Well, since I pretty much don't mind being banned any more (which seems like a very possible result of voicing my concerns), I'll be the one to ask:
Entire threads are now disappearing without any kind of notice. FROM THE OFF-TOPIC board. Why? I suppose because they discussed accusations about a media figure, which is now (apparently) forbidden, but I can only guess, because NO ONE IS SAYING. Stuff just disappears.
Irrespective of the merits (or lack thereof) of a given thread, just removing stuff wholesale, and without notice, is anathema to a healthy message board. Please stop before these boards lose all value as a discussion forum.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, the disappeared threads were political flamewars waiting to happen. Not sure they really belonged here in the first place or that entering into a debate about the topics raised had much merit.
Honestly, I'm pretty damn impressed with the community for not taking the bait - for the most part, the people most likely to take offense at the threads seemed to be doing a good job boycotting them. I would guess that they flagged them (which was justified IMO) rather than responding and the moderators stepped in as a result.
Seems to me like an example of the system working. Political flamewars don't really have a home here, off-topic or not.
Thanks, David.
Well, allow me to politely dissent (not that it will make a difference).
The main problem it is very unclear to me at this point what is acceptable, what isn't, and why. Is it not OK to discuss allegations against a public figure on the OFF-TOPIC forum? I can't really be sure if something I post might be swept away because the entire thread is deemed a troll. In that situation, the rational response is to quit posting altogether. Excepting the inevitable glib retorts to the contrary, I just can't see how that is a desired outcome. :(
Senior Software Developer
|
Those two threads were completely inappropriate and we didn't want them indexed by search engines forever and ever, so we removed them completely. Note that we don't usually do this, we'll just post a note and lock the thread. But as I said, those threads needed to be completely gone and I figured that someone would ask what the heck happened, so we'd respond in that thread, which is this one.
(By the way, "gestapo" is probably not the best word choice.)
Edit: And I moved this thread to website feedback since it's not really off-topic.
I believe it was about a year ago or so when I strongly voiced my opposition to moderation. Sebastian was kind enough to point out that Paizo was not going to clamp down unreasonably. He further offered that if I was suddenly silenced, then he might worry.
I did not agree with the originating thread, however, I do not personally feel it was removal worthy. Yes, it was a little inflammatory, but I see plenty of other threads I believe inflammatory which continue to exist.
This is not my board and Paizo owes me nothing. I am simply stating I disagree with this response.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Well, allow me to politely dissent (not that it will make a difference).
The main problem it is very unclear to me at this point what is acceptable, what isn't, and why. Is it not OK to discuss allegations against a public figure on the OFF-TOPIC forum? I can't really be sure if something I post might be swept away because the entire thread is deemed a troll. In that situation, the rational response is to quit posting altogether. Excepting the inevitable glib retorts to the contrary, I just can't see how that is a desired outcome. :(
I'd say the rational response is to not post in the troll-baiting threads. I can't say that I see them as being all that hard to identify. If they are hard to identify, a more easily followed rule of thumb is to not post in any political threads or to only post in threads that are actually related to Paizo/D&D/gaming. If you're here primarily to discuss politics, I would submit that there are better places on the internet to have such conversations. If you're here primarily to troll, I would submit that I have that role well in hand and that those with less skill leave it to the professionals.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I believe it was about a year ago or so when I strongly voiced my opposition to moderation. Sebastian was kind enough to point out that Paizo was not going to clamp down unreasonably. He further offered that if I was suddenly silenced, then he might worry.
Ack! Your sighting me? I just make s!&! up. Something has seriously gone wrong with the world...
I still think they don't clamp down unreasonably, but I also have a low tolerance for political threads. It's not like the peanut buttery goodness of a comics discussion mixed with the choclatey goodness of gaming. It's more like peanut buttery goodness mixed with mayonaise...
|
I believe it was about a year ago or so when I strongly voiced my opposition to moderation. Sebastian was kind enough to point out that Paizo was not going to clamp down unreasonably. He further offered that if I was suddenly silenced, then he might worry.
Ack! Your sighting me? I just make s!&* up. Something has seriously gone wrong with the world...
I still think they don't clamp down unreasonably, but I also have a low tolerance for political threads. It's not like the peanut buttery goodness of a comics discussion mixed with the choclatey goodness of gaming. It's more like peanut buttery goodness mixed with mayonaise...
Mmmmm....
Peanut butter mayonaise...
I believe it was about a year ago or so when I strongly voiced my opposition to moderation. Sebastian was kind enough to point out that Paizo was not going to clamp down unreasonably. He further offered that if I was suddenly silenced, then he might worry.
I did not agree with the originating thread, however, I do not personally feel it was removal worthy. Yes, it was a little inflammatory, but I see plenty of other threads I believe inflammatory which continue to exist.
This is not my board and Paizo owes me nothing. I am simply stating I disagree with this response.
Oddly, I was a voice FOR moderation, because I believed it would be applied in an even-handed fashion, and with a light touch. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. I've seen boards go down this road before, and it always kills them. Always. It's just a matter of time.
(By the way, "gestapo" is probably not the best word choice.)
Agreed; I let my annoyance get the better of me. My apologies.
|
|
Is it not OK to discuss allegations against a public figure on the OFF-TOPIC forum? I can't really be sure if something I post might be swept away because the entire thread is deemed a troll. In that situation, the rational response is to quit posting altogether. Excepting the inevitable glib retorts to the contrary, I just can't see how that is a desired outcome. :(
At the risk of sounding trollish, I think that yes, sometimes that is the case. In the case of the threads you are referencing, the alligations have no basis in fact and a quick Google search uncovered that the originators of the alligations admit that they are not true. They admit that they were doing a parody of the public figure referenced and that they were being trolls because they feel the person they were trolling is a troll.
I think that people should apply some discretion when they start threads like that. That being said, I think that the topic of the threads could have been discussed if they had been presented in a different way. In the end, and I know that this sounds cheesy, it is not what you say but how you say it that gets you in trouble.
I still think they don't clamp down unreasonably...
I am not saying it was unreasonable. I do not feel it is even handed as I believe there are a couple inflammatory post taking shots at 4e. I also disagree with it.
My posts were not politically motivated. In fact, I believe my posts were probably more removal worthy since they were satirical attacks directed at a fellow Paizoan.
How many times have you, SB, and I traded barbs?
I'd say the rational response is to not post in the troll-baiting threads. I can't say that I see them as being all that hard to identify. If they are hard to identify, a more easily followed rule of thumb is to not post in any political threads or to only post in threads that are actually related to Paizo/D&D/gaming. If you're here primarily to discuss politics, I would submit that there are better places on the internet to have such conversations. If you're here primarily to troll, I would submit that I have that role well in hand and that those with less skill leave it to the professionals.
If the problem is political threads, then just establish the rule "no political threads." Removing some and leaving others (with no sign of what has been done) just means that there is no point in posting in them, anyway.
On the other hand, if general relevance to Pazio/D&D/Gaming is valid criteria for thread removal, why have an "Off-Topic" forum at all? Amusing newbie trap? :)
|
|
I still think they don't clamp down unreasonably...I am not saying it was unreasonable. I do not feel it is even handed as I believe there are a couple inflammatory post taking shots at 4e. I also disagree with it.
My posts were not politically motivated. In fact, I believe my posts were probably more removal worthy since they were satirical attacks directed at a fellow Paizoan.
How many times have you, SB, and I traded barbs?
Come on now, even a poodle can see that there is a difference then a thread having few inflamitory posts and a thread who's title is intended to be inflamitory. :) I've only been around for a few years and I have seen a couple of threads get their titles edited because they usedsimilar wording as was used in those threads. The 4E Forgotten Realms thread anyone?
I think that people should apply some discretion when they start threads like that. That being said, I think that the topic of the threads could have been discussed if they had been presented in a different way. In the end, and I know that this sounds cheesy, it is not what you say but how you say it that gets you in trouble.
You have a point. Heck, I'm a liberal and I thought that thread was full-of-crap, and I responded in the thread appropriately. I just don't think removing the whole thing was the answer.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
My posts were not politically motivated. In fact, I believe my posts were probably more removal worthy since they were satirical attacks directed at a fellow Paizoan.How many times have you, SB, and I traded barbs?
I thought your ancillary posts were hilarious. Part of that though is that, as with most of your posts, those threads were pithy and clever in a relatively short amount of text.
I don't think we've gotten in many dust-ups in a long time - unless you count the various fight threads, but those are in good fun. You have this annoying habit of saying things that I agree with, which makes it hard to fight.
|
|
You have a point. Heck, I'm a liberal and I thought that thread was full-of-crap, and I responded in the thread appropriately. I just don't think removing the whole thing was the answer.
Maybe not, but I can also see why Paizo wouldn't want to be associated with things like that. If I was them, I wouldn't want someone's first introduction to Paizo to be that subject.
I missed out completely on this whole thing. I didn't even get a chance to flame anyone...
You can flame me...with my karma, I have it coming. :)
|
|
I missed out completely on this whole thing. I didn't even get a chance to flame anyone...
I see that you did have time to post on the poodle thread, however.
Come on now, even a poodle can see that there is a difference then a thread having few inflamitory posts and a thread who's title is intended to be inflamitory.
…unless you count the various fight threads, but those are in good fun…
…and the threads I created were meant to be in the same spirit.
Maybe not, but I can also see why Paizo wouldn't want to be associated with things like that. If I was them, I wouldn't want someone's first introduction to Paizo to be that subject.
I agree. I just think a POST REMOVED or THREAD REMOVED methodology accomplishes the same goal without damaging to the board's long-term coherence and credibility as a useful discussion forum.
In any event, thank you for the discussion.
|
|
Maybe not, but I can also see why Paizo wouldn't want to be associated with things like that. If I was them, I wouldn't want someone's first introduction to Paizo to be that subject.I agree. I just think a POST REMOVED or THREAD REMOVED methodology accomplishes the same goal without damaging to the board's long-term coherence and credibility as a useful discussion forum.
In any event, thank you for the discussion.
Yes I could see that being a better method than the thread just disappearing. Although if they had a blurb like thread removed, or post removed, it might spark discussion about what was in the missing material which could create more problems. As it stands, nobody other then those of us who were here when the threads existed knew anything had happened and therefore nobody felt the need to dig into the matter.
|
You can flame me...with my karma, I have it coming. :)I missed out completely on this whole thing. I didn't even get a chance to flame anyone...
Thanks, you socialist pig with fascist tendencies.
;-)If it helps, 90% of the posts in one thread were direct insults regarding you, your hygiene, your mother, your pets, your stench, etc. So, you did participate in spirit.I missed out completely on this whole thing. I didn't even get a chance to flame anyone...
90 percent!
Woo Hoo! I'm finally popular!I see that you did have time to post on the poodle thread, however.I missed out completely on this whole thing. I didn't even get a chance to flame anyone...
What the-hey...! Damn that Snarky Poodle!
|
Senior Software Developer
|
In this case we didn't even want the thread title around, so I'm not sure that a "we removed this thread but won't tell you which one it was" note is actually that useful. I did have to write new code this morning to even nuke the threads in question, which means that a) it's really, really really rare for us to do something like that, and b) I can change the code so we leave a note in the future. I'm just not sure it's all that useful.
|
I missed out on the threads that got removed. However, with regards to political threads, I am fast becoming a believer in an idea I first saw mentioned by a gentleman named Jay Nordlinger - Safe Zones.
Safe Zones are those essential areas of life where one shouldn't have to worry about politics intruding, like a classical music concert, or a sporting event, or even a seige on the living by zombies. I like this idea and will try to promote it.
I missed out on the threads that got removed. However, with regards to political threads, I am fast becoming a believer in an idea I first saw mentioned by a gentleman named Jay Nordlinger - Safe Zones.
Safe Zones are those essential areas of life where one shouldn't have to worry about politics intruding, like a classical music concert, or a sporting event, or even a seige on the living by zombies. I like this idea and will try to promote it.
FLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you went from Aberzombie to Aberskeleton?Just the face...and maybe a little on the shoulders.
Spray some Windex on it.
You have a point. Heck, I'm a liberal and I thought that thread was full-of-crap, and I responded in the thread appropriately. I just don't think removing the whole thing was the answer.
I think that people should apply some discretion when they start threads like that. That being said, I think that the topic of the threads could have been discussed if they had been presented in a different way. In the end, and I know that this sounds cheesy, it is not what you say but how you say it that gets you in trouble.
I thought it crossed the line when th OP started another thread on the same subject.
The main problem it is very unclear to me at this point what is acceptable, what isn't, and why.
Well first, I don't think you can ask for a hard and fast set of rules about what is and is not socially acceptable on the messageboards. There are a lot of nuances in social interactions, and you can't expect someone to say "Okay, you can talk about politics, but you can't bring up universal healthcare." Why? Because while there are many discussions that are pretty obviously contentious (Is Universal Healthcare Destroying Our Country?), there are many that are relatively neutral (President Obama Laid Out His Plans for Universal Healthcare Today).
I don't know about you, but I almost always know when a post of mine is going to be contentious, because I feel a big, knotted ball of anxiety in my stomach. I know that's not a lot to go on, but as I said, the nuances of social interaction are many, and you can't always rationalize why you feel one way about one thing and don't feel that way about another. So when in doubt, go with your gut.
|
In this case we didn't even want the thread title around, so I'm not sure that a "we removed this thread but won't tell you which one it was" note is actually that useful. I did have to write new code this morning to even nuke the threads in question, which means that a) it's really, really really rare for us to do something like that, and b) I can change the code so we leave a note in the future. I'm just not sure it's all that useful.
.
Possibly just a redirect to a generic "This thread was removed due to the topic/nature being deemed too offensive" page. Possibly with the picture of Mama Graul on it?
From my perspective, the moderation has been dealt with in a reasonably even-handed method. As much as it can be with a loose rule as "don't be a jerk." Moderation if it was ever going to happen, was going to be controlled by someone with different opinions than you or me on what is precisely appropriate.
I remember when some of the people were asking for moderation before, I thought that many of them often did not keep themselves in check all the time. I did wonder if they were aware the moderation would likely apply to them and how they would react when their own posts were suppressed. That they really wanted uneven moderation that only took out posts they disagreed with or, at worst, didn't give an advantage to the posters they were responding to.
Those threads turned into flame wars? I must have been really reading those threads very differently than how most people were reading them: I thought the point of the threads had to do with libel in the public forum, not the actual accusations. But who knows, maybe they went all crazy after I saw them much earlier.
Those threads turned into flame wars? I must have been really reading those threads very differently than how most people were reading them: I thought the point of the threads had to do with libel in the public forum, not the actual accusations. But who knows, maybe they went all crazy after I saw them much earlier.
If you saw them after I posted in defense of the individual, things got a little heated. But, I wouldn't say they got to a Flame War stage. I think Gary said the removal was more due to the topic itself than the exchange.
For my part, I apologize for responding at all. I should have just flagged them and been done.
Must. Learn. Self-control... don't hold yer breath though. ;-)
So after reading this thread, I am curious to know what the threads were. Or do I not want to know?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If you saw them after I posted in defense of the individual, things got a little heated. But, I wouldn't say they got to a Flame War stage. I think Gary said the removal was more due to the topic itself than the exchange.
For my part, I apologize for responding at all. I should have just flagged them and been done.
Must. Learn. Self-control... don't hold yer breath though. ;-)
The titles were designed to provoke a reaction - having one is justifiable in my opinion. Lord knows I don't hesitate to respond when I get pissed off by something someone posts.
Those threads turned into flame wars? I must have been really reading those threads very differently than how most people were reading them: I thought the point of the threads had to do with libel in the public forum, not the actual accusations. But who knows, maybe they went all crazy after I saw them much earlier.If you saw them after I posted in defense of the individual, things got a little heated. But, I wouldn't say they got to a Flame War stage. I think Gary said the removal was more due to the topic itself than the exchange.
For my part, I apologize for responding at all. I should have just flagged them and been done.
Must. Learn. Self-control... don't hold yer breath though. ;-)
I thought the OP was being ironic, for the sake of pointing out what public discussion had sunk to (The old, "Did things become heated before or after you stopped beating your wife?"), although perhaps engaging in a little schadenfreudic "shoe on the other foot"ism. But in any event, I don't want to go into anything Paizo doesn't want on their forums. And titling something with "Gestapo" doesn't really seem to be the way to go as far as encouraging cooling off. :O