On Locked Threads

[havoc xiii]

So since your whining about the level of moderation used on this site...we should not listen to you...correct or am I missing something here?

[3.5 Loyalist]

Cool looking snake.

Being offended, and trying to use that offense to get your way against other posters is a whine.

I am not trying to do that. This is a thread on locked threads, and I am pointing out threads locked for small reasons, and those that are quickly shut down in responses to some flagging - which is a very flaky mechanic, since it is tied to offense, which is subjective and can result from almost anything in these entitled times.

What I am trying to do, is convince the mods to stop shutting threads that are alive and moving, with multiple posters expressing their opinions, because some people got offended and complained. Not to never shut one down again, but people get offended over Kusanagi's new look, people get offended over someone using long words. I criticised a paizo, sacred Mary Sue character (not an attack to an actual person), and people went ape. That got locked really hard. Who knows how many flags were raised over just some character analysis (and that the character didn't have much character).

Now some of you are saying, I should not type anything, I should have no criticism. Well I do.

Of course, I am just discussing this. Is discussion bad?

[Gorbacz]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I criticised a paizo, sacred Mary Sue character (not an attack to an actual person), and people went ape.

You're using that word, "critique". I'm not sure you know what it means.

[TriOmegaZero]

I think it is whining if you're only doing it because your own threads got locked and not others.

[Gorbacz]

TOZ, let's get a thread locked so that 3.5L won't feel that lonely.

[Pirate]

Yar!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Is discussion bad?

When one claims to be "discussing" when they are in fact: speaking at others while either ignoring replies or dismissing them outright; promoting circular arguments; flamebaiting/trolling; using one's mastery of the English language to insult, belittle, or insinuate negativity against others in veiled/indirect ways, or even blatantly doing so; yes. That form of "discussion" is, in my opinion, bad (though at that point I wouldn't even call it a "discussion" at all).

I am not saying you are doing any of these things at this moment, but I have seen others do these very things in the past.

~P

[TOZ]

Gorbacz wrote:

TOZ, let's get a thread locked so that 3.5L won't feel that lonely.

Do I get to whine about moderators being out to get me afterward?

[Pirate]

Yar!

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

...

Now some of you are saying, I should not type anything, I should have no criticism. ...

Personally, this is not my standpoint. Instead, I would hope that we will continue to post and discuss what we feel is important to each of us individually, BUT ALSO have the maturity to take a step back and think about what we are typing before posting it, with at least some thought to how such combinations of words can impact others.

~P

[Vic Wertz]

3.5 Loyalist,

I have already explained in this thread that we are not merely slaves to the flagging system. You may now stop implying that we are.

I have *also* already told you—twice—that in my experience, most things that get flagged do, in our judgement, actually deserve to be flagged. You may now stop ignoring that fact.

And I have recently explained to everyone that we are likely to lean on the side of removing posts that other people find offensive. I will now add that that is not going to change, ever, and that arguing otherwise is wasting your time and mine.

If you have a problem with that, I wish you luck in finding a forum that moderates exactly as you desire. (Perhaps you should create your own, as that's very likely the best—if not the only—way to achieve that particular goal.)

[JohnF]

Throwing around words like 'whining' doesn't help the situation, either.
It's perfectly possible to disagree with the substance of what somebody is saying without being derogatory about their posting style.

[TriOmegaZero]

Vic Wertz wrote:

(Perhaps you should create your own, as that's very likely the best—if not the only—way to achieve that particular goal.)

I hear it worked for Frank!

[kmal2t]

Erring on the side of caution would mean removing posts that are obvious flames like "You're a total jackass" whereas when the discussion is about a controversial topic you don't just see one thing in a sentence and jump to conclusions as my example indicated.

[Vic Wertz]

My point is that you and I have different interpretations of what "erring on the side of caution" means, and we use my interpretation here. It's not up for debate.

[kmal2t]

And yet here we are.

[havoc xiii]

TOZ wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

TOZ, let's get a thread locked so that 3.5L won't feel that lonely.

Do I get to whine about moderators being out to get me afterward?

Yes, yes you do but only if I get to help I don't think I've had one post removed yet....I'd like to fix that I believe.

[Quandary]

i'm very satisfied with paizo's flag/locking policy.

[Steve Geddes]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I am not trying to do that. This is a thread on locked threads, and I am pointing out threads locked for small reasons, and those that are quickly shut down in responses to some flagging - which is a very flaky mechanic, since it is tied to offense, which is subjective and can result from almost anything in these entitled times.

What I am trying to do, is convince the mods to stop shutting threads that are alive and moving, with multiple posters expressing their opinions, because some people got offended and complained. Not to never shut one down again, but people get offended over Kusanagi's new look, people get offended over someone using long words. I criticised a paizo, sacred Mary Sue character (not an attack to an actual person), and people went ape. That got locked really hard. Who knows how many flags were raised over just some character analysis (and that the character didn't have much character).

Now some of you are saying, I should not type anything, I should have no criticism. Well I do.

Of course, I am just discussing this. Is discussion bad?

Who is saying you should not type anything?

My view is you should start recognising that Internet forums are not democracies and there is nothing objective about locking/deletion standards beyond "whatever the mods ban should be banned". Declaring what "should" happen falls within Vic and Lisa's purview and nobody else's. (they may choose to ask for feedback on that, but they're not obligated to).

Keep telling people what you like but stop telling them you're right. Keep telling paizo what you don't like but stop telling them they're wrong.

[kmal2t]

Who is saying you should not say anything?

My view is you should start recognising that gaming sessions are not democracies and there is nothing objective about rules changes/materials allowed standards beyond "whatever the DM bans should be banned". Declaring what "should" happen falls within the DM's purview and nobody else's. (they may choose to ask for feedback on that, but they're not obligated to).

Keep telling people what you like but stop telling them you're right. Keep telling the DM what you don't like but stop telling them they're wrong.

[Pirate]

Yar.

Really now kmal2t, this is starting to get petty. What Steve Geddes wrote was an honest declaration of his point of view. Copying the response and changing key words to twist the intent doesn't strike me as your opinion, but as snide backlash instead. I don't see how such is beneficial to the discussion, or if it can even be called a part of the discussion at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

doing the exact same thing:

Who is saying you should not be disrespectful in someone else's home?

My view is you should start recognizing that other peoples houses are not democracies and there is nothing objective about unacceptable actions within the home beyond "whatever the home-owner bans should be banned". Declaring what "should" happen falls within the home-owner's purview and nobody else's. (they may choose to ask for feedback on that, but they're not obligated to).

Keep telling people what you like but stop telling them you're right. Keep telling the home-owner what you don't like but stop telling them they're wrong.

~P

[kmal2t]

It puts things in perspective...although it does kind of take the discussion off topic toward something else we always talk about.

And I don't see how your version of the paragraph is at odds with anything steve or I said.

[Pirate]

Yar.

Ah, well, that is good to know. May I recommend in the future that when such is done, it gets prefaced with such information? Even something like...

example wrote:

Interesting point of view, though I do not completely agree with it. To help illustrate this, I'm going to alter your statement to reflect an alternate perspective.

Who is saying you should not say anything?

My view is you should... etc

See, civility in one's text. That little bit of extra time and thought towards your audience can go a long way to be taken more seriously, and will be far less likely to cause knee-jerk reactions offended senses, and as a result, posts getting flagged, deleted, and eventually seeing entire threads locked.

How you say something is just as important as what you say.

~P

[Jessica Price]

Unrestricted debate and discussion, in which anyone can say anything they want in any manner they please, is not generally a priority for moderation teams on most company-owned forums, as it conflicts with keeping the forums organized and easy to search for answers (threads that go off-topic and have subjects that don't match their titles make it hard for people to find the information they're looking for), welcoming to newcomers (flamewars, insults, namecalling, etc. can drive away new customers who are just trying to find out which product to buy, or how to resolve an issue they're having), and safe and welcoming for a broad and diverse customer base.

So, while we try our best to allow people to express their opinions, we balance that against trying to nurture an atmosphere that isn't going to make people who just want to play the game and talk to other fans about new books or maps, get advice on their home games, etc. feel uncomfortable and possibly leave. And the latter weighs more heavily, because at the end of the day, preserving a polite and safe environment is acceptable to far more people than allowing a flamewar free-for-all. If the choice is between offending someone who wants the freedom to call other people idiots, and offending people who just want to talk about games in a fairly friendly manner, we're going to rule in favor of the latter.

If you want to be able to say anything you like, in any manner you like, you are more likely to find that sort of environment on other forums.

You've just been told by one of the company's owners (as well as several of the company's employees) that the moderation policy is not going to change. I don't see any point in continuing to argue with that.

And since it's now degenerating into an argument over who's twisting the words of whom and accusations of pettiness, I'm locking it so the staff with moderation powers can enjoy their well-earned weekend without having to keep an eye on this thread so it doesn't go nuclear. I'll check with other members of the team on Monday to see whether they think it's worth unlocking it.