Exactly what rule was broken here? Because i'm struggling to see it.
Am I not allowed to express my disinterest, disagreement or dislike of another member even if done so civilly?
Printable View
Exactly what rule was broken here? Because i'm struggling to see it.
Am I not allowed to express my disinterest, disagreement or dislike of another member even if done so civilly?
Given the OP, I agree with teh modz.
Still waiting to hear what rule was broken, by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I don't question Moderator's decisions anymore, the point is futile my friend, Monk.
Besides, last time I did I was banned! :laugh: :laugh:
Just leave it be I guess.
:bow:
That's the rub. The thread was a gasoline tank in a Zippo factory - an open invitation for rules violations. The "rivals", I'm sure, know who each other are, and if they don't, what a nice ambush to read that another patron hates your guts. What's the point of re-inciting bad blood between patrons who have clashed numerous times before? Better to be proactive to prevent infraction points being handed out for those unable to be civil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
Of course you are, you're perfectly within your rights to do so... but how long would the thread remain civil? Are we really going to condone Orgahs hurling personal attacks at one another?Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
The opening post of the thread appeared to be baiting people to come forward and start a flamewar; in light of certain events over the last week or so, I didn't want things to turn nasty, so I made the decision to close the thread.
I think we can come up with better threads. Maybe it didn't need to be closed, but still.
Not just the letter of "the law," but the "spirit" of the law, etc.. We've closed a very similar thread to this in the recent past, by the same Orgah, for the same reason. Had I seen this first, I would have closed it instantly. I'm surprised to see this thread in it's regard--the reason seems obvious to me, particularly in light of the Front Room.
Any thread is an open invitation for "rules" violations... threads should not be closed just because a mod has a hunch that rules will be broken... sorry but that's just absurd. Wait for rule breaches first then close. Why shelter and protect them from themselves...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
There is no evidence that personal attacks were in the pipeline - how long can any thread remain civil? Try moderating the backroom - I'm sure you'd close every thread... a moderator's job is not to play "social worker", lawyer or predict the outcome of a thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Secura
Is it your job to assess what every post "appears" to be? The post may be just a joke... anyway it was warman sticking his neck out with that thread... why not leave it and let him face the consequences of his own actions, instead of jumping in and locking down at the slightest provocation?
I thought you were in favour of "hands off moderation"? Your position on this surprises me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Togakure
"Dislike is not to be expressed in public." which were the words expressed in thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Secura
If you're going to start closing threads based solely on the speculation they might turn bad, then you may as well close them all - because they all have that chance.
An in thread reminder that the all seeing eye is present would probably be enough to keep the gloves above the waist. Instead it's becoming clear the current theme of moderation encourages burning the rose to protect against the thorn. We're not talking about an outright crusade upon any member, or even a simple matter of someone calling someone else a name. We're talking about a thread that broke no rules on its own, but was closed due to the possibility it might. Am I taking crazy pills here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Leaving aside the fact that the expressed reason was not quality and something entirely different, why not just restrict all thread posting privileges to Assistant moderators and above. That way "quality" of the threads can be maintained. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ry
I underline a part near the end. It is truly up to the patrons to make the Frontroom a fun place. The moderator's job is only preventative in nature - to which end, note the bolded in the first paragraph. I think the thread in question is "suspect to lead to heated discussion" and closing the thread is within the bounds of an appropriate response. If you do not agree with that, then we will have to agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus' "The Purpose of This Forum"
The Frontroom is for lighthearted offtopic stuff such as music, movies, exercise and so on... it is not for threads about how much you dislike someone and the reasons why; one look at the reported posts tells you that airing these grievances is only going to lead to trouble, so why encourage it by leaving the thread open?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I didn't want to see anyone offended; despite the tone of someone's post, whether they're offering constructive criticism or whatever else, there will always be someone who infers it in a manner in which it is not intended.Quote:
anyway it was warman sticking his neck out with that thread... why not leave it and let him face the consequences of his own actions, instead of jumping in and locking down at the slightest provocation?
There are things at work which are way above your paygrades, the kingdom of peace and love is not really the place where you express your hatred, maybe this would fly in the Backroom but even there threads are sometimes closed with "I don't think any good can come from this OP..." so I don't get why certain members who I really don't like anymore keep whining here*. :mellow:
On a more serious note, we had a lot of complaints about degrading quality of Frontroom threads, mods started to crack down on them a bit and now they're accused of being forum nazis. Additionally, some of them are relatively new and you expect them to act with the expertship that you have gained over the years, one wonders why you people stopped moderating if clearly those who replace you cannot come up to your standards? I have seriously no idea about the reasons but "I would have done this so much better" really isn't the best or friendliest advice you can give someone, neither is discussing this in public in what looks like an attempt to undermine the current mods' credibility.
Let's just say at the moment is a bad time to post anything potentially inflammatory in the Frontroom and there are specific reasons for this.
*non-serious remark referencing the thread which the whole fuss here is about, no offense intended
Please, call me a jerk in a civilised way that doesn't break the rules :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
Allthough I agree with you that no rules have been broken, I can understand the FR staff's decision to close that particular thread.
Maybe a firm "this can go on, but we're watching" would have been better, but I don't see the locking of that particular thread as an awful decision.
When confronted with this particular thread, most moderators would feel more than just a hunch that it had the potential to become nasty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I see your point, but this thread seems like the worst possible example to defend it.
Disagree on the "social worker" part. Sometimes you have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Now, this is an interesting statement. What's your suggestion then? If Warman opens a thread to have himself flamed, then let it happen? He asks for personal attacks, so let there be personal attacks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
~:confused:
If that's what you think i've been doing then let me congratulate you on missing the point entirely. The main difference between myself now and myself as a moderator two years ago is pretty simple. I would have brought this up in the staff section then, since i don't have access to it, i air my disagreements here in the watchtower. That is what this forum is for, isn't it, or did that change when i wasn't looking? I saw a member of the staff make a decision i disagreed with so here I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I would have thought almost 7 years of contributions with narry a warning point would get the point across that my intentions were pure. Clearly, the answer is no. So thanks for playing I guess. :shrug:
I'm in the minority and I know nothing said or done here will influence policy or the decision itself. So let's just agree to move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Actually, I'm taking onboard all the input from both this thread and the suggestions one; you're more than welcome to approach me privately if you wish to discuss it further. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
I've said all I care to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Secura
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
I get harassed in threads (When Tribesmen was here or more recently by Pevergreen and Glenn, the immature corny of Tribesmen in my opinion), so at this point I really don't care if they attack me as long as they get punish, but it seems they only get punish when they say something sersious, so you know, if the Mods can't do their jobs at punishing then I don't give a damn anymore at who I provoke and who I don't.
You respect me andI will show you all the respect and honor in the world. Both in Real life and online, but if you disrespect me, to hell with you.
My last thoughts on this issue.
Produce the rule that says moderators must observe breaking of rules in order order to act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
It is all besides the point. :book:
What benefit or fun does a dislike list offer ?
Seriously, guys, naming or underlining your dislike towards a patron and turning this into a vent-fest; what is missing in your life ?
Spot on: gasoline tank in a Zippo factory.
Will you defend the reasoning of some imaginary thread such as "Which nations/countries do you dislike" too ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I will be honest Andres, I am envious of you. You have a beautiful wife, and a babe which will grow up to make a difference in this world, you got a good job, nice salary, even have ontap, the best brewed Belgium beer. Sometimes however, I think you tend to forget that not all of us have all these luxuries and you take a far too relaxed attitude in spite of our hardships and woes. You seem to take these things for granted and on numerous occasions, pulled the rug under our feet, hurting us emotionally. All I request is your reconsider sometimes how you treat us, and attempt to sympathize with our positions and how we are as not well off as you, in life.
Nonono, that paragraph was mostly addressed at Caravel, I don't remember you pointing out your superior moderatorship anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
I think you partly have a point about that particular thread not breaking the rules, but as I said in the last paragraph, it's a bad time to post inflammatory things in the Frontroom and after some members have seriously exploited their freedom, it was decided to crack down more on troublemakers, at least until members learn to behave, an announcement of that was made as well.
This thread started out as something that would attract all the troublemakers and make them say bad things about other members, things that could then not be made unread/unheard again, so it was closed, because the Frontroom is supposed to be the kingdom of peace and love and not the place where you strongly disagree with others, that's more a thing of the Backroom.
That's how I see it and why I think the decision was okay, maybe a bit borderline but still on the okay-side of things, the intention is not to keep people from discussing things but to stop them from fighting eachother. Now you can say every thread has that potential, but this one had a very high potential for that in my opinion. :bow:
I apologize for the knee-jerk, then. ~:)
Don't you roll your eyes at me, young man! :stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
I agree with Husar in the the moderators decision was borderline. I would prefer if they left it open, but I'm not surprised it was closed, there is a decent argument for doing so.
Plus, I don't think it was a great thread. Never said its quality had anything to do with it being closed though.
In view of recent tragic events, I'd like to apologise to the staff and members as a whole. I can assure you that this will now stop - I will not be getting involved in these debates again, unless it's in a much more positive way.
To be clear my intentions were good from the start, there is no "chip" on my shoulder, nor do I hold any grudges against any of the staff and never have. All I can say is that - I genuinely thought I was doing the right thing, and I was trying to change the .org for the better. I realise now how misguided and futile that was.
My sincere apologies.
caravel
In the light of the tragic events, I would suggest leaving this issue to simmer by itself until it is forgotten. :bow:
So, the intent of this Rivals thread was what? It's even specific to this forum's members and not "rivals in general". Seems to me you are baiting people who don't like or get along with you. Is getting other people you don't like into trouble a favorite hobby? Or is it the chaos in general? The common denominator in much of these antics is you. In fact, most of your troubles here are self-inflicted. I suggest you seek professional help with these behavioral issues, meantime stop this baiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by ELITEofKingWarman8
Secura was quite right to close this thread, and I commend her for her iniative and instincts to prevent an obvious attempt at trolling for trouble.
Or, just do your job! :idea3::idea3:
You were allowed back on this forum on the promise of good behavior. I don't believe you're living up to your end of that bargain.
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by ELITEofKingWarman8
Oh no my friend, I am living up to that end of the baragain. Lets not play that game. I am showing more Glory and Honor then half this staff is. I think this staff needs a Stalin like purge with comments like that. I'm stepping away from this forum for 24 hours so I don't say anymore that you great Mods can use aganist me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
And Monk, I'm suprise you posted with a sad face considering you made a thread supporting my thread? Just curious about this.
That was before you admitted to being a :daisy: for the sake of being a :daisy:, and making me feel like a stooge for ever defending you. You are really going to perpetuate this internet drama :daisy: now?Quote:
Originally Posted by ELITEofKingWarman8
After all that's happened? It doesn't put anything into some kinda perspective for you?
Man if you're goinna act like that you should take a breather from the internet. You need a reality check, badly. I regret ever posting this thread.
It is always a shame when this happens, you try to play the white-knight then you suddenly discover you was aiding the villain all along. I have known that feeling myself. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Like you and your friends? :idea2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
No I thank you for your help though you need to learn I fight my battle my own way and not your panzy :furious3: ways. You can help me by fighting your own way and not getting on me when I defend myself my way. So get with me or get out of my face Monk. You guys need a reality check. I been doing things in RL and online way longer then you guys, so you guys need to pull your heads out of your :furious3:. You guys won't be doing this if your boss was alive because you damn well know me and him was getting along and we was working together to get the GAHzette back together and I damn well know some of you guys were pissed when I got unbanned. Even Tosa told me it won't be a popular decision 'among the staff'.
None of you guys better talk to me again unless it's something related to helping this forum get better, because otherwise go find life online elsewhere.
Pevergreen once called me a "Elitlist MP player". Sure, Many of us MP players are like that but not in a bad way.
So go leave me alone your SP minions.
The thread was posted with the best of intentions - not to defend any individual's behaviour... it's all water under the bridge - leave it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk
:bow:
Dude, stop digging.
Indeed. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
This can't be closed soon enough.
There is the key. Moderators issue warnings and sanctions based on the rules, but can take other actions in the interest of maintaining the atmosphere and building/supporting the community of the ORG. That is the REAL goal of a moderator - building community and encouraging discussion - not just enforcing the "rules".Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I myself would not have hesitated to have closed the thread, if i was late arriving and people had already posted about thier "rivals" then I would have deleted it. No apologies. That said, I would not have issued any sanctions or warnings about it - though I would have contacted the originator to discuss it (smooth it over).
The fact is that while no rule was broken, that the thread was "not in the interest of good relations and a positive atmosphere". Even if no rule violations occurred, it was not in the interest of building the community, rather could certainly have contributed to tearing it apart and worsening those existing rivalries.
If this was meant as a means to extend an olive branch, then there are better ways to do it. If people are harrassing you, then contact a "senior" or respected moderator, tell them about the issue, and perhaps they will help mediate a solution. During my days I did this several times - and while people still may not like each other, we can all at least be civil.
Closed