The Phantom Menace?!?!?!
Printable View
The Phantom Menace?!?!?!
Because you would simply be too awesome and make everyone else feel little compared to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Wow, that was quite alot of stuff to get through; I've cleaned up the thread and removed everything I deemed irrelevant to the subject at hand or just inappropriate.
I know that this is quite an emotionally-charged subject and that the Watchtower is the place for bringing such grievances to light, but I'd like to ask that you keep it civil when you're posting; alot of good things have been said from both sides, it'd be a shame to drag the discussion through the mud. :3
This applies to both members and staff.
By young blood, do you mean in terms of their time at the forum or their actual age?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I'm always keen to hear feedback about my moderating from both fellow staffers and members, and I'm pleased that you took that warning for what it was, a simple heads-up about your posts; thank you for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
Having said that, moderation is very much open to interpretation, and as such no two moderators respond the same way to things even if there is some consensus reached; my own moderating may be agreeable to some, but others may see it as pedantic or condescending (I always wonder if my PMs come across as too mother-to-child or not :<)... it should by no means be the basis by which other moderators follow. :P
Well-said, sir! The reported post function is there for a reason, don't be afraid to use it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
If you find someone's post in the Frontroom/Watchtower to be offensive, spam or whatnot, you should report it regardless of the colour of the poster's username; I do not treat anyone with favouritism, even those such as Beskar who I know 'IRL', and will always act in a manner appropriate of the robes.
This applies to other areas of the Org too; staff will act on reported posts, regardless of the source. :3
I can't give a response to that offer (only being a mod myself and all! :P), but I do have something I think you could answer, given your posts thus far; what qualities do you think a staff member should have and which of those do you see/not see in the current team?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The Org's content and moderation starts with you guys, so now's your chance to really tell us what we're doing right and wrong.
We hold us selfs to higher standards then ordinary members on account of we of got the best edumacation of u all so we desserve preveligis. If u want in too u have to be in kraut with Ser Clegane
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
Banquo is under no obligation to play along with feigned ignorance. In fact, I am happy he took the responsibility of not indulging it, of not setting a precedent of endlessly explaining and PMing back and forth over the perfectly obvious. God forbid, if he'd done so, the next time time somebody does a quite conscious Fred Phelps* in a remembrance thread, and we don't correspond for weeks about it again, we would've been called out for favouritism.
* Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, who heckle funerals of soldiers and policemen and shout at the relatives they had this coming.
~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~
I do not think any of this would've been handled at all differently if, say, this happened in a remembrance thread over the shhooting in Norway. The first one to next summer post 'Cheers to whomever it was that slammed those Norwegian kids' in a remembrance thread will get a major infraction. In fact, I remember at least one major infraction that was issued over a troll post in the 'Mass shooting in Norway' thread of three months ago.
So this is not about pro-American bias. (Of a European moderator no less with a personal history of active duty fighting terror groups losely supported by America...)
The suggestion I posted at the end of page two would have ended this debate long before it started. :P
Ah, so you know how it works? Please enlighten me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It appears you have missed my question, cos this was my question:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Was it justified that Louis did not get a punishment for making such an inappropriate post in the Gender thread?
Post #44
Your mention of track record is a total joke, fag is fag, a slur not allowed. And I call what you call "leniency" a free pass, as it's not leniency it's way past that.
Would you be so kind to tell me again, as I clearly missed itQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Nah, I didn't miss it. Post #52.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
It appears you missed it.
You think a member wants to report a moderator's post if it already has been quoted by moderators? That not something you don't think twice about. If you do it, you're immediately in a bad spotlight. But yeah it does give 10000 miles per gallon, as it's the perfect example. If I would have posted it I think it would be 2 infraction points. That's quite big.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
No, why would I do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I find this quite similar. Fag under slurs. Shibumi's post under Tasteless comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rules
Maybe another rule for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rules
Fag has many meanings. To ban a word that is only offensive to north Americans is hubris on their part.
Already described it, in detail. I've made change happen in large organizations, far larger than the Org, so I have a little bit of experience with this. The steps, assuming you want it laid out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
- Establish problem
- Establish scope of problem
- Try to determine who has a stake in keeping problem around (there's always somebody who benefits from dysfunction)
- Avoid those people as you work through this
- Determine chain of command/responsibility
- Who can I go to who is (a) as high as possible on the food chain and (b) will listen to me?
- Determine proposed solution to problem (this is the crucial bit)
- Start selling local stakeholders on the solution / build coalition
- Avoid people who have a vested interest in keeping dysfunction around while building coalition
- Approach the highest person on food chain in the following manner: (a) We have a small problem that does not in any way reflect on you or anybody you care about, (b) here is an easy-to-implement solution that already has a consensus, (c) by implementing this solution you will look like a smart guy, hep cat and savior of the company.
And as you can imagine, that course of action gets things done.
And I am astonished that you did not report the post or express your concerns until this thread, where you are leaning on it like an aging one-hit rock band that has a single crowd-pleasing song which needs to be played with an extended instrumental and audience singalong. You think this is entirely about Louis and his mistake; I think that's a dodge at best. Indeed, the fact that you are only able to cite a single example of questionable mod behavior points to the barrenness of your argument. If you were on a board where the mods were running wild (and I've been on a few) you would have hundreds of examples you could reference. You wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat without hitting a mod abusing his or her powers. But what's your ace in the hole? A non-native English speaker misusing a word for ciggies and gay folks. Weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
Ah, so not only is there an in crowd and an out crowd, there's also a pervasive climate of fear. The Org is a rather wretched place, when looked at from your perspective; kind of like North Korea, but with less starvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
MM-hmmmm. Do tell. I do not perceive the inherent value in all of the fuss you have kicked up. From an organizational change perspective, your actions have been ill-conceived, ill-timed and ill-spent. If your goal is to change something, then you have gone about it completely backwards, less like a strategist working on large-scale change and more like an angry kid in a retail store. So from the perspective of (a) something is wrong and (b) I want to fix it, I just don't see how your actions line up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
As one of the local moderators of the thread in question, I was one of the first ports of call in the event that the post was to be moderated, so I can only apologise that Louis' post has drawn so much ire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
You see, I read the post several times (with much eyerolling on my part, it must be said), and decided that the post was typical Louis, having seen his interactions with the moderating team and various Tavern patrons during my time at the Org. However, rather than leave it be entirely, I decided to wait and see if anyone reported the thread, especially Fragony who I felt to be the most likely to be offended by what was said... I wasn't certain if the 'fag' thing would be taken as friendly banter or a sly dig, given it's context here in the UK may not be the same in the Netherlands or wherever else.
Ultimately, the post wasn't reported and I let it slide; in hindsight, that may not have been the best decision and I apologise again for it.
I stand by what I said earlier, and still encourage you to stand your ground and report the post regardless of who says it and who has quoted it; you shouldn't feel uncomfortable or hesistant, the Org is as much your site as anyone's. :3Quote:
You think a member wants to report a moderator's post if it already has been quoted by moderators? That not something you don't think twice about. If you do it, you're immediately in a bad spotlight.
I prefer bringing attention to a problem this way. It actually has quite a big impact and raises awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
No, that's what you think. You think it's all about me wanting to bring Louis to justice. It's the perfect example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Haha, no you and other mods are proving my point pretty well too in this thread. You are disrespectful and hostile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Are you using Louis being a non-native English speaker as an excuse? Although most posts are joking he is great in formulating sentences and I believe his grasp in the English language is more than good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Well done, make me the bad guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So, first you said I had my head up my butt. I'm an angry kid in a retail store. My arguments are really weak. I have apparently a very puny mind. And you edited your post over 20 minutes, but first it said you were doubting my integrity. That I'm trolling here and nothing else but being disruptive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
How do your action line up as a moderator?
Ah, "raising awareness," that old saw. There are lots of ways to "raise awareness." You might want to consider the efficacy of various means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
Yes, when I write I express what I think. I don't see how that's remarkable or intriguing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
To quote an Orgah, that's what you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
Dear lord in heaven, you are stuck on repeat. Andres has repeatedly argued that a simple apology from Louis would resolve this issue; I do not agree, largely because I am unsure of your motives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
Yeah, I edited my post because I wanted to be more clear about how I feel your stated goal does not line up with your behavior. I believe I am allowed to modify my posts when I think I am being overly aggressive, yes? I believe that is somehow related to exactly what you have been talking about, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
I believe there are effective ways to cause change in an organization, and that "raising awareness" is the typical rationale put forward by people who have not given it any serious thought.
No, I said your question was in that condition, and I compared complaining for complaining sake with no offered solution to an angry kid in a retail store. In both cases I was referencing your ideas, not your person. I am allowed to engage your ideas with as much energy as I like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
I am an Orgah first and foremost. Trust me, if I were not saddled with the green, I would not be a tenth as gentle as I am being now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
Drunk Clown is an Orgah too. Instead of trying to figure out his motives, why not just addressing the points he makes?
If a valid point is raised, then that has to be addressed, regardless of who made the point or what the motives behind the making of said point are. The point is relevant, the rest isn't and just causes you to lose focus on what is actually being said by the member in question.
Let's say Drunk Clown is on a mission to overthrow the .Org dictatorship and somewhere in his posts, he points out that a staff member said 1+1=3, then there's no shame in admitting that indeed that staff member made a mistake and that 1+1 is of course 2.
Why you simply dismiss everything he says, because of his suspected "motives" or the way he handles this (not all of us have experience in changing policy in large organisations following the Lemur 10 steps program (tm) ), goes beyond me.
Motive matters. To pretend otherwise is either mendacious or criminally naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Indeed, but Drunk Clown's litany of complaints is long and detailed, and moves from a specific act of stupidity to what he appears to believe is an oligarchic group of despotic incrowd free-pass persons and a pervasive climate of fear. I'm not Louis so I won't speak for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
To quote someone else, mods are not word filters. There's software for that. Mods are expected to use judgment and consider context. This means we have human justice, which is imperfect, but less horrid than machine justice. If someone posts something that is going to create a flame war, mods are expected to step in. If, on the other hand, an ill-conceived post like Louis's slips through and causes no fuss, it's entirely on the judgment of the mod for that sub-forum. The spine of Drunk Clown's complaint is that the rules are enforced unevenly. That is a feature, not a bug.
If I were "dismissing" what he has to say I would simply refrain from posting; instead I am engaging him and challenging his ideas. I have refuted and/or challenged most of his talking points (which includes outlining in picayune detail how you get things done, a fact that is apparently less than worthless to both you and him). Why you think that is inappropriate goes beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunk Clown
'Damn' is banned as it is apparently very offensive in Norway. So it would make sense to do the same with other words. Though, they won't be banning 'Democracy' as a swearword just because it is one in China, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I have to agree with Lemur here, motive matters. What is the point in responding when some peoples motive is only to 'troll' or attempt to cause trouble ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Louis and other mods might have already been addressed or spoken to or undergoing investigation. Either way, it will be handled and dealt with and it will not be public, unless you see name of members changing colour. So if that is the issue, it is getting tackled.
What are the other issues? Simply list them.
Silly Secura... this is what a lack of sleep and lots of work does to you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Secura
It seems I was of the belief that the Gender topic was in the Frontroom when it was actually right here in the Watchtower and thus I was completely unable to moderate it at the time. In fact, the WT had no assigned moderator at that point whatsoever, and it's unlikely that Fragony would have seen such a comment to be offended by it, frequenting the Tavern as he does, whereas he may have done so had it been in the FR as per my initial belief.
Not that this excuses what has happened, indeed what I said still stands; I'm sorry that I didn't act on it at the time, but you can be certain that now I have moderating abilities in this subforum, the same will not happen again.
It's very interesting, a free message board, whose staff is all volunteer, about a highly popular game with plenty of other messages boards illicits such a vitriolic reaction.
I do hate to quote Shakespeare so close to lunch but, Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark
Of course I mean it in a different way. I meant to say, you think it's all about Louis' post, for me it's about the inequality. Louis' post just functions as evidence, good evidence that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You are allowed to do that yes. Still I find the thing you say do not line up as being respectful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
As I PM'd you I did not expect this to grow this big and I would've thought it went something like this: Moderators admit there's inequality and from then on they would try something like that would not happen again (Secura already did). Instead a lot of members condone the word fag, to my disbelieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
My ideas and conviction is what make me, it's who I am. What I think is what makes my personality. However, you think I troll, so not making the link as I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That is good to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Drunk Clown, concerning the conceived lack of a reaction from me in terms of punishing Louis and your general behaviour here, I have two things to say which also count for the moderator team of course, but the second is especially for you as I will explain:
Quote:
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Basically I've tried to be nice with you when you stepped way over the line and now you call for me to punish Louis for something that is at best hardly worse than what you did and obviously very, very controversial?
I suggest we all take a step back and relax, not to forget what happened, but to calm down and get some perspective now that things have heated up way beyond what I find reasonable. Your argument was taken seriously, at first anyway, but the more impatience you show and the more demands you make, the less sincere it seems, especially since you're not an angel yourself and often show a very aggressive tone in your own posts, leading many to believe you're just a troll.
If you fail to see the point in that, I suppose you want me to ban you the next time you encourage people to post rape jokes in the Arena, right?
So again, take a step back, relax, things will get sorted, but not in a heated, unthoughtful swing of the axe. :bow:
Lemur said about solutions, so I have a proposal for a possible solution.
There are arguments about Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? "Who watches the watchmen?", did Moderator A step too far? Did Moderator B did something questionable? Did you feel you received a warning unfairly and you don't know who to turn to?
What about an Independent Complaints Commission, ICC or you can make it something more Org-like with a reference to a ninja clan or similar.
This is how it would work:
There are three-to-five people (non-staff members, possibly ex-moderators / Senior Members) who have their little forum and address anything there together. Based on their verdict and decisions, they put forward recommendations (since they have no actual powers, they cannot make rulings, but their decision could be treated as such) towards the moderators/staff/Ser Clegane on what their opinion of the matter is. This is merely for an more "Independent View" since having such discussions between the staff members themselves can get difficult and it dampens moral, so having a trusted outside source is a good solution.
Since everyone seems to agree with Andres and like him, perhaps he should lead such a hypothetical team with two people of his own choosing which he values the contributions and opinions of.
The idea of odd-numbers being for tie-breaking, which Andres himself hypothetically would be the tie-breaker as the leader of the operation.
These could have an extra role of handling arguments and infighting between any moderation staff too.
The idea of such a body is that it has trusted orgah's who can handle things in a mature matter and not too directly involved in any of the arguments themselves. Being trusted Orgah's, the moderator staff would also trust their judgements on such matters.
So if this is put into practise, what is the most likely outcomes?:
In order:
1. Infrequent discussions upon practises and issues which simply compliment the current way of doing things. (55%)
2. Virtually unused, redundant, another layer of bureaucracy. (30%)
3. Frequent and very-active discussions upon practises and issues which add a lot to the current way of doing things. (12%)
4. Completely empty, simply taking up a few kb's of data on the server. (2.9% Chance)
5. They are neck-with-neck with majority of the moderator team and they all hate eachother (Less than 1% chance)
OK – where to start?
First thing – I would like to apologize for not having been able to to join this thread earlier. Ideally, I should have been – but there you are.
Some thoughts – in a somewhat random order:
There seems to be little disagreement that the post that triggered Shibumi’s Backroom ban was of very poor taste and justified a formal reaction.
The post was a rather obvious and rather blunt attempt to provoke in a thread that was explicitly made with the purpose to have a respectful exchange.
A ban might be seen as a harsh reaction – but the ban from a part of the forum is a next step that should not be too surprising when other steps are ignored.
The tone in Banquo’s PM reply might appear “flippant” and – standing on its own – perhaps condescending; however it is not standing on its own – it is the reaction to the somewhat baffling question what might have been wrong with the post in question – after a track record of similar forum rule violations.
Yes – patrons deserve that staff takes the time to clarify issues – at the same time voluntary staff should also not be expected to play along indefinitely with patrons that are perfectly aware of what the issue was and simply would like to extend the “fun” via PM (in the context I found the e-***** remark somewhat ironic).
About the issue of inequality – I acknowledge that this issue exists to a certain extent. I think it would be silly to claim otherwise. We have quite a number of moderators, each of them being given a certain room for interpretation of the forum rules – we do not hand out a thick manual and we do not conduct 4-week boot camps for new moderators. The role of the moderators is to make sure that a friendly atmosphere is maintained in the part of the board for which they are responsible.
The nature of a subforum as well as the individual moderator play a role in how the rules are applied – and there are certainly differences between e.g. the Backroom, the Frontroom and the Arena.
We try to be consistent in how rules are applied and there are frequent discussions and requests for second (or more) opinions among staff to make sure that we are aligned – but there will be inconsistencies – we are neither clones nor saints.
While I acknowledge inconsistencies, I do however not agree that we systematically separate between the “in”-crowd and the rest. As has been mentioned before – often we react to reported posts while other posts that also violate forum rules seems to slip through the cracks.
It is certainly easy to pull examples of “senior member” or “moderator” posts that were not in line with forum rules and went “unpunished” – however, it will be as easy to find such posts of patrons that are not part of the perceived “in”-crowd.
It has been observed that we should not dismiss valid arguments, just because they come from patrons that might not be “liked” by staff. This is a fair point. It should be understandable however that people generally tend to get somewhat defensive when they are lectured about good manners by people who consider it to be perfectly fine and mainstream to be insulting and dismissive in their own posts on a regular basis.
Remarking that the Watchtower is no place to pelt people who voice different opinions with rotten fruit and tell them “don't let the door hit your ass on the way out” is a valid point – it leaves a bitter taste of dishonesty when it comes from a patron whose (IIRC) very first post on this board and in a Watchtower thread was “If total war center is what floats your boat - the door is wide open”.
Please excuse the longwinded post – if you don’t want to read it perhaps the following quote from the sig of an absent staff member summarizes best what we should all keep in mind to make sure that this is a friendly place to be at:
Be well. Do good. Keep in touch.
:bow:
I like the way moderation is done. The .Org has friendly mods, and if that comes at the cost of some minor bias then I don't care. I actually find it amusing. I much prefer jovial mods to Crandar.
If I understand what you're saying correctly.... I will have to disagree.Quote:
The tone in Banquo’s PM reply might appear “flippant” and – standing on its own – perhaps condescending; however it is not standing on its own – it is the reaction to the somewhat baffling question what might have been wrong with the post in question – after a track record of similar forum rule violations.
Andres sums it up perfectly.Quote:
I can perfectly understand that moderating is sometimes a frustrating job and requires endless patience. That said, addressing a member in that way in the capacity of moderator is simply not done.
"I just had better things to do", "work it out for yourself" and "Let me know when the light goes on" are not only completely unnecessary additions, they are also condescending and insulting.
I must admit, that the moderation in the Throne Room I have no problems with. I am aware that it isn't the backroom, and the topics that have been discussed are not the same, but I, and I don't think anyone else has any problems with Zim's or phonicsmonkey's moderation there. Props to them, maybe you should take a leaf out of their book. :tongue:
Anyway, I would like to agree with whoever said that Louis's comments were inapporopriate. I suppose some kind of punishment would be necessary, but I wouldn't know what you guys have to do.
And I'd like to point out that some of the comments I've made in the Frontroom, I'm quite surprised I haven't been infracted for. (That was probably a bad idea to point that out, but I don't think I've gotten any favouritism, and I would be surprised if I did.)
EDIT: Besides BG's message, and CR's police thread thingy (which is more a personal gripe of mine) I haven't really noticed any problems with the moderation itself.
*coughs a little*
Sorry for interrupting you all.
I am just trying to sum this thread up:
* I get a permanent ban from one of the sub forums: Reason is - Joking about 9/11. I very much clearly stated it was a joke, even clarified the point two posts down.
* Reason given: I Should have read the OP dictating the 9/11 thread were held under special rules. I did not read that OP, I just clicked last post, scrolled up some few posts, and anwered in the same general direction as those posts "What I thought when it happened". I really did think that compared to some of the stuff I have read in the backroom my post was nothing but well mannered.
* Somehow you can not joke about 9/11. You can joke about pretty much anything else, fags, africans, women, immigrants, polish people - list goes on- but don't you dare joke about some 3000 americans who died some ten years ago.
* A thread about 9/11 is sensitive to our american friends. More so than threads using gay in a derogatory meaning is sensitive to our gay members. Also immigrants will not take offence to slurs about immigrants. Do not get me started on the arab and negro thing. Thank god we have such a nice board with people properly into the american thinking, so we don't have to cater for the more unwanted beings in society.
* Members are asked to be polite and respectful, the mods however can go rampant. Before flicking me the bird, I had been nothing but respectful to BQ.
I only made the opening post because I have seen how much some of you care about this board, and I wanted to share what I think is one of the reasons as to why it is falling behind and struggling to stay boyant.
Cheers, and thanks for the tactical insights towards Empire and TWS2. Also thanks to some of the political thinkers in the backroom - Panzer Jaegr, Fragony and Rhy(whatever) comes to mind.
Quit trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
To Sum up the thread - Everyone agrees you was completely out of line and you started "playing the victim" because of your own actions caused you to face repercussions and you was fully aware of what you was posting. This post alone shows exactly how much of a troll you are and not sincere in the slightest. If you was at least sincere about any of this, you would be remorsefulness and apologise for offending people, you are clearly not.
Good thing this forum has an ignore function, I am going to use it.
I think you might be wasting your time with the ignore function. No?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You can't tell by my looking at my posts, but I can enjoy almost every sort of humour - no matter how objectionable. I have an impressive portfolio of holocaust jokes, for example, but I only share them with friends who share my refined tastes and who can appreciate a joke for what it is. I imagine that a joke at the expense of women or minorities might be acceptable on the Org depending on the context or the delivery (probably not, most of the time), while one at the expense of thousands (or millions) of murdered people is not. And yours wasn't even funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shibumi
As for Louis' post, the only way that could have been more obviously in jest was to add "disclaimer: this is a joke" at the end. I can respect the opinions of say, Andres or Crazed Rabbit, when they say that it's still inappropriate. What bothers me is when it's coming from members who routinely excrete foul language, as a constant stream with no coherence or solid substance.
If you're talking about me you misunderstood me. I'm not offended by the use of the word fag. I'm offended that when I post bad words I get censored because this forum is PG 13 and when someone else does, who has a higher rank, it does not get censored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I don't think that the post we're talking about should have been censored, regardless of who wrote it. The point is that it was an elaborate, obvious joke (Louis even made fun of himself) as opposed to "OMG lol fag" (note: I'm not suggesting that this is you) I can understand why people think the word should be banned regardless of how it's used, but it's clear to me the two are different.
It's worthy to note that moderation on this board, or probably anywhere, isn't always perfectly consistent, and not necessarily because of bias. Without telling a long story, I once got a warning for doing something. A couple of weeks later another mod was explaining moderating policy in an unrelated thread, and implied that what I did would have been permissable. I didn't publicly complain about it, but I did ask for clarification, and the answer was basically that all moderation is done on a case-by-case basis.
I'm just going to say something about this part because all that green text actually made me a little mad. I didn't say anything then but in my opinion it was disgrace to the .Org.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
First of all, Backroom is a place where we discuss controversial issues. We can discuss everything as long there aren't any personal insults. That's the gist of it. Now, we've discussed wars, famines, genocides, discrimination, religion, tortures, mutilations, invasions etc... in all corners of the world and not A SINGLE ONE got a special treatment besides 9-11 thread. Yes, indeed there's more Americans on this board than Iraqis for example, but rules are rules. No moderator intervened when Serbs (insert any other nation recently involved in a conflict) "had it coming" but when Americans "have it coming" than it's infractions and bans all around.
In light of this, I suppose we should have a new rule that states that Backroom is a place where we discuss controversial topics as long as those topics are not offensive to Americans and won't hurt American feelings.
I got 5 warning points bya overzealous Mod by being saratic during the Nowreaigen shooting and I never was intending to insult the people that was killed.
I think we need to stop being hypocritical. Ethier you warn EVERYONE for Anti-Muslim, Anti-American, Chrstian,Serb,Croat,etc.... posts or...
YOU DON'T :shrug::computer:
I sympathize, but I don't think the comparison holds. If someone posted "the Serbs had it coming" in a remembrance thread about Serbians casualties in the Yugoslavian wars it would have been different. I like to think that the mods would have punished that, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
This I don't sympathize with, and I saw the post you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warman
This thread has run it's natural course at this moment in time, but I'd like to say something first.
I'd like to apologise again for the furor that was caused by both this thread and others in the Watchtower; grievances were aired, in earnest or otherwise, with old wounds being reopened and new ones being created in the process as friendships were pushed to their very limits. We saw some pretty negative aspects of one another over the course of events, but there was also alot of good to be derived from this, most of all that the Org has some passionate and articulate members who really care about the site and the community.
Thank you for both the kind words and the criticism, without which we wouldn't really be able to function; it's been said before but it bears repeating that the Org is your community, it'd be nothing without your input! Everything that has transpired over the last few weeks been taken to heart and will be discussed in relation to policy adjustments in the very near future.
Thanks again. :bow: