Overzealous moderation

[Monk]

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?

[Viking]

Given the OP, I agree with teh modz.

[Monk]

Given the OP, I agree with teh modz.

Still waiting to hear what rule was broken, by the way.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I don't question Moderator's decisions anymore, the point is futile my friend, Monk.

Besides, last time I did I was banned!

Just leave it be I guess.

[Gregoshi]

...even if done so civilly?

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.

[Secura]

Am I not allowed to express my disinterest, disagreement or dislike of another member even if done so civilly?

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?

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think we can come up with better threads. Maybe it didn't need to be closed, but still.

[Togakure]

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.

[caravel]

an open invitation for rules violations.

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...?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

I thought you were in favour of "hands off moderation"? Your position on this surprises me.

[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?

"Dislike is not to be expressed in public." which were the words expressed in thread.

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.

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.

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?

I think we can come up with better threads. Maybe it didn't need to be closed, but still.

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.

[Gregoshi]

This is an off-topic forum for lighter topics only. That means certainly no politics. Anything that is suspect to lead to heated discussions does not belong here and will be moved or may even be closed or deleted.
The reason we have this forum is to take away the heat from the Tavern. And we will make sure that happens. Since this is a place for recreation, offensive posting will be seen especially serious.
We should all reflect for a moment on the necessity of this place. It seems that the discussions in the Tavern regularly turn so aggressive that some members decide to avoid the Tavern entirely. I find this strange. I never had the impression that getting personal helps you in any way. If you reach a point where contentfull argumentation doesn´t do it anymore, why not simply stop? I don´t claim that my posts are always free from passion and rage, but if I say things that are inappropriate, I have no problem in saying that I´m sorry. Even when I think what I said was true.
Creating this light topic forum is a way to deal with the problem of heated discussions in the Tavern. But it´s surely not a final solution. The solution cannot come from the Moderators. It must come from the people that post in the Tavern. If you enjoy the discussions in the Tavern, help keeping it a fun place.

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.

[Secura]

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.

Is it your job to assess what every post "appears" to be?

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?

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 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.

[Husar]

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*.

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

[Andres]

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?

Please, call me a jerk in a civilised way that doesn't break the rules

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.

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...?

When confronted with this particular thread, most moderators would feel more than just a hunch that it had the potential to become nasty.

I see your point, but this thread seems like the worst possible example to defend it.

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.

Disagree on the "social worker" part. Sometimes you have to.

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?

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?

[Monk]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Secura]

I'm in the minority and I know nothing said or done here will influence policy or the decision itself.

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.

[Monk]

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.

I've said all I care to.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Please, call me a jerk in a civilised way that doesn't break the rules

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.

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.



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?

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.

[Viking]

Still waiting to hear what rule was broken, by the way.

Produce the rule that says moderators must observe breaking of rules in order order to act.

It is all besides the point.

[LeftEyeNine]

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 ?

[Beskar]

Please, call me a jerk in a civilised way that doesn't break the rules

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Challenge Accepted.

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.

[Husar]

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.

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.

Nonono, that paragraph was mostly addressed at Caravel, I don't remember you pointing out your superior moderatorship anywhere.

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.

[Monk]

I apologize for the knee-jerk, then.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

Don't you roll your eyes at me, young man!

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.

[caravel]

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

[edyzmedieval]

In the light of the tragic events, I would suggest leaving this issue to simmer by itself until it is forgotten.

[Hosakawa Tito]

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.

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.

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.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Or, just do your job!

[Hosakawa Tito]

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.

[Monk]

Or, just do your job!