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.

[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 ?

[Jaguara]

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

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".

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.

[Ser Clegane]

Closed

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.