-dictator, appeasing leftist. So can't we all just cut the bull, grow some skin, and enjoy the short time we have on this Earth?

squippy
05-27-2004, 10:23
Quote[/b] (Devastatin Dave @ May 27 2004,04:12)]

Quote[/b] ] Actually I have been sanctioned for that my friend. Why can you call Redleg "Hitler" and can't call you Mr Stalin without you having a hissy fit?

Because Redleg does advocate Nazi policies, and I advocate anti-Stalinist policies. I am after all a Trotskyist, as you know. You and Redleg are just resorting to polemic for rhetorical effect - neither of you even understand the accusation you are making. The fact that you try to paint this as "equal abuse" unerlines the point.

frogbeastegg
05-27-2004, 10:26
[patron mode]This is supposed to be a thread about improving things, not yet another fight It is counterproductive and only builds more bad feeling, and right now I think there is more than enough of that hanging about like a cancer.

I would suggest people calm down, and take a step back, then get back to the real matter in hand.[/patron mode]

Some good ideas there, Elmo. The old saying goes "Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done."

Devastatin Dave
05-27-2004, 10:28
*** Deleted by Barocca - innapropriate ***

squippy
05-27-2004, 10:32
*** MAIN BODY Deleted by Barocca - innapropriate ***



Footnote: in the interests of disclosure, I too have been formally warned. I am please to see that some action has at last been on Dav'e hate-speech, although the mods declined to confirm to me that they were going to do so, after having stalled for some time.

I still await an explanation as to why one of my posts in the Jesus thread was deleted. Its a bit poinltess suggesting patronns restrict themselves to actual discourse if the actual discourse they then post is deleted. Please explain.

Devastatin Dave
05-27-2004, 11:20
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Just take your punishment like a man, like everyone else does. Everyone is held to the same standard. So be nice to people and stop calling them Nazis.

Demon of Light
05-27-2004, 12:11
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,02:32)]I still await an explanation as to why one of my posts in the Jesus thread was deleted. Its a bit poinltess suggesting patronns restrict themselves to actual discourse if the actual discourse they then post is deleted. Please explain.
Squippy: I'm not sure how many people saw that post but I was one and can most likely speak to the effect of why it was deleted (bear in mind though that I was not involved in the decision to delete it). Unfortunately, I don't think you can receive PMs anymore. I used to have your e-mail but the account it was in has been lost due to inactivity. Ironically, I remember your name but not the e-mail account. Anyways, my e-mail is albertmaldonado@yahoo.com. Give me a holler (or if you can still PM, PM me) and I'll be happy to discuss the issue.

P.S: I remember I asked a while ago if you had any family in the U.S. Do you?

P.S.S: I also asked a while ago if perhaps you could critique some papers my friend has written that discuss Karl Marx. Not so many true Communists running around that I can ask.

Papewaio
05-27-2004, 12:14
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,18:11)]


Yes, I do; I would not have used the term if I had not meant it. With slightly more nuance, I claim that Redlegs blind patriotism is qualitatively indistingiguishable from the blind patriotism exhibted by the Schutzstaffel; that his claims of the superiority of the West are equivalent to Nazi claims of racial supremacist, and that this supremacist agenda is what brings genocide about.

And I cite the war in Iraq, subsequent abuses, and Redleges unconditional support for these atrocities as supporting evidence for my case. I called a spade a spade, and I called it right.


Quote[/b] ] If you really did not intent to offend Redleg, you would have addressed the parts you find wrong about his stance, rather than use an offensive term to label him.

I did not use an offensive term - I used a historical term. And I have specifically addressed those concerns to Redleg and to others.

I say again, the presumption that such an analysis is offensive, or is intended to give offence, is rather self-regarding; its an attempt to dismiss the criticism by alleging that it arises from some other motive.

Squippy you are not calling a spade a spade.

You are calling a spade an excavator.

----

Show me the quotes to back up these statements:


Quote[/b] ]that his claims of the superiority of the West are equivalent to Nazi claims of racial supremacist

a) Claims of superiority.
b) How they are 1:1 with that of Nazi policy. In particular ghettos and extermination.


Quote[/b] ]And I cite the war in Iraq, subsequent abuses, and Redleges unconditional support for these atrocities as supporting evidence for my case.

Redleg has not shown unconditional support. He has shown that he believes that the justice system will crank through the issue(s) and deal with it in due course.


Quote[/b] ]I claim that Redlegs blind patriotism is qualitatively indistingiguishable from the blind patriotism exhibted by the Schutzstaffel;

That is pure hyperbole and disserves an apology. Redleg has not shown blind patriotism. He reads relatively widely on an issue. He shows that he believes in the USA but also shown that it is not perfect. I believe that he thinks his country is very good if not the best but that it is not perfect. He has shown no hatred to those who have mental disabilities, have a different ethnic grouping or any of the other racist happenings of the SS which made thier patriotism so blind and rabid.


Quote[/b] ]Yes, I do That quote is in response to believing that Redleg would support genocide.

No way in the world. I believe wholeheartdly that Redleg is the kind of guy who would put his life on the line to stop such an event. In none of his postings have I seen an irrational hatred or a blaming of his life situations (some of which are quite hard) on others. The people who commit acts of genocide are not the ilk of Redleg.


Quote[/b] ]I did not use an offensive term - I used a historical term.

Calling someone a Nazi is one of the most offensive terms available. That it is historical does not mean it is inoffensive. It is the history of that term that is offensive. You demonise a person you debate with rather then try and enlighten him to your own beliefs about a situation.

You may not consider calling someone a Nazi offensive. But to anyone who had family die fighting against their reign it is deeply offensive.

If you want to do viable criticism it should be constructive and not offensive. All you are doing at the moment is vicious name calling.

Demon of Light
05-27-2004, 12:22
Pape: Any chance that last post could mysteriously disappear? I know the intent is good but I fear it will encourage a heated disagreement that will then lead to another heated disagreement which will then start a flame war.

Rather ironic if this topic was closed due to flame.

P.S: No, I don't think you yourself are flaming.

Edit: He would appear to have logged off. Any chance we can avoid getting a negative reaction on this?

Redleg
05-27-2004, 12:33
Leave it all in, it shows exactly the attitude and the problem that is facing the tavern at this time.

I won't respond to any of material in the posts other then that Papewaio has a decent feel for my character. Don't know if I am that decent of a person, but I like to think I am at least half that decent.

Dave - please stop the tit for tat with Squippy, I appreciate your input but let us wait on the moderators to reach a consenus and inform of the solutions.

Demon of Light
05-27-2004, 12:34
Well, there is that.

barocca
05-27-2004, 12:44
squippy

please return to a previous post that contains a quote involving a bus,
please edit that post in a similar manner to the person you are quoting,
ie get rid of the same words he has just removed.


please dont make me go and get my Admin powersuit.
B.

Demon of Light
05-27-2004, 12:48
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that might present a problem. Squippy just got demoted to Senior Patron. Unless I am mistaken, they can't edit their posts.

barocca
05-27-2004, 13:00
ACK - this is Tosa's exclusive domain,

ok not squippy's fault,

i cant reverse that demotion either - not my forum,

will everyone please be so kind as to ignore that post
while i contact Tosa,

B.
Edit - found the spare battery - post edited

squippy
05-27-2004, 13:53
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ May 27 2004,06:14)]

Quote[/b] ] You are calling a spade an excavator.[

Nope, I'm calling it a spade. We tend to forget that Nazism was a respectable political philosophy before WW2, and instead appeal to the propaganda image of Nazi's pitchforking babies onto trucks and similar.


Quote[/b] ] Show me the quotes to back up these statements:

a) Claims of superiority.

I can't spend all searching the forums, much as I would like to respond in detail. But, Redleg has decsribed Jane Fonda as a 'traitorous witch' and suggested she should be tried for daring to speak out against Vietnam; he's also expressed pride in his ancestors having the 'foresight' to leave Europe 'when they had the chance'. I say these are clear indications of nationalist supremacy and doctrine in which criticism of the state is treason.


Quote[/b] ]
b) How they are 1:1 with that of Nazi policy. In particular ghettos and extermination.

Except, those were not initially stated goals of Nazism. Thus, as I remarked above, you are trying to appeal to the dramatiuc imagery rather than the humdrum reality of Nazism. And I predicted - correctly - that the same nationalist self-righteousness would prooduce similar results, and was correct in so doing: we have Abu Ghraib, snipers shooting civilians, the whole encilada. Sure, we have not reached pogrom heights yet - but it took the Germans several years and much military pressure to resort to those methods. So please, enough of the extension to an illogical extreme, and deal with the criticism as I present it.


Quote[/b] ] That is pure hyperbole and disserves an apology.

It is not, and does not. However, I now expect an apology from you for accusing me of hyperbole.


Quote[/b] ] No way in the world. I believe wholeheartdly that Redleg is the kind of guy who would put his life on the line to stop such an event... The people who commit acts of genocide are not the ilk of Redleg.

How gravely mistaken you are. The 'people' who commit such acts are of exactkly this ilk IMO. Becuase there is no special property that such people have, or do not have, that distinguishes them from ordinary people.


Quote[/b] ] Calling someone a Nazi is one of the most offensive terms available.

Why?


Quote[/b] ] You demonise a person you debate with rather then try and enlighten him to your own beliefs about a situation.

Withdraw that slur. I *AM* explaining what I think about a situation by drawing the approprate historical analogy.


Quote[/b] ] But to anyone who had family die fighting against their reign it is deeply offensive.

And I'm quite sure being called a terrorist when you are fighting for the liberation of yourt country from american occupation is equally offensive, but we like to turn a blind eye to that one, don't we?

Nonetheless, the fact that some construe this as insulting in no way undermines the claim or the point.


Quote[/b] ] If you want to do viable criticism it should be constructive and not offensive. All you are doing at the moment is vicious name calling.

No, you are merely resorting to the same ad hominem tactics that Redleg and Dave (and others) deploy so frequently: faced with an unpalatable criticism, you are reduced to claiming that they are merely rhetorical. Now THAT is name calling and abuse. If you feel the criticism is ridiculousm, you can always challenge it. Why shoot the messenger?

squippy
05-27-2004, 13:58
And while we are talkijg about hyperbole, I wonder why it is that Dave can freely accuse me of dancing for joy when busses are blown up. Is there any evidence anywhere in any of my posts that I find this a joyous event? I'm not aware of any; can Dave please demonstrate where he has seen such posts, or withdraw the slander as a lie.

Bhruic
05-27-2004, 14:00
I must admit to some curiosity about this particular decision. I mean, what words can you fill in there that don't create a negative image? And what about the words was so bad (note, I saw what they were before being erased, so I'm not asking what they were)? I mean, censoring "obscene" words, certainly, but censoring the labels of two groups of people? Are we going to start removing "English", or "French" now too? In which case how do we discuss MTW? ;)

Seriously, if you think a line is offensive, snipping the whole line is fine, but taking a few words out but leaving the intent up seems like a pointless gesture.

Bh

barocca
05-27-2004, 14:04
good point,
hang 5

barocca
05-27-2004, 14:11
done

EVERYBODY show some restraint

- moderating these boards begins with you.

barocca
05-27-2004, 14:26
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,07:58)]And while we are talkijg about hyperbole, I wonder why it is that Dave can freely accuse me of dancing for joy when busses are blown up. Is there any evidence anywhere in any of my posts that I find this a joyous event? I'm not aware of any; can Dave please demonstrate where he has seen such posts, or withdraw the slander as a lie.
just so you all know i am now tracking this entire topic,

we are SUPPOSED to be discussing how the staff here can not only moderate fairly,
but be SEEN to BE moderating fairly.

this topic remains open so we can hear your point of view, suggestions and ideas on exactly that.

May i humbly suggest a round of pints and a game of darts down the local,
then we can come back to this a little mellowed out...

B.

Redleg
05-27-2004, 14:31
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 27 2004,07:53)][

Quote[/b] ] Show me the quotes to back up these statements:

a) Claims of superiority.

I can't spend all searching the forums, much as I would like to respond in detail. But, Redleg has decsribed Jane Fonda as a 'traitorous witch' and suggested she should be tried for daring to speak out against Vietnam; he's also expressed pride in his ancestors having the 'foresight' to leave Europe 'when they had the chance'. I say these are clear indications of nationalist supremacy and doctrine in which criticism of the state is treason.
What I said Squippy is that Jane Fonda is a traitorus witch because she manned an anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam and pretended to shoot down American Aircraft.

That is what made her a traitor not her speech. If she would of just made it speech she would not be a traitor, she is a traitor because she did a physical manifestion of an action against her country.

And yes I am proud of my ancestors leaving Europe because if they hadn't - I would not be here. Just as I am proud of my Native American Hertiage also. Does that make me a Nazi - no it makes me a someone who is proud of his hertiage. And that I made a over aggressive post on the issue shows that I was getting frustrated with many of the bashing posts that many were doing on America, and the personal attacks from individual on my opinions. (Which by the way was the intent of this topic.)

barocca
05-27-2004, 14:36
guys,

FOR THE LAST TIME

this topic has a goal,

work towards that goal or leave this thread alone

Redleg
05-27-2004, 14:56
Once again - its all revelant because it does indeed show the problem within the tavern. How the moderators deal with it here because of the actions of a few will be indictive of how it will be handled in the future.

(And since Squippy refers to me still as a Nazi even in this thread, I feel it is important for me to respond to his lack of understanding of a statement I made, because if he is going to change his posting style he needs to realize where he is incorrect in placing offensive labels on people. And I have yet seen any action taken on him regarding the use of that term.)

Or are the moderators going to do something about the use of offensive terms and finally make a decision on what is acceptable language in accordance with the forum rules. If a individual refuses to cooperate with the moderators and refrain from such postings - WHAT ARE THE MODERATORS GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? - that is in essence the point of this whole topic. It has been allowed to go on and on and on without direct action being done by the moderators.

What are the guidelines?

What are the moderator responses to offensive posts?

How will the moderators insure they are maintaining a fair and equal balance of censor, sancations, demotions, etc..?

Can the patrons of this forum have input on the actual publishing of these guidelines in the forum rules - so that we all understand the process?

All these questions have been brought up at least once by many here in this thread. The moderators even went so far as to allow both Squippy and Dave to get into an offensive posting tit for tat battle in this thread. Can you all not see the direction that as moderators you have allowed the tavern to go? Its very obvious to me, and I am trying to moderate myself - but what are the moderators going to do to actually moderate the tavern and the other forums before the tit for tat battles migrate into the other topic areas of this forum?

Inaction and no decision is a decision in itself. Explain the policy and the procedures so that everyone understands the process and the consquences of their actions

frogbeastegg
05-27-2004, 15:42
This thread is in a forum moderated only by TosaInu, you can see that from the nameplate on the guild listing.

We are only moderators for the forum with our names on them, thus I can only moderate in the arena or guide forum. Outside of that I still wear my mod badge, but I have no powers at all. I have no control panel here. I cannot close topics, edit posts, hand out cards - anything mod related here. I am as a normal patron, except for the need to behave decently, and any respect that may have attached itself to my name.

The only person who can close this topic, edit posts or any of those mod abilities in this forum is TosaInu. The one who is supposed to stop fighting here is TosaInu. Currently he is away, busy with his real life.

Does that mean you can do what you want, and raise hell? Theoretically, yes, but posts are still being noted, a copy or two of this thread can be saved to hard drive to prevent people editing away the objectionable material, and when TosaInu gets back he can see those preserved copies of the thread and act on them. You escape for a few days, nothing more. Speaking of saved to hard drive, that is precisely what I have done.

What are the mods going to do? The topic of language is currently being discussed, as are many other topics. We are taking note of what is being said here. This is taking time, we are scattered across several timezones and we do have lives of our own making demands on our time. Barocca has to go to sleep, and my afternoon has now been limited to sitting here with one eye on this topic, trying to stop things getting even worse.

If you want to help, and want to speed things up please refrain from turning this thread into yet another fight



On the topic of bad language how many people here think it is a good idea to have a list of banned words added to the rules? That way it is clear to everyone precisely what is not allowed.

The inclusion of the guidelines into the forum rules could be useful, and that is the kind of suggestion we need here, rather than more arguing.

Any other good ideas, anyone?

Redleg
05-27-2004, 16:01
I got several ideas most of them already mentioned. As to what the moderators are going to do, I have pointed it out several times. I understand who can and who can not make edits as a moderator on this thread. Especially since I understand the format and even more important I understand the rules.

That several decided to futher the name calling and offensive posts just shows exactly what I am protesting and complaining against. Since I just explained my statement about Jane Fonda - I have not gone down the road of tit for tat offensive posts - just like I said I would not in the tavern. But that does not mean I have to accept his misunderstanding and abusive terms and language directed at me, even here.

However what I mean and will always mean - and I feel I have made it really clear. Is what as a group are the moderators going to do to insure the rules are enforced, and done in a fair and equal matter? What methods are you going to use, and where are you going to publish the guidelines so that as patrons we can review it? Are you as moderators going to allow any member to continue to abuse others even in the face of criticism from yourselves?

This thread was started initially on 14 May and then closed and I made a new one. Time is a fleeting thing with different meaning for different people. But in this issue - I am beginning to see from the nature of the posts even here - that time is not a luxury for the moderators in this issue.

The_Emperor
05-27-2004, 16:12
Redleg, this issue doesn't seem to be a new issue to me.

I remember when Portuguese Rebel left these boards making many of the same arguments that you are now about political bias in moderating posts (only he claimed it was the other way around at the time and Right wing people were treated leniently), and insults during debates.

At any rate personally I find it very difficult to keep track on all the threads that go on in the Tavern, posts are moving so quickly in threads sometimes that after I have finished replying to a post, the post I have been replying to has been pushed many posts up... As such I don't envy the difficulty the moderators face in order to try and keep on top of things in the Tavern.

Your right, time is an issue for the Moderators because so many posts and topics are generated in the Tavern.

frogbeastegg
05-27-2004, 16:44
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ May 27 2004,16:01)]I got several ideas most of them already mentioned.
Seen, noted and under discussion.


Quote[/b] ]Since I just explained my statement about Jane Fonda - I have not gone down the road of tit for tat offensive posts - just like I said I would not in the tavern. But that does not mean I have to accept his misunderstanding and abusive terms and language directed at me, even here.
The problem is your reply will get a reply, then you reply again, and so on in an endless cycle. Eventually, hopefully, one of you will walk away from the cycle before it grows even worse than it already is.


Quote[/b] ]However what I mean and will always mean - and I feel I have made it really clear.
Abundantly. Very clear.


Quote[/b] ]Is what as a group are the moderators going to do to insure the rules are enforced, and done in a fair and equal matter? What methods are you going to use, and where are you going to publish the guidelines so that as patrons we can review it? Are you as moderators going to allow any member to continue to abuse others even in the face of criticism from yourselves?
And in many ways that is the whole crux of the matter, and the whole problem that is slowing this. Not a single one of us can answer, it has to come from the whole group. Any changes have to be discussed by the group, and agreed on collectively. Publishing guidelines is probably a job for admin, rather than the mods.

Individually I can say that I will not tolerate name calling, fighting, swearing or any poor behaviour, but that only applies to the arena. I am sure all the other mods would say the same thing about their forums.

A major part of this problem is trying to find a medium that is acceptable to most people, as you can see from this thread some people like the idea of all moderating being public, others think it should remain private through the first stages as it is now. Now define profanity, as in a list each and every single profane word. That is not as simple as it seems, being greatly dependant on your culture and attitude. It is easy to say clamp down on everything classed as profane, but that would add words like damn, zounds, heck, and crivens to the list. How many people today consider damn to be profane? Now consider and decide exactly what you are going to do when someone ues one of these words, do you hit harder for the worst words? Do you edit, hand out a verbal warning, a card, what? Is swearing really that bad when compared to other issues? Severity should decide the mod reaction, but to some swearing is a tiny thing, to others it is a very big thing.

That only scratches the suface of the issue, using the simplest example.

It doesn't help that, in essence, our 'boss' is away.


Quote[/b] ]But in this issue - I am beginning to see from the nature of the posts even here - that time is not a luxury for the moderators in this issue.
I have the same feeling, it is the one thing we really need and the one thing that is hard to get.


The_Emperor that is an understatement about the tavern, I would never mod that place, even if you paid me Tavern=nightmare in my book.

Redleg
05-27-2004, 16:57
Quote[/b] (frogbeastegg @ May 27 2004,10:44)]
Quote[/b] ]Since I just explained my statement about Jane Fonda - I have not gone down the road of tit for tat offensive posts - just like I said I would not in the tavern. But that does not mean I have to accept his misunderstanding and abusive terms and language directed at me, even here.
The problem is your reply will get a reply, then you reply again, and so on in an endless cycle. Eventually, hopefully, one of you will walk away from the cycle before it grows even worse than it already is.
I replied and now I will walk away from that discussion with him. However it does not make the point mote in which I pointed out.

Emperor - how well I remember because I was making the probably exact same complaints against him that he was against me, and the ineffectiveness of the moderation between us. However the moderators at the time attempted to be very judicial and timely in their moderation, I didn't see only one side getting cautioned either public or private, it was fairily equal to both of us - he left the forum and I came really close over the issue. The PMs between me and a few moderators where fairily consant in their attempts to calm my posting style in regards to those events.

That is the type of moderation and respect I would like to see the moderators try to return to also. But without guidelines its easy for an individual to slip and not follow the same procedure each and every time.

Mouzafphaerre
05-27-2004, 17:28
Quote[/b] (TosaInu @ May 26 2004,19:50)]
Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ May 26 2004,03:31)]-
Re: If you going to moderate

It's a shame that the inappropriate speculative thread about Islam and Democracy has been polluting the Monastry for three days now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif It was called upon at the thread itself and the mods were PMed but it's still there.

I don't want to lose my faith in the ORG and its staff. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Ref: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=18651 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=18651)
_
Hello Mouzafphaerre,

Who did you PM?
-
Greetings,

Sinan PMed the Tavern mods and I was one of the CCed patrons.

I'm back from two days offline time, thus couldn't replace my signature (caught by A. Saturnus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif) yet. Sorry for that.

However, that makes it three or four days of pollution in one of the best boards at this forum. I have learnt a lot in the Monastry and don't want to have to leave it because of an ignorant, biased, inappropriate, arrogant, pejorative if not explicitly offensive, but before all a misaddressed thread.

Please

Regards,
Mouzafphaerre
_

A.Saturnus
05-27-2004, 18:04
Quote[/b] ]I still await an explanation as to why one of my posts in the Jesus thread was deleted. Its a bit pointless suggesting patrons restrict themselves to actual discourse if the actual discourse they then post is deleted. Please explain.

I´m glad you ask Another member came here at the Org to tell us something very emotional of his personal life. I, personally am honoured that he did so. It means that in spite of the heat we notice lately in the Tavern, it is obviously still a place where people like to come to and consider worthy to open themselves. Every civilized person who read the post surely noticed that this is a sensitive thing. The appropriate reaction is appreciating, comforting or encouraging or it is to remain silent. You only showed disrespect. I hope the other person hasn´t read your post before I could delete it, because it could have made him regret his decision to talk to us about that issue.
To make a discussion forum such as the Tavern workable it is paramount that the members try to act toward each other with respect and civility. Even when people try to hold on to that, it is understandable that they do not always succeed. We are all only human after all. So it happens that people offend each other. When things get heated some people resort to name-calling and flaming, you yourself are guilty of that. In fact, you even reject to see the fault in that. You tried to argue in this thread why you should have the right to flame others while they shouldn´t.
But this are things that simply happen on a discussion board. However, the misbehaviour described above shows that you are unwilling or unable to accept the standards of social interaction that are required for the Tavern. On that basis, it has been decided that you´re unbearable for the Tavern.
If you should amend your posting style to more civility, you may be accepted back. Unless that happens, you´re not welcome.

A.Saturnus
05-27-2004, 18:07
Quote[/b] ]Sinan PMed the Tavern mods and I was one of the CCed patrons.

1) I for one didn´t get any PM from Sinan lately. Surely not this week.

2) If that happened in the Monastery, why did he PM the Tavern mods?

Ludens
05-27-2004, 19:48
Quote[/b] ]On the topic of bad language how many people here think it is a good idea to have a list of banned words added to the rules? That way it is clear to everyone precisely what is not allowed.
I am rather skeptical to the feasibility of that. In the first place (as was already pointed out): which words would be included in this list?

Secondly you will get people arguing that, for example, Nazi isn't an insult but a technical term. OK, so here it is pretty clear, since Nazi is meant as an insult nine out of ten times and therefor everybody will who is called a Nazi will take it as an insult. But what about 'communist'? I don't mind being called a communist, but there are certain exponents of communism (e.g. Stalinism) with which I do not want to be associated.

And lastly, I am convinced people would just find other ways of insulting each other http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif .

frogbeastegg
05-27-2004, 20:07
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ May 27 2004,19:48)]
Quote[/b] ]On the topic of bad language how many people here think it is a good idea to have a list of banned words added to the rules? That way it is clear to everyone precisely what is not allowed.
I am rather skeptical to the feasibility of that. In the first place (as was already pointed out): which words would be included in this list?

Secondly you will get people arguing that, for example, Nazi isn't an insult but a technical term. OK, so here it is pretty clear, since Nazi is meant as an insult nine out of ten times and therefor everybody will who is called a Nazi will take it as an insult. But what about 'communist'? I don't mind being called a communist, but there are certain exponents of communism (e.g. Stalinism) with which I do not want to be associated.

And lastly, I am convinced people would just find other ways of insulting each other http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif .
The idea is more a list of swearwords, Nazi's would fall under a seperate category that wopuld have to be handled in the context of the post, like Elmo's example earlier.

A list of swearwords isn't as redundant as it might sound on first inspection. In a discussion I had earlier it becomae clear culture etc has a big impact on this, I thought 'bastard' was acceptable because where I live it has devolved into something as harmless as 'damn', the other person found bastard to be strong, but thought bloody was mild, to me it certainly is not.

Asking around would hopefully allow a list of the most common offensive swearwords to be assembled, and then those can be modded consistantly. Right now I'd let bastard go unless it was aimed at a person, but bloody would always be hit. The person I was talking to would operate in the reverse, making things inconsistant and unfair.

It wouldn't be easy to make this list, but it would be possible to put something together with the worst words if nothing else, and that is surely better than nothing.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2004, 20:11
I think Nazi is unacceptable, but Fascist is merely escribing a political philosophy.

I think the thing we most need to to in the tavern, is address the root causes of the problem. Namely-the increasing polarisation of the tavern into left and right. You can't say anything in the tavern without somebody quipping "you lefties/conservatives are all the same". The focus on peoples political alignment rather than their arguements is getting ridiculous, and is what's causing all of the hostility. Having the patrons pigeon-holed into one of two diametrically-opposed camps is not conducive to discussion.

I'm just happy that the frontroom seems to have been completely civil so far. Although this does beg the question, why do people get so angry every time politics is mentioned?

Teutonic Knight
05-27-2004, 20:25
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 27 2004,15:11)]I think Nazi is unacceptable, but Fascist is merely escribing a political philosophy.

I think the thing we most need to to in the tavern, is address the root causes of the problem. Namely-the increasing polarisation of the tavern into left and right. You can't say anything in the tavern without somebody quipping "you lefties/conservatives are all the same". The focus on peoples political alignment rather than their arguements is getting ridiculous, and is what's causing all of the hostility. Having the patrons pigeon-holed into one of two diametrically-opposed camps is not conducive to discussion.

I'm just happy that the frontroom seems to have been completely civil so far. Although this does beg the question, why do people get so angry every time politics is mentioned?
I agree, strangely... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif

ElmarkOFear
05-27-2004, 22:14
Unfortunately, the polarization of political ideals/discourse here in the .org is indicative of the world politcal scene as a whole. It shouldn't be this way. Through the media and political parties, each side has decided that they cannot be seen to agree with the other, because that will be seen as a sign of weakness. Therefor, the two sides: (liberal and conservative) have taken opposite stances on every topic for discussion and turned the phrase into (liberal VS. conservative). There is no longer a middle ground for agreement. This in turn means that liberalism and conservatism in reality no longer represents anyone, except the extremists.

Still, I can already see some improvement in the moderating of even this thread. Sometimes it takes a heavy hand to set things right. The ones who complain the most of these actions, you will find, are the ones who think "rules" apply to other people, not them.

Hope all goes well.

PS. I also recommend Tosa giving all moderators powers to edit and delete posts in EVERY section of the forum. It speeds the moderating process up and allows more than a few moderators to catch things, and take action quickly, before the normal moderator for that forum can do so. Kind of a double check. Of course ettiquette is necessary for this to happen effectively. For instance: A few rules we try to follow at the .com forum are:

1. If a moderator has already edited or posted a warning in a specific thread, let him be the one to continue to do so. He has taken ownership of it. To do otherwise will seem like you are "ganging up" on a patron. This will also keep it from appearing that the original moderator is not up to the task. If you happen to see a problem in a thread which has been edited by another mod, tell him in the moderator forum, with a link to the thread.

2. If you take an action in a thread make sure you leave a signature so the other moderators will be aware that you have taken ownership of the thread. Helps with rule #1. Of course deleted threads would be impossible to leave a signature on, so post in the mod forum that you have deleted a specific thread and why.

3. Do not get into a prolonged public discussion with a patron over why you took the action you did. Be firm, do not try to be humorous, and make it perfectly clear that you are in control and will not discuss the matter further. If the patron persists in arguing in this thread. Delete his posts immediately. If he REALLY wants to discuss the issue and explain his side he can PM you at that point. Do not PM him nor ask him to PM you. If you do you will soon be flooded with PMs from every patron who has a complaint about you acting on something they posted.

4. Make sure you post in the moderator forum if you are unsure how to handle a problem post. This is also a good time to ask someone to step in and take an action, if you feel it would be improper or appear to be showing favoritism.

5. Make a list in the mod forum of topics to watch, with a link to each. Explain why you think it should be watched and let the other moderators know if they are free to take action in your stead.

6. Also make a list of patrons to watch. I don't agree with the "yellow card" system. It will bias your opinion of the person if you are constantly reminded they screwed up in another post. Listing the patrons in the mod forum serves as a reminder to watch for a patron, but you will find you only check it AFTER you see something out of line in a post, to see if this patron has been in trouble before. Being reminded BEFORE of a patron has a tendency to color your view of what you are reading.

7. Have fun. Do not spend an inordinate amount of time trying to find every problem or violation of the forum. Try to take action only when it appears a statement will cause friction with other patrons by using name-calling, extreme sarcasm intended to insult, or profanity.


Good luck fellow moderators. I know you are trying your best and will eventually find your own comfort zone and do a great job of keeping watch over the .org.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-27-2004, 22:38
We should have a moderator forum. It sounds like a good idea. Hopefully, Soly can provide us with his XXX pics behind closed doors... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously, I think it should be thought about.

hrvojej
05-27-2004, 23:25
Quote[/b] (frogbeastegg @ May 27 2004,10:42)]On the topic of bad language how many people here think it is a good idea to have a list of banned words added to the rules? That way it is clear to everyone precisely what is not allowed.
I think that will still leave a lot of gray areas to be dealt with, and in turn could backfire and give ammo to the "I didn't do it" arguments. A stupid example would be "I just said you agree with Hitler, I didn't call you a nazi, and I didn't break any rules; look - here they are, and it doesn't say anywhere I cannot say that". Proscribing words out of context is not a good way to go, IMHO. I would rather trust the judgement of the person in charge of the forum we all attend out of our own free will, than any list which could lead into an even bigger quagmire, and add some negative conotations to boot.

The problem is, again IMHO, that people don't realise two things:
a)this is supposed to be a fun recreational activity; if what you read bothers you so much, first I shudder to think how you react to the real-life stress, and second why bother coming back for more?

b)you may have a strong opinion about something, but you are not forced to express it; some things you can say among your friends or family in a certain way, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to say them like that (or at all) to a stranger in a public place; I myself often have a very venomous comment in mind when I read some of the posts, but I nevertheless choose to keep it to myself out of politeness and consideration, if not to the actual poster, then to the other people reading the forum; you don't have to say everything what you think exactly how you think it, nobody is forcing you to do so, and it's not like we all have a Tourette syndrome that we can't stop translating thoughts into words (I know this is not what Tourette is all about, but it's close).

When you combine a) and b), you end up being able to keep your own peace of mind, and it also enables you to preserve the peace of mind of other patrons. However, if somebody is posting on a forum just to piss other people off and make them miserable, I would say that this is beyond any help that the moderators can provide anyway.

Now, how do you explain that to your average poster who doesn't want to see it that way, I unfortunatelly don't know. Everybody has a button that when pressed can make him/her slide into offensive, but I don't get why it seems as if some people have this button permanently locked down, and to top that they have to let everybody know that they do.

I like the diversity of opinions, and I think that the views that, e.g., Redleg and squippy espouse are both important to keep it that way, but there is a proper time, place, and manner for everything.

TosaInu
05-27-2004, 23:51
Squippy

Quote[/b] ]I am please to see that some action has at last been on Dav'e hate-speech, although the mods declined to confirm to me that they were going to do so, after having stalled for some time.

Pleased? You take pleasure in others 'misery'? For any person who's still puzzled about the mess that pops up in the forums, here's the answer. It's not a biased staff, it's not a lack of rules, some people love to get a rise out of each other and they don't step back when it escalates but demand a full compensation.

That might be a mighty fine hobby, these forums are not the place for it. Moderate yourself, you're not alone in this forum.

Mouzafphaerre
05-28-2004, 12:37
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ May 27 2004,20:07)]...2) If that happened in the Monastery, why did he PM the Tavern mods?
-
Although I'm not eligible to answer why Sinan did or did not do something, I should admit that I was wrong. It was the Monastry moderators that the PM was sent to. (Just checked the mods list.)

Anyway, thanks Tosa http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif
_

Papewaio
05-28-2004, 12:57
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ May 28 2004,07:14)]1. If a moderator has already edited or posted a warning in a specific thread, let him be the one to continue to do so. He has taken ownership of it. To do otherwise will seem like you are "ganging up" on a patron. This will also keep it from appearing that the original moderator is not up to the task. If you happen to see a problem in a thread which has been edited by another mod, tell him in the moderator forum, with a link to the thread.

2. If you take an action in a thread make sure you leave a signature so the other moderators will be aware that you have taken ownership of the thread. Helps with rule #1. Of course deleted threads would be impossible to leave a signature on, so post in the mod forum that you have deleted a specific thread and why.
I disagree with number 1.

a) It may become difficult to figure out who deleted a post.

b) It would also mean mods would have to mod every forum as it is they are just a patron in other forums and hence they can kick off their steel caps and just wear the fluffy bunny slippers.

2. Ownership would also imply being on call 24/7... cooperation is the key here to moderating which includes the patrons acting as moderators.

Teutonic Knight
05-28-2004, 15:30
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 27 2004,17:38)]We should have a moderator forum. It sounds like a good idea. Hopefully, Soly can provide us with his XXX pics behind closed doors... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously, I think it should be thought about.
and... you know that it doesn't already exist?

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-28-2004, 16:50
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ May 28 2004,15:30)]
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 27 2004,17:38)]We should have a moderator forum. It sounds like a good idea. Hopefully, Soly can provide us with his XXX pics behind closed doors... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously, I think it should be thought about.
and... you know that it doesn't already exist?
If it does, they haven't told me about it...

Teutonic Knight
05-28-2004, 18:36
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 28 2004,11:50)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ May 28 2004,15:30)]
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 27 2004,17:38)]We should have a moderator forum. It sounds like a good idea. Hopefully, Soly can provide us with his XXX pics behind closed doors... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously, I think it should be thought about.
and... you know that it doesn't already exist?
If it does, they haven't told me about it...
and why would they? You're just an AM croney http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

ElmarkOFear
05-28-2004, 19:22
Papewaio: You do not want moderators interfering in other mods posts if they have taken an action previously. And as for "24/7". Nobody is on 24/7 and that is an even BETTER reason to have a mod forum and post any actions taken.

Your #1-a: The way you keep track of who deleted a thread is in the private moderator forum, which only the moderators can see. Easy and it works well at the .com which gets way more traffic than here.

Your #1-b: Since moderators participate in other threads and since moderators also have a life outside the .org and take vacations, have work responsibilities and cannot be on 24/7; it is imperative to have every mod with powers to edit, delete, etc in every section of the forum.

Your #2. "Ownership" does not mean the moderator has to be around 24/7. It means that moderators should not interfere in a thread which has been acted upon by another, unless he has discussed this with the moderator who took action. If I was to edit posts, and warn patrons in a thread that they need to watch their language and get back on topic, I sure do not want another moderator to delete that post, but I WOULD want them to watch over it and let me know if something happens and ask permission to take an action, or if the problem needed immediate action, then to inform me after the action was taken and why. It is very easy to do this and it works well if you have a private mod forum. The .com forum is extremely busy and this is the way all the moderators keep up-to-date.

The secret is communication amongst the moderators. A private mod forum allows this to happen. Simple, easy, and decreases the likelihood that problems, that are occuring now, do not happen.

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-28-2004, 20:34
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ May 28 2004,18:36)]
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 28 2004,11:50)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ May 28 2004,15:30)]
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 27 2004,17:38)]We should have a moderator forum. It sounds like a good idea. Hopefully, Soly can provide us with his XXX pics behind closed doors... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously, I think it should be thought about.
and... you know that it doesn't already exist?
If it does, they haven't told me about it...
and why would they? You're just an AM croney http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Right, it's time for t3h bigg3ty ban...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Teutonic Knight
05-28-2004, 23:55
ROFL

oh...wait... you're not joking .....Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Let go of me Nooooooooooooooooooooo I'll get you for this

ElmarkOFear
05-29-2004, 01:13
LOL

ichi
05-29-2004, 07:02
Quote[/b] (ElmarkOFear @ May 28 2004,18:13)]LOL
^^^^I think that Elmo eloquently sums up the issue.^^^^

Some randoms thoughts from this thread.

It is very hard to mod the subtle stuff

People don't have a right to not be offended

People need to moderate themselves

Reasonable people can disagree on things

Accept the fact that others have different views

Be proud of your views, don't be threatened by other views

We don't need a list of banned words, or a list of folks on probation

No one changes their mind by being beaten into submission, but some wise people learn from others words and actions

Get a life, this got out of control for a while

Argue the point, not the person

Why are there Interstate Highways in Hawaii?

Exercise restraint and avoid threads that will stress you out, unless you make the commitment to stay in control

Why do you care what other people think, especially people that you have such low respect for?

Is anything better than chocolate?

and finally

Gah ichi Gah

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

ichi

Voigtkampf
05-29-2004, 07:38
The solution with listing offensive material is not a valuable one; for the same reason, you will never find a law codex in the entire world that will list all the possible ways to murder another person (firearms, knives, poisoning, strangulating et cetera…). All the laws will condemn murder as an act and leave to the judge to review the specific circumstances and decide whether the murder itself has been of "lighter" or "heavier" nature; most popular examples come from USA and are being rated as murder of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree.

Now, the interpretation is the difficult part. Everyone knows what offensive or vulgar means (well, superficially, at least), yet sometimes people just simply can't interpret correctly whether a certain statement is that offensive or not.

Rules are hardly going to help here. Some people just need to start taking responsibility for their words and actions. Yes, I know, growing up is though, get over it.

ElmarkOFear has some very good ideas that should be worth considering.


Quote[/b] ]People need to moderate themselves

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-gossip.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif


Quote[/b] ]Get a life, this got out of control for a while

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-glasses2.gif


Quote[/b] ]Argue the point, not the person

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif


Quote[/b] ]Why are there Interstate Highways in Hawaii?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif


Quote[/b] ]Is anything better than chocolate?
Chocolate being served by/on a beautiful woman… http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif

barocca
05-29-2004, 07:50
http://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gif

Quote[/b] (ichi @ May 29 2004,01:02)]Why are there Interstate Highways in Hawaii?
because hawaiins' dont want to feel left out, they want to feel they are part of the USA, in order to acomplish this, or rather an illusion thereof, they have interstate highways so they can pretend they can, if they drive far enough, actually manage to reach mainland usa - if you ask them why they never actually manage to get there they invariable respond
"Distracted by a beautiful woman/man/dude you should have seen the break - i had to stop and surf/huuuge pineapple going for a buck/macadamia's for a penny a pound"...
in short any number of things they consider unique to Hawaii and therefore those who do leave are mad for doing so...

incidently macadamia's are not native to hawaii - they were imported from australia...
http://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gifhttp://www.totalwar.org/barocca/misc/offtopic.gif

Gregoshi
05-29-2004, 08:07
Nice summary ichi.

Thanks for the constructive input from your .com moderating experiences Elmo.

Kaiser of Arabia
05-30-2004, 02:01
You know, I have not posted in this, so what the hell
I think if we mix in some right wing americans as mods, at least 1 per room thingy, it could be balenced out. All the mods are liberals, so a right wing point of view is dangerous to post because the libs can flame you, and get away over half the time We need some conservative mods
-Capo

Teutonic Knight
05-30-2004, 03:35
Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ May 29 2004,21:01)]You know, I have not posted in this, so what the hell
I think if we mix in some right wing americans as mods, at least 1 per room thingy, it could be balenced out. All the mods are liberals, so a right wing point of view is dangerous to post because the libs can flame you, and get away over half the time We need some conservative mods
-Capo
well... at least you speak your mind http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Shahed
05-30-2004, 03:38
Sorry.

This is not a liberal or a conservative forum, hence you need impartial mods.

Teutonic Knight
05-30-2004, 03:41
Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 29 2004,22:38)]Sorry.

This is not a liberal or a conservative forum, hence you need impartial mods.
hence the problem, the complaint, I believe, is that the mods are less than impartial...

Gawain of Orkeny
05-30-2004, 03:48
Quote[/b] ]Quote (Sinan @ May 29 2004,22:38)
Sorry.

This is not a liberal or a conservative forum, hence you need impartial mods.

hence the problem, the complaint, I believe, is that the mods are less than impartial...

I believe thats one of the reasons it was started. As they say there should not even be the hint of impropriety.

Kaiser of Arabia
05-30-2004, 03:59
But the thing is, for impartial mods, they have to have no political opinion. If we can't get impartial mods, we need to have a mix of both sides to balence it out
-Capo

Shahed
05-30-2004, 03:59
Quote[/b] (Sinan @ May 30 2004,03:38)]Sorry.

This is not a liberal or a conservative forum, hence you need impartial mods.
Gawain, your post attributes TKs remark to me.
Reposting, to make certain to avoid any misunderstanding.

Shahed
05-30-2004, 04:00
Quote[/b] (Caporegime1984 @ May 30 2004,03:59)]But the thing is, for impartial mods, they have to have no political opinion. If we can't get impartial mods, we need to have a mix of both sides to balence it out
-Capo
Please list the liberal mods by name.

Gawain of Orkeny
05-30-2004, 04:11
IM not gonna label anyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif Lets make it easy you name the right wing or impartial ones for me. Wait I can answer it for you all of them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif I would like to hangout around here at least a bit longer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Gregoshi
05-30-2004, 05:32
Whether we be left wing, right wing, up wing or down wing, we should be impartial. If we are failing in our fairness to one group, we must understand why we are failing that group and determine what we need to do to correct the imbalance. How do you balance "right wing" mods with "left wing" mods? What next? Why stop at right wing/left wing? Do we make sure all continents and religions have a mod rep? Where do you draw the line?

Ser Clegane
05-30-2004, 07:40
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 29 2004,22:11)]IM not gonna label anyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif Lets make it easy you name the right wing or impartial ones for me. Wait I can answer it for you all of them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif I would like to hangout around here at least a bit longer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif
I think the Tavern mods are quite a balanced mixture.

Of the four active ones (the 5th has not shown up for a longer time)
- one is what you probably would call "liberal"

- one is what you would probably consider "conservative"

- one might be more "liberal" leaning in your eyes but would be "moderate" IMO and definitely seems to be very impartial

- one actually refuses to disclöose his political leanings and refrains from actively participating in political discussions (one of his posts though indicated that he os probably "conservative", however, none of his "moderating activities" I have obsrved so far indicated that he might be biased)

I did not post the moderators' names here to avoid starting a debate on individual moderators (if you insist on doing this PM would probably be the appropriate way)

Demon of Light
05-30-2004, 09:49
I've been holding on to this for a while. A little bit ago, this was a PM I wrote to a few people involved. I was initially going to post it here but it seemed to accomplish its purpose so I let it lie. Anyhow, it seems to serve a purpose again so here it is.
-----------

So much to say... but I'll try to be brief. Edit: I failed to be brief. If those concerned could at least read this beginning to end, that would be great.

To whom it may concern: You believe yourself to be the target of moderator bias. Want to know everything I know to the best of my knowledge on the subject? Ok. Here goes. Moderators can be snippy, uppity little snots incapable of differentiating between jokes and insults. I know this for a fact because on one memorable occasion I was a snippy, uppity little snot incapable of differentiating between jokes and insults (conflict with voigtkampf). Other times moderators screw up on a less severe scale. On still other occasions, moderators simply disagree with you about what merits discipline and what does not.

I have observed moderators mess up. It happens. I believe one even called me inhuman at one point over some comment or the other. Know what paradigms are? We all have them and we're all ruled by them. They are the manner in which we percieve things. We all take in facts and spit out opinions. Example?

Fact: Pter says "All the Americans in Iraq are serving the Imperialist agenda of Bush. Bush lies to the country and the foolish, misguided Americans believe him."

Palamedes' response might be something like "It is truly surprising how all Euros can catagorically deny all evidence that justifies this war. Saddam is a mass-murderer. He tortured and slaughtered massive amounts of people. Did you miss that news broadcast in England or were you too attending anti-American rallies? If you feel the need to look at a misguided fool, try a mirror."

Pter says "(Insert outraged statement here)
Palamedes replies "You are obviously diplaying all the maturity of a three year old and are thus not worth replying to. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Random Moderator (DEATH OF WORLDS) says "I will not stand for name-calling Palamedes, stop calling people stupid, misguided three year olds. I'll card you if I have to. Pter, stop tempting him.

Here's the important part:
DEATH OF WORLDS Perception: This was a flame war. Pter said something inflammatory and Palamedes responded. Since Palamedes did all the personal attacks, I should focus my attention there. Pter may be a jackass and I may not be sorry if he choked on something tommorrow BUT he didn't actually do anything that I can discipline him for. Besides, Palamedes is too easily agitated. If people would just respond to people like Pter with level-heads, things would be a whole lot easier. Worth noting that DEATH OF WORLDS previous experience with Palamedes has involved similar incidents so that makes it easier for him chastise Palamedes. It appears to him that Palamedes' hair-trigger for taking offense means that Palamedes is a prime candidate for being moderated. Constantly.

Palamedes' perception: I take exception to what Pter said. I responded to what Pter said and now I'm the one being penalized. Pter didn't just insult me. He insulted everyone who might think as I do. Nevermind that he's wrong and that his arguments lack substance. Nevermind that his comments were inflammatory and likely written for the purpose of angering certain people here. I end up being chastised for defending myself. Am I expected to sit here and take it? I've tried reasoning with people like Pter. They continue to put out the same anti-American propaganda tripe. I've tried ignoring people like Pter. That emboldens them. I've tried appealing to the moderators or waiting for them to handle it. They are suspiciously absent. What the hell do I look like? A piñata?? A punching bag??

Besides, how am I wrong here? Pter isn't displaying maturity. I noted that. Pter is misguided and refuses to hear sound, reasonable arguments. I noted that. Finally, it may not be politically correct, but Pter is a blooming idiot. I noted that. Am I to believe that I'm getting punished by the Politeness and Political Correctness police? Why the hell aren't they on Pter for being a troll?

Voigtkampf
05-30-2004, 10:45
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Demon of Light, stop that one. I'll quote Darth Vader: "There is no conflict." As some of the respected members may recall, I made a joke on DoL saying "TEH BAN" (it was a rather hilarious thread) and have "TEH BANNED" myself the following post. DoL misinterpreted that, believing I wanted to thread on him and protested. We sorted the things out, it was just a minor slip off, and now DoL is bashing himself for jumping the gun. Well, don't. Happens to everyone now and then.

The problem are the members that willfully and intentionally seek excuses to engage in name-calling, offensive remarks that eventually degrade to mere blatant insults. They don't seek for discussion, they seek conflict.

As for the right/left wing moderators… Hell, I don't even know what I am I have never voted in my life, nor do I intend to do so. I was never a member of any political party; I have never invested money in anyone's campaign. I could never bring myself to incite a theoretical girlfriend of mine to make an abortion, but I couldn't care less if other people do it or not. Et cetera et cetera…

.
.
.
.
.

Conflict is irrelevant. We are the moderators. We will moderate you. Flaming is futile.

Kaiser of Arabia
05-30-2004, 17:49
Wha..?
Erm, okay, who is teh Conservative tavern mod?
Also, I find Conservatives a bit more impartial than Liberals, mainly because most of them arn't as extreme ( but then again, some Conservatives, like me, are more extreme than most libersals out htere).
And Greg,
We don't have members from every country out there.
Time to Bash Seychelles j/k.
Ok, I'll end my argument here.
-Capo

scooter_the_shooter
05-31-2004, 12:39
what mods are doing this just fire em http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif then everyone is happy except those few mean ones and they dont deserve to be happy for a while any way i went in the tavern once to see what it was i was very offended by ALL THE LIL PUNKS THAT WERE BEING ANTI AMERICAN http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif come on you people need to get some mods from the .com like

obakedate
the critter speaks
killeman
elmokarefear(cant spell it right)

out of all the forums i been to that has the best mods i seen the best mod here i think is gregoroshi

Big King Sanctaphrax
05-31-2004, 12:40
Quote[/b] ]Random Moderator (DEATH OF WORLDS)


Wow, that's a blast from the past...

squippy
06-01-2004, 10:58
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ May 27 2004,12:04)]
On the topic of why my post in the religious thread was deleted, A.Saturnus wrote:


Quote[/b] ]
I´m glad you ask Another member came here at the Org to tell us something very emotional of his personal life.


Quote[/b] ] Every civilized person who read the post surely noticed that this is a sensitive thing. The appropriate reaction is appreciating, comforting or encouraging or it is to remain silent. You only showed disrespect.

Yes, that was the "appropriate" response... and that is exactly what made the tearjerker a piece of parpaganda. Becuase the reader is being blackmailed by the emotional text to endorse the religious subtext.

Its a foul ball, a cheap propagandist trick, and I called it correctly.

If you want tearjerkers, I trawl up tearjerkers for any given topic. I'm just not prone to using them becuase I'm much more interested in HONEST rather than manipulative argument.


Quote[/b] ] To make a discussion forum such as the Tavern workable it is paramount that the members try to act toward each other with respect and civility.

Yesl it is. And anyone resorting to tearjerkers is demonstrateing that they have no respect for the members at all.


Quote[/b] ] You tried to argue in this thread why you should have the right to flame others while they shouldn´t.

I have never argued that or anything like that. I havre argued that a spade should be called a spade and that this imputation of motive is offensive.


Quote[/b] ] However, the misbehaviour described above shows that you are unwilling or unable to accept the standards of social interaction that are required for the Tavern. On that basis, it has been decided that you´re unbearable for the Tavern.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

Ser Clegane
06-01-2004, 11:08
Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 01 2004,04:58)]Yes, that was the "appropriate" response... and that is exactly what made the tearjerker a piece of parpaganda. Becuase the reader is being blackmailed by the emotional text to endorse the religious subtext.

Its a foul ball, a cheap propagandist trick, and I called it correctly.

If you want tearjerkers, I trawl up tearjerkers for any given topic. I'm just not prone to using them becuase I'm much more interested in HONEST rather than manipulative argument.
I somehow doubt that a teenager who tells about his father's recent death does so to "play propagandist tricks" or to "manipulate" people.

Sometimes people just feel like telling about their experiences without having a hidden agenda.

If you did not feel like responding to the "tearjerker" in the "appropriate way" maybe just refraining from responding at all would have been a viable option in this specific case.

squippy
06-01-2004, 11:10
You know, I too had felt that this board is essentially pro-Right. For absolute ages, people have been slandered as "anti-american" on the basis of opposing aggression. I let this slide on the basis that the mods were probably american as well and its difficult to get past national pride. When Rumsfeld opportunistically slandered the French, the Org quite contendedly to allow its right wingers to promote francophobia and abuse this nation on no more basis that it was currently politically correct to do so.

Yes, it does not surprise me that some leftists have found this environment too poisonous, too sympathetic to the Right, to be worth hanging around in. I stuck it out partly out of resignation; it's likely in my eyes that most fora dedicated to wargames are going to be dominated by conservatives. But I was willing to put up with this as my cross to bear.

But A.Saturnus absurd moderator's decision really takes the biscuit. This is not the first either - Saturnus also turned a blind eye to Devestatin' Dave's homophobia, and has similarly ignored many incidents of racist abuse common in tyhe Tavern. Last I saw, these bigots were still posting in the tavern with nary a concern; their behaviour has been formally endorsed and approved by the moderators.

What a surprise that is. And yet, the word ###### is deemed unacceptable. Hypocrites.

EDITED BY BAROCCA
Yes Squippy, that word is UNACCEPTABLE, if you beleive a member has violated the rules you are entitled to contact a mod and say so. If your Private Message rights have been revoked then EMAIL them, email addresses for the Admins and most of the mods can be found from the Org Home Page.

I am personally participating in the thread you are referring to and have not yet seen anything from Devastatin' Dave that warrants any mention at all.

Aplogies to Tosa Inu for stepping in, but i simply cannot allow that word to stay online in a PG13 forum

Dhepee
06-01-2004, 14:46
There is no such thing as absolute impartiality. No one person is absolutely free of bias. The question is not whether or not all groups are represented but how can a moderator represent all groups. The political leanings of a member should be a moot point when the Admins select a moderator; because a moderator does not just moderate the people who share his political beliefs but all members regardless of belief.

If we were to have an even balance of liberal and conservative moderators then who would they moderate? Could the conservative moderator card a liberal? Would the liberal then be able to claim bias because the conservative moderator carded him. This would cause more problems than it would solve. A moderator must represent all members not just the parochial interests of a few members.

As a moderator I have no political affiliation. My goal is to prevent violations of the Forum Rules. If you look at the Forum Rules you will see that they are non-partisan; so that is how I enforce them or at least try to anyway.

squippy
06-01-2004, 14:51
Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 01 2004,05:10)]I am personally participating in the thread you are referring to and have not yet seen anything from Devastatin' Dave that warrants any mention at all.
Thats the worrying part. There are clearly quite a number of abuses in which the mods see nothing to concern them. Thus, our 'family friendly' board can't use words that have been common in English for a thousand years, but CAN suggest that paedophilia and homsexuality are linked. Equally, nobody seem at all worried about references to the 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' or using 'gay' as a synonym for 'shit'.

This is a gross double standard.

And incidentally, I did complain to A.Saturnus and to TosaInu. Their inaction is what lead me to engage with this thread directly.

barocca
06-01-2004, 15:22
Squippy, everyone who has some sensibility (as you obviously do) knows that such a link does not exist,
and he was called to task to provide proof of such a link between the two.
Naturally we all know that he cannot.

Thus his argument has been given the boot and now we await his next point of contest over the entire issue.

Several classes of people would have a strong feeling for the "Not marry" case, including many religious groups.
For that reason that issue has been flagged as particularly hot, and thus a little bit of leeway will be given to hear all sides of the discussion,
(much as we are doing in this thread about US - the Moderators,)
but any transgressions (in the Australia Bans... thread)
of a major nature will receive a size 9 steel capped warning in the posterior from me personally.

I also mentioned your concerns in that thread, and though i do not agree, I have (gently) asked everyone to be carefull how they proceed.

B.

squippy
06-01-2004, 16:25
Quote[/b] (barocca @ June 01 2004,09:22)]

Quote[/b] ] Squippy, everyone who has some sensibility (as you obviously do) knows that such a link does not exist,
and he was called to task to provide proof of such a link between the two.

Really? Well, A.Saturnus refused to intervene on that matter on the grounds that my complaint was baseless.


Quote[/b] ] Several classes of people would have a strong feeling for the "Not marry" case, including many religious groups.

Well, they are entirely free to vigorously argue their opinion as far as I am concerned. I have never objected to such; what I have objected to is the routine use of abusive terms, especially in the light of censorship for foul language.

And especially in the light of charges of 'liberal bias'.

And especially considering that I have had my Tavern and sundry other posting rights suspended while this continues unabated and unchallenged.

barocca
06-01-2004, 17:39
Squippy,

check my incep date, dont bother, it was December 7 2000.

It is now June 2004.

in all my time here i have only been forced to use my admin powers twice,
both time were to remove comments posted by you.

Doing so is annoying and time consuming, I usually travel around with my powers turned OFF.

In order to use them I have to go through a ton of hassle to Enable them.
I HATE, absolutely HATE having to Enable them and then go through all the nuisance of Disabling them afterwards.

I have never before needed to use them and i am the website Admin, not the forum Admin. Tosa and I live in opposite timezones - thus one of us is "on call" at all times.
Some of the Mod's here actually have my phone number so they can call me.
None of them had ever needed to do so previously.


If you are trying to get me to accept or deny claims of Bias, Forget it.
If you want me to explain why any mod did, or did not do something, Forget it.

Moderators make decisions based upon the rules of the forum which are posted for all to see.
They are more or less autonomous within their forums, they are theirs to moderate as they see fit within the broad outline of the rules.

The warnings we give to people are not usually publicised, we are not in the habit of embarrassing people.
Thus those you complain about may also have been warned.


Demotions and rights restrictions occur when a patron is repeatedly warned within a short period of time and ignores the warnings.
Warnings are more likely to be given for direct attacks on Patrons or for inciting to riot, than any other cause.
Rights are usually restored once a Patron has been behaving themselves for a period of time.


I dont understand the conservative/liberal rubbish at all, because here in Australia we have a conservative party - they are called The Australian Liberal Party
and we have a Workers Socialist Party called the Australian Labour Party.
The Greens and the Democrats are very minor parties, both have proven track records of making deals that go against their core policies whenever it suits them. Neither will ever be a major party unless they can learn to stop cutting deals because they want larger offices or more staffers.
So, seeing the Conservatives here are represented by Liberal Party how the heck can they possibly be at war with each other?


AS A PATRON AND NOT AS ADMIN
If i am not mistaken, a true liberal supports freedom of speech, The Org tries to encourage freedom of speech, providing such freedom is not abused in order to cause hurt or injury.
Thus, if The Org need's to err, The Org will err on the side of freedom of speech. If that means The Org is potentially liberally biased, well i dont really see how The Org can overcome that without ruining The Org as a whole.

The Entire purpose of this thread is to discuss : is there any way to improve things.



BACK TO BEING ADMIN
NOW what really does irk me is this is ALL about the Tavern,
The Tavern is for off topic discussions.
Some of the things posted in the Tavern, including some comments by you, would gain an instant 2 week BAN if posted anywhere else on these boards.
The Org is, and always will be, a gaming board, the intent of which is to discuss the TotalWar Series of Games.
The Tavern is not the primary reason for the existence of the Org, The Tavern is open for the sole purpose of giving people somwhere to discuss things outside the scope of the game.
We only ask that you play nice,
if you cant play nice in our sandbox then, by all means, go somewhere else.

Regards,
Barocca.

A.Saturnus
06-01-2004, 21:39
Thanks for covering me up squippy. That´s just what I needed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
You see, if it were only one side claiming I was biased, that would possibly make me think. But since I´m accused of being biased in both directions, I have confidence that I´m right where I should be - between the lines.

And if anyone should have had any doubts whether you exclusion from the Tavern was justified, your comments above will show him otherwise.
About you assesment I were biased against homosexuals: my best friend is homosexual. I have no problem with asserting that I love him. I think that he´s an outstanding person, there´s nothing at all wrong with him and I find the idea that he hasn´t all the rights heterosexuals have outragous. All this homophobia makes me sad. So I would say that I´m as much pro-homosexual as someone can be who isn´t homosexual himself.
But if someone says that homosexuality is wrong then I can´t do anything against it. I think people have the right to say that, even though I disagree strongly with them.
The incident that obviously upset you so much was Gawain saying that most pedophiles are homosexuals. I don´t know whether this is true or not, although I remember to have read in an independent source that it is indeed correct. Whatever, I don´t see why this should be punished. Seen logically the term "most pedophiles are homosexuals" is not a statement about homosexuals, since homosexuals are not distributed. It´s a statement about pedophiles. If I say "almost all violent murderers are male" - which is true - then I don´t claim that all men are in any way bad. You cannot even infere from that that men are in general more violent than women since the number of violent murderers is so small compaired to the number of men. If someone had said "most homosexuals are pedophiles" then you would be right, that would indeed be inacceptable. But it was only a statement about pedophiles. And not even a bad one.

Kaiser of Arabia
06-01-2004, 23:04
No offence Saturnus, but you are a little bit left biased. Not enough to bother me though, honestly, you are one of the most impartial mods here. Good Job http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif .
Seriously though, why are we arguing about impartiality, when we could be improving the board?
Now, seriously, why does it matter if the board is Liberal Biased or not, if it's okay to bash teh french but not the americans (although I got in deep sh*t for bashing the Iraqi's Go figure...), when we could be discussing (not b*tching about) the policy of the boards? Barrocas right. It's not right to be arguing about these things.
And Barocca, your doing a great job, BTW. Just my opinion.
Okay, that will be all, I'll take my leave of you gentlemen.
-capo

JAG
06-02-2004, 00:18
Sat left biased? You msut be joking he is a clear moderate, he never coems out with left views all the time. He even stated in a thread that he was likely to vote for a conservative party in the Euro electionsw.. left wing? I think not. Sat is a good mod and genurally deals with things well though at times - like every mod ever - can be off base.

There are mods here with both leanings politically, what is the problem? If you have a problem you can always PM another mod, it is not as if every mod here is left wing or right wing - if you are sayign that you are VERY much mistaken. I think people are really blowing this out of all proportion. If I was a mod in the tavern or Squippy was or Dave or Gawain, THEN I could see a problem, but we arn't, all the mods are impartial.

Get over it I think.

Redleg
06-02-2004, 01:02
Just a side note to get back on topic of this thread.

From just changing my posting methods and taking a step back and just watching what is going on.

I would have to say the efforts of the moderators to stop the posts that attack the individual poster and the efforts to clean up the language used by both the moderators and some of the patrons is going a long way to fixing some of the problems that made me first bring this to the attention of this area of the .org.


Having said that - I would still like to see in the forum rules how discpline plan for poster who violate the rules is to be handled. This would enable the individual patron to understand the system and maybe prevent some of the feelings of baised efforts of the moderators.

Then the strict enforcement of editing and cautioning patrons who violate the forum rules in regards to offensive, vulger, and profanity in their posts.

squippy
06-02-2004, 10:06
Quote[/b] ] If you are trying to get me to accept or deny claims of Bias, Forget it.
If you want me to explain why any mod did, or did not do something, Forget it.

Fair enough. Then I will be obliged to draw my own conclusions; I have no alternative if you decline to explain.


Quote[/b] ] I dont understand the conservative/liberal rubbish at all,

Good; its fundamentally irrelevent and overly inovleved with local American politics; the distinction applies nowhere else accurately.


Quote[/b] ] Thus, if The Org need's to err, The Org will err on the side of freedom of speech. If that means The Org is potentially liberally biased, well i dont really see how The Org can overcome that without ruining The Org as a whole.

This I support. I'm omly trying to find out why it is applied so inconsistently. Freedom of speech does not apply to certain words - fair enough - and it does not appear to apply to identifying emotively manipulative rhetoric - the only act for which I have been formally warned. Why is this? Fine, you decline to comment, therefore I conclude it is malicious.


Quote[/b] ] Some of the things posted in the Tavern, including some comments by you, would gain an instant 2 week BAN if posted anywhere else on these boards.

Seeing as nobody has ever drawn to my attention any such grievance, please take this as an invitation to discuss the matter with me further by PM.


Quote[/b] ] We only ask that you play nice, if you cant play nice in our sandbox then, by all means, go somewhere else.

well, does 'nice' mean that I have to respect other peoples right to post racist or homophobic material, while restraining any objection? That appears to the basis at the moment.

Now this is a serious question: does the Tavern not need to be nice to gay players as well? If so, when will the Tavern begin doing so?

A.Saturnus wrote:

Quote[/b] ] Thanks for covering me up squippy. That´s just what I needed.
You see, if it were only one side claiming I was biased, that would possibly make me think. But since I´m accused of being biased in both directions, I have confidence that I´m right where I should be - between the lines.

Yes Saturnus, I think you will find that is the point.


Quote[/b] ] And if anyone should have had any doubts whether you exclusion from the Tavern was justified, your comments above will show him otherwise.

How? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif


Quote[/b] ] The incident that obviously upset you so much was Gawain saying that most pedophiles are homosexuals. I don´t know whether this is true or not, although I remember to have read in an independent source that it is indeed correct. Whatever, I don´t see why this should be punished.

If you recall, that was only part of ther issue: the other was the ad hominem attempt to discredit anyone who objected as being a part of NAMBLA, and thus a paedophile. That is a cealr ad hominem and an example of the rhetorical device Poisong The Well:


Quote[/b] ] Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where unfavourable information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intent of discrediting everything said by that person beforehand.

Examples:
Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.

The alleged intent of the moderators ios to keep discussion civil, but again this appears contradicted by their actual behaviour, which entails repeatedly turning a blind eye to such ad hominems and insults; as pointed out previously, the long standing use of the charge of 'anti-americansim' is a case in point which remains unchallenged. The casting of aspersions on a persons intellectual faculties, morality and personal hygeine appear frequently.

Barocca asks, how can this be resolved? Here is my suggestion: crack down on the ad hominems and the rhetorical logical fallacies and insist that posters restrict themselves TO THE TOPIC. In my opinion this is long overdue.

A.Saturnus
06-02-2004, 14:27
Quote[/b] ]
If you recall, that was only part of ther issue: the other was the ad hominem attempt to discredit anyone who objected as being a part of NAMBLA, and thus a paedophile. That is a cealr ad hominem and an example of the rhetorical device Poisong The Well:

But this wasn´t what you reported to the moderators. You PMed me about the "most pedophiles are homosexual" post. I answered you that I don´t see that as offensive. If you had reported the ad hominem arguments, that might have been something different.

Dhepee
06-02-2004, 14:38
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ June 01 2004,20:02)]Just a side note to get back on topic of this thread.

From just changing my posting methods and taking a step back and just watching what is going on.

I would have to say the efforts of the moderators to stop the posts that attack the individual poster and the efforts to clean up the language used by both the moderators and some of the patrons is going a long way to fixing some of the problems that made me first bring this to the attention of this area of the .org.


Having said that - I would still like to see in the forum rules how discpline plan for poster who violate the rules is to be handled. This would enable the individual patron to understand the system and maybe prevent some of the feelings of baised efforts of the moderators.

Then the strict enforcement of editing and cautioning patrons who violate the forum rules in regards to offensive, vulger, and profanity in their posts.
In my moderating in the Tavern I have been trying to address some of the issues that you have raised in your post. I feel that one of the single largest problems in the Tavern is that once a topic gets heated members tend to discuss one another and how other members post. It's a slippery slope. A few comments here and there can lead to an all out fight in a thread. For that reason, as many of you have noticed, I have made a point of stopping comments on other members.

The way I see it; if the topic is Gun Control there is no reason to discuss another person's hypocritical tendencies in public. If you have a problem with the way someone acts you either PM the Mods or PM the member but you don't take over the thread. It's the Community Policing method of moderating; take care of small quality of life issues before they turn into something bigger and far worse.

I have tried to the best of my abilities to moderate fairly and without bias. I have also cut back on my posting so that I can moderate threads without people feeling like I am moderating away the opposition; also it takes lot of time to read posts. If anybody ever feels that I am making a decision out of bias or personal feelings I encourage them to PM me; as I will always offer an explanation for my actions.

I think that the Tavern is getting better and largely because people are self moderating. I have noticed that in the last couple of weeks that the number of threads that the Mods have had to post in has dropped significantly. The Frontroom/Backroom split has helped but I really think that the attitudes of members has changed too and that is really helping the Tavern. There will always be a few people who want to make trouble or don't like the way things are run but by and large the atmosphere has improved greatly and I'm seeing more and more civility and consequently more people are dropping by the Tavern for a drink than they were a month or two ago.

Kaiser of Arabia
06-02-2004, 22:49
Erm JAG, i know Sat is a Moderate, but all I said is he has a slight leftist bias IMHO.

Ok, back to the topic.
All I want to see is an end to America bashing. Please take steps to limit america bashing. If not, I'll be forced to make you an offer you cant refuse. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
-Capo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/barrel.gif

scooter_the_shooter
06-03-2004, 02:15
Amen to that i went in there to see what it was the thing that made me mad was since i am a senior patron i couldnt defend it since i cant post and most of em use the same argument over and over with no evidence like "amreicans are stupid and retartded". http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
06-03-2004, 02:33
Calm down, breath a bit... And get a thicker skin...

What do you call American bashing? Is it a criticism of the current admninistration? Isn't that the exercise of democracy?

If we are to stop criticizing the US... Then shall we also stop French bashing? Chinese bashing? Homosexual bashing? Muslim bashing?

You don't want me to dig deep in the tavern to find some bashing of any other community than the US, do you?

I find it discomforting to see an exception status for one specific country... And why? Place is getting hot in an election year? People have disagreement on how they view events?

Live with it and talk your way throught it. The job of moderator is not to be a referee between factions but to keep the debate civil.

They can do it up to a point, but if you got a thin skin and that any joke regarding your home country, or any criticism regarding your home country is an insult, I don't think moderating rules are the issue.

I would argue that we have seen worse bashing than what we currently see, with less whining from the bashed.

Louis,

squippy
06-03-2004, 09:15
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ June 02 2004,08:27)]But this wasn´t what you reported to the moderators. You PMed me about the "most pedophiles are homosexual" post. I answered you that I don´t see that as offensive. If you had reported the ad hominem arguments, that might have been something different.
Saturnus, that was exactly what I pointed out to the moderators, i.e., you. The claim is unsupported, and advanced only for the rehtorical effect of poisoning the well; that is why I conplained about it. It is the extension of the same behaviour we see continuously: playing the man and not the ball. And we see it again with these spurous allegations of "america bashing".

So now I ask again for you to justify the ban you have imposed. You appear to be applying a double standard - why should this be?

A.Saturnus
06-03-2004, 19:09
Whether the claim is unsupported is irrelevant. It is still a statement about pedophiles. Not about homosexuals, not about any members. Any other things than that claim haven´t been reported. At least not to me.
This has of course nothing to do with your demotion. Your demotion was decided because of unacceptable behaviour towards a grieving member.

squippy
06-04-2004, 08:53
Quote[/b] ] Any other things than that claim haven´t been reported. At least not to me.

I'm afraid they were. That was the point.


Quote[/b] ] This has of course nothing to do with your demotion. Your demotion was decided because of unacceptable behaviour towards a grieving member.

Even though that analysis depends on a gross and unsubstantiated assumption about my intent. That constitutes prejudice, Saturnus, and that is why it remains unacceptable and an abuse of your priviliges. Furthermore, it is also hypocritical, as you have not to my knowledge applied any equivalent sanction to posters who make a studied habit of being deliberately hurtful.

I await reinstatement and a public apology.

Gregoshi
06-04-2004, 13:25
Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 04 2004,03:53)]
Quote[/b] ] This has of course nothing to do with your demotion. Your demotion was decided because of unacceptable behaviour towards a grieving member.

Even though that analysis depends on a gross and unsubstantiated assumption about my intent.
Does this comment also apply to your analysis in the quote below from you last week?


Quote[/b] ]Yes, that was the "appropriate" response... and that is exactly what made the tearjerker a piece of parpaganda. Becuase the reader is being blackmailed by the emotional text to endorse the religious subtext.

Its a foul ball, a cheap propagandist trick, and I called it correctly.

If you want tearjerkers, I trawl up tearjerkers for any given topic. I'm just not prone to using them becuase I'm much more interested in HONEST rather than manipulative argument.


You ask us to be "squippy" biased by unconditionally accepting that you alone see the "truth" in all matters and the true intent in the hearts of all patrons, thereby allowing you free reign to express contempt, disrespect and heartless attitudes towards your fellow man. Don't you find it the least bit odd that not one patron has come to your defense? If we have so wronged you, where is the outrage from the rest of the patrons? You seem to find fault with the intent of all others, yet seem unwilling to even consider that at least some of the fault lies squarely at your feet.

A.Saturnus
06-04-2004, 14:17
Quote[/b] ]
Even though that analysis depends on a gross and unsubstantiated assumption about my intent. That constitutes prejudice, Saturnus, and that is why it remains unacceptable and an abuse of your priviliges. Furthermore, it is also hypocritical, as you have not to my knowledge applied any equivalent sanction to posters who make a studied habit of being deliberately hurtful.

I don´t care what your intent was. The behaviour was observable and in obvious violation of the rules. That alone justifies your punshment. Everything else is irrelevant.



Quote[/b] ]
I await reinstatement and a public apology.


If we have clear sign that you amend your behaviour to a more acceptable style, you may be granted access back into the Tavern.

Voigtkampf
06-04-2004, 14:24
Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 04 2004,02:53)]I await reinstatement and a public apology.
Why, of course, pending day after tomorrow.

Teutonic Knight
06-04-2004, 16:30
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 04 2004,09:24)]
Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 04 2004,02:53)]I await reinstatement and a public apology.
Why, of course, pending day after tomorrow.
I hope that's sarcasm...

hrvojej
06-04-2004, 21:02
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ June 04 2004,08:25)]Don't you find it the least bit odd that not one patron has come to your defense? If we have so wronged you, where is the outrage from the rest of the patrons?
Without any intention to pass judgements on the issue at hand:
Sorry, Gregoshi, but this argument does not hold. If many people were to advocate the same right/wrong thing, does that make that thing more or less right/wrong than it would be if only one person was advocating it? This puts us in a dangerous situation where those who can shout the loudest are always right, which I'm sure you'll agree is not a good foundation on which to base an argument.

Voigtkampf
06-04-2004, 21:22
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ June 04 2004,10:30)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 04 2004,09:24)]
Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 04 2004,02:53)]I await reinstatement and a public apology.
Why, of course, pending day after tomorrow.
I hope that's sarcasm...
The Day After Tomorrow
Of course it is.



Quote[/b] ]Without any intention to pass judgements on the issue at hand:
Sorry, Gregoshi, but this argument does not hold. If many people were to advocate the same right/wrong thing, does that make that thing more or less right/wrong than it would be if only one person was advocating it? This puts us in a dangerous situation where those who can shout the loudest are always right, which I'm sure you'll agree is not a good foundation on which to base an argument.


Hrvojej, the "condemnation" of member that has so blatantly posted and mocked another member that has just lost his father has occurred because of that; the argument you mention here is not the reason for his ban and degradation to senior member, the argument was merely used to further support our case and emphasize the fact that most of the patrons here do not support his actions as well.

Ergo, he was demoted because what he did, and because he refused to apologize, calling the grieving member a "tearjerker". The fact that no one stood up for him had absolutely no weight for the measures taken, and the lack of support for him has been, naturally, noted after he has been demoted.

hrvojej
06-04-2004, 21:37
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 04 2004,16:22)]The fact that no one stood up for him had absolutely no weight for the measures taken (...)
That's all what I wanted to point out. As I said, it was not my intention to pass judgements on the decision as such, only that the said argument does not really hold as being a valid part of the decision making process, IMO.

Voigtkampf
06-04-2004, 21:44
Quote[/b] (hrvojej @ June 04 2004,15:37)]
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 04 2004,16:22)]The fact that no one stood up for him had absolutely no weight for the measures taken (...)
That's all what I wanted to point out. As I said, it was not my intention to pass judgements on the decision as such, only that the said argument does not really hold as being a valid part of the decision making process, IMO.
Don't worry, that is something we are all well aware of here. Popularity doesn't get anyone far in my book, if the member happens to be the offender. I have even regularly warned some of the people I consider my friends when I believed they were stepping out and over the line.

hrvojej
06-04-2004, 22:02
I'm not worried. I'm just saying that the size of public outcry bears no weight for the validity (or the lack of) of arguments.

Cheers,

Teutonic Knight
06-04-2004, 22:40
Quote[/b] ]The Day After Tomorrow
Of course it is.

ah.... good

Gregoshi
06-05-2004, 00:17
Sorry for the lack of clarity in part of my post hrvojej. voigt explained my meaning quite well (thanks).

Devastatin Dave
06-06-2004, 09:09
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 04 2004,15:22)]Hrvojej, the "condemnation" of member that has so blatantly posted and mocked another member that has just lost his father has occurred because of that; the argument you mention here is not the reason for his ban and degradation to senior member, the argument was merely used to further support our case and emphasize the fact that most of the patrons here do not support his actions as well.

Ergo, he was demoted because what he did, and because he refused to apologize, calling the grieving member a "tearjerker". The fact that no one stood up for him had absolutely no weight for the measures taken, and the lack of support for him has been, naturally, noted after he has been demoted.
Man squippy, you actually wrote that about a poor kid's father dying?? That's some cold hearted sht yo. And you're getting your panties all in a wad about me talking smack about the homosexuals wanting to mock marriage. Check yourself foooo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Anyway, how about a room called the "Court House".
People who violate the rules have a thread devoted to their violation. IN that thread they can plead their case. The person that brings up the violation, prosecutes the case. The mods (3 to 5 mods) could then make a census on the punishment or the innocents of the accused. Since there are some that want to see fellow members publicly flogged I guess. I think it might actually ease tensions and maybe even open more dialog between members and force them to work things out like adults.

BTW, I just retained the services of Mark Gerigos. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Gregoshi
06-06-2004, 19:16
Dave, courts may be nice in concept, but it will needlessly bog down the staff. As it is, when I have to deal with an "incident", it may take several hours of my time beyond normal moderating duties - time I usually don't have. I don't relish the thought of spending even more time prosecuting a case.

When punishment is handed out here, patrons almost always react in one of two ways: 1) "I realize I was wrong and accept my penance", or 2) "Oh yeah? You think what I did was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet Go ahead, ban me" The first kind isn't a problem and we wouldn't need the courts to cater to them. To the second kind, the courts would be a meaningless rubber stamp. They would continue to cause trouble in and out of the court and making a mockery of the system.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-06-2004, 20:02
How about we open a new room like the front room only call this one the Outback Flame Grill or the parking lot where people can go and say what they like with no mods or rules. You know like at a real bar when you ask someone if they want to take this outside and settle it. Since its enter at your own risk if you don't want to be offended don't go there.

ichi
06-06-2004, 20:21
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ June 06 2004,13:02)]How about we open a new room like the front room only call this one the Outback Flame Grill or the parking lot where people can go and say what they like with no mods or rules. You know like at a real bar when you ask someone if they want to take this outside and settle it. Since its enter at your own risk if you don't want to be offended don't go there.
Actually, I like this idea.

Call it the Alley.

Make it accessible only to members and up.

Link to it only through a URL in a sticky in the Tavern.

ichi

Duke John
06-06-2004, 20:24
Quote[/b] ]How about we open a new room like the front room only call this one the Outback Flame Grill or the parking lot where people can go and say what they like with no mods or rules. You know like at a real bar when you ask someone if they want to take this outside and settle it. Since its enter at your own risk if you don't want to be offended don't go there.
Why would we/you like to have people being offended? Just act civilly, is it really that hard?

Ser Clegane
06-06-2004, 20:41
I am not quite sure what the purpose of such a "no rules" forum would be.

What kind of topics would be discussed there? Political threads like in the tavern, only that people who do not fancy being verbally abused would have to either refrain from contributing to the topic or would have to duplicate the thread in the tavern?

Or would this forum just be used for bashing each other? That would IMO undermine any current attempt to make discussions in the Tavern more civil.

I fail to see the value that such a new forum would add to the Org http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif (if you want to let of steam go outside and run for half an hour - that should do the job)

Gawain of Orkeny
06-06-2004, 20:54
Quote[/b] ]What kind of topics would be discussed there? Political threads like in the tavern, only that people who do not fancy being verbally abused would have to either refrain from contributing to the topic or would have to duplicate the thread in the tavern?


The same ones as here only that if people start to get nasty the mods can move their posts to this room and tell them if they wish to continue do so here or be sanctioned.


Quote[/b] ]Or would this forum just be used for bashing each other? That would IMO undermine any current attempt to make discussions in the Tavern more civil.

No it wouldnt undermine the attempt to make disscussions here more civil just the opposite as there would be reason to be offensive in the tavern itself. Like any other bar if you want to be nasty take it outside.


Quote[/b] ] fail to see the value that such a new forum would add to the Org (if you want to let of steam go outside and run for half an hour - that should do the job)
Some people dont mind heated discussions and have thicker skins than others. It would interesting to see how some people are really like.

Ser Clegane
06-06-2004, 21:21
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ June 06 2004,14:54)]No it wouldnt undermine the attempt to make disscussions here more civil just the opposite as there would be reason to be offensive in the tavern itself. Like any other bar if you want to be nasty take it outside.
That would work if you assume that people clearly differenmtiate between what they discuss in the "no rulkes" forum and the Tavern.

My feeling is that if discussions get very hostile in this new forum while discussing a certain topic this hostility might encroach the Tavern when similar or the same tpoics are discussed. You might argue that people who get hostile in the Tavern will than have to bear the consequences, but IMO our main goal should be to have cililzed political discussions and not to encourage flaming in one forum and then punish the people who might have problems with not carrying the "no rules" attitude over to other forums.


Quote[/b] ]
The same ones as here only that if people start to get nasty the mods can move their posts to this room and tell them if they wish to continue do so here or be sanctioned.


So if someone starts to flame in the Tavern you want to move the thread to the "no rules" room? That would mean that a hostile poster could virtually "hijack" a thread and move it to a more hostile environment.

hrvojej
06-06-2004, 21:27
If people want to be hostile to each other, they can do it over PMs or a chat channel. I don't see why the whole forum should suffer to accomodate these things, and why it would be necessary to tell the whole world that one's p*ssed off button is constantly pressed down. The world doesn't want to know those things, and it shouldn't suffer from it either.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-06-2004, 23:43
Quote[/b] ]If people want to be hostile to each other, they can do it over PMs or a chat channel. I don't see why the whole forum should suffer to accomodate these things, and why it would be necessary to tell the whole world that one's p*ssed off button is constantly pressed down. The world doesn't want to know those things, and it shouldn't suffer from it either.

No one is forcing you to go there and read whats going on there. I am big for giving people more freedom but if they abuse this freedom giving out harsher punishment. There fore if this room were available and someone chose to flame another in the tavern itself you could come down on them harder and faster. One punishment could be to only be allowed in this room for a period of time.


Quote[/b] ]So if someone starts to flame in the Tavern you want to move the thread to the "no rules" room? That would mean that a hostile poster could virtually "hijack" a thread and move it to a more hostile environment.

No only their post would be moved there, Everyone who did not want to respond to it would continue on as normal.If the person being flamed did see fit to answer the matter would die right there. Also if someone had a post moved there they could still be punished for making the mods have to move it instead of posting it there in the first place.

Devastatin Dave
06-07-2004, 04:49
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ June 06 2004,13:16)]Dave, courts may be nice in concept, but it will needlessly bog down the staff. As it is, when I have to deal with an "incident", it may take several hours of my time beyond normal moderating duties - time I usually don't have. I don't relish the thought of spending even more time prosecuting a case.

When punishment is handed out here, patrons almost always react in one of two ways: 1) "I realize I was wrong and accept my penance", or 2) "Oh yeah? You think what I did was bad? You ain't seen nothing yet Go ahead, ban me" The first kind isn't a problem and we wouldn't need the courts to cater to them. To the second kind, the courts would be a meaningless rubber stamp. They would continue to cause trouble in and out of the court and making a mockery of the system.
Good point, its kind of like everyone wanting to play Total War campaign mode on line. It would be awesome, just too time consuming.

On the second part of your post, it kind of sounds like the UN security council, so I definitely see your point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Gregoshi
06-07-2004, 05:47
The Net experimented with a "no rules/take no prisoners" forum with their Warzone. What it is today is not what it started out as. After several months with no rules, it gots some rules. The problem was, as I recall, the flames from 2 combatants spilled out of the Warzone and into the other forums. I also believe there were some issues with accusations made by one person of another. I visit there a few times a week so may have missed some of the day to day issues. Perhaps a Net regular can elaborate more on the history and experiences of the Warzone.

If you really need to "take it outside", then take it outside. Providing a forum for such things isn't outside in my mind.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-07-2004, 06:13
Quote[/b] ]If you really need to "take it outside", then take it outside. Providing a forum for such things isn't outside in my mind.

But I wanna watch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

Gregoshi
06-07-2004, 06:32
Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ June 07 2004,01:13)]But I wanna watch
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh4.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-laugh3.gif

Ah ha Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. You want a Jerry Springer type forum.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-operator.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_director.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_duel.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking2.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wideeyed.gif

scooter_the_shooter
06-07-2004, 19:15
i like it but if there is a flame outside that forum make it a 2 week ban no warnings. and i would probably go there to see whats going on every once in a while. and i would probably go there to "take it out side" with one or 2 people here so i think it is a good idea. come on do it for a month and if you regret you can always take it away

Big King Sanctaphrax
06-07-2004, 19:31
Although this is probably a rather reckless way to think, I bet a forum like that would be rather amusing to read...

Voigtkampf
06-07-2004, 19:58
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 07 2004,13:31)]Although this is probably a rather reckless way to think, I bet a forum like that would be rather amusing to read...
So, there we have it, ladies and gentlemen of the staff, a volunteer http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-sneaky.gif

Teutonic Knight
06-07-2004, 21:07
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 07 2004,14:31)]Although this is probably a rather reckless way to think, I bet a forum like that would be rather amusing to read...
and now your sadistic side really shines through... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-anxious.gif

Kaiser of Arabia
06-07-2004, 22:58
Ceasar010:
Do you know how many times I would have been banned then?
No. Just No.
-Capo

Redleg
06-09-2004, 23:41
I am still kind of hoping to see what the outcome of all this discussion is going to be.

Are the rules of the forum going to be modified?
What changes in cautions, sanctions, and bans could we as patrons see in the forum?
Any new procedures for discussing problems between moderators and patrons concerning cautions, sanctions, and bans?

Just kind of wondering is all

scooter_the_shooter
06-09-2004, 23:56
i like the flame room idea if we PM echother to flame some lil baby wll go calling in the mods on the one who flamed but in a romm for flaming that crybaby is free game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif

Big King Sanctaphrax
06-10-2004, 00:15
Quote[/b] (ceasar010 @ June 09 2004,23:56)]i like the flame room idea if we PM echother to flame some lil baby wll go calling in the mods on the one who flamed but in a romm for flaming that crybaby is free game http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ceasaryes.gif
But why would you need to flame somebody?

Hostility is BAD, period. Inevitably it'll spill over, and that makes my job harder.

Gawain of Orkeny
06-10-2004, 01:30
Quote[/b] ]Hostility is BAD, period. Inevitably it'll spill over, and that makes my job harder.

Lets face it BKS your job is too easy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

RisingSun
06-10-2004, 03:11
I'm for the "No-holds-barred" forum. It would provide a much more convenient place to take out hostility, and leave the Tavern much more pleasant than now.

Once something starts getting out of hand, one or all of the participants can simply say "Let's take it Outside." (which could be the name) Obviously, the mods would step in if they did not take this step, and the mods would take it for them.

I'm actually particularly accustomed to "hardcore" debates of a uniquely "political nature." At the main forum I go to, those guys would not make it out of the entrance hall. But make no mistake- the forum would not be a place for flames, but instead for debates where and amount of mudslinging may be allowed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

I finally would get to whip out my "verbal diarrhea" references. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Gregoshi
06-10-2004, 06:59
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ June 09 2004,18:41)]Just kind of wondering is all
We are still kicking it around Redleg.

Voigtkampf
06-10-2004, 07:19
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ June 10 2004,00:59)]
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ June 09 2004,18:41)]Just kind of wondering is all
We are still kicking it around Redleg.
Yes, we do. It's not an easy task, to say the least.

Gregoshi
06-10-2004, 08:18
The single most common comment made by new patrons to these forums is how friendly they are (BTW, thanks everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif ). They seem to really appreciate that atmosphere - especially if they have experience with other gaming forums. Many of our forum rules exist to maintain that atmosphere because it was the vision of site founders and up through the current administration. The idea of a "no rules" type forum flies in the face of the core values of these forums. I don't see how we could justify creating such a place. Excepting for recent events and a few others in the past, the discussions in the Tavern have been lively and interesting because of the rules, not despite them. Furthermore, I don't see where allowing patrons to be uncontrollably rude to each other has any benefits to the patrons who choose to participate in such behaviour or to those who choose the stay out of it.

If you want to hang out in a rough-and-tumble, sleazy Tavern, then you don't go to Disney World in search of one.

Ludens
06-10-2004, 09:31
Gregoshi said it all. I like the Org because the atmosphere is friendly and non-hostile, so please don't start a free-for-all forum. It would only scare new patrons and inevitably spill over to the other forums.

Quid
06-10-2004, 09:52
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ June 10 2004,09:18)]The single most common comment made by new patrons to these forums is how friendly they are (BTW, thanks everyone http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thumbsup.gif ). They seem to really appreciate that atmosphere - especially if they have experience with other gaming forums. Many of our forum rules exist to maintain that atmosphere because it was the vision of site founders and up through the current administration. The idea of a "no rules" type forum flies in the face of the core values of these forums. I don't see how we could justify creating such a place. Excepting for recent events and a few others in the past, the discussions in the Tavern have been lively and interesting because of the rules, not despite them. Furthermore, I don't see where allowing patrons to be uncontrollably rude to each other has any benefits to the patrons who choose to participate in such behaviour or to those who choose the stay out of it.

If you want to hang out in a rough-and-tumble, sleazy Tavern, then you don't go to Disney World in search of one.
Very good point and one I was about to make as well. People come here because there is relatively little flaming and insults going round. Admittedly, I find it a little amusing at times, when two patrons get onto each others throats, but it does not enhance a discussion in any way.

What possible purpose would a 'flame room' serve ? In my opinion, none at all. Quite the opposite. I am fairly sure that it would not be able to be contained as if one riot starts, it inevitably spreads to other threads. If people cannot accept each others views without being insulting then we are on a very poor road. That does not mean that there cannot be conflicting views and oppinions as, I think, this forums are largly built upon these conflicts. But a downright flame thread serves no other purpose but to insult and embarrass others (if one goes 'outside' and has a fight, the matter can be settled physically; in a thread, that is impossible and just spreads hate among patrons).

So, let us not contemplate further whether we need such a room and get back on topic as to what can be done to make the more 'attack felt' patrons more comfortable.

Quid

Dhepee
06-10-2004, 15:47
I have never been to a Tavern where they had a fighting room. Whenever someone says "Let's take it outside" or a barkeep says "take it outside" they don't mean into another part of the establishment, they mean take it out of the establishment entirely.

When you are in the Org, the Org rules apply, period. If you want to violate the Org rules then do it completely outside of the Org or face the consequences. Anything that you do in the Org or that spills from other parts of the internet into the Org are subject to the Org rules. We do not have and never will have a "cockfighting pit".

Nelson
06-10-2004, 18:51
The local watering hole may see a fight break out from time to time but no one suggests that they should build a boxing ring to accommodate them. That's what a no rules forum would amount to. Facilitating and enabling outrageous flame wars and rude, hardheaded demagoguery is not what the org is about.