I recently saw a thread closed with the message "Locking. If you have feedback on specific products, please post in the appropriate forum. Additionally, abusive comments towards any paizo.com community member, staff or otherwise, is not OK here." (emphasis mine). There were definitely abusive comments in the thread; moderating it was a good thing! However, it reminded me of a short exchange I had with a Paizo staffer the other day. I feel that Mr. Reynolds's comments towards me were abusive and disrespectful. That thread was eventually locked, but for unrelated reasons.
The thing is, this isn't the first time I'm observed such behavior from staff members. I'm not going to link to a catalog of such posts. That would be inappropriate and witch huntish. But there seems to be a general trend. Abusive and disrespectful behavior seems to be tolerated when it comes from staffers. Is there some unwritten exception in the "don't be a jerk" rule that I'm unaware of? Otherwise, it seems like the rule is being unevenly enforced.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to ask... what is it that you hypothetically are looking to achieve in opening this thread? What good is supposed to come from this? In what way is anyone going to benefit from this? Personally I try to ask myself those kinds of questions before I post, here or elsewhere.
Honestly, this is the third major flame-bait thread started recently with incendiary titles. You may not intend it that way and the other other thread starters may not have either, but somewhere along the line it seems that a few visitors here have decided to push buttons and adopt an attitude of injured pride when there's a reaction.
I have to ask... what is it that you hypothetically are looking to achieve in opening this thread? What good is supposed to come from this? In what way is anyone going to benefit from this? Personally I try to ask myself those kinds of questions before I post, here or elsewhere.
I'm seeking clarification on moderation policy. In particular, I'm seeking to understand whether this double standard wherein some Paizo staffers act abusively and disrespectfully is intentional. I was quite earnest in my question about whether there is an unwritten exception in the rules. If there is, then I'll know not to expect otherwise.
I understand that asking these sorts of questions does run the risk of tempers flaring, but that is why I'm trying to keep my posts here as calm and respectful as possible.
You are not going to get it.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recently saw a thread closed with the message "Locking. If you have feedback on specific products, please post in the appropriate forum. Additionally, abusive comments towards any paizo.com community member, staff or otherwise, is not OK here." (emphasis mine). There were definitely abusive comments in the thread; moderating it was a good thing! However, it reminded me of a short exchange I had with a Paizo staffer the other day. I feel that Mr. Reynolds's comments towards me were abusive and disrespectful. That thread was eventually locked, but for unrelated reasons.
The thing is, this isn't the first time I'm observed such behavior from staff members. I'm not going to link to a catalog of such posts. That would be inappropriate and witch huntish. But there seems to be a general trend. Abusive and disrespectful behavior seems to be tolerated when it comes from staffers. Is there some unwritten exception in the "don't be a jerk" rule that I'm unaware of? Otherwise, it seems like the rule is being unevenly enforced.
FWIW, I dont think Sean was abusive and disrespectful. I obviously wasnt the person the post was directed to, so I'm not really in a position to judge. However, if that's the kind of thing you're talking about it doesnt seem jerkish to me.
.For my part, strongly disagreeing with someone's argument, rejecting their premises or outright declaring the other poster to be wrong in a somewhat blunt fashion isnt jerkish. As I see it, a post becomes jerkish when it becomes an attack on the person rather than the argument presented. In the exchange you posted, Sean was basically making the argument that you're not entitled to form a view as to whether the amount of energy the design team put into errata/FAQ answering is sufficient, since you're not aware of all the relevant factors. You might or might not agree with that, but he didnt make any judgement about you as a person - he just said you're not in a position to know. (I do think he imputed a view to you you didnt state, which is something you subsequently pointed out - also in a non-jerkish way).
Similarly, I have no problem when people say "Rule X in Pathfinder is totally unplayable" or "This feat combination is ridiculously unbalanced". Where it becomes jerkish, in my view, is when people say things like "This shows the designers have no interest in producing a balanced game" or "It's obvious Paizo's designers dont know what they're doing" or similar.
Long story short - I think the rule does apply to staff members and I suspect that they (like most of us) break it from time to time. In this particular case though, I dont think he was being a jerk.
I recently saw a thread closed with the message "Locking. If you have feedback on specific products, please post in the appropriate forum. Additionally, abusive comments towards any paizo.com community member, staff or otherwise, is not OK here." (emphasis mine). There were definitely abusive comments in the thread; moderating it was a good thing! However, it reminded me of a short exchange I had with a Paizo staffer the other day. I feel that Mr. Reynolds's comments towards me were abusive and disrespectful. That thread was eventually locked, but for unrelated reasons.
The thing is, this isn't the first time I'm observed such behavior from staff members. I'm not going to link to a catalog of such posts. That would be inappropriate and witch huntish. But there seems to be a general trend. Abusive and disrespectful behavior seems to be tolerated when it comes from staffers. Is there some unwritten exception in the "don't be a jerk" rule that I'm unaware of? Otherwise, it seems like the rule is being unevenly enforced.
FWIW, I dont think Sean was abusive and disrespectful. I obviously wasnt the person the post was directed to, so I'm not really in a position to judge. However, if that's the kind of thing you're talking about it doesnt seem jerkish to me.
.
For my part, strongly disagreeing with someone's argument, rejecting their premises or outright declaring the other poster to be wrong in a somewhat blunt fashion isnt jerkish. As I see it, a post becomes jerkish when it becomes an attack on the person rather than the argument presented. In the exchange you posted, Sean was basically making the argument that you're not entitled to form a view as to whether the amount of energy the design team put into errata/FAQ answering is sufficient, since you're not aware of all the relevant factors. You...
You go to Costco (warehouse wholesaler) and the shelf is empty of cheese. You ask for cheese. No one brings cheese. You ask again. Still nothing. You say "what does it take to get some product stocked over here?" The clerk tells you, "you're wrong! Look I stocked the chicken, I stocked the bread, I stocked the beer! You can't say I don't stock!" You say, "I don't care that you did that stuff! I want cheese dag nab it!" The clerk says, "look here, stocking shelves isn't my primary responcibility, in fact no one here has that job!" You say, "will it ever be possible for me to get cheese, it's been 2 years!" The clerk says, "do you know how long it takes to count the safe? Do you know how long it takes to print and hang price tags? Do you know how long it takes to receive a truck? No! So you don't get to tell me about not stocking cheese!"
Who's the jerk in that scenario? You or the Clerk?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The clerk. The customer. Both?
It's not analogous to what happened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your right, what Sean did was worse. Because he dumped on Vivianne when he was upset with Question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your right, what Sean did was worse. Because he dumped on Vivianne when he was upset with Question.
*shrug*
I really dont see it. I've seen Sean be rude, but he wasnt there, in my opinion. (He did impute an argument to Vivianne that Vivianne didnt make, which is something to be debated, but it isnt inherently rude).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are people, both staff and guest, who come across poorly on the boards from time to time. Whether being perceived as hostile or rude or abrasive or demanding or an assortment of other imperfections.
Does staff get a pass on this behavior? Not really, not that I've seen, no more than the random poster who doesn't get their posts yanked for any of the above problems. In fact, I imagine staff hears it on the backside, in person or over the phone or in a private message rather than being castigated in front of the community. I doubt this is something that they are going to trot out to explain to the community -- that would negate doing it elsewhere.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had something happen in the same vein, but here is how i honestly look at it. This is Paizo's website, their boards, their company. So its their house. I dont have to like how they do things in their house, but while i'm here visiting it would behoove me to follow their rules. Whether they seem hypocritical or not. I would like to think it should work both ways, but i have found, in my opinion, that life doesnt work that way.
For the most part, most of the staffers on the boards seem to be on the up and up (from what ive seen) though yeah Sean can be snarktastic. I spent a long while in the army, used to that sort of deal so it doesnt bother me.
stay cool Vivianne though!
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vivianne,
I read Question's thread and though you're not responsible for it, the thread was poisoned from the start with an accusatory tone.
Sean was explaining that the matter of a FAQ not being answered is not black and white and that he had a lot of demands on his time. You can choose to take that as a hostile statement directed towards you, or—you can interpret it as asking for empathy. You can dismiss me as biased, but I believe Sean was explaining himself as best he could as asking for perspective.
Your response was something akin to, "Not my problem." "What exactly does this have to do with me again?" It was pretty cold and distant.
Is the implication here that you'll refuse to respond to the at least sixty-something people who have asked for a response to this ice tomb hex issue because you don't like how one person is talking about it?
That's a really loaded question. Honestly, don't you think? Because it is a really terrible thing to suggest that anyone would do that. He's never going to say yes to that. And, it's kinda of insulting to have to answer "No" to it as well.
Let's exaggerate this, just to make it clearer. If someone asks me, "Does this imply that you're going to kick puppies because a puppy did his business on your lawn?" That's a trap question. Because it implies that I might enjoy hurting animals. Its kinda of insulting to be asked that in the first place.
But you're asking Sean, "Are you going to withhold the answer in order to be petty?"
Likewise that is insulting to Sean. It's HURTFUL.
And your response was to say you don't care.
Vivianne, I know you're upset about not getting the answer to your question. But this is not the way.
Because this is their board. Generally, people that make the rules get to decide when exceptions are made, especially for themselves.
The thread the other day was made worse by the fact it was the weekend. Had it been a weekday I think it likely it would have gotten locked right off the bat for its tone and nobody else need have gotten involved.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, get over it Vivianne. It's really not a big deal.
|
The one thing the OP here has to keep in mind is that the tone of the postings are not emote capable. Another words TEXT does NOT convey the posters emotions very well if at all.
What might sound like a tone of someone accusing another and it is simply an explanation of someone's thoughts and feelings. Not an accusation.
Having been part of the thread where Liz made that comment about basically "Be Nice" (it was a thread where the title was less then optimal for a conducive commentary by others). That thread was flame bait from the beginning and was doomed to close. So yea it should have been closed and had it not been the weekend it probably would have happened early on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vivianne, in the thread that you reference with your post, James Jacobs writes:
"I'm pretty sure this thread has run it's course, especially considering it's now the weekend.
Let's all take a step away from the thread for a few days, folks, take some deep calming breaths, and then look forward to starting next week, hopefully, with an official response to the hex question. Continuing to argue here isn't gonna make that happen any faster, but I can certainly see it making things happen much slower."
The thread is then locked by Sean who adds, "James asked nicely for people to step away from the thread for a few days, and some people aren't willing to do so."
If you want to be treated better, or affect the moderation policy, you will get better results if you are willing to meet them halfway and respect their request for 48 hours or so.
As Slick Rick once said, ...whipping don't pay off, a lot better to give a [Paizo developer] one day off.
As far as counterflames from SKR go I'll give that one a 5.8
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vivianne,
I read Question's thread and though you're not responsible for it, the thread was poisoned from the start with an accusatory tone.
Sean was explaining that the matter of a FAQ not being answered is not black and white and that he had a lot of demands on his time. You can choose to take that as a hostile statement directed towards you, or—you can interpret it as asking for empathy. You can dismiss me as biased, but I believe Sean was explaining himself as best he could as asking for perspective.
Your response was something akin to, "Not my problem." "What exactly does this have to do with me again?" It was pretty cold and distant.
Is the implication here that you'll refuse to respond to the at least sixty-something people who have asked for a response to this ice tomb hex issue because you don't like how one person is talking about it?That's a really loaded question. Honestly, don't you think? Because it is a really terrible thing to suggest that anyone would do that. He's never going to say yes to that. And, it's kinda of insulting to have to answer "No" to it as well.
Let's exaggerate this, just to make it clearer. If someone asks me, "Does this imply that you're going to kick puppies because a puppy did his business on your lawn?" That's a trap question. Because it implies that I might enjoy hurting animals. Its kinda of insulting to be asked that in the first place.
But you're asking Sean, "Are you going to withhold the answer in order to be petty?"
Likewise that is insulting to Sean. It's HURTFUL.
And your response was to say you don't care.
Vivianne, I know you're upset about not getting the answer to your question. But this is not the way.
If you say something embarrassing the person you calls you on it didn't embarrass you. You embarrassed yourself. Likewise with being a jerk.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you say something that is embarrassing to yourself the person you calls you on it didn't embarrass you. You embarrassed yourself. Likewise with being a jerk.
If that actually happened, Big D. There is no agreement on what actually transpired even though we have a written record of it. To really talk about this, we first have to come to some accord on what actually took place.
Let's be clear, that thread was not about the ice tomb hex. It was an accusation that staff refuse to help. That is an aggressive way to start a dialogue. Especially when they feel they do all they can with the time and resources they have.
Then to suggest that someone would withhold help to other people, because they were mad at someone else? What you may not be appreciating is that is a very harsh thing to suggest. Only a jerk would do that. So a question phrased like that is not going to get a good reaction from anyone. Because you're asking someone if they intend on being a jerk.
Can't you see that, Big D?
And just in case there is any doubt, this post is not written to be unpleasant. I'm just asking you to step outside the situation and think about how it sounds from the other side.
I'm going to step away now. I probably have contributed all that I can. My hope is that we can get past this accusation. Get the question answered, and put this whole thing behind us.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I see is in that thread is the OP calling Paizo writers drug users and you agreeing. Yep, you and the OP were jerks.
As for the other thread, I don’t the think Sean was a Jerk. True Sean has a reputation of having a hot temper/being quick tempered, but I don’t think he was a jerk. Was he nice? No, not really, but that isn’t so hard to understand given the context. Context being the OP of that thread was behaving as a jerk and you AGAIN fueling the fire by defending the OP. Which, BTW, is the same behavior you displayed in that other thread.
Also, in defense of Sean. He is the one who pretty much dealt with the messageboards questions and he often takes the heat for design problems/question. Stuff Jason and Stephen usually don’t have to bother with. Or should I say stuff Jason and Stephen usually didn’t have to bother with before since Stephen now is taking Sean’s place.
So now that Stephen will be in charge of the messageboard ‘feedback’ and I hope we treat him better than we have treated Sean. It is really a shame how much abuse Sean (and some other Devs) have had to put up with over the years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I thought "The Most Important Rule" was; if you get pinched, don't be a rat! Don't tell nuthin' to no one!
Employees of Paizo are only humans. They make mistakes, get irritated, get annoyed, get frustrated, angry, sad, hurt, etc. just like you and I.
The Paizo staff has to put up with much more BS than we are, so I’m not really sure what people want. Do people want Paizo to badmouth Sean?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of all the posts Iv'e seen by all Paizo staff members, none have ever reached anywhere near the level of aggression and all around jerk behavior as, say, the title of this very thread.
It is true that SKR tends to respond in a more argumentative tone to any and all sorts of feedback that isn't 100% positive - a thread a couple years back about how the Golarion World Map is Eurocentric and, by extension, a bit racist, comes to mind. While most people remained remarkably levelheaded there, I do recall SKR taking that rather badly.
BUT, and this is an important but, he never went beyond reasonable. He sometimes argues rather than "talks", but never in a jerkish way, and never in a personal way. When normal posters do that, their threads don't get locked.
And OP, if you can't distinguish between claiming people are on drugs because of their professional choices and answering in argumentative tones to a rather annoying question... well, take a moment to think about that. It seems most other people are able to place the two things in different categories.
I feel that Mr. Reynolds's comments towards me were abusive and disrespectful...I'm not going to link to a catalog of such posts. That would be inappropriate and witch huntish.
Firstly, much as a couple of links is not a catalog, I have to say these two statements opening the thread seem inherently contradictory. I cannot see how one can reasonably refuse to engage in a witch hunt whilst publicly calling out the crimes (real or perceived) of another person.
Now, on the general point, rather than joining what appears to be an umpteenth discussion about SKR, what was your first avenue of action during these events? I have no idea if you did but surely it would be better to e-mail concerns either to their source or anyone in charge of policy regarding said concerns; admittedly, were there a double standard, this thread would be a necessity. But without one substantiated, or expectation that you messaged someone first, I fail to see any reason this public airing of grievance would be constructive.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, as I don't want my question to be lost among all the comments, my question is about moderation policy. A lot of people have commented putting a lot of stock in the specific event that prompted me to post this. However, my concern regards the larger trend and what that means for moderation policy. At least to me, the moderation is far from transparent, and it's not clear why Paizo staffers appear to be above the most important rule.
137ben's comment here nicely captures my thoughts on this. There seems to be a disconnect between the written rules and actual moderation policy. I am seeking clarification on that disconnect.
Boy, I feel like there was a "paizo moderation horrible" thread just the other week. But no I'm sure that's not the case.
|
Boy, I feel like there was a "paizo moderation horrible" thread just the other week. But no I'm sure that's not the case.
There was a moderation thread a few weeks ago but it got derailed after a few hundred posts. This is still an on going problem that some of us feel has not been addressed.
Instead of belittling the OP's views you could have just said you do not see anything wrong with their moderation process or with the staff members instead you decide to be a jerk.
This thread is asking for clarification to the moderation rules and whether or not they apply to the paizo staff or not.
Please be more respectful of the OP's question.
That said I too would like to see a clarification on this policy.
Viv, all I can say to the points that you've raised in this thread is, to some of us, Paizo staffers don't appear to be above the most important rule. I'm not asking you get witch hunt-ey, but unless you can explain what beyond the example you linked makes you think there is a larger trend, I just don't see it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is asking for clarification to the moderation rules and whether or not they apply to the paizo staff or not.
Trying to phrase such a question in a way that is not inflammatory or disrespectful is a pretty high Diplomacy DC. Assuming the OP was sincere and not trying to flamme people up, then they certainly phrased the thread title and their post in a way that seems counter-productive to that goal. Even the thread title itself comes across as accusatory and disrespectful.
Such an approach to diplomacy isn't apt to succeed in-game, and I'd say it fares even worse on the Internet.
Just my 2cp...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While my post was not necessarily helpful I don't see how I was being a jerk. I've just noticed that a select few have decided that at every opportunity they attack the Devs on every decision they make and when said Devs get fed up they cry foul.
So no I do not see a problem with the paizo staff on this site. They deal with an enormous amount of abuse for no good reason.
Also....Laithoron...I saw what you did there...or what I think you did there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, my concern regards the larger trend and what that means for moderation policy. At least to me, the moderation is far from transparent, and it's not clear why Paizo staffers appear to be above the most important rule.
Ignoring the event given because anecdotes aren't data (and because I'd broach people were over-focusing on it); I do not agree that the moderators are above said rules. I have not seen any moderators go beyond that which would instigate a ban for anyone else (for what little that means). The fact we do not witness any disciplinary procedures which may exist is expect-able, however the argument that we have no idea if such procedures exist is a problem. Demonstrated by this thread where doubt is being raised on moderation policy (by a minority or otherwise).
Consider for example, practicing law (people may draw all the divergence that exist in that but I have no better comparison), it does not really function if the law is not seen to be just. Uncomfortable as it is, public perception has an effect on how judgement is made. If a ruling is in line with the law yet is overwhelming seen to fail in some event; reform is considered. In Paizo's defence, with respect to the moderator bias thread, reform of policy was stated to be looked at in lieu of said thread, so we have indication (taking their words in good faith which parties must if they ever want any accord) that our feedback/perception has an effect.In light of this, and further rambling about transparency, I think it'd go a long way to have indication that there is some internal means by which staff members self-moderate. Although the thread in question actually does indicate that by James Jacobs' response, if informally. Which, if I may interject an actual opinion, is a good thing.
To (be a hypocrite and) address the exchange in question, yes: SKR often comes across abrasively (anyone may feel to disagree, that is simply my perception). Whilst this does cause offence, if actually gives the responses we get some soul. Were posts and concerns responded to on an entirely formal procedure, it'd be dry, dull and slow down any feedback we do get on rulings.
To reiterate my earlier point: I've personally not been on the end of any such discussions but if being so and being subsequently offended happened; I would take privately discussing it with the person in question first a foremost for twofold reasons: a) It is more expedient to get the assurance that it was not personal b) To have evidence that the person in question is problematic were it to prove only more exasperating. So again, I feel it worth asking if anyone has exhausted that option when moderators have caused upset previously?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
2cp
@ Paizo staff. You guys are awesome. You put up with a lot of abuse on these forums that you don't have to take. I especially tip my hat to SKR. I've seen posts and threads directed at you that get rather nasty and personal. Despite all of that, you still take the time to read the forums and answer questions. It is appreciated.
Vivianne Laflamme, as far as the forum rules go, I believe rule 0 applies. Moderators, like DM's, have all the leeway with the rules they want. You're in their house, at their table, eating their pizza. If they want to go Samuel L. Jackson on you, they can. If they want to turn your avatar into a smurf, they can. If they want to delete everyone's posts, they can. If they want to login with your account and post crazy nonsense in your name, they can. (SKR, you started this thread, didn't you? DIDN"T YOU!?) SEAAANN!
To Paizo's credit, staff flipping out on people is rare. That is amazing, especially given the number of posts and threads in which posters get nasty with them.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest taking a look at the staff posts in this recent thread. We do not discuss how the moderation policy breaks down for any individual community member publicly out of respect for their privacy. We also don't have hard set specificity for a given rule, because moderation is often a judgement call.
If you notice a community member breaking the rules and have questions/concerns/feedback, webmaster@paizo.com is the best point of contact.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, community
Start paying attention to thread person names
because the same names come up on the same bad stuff, either by name or alias
when you see a name from a bad thread person
block/ignore/do not click/do not post
of course no one is probably seeing this if you follow this method already
We do not discuss how the moderation policy breaks down for any individual community member publicly out of respect for their privacy. We also don't have hard set specificity for a given rule, because moderation is often a judgement call.
Perfectly understandable (and what I expected). Glad to see I wasn't on completely insane lines (although I waive my inquiry as to said ruling methods given privacy concerns).
You know, I have had disagreements with moderators before (Chris deleted a post of mine where I did nothing but a few mathematical calculations. Still baffled on that one. And my RotRL campaign thread got moved to the Campaign Journals section, a decision with which I still disagree), but I have never felt personally targeted or insulted by a moderator.
I agree with the other posts in this thread: Paizo is providing this messageboard free of charge, and major contributors (Sean, James, others) are very active in spite of the heaps of (mostly undeserved) abuse piled upon them.
So I'm going to disagree with the statement that they're "above the rules". I've seen some nasty stuff survive. You have to flag something as abusive for a moderator to even look at it. And then the moderator has to choose whether (as someone said before) it's a personal attack or a particularly cutting attack on your argument.
"Your argument is foolish and has no basis in fact," is far different from "You are foolish and have no concept of the outside world," in spite of the similarity in wording.
If someone tears your argument to shreds, it may be painful, but it's not, "Being a jerk," it's, "Being an effective communicator," something at which the Paizo staff necessarily excels.
If they're available, go back to the posts that offended you. Are they personal attacks against you, or are they arguments against your position? I suspect it's the latter, and they were just done in a blunt manner you did not care for. Not "being a jerk", just, "Being an effective arguer."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the staff want to add "Paizo employees do not need to follow the forum rules" to the forum rules, I have no problem with that. They can make the rules whatever they want on their own forum. It isn't exactly unprecedented either; many, many forums exempt moderators and administrates from some or all of their forum rules.
I would prefer some degree of honesty, though. In general, I think forum rules should be as clear as possible. If Paizo employees are exempt from the normal rules, put that in the rules. Add a line at the bottom of the publicized rules that says "Employees of Paizo Publishing Inc. may or may not always follow these rules." Or something like that, I am sure someone else could phrase it better than me.
Just be honest about it. The published, available explanation of the forum rules should be the actual forum rules. I don't think there should be a bunch of "secret" forum rules that are in full effect, but no one is allowed to know.
As long as the real forum rules are made public to users, I don't have a problem with what they actually are:)
Hey cool, that ties into a thread from the other day where people were talking about the 'secret rules' of the forums: those posts and themes that will get your posts/threads deleted and so on. Those would be lovely to know as well -- although with a bit of observation you can certainly figure out a few.
As for the above commentary, I'm sure there is a common sense rule in place as well: the employees and mods follow the rules as well as they can; that said, when people get argumentative, disruptive, or let's face it just plain mean, they are human as well and may type something in a 'tone' of voice that might come across as rude or dismissive. Especially after getting attacked or dumped on over and over. Being a mod or staffer doesn't mean that you don't have feelings or turn into a robot.
Maybe if people want polite responses they'd make polite requests? Less abrasive thread titles and entitled "why didn't you answer me/give me what I want to know/do this in so many minutes/months/etc"? Most people react poorly to insults and abuse.
Your right, what Sean did was worse. Because he dumped on Vivianne when he was upset with Question.
This, as an aside, is a danger of asking something in the middle of an argument -- something I've seen happen in real life (and been one of the people to do it, for that matter.) It might be better to wait for the shooting to stop before interjecting into the disagreement, even with the most pure motives. You're question in the middle of a heated discussion can be seen differently than when people are calmer.
I have never seen a staffer cross a line.
Now, it's true, sometimes where the debate gets fierce the mods sometimes jump in and delete many posts that were flagged but that are only marginal- they maybe don't cross any line by themselves, but they only add fuel to the fire. AFAIK, they don't do that to staffers.
But I have no problems with that.
Paizo employees do not seem above the rules in any way. None of their posts cross the line.
To clarify, as I don't want my question to be lost among all the comments, my question is about moderation policy. A lot of people have commented putting a lot of stock in the specific event that prompted me to post this. However, my concern regards the larger trend and what that means for moderation policy. At least to me, the moderation is far from transparent, and it's not clear why Paizo staffers appear to be above the most important rule.
137ben's comment here nicely captures my thoughts on this. There seems to be a disconnect between the written rules and actual moderation policy. I am seeking clarification on that disconnect.
I think it's good that you're avoiding singling out individual events. However I suspect in a public forum all you're going to get is various opinions. I don't share your perception that the rules are applied differently. Others do. However there's not much we as customers can do other than discuss specifics.
I don't think the message board is the best forum if you're seeking "official clarification" or something. I think you'd be better served by sending an email to webmaster@paizo.com explicitly asking whether the jerk rule applies to staff. If it does, you'll know there's a point to flagging future staff posts you find jerkish. If not, well at least you'll know.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, it reminded me of a short exchange I had with a Paizo staffer the other day. I feel that Mr. Reynolds's comments towards me were abusive and disrespectful. That thread was eventually locked, but for unrelated reasons.
Just because someone properly uses periods to end their sentences instead of exclamation points, smiley emoticons, or "lol" doesn't mean that they're being abusive or disrespectful.
Seriously, if you took SKR's response to be abusive or disrespectful, you need some time away from the keyboard in order to get a fresh perspective.
However, it reminded me of a short exchange I had with a Paizo staffer the other day. I feel that Mr. Reynolds's comments towards me were abusive and disrespectful. That thread was eventually locked, but for unrelated reasons.Just because someone properly uses periods to end their sentences instead of exclamation points, smiley emoticons, or "lol" doesn't mean that they're being abusive or disrespectful.
Seriously, if you took SKR's response to be abusive or disrespectful, you need some time away from the keyboard in order to get a fresh perspective.
It may not have been abusive but it was incredibly condescending and therefore disrespectful. In addition to having nothing to do with what she asked.