This is getting ridiculous...

[Kadagar_AV]

Original thread

Now, I have recieved some infractions I believe the jury would still be out on. But the last one is just laughable in my view.

Bear with me.

Ok, so someone, not me, starts a thread about how Marge Simpson will be featured in Playboy. Marge Simpson, the cartoon. Just to get this straight, it is a cartoon we talk about.

Now, OP includes the line

This is the closest you'll ever get to finding out if the carpet really does match the blue drapes.

One member does not get the pun and asks what it means. I then join the thread and answer him:

Aemilius Paulus, you don't get it?

Carpet - pubic hair. But personaly I hope she is shaved

For this "offensive" post I get.... an infraction?

I mean seriosly. I was not the one who got the topic started, I just answered a question. Secondly, I do not believe the words "pubic hair" is offensive, or?

And to top it of: DThread was about a cartoon.



I mean seriosly... You can't be real giving me an infraction over this?

I would answer in PM but can't as I am locked out of it, and of the backroom

[Louis VI the Fat]

Really? Ooh. That's bad. What's wrong with natural? Me I can't get used to completely shave


Not too long ago, I received a warning point for using direct terminology to explain the expletive meaning of a play on words.

A bit much, I thought, but oh well.

[Strike For The South]

I get warnings because I uncovered the Irish conspiracy in the backroom.

You live, you learn, you start a homo-erotic internet relationship with a Frenchman.

These things happen.

[Kadagar_AV]

Depends on what the "direct terminology" is of course.



In this case though, I wouldn't consider hair (or no hair) to be worth an infraction. I mean seriosly, hair??

However, to be honest, it's not even HAIR we talk about, it's weather or not some lines and curves will be being drawn with a blue pencil or not (will the pencil be blue? Will it be drawn?).

Seriosly...

I know this forum has some weird standards in European eyes sometimes, but this is just over the line

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

II <- Would that have been worth a ban, then?

[InsaneApache]

Perhaps they mis-read it as public hair.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have to agree that that's a bit much.

[Husar]

I have to agree that that's a bit much.

Me too, I didn't think your comment was over the top in any way.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You live, you learn, you start a homo-erotic internet relationship with a Frenchman.

There is a time to play around. And a time to be serious. We can't just make silly comments all the time. So stop kidding around and get serious: tell me - do you prefer me natural or shaven?

[Strike For The South]

There is a time to play around. And a time to be serious. We can't just make silly comments all the time. So stop kidding around and get serious: tell me - do you prefer me natural or shaven?

Shaven, I look to be able to rub my face in all your glory. However if you were to dye your hair I figure I could go primal and bed you with the hair.

TBH neither is really a dealbreaker for me.

[Tratorix]

Yeah, that's a bit weak. What's so offensive about pubic hair?

[Azathoth]

Attica! Attica!

[Beskar]

My carpet is blue and the drapes are red...

We aren't talking about the computer room, are we? :O

[InsaneApache]

I think Louis has nailed it!

[Gregoshi]

With cartoons, it is easy to draw an infraction. At least you aren't in a cel.

[Whacker]

Relax mate. I once got an infraction for using the word "crap", claiming it was swearing. What a load of crap.

[Tratorix]

Relax mate. I once got an infraction for using the word "crap", claiming it was swearing. What a load of crap.

*reports post*

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, I happen to be indirectly responsible for Kadgar's infraction, and I personally think this is indeed preposterous. Ridiculous. Setting new lows. Or hopefully a misunderstanding, which is my best guess.

But really, I simply do not know what to think. I fail to see how this was offensive or even as much as distasteful. Kadgar answered my question, and he answered it in a polite, helpful and a clean manner, or as "clean" as the question could have been answered. He did not laugh at me, although he easily could have, in the face of my ignorance.

The only reason I see for this infraction is prudishness, which is a simply laughable culprit.

Is it me or is the moderating becoming stricter these days? I used to remember the past when I rarely received any warnings, but this September and October things were wild for me, me receiving a warning every week, to the point where any non-positive post of mine was deleted, no matter how polite it was...

Now, I am not criticising anyone, and most of my discontent is directed at the Frontroom as I am content, knowing that this is the best, friendliest, and cleanest forums I had the privilege of visiting, but still... And yes, I realise that the mods at the Frontroom were most likely to moderate my Frontroom comments, as the I am beginning to grasp the fact that "Kingdom of Peace and Love" may not be a quip... I previously though only politics was not allowed at the Frontroom, but it seems the mods are serious about keeping the posts positive there...



Anyyywayyy, I am exceedingly disappointed Kadgar was apparently given a two-day vacation for his post. I sincerely hope, that at the very least, that post did not earn him more than one point. Also, that Marge thread is one heck of a mess - half the stuff is deleted, posts are disarranged, and the manboob photo was deleted, but it remains in my quote...

EDIT: If Kadgar's post was slapped with an infraction, then for this:

Shaven, I look to be able to rub my face in all your glory. However if you were to dye your hair I figure I could go primal and bed you with the hair.

TBH neither is really a dealbreaker for me.

...one should be perma-banned - no really.

[Kadagar_AV]

Thanks for all the support guys. Sad to see no moderator has replied yet, would have been interesting to hear their reasoning.

I have nothing against moderating to uphold some kind of standard, but this standard should not be based on the Victorian era

Sure, a line must be drawn... I just happen to think this mod went wayyyy over the line

Had a boring day at work not being able to browse the org like I use to

Anyway, makes me glad that I'm not the only one questioning the reasoning behind this particular case.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sad to see no moderator has replied yet, would have been interesting to hear their reasoning.

They are hiding in shame, crying

Sure, a line must be drawn... I just happen to think this mod went wayyyy over the line

I would love to see that line, but it will not happen. Not realistic. Currently, if you get an infraction, you are certain to retain it, usually even if there is overwhelming consensus over invalidating it .

I would not mind TWC-style tribunal with the ability to have the decisions reviewed, but I do realise that it is likely to turn into a major work load for mods. Which may even necessitate a creation of a new moderator to oversee such matters, if such function was to be implemented.

Had a boring day at work not being able to browse the org like I use to

Heh, where do you work, if you do not mind me asking?




BTW, how is it that you are posting now? Or wait, is it always like this for the Watchtower? I suppose this is another .Org/vBulletin forum software mechanic to be able to post while banned in the Watchtower.

[pevergreen]

I would ask why you didn't do this via PM.

Staff could be working it out internally...

[Kadagar_AV]

I would ask why you didn't do this via PM.

Staff could be working it out internally...

I can't PM as my account is severly restricted. Besides, this is the forum staff to discuss the org, and if this is the new standard of moderation I think it's worth some input.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Anyyywayyy, I am exceedingly disappointed Kadgar was apparently given a two-day vacation for his post. I sincerely hope, that at the very least, that post did not earn him more than one point. .

Whichever warning it is that puts someone over the point threshold is the one that triggers the temp ban.

[pevergreen]

Thats fair enough (about account restrictions)

The second part isnt clear enough for me to go down a path, so I will say: Yes and no.

I don't approve of putting this out in the open straight away, but thats personal choice. I don't believe, however, that it is either the place or the way to discuss moderation standards.

I'm sorry, I'm failing to explain myself, and I can't sit down and type what I'm blubbering on in my head about, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

I don't like people saying bad things about moderators, unless i think they are true. Annoying? Yes, for others (such as this case) but its the way I work. I haven't seen anything that makes me think there is anything wrong with the moderators of the backroom, in terms of their style, so I become very stubborn in changing that.

I'm a bit out of it, I mean no offence if that happens.

[KarlXII]

Hey guys,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Israel



*quickly runs giggling*

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thanks for all the support guys. Sad to see no moderator has replied yet, would have been interesting to hear their reasoning.

I have nothing against moderating to uphold some kind of standard, but this standard should not be based on the Victorian era

You didn't get a reply right away for a couple of reasons. Usually this would be dealt with by PM (I understand you have some difficulty with your inbox) and rather amazingly, staff have lives outside the Org.

The reason for the infraction point was that your comment was not entirely suitable for a PG-13 site. It also provoked several more unfortunate posts - perhaps unsurprising when young men see an opportunity to be base. As I remarked to another contributor, this is not 4chan.

Members should be aware that the Backroom is here on sufferance. The vast majority of members don't want or need an off-topic forum - they are content with discussing their gaming. The Backroom has the potential to get ugly very quickly. It is not a free-for-all. You can see from this thread - the Watchtower is not so closely moderated as the Backroom - how members can quickly take an opportunity for mischief.

Equally, moderators have lives and families. We are volunteers. (One is tempted to quote Shylock's monologue here ) Sometimes, the amount of work needed is more than the time available. This means quick decisions are made with the greater good in mind. We rely heavily on members to moderate themselves, to understand what is appropriate and what is in the spirit rather than the letter of the rules - and to respect the community and support it with their behaviour. This is perhaps even more important in the Backroom because of its potential for disruption.

It may be unfortunate, but as in life, if you get a good reputation, people tend to allow the benefit of the doubt in their interactions with you. The converse is also true.

Having noted all the above, I agree that the infraction was rather harsh and based more on what might occur, as well as a previously heavy workload of some frustration. In the main, this was not your fault, and therefore I will reverse the infraction. I apologise for my hasty decision.

In case you are unsure, you did not receive a ban for this incident, only an infraction point. Since previous infractions take some time to decay from your account, it was this accumulation that triggered the ban.

[Kadagar_AV]

BG, fair enough :)

Glad to hear your decision! Have been very careful about what I have posted lately, so this really suprised me.

Kudos for stepping back by the way, most people would be too proud

[Beskar]

Did you know that the absence of swearing reduces swearing overall?

Also, did you know, if you word filtered swear words into words such as "Banana" so posts end up with things like "Stop being a banana!", people will start actually adopting the word such as "banana" into their posts without it being word filtered.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Beskar, I'm afraid you don't know what the daisy you're talking about.