Some evidence first:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2phwg&page=last?Which-alignment-or-alignmen ts-based-on-the
Alignment thread closed on page 2, for getting off topic for just a few posts.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pv9v?101-reasons-why-4e-blows
Thread locked on page 1. Tried to be one of the 101 threads, mod claimed it was a part of the edition wars, but it was about the problems of 4th ed, with a bit of humour thrown in.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pqgk?Arrogance-and-Character-Stats
Thread killed on page 1. The mod admitted “I'm not sure what's going on in this thread, or why practically every post in it is flagged”. So she didn’t know what the thread was about, and blindly responded to the flagging and locked it. This is on page one, with no breach of the rules.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ppbn?Why-do-some-people-constantly-move-the-go alposts
Thread locked on page 2, in gamer talk, about posters, human nature and moving goalposts. thread locked for sniping and apparently, jokes. Yes, jokes and sarcasm.
Plenty more examples out there. Check gamer talk.
Should paizo mods lock this thread when it isn’t breaking any rules (like the last two threads on this topic) you are only proving my points correct (again) that the locking is getting out of hand. The mods have become overzealous. They shut down threads for weak reasons, as the fancy takes them. This stuffs around the posters, their customers, and as a poster that likes to post, that is why I care.
Sometimes the shutting down occurs on page 2 of a thread, sometimes they lock a thread people are very interested in posting in, the long threads with varied posters and a lot in them.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm a fan of your threads and posts (even though I usually disagree with you). But starting this thread right after:
And this follow up post by Chris.
Is jerkish behaviour, in my view. They want a weekend free of discussion about thread locking. Is that too much to ask?
They told you how to object if you were unhappy. They told you they'd look at unlocking the thread on Monday. Give them a break, for goodness sake.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bit my tongue in terms of responding to the OP. I'm hoping he sees the point though - jerkish behaviour is against the rules. Without understanding that jerkish behaviour is subjectively defined (and thus that there is no "should" or objectively correct reason for locking a thread), he's never going to get it.
I'm convinced he'll understand if he stops trying to win and starts trying to understand.
How is it jerkish?
I know there is a problem.
I have been told there is not a problem (go about your business citizen, or my favourite, stop posting or leave).
I am pointing it out and discussing it with other posters.
I have evidence (there is more, anyone can find it, the above didn't take long to find).
The mods have tried to stop this, denied what I have said has happened and locked the threads to try and stop any posts on it.
It is pleasant to have a fan, especially when we are in disagreement and can remain civil; but mods locking and leaving when what is occurring is really obvious, is not good enough. They are breaking their own supposed rules on being civil, respectful and not jerks.
You could even call the mod behaviour of "I'll get the last post in and then lock it" very cowardly. It is hit and run (silence and run). Although it proves I am right and that threads are locked for weak reasons.
This isn't about jerkness, jerkish or beef jerky. It is about what has clearly been going on.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* apparently not. Sorry, Gorbacz. :(
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a mod says "don't talk about this stuff until Monday" and lock two threads about it, then starting another one on Sunday is inappropriate behaviour.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can post something that'll make you flag the post, call the police, inquire on possibilities of a lawsuit and check airline fares to Poland so you can come here and punch me in the face. All of the above did happen as reaction to my posts in the past. Don't try me.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Loyalist,
If the owner of a bar you're in tells you to stop doing something, do you usually continue because you're right and he's wrong? Assuming you don't, then why do you consider it acceptable behaviour to disrespect your hosts in this manner? That is what is jerkish. That is why you are being a jerk. Because you think your opinion is superior to the people who own the space you're adding noise to and that you're desire to win the Internet outranks their right to allow what they want in their property. They don't want this sort of thread on their property over the weekend. You were told this. Twice. You ignored it. Twice. That is what you're doing that's jerkish. It also shows you have either limited empathy or such a shell of smug, self-satisfied arrogance that you genuinely believe that your views should take precedence over the owners of the messageboards.
Given the rules of these boards annoy you so much, and that those rules will not be changing, (both pointed out by the staff) coninually posting the same thing again and again and again when asked not to indicates that you have no respect for the hosts. As such, perhaps you'd be better off elsewhere before they give in to yuor apparent desire to be banned for whatever reason.
EDIT: Ok, smug self-satisfied arrogacne it is.Please do continue your crusade to tell the people who own the boards that they're wrong and must do things your way when they've said they won't. I'm sure it will end well.
This isn't a bar. This is online. I wonder if they ever heard of freedom of information and the impossibility of controlling opinion and thought online. I suspect they have.
Now sharing links when they have tried to lock my threads is an example of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE
Loyalist,
If the owner of a bar you're in tells you to stop doing something, do you usually continue because you're right and he's wrong? Assuming you don't, then why do you consider it acceptable behaviour to disrespect your hosts in this manner? That is what is jerkish. That is why you are being a jerk. Because you think your opinion is superior to the people who own the space you're adding noise to and that you're desire to win the Internet outranks their right to allow what they want in their property. They don't want this sort of thread on their property over the weekend. You were told this. Twice. You ignored it. Twice. That is what you're doing that's jerkish. It also shows you have either limited empathy or such a shell of smug, self-satisfied arrogance that you genuinely believe that your views should take precedence over the owners of the messageboards.
Given the rules of these boards annoy you so much, and that those rules will not be changing, (both pointed out by the staff) coninually posting the same thing again and again and again when asked not to indicates that you have no respect for the hosts. As such, perhaps you'd be better off elsewhere before they give in to yuor apparent desire to be banned for whatever reason.EDIT: Ok, smug self-satisfied arrogacne it is.Please do continue your crusade to tell the people who own the boards that they're wrong and must do things your way when they've said they won't. I'm sure it will end well.
The internet cannot be won, there is only the struggle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, the idea they need to babysit the forums constantly...
I believe the mods "need to babysit the forums constantly" in the same way you believe there should be no rules whatsoever and that no threads should ever be locked.
Loyalist,
If the owner of a bar you're in tells you to stop doing something, do you usually continue because you're right and he's wrong? Assuming you don't, then why do you consider it acceptable behaviour to disrespect your hosts in this manner? That is what is jerkish. That is why you are being a jerk. Because you think your opinion is superior to the people who own the space you're adding noise to and that you're desire to win the Internet outranks their right to allow what they want in their property. They don't want this sort of thread on their property over the weekend. You were told this. Twice. You ignored it. Twice. That is what you're doing that's jerkish. It also shows you have either limited empathy or such a shell of smug, self-satisfied arrogance that you genuinely believe that your views should take precedence over the owners of the messageboards.
Given the rules of these boards annoy you so much, and that those rules will not be changing, (both pointed out by the staff) coninually posting the same thing again and again and again when asked not to indicates that you have no respect for the hosts. As such, perhaps you'd be better off elsewhere before they give in to yuor apparent desire to be banned for whatever reason.EDIT: Ok, smug self-satisfied arrogacne it is.Please do continue your crusade to tell the people who own the boards that they're wrong and must do things your way when they've said they won't. I'm sure it will end well.
Surely you mean tell them that they are wrong, prove that they are wrong and provide evidence they are wrong. Yeah?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything 3.5 Loyalists constant restarting of this thread is undermining his own position
Yes. Unfortunately, he doesn't realise that he's breaking the rules. He actually sees starting an inappropriate thread and it subsequently getting locked as supporting his view.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't a bar. This is online. I wonder if they ever heard of freedom of information and the impossibility of controlling opinion and thought online. I suspect they have.
Now sharing links when they have tried to lock my threads is an example of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE
No, this forum is private property. There's no such thing as "lawless online frontier", every venue of Internet communication is somebody's property with the rules they lay out. Even 4chan or The Gaming Den have their owner, their rules and their enforcement.
Freedom of speech is not your right to be a pseudo-intellectual wanker and get away with it. It's your right to be devoid of GOVERNMENTAL censorship or control. Paizo, to my best knowledge, is not a governmental agency or is not acting on a contract to U.S. government.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything 3.5 Loyalists constant restarting of this thread is undermining his own positionYes. Unfortunately, he doesn't realise that he's breaking the rules. He actually sees starting an inappropriate thread and it subsequently getting locked as supporting his view.
He's not breaking his rules. And those are the only rules that count. Everyone else's rules are wrong and he doesn't see why he should be bound by other people's incorrect rules.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything 3.5 Loyalists constant restarting of this thread is undermining his own positionYes. Unfortunately, he doesn't realise that he's breaking the rules. He actually sees starting an inappropriate thread and it subsequently getting locked as supporting his view.
The ironic thing is on most forums if someone goes and does something a moderator tells them not to do they would be suspended or banned outright yet hear we have this same thread for a third time. If anything it proves the Paizo staff are relativly speaking quite relaxed on moderation for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand you're trying to go to the opposite extreme because you think I'm implying you went to an extreme, but I never said you believed the forums needed to be babysat 24/7.
That's my impression of what they (the mods) think.
*shrug* same response, just replace "I" with "they".
Gorb, I've explained before, when your posts are clearly full of bile, I don't read them. Now if you could not give the mods a legitimate reason to close this on topic thread, that would be great.
The thread is appropriate as it is in the right place, on website feedback, and it is about what has been happening on this website for ages (but this has been denied).
Paul, so LN, NE or CE?
The fact is also that people here never go to the extreme as they do in other forums, so it makes it so mods don't have to throw the banhammer. You don't see the n-word posted in racist rants, you don't see links to penis pictures, you don't see long manifestos about how someone should go kill themself etc.The ironic thing is on most forums if someone goes and does something a moderator tells them not to do they would be suspended or banned outright yet hear we have this same thread for a third time. If anything it proves the Paizo staff are relativly speaking quite relaxed on moderation for the most part.If anything 3.5 Loyalists constant restarting of this thread is undermining his own positionYes. Unfortunately, he doesn't realise that he's breaking the rules. He actually sees starting an inappropriate thread and it subsequently getting locked as supporting his view.
Yep. It is already pretty civil. One thread above got locked for jokes. Jokes... (no joke). Good natured humour.
To doubt and question is never wrong gentlemen *salutes*.
huh?*shrug* same response, just replace "I" with "they".I understand you're trying to go to the opposite extreme because you think I'm implying you went to an extreme, but I never said you believed the forums needed to be babysat 24/7.
That's my impression of what they (the mods) think.
Again, the idea they need to babysit the forums constantly...
They believe the mods "need to babysit the forums constantly" in the same way you believe there should be no rules whatsoever and that no threads should ever be locked.
Kmal provides some good examples of why a thread should be locked.
Jokes, getting a bit off track, those are not good reasons. Do the mods not respect the posters enough to allow them a bit of fun or an off-topic tangent for a few posts? I don't think they do.
He's not breaking his rules. And those are the only rules that count. Everyone else's rules are wrong and he doesn't see why he should be bound by other people's incorrect rules.If anything 3.5 Loyalists constant restarting of this thread is undermining his own positionYes. Unfortunately, he doesn't realise that he's breaking the rules. He actually sees starting an inappropriate thread and it subsequently getting locked as supporting his view.
Yes, unfortunately. I'm convinced he'll get it if he tries though.
Chaos!
Words on online pages.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kmal provides some good examples of why a thread should be locked.
Jokes, getting a bit off track, those are not good reasons. Do the mods not respect the posters enough to allow them a bit of fun or an off-topic tangent for a few posts? I don't think they do.
Trevor, I see you have not updated your Charisma stat on account of latest locked threads. I think you're down to 1, which means the next lock and you're in vegetative state :)
How do they not think the forums should be babysat when they close threads to be reviewed again on monday on the chance that they'll go "nuclear", as if them not being there could lead to chaos and disorder?
How do I know the mods don't think they "need to babysit the forums constantly"?
They don't babysit the forums constantly.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're right. It's not babysitting. It's keeping the forums a pleasant place to be in the best way they can. And I thank them for it. It must be a sucky part of their job. :(
The important point continually being missed is that they define what's appropriate and what isn't. They decide what constitutes an acceptable level of moderation. We can give our opinions about what will work better. We can't tell them they're wrong though.
Trevor, I see you have not updated your Charisma stat on account of latest locked threads. I think you're down to 1, which means the next lock and you're in vegetative state :)Kmal provides some good examples of why a thread should be locked.
Jokes, getting a bit off track, those are not good reasons. Do the mods not respect the posters enough to allow them a bit of fun or an off-topic tangent for a few posts? I don't think they do.
I did alter it recently, but not for the most recent one. So I should be on 2.
You're right. It's not babysitting. It's keeping the forums a pleasant place to be in the best way they can. And I thank them for it. It must be a sucky part of their job. :(
The important point continually being missed is that they define what's appropriate and what isn't. They decide what constitutes an acceptable level of moderation. We can give our opinions about what will work better. We can't tell them they're wrong though.
Yes we can, and they can indeed be wrong, flawed and hypocritical. Hey kmal, remember when that mod said all flagged posts were like dog vomit?
I want things to be better, I am not an END BOSS here.
How do I know the mods think they "need to babysit the forums constantly"?
They babysit the forums constantly.
You just said they didn't.
It's fine to admit you were using hyperbole. You don't have to try and defend it.
Well they do, but not when they are not here, and lock two threads to try and shut down a discussion before they leave.
So far, no apocalypse, just the exchange of opinions.
Actually that would just be sarcasm. Plain, good old sarcasm.
Err, no. Sarcasm would be me claiming they babysit the forums constantly.
Edit: in case we're talking at cross purposes, this was your hyperbole: "...the idea they need to babysit the forums constantly..."