|
Oh, well what about put into the context of "I have a low opinion of most moderators, especially when I know people who have been banned because the mod had a personal vendetta?"
ok, scratch that... Roy wasn't banned by a mod, iirc, he was banned by a developer... but I don't know for certain...
Um... Who's Roy? I can't find the name mentioned in any other post on these two pages. There's no context here. Was it Squirelloid? Crusader of Logic? Psychic Robot? Somebody else? I haven't been keeping a reference card.
Sam
Senior Software Developer
|
I don't think it matters as much who was who that got suspended or banned as much as our approach to suspensions and the banhammer. We've had a lot of meetings about these matters and the upshot is that no one here suspends or bans a poster without a consensus that it's the right thing to do.
(In the case of an "emergency suspension", i.e., a 24-hour timeout given to someone who's normally a good poster but who is obviously going through something at the moment and venting off the rails, a single person can do that. But that's rare enough that I think it's only happened once or maybe twice in recent months.)
Note that our moderation policies have evolved (by necessity) over the past few years. Our attempts to keep this place a source of excellent conversation are ongoing, and we want to be better at it tomorrow than we were yesterday.
I wish we'd built the flagging system much, much sooner...
<Slinks away.>
Hey, you! Aren't you the one that attacked my personal character and called me a jerk?!
Wow... The level of hypocrisy in this thread (from all sides) is fairly startling. Let us not forget that only the enemy is Evil, and what the road to hell is paved with.
Now on to my point:
Mothman pretty much nails it. It's not so much that we needed a New Rule in our Official Terms of Service, as that we wanted to make crystal clear in an obvious place like the messageboards FAQ something that's been true here since we launched our messageboards. If you look back you'll see plenty of occasions where we've said that the number one rule here is to not be a jerk.
And Daigle, you're spot on as well. I can't count the number of public posts I have successfully reconsidered posting. :-)
Bolding is mine.
As someone who has been on these boards, off and on, for about a year and a half - who specifically looked for forum rules the first few times the cry of "these boards are too hostile" were thrown around - why is it this is the first time I have seen the TOS, rules, or even FAQ?
I haven't seen anyone mention it, or even link to it until this thread.
How obvious is the rules placement?
Sure, I may not qualify for the IQ level expected from posters here, but I am far from ignorant. Some could claim the level of ignorance that the rule is trying to prevent.
I think the obviousness needs to be re-examined.
|
|
Wow... The level of hypocrisy in this thread (from all sides) is fairly startling. Let us not forget that only the enemy is Evil, and what the road to hell is paved with.
I'm not seeing this hypocrisy.
How obvious is the rules placement?
There are two menu bars at the top of the page. The faq is the last link on the second menu. The message board rules can be reached from a link towards the top of that page.
It's fairly obvious now, but I can't really say where it was located previously. Maybe they've moved it recently to make it more obvious.
Sam
|
As part of our on-going attempts to return the Paizo boards the land of cookies and candy they once were, we've amended the messageboard rules located here. They now include the following line:
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.
There you have it. Being a jerk now violates our TOS.
Play nice and be nice.
Joshua, just to point this out: the new rule is not present on the reminder when you post.
I am quite certain, though, that you are not claiming that anyone that has been recently banned or suspended from these boards is on the same plane as Rosa Parks or Mother Teresa...um...are you?
OT: Right. Hence, the OT descriptor. I just wanted to be clear that the principle being advanced (the only legitimate expressions are decorous/polite expressions) is not, in fact, true. (Also Mother Jones, the labor agitator, not Mother Teresa.) /OT
And, actually, the Quayle/Bentsen anecdote you cite could easily be cited as rude due to putdown's strong features of a personal attack under the new policy. It's only cited by you as legitimate expression because you (and I) agree with it and find it funny. It's a classic example of how rudeness is in the eye of the beholder.
OT: Obviously, a number of RL agitators used what their society would have termed calculated rudeness to promote important social changes: Mother Jones and Rosa Parks spring immediately to mind. /OTRosa Parks wasn't rude. She wouldn't give up her seat for a man.
He was the ass. The collective entity that was our society was the ass.
She stood up to bullies. Or sat down, as it were.
Comparing her to rude brats who need lessons in how to talk to people is pretty shaky.
It's not a court of law. They're not being thrown in prison, they're being asked to leave for being asses. It's a value judgment, true, but I think you actually do them a favor by refusing to put up with their nonsense.
OT: First, it was an off topic post labeled as such. Hence, I wasn't comparing the guy on this thread who can't be bothered to capitalize with Rosa Parks.
Second, rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. Mother Jones was considered impossibly rude for agitating against child labor in America and Rosa Parks was considered very rude not to follow polite society's strictures of who gets to sit down on Jim Crow buses. We've since rightly changed our mind and decided, as you put it, "that collective society was the ass."
If this site's conventional wisdom on the merits of 4e or PFrpg changes, you'll find that "don't be a jerk" is going to shift in its application as well.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If this site's conventional wisdom on the merits of 4e or PFrpg changes, you'll find that "don't be a jerk" is going to shift in its application as well.
Yes, it will. It will shift and it will depend on the 'conventional wisdom' of the folks at Paizo.
Roguerouge, are you arguing against subjectivity in moderation? "Profanity," "vulgar speech," "insensitive statements," "threats," etc. are also subjective. How would you prohibit hate speech without subjective interpretation of what 'hatred' is? Yes, 'jerk' is more colloquial but it is no less subjective than the other reminders that hang below this box as I type.
These couple of posts that ask for definition or examples of what is a jerk, or complain that the phrase “don’t be a jerk” is too vague or whatever … frankly, they seem … a bit silly.
Because:
A – the Paizo messageboards are not run as a democracy. If Paizo sees fit to set a rule, well, that’s really their call.
I certainly understand that that is their prerogative. But nothing about this being a corporate web site means that I should not offer feedback... especially when it's solicited by being placed in the "Website feedback" forum, rather than, say, in the blog or in a closed thread to prevent feedback.
Paizo also has a rather noted history of asking their audience for feedback and being accepting of criticism. That is what I'm providing in the Website Feedback forum: I don't think this is a good plan.
B – recent history has shown that the moderators here are almost always fair and reasonable, and tend to err on the side of not disciplining posters.
Again, clearly that's in the eye of the beholder. Just because I happen to agree with you doesn't make it any less a subjective judgment. And nothing says that this is the only moderator that we'll ever have.
I also have a record for asking less work from the moderators and letting us figure it out ourselves. I've also started threads observing a rise in conflict-avoidance and, frankly, I consider this new policy to be an outgrowth in that culture shift.
C – c’mon … 99% of the time, if you’re being a jerk, you know it.
Come on. That's clearly not true. First, clearly there's a sub-section here that think you and I are the jerks for belonging to this community and not "fighting the power" or some other nonsense. Second, I can think of at least three threads where people were arguing hard on several sides of an issue and any of them--or myself--could have been called a jerk for forcefully arguing a position. And none of us did (or do now, I bet) consider themselves as having been jerks.
In short, what you see as being jerks is often seen simply as passion by others.
D – if you’re really not sure … if you really think something you post might be taken as jerky when you don’t think it is … maybe just re-think posting it anyway. ‘Cos if you think it might be jerky, chances are it is.
See above. Good advice for posting, however. If nothing else, you remember to copy the text before hitting "Submit post" and thwart the postmonster.
E – the jerk clause is meant to be sort of catch all; you’d think all the other rules would stop 100% of anti-social posts, but some people like to skirt close to the edge, or observe the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The jerk clause is for them. If you define it too explicitly, it kind of defeats the purpose.
Clearly, that's the intent. I disagree with it, but yes, I agree that's the intent. I think that moderator and/or poster counterspeech is a perfectly effective method of dealing with this issue.
And, hey, I DID say it was the Lawful perspective the policy; "the spirit of the rules"... so Chaotic of you...
F – if you still really need a definition of the word … look it up. It’s a real word, Paizo didn’t make it up to trick you.
Come on, don't ascribe arguments to me that I never made. I've never even implied that Paizo's moderators are trying to trick people. I'm simply pointing out potential problems to a policy that I don't agree with, but will have to post under now.
Or are you addressing this to the guy whose posts I've started skipping? (Which, incidentally, is another fine method of dealing with people you decide are jerks.) If so, I apologize.
(Mind you, there are a lot of ways to define the word – steer clear of any and all of them and you should be right).
And that's where the problem is: what's a jerk to one person is passion to another and forceful argumentation for a third. Steering clear of passion and forceful argumentation out of fear of the ban hammer might lead to a more staid web site, don't you think? Nobody wants that.
I swear that I wrote "Canadians can be jerks". I swear it. I think Gary changed it to 'jerked'. Or the post-monster. Or the two of them working in cahoots. ;-)
Canadians can be jerked.
What would Freud have to say about this?
Second, rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. Mother Jones was considered impossibly rude for agitating against child labor in America and Rosa Parks was considered very rude not to follow polite society's strictures of who gets to sit down on Jim Crow buses. We've since rightly changed our mind and decided, as you put it, "that collective society was the ass."
I do agree with you on one principle: sometimes breaking the rules is a good way to point out that there is something wrong with the rule, it should and can be changed. Ergo, Rosa Parks, Suffragets, Gandhi etc. (I'm not familiar with Mother Jones)
However, it does matter how you break the rule, do you do it by disregard of it or do you actually have a point. Also, Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to give up a place in a bus: being an otherwise nice old lady does give you weight, but if she would have described people who wanted her to give her place as ******* ********, her point would have had much less impact...
Also, let's see what rules we are discussing here. Are you actually supporting being a jerk? Do you think certain courtesy in expressing your opinions and discussing those of others is not a good thing? Sometimes I do wonder what these people's mothers would think if they saw what kind of behaviour their offsprings were showing in public places...
If this site's conventional wisdom on the merits of 4e or PFrpg changes, you'll find that "don't be a jerk" is going to shift in its application as well.Yes, it will. It will shift and it will depend on the 'conventional wisdom' of the folks at Paizo.
Roguerouge, are you arguing against subjectivity in moderation? "Profanity," "vulgar speech," "insensitive statements," "threats," etc. are also subjective. How would you prohibit hate speech without subjective interpretation of what 'hatred' is? Yes, 'jerk' is more colloquial but it is no less subjective than the other reminders that hang below this box as I type.
Excellent question. I thought long and hard about that one before making my first post. That's why I put this part in it:
As a term, "jerk" much looser in its definition than such terms as "abuse," "profanity," "bigoted," "defame," and "harass." All those terms have a long legal, political, regulatory and historical context that provides definition to guide posters.
Profanity is the loosest of terms they'd used even prior to it, but it does have a very lengthy legal and regulatory tradition to define it and its definition is much better understood thanks to George Carlin's efforts. ;)
Basically, I'm in favor of less moderator work. We really ought to be able to handle jerks ourselves. I mean, really. Harassment and threats are not something I'd expect posters to handle by themselves. That's a key difference. (And that was a new argument, so thank you for forcing me to make it.)
I look at this policy and expect that many, many more people are going to be hitting the "flag post" option and appealing to the jerk rule. I really feel like this is so vague and subjective that the moderator's going to get swamped. (Also, a new argument, so thank you again!)
Moreover, I haven't see anything going on here that merits a brand-spanking new policy and nobody's provided current examples of things that justify it. (Hence the good and bad models suggestion.) Everybody keeps making vague references as if I'm going to know what they mean or talks about Frank (which is ancient history and was successfully handled by the community and the moderator). Seriously, if you're going to have a policy to label posters as jerks... shouldn't the moderator be willing to label a current poster as a jerk that would be banned under the new policy? Is there an example that this would apply to outside of Frank? And if you're not willing to do so, do we really need a new policy?
So, in short, the lawful side of me fears that the term is so vague it fails to serve as a guide, that it will lead to more moderator work, that it's too tempting for moderators to use when their dander is up, that it might chill legitimate passion and argumentation, and believes that poster and moderator counter speech achieves the end of a better community in an easier and less risky manner.
OT: Also, to the poster who used Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" analogy: I completely agree with you. It's often used as a strong argument against current obscenity law. We knew it when we saw it when it came to Lolita and Lady Chatterly's Lover, unfortunately. The chaotic side of me always rankles when people say, in essence, trust the authorities.
Sometimes I do wonder what these people's mothers would think if they saw what kind of behaviour their offsprings were showing in public places...
You've hit on the problem. It is a very public place but one that's viewed from a private POV, ie. your computer screen. The separation insulates you from the immediate consequences of your actions, and sometimes weakens your desire to be respectful of others in the room.
I think we need a Teacher's Forum. The level to which they can take these discussions is amazing.
*left by the side of the road, like a good tree should be.* (People really hate it when we trees sneak into the middle of the road.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Moreover, I haven't see anything going on here that merits a brand-spanking new policy and nobody's provided current examples of things that justify it.
I think the examples to justify it were contained in deleted posts.
The moderators have actually brought in this rule to save them work. Posters have been arguing that their posts were not insults, were not threatening, were not hateful, etc. The moderators now have the option of saying: "Okay, well, I'm not going to debate this. You've been a jerk. You've been warned repeatedly. 3 day ban."
As for people hitting the 'flag' button when someone is a jerk, I hope for Sebastian's sake that doesn't happen. ... What? I kid because I love.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I think we need a Teacher's Forum. The level to which they can take these discussions is amazing.
I agree: teachers are a breed apart. Am I right in observing that most of the teacher's on these messageboards are split on moderation? We recognize the importance of open dialogue even when some views are expressed in somewhat objectionable terms but also realize that staff (whether they be event managers or teachers) have a responsibility for making their classrooms/communities safe and that open dialogue is fostered when a general level of respect can be maintained.
Second, rudeness is in the eye of the beholder. Mother Jones was considered impossibly rude for agitating against child labor in America and Rosa Parks was considered very rude not to follow polite society's strictures of who gets to sit down on Jim Crow buses. We've since rightly changed our mind and decided, as you put it, "that collective society was the ass."
I do agree with you on one principle: sometimes breaking the rules is a good way to point out that there is something wrong with the rule, it should and can be changed. Ergo, Rosa Parks, Suffragets, Gandhi etc. (I'm not familiar with Mother Jones)
However, it does matter how you break the rule, do you do it by disregard of it or do you actually have a point. Also, Rosa Parks was not the first person to refuse to give up a place in a bus: being an otherwise nice old lady does give you weight, but if she would have described people who wanted her to give her place as ******* ********, her point would have had much less impact...
Also, let's see what rules we are discussing here. Are you actually supporting being a jerk? Do you think certain courtesy in expressing your opinions and discussing those of others is not a good thing? Sometimes I do wonder what these people's mothers would think if they saw what kind of behaviour their offsprings were showing in public places...
OT: No, I was OT disagreeing with the principle being advanced that the only legitimate expressions are decorous/polite expressions. You and I agree that sometimes breaking the rules is a fine and good thing to do when society won't listen in any other way. Rosa's the soft version of this, although her act was clearly not considered polite. Mother Jones (and Malcolm X in his white devil, "black people should start exercising their right to bear arms" phase) are the other end of that spectrum. (And I submit that Rosa and MLK needed scary Malcolm to accomplish what they did.) In general, agitators can be rude people for a better world. Of course, I think that one should use agit-prop for something more important than rules for a new game. /OT
And, no, I'm not supporting "being a jerk," especially since the two nastiest ad hominem attacks that I've ever experienced occurred right here at Paizo. I think that poster and moderator counter speech is a much more effective and less risky solution.
Disagreeing with the solution is not the same thing as endorsing the problem, to be very clear about it. Nor does disputing that a principle is always true entail endorsing its exact opposite, although I should have been more clear about that point.
|
|
Speaking as someone who runs an online discussion group in my secret identity, this is a very sensible rule. If you manages something, you need the ability to say 'no' if something goes too far even if it isn't quite in technical breach of the rules.
As for trusting the authorities, well, if Paizo abuse their power, we'll go to other boards. It's not like they can send the Gaming Police to our houses. That only works for WotC.
Sometimes I do wonder what these people's mothers would think if they saw what kind of behaviour their offsprings were showing in public places...You've hit on the problem. It is a very public place but one that's viewed from a private POV, ie. your computer screen. The separation insulates you from the immediate consequences of your actions, and sometimes weakens your desire to be respectful of others in the room.
Yep. Great point.
Personally I dont post much. I only post on Paizo. Not because I am a minless Fanboy (though that could be argued, take a look at the tag) but because I spent a long while lurking and reading before I decided this was a place full of cool, witty, clever, like minded, non hostile people. A lot of those people are still around but they seem to post less. Although most of them probably have no idea who I am I miss them and I miss the tone of what I was reading.
I applaud the attempts by Paizo to restore a less hostile environment. The fact that some posters in this thread deem it necesary to react the way they have to a general statement just prooves the point that there is a change in tone. Ask yourself these questions. What attracted me to join this board in the first place? Why am I argueing against the term Jerk if it doesn't apply to me? And therein I think you will find your answer as to your motives.
What would be interesting to know (Gary, you might be the right man for this?) is has the tone declined due to increased popularity of Paizo or do we have the same traffic just different people. What I mean is, time was when this was a small comunity and other boards were flame wars. Is it because we have got more popular that this is happening? If so, while I agree we should not accept it, perhaps it is inevitable that with increased personalities comes increased hostility?
I hope not,
Elcian
The real problem is the new rule set, which upped the ante and vastly increased Paizo's traffic and industry profile. I'm betting that things return to normal when the rule set is finished. For my own self, I'm annoyed that everyone seems to have been sucked into the PfRPG-related fora and the modules and adventure path sections that I preferred have become ghost towns. Seriously, don't people play their modules any more?
The real problem is the new rule set, which upped the ante and vastly increased Paizo's traffic and industry profile. I'm betting that things return to normal when the rule set is finished. For my own self, I'm annoyed that everyone seems to have been sucked into the PfRPG-related fora and the modules and adventure path sections that I preferred have become ghost towns. Seriously, don't people play their modules any more?
I agree with you, though I guess to each his own. Personally I much prefer reading about actual game stuff and story instead of theoretical rules discussions.
Elcian
We recognize the importance of open dialogue even when some views are expressed in somewhat objectionable terms but also realize that staff (whether they be event managers or teachers) have a responsibility for making their classrooms/communities safe and that open dialogue is fostered when a general level of respect can be maintained.
True, and I've had a real bad experience with a kid who was white-knuckling his rather severe Asperger's syndrome rather than taking advantage of legitimate accommodations that would have helped me to do my job better. But agitators are simply lovely sometimes too. Students start thinking critically. They're eager to participate in discussion. They read with an eye towards gathering evidence to defeat their classroom nemesis... So much better than when all the students are obsessed with "face" and not showing someone up in any way, shape, or form.
F – if you still really need a definition of the word … look it up. It’s a real word, Paizo didn’t make it up to trick you. (Mind you, there are a lot of ways to define the word – steer clear of any and all of them and you should be right).
I thought that you might find this David Foster Wallace article on the politics of dictionaries intersting: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html
We recognize the importance of open dialogue even when some views are expressed in somewhat objectionable terms but also realize that staff (whether they be event managers or teachers) have a responsibility for making their classrooms/communities safe and that open dialogue is fostered when a general level of respect can be maintained.True, and I've had a real bad experience with a kid who was white-knuckling his rather severe Asperger's syndrome rather than taking advantage of legitimate accommodations that would have helped me to do my job better. But agitators are simply lovely sometimes too. Students start thinking critically. They're eager to participate in discussion. They read with an eye towards gathering evidence to defeat their classroom nemesis... So much better than when all the students are obsessed with "face" and not showing someone up in any way, shape, or form.
I also agree that oposing views are great. I have never supported censorship of views. I would point to over 2000 years worth of rigorous heated polite (mostly) debate over opposing views in the world of Philosophy.
That said, sometimes oposing views become not a debate over the issue but personal or are designed to simply stir things up.
Elcian
OT: Also, to the poster who used Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" analogy: I completely agree with you. It's often used as a strong argument against current obscenity law. We knew it when we saw it when it came to Lolita and Lady Chatterly's Lover, unfortunately. The chaotic side of me always rankles when people say, in essence, trust the authorities.
I am somewhat left in doubt as to what you agree with me on. You only mention negative examples of when (you presumably judge) the authorities to have mistakenly exercised censorship. We could also find examples where the authorities mistakenly refrained from censorship (say, anti-Semiticism in public newspapers), and I'm sure examples where they rightly exercised or refrained from exercising power that you would presumably, or at least theoretically, agree with. All that shows is that judgment is flawed and needs to be improved.
The problem with a knee-jerk reaction against trusting the authorities is without it you would not have learned how to read or speak, and you rely on it now to continue to integrate new technology into your life (unless your previous reliance on authority has made you into an authority yourself.)
The interesting thing about your suspicion of (opposition to?) flagging is that it would take away a greater sharing of the common poster in the power of the authorities. And I'm sure that if the authorities get swamped with overflagging, they'll present us with a problem-solving process.
I am somewhat left in doubt as to what you agree with me on.
We agree that it is a standard relevant to discuss in this forum. It was a turn of your example, badly posted on my part, I know.
The problem with a knee-jerk reaction against trusting the authorities is without it you would not have learned how to read or speak, and you rely on it now to continue to integrate new technology into your life (unless your previous reliance on authority has made you into an authority yourself.)
Part of my job as a college teacher is to be an authority for students to safely practice rebelling against, actually. Learning when it's valid to rebel against authority is a vital part of maturing.
The interesting thing about your suspicion of (opposition to?) flagging is that it would take away a greater sharing of the common poster in the power of the authorities. And I'm sure that if the authorities get swamped with overflagging, they'll present us with a problem-solving process.
Interesting. Explain further, please? Also, to clarify, I was saying that one part of me (the chaotic side) gets its hackles raised. I'm more complex than just that side. Note: no alignment system side debates please!
Being a Jerk
In case it is unclear or there is a lack of knowing,
Here are examples of when your rear is showing.
Participating is a privilege and not a right,
And the privilege is not ours that you are at this site.
Mechanics and sociability are not the same,
But you do need both to play the game.
If someone disagrees with your perfect datum,
It’s not an excuse for you to hate ‘em.
And being derisive, snarky, and rude,
Just undermines your posts when they’re viewed.
It’s a clear sign of an ego that can’t take,
Criticism and opinions others might make.
Being the minority might make you feel like a martyr,
But it’s certainly no proof that you are any smarter.
Blind adherence to system, mechanics, and rules,
Means nothing without the people to use those tools.
Ignore them or treat them as if they aren’t there,
And you may as well be writing computer software.
But computer programs are boring, predictable, and stale,
And a game built like that is ultimately “made of fail.”
You see, the game isn’t the goal; it’s all about the players,
And in a game company, people come before any other layers.
So regardless of all the math, simulations, and everything you’ve done,
When you treat another gamer rudely, you’ve failed Game Board 101.
Gamers are the goal and no level of the most detailed probability work,
Is worth someone who gives them abuse, referred to henceforth… as a “jerk.”
Part of my job as a college teacher is to be an authority for students to safely practice rebelling against, actually. Learning when it's valid to rebel against authority is a vital part of maturing.
The interesting thing about your suspicion of (opposition to?) flagging is that it would take away a greater sharing of the common poster in the power of the authorities. And I'm sure that if the authorities get swamped with overflagging, they'll present us with a problem-solving process.Interesting. Explain further, please? Also, to clarify, I was saying that one part of me (the chaotic side) gets its hackles raised. I'm more complex than just that side. Note: no alignment system side debates please!
OT, Teaching:
Heh, heh...the alignment tangent is tempting (but I too fear The Debate). Yes, I think you are trying to bring out a fullness in yourself with regard to the complexities of the issues, so I didn't mean to reduce you to your chaotic side, just to challenge that side. And as someone who shares that job with you, I think I know what you're getting at. Phrasing it as "practicing rebelling" has me wondering, however. I'm tempted to think that this is hangover from the 60s, and while romantic to some, not especially helpful. Although, I admit that my own experience of the majority of students of this generation in the listless community college system makes me yearn for the energy of rebellion, which would be an improvement on the lethargic passivity of their intellects. My own take is that if we are training students to be seekers and lovers of truth above all, then they will love truth more than other ends so that they will resist authority when it is arraigned against truth. Again, I know you just said part of your job, so I am not trying to caricature your vocational vision to this one part of this one expression of it. As far as the developmental models go, individuation doesn't have to take a rebellious route, does it? Isn't the uniqueness of "adolescence" in our culture because it tends to takes a rebellious form that is not found in other cultures?
As big of a believer as I am in Reason, there are people who are not merely hard to reason with (aren't we all, sometimes), but who are enemies of Reason. They want negative attention, the thrill of making people angry, to portray themselves as martyrs, etc. Reasoning with them is a mistake, just like it is a mistake to reason with certain enemies in the real world (at least at certain points). When someone proves themselves not merely obnoxious, but insulting, offensive, and a poison to the community, impervious to reason, then giving them more of what they want is not a way to stop them in the name of the thriving of the community. Previously, this all fell to Paizo. The boards are ever-growing, and pesky folks that we are, we demand product. So they had a growing burden. By sharing the burden, not only do they keep themselves from having to give more man-hours to moderation, but they share the power. By flagging, we can direct attention to a problem that might be overlooked, and our judgment is taken into consideration for what is considered "being a jerk," being insulting, offensive, and so on. So whether it is an individual mod saying time-out or a consensus banning, they have more of a quantitative feel for the community's judgment (1 flag, 100 flags) and they have it a lot faster than reading, interpreting, and weighing a bunch of posts. Of course, we could explain their concern with our judgment in economic terms, and that would have its validity. In this case, I am convinced we have folks who also care on other levels.
Rhyming Stuff
Nice!
well; I prefer the land of beer and prezles; but hey; to each their own rainbow pot of golden happiness :)
has there been a problem with jerks? guess I dont read those threads; I am thinking this site is great; least the threads I am on; everyone is so fun and entertaining; thoughtful and insightful; awesome.
|
Ahhh...I see. So, it's a vendetta/personal grudge. How cute! I bet he rues the day he tangled with the den.
And how odd that you and the den-izens find hostility here. It's almost as if those reputations and memories run both ways. Interesting. Perhaps there's some causal relationship between these two sets of interactions...
If only there were a way to put aside that crap and just have an intelligent and civil discussion. Oh well, I'm sure one side will sufficiently prove their absolute correctness and everyone will acknowledge it, thus ending any conflict.
Mahhahha!
It's going to take you 7 minutes?
Sometimes, the good stuff is harder to find.
Does telling Josh Frost about your character count as being a Jerk?
Oh god yes.
Oh god yes.
I'll flag you! As a fellow gaming enthusiast you're obligated by Standard Gamer Convetions to give passing or feigning interest in another gamer or gaming enthusiasts character story or war story. ;/
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
E – the jerk clause is meant to be sort of catch all; you’d think all the other rules would stop 100% of anti-social posts, but some people like to skirt close to the edge, or observe the letter but not the spirit of the rules. The jerk clause is for them. If you define it too explicitly, it kind of defeats the purpose.Clearly, that's the intent. I disagree with it, but yes, I agree that's the intent. I think that moderator and/or poster counterspeech is a perfectly effective method of dealing with this issue.
We wish it were, and it had been, up until recently. However, in the past few months, we've had a few personalities that failed to reign themselves in after other posters let them know that their behavior was not in line with community standards, and even after moderators provided warnings and short-term suspensions. Most recently, one of them came back from a suspension conforming to the letter—but not the spirit—of the rules, so it became clear that the rules need to better communicate the intent that already existed.
You don't need to worry that we're now going to sit here with our dictionaries open to the word "jerk" and our fingers hovering over the suspension button; our behavior is not changing. The only thing that's changed is that we've added a sentence to the rules that we think encompasses the spirit of the other rules in a way that most people can easily understand.
Being a Jerk
In case it is unclear or there is a lack of knowing,
Here are examples of when your rear is showing.Participating is a privilege and not a right,
And the privilege is not ours that you are at this site.Mechanics and sociability are not the same,
But you do need both to play the game.If someone disagrees with your perfect datum,
It’s not an excuse for you to hate ‘em.And being derisive, snarky, and rude,
Just undermines your posts when they’re viewed.It’s a clear sign of an ego that can’t take,
Criticism and opinions others might make.Being the minority might make you feel like a martyr,
But it’s certainly no proof that you are any smarter.Blind adherence to system, mechanics, and rules,
Means nothing without the people to use those tools.Ignore them or treat them as if they aren’t there,
And you may as well be writing computer software.But computer programs are boring, predictable, and stale,
And a game built like that is ultimately “made of fail.”You see, the game isn’t the goal; it’s all about the players,
And in a game company, people come before any other layers.So regardless of all the math, simulations, and everything you’ve done,
When you treat another gamer rudely, you’ve failed Game Board 101.Gamers are the goal and no level of the most detailed probability work,
Is worth someone who gives them abuse, referred to henceforth… as a “jerk.”
Am I the only one who loves this?
Am I the only one who loves this?
Nope. I saw it right after I posted my little dissertation, and when I finished laughing, thought, Why do I bother?
|
|
Hey Roguerouge, just to clear the air, my post was not aimed specifically at you; it was more of a general rant, and although some of my points related to points you had made, many were in reference to other posters.
I wasn’t trying to attack you or anyone; just voice my opinion on some of the comments floating around from several posters. If in doing so I failed to take my own advice and came across as insulting, or a jerk … then I guess someone will tell me so!
|
|
I think we need a Teacher's Forum. The level to which they can take these discussions is amazing.I agree: teachers are a breed apart. Am I right in observing that most of the teacher's on these messageboards are split on moderation? We recognize the importance of open dialogue even when some views are expressed in somewhat objectionable terms but also realize that staff (whether they be event managers or teachers) have a responsibility for making their classrooms/communities safe and that open dialogue is fostered when a general level of respect can be maintained.
I agree. Fostering open discussion is important - sometimes the method of communication matter less than the message. But at the same time, all public engagements have rules that need to be followed.
What matters most here is that the Mods use this rule with clarity, namely explaining what was "jerkish" in a post warranting a warning. There can be no improvement in behaviour if the subject is not aware what they did wrong.
To expand your point, in a choice between person A being encouraged to get their point across even though they might use questionable methods or person B being encouraged to get their point across by creating a safe environment without intimidation by person A, I'm going to choose person B.
