The thread Gestapo


Website Feedback

251 to 258 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
The Exchange

bugleyman wrote:

Please re-read the original post. The problem is not moderation per se, or what Paizo "can do" with their boards. It is all about removing things inconsistently and without notice, and the (very well demonstrated) negative effect steps like those have on a message board.

Or don't. You seem much more interested in hearing yourself talk than you do in understanding anyone else's point-of-view.

You expect Paizo staff to take time out from their jobs to explain to you their every decision in moderating your posts. If that doesn't reek of entitlement, I don't know what does. As I pointed out, they don't have to do that. And did it occur to you that they may consider it more time effective to simply remove posts that might inflame rather than post (usually ignored, in my experience) warnings of "play nice"? And then get back to their actual jobs of creating cool stuff for us to play. And what "negative effects" exactly are you talking about? If you are talking about you stalking off in a huff about the last time you were moderated, I'm sorry but personally I failed to notice the seismic shift. In fact, the last few weeks were quite good fun.

The Exchange

Kruelaid wrote:
Aubs, when Dead Horse was locked I almost popped a bloody artery. I had always used him tastefully, was using him to try and diffuse situations not worsen them, and today I still don't understand today why they locked it--all I know is that Gary unlocked it when I emailed him an appeal. Anyway, it was then that I said to myself: "self, someone at Paizo thinks it's acceptable to just wipe stuff out because he personally doesn't like it."

I didn't know about that. I remember a similar thing when Vomitguy was banned, maybe a year or so ago, when someone compained about him "vomiting" on her (I think) post. He was then banned and it took a while for him to come back. That was an innocent mistake, maybe justified, maybe not. But the problem is that people seem to be expecting perfection. I thought the Vomitguy thing was heavy-handed but then, in the end, it was reversed, as was Dead Horse.

As the guys at Paizo say, over and over, none of them actually have the job of moderating the boards - it is something they do on an ad hoc basis as and when. They are probably taking snap decisions and then going back to what they actually get paid for. (And that might explain to the OP why he isn't getting the detailed explanations he expects - they have better things to do.) If every decision I ever made got posted up on a board for minute examination by people, especially stuff which it wasn't really my job to do, I suspect that a fallibilities would rapidly present themselves. And that is only human. It would seem, also, that they are not adverse to reversing their decisions when a reasonable argument is made.

What I think is unreasonable is to expect them to be absolutely correct all the time. As these are judgement calls, it is unlikely that people will be completely happy anyway, no matter how hard they tried. I suggest people cool down about "censorship" - frankly, I doubt any posts or avatars suppressed were evidence of Proustian wit or life-changing profundity. So maybe we should get off people's backs, especially since they seem to get it right pretty much most of the time anyway.


Fake Healer wrote:
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
... and then I started watching.
*cough*

That's worse than a Rick Rolling! Evil, vile Mr. Frost!

Evil??? You call that evil? How about *this timeloop*? (BBC Website link, so conceivably some overseas visitors may experience difficulty directly accessing it, and with an awful pun in the 'karaoke' section which Doctor Who fans should appreciate (or at least groan at)).


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


You expect Paizo staff to take time out from their jobs to explain to you their every decision in moderating your posts. If that doesn't reek of entitlement, I don't know what does. As I pointed out, they don't have to do that. And did it occur to you that they may consider it more time effective to simply remove posts that might inflame rather than post (usually ignored, in my experience) warnings of "play nice"? And then get back to their actual jobs of creating cool stuff for us to play. And what "negative effects" exactly are you talking about? If you are talking about you stalking off in a huff about the last time you were moderated, I'm sorry but personally I failed to notice the seismic shift. In fact, the last few weeks were quite good fun.

I have no idea why you're trying to make this personal, but don't want to play the ego game today, thanks. Rather than repeating myself, I'll simply point you upthread, where my position has been clearly explained (and, as it happens, agreed with by Gary).

The Exchange

Ah, the Sam Weiss gambit. Well-played. Well, since we seem to be agreeing, let's knock it on the head.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Development

Good job, gentlemen. Now shake and get back to your corners. ;)


I guess I take it as a positive sign that, though inevitably "calling it like they see it" in the rather ad hoc sort of moderating that necessarily goes on here, they will engage with folks and are open to changing their mind.

251 to 258 of 258 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / The thread Gestapo All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.