Oh BKS, always bring a bit of insanity to an even insaner discussionOriginally Posted by [b
Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 22 2004,16:31)]Being unquestioned dictatorQuote[/b] (Gregoshi @ May 22 2004,15:33)]Sorry BKS. You are actually the opposite. You are the "voice of the people". What can be better than that?
Moderators are chosen from the patrons who moderate without being moderators.
Also moderators come and go. One of the Site Admins got removed for abuse of priviledges. Others stand down because of personal reasons and cannot maintain the amount of time it takes to be here and see all the posts in a forum and maintain a level attitude.
It is really tough being a mod. You want to do the best, you want to keep as many people happy as possible, you don't want to be biased in the forum you moderate (I would not want to be a mod in the tavern it is where I let off steam).
You would be surprised at what the mods and admin will do to think of ways to have everyone be happy. To be fair and to try and not give themselves heart problems
The card system is so we don't have to go straight to banning a patron. Also the the Org is supposed to be neutral ground for the meeting of all. But just like in Highlander this gets violated from time to time.
Now we have patrons come and go. But on the whole we want all types of people to be present and a diverse population as possible.
Variety is the spice of life.
I would like to add it was slightly more polite when it was based on Shogun Total War... but then again it may just be nostagia and the lack of being a mod at the time that has me thinking that.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
yes it was indeed more polite several years ago. The increase in the level of insulting comments and the refusal to stop such comments by a few individuals have caused the atmosphere that is there now.
There are a few the will always use insults, profanity, and down right offensive terms to cause someone with a different political, cultural, or religious view to be offended. These individual know that their posting is offensive and they habitually do it on purpose. These type of posts are exactly what I have been talking about. They are allowed to go on and on, however when the other side is finely offended to the point that they respond in kind - who is it that gets publicily cautioned or censored.
Its never the orginial offender.
For examble another examble of a personal insulting post.
A personal attack on what someone else posted in a religious thread. However this individual is consistantly allowed to post in just this matter, and then we wonder why people find offense and a double standard in who is allowed to say what.
and then there is this
If I was to type that - it is almost a certainity that I would have a sanction placed upon my ability to post.
By the way I have seen Tosa make moderation comments concerning other subjects, and I am still waiting his views on this particlur subject.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Hello Redleg,
Sorry for not being able to reply within 2 hours after the temporary closure of the original topic as planned.
Where to start? What to say that hasn't been said already?
How to solve this?
Ja mata
TosaInu
I am only a moderator in the Dungeon because I know alot about modding, so for the coming minutes forget my position.
When I grade posts to see wether they are civil or not, I mostly place them in a context of friendly real life conversation. You are in a bar with lots of different cultures and believes.
The topic is for example about Jesus and if someone says that he is a lunatic, don't you think that he gets dirty looks and is removed from the conversation for obviously being a trouble maker?
The same counts namecalling, at any level.
In the case of the person who called Jesus a lunatic he would have at least need to be given a ticket and his post should be edited to remove the insult.
There is freedom of speech, but that has a boundary, you cannot call the queen openly a ....go wild with your imagination.
And I will put my moderator hat on again
The problem is some people become trouble maker because they point out things that need to be pointed out. Freedom of speech has boundaries, but thought control shouldn´t be one of it. As for the "ticket", the first two cards are privat.
There are a couple of issues here.
1) There is a right way to say something, a wrong way and sometimes it is best to not say anything at all. Fictional example: via these forums, I'm trying to organize a meeting of MTW players to see the premier of the upcoming movie King Arthur. Quite a few people said they would attend. You happen to not think much of the idea. Your choice of alternatives is:
a) post a reply the wrong way: "You people are the biggest bunch of losers I've ever seen. The only reason you are going is event is because you have no life and none of you can get a date for Friday night. You can count me out."
b) post a more respectful reply: "I'm afraid I won't be coming to your movie event. You all have a good time though." Maybe even add something constructive: "But if we could include a MTW lan party with the trip, I'll try to come."
c) don't post anything at all. You aren't interested in the subject and can't contribute anything positive.
---
2) There are some individuals with the "talent" to insult another using perfectly innocent language. The words are all harmless but the underlying meaning is malicious. How do you determine if there was an undertone of ill intent? The words are innocent, but... As a moderator, are you reading more into the message than is really there? Or are you not seeing a hidden meaning that is "obvious" to others. It comes down to a pure judgement call. One side says "I never said such a thing" while the other says "I can't believe you are letting him get away with this" Do we have a clever baiter or someone who is overly sensitive? There is no clear cut answer. The moderator ends up going with their gut feeling on the issue or past experience with the individuals.
---
What most of these issues come down to is respect. Respect for each other and differing points of view. If we respect each other, we won't go out of our way to say something we know will hurt others. If we respect each other, we will take the time to discuss issues in such a way that no one will be offended. And finally, if we respect each other, we will consider whether or not our comments are constructive or destructive to a discussion before posting them. Note: "constructive" does not mean "agreeable".
This space intentionally left blank
A.Saturnus: I'm having a little trouble with your statement here. The English is murky but I can't come up with an interpretation other than that ******* wasn't being a trouble maker and that saying Christ was a lunatic was something that needed to be said. I'm sure this isn't correct so I seek clarification. What precisely is it that needed to be said? Is it religious in nature? Is it the same idea but said with more respect? I'm grasping here because I have no idea what meaning I might take from this.
Tosa Inu
I've got something cooking. I have a concept and I'm working on turning it into a viable plan. More details soon.
The surest way to lose the respect of one's peers is to take a stand on principle...alone.
IIRC, Godwins Law does not actually state that; ity only says that as the post count climbs, the probability of a comparison with the Nazi's tends toward 1.Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 22 2004,04:47)]It's called Godwin's Law. It states that whoever compares the other side in a debate in an internet forum to the Nazi's automatically loses.
And I want to address this point. Its absurd IMO to assert that any comparison to the Nazi's is spurious and provocative. That, in fact, is a statement I find spurious and provocative.
Redleg complains that he has been called a Fascist, and I have done so. I believe that a good historical argument can be made demonstrating that much of Redleg's politics (and those of several other posters) accord with Fascist dogma and doctrine. Whether or not Redleg or anyone is offended by such a description is to me wholly irrelevant - the description may still be accurate. It is not KNOWINGLY defamatory.
Redleg, the moderators, or anyone, are entitled toi disagree with my analysis; they are NOT entitled to allege that my analysis is inflammatory or rhetorical.
"We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong
Godwin's Law Prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
From the Jargon dictionary.
Co-Lord of BKS and Beirut's Kingdom of Peace and Love.
"Handsome features, rugged exteriors, intellectual chick magnets, we're pretty much twins."-Beirut
"Rhy, where's your helicopter now? Where's your ******* helicopter now?"-Mephistopheles.
Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 25 2004,08:32)]IIRC, Godwins Law does not actually state that; ity only says that as the post count climbs, the probability of a comparison with the Nazi's tends toward 1.Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ May 22 2004,04:47)]It's called Godwin's Law. It states that whoever compares the other side in a debate in an internet forum to the Nazi's automatically loses.
And I want to address this point. Its absurd IMO to assert that any comparison to the Nazi's is spurious and provocative. That, in fact, is a statement I find spurious and provocative.
Redleg complains that he has been called a Fascist, and I have done so. I believe that a good historical argument can be made demonstrating that much of Redleg's politics (and those of several other posters) accord with Fascist dogma and doctrine. Whether or not Redleg or anyone is offended by such a description is to me wholly irrelevant - the description may still be accurate. It is not KNOWINGLY defamatory.
Redleg, the moderators, or anyone, are entitled toi disagree with my analysis; they are NOT entitled to allege that my analysis is inflammatory or rhetorical.
Calling me a facist is not something that I will tolerate from anyone. I am not a facist or a nazi, or several of the other degrading terms you like to apply when making your posts. You are attempting to label someone because they disagree with your politicial stance and methods. I am in actuallity a very conservative individual who believes that the federal government should be reduced and that local community governments should be more involved in the community social welfare. Very far from the facist dogma that you think I am because of my stance on international or foriegn policy of the United States.
The term is known to be defamatory just like several other terms. And you have been informed of that several times. There are many terms I could call you that fit the description of how I see your posts and they would fit a good description of you, which have been used in the past in a tit for tat arguement.
But each one of them are inflammatory and defamatory comments and they should not be tolerated in a civil discussion. The forum rules clearly spell out the terms of the usage of the forum by the patrons, and when we knowning or unkowning violate those terms the censor, sanctions, either public or private by the moderators should be passed out equally and without bais on the moderators part.
Thanks once again for showing the moderators exactly one of the points that needs to be moderated to prevent flamming of threads by the patrons of the traven.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
The issue is still there and still needs to be resolved. Several points are already in both threads.
But to summarize some of my points.
1) If it violates the rules of the forum, then it should be treated like such - no matter what the intent of the poster if it violates the rules it must be treated as such.
2) Equally treatment of all patrons. If we are going to make public notices of caution on one person then everyone should recieve public caution for the nature of their posts. If one is only going to get private caution - then all get private caution.
Maybe a thread in the watchtower that explains when certain partons have gone to far over and over again and that public censor of their actions is requested by all patrons. This should only be done in the most extreme cases for patrons that refuse to follow the forum rules and complie with the requested changes by the moderators. This way the general community knows that this individual has had action taken against him and we can act accordingly and ignore the comments because we as patrons known now that the moderators are doing something about it.
3) Moderators of the traven should not moderate threads in which they are active particpants in the discussion. It leads to valid complaints of biased judgement if they have to take action because of a violation of the forum rules.
The rules of the forum are already well established and do not need to be changed. They just need to be equally enforced for all patrons. We need to stop the profanity in many patrons posts. There is only one way to take a comment with a profanity term in it, its a simple rule of civility that my parents told me many years ago.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
fair enough redleg, if you will not tolerate being called a fascist, then why do you call people liberals, pinkos and such names/labels, because that you do.
Common Unreflected Drinking Only Smartens
one - I don't call people pinko's, if I have it was most likely a tit for tat insult conversation. I have and will call some individuals socialist or communist especially if they call theirselves one of those terms.
two -Liberials because its not a degrading or inflammatory term. It describes a current politicial stance, just like if someone calls me a conservative - which would also be an accurate term, and not offensive. Some Liberial posters such as Tachikaze I have loads of respect for because they rarely use inflammatory or degrading terms when discussing an issue in regards to an individual poster. They often attack the idea - not the individual, its a big difference.
Three - the whole purpose of this thread is to halt the bad behavior of the past. Which is why I want to change my posting style for the most part, because I knew I was wrong, but the problem was not just me, but many of us, we were getting in tit for tat degrading and inflammatory posting that were going nowhere and was just breaking down the civility of the tavern to the point that it was either fix it, or leave.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
By that logic then I can justify calling someone any name I please - as long as I can claim precedent. That is an open ended standard.
There is also historical precedent for most racial slurs; in that they are historically used against people that meet certain criteria and the terms describe qualities that a group of persons are historically believed to have. I could claim that how they take it is wholly irrelevant if I have precedent and the term is accurate.
Is that how we want to operate? Giving offense whenever we can dredge up some precedent to back up the offensive statement. I don't want the Org to work that way because it is patently disrespectful and offensive.
Not only that but most "historical precedents" are highly subjective so one person's definition of #### and another person's definition of #### could be very different but both could be supported by differing precedents.
Run Right at them and board them in the smoke Captain Lucky Jack Aubrey of the HMS Surprise
as does fascist or nazi, a current political stance, nothing inflammatory about that.
Common Unreflected Drinking Only Smartens
Perhaps in their purist sense but there is inhumane brutality in those "political stances". The reality is that fascist and especially nazi have lots of negative baggage that go with them. Things like genocide... I'd put forth that if you ask most people around the world to describe what a nazi is and you will get words like "murders", "butchers", etc.Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ May 25 2004,13:00)]as does fascist or nazi, a current political stance, nothing inflammatory about that.
These fascist and nazi are examples of those words that you can claim innocence in using in their "pure" definition and at the same time have 99% of the people associate with it the common, offensive interpretation. The terms are two-edged swords but the (insulting) backhand swing cuts much harder and deeper than the (innocent) forehand. I'm sure if you thought just a little bit, you could find an acceptable substitute to drive home your point.
This space intentionally left blank
I wasn´t talking about that case. I meant that in a broader sense that we shouldn´t quelsh intellectually provokative ideas just because some don´t want to hear them. I think that it is possible to express thoughts about some things - and Christ is surely one of them - that some might find offensive simply because they contradict their world view. In the example above, this was not the case and it´s entirely understandable and justifiable that people took offense. I´m merely saying that we shouldn´t censor someone whenever someone else says he feels offended. The offended one must have a agreeable reason to demand the other one censored.
Calling someone a Communist could be considered to be exactly the same level of severity as calling someone a Nazi... What with Stalin, the great purges and the brutal baggage that comes from the murky past of that political group.
It brings up images of the Cold War and the USSR, Stalin and all the rest of it.
True it doesn't pack the same punch as calling someone a Nazi, but then only the Nazis got stopped after commiting genocide... Stalin got away with it, and killed many more people.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
hey I'm a Papist Imperialist Warmongering Pig, and that's just what I call myself...
btw, my black shirt is in the wash right now
THat's becasue Stalin was on the winning side and was able to input his propeganda into the history books instead of Hitlers.
In any case maybe we should take events as they happen instead of saying what once occured or may occur in the future. If something a mod does makes you upset perhaps PM the mod instead of a lynching party.
robotica erotica
You are, in my opinion.
I'm well aware of this - it accords with a historical Fascist agenda.
Your support for the US's aggrssion is merely the most observable of the symptoms.
So you're saying that an actually extant historical movement cannot be referenced? Why is that? Would you prefer we didn't explore reality, and didn't see the similarities? Are you hiding something?
Thats exactly why I wanted to address the point nose on. What you are actually calling for is censorship becuase you don't like the criticisms comiong your way. I suggest you should rather start taking responsibility for your political agenda rather than resorting to claiming that its insult for insult's sake.
"We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong
By no means. You would have to demonstrate identiy, not precedent.
Whats belief got to do with anything? I'm not using a term on the basis that someone once used the term before; I am using it because it is the correct and accurate political jargon to describe a certain set of policies.
Look at he controversy ove Heinleins book "Starship Troopers". I can demonstrate without doubt that Starship Troopers promulgates a Fascist model of society, by citing Mein Kampf arguing for the same sort of society. It is invalid to suggest that such a criticism is based on personal hostility to Heinlein rather than the actual, material similarities in the texts.
You tell me - I find it highly offensive that you should suggest I make such comparisons in order to provoke offense. If you want an adult debate, I sugggest, you first have to listen to the other person, not merely discard their analysis on the arrogant presumption that its only made for rhetorical effect.
"We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong
Well, what term would you then propose we use for:
"the nationalist-militarist ideologies of national divine right prominent in the 30's in Germany and Italy"?
"We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong
-
Re: If you going to moderate
It's a shame that the inappropriate speculative thread about Islam and Democracy has been polluting the Monastry for three days now.It was called upon at the thread itself and the mods were PMed but it's still there.
I don't want to lose my faith in the ORG and its staff.
Ref: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....t=18651
_
Ja mata Tosa Inu-sama, Hore Tore, Adrian II, Sigurd, Fragony
Mouzafphaerre is known elsewhere as Urwendil/Urwendur/Kibilturg...
.
You know, there seems to be a growing world trend that believes that individuals have some sort of "right" not to be offended. Especially here in North America (where I live, so I can best comment), various groups have a tendancy to claim they are being offended by something, and then attempt to squelch the material based on that claim.
I'd like to point out that there is, in fact, no such right. When it comes down to it, there is very little, if anything, that one can do that does not have the potential to offend someone. And that's perfectly ok. Because people also have something called "choice" that enables them to select whether or not they wish to partake of something that might be offensive. Now, if all of us were chained to our computers and forced to read every single thread on these forums, then the situation would be different.
I think the whole religious angle is a good place to go, because it tends to have fairly extreme positions. For example, I find the notion that Jesus was "the son of god" offensive. I truly do. To me, it's ludicrous to suggest that one of the many "christs" of the time, one of the many "christs" who got crucified, or even one of the many "christs" who got crucified and claimed to have resurrected with an empty tomb is the "true" son of god to be, well, silly is the most polite thing I can say. And then to have people turn around and try and use the bible (and the same "Jesus Christ") in an attempt to justify various positions, arguments, laws, etc is worse. Plain old offensive.
But at the same time, I don't go around the forum claiming that I'm being offended, and demanding that the "offenders" be sanctioned. Because I understand that these people likely believe in the truth of their beliefs, like I do, and recognize the fact that in order to have any true discussion, you have to have people who believe things that you don't.
Now, this should not be in any way taken to suggest that someone should be able to call you a "F***ing ***hole" and not be sanctioned. I just want to make clear the fact that calling "I'm offended" should never be sufficient reason to stifle someone else's thoughts. Nor should you operate under any expectations that you, personally, being offended is anything that other people should protect you from.
You do not have the right to not be offended.
Bh
Agreed, bad language only enflames the discussion.
I find this one hard to mod on, one man's profanity is anothers normal language. Some words are very obvious, but some are less so. Take 'bastard' for instance, many do not consider that to be swearing any more, but some still do, and if you look in most dictionaries it is classed as profanity unless it is being used to comment on someone's parents status at the time of his birth.
I deplore swearing, but even I use bastard from time to time. I work on the basis of whether I have seen the term in a PG film/game/whatever or not, but that is hardly ideal and people have no crystal clear idea of what I will let go. It's not like there is a list of banned words people can consult.
To further Gregoshi's old point of polite, hard to pin down insults, well I am quite good at that myself. Recently someone launched an unprovoked attack on me in another forum, I could have stitched him up so nicely with just one comment. It would have been impossible to mod me without hitting him at least twice as hard, and it would have been extremely hard to justify modding me for my comment. How can you mod someone for posting a friendly comment, complete withsmiley to show it is sincere?
In the end I didn't bother, I just left the thread and put the person on my ignore list. Done correctly hidden insults are next to impossible to mod.
Frogbeastegg's Guide to Total War: Shogun II. Please note that the guide is not up-to-date for the latest patch.
Well you missed understood what this is about.
Its not about not being offended - its about insuring that the rules of the forum are equally applied to all, and that they are indeed enforced.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
Then Squippy I suggest you ignore my posts and I will ignore yours.Quote[/b] (squippy @ May 26 2004,02:58)]You are, in my opinion.
I'm well aware of this - it accords with a historical Fascist agenda.
Your support for the US's aggrssion is merely the most observable of the symptoms.
So you're saying that an actually extant historical movement cannot be referenced? Why is that? Would you prefer we didn't explore reality, and didn't see the similarities? Are you hiding something?
Thats exactly why I wanted to address the point nose on. What you are actually calling for is censorship becuase you don't like the criticisms comiong your way. I suggest you should rather start taking responsibility for your political agenda rather than resorting to claiming that its insult for insult's sake.
Because I think you are a communist under the same rules as Stalin, Marx, and a few others, and our conservations will never be civil. Because if I am a facist your are definetly a Stalinist communist.
If you call me a facist or any of the other names that you have in the past,I can assure you the conservation will go down hill very quickly. If it gets us both censored or sanction then so be it.
I can at least be adult enought to accept the consequences of my actions.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
No, surprisingly, I didn't miss what this was all about.
The basis for your claim that the rules aren't applied equally is that people are making "offensive" posts and not getting publicly called on it. My point was that you finding something offensive is not, by itself, sufficient cause for mod intervention.
I mean, take "The Conservative Club", for example. Nice post from "Devastatin Dave":
Its just hard when you have been working for the government your whole adult life, think that your doing good, then some leftists piece of fecal matter basically spits on you. Great post though Red...
Now where I come from, "leftists piece of fecal matter" would certainly qualify as both offensive and an insult. Should the mods be all over that? The fact that they aren't seems to suggest to me that they are applying the rules equally.
Bh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks