I'm going to respectfully disagree with your summation of the content of those events.
That's fair.
I will say that someone might favorite a post for a single thought or sentence rather than the entire post. There isn't any way to know their intent short of asking. Or at least I often favorite over part of a post or a certain idea I agree with.Not only was this not moderated, a Paizo member favorited the initial post in question.
Or they could have actually agreed and thought that talking about "straights" isn't the same as talking about "gays".
Or "whites" and "blacks". It's a heretical concept in some circles, but a pretty common one in others. And this was in a thread intended as an LGBTQ safe space.I was the one with the follow up comment about "power dynamics". (Which was also favorited by a different Paizo member, if we're keeping track.)
The poster I replied to responded "Interesting and fair point. Maybe it doesn't translate well."
So maybe it's not quite as simple as it seems at first glance?
Hence my comment that it is hard to know their intent without asking.
Customer Service Manager
|
On the other hand, if they see the employee as a potential troublemaker, they don't want to hide the paper trail that they are leaving.
To be clear about this, the moderation and executive teams are able to recover moderated posts. This is how we are able to provide text of removed posts to users if they want lengthy posts that were removed due to one or two problematic sentences that could be removed or revised.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And not letting the community see the whole picture supports fair, balanced and informed conversation?
And not letting the community see the whole picture supports fair, balanced and informed conversation?Well the ones that just got removed were all sort of aimed at you so....
How is this relevant to the topic at hand?
And not letting the community see the whole picture supports fair, balanced and informed conversation?
This. Deleting entire posts causes nothing but confusion and anger. There's a reason most places will give posters a warning, or edit a note into the end of the post (not touching any of its content) instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confusion, perhaps. Anger? That seems a bit of a stretch. After reviewing the information on those posts, it looks like the same old same old arguments that we have here nearly daily. Nothing I saw (not a mod or lawyer, not binding) would indicate anyone needed to be banned on either side, but rather should probably take that conversation elseforum.
Whatever got people banned looks like it happened after that engagement.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quick side note: LGBT people are not "controversial topics." LGBT people are human being we ask be treated with respect and humanity in our company spaces, especially considering that we have many employees who fall within that community and are required to participate in the forums as part of our jobsf - There seems to be a correlation of the banhammer with the lgtb topics. Paizo choose to include controversial topics in their published materials but it seems that it can't handle discussions about it (And I'm not talking about the occasional jerk that rant about how a trans character in WoTR will send everyone to hell or something), specially if the poster opinion doesn't align with the moderator at hand. You are free of course to not want some topic to be discussed, but if that is the case make it a rule and make it clear for everyone.
This.
I am afraid I can't provide a copy of the feedback thread containing the response to the moderation o Ashiel's thread pre-moderation of that feedback thread. Apparently, reposting deleted posts in any way isn't allowed.
Yeah. Apparently it was the response to the deletion.
Especially since it was Ashiel that was banned and Ashiel only had a couple of fairly mild posts in that sequence.
That's when Chris emailed Ashiel with some posts (whether this happened proactively or as a response from Ashiel isn't clear), Ashiel was clearly frustrated and emotional, and Chris basically said (summarized) "you're banned, this isn't worth it." Which really comes to the crux of the issue. That reason for the banning is so much salt in a clearly open wound. It was pretty ruthless.
|
In the end I am not sure that the facts matter. Some are considered sacrosanct while others are pariahs.Going to the table with the ad hominem presentation of the idea that the folks who own the table are playing favorites, or otherwise acting with malice, isn't the most constructive way to start.
Good intentions and the assumption that people are acting in good faith should be of course, be the initial response until evidence and experience to the contrary take place. The experience of some does indicate that there are favorites who are allowed to do as they please and others not so much. One cannot argue with another person's experience especially in a self sanctimonious manner.
But to deny that it happens denies the experience that some have had.In the end I am not sure that the facts matter. Some are considered sacrosanct while others are pariahs.That's the sort of Us Against Them attitude that can make the boards toxic.
There is a difference between accepting that it happens at times -- or seems to from the outside (perception is everything!) -- and continuing to feed the notion that THEY are out to get us and THEY sit behind their screens twirling their mustache and laughing maniacally about whatever.
Some people have bad experiences. Some have had good. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're correct, but oftentimes the situation is far more subtle. I've seen posters here justify making insulting comments about a particular demographic by calling it "expressing frustration" rather than "expressing hate."
Could you point to the expression of hate I was apparently defending?
When another member pointed out how that would sound if applied towards black people like them, they were told how it doesn't work that way due to "power dynamics."
And then the original poster who asked about how that would work in terms of being applied to black people conceded that the question of power dynamics was an "interesting and fair point. Maybe it doesn't translate well," swapping a minority and a majority group like that.
Not only was this not moderated, a Paizo member favorited the initial post in question.
Feel free to flag my post for moderation or report it to the mods if you need to. If they decide that I was out of line, or that they need to delete my post, or that entire thread, I won't complain.
I am afraid I can't provide a copy of the feedback thread containing the response to the moderation o Ashiel's thread pre-moderation of that feedback thread. Apparently, reposting deleted posts in any way isn't allowed.
The problem with linking to screenshots of the posts raises the question of if the evidence presented is a complete transcript or not. Which puts the Mods in an unenviable spot of rendering a judgment and of possibly needing to release other evidence to defend themselves.
Anyway, this event seems to be the last straw in a series of events of for which the user was repeatedly warned against.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's when Chris emailed Ashiel with some posts (whether this happened proactively or as a response from Ashiel isn't clear), Ashiel was clearly frustrated and emotional, and Chris basically said (summarized) "you're banned, this isn't worth it." Which really comes to the crux of the issue. That reason for the banning is so much salt in a clearly open wound. It was pretty ruthless.Yeah. Apparently it was the response to the deletion.
Especially since it was Ashiel that was banned and Ashiel only had a couple of fairly mild posts in that sequence.
That's not how I would have summarized the information. It was more "OK, this isn't getting us anywhere, let's just be agree to be friends and go our separate ways."
It is an unhappy truth that not every site is going to work for everyone. Some people will balk at rules that others have no problem with. It isn't a slam against the site or the individual. We're all different and often need to go a different path.
|
|
But to deny that it happens denies the experience that some have had.In the end I am not sure that the facts matter. Some are considered sacrosanct while others are pariahs.That's the sort of Us Against Them attitude that can make the boards toxic.There is a difference between accepting that it happens at times -- or seems to from the outside (perception is everything!) -- and continuing to feed the notion that THEY are out to get us and THEY sit behind their screens twirling their mustache and laughing maniacally about whatever.
Some people have bad experiences. Some have had good. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.
True but Moderators have the opportunity which others here do not, that is, to fairly and justly deal with posts and posters. Application of the rules should be fairly and evenly given and not just when they desire it to happen. True, this is a private place, people can do as they please, people can chose to participate in discussions or recuse themselves, however, the playing field should be even for all. Just because we don't agree with someone does not make what the person said wrong or their statement incorrect, it simply means that we have a difference of belief or a difference in experience. Sometimes people are too easily offended especially in things that are matters of opinion. People disagree with my lifestyle or whatever. They are free to do so just as I am free to disagree with theirs. They do not have to agree with my lifestyle choices or not. However, spreading hate and having a disagreement are not the same, spreading hate or discrimination on either side, are not okay. I have seen some ethnic other types of minorites be just as hateful and discriminatory against other people.
|
|
I am afraid I can't provide a copy of the feedback thread containing the response to the moderation o Ashiel's thread pre-moderation of that feedback thread. Apparently, reposting deleted posts in any way isn't allowed.The problem with linking to screenshots of the posts raises the question of if the evidence presented is a complete transcript or not. Which puts the Mods in an unenviable spot of rendering a judgment and of possibly needing to release other evidence to defend themselves.
Anyway, this event seems to be the last straw in a series of events of for which the user was repeatedly warned against.
It appears that is what the crux of the discussion is about. However, something to take into account is that these discussions and board often mean more to other people than to others. Is this an excuse to be mean and abusive? Not at all. But being able to have discussions are important.
|
|
But to deny that it happens denies the experience that some have had.In the end I am not sure that the facts matter. Some are considered sacrosanct while others are pariahs.That's the sort of Us Against Them attitude that can make the boards toxic.There is a difference between accepting that it happens at times -- or seems to from the outside (perception is everything!) -- and continuing to feed the notion that THEY are out to get us and THEY sit behind their screens twirling their mustache and laughing maniacally about whatever.
Some people have bad experiences. Some have had good. The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.
Not everyone is going to be your enemy, however, that does not mean that they are your friend either.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how I would have summarized the information. It was more "OK, this isn't getting us anywhere, let's just be agree to be friends and go our separate ways."
It is an unhappy truth that not every site is going to work for everyone. Some people will balk at rules that others have no problem with. It isn't a slam against the site or the individual. We're all different and often need to go a different path.
I think my broader point is that Chris didn't have to respond at all. The tone reads to me as if Chris took Ashiel's response personally. All that was needed was the first part:
You have been provided with answers to these questions and have been provided with the text of your removed posts for reposting as you see fit. That you are dissatisfied with the answers provided is not indicative of any conspiracy or “censorship.” Our moderators use their best judgement for given situations, and yes, since they are human, it’s possible to not get it right all the time, or to make everyone happy with those decisions.
Done. Fin.
Then, Chris went on with:
Over the course of the last 4 years, our team has corresponded with you about how to post appropriately to our website. I’m sorry that it seems that we cannot seem to reach an understanding where you will be satisfied. It seems that the community environment that you are seeking is not the environment that we facilitate, as evidenced by this current issue, past removed posts and notifications, as well as a previous temporary suspension. At this time we feel that it’s for the best for us to part ways, and will be suspending your “Ashiel” account.
Bolded for why I say they took it personally. Let's recap:
- Users have discussion
- Another user comes in the flame the ever living hell out of the topic
- Users respond with this other person back and forth
- Thread gets moderated
- Chris (giving benefit of the doubt) proactively reaches out to say why and here's your stuff
- Ashiel is upset
- Ashiel gets banned while that other user is still here and even boasted to me directly before "I'm a right bastard!" (might be off by a word or two there)
That is apparently the community Paizo facilitates. That's why my responses in the last page were basically "guys, let's step back and really review what happened regardless of any posturing and acknowledge who actually got the boot for this." As is, it looks really, really bad on Paizo.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, to get this out of the way: I'm a trans person myself and am talking from that perspective.
Now, onto the point: I find it absolutely disgraceful that Paizo banned several of the more prominent trans people on this forum for rather questionable reasons. Ashiel was discussing a character published by Paizo and pointing out perceived flaws in the depiction of trans people in that character, which is a perfectly valid topic. Somehow, she got banned because of another person flaming nearby, simply because it was the same thread.
Even more upsetting, however, is the case of Raital Latral, who got banned with her posts instantly deleted for simply asking why was Ashiel banned.
So I ask you - how is this a safe space for trans people? Why are our voices being taken away without good reason as soon as we discuss the quality of portrayals of trans people in Paizo published content?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Controversial topics are the topics that cause controversy, you know. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's clear that the inclusion of trans character created controversy.
Try to think of it this way;
If you go to a group of climate scientists and talk about the 'global warming controversy' you are going to get a cold reaction. Ditto if you're trying to tell biologists that evolution isn't real.
The communities in question view these as 'fake controversies'. They have seen and lived the evidence and know that the 'controversy' is completely manufactured and unjustified.
So, no... you aren't just 'noting the existence of controversy'. You're 'promoting a false narrative' that there is / should be anything controversial about the topic. LGBT individuals exist. Thus, any 'controversy' about the inclusion of such a character is inherently an assault on the validity of LGBT individuals.
What you see as 'just noting the existence of controversy' becomes from another perspective 'validating the false dichotomy of whether LGBT people should exist or not'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But being able to have discussions are important.
But the same discussion keeps being reintroduced over and over again, by posters who never bother to do their own research beforehand to inform themselves. Posters who are never quite satisfied with the answers and/or the tone the LGBTIQ people and allies give them, and so they keep pecking away... and pecking... And then the posters get upset when those replying get frustrated and tired... frustrated and tired because they keep getting asked the same damn questions in different places throughout their day and getting the same disbelief, arguing, and/or sealioning everytime. It's a non-stop cycle.
Edit: And what CBD said.
>Chris (giving benefit of the doubt) proactively reaches out to say why and here's your stuff
Chris did not reach out proactively. Until I started a thread on the website feedback subforum, no proactive actions were taken. There wasn't even a notification in the "Ask Ashiel Anything" thread, which I admit could have been due to technical issues.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks bad on Paizo? Not from where I'm sitting.
Getting upset doesn't give you any special dispensation when dealing with people. As you quoted above, apparently this has been an issue for a while.
Furthermore, having people leaving rallying cries after your absence to rile people to take up torches and pitchforks while another thread is created elsewhere to popcorn the thread here and continue to soak in anger and drama is not the sort of community that I'd be interested in.
Your interpretation that they "took it personally" is just that, an interpretation of what the mods did. It's the equivalent of me saying that Ashiel took it too personally and got upset and escalated the situation. It's armchair quarterbacking the situation that doesn't do much good.
Everyone should let it go and relax, and probably should have done so beforehand. It's words on a screen. You got some deleted, you can create more in mere minutes. Relax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, no... you aren't just 'noting the existence of controversy'. You're 'promoting a false narrative' that there is / should be anything controversial about the topic. LGBT individuals exist. Thus, any 'controversy' about the inclusion of such a character is inherently an assault on the validity of LGBT individuals.
This is false. A controversy over portrayal can very much be a different issue from the "controversy" over existence. See: race issues of the past several decades.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks bad on Paizo? Not from where I'm sitting.
Getting upset doesn't give you any special dispensation when dealing with people. As you quoted above, apparently this has been an issue for a while.
Furthermore, having people leaving rallying cries after your absence to rile people to take up torches and pitchforks while another thread is created elsewhere to popcorn the thread here and continue to soak in anger and drama is not the sort of community that I'd be interested in.
Your interpretation that they "took it personally" is just that, an interpretation of what the mods did. It's the equivalent of me saying that Ashiel took it too personally and got upset and escalated the situation. It's armchair quarterbacking the situation that doesn't do much good.
Everyone should let it go and relax, and probably should have done so beforehand. It's words on a screen. You got some deleted, you can create more in mere minutes. Relax.
It looks bad to me. It's a terrible way to treat people, and I'm not going away.
Furthermore, having people leaving rallying cries after your absence to rile people to take up torches and pitchforks while another thread is created elsewhere to popcorn the thread here and continue to soak in anger and drama is not the sort of community that I'd be interested in.
The tinfoil is rather comfy isn't it? I like the deluxe model, personally. It comes with an AM/FM antenna.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks bad on Paizo? Not from where I'm sitting.
Getting upset doesn't give you any special dispensation when dealing with people. As you quoted above, apparently this has been an issue for a while.
Furthermore, having people leaving rallying cries after your absence to rile people to take up torches and pitchforks while another thread is created elsewhere to popcorn the thread here and continue to soak in anger and drama is not the sort of community that I'd be interested in.
Your interpretation that they "took it personally" is just that, an interpretation of what the mods did. It's the equivalent of me saying that Ashiel took it too personally and got upset and escalated the situation. It's armchair quarterbacking the situation that doesn't do much good.
Everyone should let it go and relax, and probably should have done so beforehand. It's words on a screen. You got some deleted, you can create more in mere minutes. Relax.
It looks bad to me. It's a terrible way to treat people, and I'm not going away.
Furthermore, having people leaving rallying cries after your absence to rile people to take up torches and pitchforks while another thread is created elsewhere to popcorn the thread here and continue to soak in anger and drama is not the sort of community that I'd be interested in.The tinfoil is rather comfy isn't it? I like the deluxe model, personally. It comes with an AM/FM antenna.
No tinfoil, no paranoia. Just watching the other tab and rereading the letter that was left in the wake of Ashiel's banning.
People are using it to resurrect the daily/monthly/whateverly issue that Paizo is a meaniehead because they don't let us say whatever we want, or how come that guy over there didn't get in trouble when I did? It's annoying to watch with 1st graders, and no better to watch on the internet.
People tend to run off at the mouth on the internet (like I am doing now?) and get in trouble. It happens, you accept it as the price of admission for where you are. Places without rules on what you can say aren't worth going to.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are using it to resurrect the daily/monthly/whateverly issue that Paizo is a meaniehead because they don't let us say whatever we want, or how come that guy over there didn't get in trouble when I did? It's annoying to watch with 1st graders, and no better to watch on the internet.
Then wake up and review the situation. If you don't want to be called out for mistreating someone, don't mistreat them. Don't purport to have this inclusive environment only to remove one of the very people you're trying to include. Don't let the "community we facilitate" be one where folks can have a perfectly fine conversation only to be shelled out of nowhere only for the person doing the shelling to go on their merry way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Places without rules on what you can say aren't worth going to.
Disclaimer that you forgot to add: that is purely your personal subjective opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following along for a while, and haven't wanted to comment since I don't know Ashiel very well and wasn't part of the thread from which all this originated. However, within the context of the discussion of moderator actions and people's experiences with them, I'm seeing some meta-issues that I think are getting in the way of productive discussion on certain points. Maybe I can help enable some more satisfying communication here? Or maybe not. But I'm going to try anyway.
Let's talk about experiences and interpretations.
Your experiences are the events and actions which you directly and personally encountered, as well as your own emotions and actions arising in response to those events.
Your interpretations are the conclusions you draw based on your experiences in an attempt to understand those experiences. They are not the experiences themselves, but rather the beliefs you form about your experiences.
Let's look at some hypothetical examples:
Example of an experience:
My rent was raised by $30/month this year, as it has been every year for the past decade. I felt upset because I don't know where that money is going; my apartment has not been upgraded or renovated recently, nor has the building itself.
Example of an interpretation:
My landlord keeps jacking up the rent just to line his own pockets. Obviously he's just being greedy, since none of the extra money is being put into upgrading the property. Perfect example of corporate greed.
See the difference? In the first example, it's all about the events and my feelings: the rent increase and lack of renovations are specific events that happened, and the feelings are owned up to as being my own. By contrast, the second example (despite still referencing the experience) is talking about things I can't know: the landlord's motivation and the bigger picture of events that I've extrapolated from the limited data of my experiences.
This distinction is important. Why is it important? Because of the ethics of responding to experiences and interpretations of others. If I share my experiences, then it would be very rude and dismissive for someone to deny them. It's generally not considered okay to deny someone's experiences. However, if I share my interpretations of those experiences, it's a different story. Nobody is morally obliged to accept my interpretations as valid. Once I've crossed from experiences to interpretations, I'm just another commentator just like anyone else, and folks can contradict me all they like.
This is where the conflation of experiences and interpretations seems to be short-circuiting communication in this thread. Folks are telling stories in which they deliver a mixture of experiences and interpretations (or in some cases, deliver interpretations and refuse to relay the exact experiences even when asked). Then when listeners question the interpretation parts of these posts, the authors react as though their experiences are being denied. This triggers a downward spiral of miscommunication and hard feelings, with each side becoming more and more convinced of the other's wrongdoing.
Please, let's be clear and explicit about when we're talking about experiences and when we're talking about interpretations and be fair and honest about which ones our listeners are replying to. This thread will go much better that way.
Thanks. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are using it to resurrect the daily/monthly/whateverly issue that Paizo is a meaniehead because they don't let us say whatever we want, or how come that guy over there didn't get in trouble when I did? It's annoying to watch with 1st graders, and no better to watch on the internet.Then wake up and review the situation. If you don't want to be called out for mistreating someone, don't mistreat them. Don't purport to have this inclusive environment only to remove one of the very people you're trying to include. Don't let the "community we facilitate" be one where folks can have a perfectly fine conversation only to be shelled out of nowhere only for the person doing the shelling to go on their merry way.
People were not shelled out of nowhere. People had apparently been talked to before and got hot after the fact. Others have attested a certain lack of restraint on the subject's behalf. Again, as I've said before, we're all big people here. You know when you've gone off the rails, been rude, or given offense. Acting otherwise after the fact is disingenuous.
Disclaimer that you forgot to add: that is purely your personal subjective opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
It goes without saying. Anything anyone is saying on the internet is their personal subjective opinion. That said, I'd take Paizo forums over something like 4chan any day of the week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disclaimer that you forgot to add: that is purely your personal subjective opinion, nothing more, nothing less.It goes without saying. Anything anyone is saying on the internet is their personal subjective opinion.
2+2=4
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People were not shelled out of nowhere. People had apparently been talked to before and got hot after the fact. Others have attested a certain lack of restraint on the subject's behalf. Again, as I've said before, we're all big people here. You know when you've gone off the rails, been rude, or given offense. Acting otherwise after the fact is disingenuous.
Did you not see where I said I've read the thread? It was a fine conversation, and then, in comes this new individual (to that topic, I mean) with a profanity laden "how dare you" type message. It was quite literally from out of nowhere. The other 2 or 3 people involved were having a calm, reasonable discussion. The "acting otherwise" part is to insinuate the thread had been off the rails or somehow contentious, got warned for it, and this was some natural part of it which therefore makes the moderation and events that followed somehow the natural course of things. That's not what happened.