| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.
Holy cow - this, so much this.
In fact, I'm shocked this even needs to be brought up.
Moderating a thread in which you're also taking part is deeply inappropriate. (There's at least one Paizo staffer who does this far too often, and probably a couple more.)
Very inappropriate.
Needs to be false to be slander :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Alzrius thanks. "You're meant to come out here and defend me against these characters, and the only one I've got on my side is the blood-sucking lawyer!"
@ Alzrius thanks. "You're meant to come out here and defend me against these characters, and the only one I've got on my side is the blood-sucking lawyer!"Well, I'm no lawyer; I just play with their toys.
@_@ that sounds legally actionable!
EDIT: On-topic, anyway: I think it's a good idea if staff recuse themselves from conversations in which they may be personally involved (although I recognize that this might not always be possible, given the size of the staff?) or at least use an alias, to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.Holy cow - this, so much this.
In fact, I'm shocked this even needs to be brought up.
Moderating a thread in which you're also taking part is deeply inappropriate. (There's at least one Paizo staffer who does this far too often, and probably a couple more.)
Very inappropriate.
This would go a long way to make these forums better. Also, staff members not making broad insulting generalizations about those folks who have different opinions from their own (or simply wish to discuss a facet of a topic that the staffer doesn't view as THE most important.)
In general, staff members following the most important rule.
Actually, I just looked the case over, and you don't stand corrected; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the New York Times, which Dan Moldea was suing for their negative review of his book.
Perhaps should have read it instead of just looking it over.
To allow a plaintiff to base a lawsuit on claims of mischief, without some indication that the review's interpretations are unsupportable, would wreak havoc on the law of defamation.
That's the key phrase there, highlighted. The Court of Appeals specifically noted that reviews can be actionable (`A writer may not commit libel at will merely by labelling his work a "review."') and that `there is no wholesale exemption from liability in defamation for statements of "opinion."'
The important question is whether the opinions expressed are "supportable." Again, quoting from the decision, "[Consider] if, for example, the review stated or implied that Interference was a badly written book because its author was a drug dealer. In that situation, this case would parallel Milkovich: the reviewer would simply be employing the medium of a book review as a vehicle for what would be a garden-variety libel, and the review would thus potentially be actionable." The court suggested specifically that "a critic's interpretation must be rationally supportable by reference to the actual text he or she is evaluating" and that "[a] critic's statement must be a rational assessment or account of something the reviewer can point to in the text, or omitted from the text, being critiqued." (Emphasis in original.)
Oddly enough, that's exactly what most "kvetching" on the Internet isn't. Odaraude provided a good example:
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."
Gorbacz gave similar examples:
X: So, as far as I can see the feat Y was designed by somebody who went through a failed lobotomy, which is actually a job requirement for working as a designer at Paizo lolololol.
Obviously, neither of these are actual quotes. But you'd be hard-pressed to "support" these statements. If I said "whoever designed this feat was obviously stoned out of his mind on LSD," that would be accusing someone of a felony.
Needs to be false to be slander :)
Depends on the jurisdiction. Not in Japan. And remember that the Internet runs everywhere.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to take a moment to say that we're taking the feedback from this thread seriously. Improving our moderation practices isn't easy (or even possible) without hearing from members of the messageboard community. I've addressed some of the topics brought up in this thread below:
In regards to "off-topic" posting, I can see how it would be confusing to people who don't have the context of the posts that were removed. Sometimes the "revisit the messageboard rules" comment is intended to be removed from the "off-topic" statement (sometimes posts that both cross the line in terms of messageboard rules and are off-topic are removed at the same time). This is something I think we can definitely be clearer about in the future.
We have all kinds of gamers on our site (whether they play Pathfinder, D&D, or whatever their preferred game of choice), and we keep aiming to make paizo.com friendly and welcoming place to engage in discussion. Edition warring posts are in conflict with that goal.
I would also like to point out that for privacy of the people involved, we don't call out members of the community through the messageboards. I've gone back and removed posts calling out others by name. Let's try to keep those lines of discussion out of this thread, please.
Thank you for the feedback we've received here. If you have further comments, you can continue to post them here (or in a separate Website Feedback thread if it involves a different topic) or email webmaster@paizo.com.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you Chris, this makes me appreciate Paizo all the more. I think that staff participating in and moderating a thread at the same time is the main area of concern for me.
Liz Courts has her Lilith avatar, for when she takes her Paizo helmet off to give her personal opinion. I think this is a great way to avoid having people misread the personal opinion of staff as official Paizo policy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.
I have to disagree with this idea. In theory it sounds like a great way to get an impartial moderator, but I think the reality might have a bad effect.
[Speculation] Paizo moderators are working at a job. If they have to tell their boss/co-workers that they can't do their job because they have been participating in a thread, they are going to be much less inclined to be active on these boards. I think that would be a great loss, and would cause the staff of Paizo to avoid the boards for fear of conflict of interest. [/speculation]
Having the Paizo staff engaged and active on the boards is a huge benefit to everyone involved. Every possible step should be taken to ensure that they feel their participation won't be used against them.
As for the legal stuff: I always thought that internet speech wasn't really taken seriously, but I was detained by the police for an extended period of time because of internet rumors that protesters would simply accept a ticket or summons, and continue protesting. While I found that idea absurd it apparently was upheld by NYS judge Sullivan in October 2012
EDIT: The 8th Dwarf makes a good point that Moderators should have their official Avatar, and a personal one so that their personal opinions can be separated from official duties.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that this comment doesn't bring up any awkwardness, but I would also like to say that I'm happy that Ross Byers is still active here even though it is no longer a job requirement. I would hope that spirit applies to everyone at Paizo and other related publishers.
I also wish Ross all the best in whatever his future holds!
Ohh I didn't know Ross left - is there a good luck Ross thread?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that this comment doesn't bring up any awkwardness, but I would also like to say that I'm happy that Ross Byers is still active here even though it is no longer a job requirement. I would hope that spirit applies to everyone at Paizo and other related publishers.
I also wish Ross all the best in whatever his future holds!
Thanks. (For those who missed it, I left Paizo last May so my wife and I could move to sunnier weather.) I think I might actually be more active now that it isn't a job requirement: because I no longer have to worry about sounding like an Official position or what might happen if that thread got heated later. I know I certainly enjoy my activity more now, because I can simply avoid and hide contentious threads instead of having to read them.
But in all seriousness: Moderation is HARD: it is mentally draining and it's an imperfect science at best. Cut the mods some slack: they're doing their best.
Also, trying to keep up with all the posts on this board is like drinking from a firehose. If there's something you see that you think the mods should see, don't assume they've seen it and judged that it was okay. Flag it, to make sure they see it, and move on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like to point out that for privacy of the people involved, we don't call out members of the community through the messageboards. I've gone back and removed posts calling out others by name. Let's try to keep those lines of discussion out of this thread, please.
I did not, yet you removed my post anyway. Which is kind of the double standard you guys maintain while moderating.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you're not calling out someone by name doesn't mean you're not identifying a particular person.
Omigod, it's happening right now! Fie on thee, SKR! Fie on thee!!:P
Speaking seriously, I'm fine with the current moderation on these boards. Every time I've had one of my posts removed, the mods have had perfectly valid reasons to do so.
It seems absurd to say that people are allowed to make criticisms about actions of moderators, just so long as they don't identify which moderator they are talking about. Especially with the reasoning deployed by one moderator, who will go unnamed, who posted in this thread about 10 minutes before this post of mine: any specific criticism or criticism referring to a certain event is going to identify the moderator in question.
It seems absurd to say that people are allowed to make criticisms about actions of moderators, just so long as they don't identify which moderator they are talking about.
I don't think anyone is saying that.
I was referring to magnuskn's post (complaint?) that his post (about another poster, not a moderator) was removed even though it didn't call anyone out by name.
Just because you don't use someone's name doesn't mean you're not calling them out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you're not calling out someone by name doesn't mean you're not identifying a particular person.
Just because that person continually attacks people when they cricitise some of Paizos design decisions, it should not make him immune to have the same standards of moderation which apply to the rest of us. Because it's an obvious and ugly double standard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, bravo, double standard yet proven again.
Guys, they don't mean calling people out as in "This Paizo staffer said something mean," nor do they mean "You, person to whom I am responding, said something mean." They're talking about earlier when one poster made references to a poster that she was confident everyone else would recognize (and was right; someone supplied the name).
I would also like to point out that for privacy of the people involved, we don't call out members of the community through the messageboards. I've gone back and removed posts calling out others by name. Let's try to keep those lines of discussion out of this thread, please.I did not, yet you removed my post anyway. Which is kind of the double standard you guys maintain while moderating.
I'm sorry this was interpreted this way. However, an issue regarding a specific poster isn't something we resolve on the messageboards. If you have concerns about a particular individual, you can let us know at webmaster@paizo.com.
Guys, they don't mean calling people out as in "This Paizo staffer said something mean," nor do they mean "You, person to whom I am responding, said something mean." They're talking about earlier when one poster made references to a poster that she was confident everyone else would recognize (and was right; someone supplied the name).
I should note that this explanation made a lot more sense before the three posts above it disappeared, which happened in the 90 seconds it took me to compose it.
Alrighty, will do so, after I finish wiping to Garrosh for the 20th time with this Flex group I am in. <sigh>
Or maybe tomorrow. My god, that Flex raid was frustrating. And futile. And fruitless.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We agree!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a huge poster, but I do read a lot, and I do want to add a little bit. The moderation is pretty good, but I have noticed some mods who participate in some touchy threads. They have strong feelings about certain subjects and because of that moderation in that thread by that mod can seem very uncool. Even is the mod is doing their best to remain neutral, when it comes to some threads (Especially in the off topic forum), if a mod wants to participate in a thread that they are passionate about, they really should not be moderating that thread.
Note with things like gaming rules, or play tests, it is different, but for things like off topic threads, it is way to easy to seem like you are deleting posts that you don't agree with, if you are moderating and posting opinions.
As someone who occasionally wades into many of the kinds of threads mentioned here I just want to point out that I have seen many internet communities that are moderated to within an inch of their lives; to the extent that discussion becomes impossible.
Paizo is not one of those places and I have enjoyed the discussion in many threads here, even the ones that the mods might have a conflict of interest in due to also participating in.
As someone who occasionally wades into many of the kinds of threads mentioned here I just want to point out that I have seen many internet communities that are moderated to within an inch of their lives; to the extent that discussion becomes impossible.
Paizo is not one of those places and I have enjoyed the discussion in many threads here, even the ones that the mods might have a conflict of interest in due to also participating in.
Yes, we have good moderation here.
When you work in a niche industry, you're going to get a lot of instances of friends working for the competition, and that competition could well be your prospective employer tomorrow (and in many cases especially evident at Paizo *was* your employer yesterday.) Maintaining good (or at least avoiding bad) relationships is pretty much a must.Sure. I didn't mean it to sound like a bad thing, I was just pointing out that from way back in the day that is the reasoning that was often given as to why they didn't want Edition Wars.
Oh, I didn't read it that way at all, I was just adding more to back up what you said :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.Holy cow - this, so much this.
In fact, I'm shocked this even needs to be brought up.
Moderating a thread in which you're also taking part is deeply inappropriate. (There's at least one Paizo staffer who does this far too often, and probably a couple more.)
Very inappropriate.
How is it inappropriate? You will find that most staffers and or mods even from different sites take place in conversations and such in most threads. If they were to excuse themselves from moderating simply because they are taking part in the thread they would not be much of a moderator then.
If you have a problem with a moderator and their discussion and or moderation actions you have the report link in their post. Many mods and staffers have brought this up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might also be a good idea for staff not to moderate discussions they're taking part in. Pass it on to someone else.Holy cow - this, so much this.
In fact, I'm shocked this even needs to be brought up.
Moderating a thread in which you're also taking part is deeply inappropriate. (There's at least one Paizo staffer who does this far too often, and probably a couple more.)
Very inappropriate.
How is it inappropriate? You will find that most staffers and or mods even from different sites take place in conversations and such in most threads. If they were to excuse themselves from moderating simply because they are taking part in the thread they would not be much of a moderator then.
If you have a problem with a moderator and their discussion and or moderation actions you have the report link in their post. Many mods and staffers have brought this up.
Isn't the issue that - when participating in a thread they personally feel strongly about the subject matter of - the moderation runs the risk of becoming subjective rather than objective?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather the moderators stay out of the heated/controversial threads if they do not cover Paizo product or edition warring.
To me the core issue is when a moderator (who is human, and will take a stance on one side or another) is posting and moderating in non-paizo product thread and is either deleting posts that they dislike or is being zealous of maintaining "off topic" moderation when a post deviates from the subject matter is dear to their personal beliefs.
IMO (and this is just my opinion) - the safest and most consistent way to go would be if moderators stayed out of non-paizo product discussions and just moderate the forums - for language, post that break forum rules and to eliminate attacks/insults on other posters.
Example: Right now we have more than a few gender-roles/gender politics threads going on simultaneously and some of the regular posters in those threads are Paizo staff. I understand that this issue are near and dear to most if not all the staff here, but is it really necessary for the staff to both post in and moderate threads that are already volatile/hot-button issues? Is it necessary for Paizo staff to post in these at all?
At best this comes across as unprofessional and at worst it looks like some of the staff posters are using the threads here as a soapbox to convey their personal views and those that don't stay 100% on top of the moderators immediate discussion are quashed.
Not saying it IS SO, saying that's how it LOOKS to some of us.
You guys (staff) have all the power here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the moderation is fine most of the time, and light in a few cases. Before the pitchforks come out, let me explain.
There are people on the site that take great joy in being problematic or argumentative, for the sake of doing so. After the mods have to delete post after post in these little battles, I'd like/hope that they could send a little letter to some of these people asking them to tone it down.
They may already do that -- I've not heard about it if so. But there are threads that can start and you know that X and Y are going to chime in and the thread is going to be locked in a heartbeat.
Am I asking for some draconian rule? Not at all. But when Poster X has to have 200 posts a week pulled down (an exaggeration, but still) because they are frothing at the mouth and screaming at people, maybe they need a little time out or a mention in their ear to be a bit more polite, a bit more willing to have a conversation instead of a rant.