|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why was this post allowed to stand, yet most all subsequent post that quoted part of this were removed?
Jessica Price (to name a specific moderator) seemingly has a gender-role axe to grind and frequently will let certain post stand that are in obvious and direct violation of forum rules/but in-line with her personal views on the matter, while she will delete posts that she disagrees with or moves off the (inevitable) subject of gender politics.
Do modern values have any place in a fantasy game? About as much as medieval ones do.
A fantasy setting rarely has any connection to historic issues. Take homosexuality - it was perfectly acceptable in many places and many cultures until the spread of Christianity. We have solid records of Egyptian officials, Roman Emperors, Japanese Samurai and many other engaging in the homosexuality. Often on the side of marriage, true, because children were almost universally considered important to carrying on a legacy (and how many PC characters stick to that social custom?) but it was there.
Now take Golarion. The same level of homophobic behaviour makes no sense because at least three goddesses are engaged in a three way sexual relationship. How do you declare mortals are wrong to do it when the Gods themselves partake?
Same with woman. While there were exceptions to woman staying at home and being mothers, those women were often abused, raped and murdered for daring to be different. And that was considered a reasonable response. Again, something that makes no sense in setting like Golarion where there are female Gods - one of the primary warrior gods is Iomadae, a woman.
Let's face it - Pathfinder isn't a very good representative of the real world. If it was the Fighter would die to septic shock when a Kobold ran a dirty spear through his guts, the wizard would be burned at the stake for devil-worship, the Cleric would be a sociopath spreading his faith with sword and fire (and not casting pesky spells - withcraft again!) and the Barbarian would have smashed his skull during a fit.
Mostly the excuse 'I wanna be realistic to medieval times' is just that - an excuse to get all those pesky non-white people out of the setting (Which is, historically, a massive mistake - there were plenty of non-white people wandering Europe) or putting women in subservient roles with maybe one or two exceptions - who are usually 'tamed' by marriage to the hero.
And frankly, if you want that kinda literature, where white men are the saviours of all and all is right in the universe, just throw a rock in the fantasy section of the library - it's the rule, not the exception. It's nice to see both Wizard of the Coast and Paizo seem to be moving past that stuff these days, and honestly, anything else is a step backwards to such horror stories as a GM telling a woman at a convention, 'The only time a woman should have her mouth open at my table is to suck my dick.'
I know that for the most part that this is a hard left leaning company - which is your prerogative, but is this political view going to be extended out to how you guys moderate threads?
So now we can say things like "suck my dick" if it's illustrative of how one poster felt women were treated in the hobby in the past?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have - unquestionably - been moderating consistency issues in the past little while.
(And that's coming from someone who's very much okay with "left" views.)
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moderation is an inexact science and we debated internally whether or not to remove that post. We elected not to, because the phrase was intended to be shown as a negative (however well or not the poster got their point across). The subsequent posts, on the other hand, were about the use of the phrase itself and were off-topic in that thread. Should the post have been removed to prevent this? Perhaps. We generally have a stance that vulgar language isn't OK, so no, this kind of language isn't encouraged as a rule.
Misinterpretations can happen on our end, as Paizo is a very busy place and the paizo.com community moves at a fast pace. The flagging system is a good way to let us know that you've seen something that violates the rules, but if we miss something or you have feedback in the future, this forum and the webmaster@paizo.com email are the best points of contact for that, rather than a post in the original thread.
|
|
Moderation is an inexact science and we debated internally whether or not to remove that post. We elected not to, because the phrase was intended to be shown as a negative (however well or not the poster got their point across).
I was not personally offended by the phrase as I understood the context of the post and what the poster was trying to convey. Considering all the strict language and content moderation I was surprised that it even lasted longer than an hour. It seems incredibly inconsistent.
My primary issue is that if another poster had stated the exact same thing/phrase the post would have gotten deleted. And I am not talking about my reposts on the matter - I expected those to get deleted - as well as the original post that was quoted. At least an edit or modification of the original post. Personally I never understood where one part of a post breaks rules and it becomes a binary delete or not delete situation. Alt characters (which have passed many censors here) would have sufficed to replace the word.
The subsequent posts, on the other hand, were about the use of the phrase itself and were off-topic in that thread. Should the post have been removed to prevent this? Perhaps. We generally have a stance that vulgar language isn't OK, so no, this kind of language isn't encouraged as a rule.
I understand that once content is removed all linked content is subsequently removed - and the reason why I posted about it to the point of being obnoxious was that I did indeed flag that post and a following post for language - and nothing. I think I may have even waited a day on the matter to see if it would be addressed and nothing. I will apologize here for addressing the situation incorrectly and not raising the issue here instead of the thread.
It does seem to me that there is some severe political bias and motivation of the moderators on what they moderate, which posts get by and which ones are deleted. Being a private company this is your prerogative and you can do whatever you like. I understand that I do not have the right of free expression here nor is that my concern. I am bringing this up because it raises some heavy inconsistencies and confusion on how these forums are moderated and that having the correct political view is a criteria for retaining posts on these forums. That's just sad and unfortunate, that a place for gamers is not devoid of political bias or favoritism based on political view. It is also confusing, since context is now a criteria for breaking posting rules.
Misinterpretations can happen on our end, as Paizo is a very busy place and the paizo.com community moves at a fast pace. The flagging system is a good way to let us know that you've seen something that violates the rules, but if we miss something or you have feedback in the future, this forum and the webmaster@paizo.com email are the best points of contact for that, rather than a post in the original thread.
Again, I flagged two post containing the phrase and waited a day. Didn't work and nothing happened until I quoted the phrase in a few posts - what did happen is that my post and another posters comments were deleted.
Thank you Chris for addressing my issue and responding to my query on the matter. I appreciate you and the other moderators keeping this thread and my OP up as an example and not deleting it due to content.
I will consider the issue resolved at this point.
And Arnwyn, thanks for your feedback and honesty in your response.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have - unquestionably - been moderating consistency issues in the past little while.
(And that's coming from someone who's very much okay with "left" views.)
Fabian socialist here and I have to agree with Aux & Arn and I have started to see a worrying trend in moderation consistency.
In my view the board is a more aggressive, and unpleasant place than it was a few years ago.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't have thought it was ever appropriate to say "suck my ____" on these boards regardless of whether it was intended as "negative" or not.
And I cuss like a sailor IRL.
It's certainly using directly vulgar language, moreso than what I used in a parody of the stereotypical fanboy's obsession with oversexualized female characters in video games. I was told "fap" and "nipples" were too over-the-top for a family-friendly board.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Misinterpretations can happen on our end, as Paizo is a very busy place and the paizo.com community moves at a fast pace. The flagging system is a good way to let us know that you've seen something that violates the rules, but if we miss something or you have feedback in the future, this forum and the webmaster@paizo.com email are the best points of contact for that, rather than a post in the original thread.
What about people who misuse the flagging system and count on overworked moderators to remove posts without examining their context? Not to name names, but I've had a great many posts removed without any warning during discussions with one user in particular who seems to flag anything even remotely offensive.
I had one (massive) post removed because I called my (circa 2005 self) immature and juvenile, and the moderator thought I was talking about another user when they glanced at it without reading the rest of the thread.
It's incredibly frustrating to put time and effort into large detailed posts only to get them arbitrarily wiped out because a mod see's one thing that they think (on a cursory glance) is offensive.
Is there any chance we might see a move towards editing out offensive content in a post (e.g. the 'suck my dick' line above) while leaving the rest of the post untouched? I've seen the system run that way elsewhere, and I'm just curious if the reason it isn't done so here is a question of time, effort, or the system not being set up to allow it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have - unquestionably - been moderating consistency issues in the past little while.
(And that's coming from someone who's very much okay with "left" views.)
Fabian socialist here and I have to agree with Aux & Arn and I have started to see a worrying trend in moderation consistency.
In my view the board is a more aggressive, and unpleasant place than it was a few years ago.
I agree. I've been on the boards for years and the tone of the moderation has changed, and it hasn't been a slow evolution.
I really hate to call out an individual mod, but I don't agree with the way Ms. Price handles moderation. I get the impression that there are topics she takes personally and aggressively moderates posts she doesn't agree with while citing messageboard policy. It feels disingenuous. The moderation has gotten one sided enough that I simply don't discuss certain topics or give my opinion.
I want to reiterate that I hate to call her out by name, but since Aux has opened the door on it, I'll air my concerns publicly.
-Skeld
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There have - unquestionably - been moderating consistency issues in the past little while.
(And that's coming from someone who's very much okay with "left" views.)
Fabian socialist here and I have to agree with Aux & Arn and I have started to see a worrying trend in moderation consistency.
In my view the board is a more aggressive, and unpleasant place than it was a few years ago.
I agree. I've been on the boards for years and the tone of the moderation has changed, and it hasn't been a slow evolution.
I really hate to call out an individual mod, but I don't agree with the way Ms. Price handles moderation. I get the impression that there are topics she takes personally and aggressively moderates posts she doesn't agree with while citing messageboard policy. It feels disingenuous. The moderation has gotten one sided enough that I simply don't discuss certain topics or give my opinion.
I want to reiterate that I hate to call her out by name, but since Aux has opened the door on it, I'll air my concerns publicly.
-Skeld
I've noticed the same things with that particular moderator. It is very difficult to have open and frank discussions about a topic when half of the participants are targeted by site moderators.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to pile on, but my own above difficulties were also with Jessica Price.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, since I apparently caused this little issue...
While I've never modded at somewhere professionally, I've worked at a mod for a few large fan sites. And again, our policies and methods are different. But...
There's a big different between using the above phrase as part of a horror story from a convention role-playing event as an example of how far things have come in the last twenty or thirty years and telling another poster to apply suction, as it were, because you disagree with there views on how balanced the Magus is.
Context is important. There are any number of words that won't work well if they're in a sexual context. 'Rub' isn't exactly a dirty word, but it can be used at least suggestively. The D word obviously isn't banned on Paizo, even if I'm not using it now after seeing this thread. So I don't think it was an inappropriate phrase in the context...
However, I apologize if my usage of the term caused anyone offence. My goal was entirely to highlight an example of behaviour that, today, we would consider vulgar and hideous that did happen in the past. It's something that can happen again in the future, too, since a lot of people don't seem to like gender equality issues.
I did not mean to cause offence, and I apologize un-reservedly for doing so. I also apologize to the Paizo moderation team, as I'm sure they're over worked and don't really feel like dealing with stuff like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with the moderation here. It's not what I'd do if it were my site, but it isn't my site.
I must admit, I struggle to understand the concept of "bias" on a private site which makes no guarantee of freedom of speech nor equal tolerance for all opinions. It seems obvious to me that there will be some issues where one "side" will be deemed inherently offensive and the other will be endorsed by the site's owners. The concept of bias seems predicated on the idea that all views are welcome, and I'm not sure why that would be the case.
With regard to leaving that specific phrase in, I think it was inconsistent. Rules against bad language seem easier to understand/comply with if they're universally applied, rather than nearly universal. That's not a complaint though, just an observation.
I don't have a problem with the moderation here. It's not what I'd do if it were my site, but it isn't my site.
I must admit, I struggle to understand the concept of "bias" on a private site which makes no guarantee of freedom of speech nor equal tolerance for all opinions. It seems obvious to me that there will be some issues where one "side" will be deemed inherently offensive and the other will be endorsed by the site's owners. The concept of bias seems predicated on the idea that all views are welcome, and I'm not sure why that would be the case.
With regard to leaving that specific phrase in, I think it was inconsistent. Rules against bad language seem easier to understand/comply with if they're universally applied, rather than nearly universal. That's not a complaint though, just an observation.
At risk of coming off too strong; your post is basically asking people who have noticed and spoken about moderation issues to defend their position. This is probably a really really bad idea. Without doubt those discussions would get really ugly really fast.
If you have not seen or noticed issues with moderation that you find upsetting then that's great for you, but some of us have. Please don't ask us to defend that feeling. It cannot possibly end well in such a public place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe they should add it into the forum rules:
"Any posts that openly expresses views and beliefs that contests those officially sanctioned by piazo are against the rules, and as such, will be removed from the boards."
Then go on to provide a list of official piazzo sanctioned beliefs.
Then they could go forward, modding consistently.
Bonus points: I've found that, when people take the stand that it is ok to treat someone differently because of some trait, it helps to replace the trait with the term 'of color' and see if it is offensive.
Strangely, it turns out most things are. :D
I don't have a problem with the moderation here. It's not what I'd do if it were my site, but it isn't my site.
I must admit, I struggle to understand the concept of "bias" on a private site which makes no guarantee of freedom of speech nor equal tolerance for all opinions. It seems obvious to me that there will be some issues where one "side" will be deemed inherently offensive and the other will be endorsed by the site's owners. The concept of bias seems predicated on the idea that all views are welcome, and I'm not sure why that would be the case.
With regard to leaving that specific phrase in, I think it was inconsistent. Rules against bad language seem easier to understand/comply with if they're universally applied, rather than nearly universal. That's not a complaint though, just an observation.
At risk of coming off too strong; your post is basically asking people who have noticed and spoken about moderation issues to defend their position. This is probably a really really bad idea. Without doubt those discussions would get really ugly really fast.
If you have not seen or noticed issues with moderation that you find upsetting then that's great for you, but some of us have. Please don't ask us to defend that feeling. It cannot possibly end well in such a public place.
No worries. I don't think you need to defend your position. People want different things from the message boards, no doubt. If you're not getting what you want you should say so - there's not really any way for us to defend our preferences.
I wasn't saying anyone was wrong (or I didn't mean to, anyway). I was saying it isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too have noticed some rather disappointing trends in the messageboards as of late. The Paizo messageboards feel more like Tatooine these days than not. I used to recommend them, but I've since stopped. When I see Sean K. Reynolds removing posts (not my posts either :P) that are semi-sarcastic towards him, while being obviously sarcastic in many of his responses to people with rule concerns, especially in the same thread, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
I remember a time where I actually had a real honest debate with James Jacobs on these boards and I walked away from that debate thinking that James Jacobs probably doesn't run a game I'd enjoy but that he also seems like a pretty great person. I've never seen him mod something just because he didn't like it.
Same with Ross Byers. I've seen him being a great mod all over the place.
Sadly, not all mods are created equal.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
FIRST AMENDMENT! ALAMO! ALAMO! DON'T TREAD ON ME, COMMIES!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't had any posts removed, but I tend to avoid controversial posts.
FIRST AMENDMENT! ALAMO! ALAMO! DON'T TREAD ON ME, COMMIES!
Well the first amendment doesn't apply here (or most of the places people babble on about the first amendment). Though that doesn't mean that people are wrong in feeling upset about any obvious bias or hypocrisies. That's just natural.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FIRST AMENDMENT! ALAMO! ALAMO! DON'T TREAD ON ME, COMMIES!Well the first amendment doesn't apply here (or most of the places people babble on about the first amendment). Though that doesn't mean that people are wrong in feeling upset about any obvious bias or hypocrisies. That's just natural.
For a person who liberally employs sarcasm, snark and hyperbole in conversations you do have a remarkably muted sense of irony :)
For a person who liberally employs sarcasm, snark and hyperbole in conversations you do have a remarkably muted sense of irony :)FIRST AMENDMENT! ALAMO! ALAMO! DON'T TREAD ON ME, COMMIES!Well the first amendment doesn't apply here (or most of the places people babble on about the first amendment). Though that doesn't mean that people are wrong in feeling upset about any obvious bias or hypocrisies. That's just natural.
I'm not even sure if this is an insult or you are just stating what you regard as a fact. But I'm sure she is.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a person who liberally employs sarcasm, snark and hyperbole in conversations you do have a remarkably muted sense of irony :)FIRST AMENDMENT! ALAMO! ALAMO! DON'T TREAD ON ME, COMMIES!Well the first amendment doesn't apply here (or most of the places people babble on about the first amendment). Though that doesn't mean that people are wrong in feeling upset about any obvious bias or hypocrisies. That's just natural.
Eh, I woke up earlier than I would have liked today, and so extra processes like irony.exe aren't yet online. :P
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not even sure if this is an insult or you are just stating what you regard as a fact. But I'm sure she is.For a person who liberally employs sarcasm, snark and hyperbole in conversations you do have a remarkably muted sense of irony :)FIRST AMENDMENT! ALAMO! ALAMO! DON'T TREAD ON ME, COMMIES!Well the first amendment doesn't apply here (or most of the places people babble on about the first amendment). Though that doesn't mean that people are wrong in feeling upset about any obvious bias or hypocrisies. That's just natural.
I never fail to be fascinated as to how picking a female avatar and a name that could be interpreted as feminine results in people defaulting to consider that person female.
While on the other hand, despite being a genderless toothy bag, everybody refers to me as male.
Male = default, female = exception? Ohh I feel leaning so hard left today, that'll punch through that wall Trotsky is standing next to in a second.
I never fail to be fascinated as to how picking a female avatar and a name that could be interpreted as feminine results in people defaulting to consider that person female.
While on the other hand, despite being a genderless toothy bag, everybody refers to me as male.
Male = default, female = exception? Ohh I feel leaning so hard left today, that'll punch through that wall Trotsky is standing next to in a second.
Through her avatar and name, she claimed to be female. I have no ground on which to contest that, so I respect that claim in my posts.
I have no valid guess to your gender, and you'll note that I didn't make one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not even sure if this is an insult or you are just stating what you regard as a fact. But I'm sure she is.For a person who liberally employs sarcasm, snark and hyperbole in conversations you do have a remarkably muted sense of irony :)FIRST AMENDMENT! ALAMO! ALAMO! DON'T TREAD ON ME, COMMIES!Well the first amendment doesn't apply here (or most of the places people babble on about the first amendment). Though that doesn't mean that people are wrong in feeling upset about any obvious bias or hypocrisies. That's just natural.I never fail to be fascinated as to how picking a female avatar and a name that could be interpreted as feminine results in people defaulting to consider that person female.
While on the other hand, despite being a genderless toothy bag, everybody refers to me as male.
Male = default, female = exception? Ohh I feel leaning so hard left today, that'll punch through that wall Trotsky is standing next to in a second.
Hahaha. It's the safest bet with a bag of devouring. I mean, you surely do not want anyone assuming that you think that a gluttonous bag of teeth and hate is associated with women. That would make you a bad person, right?
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never fail to be fascinated as to how picking a female avatar and a name that could be interpreted as feminine results in people defaulting to consider that person female.
While on the other hand, despite being a genderless toothy bag, everybody refers to me as male.
Male = default, female = exception? Ohh I feel leaning so hard left today, that'll punch through that wall Trotsky is standing next to in a second.
Through her avatar and name, she claimed to be female. I have no ground on which to contest that, so I respect that claim in my posts.
I have no valid guess to your gender, and you'll note that I didn't make one.
Thanks for being nice. That said, in fairness to Gorbacz, I might have chosen my avatar because I like the picture or am a Seoni fan, and my name is unisex.
But really gender is pretty meaningless on a messageboard where we are all just faceless minds discussing things about our favorite game, right? I mean, our ideas and thoughts are no worth no more or less because of our body type, right?
^_^
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ohh I feel leaning so hard left today, that'll punch through that wall Trotsky is standing next to in a second.
Try it, [redacted]bag.
Through her avatar and name, she claimed to be female. I have no ground on which to contest that, so I respect that claim in my posts.
I have no valid guess to your gender, and you'll note that I didn't make one.
Thanks for being nice. That said, in fairness to Gorbacz, I might have chosen my avatar because I like the picture or am a Seoni fan, and my name is unisex.
But really gender is pretty meaningless on a messageboard where we are all just faceless minds discussing things about our favorite game, right? I mean, our ideas and thoughts are no worth no more or less because of our body type, right?
^_^
At least it should be. To get back on topic, it appears that some folks do think that certain mods do not observe this.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I think it crosses a line.
It's not necessary to shock people to prove the point he's trying to make.
It's in poor taste.
This company publishes a game I like. I shouldn't have to be constantly confronted with real-world issues, and if I do, it shouldn't resort to offensive speech to prove its point, even in the negative.
If opinions are being solicited, I think this post, too, should have been canned.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it's because I've been cursing since I was 7. Maybe I'm just a product of the internet, or maybe it's because I pretty much grew up on 4chan, DOTA forums, and LUELinks and I am surrounded by goons from Something Awful. Maybe it's Maybelline :) But, cursing doesn't bother me one bit. And I cringe every time I see a mod delete a post because of cursing. But hey, if that's the rules, I feel as though it should be applied equally and fairly. Not biased and such. Personally, I didn't have a problem with Jon's post and felt it fit the context. Maybe he could have censored it, but frankly, I don't care.
That said, while I haven't had much issues with Price, I've seen more issues with Sean K Reynolds. He doesn't take criticism too well and can't seem to separate those being a!%&$&@s from those that are providing constructive feedback. To be fair, there are a fair number of entitled a#~*$@#s that seem to think he needs to be crucified for a mistake and I wouldn't want to handle that. Hell, I kind of applaud him for his sarcasm against those people cause f~#& that. If I ever met him in real life, I'd buy him a beer and toast for him. But, I've seen more often than not that same attitude towards people with legitimate concerns that try to express their view more rationally and less like a raving madman.
This isn't a call out or a pile on. Just some concerns about moderation. Hopefully we'll all be able to understand each other with this topic.
I never fail to be fascinated as to how picking a female avatar and a name that could be interpreted as feminine results in people defaulting to consider that person female.
While on the other hand, despite being a genderless toothy bag, everybody refers to me as male.
Male = default, female = exception? Ohh I feel leaning so hard left today, that'll punch through that wall Trotsky is standing next to in a second.
Through her avatar and name, she claimed to be female. I have no ground on which to contest that, so I respect that claim in my posts.
I have no valid guess to your gender, and you'll note that I didn't make one.
Thanks for being nice. That said, in fairness to Gorbacz, I might have chosen my avatar because I like the picture or am a Seoni fan, and my name is unisex.
But really gender is pretty meaningless on a messageboard where we are all just faceless minds discussing things about our favorite game, right? I mean, our ideas and thoughts are no worth no more or less because of our body type, right?
^_^
So since I'm a blue tentacle dog, what does that make me?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moderation is an inexact science and we debated internally whether or not to remove that post.
This makes it sound like the problem isn't with any one particular moderator. This makes it sound like there may be some discussion with other moderators before a final decision is made so that they can be more fair. Maybe I'm misreading it but that's how I interpret this.
I've seen Ms. Price give warnings before she deletes posts. If someone continues down the path they were headed, they were forewarned. I see that same pattern from several other moderators as well.
No moderating is going to be perfect. What we each find offensive varies, sometimes greatly. For the most part I haven't really seen any huge issues. I've also tried to stay out of the very threads that would draw these problems in the first place. Self moderation is better for my blood pressure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So since I'm a blue tentacle dog, what does that make me?
"It"
Although your name sounds vaguely like it's derived from norse mythology and female.
So since I'm a blue tentacle dog, what does that make me?"It"
Although your name sounds vaguely like it's derived from norse mythology and female.
Hahaha, this made me laugh out loud. Read my name backwards and you will learn my dark secret ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moderation is an inexact science and we debated internally whether or not to remove that post.This makes it sound like the problem isn't with any one particular moderator. This makes it sound like there may be some discussion with other moderators before a final decision is made so that they can be more fair. Maybe I'm misreading it but that's how I interpret this.
I've seen Ms. Price give warnings before she deletes posts. If someone continues down the path they were headed, they were forewarned. I see that same pattern from several other moderators as well.
No moderating is going to be perfect. What we each find offensive varies, sometimes greatly. For the most part I haven't really seen any huge issues. I've also tried to stay out of the very threads that would draw these problems in the first place. Self moderation is better for my blood pressure.
This is true. More often than not, Price will always warn people when a topic is starting to get off the rails or get a little crazy.
Honestly, if I were a moderator, I'd just avoid posting in kindling-for-flame-war topics. Like paladin alignment topics.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only moderator that I have seen the abuse the moderation system is SKR especially in the Advanced Class playtest where he was openly aggressive and was removing posts quite heavily when they tried to point out flaws in the classes (just a note i did not take part in the discussion for fear of being targeted by mr. Reynolds ire at having the gall to post in a playtest without having participated in other playtests as he did to poster on these bpoards. i commend those who did try to make the classes better)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only moderator that I have seen the abuse the moderation system is SKR especially in the Advanced Class playtest where he was openly aggressive and was removing posts quite heavily when they tried to point out flaws in the classes (just a note i did not take part in the discussion for fear of being targeted by mr. Reynolds ire at having the gall to post in a playtest without having participated in other playtests as he did to poster on these bpoards. i commend those who did try to make the classes better)
Having seen the posts deleted, many of them fit in the "entitled whiny poster wanting to crucify Paizo for X reason" attitude, which is toxic and unhelpful.
Unfortunately, there were several that weren't and alas, they got caught in the crossfire. Which is the real shame. Not all criticism is bad, especially if it's well thought out and reasonable. And SKR really needs to understand that.
The only moderator that I have seen the abuse the moderation system is SKR especially in the Advanced Class playtest where he was openly aggressive and was removing posts quite heavily when they tried to point out flaws in the classes (just a note i did not take part in the discussion for fear of being targeted by mr. Reynolds ire at having the gall to post in a playtest without having participated in other playtests as he did to poster on these bpoards. i commend those who did try to make the classes better)Having seen the posts deleted, many of them fit in the "entitled whiny poster wanting to crucify Paizo for X reason" attitude, which is toxic and unhelpful.
Unfortunately, there were several that weren't and alas, they got caught in the crossfire. Which is the real shame. Not all criticism is bad, especially if it's well thought out and reasonable. And SKR really needs to understand that.
"Not all criticism is bad"? They were actively asking for criticism.
And while yes, a lot of that was whiny, so were SKR.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only moderator that I have seen the abuse the moderation system is SKR especially in the Advanced Class playtest where he was openly aggressive and was removing posts quite heavily when they tried to point out flaws in the classes (just a note i did not take part in the discussion for fear of being targeted by mr. Reynolds ire at having the gall to post in a playtest without having participated in other playtests as he did to poster on these bpoards. i commend those who did try to make the classes better)Having seen the posts deleted, many of them fit in the "entitled whiny poster wanting to crucify Paizo for X reason" attitude, which is toxic and unhelpful.
Unfortunately, there were several that weren't and alas, they got caught in the crossfire. Which is the real shame. Not all criticism is bad, especially if it's well thought out and reasonable. And SKR really needs to understand that.
"Not all criticism is bad"? They were actively asking for criticism.
And while yes, a lot of that was whiny, so were SKR.
They were asking for constructive criticism. There's a significant difference between stating:
"Wow Paizo, these are the classes? I've had bowel movements that were better classes! Here are my issues, assuming you can understand them."
and stating:
"Here are a list of balance issues with the Warpriest. I hope this helps."
All things are better when you are reasonable and polite.
The only moderator that I have seen the abuse the moderation system is SKR especially in the Advanced Class playtest where he was openly aggressive and was removing posts quite heavily when they tried to point out flaws in the classes (just a note i did not take part in the discussion for fear of being targeted by mr. Reynolds ire at having the gall to post in a playtest without having participated in other playtests as he did to poster on these bpoards. i commend those who did try to make the classes better)Having seen the posts deleted, many of them fit in the "entitled whiny poster wanting to crucify Paizo for X reason" attitude, which is toxic and unhelpful.
Unfortunately, there were several that weren't and alas, they got caught in the crossfire. Which is the real shame. Not all criticism is bad, especially if it's well thought out and reasonable. And SKR really needs to understand that.
"Not all criticism is bad"? They were actively asking for criticism.
And while yes, a lot of that was whiny, so were SKR.
They were asking for constructive criticism. There's a significant difference between stating:
"Wow Paizo, these are the classes? I've had bowel movements that were better classes! Here are my issues, assuming you can understand them."
and stating:
"Here are a list of balance issues with the Warpriest. I hope this helps."
All things are better when you are reasonable and polite.
I feel I can see where you are coming from, yet feel you are exagerating what I observed in the playtest.
I think he (or she, we never really determined that yet) was using hyperbole to demonstrate a point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part, yes. Although, in earlier playtests, it really did get that bad. The Mythic and ACG were fairly tame and I'm glad for that. But again, you always get some that cross the line. But we are in agreement that SKR went pretty far overboard in deleting posts with criticism and really needs to chill out when people try and reasonably submit their issues. Logical and polite criticism needs to be on these boards and he really needs to learn to separate that from the more volatile and toxic posters.
As for determining gender, I just assume everyone on the internet is a robot sent to the past to eliminate me until proven otherwise :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if cover="blown" execute emergencyproccedure.exe
*proccessing*
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for determining gender, I just assume everyone on the internet is a robot sent to the past to eliminate me until proven otherwise :)
That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that we're all in purgatory and all the annoying people you're interacting with are time displaced you's forcing you to wallow in your own unpleasantness.
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to take a moment and at least say something for the moderators in question.
I really like both Price and Reynolds. I think that overall, they are great moderators, developers, and people. I don't want them to feel discouraged or attacked when reading this thread, because you guys are pretty great and I'd hate to see your online presence lessen because of this. So just, don't take this thread too hard and just see it as some way to better connect with the community. Lord knows the community needs to do better at connecting with Paizo. :)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I have participated in a lot of threads that Jessica Price has been active on, I thought I would chime in.
Personally...I haven't been seeing a huge issue with her moderation. This might be very well be because I am biased toward liberal viewpoints. If there is lots of moderation in those threads, it's because they generally have a habit of getting nasty fast, as do any threads touching on real life politics. Even the language used is "controversial".
IN the most recent threads, people chimed in saying that they found terms such as privilege and cis inflammatory and offensive, which are generally things that I think are neutral at worst and used as describers of phenomena (and which the paizo staff obviously doesn't consider offensive). Maybe people reading the worst into those phrases and seeing people post about them is what is a significant contributor to views of "bias".
Furthermore, some people post views that they see nothing wrong with, see them banned, and then claim bias. I have seen multiple posts which tried to equate homosexuality with pedophilia/beastiality/etc, and the poster would have his comment removed and seriously be confused on what the problem was, and cry "BIAS". Fair moderation never meant saying anything you want, and believing something is true doesn't mean it's true or not offensive to a large chunk of Paizo messageboard users.
Going back to the mod practices of SKR during the ACG playtest for a moment...
I recall that in the Brawler thread, a few people were continually bringing up brass knuckles. SKR told them that, as he had to read every post, such comments as were not relevant to the class (knuckles being a side-issue) should be kept to a minimum; further posts about side-issues would be deleted to reduce clutter.
Now, I didn't read the other ACG playtest threads, but I imagine most of SKR's moderation in them was more about that issue than anything else.