Well, since I pretty much don't mind being banned any more ...
Thank you for having the balls to create this thread, bugleyman. I really needed to get that off my chest.
Peace.
|
You, the community, ARE self-moderating--when you don't like something, when you think something violates the rules, when you think something is illegal, you flag it and move on. We check the flags, act on the ones that we feel need to be acted on, and then we move on. We facilitate, in most cases, the community's desire to see a post cleared or a thread cleaned up or, sometimes, a thread's lock-down or removal. I love the flagging system. Why? Because I don't have to read everything anymore. You, the community, decide what to bring to our attention (99.9% of the time) and we act on that in a way that considers both Paizo's needs (good, clean, fun, messageboards where people aren't jerks) and the needs of the community.
And it is indeed a good system. However, even a good system can have its flaws, and this one is rather conducive towards pettiness and whininess, due to the fact that flagging is anonymous. And when there's the capability to anonymously complain, it leads to things like over-censorship.
The two threads struck me as potentially libelous, and so it seemed eminently sensible for their removal.
Never saw them.
I'm glad reasonable measures are being taken--I'm happy that I need not avert my eyes.
And it is indeed a good system. However, even a good system can have its flaws, and this one is rather conducive towards pettiness and whininess, due to the fact that flagging is anonymous. And when there's the capability to anonymously complain, it leads to things like over-censorship.
It's not anonymous to the mods. And we don't respond to every flagging. But it does, generally, point us in the direction of problem posts and threads.
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. :(
You are obviously one of those "newer" gamers, with these expectations that the GM should show you his cards. The old school gamers know that the GM has the rules behind the screen and he can change them at a whim. That is true gaming, not this neo-MMO-stuff. If you want to play the game you have to put up with the whims of the GM, they know how to make the game good, your knowing is irrelevant.
[/sarcasm]=D
|
|
The two threads struck me as potentially libelous, and so it seemed eminently sensible for their removal.Never saw them.
I'm glad reasonable measures are being taken--I'm happy that I need not avert my eyes.
Dude, I facebook messaged you re: those two threads; I don't want to drag old hershey-squirt-strewn laundry out on this forum.
Nothing "heath and the kruelymeister--sharing secrets" about my motives...
I'm didn't see that [sense of entitlement] in the post, although I did see a number of things that provoked a, "Huh?"-type reaction. Like announcing that you were likely going to be banned from the Paizo forums for having a complaint.A few weeks ago, I had a post removed (still no idea why), so I went away for a bit. The very first time I came back, pretty much the first thread I posted in was deleted wholesale. It seemed to me that dissent of any kind was likely to be met with deletion, and eventually outright banning when I didn't take the hint.
I'm glad to see I was wrong.
I am aware of the post that you are talking about, my only thoughts for why I think it was removed would be that, if that sort of comment the post made were directed in the opposite direction, it would be one of the types of posts that I suggest was the cause of the requests for more moderation. The fact it was aimed in the one direction or another should not really affect whether or not moderators choose to deal with.
In addition, it in the context of the thread, it seemed to be responding to [disagreeing or agreeing] with another, significantly more passionate post that, in my opinion, was the post that was going to be removed due to some of the issues it had. Typically, when a post is removed most ensuing posts from the blast site to ensure the context removed post doesn't remain in some later post for people to continue to support/argue with.
I'm still glad that you came back. I was thinking of you again before this thread came up and if you would be coming back and that the issues you have are being voiced.
Really this many pages? Because a post about a certain media figure was deleted? What I find myself wondering is.. What does it have to do with Paizo?! And do you really think the moderator wants to take away your "rights"? Nonsense, and more gobbledeegook.
|
|
The two threads struck me as potentially libelous, and so it seemed eminently sensible for their removal.Never saw them.
I'm glad reasonable measures are being taken--I'm happy that I need not avert my eyes.
Dude, I facebook messaged you re: those two threads; I don't want to drag old hershey-squirt-strewn laundry out on this forum.
Nothing "heath and the kruelymeister--sharing secrets" about my motives...
Heck, message me too. All this reading has piqued my curiosity...
The two threads struck me as potentially libelous, and so it seemed eminently sensible for their removal.Never saw them.
I'm glad reasonable measures are being taken--I'm happy that I need not avert my eyes.
Dude, I facebook messaged you re: those two threads; I don't want to drag old hershey-squirt-strewn laundry out on this forum.
Nothing "heath and the kruelymeister--sharing secrets" about my motives...
Yah it sounded vile.
One more thing, and facebook reminds me of this: I live in the People's Republic of China and nobody here has seen as much dumbass censorship and moderation as I have.
I have to use a encrypted tunneling proxy to log into my facebook, and all I want to use if for is for networking and to keep in touch with my friends. This, sadly, is because those who choose what is and what isn't a threat to Chinese socialism conduct their moderating and censorship according to knee-jerk reactions. I hate that. I have no interest in messing with China, I dont blather about their human rights in public forums, and I am not interested in doing so when so much of the rest of the world is screwing up just as bad.
I read some Chinese forums as well, although it's not easy for me, and the moderation is ridiculous. Posts disappear, get changed, heck the government has thousands of guys just surfing around Chinese messageboards trying to sway discussions toward Chinese nationalism. (ED: I mean they get paid for it, it's their job!)
It pisses me off.
We here at Paizo survived without moderation for a long time. If we're going to have it, it should be fair, respectful, and transparent.
|
In any event, I have NO IDEA how you read a sense of entitlement into what was said.
The point is that it's Paizo's board. They can do exactly what they like with it. You know what the threads were about, and presumably could have put two and two together to work out why these threads were removed entirely - the feelings of the individual in question were probably not uppermost, limiting Paizo's liability probably was. Paizo's board cannot be healthy if they wind up being sued because someone with an axe to grind is stupid enough to start two threads on the same subject (even if libel standards are lax, if it happens defending themselves would be expensive, possibly lethally so for what is still a small company). Given that debating politics is highly marginal to Paizo's business model, they took a business decision to remove said threads to avoid any trouble. Eminently sensible, and within their gift.
And then up you pop, complaining about moderation. The reason we now have moderation here is because of a few people a few years ago who simply couldn't act in a responsible manner. So we had have to compromise, between the freedom to post exactly what we like all the time and having moderators breathing down our necks. I, personally, do not see what the big problem is. I have had at least one post deleted in the past but, thinking on their content, I'm not that bothered - I might have deleted them myself on reflection, or indeed never written them. I'm not perfect, and neither are you. The reason I come to Paizo is to engage in (mainly) lighthearted or intelligent discussion with people who share my interests. I don't come here to engage in mortal combat with political fanatics, or boorish individuals who get their jollies trolling. If threads and posts like that end up deleted, I'm fine with it. I'm also cognizant that Paizo are paying for the faciltities for me to have fun.
Political threads are flame magnets - I'm surprised entire threads got deleted but I'm cool with the reasoning, and frankly the odd post is not normally a loss. The recent activity seems pretty consistent with what Paizo have said they will do.
|
|
One more thing, and facebook reminds me of this: I live in the People's Republic of China and nobody here has seen as much dumbass censorship and moderation as I have.
I have to use a encrypted tunneling proxy to log into my facebook, and all I want to use if for is for networking and to keep in touch with my friends. This, sadly, is because those who choose what is and what isn't a threat to Chinese socialism conduct their moderating and censorship according to knee-jerk reactions. I hate that. I have no interest in messing with China, I dont blather about their human rights in public forums, and I am not interested in doing so when so much of the rest of the world is screwing up just as bad.
I read some Chinese forums as well, although it's not easy for me, and the moderation is ridiculous. Posts disappear, get changed, heck the government has thousands of guys just surfing around Chinese messageboards trying to sway discussions toward Chinese nationalism. (ED: I mean they get paid for it, it's their job!)
It pisses me off.
We here at Paizo survived without moderation for a long time. If we're going to have it, it should be fair, respectful, and transparent.
The difference is that Paizo is not in the business of providing a platform for people to post inflammatory gossip. But there are places to do that if you want. The fact that Paizo has decided to delete these threads in no way eliminates that - there are plenty of other sources for this stuff, and lots of political websites where you can vent your spleen as you see fit. This is not a censorship issue as Paizo is founded in a country with a free press and with the right to free speech guaranteed - they just don't want this crap on their website, and as they own it, that seems fair enough to me. It was a commercial decision to reduce their legal risk (a risk imposed upon them by a thoughtless poster who, it should be noted, has not been banned since he cropped up in this thread) and as such seems fair enough. I see no evidence of state coercion or interference by the thought police and any attempts to conflate the two (by comparing the Paizo staff to the Gestapo, for example) seems wide of the mark.
The difference is that Paizo is not in the business of providing a platform for people to post inflammatory gossip. But there are places to do that if you want. The fact that Paizo has decided to delete these threads in no way eliminates that - there are plenty of other sources for this stuff, and lots of political websites where you can vent your spleen as you see fit. This is not a censorship issue as Paizo is founded in a country with a free press and with the right to free speech guaranteed - they just don't want this crap on their website, and as they own it, that seems fair enough to me. It was a commercial decision to reduce their legal risk (a risk imposed upon them by a thoughtless poster who, it should be noted, has not been banned since he cropped up in this thread) and as such seems fair enough. I...
I was not talking about nuking vile threads and in fact I never mentioned nuking threads at all(as I said I never saw them), nor do I expect to have a right to free speech. What I said was "kicking at someone's reasonable freedom of expression".
Dude, I've been here a while, and if Aubrey and Heathanson tell me they deserved nuking I believe both of you guys without question. I am glad they were eliminated.
You might want to go back and read the two lengthy posts I made on the last page (or 2), I think you may have shut me off before digesting what I said.
Hey man!
I'm still not feeling comfy here. I really dig everyone and I want to feel comfy jamming but... well, whatever.
I'm sorry if my posts--because of their being directed at a member of the Paizo staff--have made others uncomfortable. It came to the point where it seemed like I should say something, in fact it was a moderation post I saw when I first started up this week that broke me. Bugleyman just gave me the right place to say it.
Alas, it seems my observation and opinions do not merit a reply.
|
|
I think it has more to do with time difference. I also read what you wrote - I don't, however, agree especially.
I think your issue is your perception of Josh's attitude rather than a particular issue with "censorship" as such, if I read you right. That's a slightly different point than Bugley was making. To be honest, I'm not sure about it either way - I read through some of your (less than recent) recent posts and think I found the exchange, but in the end I wasn't really convinced. If you work for a company that has an active messageboard, and you get involved with moderation, it is likely to kill your sense of humour about it after a while. A lot of this stuff can devolve into pettiness and stupidity and is probably not a lot of fun to wade through. That doesn't necessitate a hostile attitude but I'm not so sure that was what happened anyway. And maybe you also don't want to go around explaining why you have made a particular decision when you have other stuff to do - you know, like your day job.
In the end, Kruely, you have to balance whether you are sufficiently annoyed to clear off from Paizo, and I can't really tell you what to do (though I would clearly advise you not to). The reason we now have the moderation is because a specific individuals of a certain notoriety decamped to the website a year or so ago and created a lot of aggravation, and because tempers could get frayed in a more low-level but constant way, in the recent playtest. In other words, they have moderation because we, the users of the website, couldn't behave ourselves. We have reaped what we sowed. I'm not going to blame Josh for that, or anyone else at Paizo. It's a sign of the times. It's Paizo's website, they can do what they want. They don't have to explain why they are doing stuff if they don't want to. The only thing we can do is exercise our rights as consumers and decide if we are participating or not.
EDIT: By and large, in my view, the website is now a less hostile place than it could be, say, a year ago. I don't know if this is the moderation or not but I suspect it is more to do with the ending of the playtest. What I do know is that I hardly ever come across moderation, and when I have seen it it's normally in a 4e thread. And even there it is reducing. Personally, I'm happier here now than I was - YMMV. But, frankly, Paizo is much more transparent to its messageboard mavens than plenty of other places, as their regular appearances here testify.
Aubrey, we've mixed it up before, but I have to say I'm in your camp on this one. This site is not modded all that much, certainly not to the level some others I could name are. Many gaming sites outlaw political and religious discussions altogether, so crying that Paizo is being mean is a little silly, considering they are being amazingly openhanded with what is allowed to be discussed on their (read: they own it, not a public) forum.
One of the problems emerging these days is that people aren't interested in discussing issues, they are interested in scoring points against the folks they perceive as the 'opposite team'. They throw insults, false allegations, and sheer libel around like it was recorded fact.
I used to be a big proponent of non-moderation, but the fact is, if we can't SELF-moderate, then someone has to come in and play nanny for us. It's sad but true. If we could refrain from flaming each other, or posting stupid internet fringe crap perhaps we could get by without moderation.
When all is said and done this is primarily a GAMING site. I like discussing politics, but I am coming to the conclusion that perhaps this isn't the place to discuss such things. Paizo could always ban religious and political threads altogether, but I feel, even now, that this would be an epic fail on the community's part should that happen.
|
If it is the thread title I think it was there wasn't anything humerous about it (Title was pretty much accusing someone of doing something highly illegal) Which if it isn't true is Slander plain and simple. Now could Paizo get in trouble for a title on there forums like that? Well I honestly don't know but it is probably best not to try and find out.
|
|
Yeah, and if you have to explain a joke, the joke is no longer funny, so it's fine.
Here's one: "Your lack of humor disturbs me."
Sense of humour differs - that's not really the issue here. The issue is that you were posting about some guy in a way that could be libelous. More specifically, if someone did a search on the subject, the way the page names are set up it could bring anyone (like a lawyer) straight to Paizo. Not necessarily a good thing for Paizo, so they closed it down. That seems sensible.
Now, I actually have never heard of the guy - it must be an American thing - but he seems to be backed by a big organisation with deep pockets. Also not necessarily a good thing to end up against as a small company.
Now, I understand that you posted these things in such as way as to avoid saying whether this guy was... whatever... though you obviously alluded to the allegations. Unfortunately, it isn't necessarily the case that everyone participating would be so restrained. And in any case, as you mentioned the National Enquirer and their headlines, it probably should also be pointed out that they will have teams of lawyers checking their copy on controversial stuff like this. I doubt you had lawyers checking what you wrote, or anyone else, and nor did Paizo.
So this doesn't really hinge on my sense of humour - that's not the issue. If your sense of humour ended up getting Paizo sued, that's not so funny either for any of us. People don't generally make business decisions (like Paizo did) on the basis of whether they are funny.
|
|
Some poeple have a differing opinion on what constitutes humor and what doesn't. I get that. What I don't get is people not voicing their opinion in the thread. Instead, they flag it, which is really, really passive aggressive.
In fact, they could have said the same thing they are saying here, on that thread. But they decided to not only delete the threads but ban me for something no one visibly objected to. And then they banned me. I wasn't really angry that they did that, but gee guys, come on. It was never heated, and the exchanges were barbs, not anyone purposefully out to hurt other posters feelings.
The dude I roasted totally deserved it, IMO.
Oh, and the suit was directed against using his name as part of the website as if it were true, i.e. Someone did something, instead of how I worded it, i.e. Did Someone do something.
|
|
The dude I roasted totally deseerved it, IMO.
I don't doubt it. Having come across another person who sounds like he shares views with this guy, who I found quite loathsome, I would probably agree with your general views on the individual in question. However, I wouldn't (inadvertantly, as I am sure it was) want to cause Paizo (or indeed, anyone else) legal worries as a result of expressing that.
The dude I roasted totally deserved it, IMO.
Oh, and the suit was directed against using his name as part of the website as if it were true, i.e. Someone did something, instead of how I worded it, i.e. Did Someone do something.
So if I posted a thread which said: ' Did [Everyone's favorite MSNBC ranting liberal commentator] commit pederasty while [everyone's favorite CNN grey-haired commentator] watched?' because I dislike their political commentary, that's funny and OK?
Stuff like that isn't funny. It's slanderous and libelous. No matter what I thought about people on the other side of the spectrum I would never denigrate them personally like that. It's beyond humor, beyond political dissent, beyond all good taste.
And for the record, I don't like the guy that the original thread was about either. That doesn't make it OK to smear him like that. It isn't cool on anyone. Semantics aside whether 'did' or not.
|
|
Instead, they flag it, which is really, really passive aggressive.
If I remember correctly, that is exactly what Paizo would have us to do: Not to fuel the fire but to flag the respective post an go on to other threads.
I haven't seen what this fuss is all so I may be wrong about this specific thread but from my experience if you comment on something you deem flagworthy, it only makes matters worse.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As Josh said, it's not anon to the moderators.
And Jared, I for one did flag the threads. I found it offensive and juvenile. If you disagree with the man, then you disagree with him. Insulting and libling anyone is not the way to go.
As I've posted on more poltical blogs "You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to my [or in this case Paizo's] bullhorn."
Edit: And I agree Wormy, I've stayed out, but I took Jared's post as a challenge. I am my father's son. He stood up to a shop steward about a vote, so I'm not going to let Jared hide behind his "Too cowardly to talk about it" stance.
I think it has more to do with time difference. I also read what you wrote - I don't, however, agree especially.
...
EDIT: By and large, in my view, the website is now a less hostile place than it could be, say, a year ago. I don't know if this...
I agree, it is less hostile that it was during 4E. Before the mags were pulled, now that's another matter.
As for you not especially agreeing with me... crimony... "don't especially": what the heck does that mean, Aubs?
Anyway, as for that, I am in no way blaming Josh amd I don't understand where that comes from. I'm not even saying that he did anything horrible or uncool and at times he makes me laugh my ass off. He's doing, as you said, a tough job. What has irked me is not a big deal, but it's enough that I want to say something about it because I think those who moderate need to muster the cool and rise above.
Heck Aubrey, are you really sure you're reading me because one of your points is in my post (it's Paizo's site--they can do what they want)!
And I don't know what examples you're looking at (I didn't give any) but I'm not talking about just one of Josh's moderation posts, I'm not talking about posts that I've replied to and you can find in my post history save one, I'm talking about stuff I saw while lurking, I'm talking about stuff going back over many many months, over some issues that do not have to do with Joshua as far as I know, back as far as when my Dead Horse alias was inexplicably locked in the Times of Woe.
You say the mods have to wade through threads while Josh has said himself that our flags allow him to find problems without reading everything. Who is wading? And if moderating is getting someone down then maybe someone shouldn't do it. And... and... if moderating is making someone judge rashly, then maybe someone shouldn't moderate. (this is where I bang my Kool-Aid on the table for emphasis)
I taught high school and managed 40 violent drug addicts in a small room for 2 hours a day and what happens here is child's play in comparison. If moderating here gets someone hot-headed then I can't imagine what my ur-vile high-schoolers would have wrought.
You say my issue is "Josh's attitude" but I think I summarized my issue in the very same Joshua post that seems to have attracted your variance:
(1) moderator judgment and conduct is a model to the posters on these boards and (2) even-handedness is the best way to keep people on these boards, losing neither one side of an issue nor the other.
I made other points too. But hey, it's natural that the only thing someone would remember would be me trying to open a can on Joshua.
If he will excuse me for talking about him virtually in front of his face, I don't know him but those who do say he's a great guy and I believe it 100%. I am speaking only about his moderation posts and I apologize to him if he has taken that any other way. I brought him up because of him telling us that we drive moderation here: BS. We just flag 'em--Josh bags 'em...
...and it's the bagging that sets the tone of moderation. The tone of moderation will determine how it is received and could well have an effect on how we restrain ourselves in the future.
Flagging, if I may now go back to Shiny, is very justifiably anonymous because we, if I may color in what you've suggested Aubrey, are roughly akin to a bunch of pyscho-crack-weasels with tourettes. Flagging, to use bugleyman's thread title as an (outrageous) analogy, is only the Hitler Youth of the moderation Gestapo. Sure, the Gestapo wants us to believe that the Hitler youth drives the disappearances, but we know the truth.
Josh? Peace. I'm just saying what I see from my own perspective. I know you ignore me. That's cool. Lot's of people hide when they get my emails or shiver when they see me walk into a meeting. I'm used to it.
"You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to my [or in this case Paizo's] bullhorn."
But they do want us to use the bullhorn. They have given it to us. They want, as Lisa has said, to give people a place for people to come and hang out.
I take that to mean she wants us to feel comfortable here. That means nuking outrageous threads and libel, absolutely, but it also means being even-handed and respectful with a bunch of people who don't always agree with each other.
Why, I ask you as an example, should someone be warned if they were to put a Christian signature after their posts?
Senior Software Developer
|
Why, I ask you as an example, should someone be warned if they were to put a Christian signature after their posts?
Because we don't like signatures, we have deliberately not implemented a signature function, and I've emailed several people over the years pointing this out and asking them not to type or paste in a signature into every post they make. Religious or not makes no difference to me. Signatures clutter the board. Same with smilies.
As a side note, we've had moderation on these boards since the day the day they opened. It just wasn't very effective until we introduced the flagging system because it depended on either someone emailing us with a complaint about a thread we hadn't seen, or Paizo staff reading every single comment posted to determine if it was a problem. Since we average a couple thousand new posts every day, that's unwieldy, and during crapstorms like magazine cancellations, 4th edition, etc., it was basically impossible for us to keep up.
I should've introduced the flagging system years ago but didn't. My only excuse is that I was too busy continually rewriting our subscriptions code to match our rapidly evolving business model at the time.
Yes, the thread of ever lasting.
In short this is Paizo's message board, they have the keys to their kingdom. If you want to control it, then purchase Paizo for a good amount of coin and keep the quality the same or better.
Getting mad or trying to win the debate or getting an 80/20 compromise in your favor isn't going to happen. Just be happy you were able to get on your soap box for a bit and you are no longer banned. Time to move on, get off your soap box, and end this thread. I have and moved on joining the community instead of fighting it because it would have solved absolutely nothing and created huge amounts of animosity and bad tastes.
To recap do not do any of the following -
* Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
* Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
* Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
* Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
* Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
And to add -
* Please try to keep politics and religion low key. Personally I think they shouldn't be discussed since they usually end up bad. Keep in mind, people from all political and religious affiliations visit this site. It may be true that most gamers come from one political affiliation but not all do.
* For all of our blunt and vocal 30 year gaming veterans like myself, the boards already know and have heard the complaints of what a certain vendors has done to your wonderful games. Just keep in mind why you are here and there is a solution.
We also know that you are not complacent and strongly stand up for your beliefs which is good but it shouldn't be done here. I motion to lock this thread. I feel that it should remain for all to see but why keep beating something that is not going to end?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to my [or in this case Paizo's] bullhorn."But they do want us to use the bullhorn. They have given it to us. They want, as Lisa has said, to give people a place for people to come and hang out.
Given is not quite correct. Allowed to use is a bit more accurate. And it's still theirs and they can take it away at any time.
|
As Josh said, it's not anon to the moderators.
And Jared, I for one did flag the threads. I found it offensive and juvenile. If you disagree with the man, then you disagree with him. Insulting and libling anyone is not the way to go.
Yeah, I flagged both those threads too. They weren't worth posting in. I would have flagged them even if they had been posted about someone I didn't like. That sort of thing is not even properly considered political discussion. Its the vilest sort of gossip and slander and is not even remotely funny.
|
|
I agree, it is less hostile that it was during 4E. Before the mags were pulled, now that's another matter.I think it has more to do with time difference. I also read what you wrote - I don't, however, agree especially.
...
EDIT: By and large, in my view, the website is now a less hostile place than it could be, say, a year ago. I don't know if this...
Jeez, do I look back on those innocent days with longing. But they're gone. It's terrible, but since the mags went everything went a bit crazy here. But, in the end, it's relative - this is the sane end of the genre.
As for you not especially agreeing with me... crimony... "don't especially": what the heck does that mean, Aubs?
Sorry, it's my way of saying I disagree with you, without flatly stating it. More a professional quirk than anything.
Anyway, as for that, I am in no way blaming Josh amd I don't understand where that comes from. I'm not even saying that he did anything horrible or uncool and at times he makes me laugh my ass off. He's doing, as you said, a tough job. What has irked me is not a big deal, but it's enough that I want to say something about it because I think those who moderate need to muster the cool and rise above.
Heck Aubrey, are you really sure you're reading me because one of your points is in my post (it's Paizo's site--they can do what they want)!
Maybe I'm not reading you properly, for sure, and I'm probably conflating some stuff others have said. On the other hand, your comments about Chinese censorship did seem to be veering off the point about what Paizo was doing, which is the main reason I mentioned it.
And I don't know what examples you're looking at (I didn't give any) but I'm not talking about just one of Josh's moderation posts, I'm not talking about posts that I've replied to and you can find in my post history save one, I'm talking about stuff I saw while lurking, I'm talking about stuff going back over many many months, over some issues that do not have to do with Joshua as far as I know, back as far as when my Dead Horse alias was inexplicably locked in the Times of Woe.
You say the mods have to wade through threads while Josh has said himself that our flags allow him to find problems without reading everything. Who is wading? And if moderating is getting someone down then maybe someone shouldn't do it. And... and... if moderating is making someone judge rashly, then maybe someone shouldn't moderate. (this is where I bang my Kool-Aid on the table for emphasis)
You cryptically mentioned it in other threads, so I had a quick look. I take your point that there were other instances where you lurked and said nothing, and didn't take account of that, for which I apologise. It tends to be Josh and Ross who end up moderating stuff. We have no real insight into why they tend to do it more than others. As the policy is succinct ("Don't be a jerk") but also subject to interpretation we also don't really have much insight into whether this is what is intended. Personally, I'm reasonably happy with it.
I taught high school and managed 40 violent drug addicts in a small room for 2 hours a day and what happens here is child's play in comparison. If moderating here gets someone hot-headed then I can't imagine what my ur-vile high-schoolers would have wrought.
You say my issue is "Josh's attitude" but I think I summarized my issue in the very same Joshua post that seems to have attracted your variance:
Kruelaid wrote:
(1) moderator judgment and conduct is a model to the posters on these boards and (2) even-handedness is the best way to keep people on these boards, losing neither one side of an issue nor the other.I made other points too. But hey, it's natural that the only thing someone would remember would be me trying to open a can on Joshua.
If he will excuse me for talking about him virtually in front of his face, I don't know him but those who do say he's a great guy and I believe it 100%. I am speaking only about his moderation posts and I apologize to him if he has taken that any other way. I brought him up because of him telling us that we drive moderation here: BS. We just flag 'em--Josh bags 'em...
...and it's the bagging that sets the tone of moderation. The tone of moderation will determine how it is received and could well have an effect on how we restrain ourselves in the future.
Flagging, if I may now go back to Shiny, is very justifiably anonymous because we, if I may color in what you've suggested Aubrey, are roughly akin to a bunch of pyscho-crack-weasels with tourettes. Flagging, to use bugleyman's thread title as an (outrageous) analogy, is only the Hitler Youth of the moderation Gestapo. Sure, the Gestapo wants us to believe that the Hitler youth drives the disappearances, but we know the truth.
Josh? Peace. I'm just saying what I see from my own perspective. I know you ignore me. That's cool. Lot's of people hide when they get my emails or shiver when they see me walk into a meeting. I'm used to it.
For my part, I'm sorry if I have seemingly picked a scab or started something between you and Paizo staff, and probably should have thought harder about what I wrote. I was blunt with you because I know your shoulders are broad. In general, I don't welcome moderation but events have led us to this juncture, in my view. It may be better to jump on a post and kill it before too many people see it, and maybe pretend that it never happened, than leave it to fester and generate replies. And, as in all things, the DM's decision is final. All you can really decide is if you want to play.
|
|
Libel standards for public figures are pretty lax, under US law.True enough... but, for the sake of discussion, let's say we're in a position where we're asking the question "can we get our nuts sued off?" The legal answer to the question may indeed be "probably not," but the *responsible* answer is to avoid the situation where you have to ask the question in the first place.
Oh, sure, there's no reason to subject yourself to the hassle; my following point was just that I would just think that an even clearer reason (and one followed by many other boards associated with a commercial endeavour) is that whether or not what's said is legal, what you allow to be written on your boards does reflect on your and commercial endeavour (not to me, actually, but we know from posts elsewhere that you not moderating something is seen by others as tacit agreement; this was particularly true over "angry at WotC over 4e" posts. Even though you're mostly just supplying the internet real estate for the posts, many people read your moderation, or not, as representative of corporate preference; that's probably not good for business when the views stated are contentious and likely to offend some people.
|
|
I am so sorry that I upset you guys. I wrote you guys a song go to here for your delicious, moist cake.
I am so sorry that I upset you guys. I wrote you guys a song go to here for your delicious, moist cake.
Whassup with the CRT - I want LCD or LED ... ;)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
..I would just think that an even clearer reason (and one followed by many other boards associated with a commercial endeavour) is that whether or not what's said is legal, what you allow to be written on your boards does reflect on your and commercial endeavour (not to me, actually, but we know from posts elsewhere that you not moderating something is seen by others as tacit agreement; this was particularly true over "angry at WotC over 4e" posts. Even though you're mostly just supplying the internet real estate for the posts, many people read your moderation, or not, as representative of corporate preference; that's probably not good for business when the views stated are contentious and likely to offend some people.
It is sadly true that some people perceive our moderation this way, but that perception merely exacerbates the problem.
After all, if one poster comes on the boards and libels Senator X while another comes on and says that Senator X should be sainted, it's the libelous posts that are going to catch our attention. That shouldn't be taken to mean that we're fans of Senator X.
I've actually agreed in principle with quite a few of the posts that I've moderated, and disagreed fervently with many posts I've left alone. (And that goes for the edition wars as well as for public figures.)
The cause of moderation is generally not the opinions that people have—it's the way they choose to express them.
The point is that it's Paizo's board. They can do exactly what they like with it...And then up you pop, complaining about moderation.
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.
Yes, the thread of ever lasting.
In short this is Paizo's message board, they have the keys to their kingdom. If you want to control it, then purchase Paizo for a good amount of coin and keep the quality the same or better.
People keep saying this. We get it. Their horn, their kingdom.
We have opinions, they listen or don't listen. That is precisely part of the quality that Paizo provides and no we don't expect them to do everything we say--we had our say. To borrow your well used metaphor, they have shared the keys to their kingdom, they don't keep them locked up. They reasonably expect us to conduct ourselves with respect while we're inside and will throw us out if we act like jerks.
So if some dudes have a beef about moderation and they post it that is 100% in the tradition of these boards and Paizo has always been cool about it. Okay almost always.
The only time our comments have not been well received is when we drone on and on about the same thing endlessly...
In summary, NO! "It's our playground" is not a universal refutation to people who complain about moderation nor is it in any way reflective of the response I have had from Paizo in the past. On the contrary, they have been more attentive and open than any other messageboard I know of.