Editing posts should be taken alot more seriously.

**Monarch** · 03-21-2009, 01:55

The problem here is I can't really link to anything, since Andres has edited or deleted all of it. But here's my issue...

In the "super bug thread" (multiplayer forums) I noticed a footer in Baz's post "Edited by Andres: No baiting here" or something like that. Now, I'm not sure what Baz put...because it was edited out, which is really half the problem here, but personally I find editing posts extremely...extreme. If you edit a post, it means people are seeing something written by someone, and yet it's been messed with...we don't know what was removed and/or altered. This removes all credibility of the post, IMO it's worse than deleting it (please note I understand the Org is fully within it's rights to do so, what I'm saying is the legal right to do something doesn't make it "'right', do I really need to pull out the "with great power..." quote? I'm sure legally you can change all my posts to say "monarch is a twat"...but you shouldn't, and you won't.).

Simply editing a post for "baiting" is also far too much of a generic description. It's basically an internet catch all phrase for "saying something that someone might react to"...is this really that bad so that it has to be removed? I voiced my concern about the editing, admitedly I did it in a laid back, jokey way ("lol @ editing posts for 'baiting'")...sounds like a pointless observation but really I was expressing my shock that the mod was editing people's posts for something less than obscene, extremely harsh comments such as racism/homophobia.

I voiced my complaint in the thread the editing was done ("at the scene of the crime") and Andres went and deleted it for being "off topic". Now how is this irrelevant to the thread? It's always bothered me, the internet culture of "staying on topic". Conversations flow, topics evolve, in real life we don't seperate out discussions into set topics (unless we're trying to emulate a presidential debate...). The alternative was making a thread in here which I didn't want to do, I don't read the mp forums much but I haven't noticed alot of heavy editing so I didn't think it neccessary. But Andres' forcing the thread kicking and screaming back on topic (which by the way was about 20 posts that all kinda said "stupid bug, nothing we can do, maybe make a list of cheaters"...I was hardly interrupting Frost/Nixon) by deleting my low key, short complaint and indeed Baz's reply ("I spoke my mind, and i know its right... so thats all that matters monarch lol") was also deleted.

The Org has usually had a laissez faire approach to the mp forums, at least in the past few years I've been here, maybe because it couldn't be bothered with mp... or maybe because previous mods recognised that leaving slightly controversial stuff eg. "baiting") highlights forum trolls and makes people more aware of them, tarnishing their reputation...instead I believe it is the mod's reputation that is tarnished for being so totalitarian.

Another point about this is consistency. If you edit Baz's post why not alot of others? I personally about a month or so ago got tired of the "vets ftw" attitude in the mp forums and made some blatantly sarcastic comments that I guess should have been edited, so has Tib (I'll single him out since he'll an OL mate, and he's also done some blatant "omg stfu" sarcastic posts.) Well maybe you missed them, you can't look at all posts, so how about the very post Baz was responding to? Krook highlighting Russians as the predominant cheaters? Baiting Russians. Yet no edit? It's alot easier to let stuff slide other than be inconsistent.

To be honest, the MP forum doesn't need a dedicated moderator. It hasn't had a new thread there in four days and there's currently like two active threads. I'm not saying "omg I'm outraged fire Andres!". But I'm not a fan of his moderation style and even if I thought he was the best moderator in the world I'd still say an MP moderator is unneccesary.

**pevergreen** · 03-21-2009, 02:06

Did it pertain to the discussion of the "super bug"? It doesnt seem like it, you were talking about moderators editing posts, therefore, offtopic.

I know for a fact moderators don't nor do they wish to edit large portions of a post. I bet all Andres removed was the baiting part. tbh, if I see a moderator edited a post, I assume they simply removed a swear word. If you really want to know the differences, PM the person to see what they posted. It now keeps an edit log, viewable by the poster and moderators.

Your view is MP doesnt need a moderator. My experience says it does. Most of the MP players have a very different view on what is acceptable.

**Monk** · 03-21-2009, 03:14

Firstly I believe this thread belongs in the Watchtower, not the Backroom watchtower.

Secondly if you are confused or have questions (or just disagree) with Andres's method of moderation than please don't hesitate it to take it up with him in a PM. I'm sure he'd very much appreciate a 1 on 1 before you come here. Most mods have a pretty much open door policy, speaking from experience.

To be honest, the MP forum doesn't need a dedicated moderator. It hasn't had a new thread there in four days and there's currently like two active threads. I'm not saying "omg I'm outraged fire Andres!". But I'm not a fan of his moderation style and even if I thought he was the best moderator in the world I'd still say an MP moderator is unneccesary.

My experience modding the MP forums for the three weeks up to ETW's release taught me otherwise so I have to disagree with you. The amount of baiting I witnessed in my first week alone was quite interesting, and what I've continued to see leads me to believe without an impartial mod there backing Tomi up the MP forum would quickly degenerate. I'm not comfortable with any portion of the .Org becoming a "wild west" section.

**KukriKhan** · 03-21-2009, 05:04

To underline the above, I point out that there is not a single un-Moderated forum, of the hundreds available, on the .org.

And that Moderators and Assistant Moderators are unpaid, drafted "volunteers" , drawn from the membership, to assist that membership in pursuit of their goals.

Those goals comply with the simply-stated (and unchanged for years) forum rules. Boiled down are which: Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal; don't discuss in public how to lie, cheat or steal; be respectful and honorable.

Simple stuff. And not so hard to comply with.

Yeah, they (the rules) might chafe a bit when I'm fired up because some n00b caught me in a flanking action in MP, or the stupid AI makes no challange to my uberSkilz, or some nutjob in the backroom thinks we outta invade Tunisia next Tuesday... of course I wanna vent: "Nutjob, you ignorant ******, *%$*@ U!!".

That might make me feel better for 4 minutes after I click "submit", and I can brag to my wife, or my friend, or my cat, or my imaginary friend: "Dude! I told him how it WAS!!"

But it isn't what I came here for.

I came here for truth.

True info on my tw game. True patch downloads that will enhance my game - not crash my computer with some virus-laden imposter. True solutions to my hardware compatibility problems. True opinions on what the best strategy might be to play this strategy game. And, in between game releases, true, honest, straightforward opinions on current events, arts and literature... you know, the things the smart guys here do/think in their off time.

That's why I came here, and why I keep coming back. I get that truth. And I don't mind that 1% of the membership gets the power to modify "contributions" that detract from that.

Heck, if I wanted to rant and rave, unbound, about anything, there are dozens... hundreds... shoot: hundreds of thousands, of places to go on the 'net to do that. And sometimes, I admit, I do.

But:

Without getting all misty-eyed and high-falutin', I'll say: this place, this org, this place where honor ain't just a 5-letter word, is where I want to be, where I crave to be, and where old-timers keep coming back after years because they, like me, hold hope that we all can recapture that spirit of cameraderie and honor and fun.

In closing:

gl
hf

and

gg

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 03-21-2009, 11:50

Monarch:

One point you made that I think should be addressed by mods. Where is it the poster and where is it a mod editing that poster? It's fair that this should be obvious to a reader.

Personally, the changes I make to wording are few. Where I do so I use green to indicate it is not the author's original phrase (I forget from time to time, but I try to do this for clarity). Other than that, its usually a pretty obvious replacement of certain words with **** or

where the language has gotten too "salty."

**rasoforos** · 03-25-2009, 08:27

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Without getting all misty-eyed and high-falutin', I'll say: this place, this org, this place where honor ain't just a 5-letter word...

What I am about to do is shameless spam but I cannot resist it...

Honour is certainly not a 5-letter word

Ah, Americans and proper English spelling.

**gollum** · 03-25-2009, 11:13

Originally posted by Mithrandir
I think Tosa should edit the original post to

And why exactly? Its a normal post about a normal, existing issue, normally worded.

If this is a sardonic joke, its not only ill conceived but misplaced too, since you dont actively participate in the scene/sub-forum in question.

Originally posted by Andres
As for my repuation, I'm not participating in a popularity contest here

Not caring about your reputation might be nothing more than the opposite end of caring about it rather than a sign of being just.

When you wish soemone to respect your line, the best way to ensure that, is to respect his too. You (correctly imho) demand respect of your line in the sub-forum in question while from your side you seem somewhat disinterested (wrongly ihmo) in the particular scene, its members and its ways. It would have been much easier for your line to be respected without causing misunderstandings to show a little more tuning in with the particular scene and environment, rather than forcing things out in a model of subforum behaviour that simply isnt the custom in the mp subforums.

In other words, the Redoubt will never turn into the Parliament, no matter how much you force it to do so. At maximum poeple will jump ship eventually. And this is not to the best interest of the mp community or the org. Having a calm forum without any activity in it, isnt exaclty a happy ending.

**Caius** · 03-21-2009, 04:35

I think you can see the edited removed part... can someone confirm this?

**Andres** · 03-24-2009, 17:35

First of all, sorry for the late reply. I haven't been online since Saturday.