Jessica Price of Paizo has discussed with much clarity and excessive patience the numerous ways in which sexism has been and still remains a problem within the computer gaming industry and beyond. Yet despite her attempts to point out the institutionalized problems and not cast blame on specific individuals, she has met with vociferous and repeated posters who seek to dismiss and undermine her very valid points, or derail the discussion into how "white/straight/Xtian males have it just as bad or worse."
Amen.
In fairness, I have noticed that when the conversation veers to "Reeking-of-Privilege Barbaric Men should cross the street to avoid women on the sidewalk, and bow their heads so as not to subject Perfect Women to their Evil Lustful Gazes" (generally posited by a sycophantic male participant), we do get the rest of the White Knight cheering squad full-on telling everyone to STFU if they believe gender-neutral sidewalks could potentially be a thing. And they're supported in that. But -- so what? With no sarcasm -- totally seriously -- that's OK. Because, as noted many times, Paizo is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to "present both sides" of ANYTHING. If people don't like that, there are plenty of other threads to debate things in, if that's what one is after -- so why make oneself look like even more of a boor by complaining?
I now simply take it as a given that for non-Postmodern Radical Feminists to weigh in on the gender threads is equivalent to men trying to use the ladies' room at a restaurant -- it's considered boorish, unacceptable behavior by everyone in the place. And that has nothing to do with anyone's idea of "fairness" and everything to do with the prevailing social norm for the place you're in. Why that should bother anyone is beyond me; that's just how it is.
|
"that they honestly view their own particular view as right, by it's own definition, and anything that challenges, argues, or debunks it automatically puts those people into a dehumanizing category, generally either as a bigot or as having a view that they are not treating others as real people."I guess I'm close-minded. I honestly do view my particular views on sexism, racism and homophobia as right. I do think racists, sexists and homophobes are bigots. (Isn't that pretty much by definition?)
I think arguments supporting racism, sexism or homophobia do show the views of those making such arguments.Please note that you seemed to have ignored the clarifying portion of the statement. And I am not talking about you specifically, but in general. There is nothing wrong at all with holding one's views as right, and that certainly does not (in itself) make one close-minded. The close-mindedness comes in when that person uses that and the tactic of categorizing others that do not share each and every view you have to be monstrous or villainous. If you can remove the humanity from the opposition, and place them wholesale into a category (bigot, racist, sexist, etc. . .), then they must also just be haters, and have an ulterior motive, further dehumanizing and categorizing them.
The truly sad thing is that most of the time, those two sides fully agree on the finally result, and only differ on the particular points or premises involved. For example, I also believe that racists, sexists, and homophobes are bigots. Just not with how easily or how quickly some people are to lump others into those categories, or their definitions of those are. It's the "arguments supporting racism, sexism, and homophobia" that is the issue. Anyone that is disagreeing with you (again general, not specific you) must therefore be supporting bigotry. And the quicker that is thrown out at one side, the quicker the other not only doesn't need to argue or prove theirs, but...
Not that I disagree on any particular point, but this kind of statement always feels like a screen smoke to me. Politicians will do it a lot - they would say something very intelligent and reasonable in an interview, which would make me think to myself, "ha, these people are really trustworthy", and then the very next day I read in the papers about an actual action they performed in their office which demonstrates that never matter how much you wrap certain views in sophisticated claims that they are not actually different or hateful in any way... by the end of the day they usually are.
There really is not much of a reasonable way to say, "I have no problem with X, but...", where X could be homosexuals, members of any race or gender, or of any religious tendency, without veering into the realms of hate that many (me included) find unacceptable. A peer student once told me that he has no problems with homosexuals at all, which sounded promising, until later in the conversation he clarified, "I have no problem with any other sort of cripple, either."
I mean, if you REALLY, ACTUALLY don't have a problem with a certain type of people, than there wouldn't be reservations. Then there wouldn't be things about the way you express yourself that would make said people uncomfortable or angry at what you said.
I will say again though that I agree on principal with everything you say - every real dialog should be based on a mutual willingness to listen, and simply shutting someone up because it sounds initially like they have different ideas that yours is being narrow minded. However, accepting any sort of hateful, prejudiced remark is not being open minded, and I have yet to encounter anyone with a less than liberal mindset that I didn't feel was hateful to some extent. That last part is not a universal claim but just a personal observation based on personal experience.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To momentarily steer this back towards moderation, something I'd like to see (but know will never come about) is a note in the mods comment when they prune a thread down. Something like "Removed 12 comments for uses of the K Word, two remarks on whether TOZ and TriOmegaZero are the same person and a summoning of a demon."
That way I don't look at the train wreck that is left and wonder what I missed.
Also always wonder who was killing puppies or whatever in their posts that got them deleted when I see some of what is left!
Sigh. Then, of course, there are those whose hackles are raised at the concept of "Traditional" because they immediately presume everyone is a bigot. Alas.^This.So, since you were not clear and I may have jumped to conclusions: Which "taboo" subjects were you referring to and what traditional viewpoints that you represent got deleted?
I think if you were to guess which thread it happened in, you'd probably be correct.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To momentarily steer this back towards moderation, something I'd like to see (but know will never come about) is a note in the mods comment when they prune a thread down. Something like "Removed 12 comments for uses of the K Word, two remarks on whether TOZ and TriOmegaZero are the same person and a summoning of a demon."
I heartily support this venture despite any logic to the contrary.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
two remarks on whether TOZ and TriOmegaZero are the same person
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Remember, all I'm offering is the truth – nothing more."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep noticing this irritating trend of bringing personal grievances to bear and wrapping them up within the messaging of more important overarching topics. It serves nothing save to muddle otherwise cogent points and cause tangential conflict to drag over into discussions where it has no place. It constantly amazes me that while generally speaking mainstream liberal points of view are the ones with which I can find the most common ground. Many of the people proselytizing for these same ideals come across as some of the most obnoxious individuals I have ever had the displeasure of listening to. You can't pick your allies I guess, but g*% d$#n...
|
So, since you were not clear and I may have jumped to conclusions: Which "taboo" subjects were you referring to and what traditional viewpoints that you represent got deleted?Sigh. Then, of course, there are those whose hackles are raised at the concept of "Traditional" because they immediately presume everyone is a bigot. Alas.^This.
Vivianne Laflamme is correct about which thread. The mod retained the part of my post that cast the comment in the worst possible light as if I were some monster that needs slaying, ignoring everything else that was said. Of course, no one will know what was really said now as the post is gone, yet the implication that I'm some bigot monster remains...Disgusting!
I've said my peace on the matter, and I'll leave it at that.
|
|
Lumping homosexuality in with "murder, rape, and other unholy evil acts", is offensive. I don't care if you claim it's Traditional to do so.
Taken completely out of context of course, a casual observer would come to that conclusion. This is what we are discussing here, the total and complete bias against any dissenting view. Welcome to the pep rally...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no, enough people read the post that a good half dozen or more posts (including mine) were removed. As I said in that post, you had the general right idea (there could be some points of view being shut down), the moment that you tossed in murder, rape, unholy acts, and the like the language turned into something that was going to get the post removed. Liz isn't misrepresenting what went on or trying to cast you into the role of the monster. The words you chose did not cast you in the best light and whatever else your point was going to be got lost.
|
|
Well, no, enough people read the post that a good half dozen or more posts (including mine) were removed. As I said in that post, you had the general right idea (there could be some points of view being shut down), the moment that you tossed in murder, rape, unholy acts, and the like the language turned into something that was going to get the post removed. Liz isn't misrepresenting what went on or trying to cast you into the role of the monster. The words you chose did not cast you in the best light and whatever else your point was going to be got lost.
It seems you also took the comment out of context, there was no attempt at linkage, if you took it that way, then perhaps I was not clear enough. I was referencing a comment from the first couple pages of that thread, where the very same topics were raised... From my point of view, they are all sins, but what seems to be lost in the translation was "hate the sin, love the sinner" but, it's easier to just demonize someone than ask for clarification.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, was it mean or hateful? I didn't think so or mean it that way, but I can see it (if read at a glance) maybe coming off that way. Was it people looking to be offended? I don't know. I was a bit angry at the time, because I had spent a great deal of time on a post, (from my ancient phone no less), and it seemed like everything was initially ignored, and then shortly later removed beyond the accusation of something I did not feel was warranted. Anyway, was just trying to say it's best to let it go. After thinking back, the point I had been trying to make originally wasn't even that important. Not everyone is going to agree, and I think that a lot of people here that met in real life would actually get along pretty great, as all the assumptions that being faceless on the internet would vanish. Sometimes tone/mood/sarcasm/humor does not come across on the forums, so it can be very easy to see something and receive it completely differently that what was meant. It's also very easy for people receiving a post to not be aware of past comments, so they would only have that one thing to go off of, which can very easily be taken out of context, especially if it was a reply to someone else, (kind of walking into the middle of a conversation in a sense). Its generally a good idea to apologize for unintentionally offending to those who might have been. :) Nobody is perfect, after all. I had not read your mentioned post, so it might not actually even be the same deal, but just trying to help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no, enough people read the post that a good half dozen or more posts (including mine) were removed. As I said in that post, you had the general right idea (there could be some points of view being shut down), the moment that you tossed in murder, rape, unholy acts, and the like the language turned into something that was going to get the post removed. Liz isn't misrepresenting what went on or trying to cast you into the role of the monster. The words you chose did not cast you in the best light and whatever else your point was going to be got lost.It seems you also took the comment out of context, there was no attempt at linkage, if you took it that way, then perhaps I was not clear enough. I was referencing a comment from the first couple pages of that thread, where the very same topics were raised... From my point of view, they are all sins, but what seems to be lost in the translation was "hate the sin, love the sinner" but, it's easier to just demonize someone than ask for clarification.
Well, instead of raging futilely against the machine, you could've gone ahead and rewrote your post trying to avoid phrasing that could be misconstrued.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No matter if *you* know what *you* meant, if it can be misconstrued then it will be. Kind of a law of the internet. The lack of context and verbal / behavioral cues is a killer. When you post on topics of controversy, or really anything contentious, you need to be very clear AND consider how others will view your post.
Well, no, enough people read the post that a good half dozen or more posts (including mine) were removed. As I said in that post, you had the general right idea (there could be some points of view being shut down), the moment that you tossed in murder, rape, unholy acts, and the like the language turned into something that was going to get the post removed. Liz isn't misrepresenting what went on or trying to cast you into the role of the monster. The words you chose did not cast you in the best light and whatever else your point was going to be got lost.It seems you also took the comment out of context, there was no attempt at linkage, if you took it that way, then perhaps I was not clear enough. I was referencing a comment from the first couple pages of that thread, where the very same topics were raised... From my point of view, they are all sins, but what seems to be lost in the translation was "hate the sin, love the sinner" but, it's easier to just demonize someone than ask for clarification.
There is the possibility that I misunderstood. And the mod. And the posters that followed. But it is perhaps more likely that something was lost between the keyboard and the post and that is where the problems arose. (R Chance and Fabius covered this).
That all said, I do not think you are being demonized. Liz did what the mods do here: remove the post, say "don't do this" and move on. She didn't say that you were a bad person or that we should shun you. No one else is saying it as far as I can tell, other than you yourself. It's a post, they get removed because of misunderstandings, because of things we shouldn't say or things we say in anger. It has happened to most of us here and will happen again.
Well, instead of raging futilely against the machine, you could've gone ahead and rewrote your post trying to avoid phrasing that could be misconstrued.So it can subsequently be censored and recast to demonize even further? Why bother?
Thank you for proving his point.
|
|
There is the possibility that I misunderstood. And the mod. And the posters that followed. But it is perhaps more likely that something was lost between the keyboard and the post and that is where the problems arose. (R Chance and Fabius covered this).
Indeed.
That all said, I do not think you are being demonized. Liz did what the mods do here: remove the post, say "don't do this" and move on. She didn't say that you were a bad person or that we should shun you. No one else is saying it as far as I can tell, other than you yourself.
Then why did she leave any part of the post? Why leave that specific part, if not to allow those reading the thread to come to the same conclusion?
It's a post, they get removed because of misunderstandings, because of things we shouldn't say or things we say in anger. It has happened to most of us here and will happen again.
Indeed, and it is certainly regrettable.
However, I'm over it and am done here. My point was made. I've done what I can to clear the matter. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, we are at the point of quoting and replying without reading then.
He stated that we should post with regard to how others will read our posts.
You then proceeded to say, "Why bother?" As if it wouldn't matter. You proved his point by completely ignoring it and being rude. You didn't say, "Hm... maybe I have been abrasive and could stand to rethink how I word my position."
Instead you said, "Your position is invalid because it won't matter."
Which is odd because as others have pointed out it does matter -- because they have been able to post without being 'demonized' and 'censored'.
However reading your posts it seems to me you are too busy being a victim and mad at the world for not conforming to what you want to really care about other people offering advice.
Not that I'm purposefully singling you out about this -- I've done it myself in the pass because I was either hungry, inflamed or just pigheaded at the time.
But it really doesn't make your position or argument stronger to post and act in such a way.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be waiting for this post to be deleted as well...
sometimes all the more so because of their feeling of being persecuted
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **...
I post on a philosophy of religion forum and a lot of the participants there have ten to twenty thousand on-topic posts generated over the last ten years or so. The whole point of the fourm is pretty controversial but it nonetheless remains reasonably civil (apart from the occasional random fly-in-abuse-then-fly-out poster).
Despite often arising in conversation between two people who have known each other for years, I still notice that analogies often cause the kind of misunderstanding you refer to. FWIW, I think it's helpful to illustrate one's point with reference to "Left handers", "People over six foot" or other such groups (that nobody is going to take offense at) rather than rapists, child abusers or nazis.
No matter how carefully worded your analogy or how clearly you spell out the point you're making, it seems to me that someone always accuses the poster of claiming "atheists/theists are child abusers" or whatever.
|
|
Ah, we are at the point of quoting and replying without reading then.
Not at all.
He stated that we should post with regard to how others will read our posts.
You then proceeded to say, "Why bother?" As if it wouldn't matter. You proved his point by completely ignoring it and being rude.
How is saying, "why bother?" rude?
You didn't say, "Hm... maybe I have been abrasive and could stand to rethink how I word my position."
So what you are saying is that I must conform to politically acceptable jargon in order to disagree with said PC jargon?
Instead you said, "Your position is invalid because it won't matter."
Which is odd because as others have pointed out it does matter -- because they have been able to post without being 'demonized' and 'censored'.
When succeeding posts were also removed, wouldn't trying to repost in a more "acceptable" manner itself be futile? When someone can dictate to you what language is acceptable and what is not, you are not free. You are allowing someone else to control your thoughts...
However reading your posts it seems to me you are too busy being a victim and mad at the world for not conforming to what you want to really care about other people offering advice.
Mad at the world? Not at all, I think I've pinpointed where I was inflamed well enough. Your remark reeks of a passive/aggressive way of calling someone a baby though. You really think that is helpful? I believe someone here said, that tone/intent doesn't translate well on the internet. I'm going to assume this is the case...
Not that I'm purposefully singling you out about this
But you are...
But it really doesn't make your position or argument stronger to post and act in such a way.
But if I were to get politically correct everything would be alright? That was a clever way to invalidate someones passions/emotions...
I try to be done, and they keep pulling me back in :(
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, we are at the point of quoting and replying without reading then.Not at all.
He stated that we should post with regard to how others will read our posts.
You then proceeded to say, "Why bother?" As if it wouldn't matter. You proved his point by completely ignoring it and being rude.
How is saying, "why bother?" rude?
You didn't say, "Hm... maybe I have been abrasive and could stand to rethink how I word my position."So what you are saying is that I must conform to politically acceptable jargon in order to disagree with said PC jargon?
Instead you said, "Your position is invalid because it won't matter."
Which is odd because as others have pointed out it does matter -- because they have been able to post without being 'demonized' and 'censored'.
When succeeding posts were also removed, wouldn't trying to repost in a more "acceptable" manner itself be futile? When someone can dictate to you what language is acceptable and what is not, you are not free. You are allowing someone else to control your thoughts...
However reading your posts it seems to me you are too busy being a victim and mad at the world for not conforming to what you want to really care about other people offering advice.Mad at the world? Not at all, I think I've pinpointed where I was inflamed well enough. Your remark reeks of a passive/aggressive way of calling someone a baby though. You really think that is helpful? I believe someone here said, that tone/intent doesn't translate well on the internet. I'm going to assume this is the case...
Not that I'm purposefully singling you out about thisBut you are...
But it really doesn't make your position or argument stronger to post and act in such a way.But if I were to get politically correct everything would be alright? That was a clever way to invalidate someones passions/emotions...
I try to be...
Relevant bits above bolded.
It seems to me that you are saying that accepting the social standards of the setting in your communication is somehow accepting that your opponent is right.
Why not then pepper your comments with swear words? If they delete them for established standards on the message board, then they are just proving that they are just one sided and censorious?
There are rules to conversation in every community in human history and experience. Those rules are going to change from setting to setting, but accepting that certain means of communication aren't going to "fly" in certain setting isn't "allowing someone else to control your thoughts". There's a rule not to be a jerk - is that unfairly silencing the jerks amongst us?
And if you are arguing that this should be a completely free place, with absolutely no strictures on language, I think you are fighting a lost war. There are plenty of places to go on the internet where there is absolutely no moderation, and where communication is completely "free." *shrugs*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A further explanation of this remark would help. Seems like I'm missing something here?I'll be waiting for this post to be deleted as well...sometimes all the more so because of their feeling of being persecuted
HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED!
COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your posts are heavily moderated it's probably because you are violating one or more of the rules often. Perhaps rereading and following the rules would cause you to be moderated less often. The bottom of every post I write has this little clause: "The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place."
It's not the opinion that gets people moderated. It's the way it's phrased. You can cry about political correctness all you want but the reality is that you should do some self censoring in your life. People who complain about being forced to be politically correct generally confuse "being polite" with actual political correctness that has gotten out of hand (here in Seattle they had a discussion on "brown bags" and whether or not it was offensive). Being asked to not compare homosexuals with criminals of any kind is not being told to be more politically correct. It's you being told that you're being a jerk (see The Most Important Rule mentioned above). If you were told that you should only refer to homosexuals as non-cis-conformists or some other thing, then you would be told to be politically correct and I would agree that it's going to far.
I'm not really sure that ganging up on and poking at is really going to help.
You are right of course -- and I wouldn't be too surprised if my post was deleted, however willful obtuseness isn't a virtue, and is something I've found I have less tolerance of than I use to.
|
|
I'm not really sure that ganging up on and poking at is really going to help.You are right of course -- and I wouldn't be too surprised if my post was deleted, however willful obtuseness isn't a virtue, and is something I've found I have less tolerance of than I use to.
I don't know. I didn't read what they posted, but the impression I'm getting here is that they more just wanted to mention it rather than make that the focus. Could be wrong, but they seem like they don't want to argue about it rather than are trying to brush others off. Going back to the "proving his point"/"why bother", to me it reads more like "it's not worth it at this point that" than "I'm better than that and that would mean I'm wrong".
Not sure if it's delete worthy as much as might not be the tone/attitude some are thinking. Then again, it might be, too.
However to be fair it could also be many people thinking, "Maybe I can be the one to word it just right so the position is understood."
Rather than "Hey look at this guy, let me get in on this too."
And to switch over to gaming: We can't talk at all about the relationships of characters in the modules or other material, straight, gay or otherwise. We can't even talk about the gender roles of various characters, even to say things like "It's nice to see women in martial roles in the game."'
Probably no alignment threads, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but doesn't leave us much to do other than argue about monks. :)
I could do without alignment threads myself....
I do like it when the mods that delete the dog-pile, along with the offending post.
I would like a clamp down on derailment spirals, when the topic gets taken over by a few posters and then there is nothing but the same circular argument only tangentially related to the original post. They should be asked to start another thread and the majority of their conversation either deleted or moved. They can post a link in the thread to the new tangent thread.
I do like it when the mods that delete the dog-pile, along with the offending post.
I would like a clamp down on derailment spirals, when the topic gets taken over by a few posters and then there is nothing but the same circular argument only tangentially related to the original post. They should be asked to start another thread and the majority of their conversation either deleted or moved. They can post a link in the thread to the new tangent thread.
I don't know how feasible it would be, however if those sort of derailments were transferred into their own thread with a link left behind in the old one that would be all sorts of awesome.
Probably more work than it would be worth but all the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As something of a dissenting voice, perhaps, I don't like the moderation for derailment/tangent reasons. I feel it's too draconian here as it is - my opinion is that after a thread has gone a couple of hundred posts, it's already a barrier of entry to anyone not already there actively participating. Conversations evolve, in my view, and allowing a thread to wander makes the experience more enjoyable (the "search this thread" function is very good if you specifically want to get some facts).
If there's one or two posters consistently derailing a thread against the tide of the majority, then such moderation would seem reasonable to me. I think it's a fine line though. My preference would be to let a thread spiral off if that's where the participants take it. I view it more as an organic conversation than as a medium for disseminating information.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lumping homosexuality in with "murder, rape, and other unholy evil acts", is offensive. I don't care if you claim it's Traditional to do so.Taken completely out of context of course, a casual observer would come to that conclusion. This is what we are discussing here, the total and complete bias against any dissenting view. Welcome to the pep rally...
You are not antagonistic in any of your postings though right? Casual observers abound on these forums so you might want to rethink that philosophy about casual observers that "might take it that way" and then being upset when a mod edits/removes your post.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what you are saying is that I must conform to politically acceptable jargon in order to disagree with said PC jargon?
You didn't say, "Hm... maybe I have been abrasive and could stand to rethink how I word my position."
This "politically acceptable jargon" is called "being polite and respectful in discourse with your fellow citizens/board members".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what you are saying is that I must conform to politically acceptable jargon in order to disagree with said PC jargon?
You didn't say, "Hm... maybe I have been abrasive and could stand to rethink how I word my position."This "politically acceptable jargon" is called "being polite and respectful in discourse with your fellow citizens/board members".
[Lurch]You Rang?[/Lurch]
To bring up a specific example, Jessica Price of Paizo has discussed with much clarity and excessive patience the numerous ways in which sexism has been and still remains a problem within the computer gaming industry and beyond. Yet despite her attempts to point out the institutionalized problems and not cast blame on specific individuals, she has met with vociferous and repeated posters who seek to dismiss and undermine her very valid points, or derail the discussion into how "white/straight/Xtian males have it just as bad or worse." Not only do they attempt to shut down the discussion, they then bemoan how unfair it is tA message board forum is not like a microphone where he person talking is exclusive . The concept of drowning out shutting down or derailing in this format seems like an oxymoron.
If the conversation is going to wind through the entire timely whiney ball of gender relations (which it does the second someone breaks out the p word) then it is bound to touch on the other half of the equation.
@Kirth
I 'll take a miniscule chance for understanding against a socilal convention any day.
|
|
To bring up a specific example, Jessica Price of Paizo has discussed with much clarity and excessive patience the numerous ways in which sexism has been and still remains a problem within the computer gaming industry and beyond. Yet despite her attempts to point out the institutionalized problems and not cast blame on specific individuals, she has met with vociferous and repeated posters who seek to dismiss and undermine her very valid points, or derail the discussion into how "white/straight/Xtian males have it just as bad or worse." Not only do they attempt to shut down the discussion, they then bemoan how unfair it is tA message board forum is not like a microphone where he person talking is exclusive . The concept of drowning out shutting down or derailing in this format seems like an oxymoron.
If the conversation is going to wind through the entire timely whiney ball of gender relations (which it does the second someone breaks out the p word) then it is bound to touch on the other half of the equation.
Please note I said none off the above. Not sure why it was quoted to me.
:)
If your posts are heavily moderated it's probably because you are violating one or more of the rules often. Perhaps rereading and following the rules would cause you to be moderated less often.
Not necessarily Bob. I get pretty argumentative, no doubt. But I don't see many of my posts actually cross the line. OTOH, when tempers get thin, and people start getting angry and the thread spins out of control and is headed for locked down- I see that just about every post that is flagged gets deleted. Now sure, mea culpa- I got dragged into yet another "Why does the Paizo staff hate the xxxx class and has made it more nerfed than a commoner" thread. Somehow, I can't resist those, mea culpa. And certainly there can be a lot of back and forth, and I have to agree someone might need to step in, and lock down or delete. But note that every post that replies to a deleted post is deleted also, not to mention it appears nearly every borderline. post which is flagged (and no doubt, some of mine have been pretty borderline).
So, OK, posts in one of those threads are often "heavily moderated", but it could be only one or two posts that actually violate the rules. However, there's a lot of "collateral damage" so to speak.
Mea culpa, I could just stay out of those, I agree. So, it's my fault in a way. And, I can't really blame the Mods there. You kinda have to delete the posts which quote the offending posts. And, getting rid of a few which are borderline may be a good idea too.
At least I have managed to stay out all all but one IRL type debates (but it started out about gaming......The thread was about "traditional gaming groups, and I bet you can guess where it went...sigh...and I went with it...double-sigh....)
So, even if one NEVER, ever violates the rules (and I won't claim that) but one posts a lot in threads which go off the rails- one will get posts deleted.
Anyway Bob, you're a Voice of Reason around here, and I thank you for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry you have used Mea Culpa to many times in one post you must be reprimanded. Just remember that this is "your fault".