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? :)
Thing is those threads were not really political. There is a huge difference between discussing a contentious issue like American Health Care Reform on the one hand and engaging in what amounts to libel on the other hand.
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.
FLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.FLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Flame is weak. You no good at this stuff.
Flame is weak. You no good at this stuff.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.FLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ACID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
It may indeed be completely unuseful for any given thread, but it remains useful as a whole for the board. It is valuable to *know* that nothing was removed without notice. It protects the integrity of the board as a means of communication. It's like getting a government document with every line redacted...that itself is meaningful, and quite different than the government simply saying "that document never existed at all."
I agree that some political threads get too heated and personal. On more than one occasion, when following a political discussion and seeing it get shut down, I thought "It's about time this flamewar got extinguished. What took Paizo so long?!" And I have deliberately avoided posting any opinion about politics, religion, or the edition wars (although I was sorely tempted once).
That said... I want to answer the question "Why start a conversation about politics at all on this site? Why not on another site?"
Maybe a lot of people would get attracted to these boards to talk about Golarion, Pathfinder RPG, Planet Stories, etc., and maybe join a PBP or three. And when they do, they get to know the people who post here. It IS an awesome community, you know. And once you get to know them, you might want to discuss other, more worldly, matters with them.
At least, that's one of MY reasons for reading that stuff.
That's right; I don't POST about flammable topics, but I often READ about them. I remember one thread that made me say "Gee, both sides of this argument have a lot of good points (as well as some not-so-good points.)" That's why I was compelled to read the whole argument twice, despite the growing nausea I felt (literally!) from all the venom being sprayed in both directions.
So, contradictory though it sounds, I support people's rights to post these messages to the boards, and Paizo's right to shut them down or delete them, as Paizo sees fit.
I know why politics and religion made it over here. Because Yahoo quit their message boards ... lol
:)
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.
It may indeed be completely unuseful for any given thread, but it remains useful as a whole for the board. It is valuable to *know* that nothing was removed without notice. It protects the integrity of the board as a means of communication. It's like getting a government document with every line redacted...that itself is meaningful, and quite different than the government simply saying "that document never existed at all."
You're absolutely correct. Transparency, consistency and excellence in moderation is our goal here. We want this to be a great place for intelligent, insightful and fun conversation.
In this case the complete removal was pretty much the fault of our URLs for messageboard threads. Our URLs contain the title of the post, and the titles for the threads in question were a big part of the problem. Since one of the threads in question had received over 150 posts, I knew someone was going to ask a question about where the threads went, so I figured I'd explain what happened in that thread (i.e., this one).
I designed our URL format way back in the '90s, and URL standards have improved a bit since then. I have a plan that would allow us to remove a thread, not break bookmarks, and excise the offensive portions from the URL. This change will also make our URLs much better for emailing (which is the primary reason I want to make the change). I don't know when we'll get around to it though.
ACID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Flame is weak. You no good at this stuff.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.FLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gahhh!
You change fast. Me now sad me ate wizard after him make fire resist triket. Must find new wizard for acid resist.
I designed our URL format way back in the '90s, and URL standards have improved a bit since then. I have a plan that would allow us to remove a thread, not break bookmarks, and excise the offensive portions from the URL. This change will also make our URLs much better for emailing (which is the primary reason I want to make the change). I don't know when we'll get around to it though.
somewhere on the legendary 'list'. ;-)
You're absolutely correct. Transparency, consistency and excellence in moderation is our goal here. We want this to be a great place for intelligent, insightful and fun conversation.
In this case the complete removal was pretty much the fault of our URLs for messageboard threads. Our URLs contain the title of the post, and the titles for the threads in question were a big part of the problem. Since one of the threads in question had received over 150 posts, I knew someone was going to ask a question about where the threads went, so I figured I'd explain what happened in that thread (i.e., this one).
I designed our URL format way back in the '90s, and URL standards have improved a bit since then. I have a plan that would allow us to remove a thread, not break bookmarks, and excise the offensive portions from the URL. This change will also make our URLs much better for emailing (which is the primary reason I want to make the change). I don't know when we'll get around to it though.
Thank you Gary, for both your unusual candor, and for responding despite my needlessly antagonistic thread title.
I know why politics and religion made it over here. Because Yahoo quit their message boards ... lol
:)
Why did the topic cross the web?
|
Thank you Gary, for both your unusual candor, and for responding despite my needlessly antagonistic thread title.You're absolutely correct. Transparency, consistency and excellence in moderation is our goal here. We want this to be a great place for intelligent, insightful and fun conversation.
In this case the complete removal was pretty much the fault of our URLs for messageboard threads. Our URLs contain the title of the post, and the titles for the threads in question were a big part of the problem. Since one of the threads in question had received over 150 posts, I knew someone was going to ask a question about where the threads went, so I figured I'd explain what happened in that thread (i.e., this one).
I designed our URL format way back in the '90s, and URL standards have improved a bit since then. I have a plan that would allow us to remove a thread, not break bookmarks, and excise the offensive portions from the URL. This change will also make our URLs much better for emailing (which is the primary reason I want to make the change). I don't know when we'll get around to it though.
Seconded.
|
|
And now for my usual unwanted two cents:
I'm not usually particularly serious on these messageboards, the internet serving to let me "open up" and impose my own brand of non-humor on all of you good people.
On this subject, though, I am going to be completely frank.
Where was this flame-war you speak of? Was I gone? Did I miss it? I'm on Paizo for a good portion of the day, and all I saw were some unusually civil political threads. I saw no trolling, merely people with opposing viewpoints espousing their ideas. Seeing these threads stay relatively civil for so long made me feel pretty good about the state of Paizo's messageboard community relative to that of, say, 4chan. Yes, the thread titles were a little off-kilter (like the title of this thread, which, I may add, doesn't seem to be in danger of deletion). However, the threads in question were informative, readable, and on topic (the topic in question being politics, which justifies their being in the off-topic section. You know what I mean).
Now, in the hours between five AM and noon Eastern Standard Time, I may have missed some sort of thread with a ridiculous title filled with death threats and calls for divine intervention, but the fact is, I really doubt that such an occurrence could have happened a) in the time I was gone (seven hours maximum), or b) on these messageboards at all. Everyone (not mostly everyone-- everyone) I see on these boards is an intelligent person who believes in explaining their own rationale at disagreeing with a particular point. I have seen no "UR TEH SUCK" -type responses EVER. I have seen people try to troll Paizo and fail due to the civility shown in this community.
In my opinion, preemptively deleting threads deemed "powder kegs" seems both unjustified and unnecessary. Except in extreme cases, we as members can and have been able to police ourselves, and this issue did not seem that extreme. I don't know, maybe I just have thick skin and people were genuinely bothered enough by the threads in question to request their removal. However, what bothers me is that they did not post on said threads (to my knowledge) informing the participants that they needed to take it down a notch. Instead, they simply flagged the thread. To me, complaining without giving any reason why is simply juvenile. The proper course of action, again, in my opinion, would have been to let someone know on the thread that they were being a jerk. I believe that would have calmed them down.
It makes me sad that this kind of paranoia exists in what used to be an open, self-regulating community.
Dear Paizo,
First of all, I'd like to preface this post by saying that both Gary and Vic have always been very cool in approaching problem threads and my criticism is in no way directed at them.
Now my thoughts on this.
It seems to me that the practice of active moderation is still young on these boards--and it's tough to measure even-handedness when something is getting started so I'm reserving my final judgment.
There certainly have been some incidents of heavy handedness, hypersensitivity, and moderating based on the moderator's personal tastes in humor. There has been significant inconsistency. There has been snarky moderation. It has pissed me off. I don't think the "Gestapo" remark was over the top. Yes it's hyperbole--we like our figures of speech around here.
The problem as I see it is that such moderation is eventually going to drive people away--okay it already has. And I say with absolute seriousness that it almost drove me away, too. It's taken away some of the glow and excitement I feel coming to the boards. On the other hand we all know that people may be driven away if bullshit is left to run rampant--this too has happened.
So I reckon that it is in the best interest for Paizo to keep moderation even-handed. Perhaps policy or litmus tests or guidelines need to be clarified, I don't know because I'm not privy to the meetings at Paizo HQ. But frankly, from where I sit, even-handedness is off to a weak start.
Some of the uneasiness I've felt lately would certainly be relieved if I knew that you guys were negotiating your moderating goals and standards so this whole thing can run consistently and fairly. It's not enough just for Gary to write some nifty thread nuking code. Also, I'd feel better if appointed moderators could post with restraint and courtesy. Good moderators don't get hot-headed.
If Paizo sets high standards in moderation I believe that standards of posting will follow.
Thank you,
Karlis Lejnieks aka Kruelaid
|
Well the problem is that since they were removed a lot of people do not know what the title of the threads were.
Now if the title is of the threads I think they are (Before anyone asks no I am not going to mention them) and after entering said titles into google and seeing the resultant what can best be described as powder keg/witchhunt I can fully understand why Paizo would not want to touch that subject with someone else's ten foot pole.
The real problem is two fold. One, the moderators feel this is a normal message board. It is not, it belongs to a company and therefore most of us are paying customers and no company should ever correct customers unless that person is totally absurd and very offensive that would earn the company a law suit or a major loss of business. Being frustrated and blunt over a 3rd party may or may not be an area of correction. Using certain words to correct customer actions shouldn't be used.
Second, we customers feel that we are entitled to be speak our minds and we need to realize that Paizo is a company trying to make a profit and wants to have fun making products, socialize and network with like minds, and selling a good product that all customers will love.
I was angry with Paizo's moderators and was actually thinking of taking it to Epic levels but what would that have solved? Legal Revenge - maybe? But probably Absolutely Nothing! It would probably end the boards, or the company loses a customer or more, or bad feelings, and/or other things so I decided to submit on my assault. I do apologize for creating a stir, however I am not sorry about what I stated about the 3rd party and everyone has different perceptions about being blunt vs political correctness.
So in favor of keeping these boards which is a benefit for us all and we all love Paizo products, I vote that we all submit and watch what we say beyond the message board rules so we all remain happy and continue to enjoy the hobby.
I know why politics and religion made it over here. Because Yahoo quit their message boards ... lol
:)
Why did the topic cross the web?
Because the other side was burnt out. :)
Because the other side was burnt out. :)I know why politics and religion made it over here. Because Yahoo quit their message boards ... lol
:)
Why did the topic cross the web?
Good one Angry!... lol
There certainly have been some incidents of heavy handedness, hypersensitivity, and moderating based on the moderator's personal tastes in humor. There has been significant inconsistency. There has been snarky moderation.
I do agree that these are definitely issues here.
|
|
Such a sense of entitlement we have.
If the mods want to post that I'm a smelly troll who lives in his momma's basement and then ban my butt six ways from Sunday, my 'legal option' is to go upstairs and ask smelly-troll-mom to make me some hot chocolate because my feeling got hurted.
Oy. Also, vey.
And now I want hot chocolate...
|
I'd just like to point out that there's a line between contentious discussion and libel.
Further, "socially responsible" and "legally responsible" are not always aligned with one another.
And that is all I'm saying on that point with respect to this topic.
I think Vic's post is very insightful as to why the thread may have been removed, regardless of whether it was light-heart satire.
-Skeld
|
I'd just like to point out that there's a line between contentious discussion and libel.
Further, "socially responsible" and "legally responsible" are not always aligned with one another.
And that is all I'm saying on that point with respect to this topic.
I think Vic's post is very insightful as to why the thread may have been removed, regardless of whether it was light-heart satire.
-Skeld
Libel standards for public figures are pretty lax, under US law.
I would think that the main reason Paizo don't want this stuff on their boards is that, as the hosts and a commercial enterprise whose boards form a lauded part of their commercial enterprise, it reflects somewhat on them. Pretty much all company messageboards do the same thing with contentious and provocative threads and posts, particularly if the thread title is itself provocative.
Set is right. I was a participant in the thread in question and I found it quite fun. But I can also see why Paizo wouldn't want it on their boards. I was sad to see it was gone, but I'm a grown up and I dealt with it because that is what grown ups do. I assume most of us on this board are grown ups and yet when I read this thread I think that I'm at work dealing with a bunch of whiney four year olds. How many of you would be smiling or cheering if the suppressed thread had said the same things about someone you liked and agreed with?
This whole, the customer is always right so let us post what we want nonsense is just that, nonsense. If I walked into a store and told them they had to give me a dress for free because I'm the customer and the customer is always right they would laugh at me and most likely have security escort me out of the store.
Has there been bad moderating occur, I'm sure there has. Bad moderating occurs on every board on the internet, because the moderators are human. They have to make judgments about what is acceptable based on their understanding of the rules. My reading of the rules tells me that the thread in question was skirting pretty close to breaking the do not defame rule.
So my thought is this, lets stop crying about what happened. This thread has gone from could you at least give us a notice that something has been deleted to don't delete anything, unless it is something I don't like. Please stop acting like children. If you are going to quit the boards than do it. If you aren't stop using it as a threat to try and get your way. Either way let's move on.
By implying immaturity and crying is just going to lead into more heated debate. Everyone has different perceptions of what maturity is just like being blunt and political correctness or political incorrectness.
No one on these boards has the right to be your mom, dad, boss, professor, sensei, and etc.
Again, just be nice and watch what you say. Opinions are good and strong opinions are not.
Opinions lead into development and fun.
Strong opinions lead into anger, frustration, and no fun
|
Senior Software Developer
|
Oh, I don't know. Strongly-held opinions are fine. Mainly we just want people to not be jerks. And maybe have the maturity to recognize when you're either a) not gonna win person X over to your point of view, b) perhaps wrong and should reexamine your position, or c) getting too het up about the topic and maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard for a bit. (Of course that's probably too much to hope for, but hey, aspirational goals and all that.)
As a side note, every moderator is a full-time Paizo employee (whose real job is something other than messageboard moderation).
Oh, I don't know. Strongly-held opinions are fine. Mainly we just want people to not be jerks. And maybe have the maturity to recognize when you're either a) not gonna win person X over to your point of view, b) perhaps wrong and should reexamine your position, or c) getting too het up about the topic and maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard for a bit. (Of course that's probably too much to hope for, but hey, aspirational goals and all that.)
As a side note, every moderator is a full-time Paizo employee (whose real job is something other than messageboard moderation).
I guess it is just sign of hard times and the American way of not backing down to a fight - to go for the throat like some businesses we know and love (Not Paizo - you guys are cool)... ;)
Such a sense of entitlement we have.
If the mods want to post that I'm a smelly troll who lives in his momma's basement and then ban my butt six ways from Sunday, my 'legal option' is to go upstairs and ask smelly-troll-mom to make me some hot chocolate because my feeling got hurted.
Oy. Also, vey.
And now I want hot chocolate...
Me live in Dad's basement. Mom have too much girly-troll stuff.
Mmmm... but me like hot chocolate.
Strong opinions lead into anger, frustration, and no fun
Humans will aways have some strong opinions. But experience teaches that sometimes different viewpoints just cannot reach compromise. In these cases, it's usually best to recognize that and "agree to disagree."
Edit: Argh, ninja'd by a Master.
With or without whip cream?
And is that Dark Chocolate or Milk chocolate?
:-)
Strong opinions lead into anger, frustration, and no funHumans will aways have some strong opinions. But experience teaches that sometimes different viewpoints just cannot reach compromise. In these cases, it's usually best to recognize that and "agree to disagree."
Edit: Argh, ninja'd by a Master.
Isn't that still a 50/50 compromise? While the other compromise you mention is give or take on the left or right ... :-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Strong opinions lead into anger, frustration, and no fun
[yoda]
And fun leads to laughter.And laughter leads to regret once the fun time is over.
And regret leads to more anger.
And anger leads to hate.
And hate leads to
[/yoda]
[ooc]Could totally be a jedi master.]/ooc]
Got almighty, out of all the stupid parts of Episode I, the whole x leads to y, y leads to z, z leads to the DARK SIDE! crap has to be one of the stupidest.
I strongly disagree with you, Sebastian. And I would throw my hot chocolate on you, but since it is dark hot chocolate, I won't waste what is clearly the best hot chocolate.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I strongly disagree with you, Sebastian. And I would throw my hot chocolate on you, but since it is dark hot chocolate, I won't waste what is clearly the best hot chocolate.
The threat of thrown hot chocolate leads to fear.
Fear leads to anger, etc.Thanks a lot, you just pushed me over to the dark side. Good work.
[ooc]Could totally be a jedi master.]/ooc]
But not a BBCode master.
But not a BBCode master.
[ooc]Could totally be a jedi master.]/ooc]
OUCH!
Can I flag Sebastian's post for sloppy BBC coding?
Is that an opinion or fact ... ;)
Thanks a lot, you just pushed me over to the dark side. Good work.
Just? As if...
;-)