Website moderation and bias by moderators


Website Feedback

51 to 100 of 609 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Forum: a place (or medium) where ideas can be exchanged and debated.
Messageboards: an Internet site where people can post and read messages, usually on a specific topic or area of interest.

Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. or argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner.

Within this forum/message board, the rules are:

0.) The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place. <completely subjective, if not exceptionally vague, see notes on #2 below>

1.) Users who participate in our message boards agree to not: post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party; <straight foreward>

2.) use profanity or any type of vulgar speech; make any bigoted, hateful or racially offensive statements; <completely subjective, and made worse by Paizo itself muddying the assumed common definition by things like Bastards of Golarion. In practice, tends more to be what types of offensive statements of bigotry are unwritten as ok and which are not. Generally, a rational person in formal manner has just as much responsibility to not be offended as another has to refrain from being offensive, and it is well established that in a non-face-to-face medium, there is even more responsibility on the first party to not be offended by reading into context and also not assuming that another's post is meant in the worst possible way it can be taken without the normal aid of tone, body language, or prior conversation. Some people also seem to interpret bigoted or hateful statements to mean anything they don't like about a given subject, or pretty much the opposite of a debate, and that anything that counters or disagrees with their given point of view is automatically and ultimately wrong, which is then grounds for the okay kind of bigotry against those that differ in opinion from mine.>

3.) defame, abuse, stalk, harass or threaten others; <again, pretty straight forward, and being a part of the base definition of Debate, Forum, and Message Board above>

4.) advocate illegal activity or discuss illegal activities with the intent to commit them. <pretty straight forward, though being an international population, perhaps largely irrelevant or unspecific>

So by participating in a Forum/Message Board, it is rightfully assumed that one can express their opinions, (at least within reason), IF they do not violate the established rules of a given Forum/Message board. If this is not the case, that it is on the owner of the Forum to specify, and it also on them to make it clear what is and is not okay. For example, having an unwritten rule bashing <just an example, a general statement> that bashing homosexuals is a no-go, but not caring when others bash middle-easter cultures, a given religion, or a geographic area/upbringing displays immaturity, if not bias and hypocrisy, not only on the groups that are allowed to do so (consent by inaction), but also on those that oversee the forum/message boards. As I was editing, I noticed the "privilege" example above, that is a perfect actual example. One sort of bashing is not acceptable, the other is.

Another oddity, is that there is no rule about A.) staying on topic, or B.) how far off topic one can go in order to make a point about the topic indirectly. Being that this is the named rule I see most often sited as cause for removing a post, it doesn't actually seem to be a given rule for the specific Forum/Message Board.

Shadow Lodge

Manimal wrote:

Going back to the mod practices of SKR during the ACG playtest for a moment...

I recall that in the Brawler thread, a few people were continually bringing up brass knuckles. SKR told them that, as he had to read every post, such comments as were not relevant to the class (knuckles being a side-issue) should be kept to a minimum; further posts about side-issues would be deleted to reduce clutter.
Now, I didn't read the other ACG playtest threads, but I imagine most of SKR's moderation in them was more about that issue than anything else.

That in particular, (seems a bit off-topic and I did not personally follow that thread) seems to be much more about internal disagreement.

History of the Brass Knuckles stuff:
Brass Knuckles originally appeared in Adventurer's Armory, and specifically noted that they worked with a Monk's Unarmed Strike (doing enhanced Damage for the Monk, but also allowing them as weapons, to be enhanced, negating the issue at the time that the Amulet of Mighty Fits was only a +1-+5 Enhancement bonus that applied to a single type of Unarmed Strike, and could not be enhanced with flaming, keen, etc. . ., while also being overpriced vs all other similar things other classes got), and made it a official change that it did not work with a Monk's increased Unarmed Strike Damage. You could either do an Unarmed strike, or attack with the Brass Kuckles, but not both. Not too long after that, the Ultimate Equipment comes out with the new Brass Knuckles, which once again officially allowed the Monk to use them as originally written. SKR still holds (not saying he is right or wrong) that they do not/should not work for Monks, while other (?) devs seem to disagree. The AoMFs has also since been changed massively, largely making it irrelevant.

As I was not there, I'm guessing that it either had to do with A.) the not-to-well-known ruling against Brass Knuckles (it was errata for Adventure's Armory and on the boards, but replaced by Ultimate Equipment, which is now the most current rule on the issue or B.) not wanting to deal with it and some combination of material that we are not privy to making that issue irrelevant.


Staying on topic has always been an unwritten rule on most forums I go to.

Except LUElinks. But, Paizo doesn't want to be LL :)

Shadow Lodge

Odraude wrote:

Staying on topic has always been an unwritten rule on most forums I go to.

Except LUElinks. But, Paizo doesn't want to be LL :)

I'm not disagreeing, as much pointing out that a common reasoning for deleting posts is something like:

"Removed a few posts. Stay on topic. Please revisit the Forum Rules."

And just pointing out that staying on topic is not actually listed as a rule, and secondarily just how far is within reason to go off-topic to make an argument related specifically to the topic?

For example, if debating if the Rogue is too weak, and schrodinger's wizard is too strong, to what degree is it off-topic/outside of the unwritten rule to bring in a comparison to the Oracle (Wizard) or Rogue (Fighter) for perspective?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

*imagines Beckett asking over at 4chan: "Excuse me, what are the rules for staying on and off-topic here?*

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz wrote:
*imagines Beckett asking over at 4chan: "Excuse me, what are the rules for staying on and off-topic here?*

I don't really get the reference? They seem to have pretty clear forum rules, but not sure how sarcastic they are, and looks aimed mostly at keeping Safe for Work actually safe for work, though outside of that mostly anything is allowed, far as I can tell.


DM Beckett wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
*imagines Beckett asking over at 4chan: "Excuse me, what are the rules for staying on and off-topic here?*
I don't really get the reference? They seem to have pretty clear forum rules, but not sure how sarcastic they are, and looks aimed mostly at keeping Safe for Work actually safe for work, though outside of that mostly anything is allowed, far as I can tell.

4chan is fine... unless you go to /b/

Don't ever go to /b/.

Also, we are starting to veer off topic. How ironic :)

But seriously, avoid /b/ at all costs. It's too late for me, but you still have time!

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
*imagines Beckett asking over at 4chan: "Excuse me, what are the rules for staying on and off-topic here?*
I don't really get the reference? They seem to have pretty clear forum rules, but not sure how sarcastic they are, and looks aimed mostly at keeping Safe for Work actually safe for work, though outside of that mostly anything is allowed, far as I can tell.

4chan is fine... unless you go to /b/

Don't ever go to /b/.

Also, we are starting to veer off topic. How ironic :)

But seriously, avoid /b/ at all costs. It's too late for me, but you still have time!

Who are you to decide that? What kind of authority are you trying to extend here? WHERE HAVE OUR FREEDOMS GONE? ;-P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Odraude wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
*imagines Beckett asking over at 4chan: "Excuse me, what are the rules for staying on and off-topic here?*
I don't really get the reference? They seem to have pretty clear forum rules, but not sure how sarcastic they are, and looks aimed mostly at keeping Safe for Work actually safe for work, though outside of that mostly anything is allowed, far as I can tell.

4chan is fine... unless you go to /b/

Don't ever go to /b/.

Also, we are starting to veer off topic. How ironic :)

But seriously, avoid /b/ at all costs. It's too late for me, but you still have time!

Who are you to decide that? What kind of authority are you trying to extend here? WHERE HAVE OUR FREEDOMS GONE? ;-P

I'm a blue tentacle dog, that's who I am! :D

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Crap, he's got tentacles, I ain't got nothing but my mouth.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Staying on topic has always been an unwritten rule on most forums I go to.

Except LUElinks. But, Paizo doesn't want to be LL :)

I'm not disagreeing, as much pointing out that a common reasoning for deleting posts is something like:

"Removed a few posts. Stay on topic. Please revisit the Forum Rules."

And just pointing out that staying on topic is not actually listed as a rule, and secondarily just how far is within reason to go off-topic to make an argument related specifically to the topic?

Perhaps 'Please revisit the Forum Rules' is NOT a reference back to 'Stay on topic'?

Shadow Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Perhaps 'Please revisit the Forum Rules' is NOT a reference back to 'Stay on topic'?

I can certainly see that sometimes. However, (could have been a bit more clear, but also not wanting to throw anyone under the bus or point fingers at specific examples, thus indirectly at individuals, too), I was trying to mean more like:

"Deleted some posts for getting off topic. Stay on topic or thread will be closed. Please revisit the Forum Rules."

Silver Crusade

DM Beckett wrote:


"Deleted some posts for getting off topic. Stay on topic or thread will be closed. Please revisit the Forum Rules."

But what's "on topic" ? That's very subjective. The comparison about the oh-so overpowered Lore Wareden and Brawler was also lebeled as "off-topic", which is strange. A discussion about a new hybrid class will invariably be about the two classes it merges and the question whether the devs took the opportunity to solve problems or clear things up (as is the case with the brass knuckles.

Shadow Lodge

n o 417 wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:


"Deleted some posts for getting off topic. Stay on topic or thread will be closed. Please revisit the Forum Rules."

But what's "on topic" ? That's very subjective.

That's essentially the exact point I'm trying to make. :)

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've been posting here since 2005. I once posted several times a day. Now I post a few times a month.

My opinion, and why I'm not around here too much these days:

The Paizo Boards were once a refuge for free discussion on the internet, whether it was about the newest RPG or the nature of Free Will. Now this place is simply too regulated.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this forum is a victim of its own success in some ways. It was a great place back when paizo was smaller, with much of the animosity instead heading to WOTC.

Now, we get a lot of that traffic and misery. Considering that, things turned out pretty well. But with size comes regulation. Closing a topic by acclamation and a resounding "SMURF" won't do for the industry leader anymore.

So yeah. We lost something here - but I don't think there was any way around that. All good things, and all that. Or alternatively, "live long enough to see yourself become a villain."


Now I'm all sadders.


Wow, this thread ballooned and went horribly off topic pretty quickly. That's sort of sad.

I'm also saddened to see that people didn't heed BigDTBone's warning from early on.

Oh well.


TerraNova wrote:

I think this forum is a victim of its own success in some ways. It was a great place back when paizo was smaller, with much of the animosity instead heading to WOTC.

Now, we get a lot of that traffic and misery. Considering that, things turned out pretty well. But with size comes regulation. Closing a topic by acclamation and a resounding "SMURF" won't do for the industry leader anymore.

So yeah. We lost something here - but I don't think there was any way around that. All good things, and all that. Or alternatively, "live long enough to see yourself become a villain."

Yeah. Although I think you meant "smurf" there in the last bit.


Peter Stewart wrote:

Wow, this thread ballooned and went horribly off topic pretty quickly. That's sort of sad.

I'm also saddened to see that people didn't heed BigDTBone's warning from early on.

Oh well.

Nothing wrong with a little off topic humor. Helps to lightning a dour mood :)

Though I don't get the second one. A lot of people here are generally agreeing that something needs to be done about moderation.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think the moderation here isn't strict enough.

Sort of.

Over on the GitP forums there is usually a lot less hostility.

Over there, they have clearly laid out forum rules, which are rather strictly enforced. People who break the rules get warnings and infractions, and eventually bannings.

Here, people are consistently hostile to each other. Every once in a while, a moderator will post "I deleted a post," and a couple posts will be removed. But the people whose posts were deleted just continue making similar posts. There are more flamers than mods, so hostility just continues to accumulate.

That's just what it looks like to me, anyways.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

Since I have participated in a lot of threads that Jessica Price has been active on, I thought I would chime in.

Personally...I haven't been seeing a huge issue with her moderation. This might be very well be because I am biased toward liberal viewpoints. If there is lots of moderation in those threads, it's because they generally have a habit of getting nasty fast, as do any threads touching on real life politics. Even the language used is "controversial".

IN the most recent threads, people chimed in saying that they found terms such as privilege and cis inflammatory and offensive, which are generally things that I think are neutral at worst and used as describers of phenomena (and which the paizo staff obviously doesn't consider offensive). Maybe people reading the worst into those phrases and seeing people post about them is what is a significant contributor to views of "bias".

Furthermore, some people post views that they see nothing wrong with, see them banned, and then claim bias. I have seen multiple posts which tried to equate homosexuality with pedophilia/beastiality/etc, and the poster would have his comment removed and seriously be confused on what the problem was, and cry "BIAS". Fair moderation never meant saying anything you want, and believing something is true doesn't mean it's true or not offensive to a large chunk of Paizo messageboard users.

As one of the people that was talking about privilege, I can say that I don't believe I had any posts removed for disagreeing. That said, I was a bit concerned when a moderator weighed into the discussion. I don't believe that Ms. Price in that instance was pushing her weight around or anything, but it is enough to make one more careful on the whole conversation so that it doesn't get deleted in general.

I think there are a number of posters that tend towards rudeness that they believe is just speaking the truth or being honest. Some of those posts do not receive much moderation which is troublesome at times as they can be the ones starting the arguments but 'getting away with it'. But there isn't much that can be done. I've been a mod before and it is hard to get it right every day and catch everything.

I think the moderation is overall pretty good. I think the way that the problem was handled about the offensive post by the OP was poorly done. There were better ways to handle it than be offensive over and over to get attention.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

I actually think the moderation here isn't strict enough.

Sort of.

Over on the GitP forums there is usually a lot less hostility.

Over there, they have clearly laid out forum rules, which are rather strictly enforced. People who break the rules get warnings and infractions, and eventually bannings.

Here, people are consistently hostile to each other. Every once in a while, a moderator will post "I deleted a post," and a couple posts will be removed. But the people whose posts were deleted just continue making similar posts. There are more flamers than mods, so hostility just continues to accumulate.

That's just what it looks like to me, anyways.

This is my experience as well.

There is a lot that goes on here that would never be tolerated on any other forum I have visited for any appreciable amount of time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:

I actually think the moderation here isn't strict enough.

Sort of.

Over on the GitP forums there is usually a lot less hostility.

Over there, they have clearly laid out forum rules, which are rather strictly enforced. People who break the rules get warnings and infractions, and eventually bannings.

Here, people are consistently hostile to each other. Every once in a while, a moderator will post "I deleted a post," and a couple posts will be removed. But the people whose posts were deleted just continue making similar posts. There are more flamers than mods, so hostility just continues to accumulate.

That's just what it looks like to me, anyways.

If the moderation here shifted to GitP moderation I would never post again and my respect for the Paizo staff as a whole would drop about six feet. The moderation on those boards is laughably ham handed, to the point where any criticism at all of content can get you an infraction. The bloody forum rules are 16 pages.

Yeah, no. Lets not go in that direction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
Generally, a rational person in formal manner has just as much responsibility to not be offended as another has to refrain from being offensive, and it is well established that in a non-face-to-face medium, there is even more responsibility on the first party to not be offended by reading into context and also not assuming that another's post is meant in the worst possible way it can be taken without the normal aid of tone, body language, or prior conversation.

This is something that I wish happened way more often. As a general rule of thumb, if I can take something in more than one way, I generally try to take it in the best way possible.


Peter Stewart wrote:
137ben wrote:

I actually think the moderation here isn't strict enough.

Sort of.

Over on the GitP forums there is usually a lot less hostility.

Over there, they have clearly laid out forum rules, which are rather strictly enforced. People who break the rules get warnings and infractions, and eventually bannings.

Here, people are consistently hostile to each other. Every once in a while, a moderator will post "I deleted a post," and a couple posts will be removed. But the people whose posts were deleted just continue making similar posts. There are more flamers than mods, so hostility just continues to accumulate.

That's just what it looks like to me, anyways.

If the moderation here shifted to GitP moderation I would never post again and my respect for the Paizo staff as a whole would drop about six feet. The moderation on those boards is laughably ham handed, to the point where any criticism at all of content can get you an infraction. The bloody forum rules are 16 pages.

Yeah, no. Lets not go in that direction.

Amen to that brother.

Dark Archive

knightnday wrote:
I think the way that the problem was handled about the offensive post by the OP was poorly done. There were better ways to handle it than be offensive over and over to get attention.

I had flagged it and posts that had quoted the phrase and waited a day. Then I raised it as an issue as to why wasn't the phrase moderated. Once Price told me to raise the issue here I did.

What else would you have me do if the mods are ignoring their own rules?


Auxmaulous wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I think the way that the problem was handled about the offensive post by the OP was poorly done. There were better ways to handle it than be offensive over and over to get attention.

I had flagged it and posts that had quoted the phrase and waited a day. Then I raised it as an issue as to why wasn't the phrase moderated. Once Price told me to raise the issue here I did.

What else would you have me do if the mods are ignoring their own rules?

A whole day? Wow. Maybe they missed it or got busy. Instead, you repeated it over and over and over again in an increasingly derogatory manner. You could used the email the mods post when there are questions regarding posts? The Website feedback area? Private messaging someone?

Your solution, as it were, was worse than the problem with the post.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I think the way that the problem was handled about the offensive post by the OP was poorly done. There were better ways to handle it than be offensive over and over to get attention.

I had flagged it and posts that had quoted the phrase and waited a day. Then I raised it as an issue as to why wasn't the phrase moderated. Once Price told me to raise the issue here I did.

What else would you have me do if the mods are ignoring their own rules?

A whole day? Wow. Maybe they missed it or got busy. Instead, you repeated it over and over and over again in an increasingly derogatory manner. You could used the email the mods post when there are questions regarding posts? The Website feedback area? Private messaging someone?

Your solution, as it were, was worse than the problem with the post.

He just said that he was told to raise the issue here. Funny that, given that it's the Website Feedback page where, you know, you raise issues and stuff.


Ashiel wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I think the way that the problem was handled about the offensive post by the OP was poorly done. There were better ways to handle it than be offensive over and over to get attention.

I had flagged it and posts that had quoted the phrase and waited a day. Then I raised it as an issue as to why wasn't the phrase moderated. Once Price told me to raise the issue here I did.

What else would you have me do if the mods are ignoring their own rules?

A whole day? Wow. Maybe they missed it or got busy. Instead, you repeated it over and over and over again in an increasingly derogatory manner. You could used the email the mods post when there are questions regarding posts? The Website feedback area? Private messaging someone?

Your solution, as it were, was worse than the problem with the post.

He just said that he was told to raise the issue here. Funny that, given that it's the Website Feedback page where, you know, you raise issues and stuff.

After he jumped up and down repeating the offending phrase over and over again along with commentary on how the mods were falling down on their job and other interesting comments that all got deleted. Point is that if the comment was offensive, was repeating it over and over necessary?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

SKR once mailed me a bunch of minis from his personal collection. I still Iike this place.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

That's even worse! They're bribing people now! ;p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Barcas wrote:
SKR once mailed me a bunch of minis from his personal collection. I still Iike this place.

That's pretty awesome.

Quote:
After he jumped up and down repeating the offending phrase over and over again along with commentary on how the mods were falling down on their job and other interesting comments that all got deleted. Point is that if the comment was offensive, was repeating it over and over necessary?

Who am I to say? I hadn't actually seen the thread. I'm guessing it was probably from the Homosexuals of Golarion thread but that's just a guess. I often miss large amounts of that thread because while I enjoy the topic, there's an ocean of posts there that would make a fighter/paladin/monk/alignment thread seem small by comparison; so I often end up skimming or skipping many pages.

I do believe that there is a definite bias with some mods though. For him, he felt Jessica was acting very biased; for me, I've noticed Sean in most rule discussions I've ever seen him in, and he's the main reason I stay away from the playtests these days.

That's not to say that this sort of feedback is an open invitation to bash on any staff member. But it's equally important to note that this sort of feedback is not a bad thing either. Sean's attitude has become something of a running joke on the forums that I've noticed, and unfortunately I know at least one poster who's traditionally been very pro-Paizo who was considering not just leaving the forums but not buying any more Paizo stuff because of this sort of thing.


I get surprised that Ms lambertz half of the guys in the Warpirest original thread, After so much of warnings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

Wow, this thread ballooned and went horribly off topic pretty quickly. That's sort of sad.

I'm also saddened to see that people didn't heed BigDTBone's warning from early on.

Oh well.

Nothing wrong with a little off topic humor. Helps to lightning a dour mood :)

Though I don't get the second one. A lot of people here are generally agreeing that something needs to be done about moderation.

So does a bolt of lightning, but you electrocute a couple of people with chain lightning and suddenly you're the bad guy!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As to moderation and what not:

I remember a thread about the magus FAQ where it was decided it wasn't a full attack, but a full round action like a full attack and so forth.

While he and I were in it and many of the posts could probably have been read as hostile, I did my best to read everything in it as just 'grumpy old men' speak as opposed to actual hostility.

Sometimes I read something and I have to back up and read it as 'not myself'. It helps me keep in perspective that they could be trying to not be offensive.

I guess what I'm saying is perhaps some of it all is our own bias coming to the fore in what we read?


Auxmaulous wrote:


JonGarrett wrote:
Pathfinder isn't a very good representative of the real world. If it was the Fighter would die to septic shock when a Kobold ran a dirty spear through his guts, the wizard would be burned at the stake for devil-worship, the Cleric would be a sociopath spreading his faith with sword and fire (and not casting pesky spells - withcraft again!)
...

This actually sounds a lot like WFRP, although there 'Kobolds' are 'Snotlings.'

Dark Archive

knightnday wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I think the way that the problem was handled about the offensive post by the OP was poorly done. There were better ways to handle it than be offensive over and over to get attention.

I had flagged it and posts that had quoted the phrase and waited a day. Then I raised it as an issue as to why wasn't the phrase moderated. Once Price told me to raise the issue here I did.

What else would you have me do if the mods are ignoring their own rules?

A whole day? Wow. Maybe they missed it or got busy. Instead, you repeated it over and over and over again in an increasingly derogatory manner. You could used the email the mods post when there are questions regarding posts? The Website feedback area? Private messaging someone?

Your solution, as it were, was worse than the problem with the post.

He just said that he was told to raise the issue here. Funny that, given that it's the Website Feedback page where, you know, you raise issues and stuff.
After he jumped up and down repeating the offending phrase over and over again along with commentary on how the mods were falling down on their job and other interesting comments that all got deleted. Point is that if the comment was offensive, was repeating it over and over necessary?
And in my defense in the second post I made in this thread I made this statement:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I will apologize here for addressing the situation incorrectly and not raising the issue here instead of the thread.

------

I didn't repeat the phrase to be insulting, I was repeating/re-quoting the phrase to illustrate the inconsistencies in moderation and to show them the post if they had missed it because to me it was blatantly breaking the forum posting rules and I was trying to figure out why it was given a pass. When Chris replied that they had seen it and decided it would stand (for their own reasons) I responded with a thank you for a response (in this thread, where the answer was given).

I disagree with their final decision and they could have made that comment about their decision in the original thread (Modern Values in rpgs) when I raised it as a concern and I would have dropped the moderation issue immediately - you know, like I did in the thread when I was offered a recourse/alternate action?


Auxmaulous wrote:
And in my defense in the second post I made in this thread I made this statement:
Auxmaulous wrote:
I will apologize here for addressing the situation incorrectly and not raising the issue here instead of the thread.

------

I didn't repeat the phrase to be insulting, I was repeating/re-quoting the phrase to illustrate the inconsistencies in moderation and to show them the post if they had missed it because to me it was blatantly breaking the forum posting rules and I was trying to figure out why it was given a pass. When Chris replied that they had seen it and decided it would stand (for their own reasons) I responded with a thank you for a response (in this thread, where the answer was given).

I disagree with their final decision and they could have made that comment about their decision in the original thread (Modern Values in rpgs) when I raised it as a concern and I would have dropped the moderation issue immediately - you know, like I did in the thread when I was offered a recourse/alternate action?

Indeed. And while I understand what you were doing -- but reading it without having access to your intentions, it came across as almost taunting/berating the mods. Which wasn't your intentions, but it just looked bad. And yes, the mods remarking on the original thread would have been best, so that it would have been clarified there.

This is always the problem with text-based communication -- intent is hard to discern, along with tone. There are posts from people I have to read over a few times to decide if they are being snotty or I am just colouring their words with how my day is going.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Peter Stewart wrote:

Wow, this thread ballooned and went horribly off topic pretty quickly. That's sort of sad.

I'm also saddened to see that people didn't heed BigDTBone's warning from early on.

Oh well.

Nothing wrong with a little off topic humor. Helps to lightning a dour mood :)

Though I don't get the second one. A lot of people here are generally agreeing that something needs to be done about moderation.

So does a bolt of lightning, but you electrocute a couple of people with chain lightning and suddenly you're the bad guy!

I actually noticed that error when I posted it, but I decided to just leave it there for someone to notice.

You're the winner :)

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Folks.. having been a moderator for the "other" RPG company, i know that consistency in moderation is almost impossible when you have humans doing the moderation in question. I for one value the moderation regardless of consistency as it shows they are at least trying to keep it going to a semblance of moderate behavior.

The thread in question in the very fact it is still open shows Paizo's willingness to let us discuss things on a forum like this in such a way that lends value to how we as posters might view things. Ir shows us that we can actually talk about a controversial topic and they will let us.

While some posts will be removed, it happens. Complaining about it will just make the moderation come down harder as then they will try and be less lenient on how they approach certain topics and try and maintain it across the entire board instead or letting it happen in such a way that it is a discussion rather then an argument.

My advice. Let it go!


137ben wrote:
Over on the GitP forums there is usually a lot less hostility.

In my experience GitP is wayyyyy consumed with groupthink and way too quick to close a thread. I like a little good-natured disagreement (as I'm sure my posting history will indicate)

Nobody likes having a post removed and that will naturally lead people to be upset and sometimes take it personally - and, to some people, providing the opportunity to launch into their favored role of Poor Countercultural Martyr.

That said: I don't want this board to turn into [certain other extremely-easy-to-find-on-Google RPG site with draconian mod policies].


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some things are just worse than other things. While uneven moderation can be bad, bigotry is definitely worse.

Setting that aside, I can't complain about the moderation here at all. I appreciate a lively but well-mannered environment where adults (and precocious kids) can talk about stuff that is fun and enriching.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Given the stuff SKR seems to have to deal with on a day to day basis (especially during the playtest), I'm really surprised he's not a whole lot more sarcastic and acerbic.

I've been on the opposite side of him on a few discussions, but I never felt like my opinion was being marginalized or disrespected. In fact, he has a gift for keeping discussions on topic that I really appreciate. I wish I could spot tangent bait as well as he can.

That being said, the brass knuckles thing is still totally bogus. :)


The Dragon wrote:
Odraude wrote:
The Dragon wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Terokai wrote:
The only moderator that I have seen the abuse the moderation system is SKR especially in the Advanced Class playtest where he was openly aggressive and was removing posts quite heavily when they tried to point out flaws in the classes (just a note i did not take part in the discussion for fear of being targeted by mr. Reynolds ire at having the gall to post in a playtest without having participated in other playtests as he did to poster on these bpoards. i commend those who did try to make the classes better)

Having seen the posts deleted, many of them fit in the "entitled whiny poster wanting to crucify Paizo for X reason" attitude, which is toxic and unhelpful.

Unfortunately, there were several that weren't and alas, they got caught in the crossfire. Which is the real shame. Not all criticism is bad, especially if it's well thought out and reasonable. And SKR really needs to understand that.

"Not all criticism is bad"? They were actively asking for criticism.

And while yes, a lot of that was whiny, so were SKR.

They were asking for constructive criticism. There's a significant difference between stating:

"Wow Paizo, these are the classes? I've had bowel movements that were better classes! Here are my issues, assuming you can understand them."

and stating:

"Here are a list of balance issues with the Warpriest. I hope this helps."

All things are better when you are reasonable and polite.

I feel I can see where you are coming from, yet feel you are exagerating what I observed in the playtest.

That is basically what I saw. It was not a whole lot, but it happened, and it was annoying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Some years back I was a frequent poster on another messageboard (on cryptozoology, not RPGS). I eventually left because they developed a very hands off moderation policy, and eventually a couple of charismatic (and rude) posters either drove off anyone with a different viewpoint, and those they they got banned by constant needling until the poster took it personally and broke the no vulgar language rule. By the time I left, there was never any discussion really, just lots of back slapping and making fun of people.

So yeah compared to what I saw over there, Paizo's moderation is a huge improvement.


MMCJawa wrote:

Some years back I was a frequent poster on another messageboard (on cryptozoology, not RPGS). I eventually left because they developed a very hands off moderation policy, and eventually a couple of charismatic (and rude) posters either drove off anyone with a different viewpoint, and those they they got banned by constant needling until the poster took it personally and broke the no vulgar language rule. By the time I left, there was never any discussion really, just lots of back slapping and making fun of people.

So yeah compared to what I saw over there, Paizo's moderation is a huge improvement.

Cryptozoology, is that figuring out how to make cockatrices and land sharks? Or is it figuring out how to keep the fact you made a cockatrice and a land shark secret? Is the NSA going to send in a black ops team to kill me for figuring out your horrible truths?

51 to 100 of 609 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / Website moderation and bias by moderators All Messageboards