| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Captain Yesterday, and disagree with your conflation. Using humor to distract from a serious issue is very different from using humor to break the tension, and while I cheerfully embrace the "threadcrapping" label with pride, I highly resent the claim of threadjacking. How does silly banter about bacon or beards actually prevent you from having your serious discussion? This isn't a real-time conversation; you can talk about both. I can rickroll until the lolcats come home, but nothing I say on a messageboard can "interrupt" you.
If you'll pardon the irony of my saying so, you guys need to chill out.
EDIT: As an addendum, it seems like posting complaints about our silly bacon side conversation on the same thread is more likely to derail the main subject than anything else, since you're actually posting in seriousness, and therefore are making the thread vulnerable to a serious threadjack.
I like a great deal of what you say often, KC, but in this case I feel that you are wrong. When people come through and post one word back and forth in the middle of a discussion, it breaks the flow of people discussing the actual topic to watch the comedy show. Sure, we're not in real time and this sort of thing "breaks the tension" -- except it doesn't. It just is noise that doesn't contribute anything meaningful.
Tension isn't a bad thing. I'd prefer my moments of tension in TV/movies, for example, not to be broken with fart jokes and a three minute slapstick sketch. I'd not want the presidential debate tension broken by a set from a comedian either. The same goes for discussions on the forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tension isn't a bad thing. I'd prefer my moments of tension in TV/movies, for example, not to be broken with fart jokes and a three minute slapstick sketch.
Not everybody likes that, though. Are we not allowed to take part in these threads if we need a little bit of humor and friendliness on the sidelines? Many people, myself included, like to intersperse the more "tense" arguments with lighter fare. Our use of these threads is equal in value to yours.
Tension isn't a bad thing. I'd prefer my moments of tension in TV/movies, for example, not to be broken with fart jokes and a three minute slapstick sketch.Not everybody likes that, though. Are we not allowed to take part in these threads if we need a little bit of humor and friendliness on the sidelines?
Whether you are allowed or not is between you and the mods. But whether people dislike it is something else; we've seen already expressed on the thread that in some cultures and to some posters it comes across different than some harmless humour and cutting up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many people, myself included, like to intersperse the more "tense" arguments with lighter fare. Our use of these threads is equal in value to yours.
Whether you are allowed or not is between you and the mods.
Which is likely to matter, since apparently, posts like mine get flagged as spam by posters like you. :P
Okay, so now we're bringing up "certain subjects". I can't argue an infinity of hypotheticals. Are we talking about dead baby jokes on a thread about abortion? Because that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm also not talking about trolling, which is arguably just as close to knightnday's preferred style of post (on-topic arguing) as it is to mine (off-topic silliness). After all, people involved in on-topic arguments bait each other all the time. It's basically the #2 reason threads go downhill around here. :P
While cracking some jokes seems innocent enough, exactly such is easily abusable, wether on purpose or not, and probably often disencourages other persons.
There´s also people on this boards who want to be taken seriously themselves, but then rather often participate in that "friendly joking" behaviour themselves when they don´t like topics or where things are going.
I see where you´re coming from Kobold Cleaver, but in my opinion it´s really important how exactly this can be a great tool for trolls or in silencing others.
Many people, myself included, like to intersperse the more "tense" arguments with lighter fare. Our use of these threads is equal in value to yours.
Whether you are allowed or not is between you and the mods.Which is likely to matter, since apparently, posts like mine get flagged as spam by posters like you. :P
Just because you like or dislike a certain thing does not mean everyone else will. Didn't we just discuss this with regard to "speaking bluntly" or "just being honest"?
Some posts do get flagged. I've flagged a bunch that don't get moderated. I've flagged a number of my own in this very thread. Staff may or may not believe that we're spamming and that it is useful to the discussion or not.
This is what often happens in threads. People take it as personal when it isn't. What offends you may not offend me and vice versa. Does that mean that I shouldn't flag it because you believe it adds value? Should someone not flag someone who is "being honest" but is also somewhat dismissive?
I'm also not talking about trolling, which is arguably just as close to knightnday's preferred style of post (on-topic arguing) as it is to mine (off-topic silliness). After all, people involved in on-topic arguments bait each other all the time. It's basically the #2 reason threads go downhill around here. :P
I'm trolling?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imitation?Unification!Unification!Yes? So? you'd prefer I talk about defecation? Urination? Obliteration? Negation?Moderation?
---
And yeah, count me as someone who supports humorous non-sequiturs as a means of attempting to break tension. But you have to know how to read the room (thread) and be extra precise in your word choice & delivery.
But if it gets flagged and subsequently whacked, I don't take it personal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There´s also people on this boards who want to be taken seriously themselves, but then rather often participate in that "friendly joking" behaviour themselves when they don´t like topics or where things are going.
Yes, there are. Their name is Kobold Cleaver. Hi! Sometimes a thread starts to go into an ugly area and I check out, or try to engage people in humor so we all remember we're still people. That does not cause threadjacks. You know the #1 thing that causes threadjacks? Tangential or unrelated arguments. Humor only causes threadjacks when nobody is left who wants to talk about the issue. And if nobody wants to talk about an issue, there's no point in it. You can't force someone into a discussion on the internet. You can't pressure them. You can't guilt them. If they don't want to talk about politics or casters vs. martials or whatever, and they want to talk about bacon instead, they'll do that, and you should let them.
Humor is actually really terrible for threadjacking, because it only works when everyone involved is desperate for the argument to be over. It usually only takes one person to restart a contentious subject, after all. If nobody does so, it's a sign the subject has lost everyone's interest.
And I'm really sorry to be snarky, but this thread seems to have a fascination with slippery slope hypotheticals. First we turn a comment about offensiveness into an argument about "weaponizing offense", and now we're turning an exchange about bacon into a "tool [for] silencing others". :P
I need to know what I'm defending here, people. Am I defending people who get off-topic in the background of a thread to talk about bacon? Or am I defending trolls and censorship?
I'm trolling?
Am I? I said we're equally close to being trolls, after all. And that should be fine, since I'm not a troll. Right?
...
Oh, noooooo *Turns in slow motion to look in mirror*
There´s also people on this boards who want to be taken seriously themselves, but then rather often participate in that "friendly joking" behaviour themselves when they don´t like topics or where things are going.Yes, there are. Their name is Kobold Cleaver. Hi! Sometimes a thread starts to go into an ugly area and I check out, or try to engage people in humor so we all remember we're still people. That does not cause threadjacks. You know the #1 thing that causes threadjacks? Tangential or unrelated arguments. Humor only causes threadjacks when nobody is left who wants to talk about the issue. And if nobody wants to talk about an issue, there's no point in it. You can't force someone into a discussion on the internet. You can't pressure them. You can't guilt them. If they don't want to talk about politics or casters vs. martials or whatever, and they want to talk about bacon instead, they'll do that, and you should let them.
Humor is actually really terrible for threadjacking, because it only works when everyone involved is desperate for the argument to be over. It usually only takes one person to restart a contentious subject, after all. If nobody does so, it's a sign the subject has lost everyone's interest.
And I'm really sorry to be snarky, but this thread seems to have a fascination with slippery slope hypotheticals. First we turn a comment about offensiveness into an argument about "weaponizing offense", and now we're turning an exchange about bacon into a "tool [for] silencing others". :P
I need to know what I'm defending here, people. Am I defending people who get off-topic in the background of a thread to talk about bacon? Or am I defending trolls and censorship?
I'm trolling?Am I? I said we're equally close to being trolls, after all. And that should be fine, since I'm not a troll. Right?
...
Oh, noooooo *Turns in slow motion to look in mirror*
It seemed that people were still talking about the topic at hand, but ok. Regardless, It all ties into the conversation regarding what offends people or causes people problems. Or something.
I don't know anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I sympathize. You aren't totally off-base here. And I do try to be careful about where I employ humor. But I feel like people are reacting too stiffly to, like, four posts about bacon on a 263-post thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I sympathize. You aren't totally off-base here. And I do try to be careful about where I employ humor. But I feel like people are reacting too stiffly to, like, four posts about bacon on a 263-post thread.
Actually, for me it was the one word traded back and forth while quoting the entire posts that took it too far.
Look, I sympathize. You aren't totally off-base here. And I do try to be careful about where I employ humor. But I feel like people are reacting too stiffly to, like, four posts about bacon on a 263-post thread.Actually, for me it was the one word traded back and forth while quoting the entire posts that took it too far.
Irritation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*holds up a medal* "Official Thread derail-er of the internets*
|
Following on from the recent events regarding the banning of some forum users, I thought I would list some of the things which seem to me to be causing friction and/or confusion and some suggestions for things to be considered:
- There is a definite perspective (not from the Paizo forums but from another site) that the community@paizo.com email address shouldn’t be the venue for complaining or challenging views of the community team. Whilst another address might be unnecessary, I think a transparent outline of “what we do when there’s a complaint about moderation” somewhere might be useful. Do you have a policy that a different moderator looks at the action under dispute, for example? That would make sense to me and if everyone knows that’s in place, it might give people more comfort when they send an email off knowing that it’s not going to be reviewed by the person with whom they’re in dispute.
This is the only issue I have with the current moderation system. Otherwise I think the system works as well as any social system can and still allow freedom of thought expression.
If there was some way to address a complaint on moderation that does not involve communicating through the moderator you had a complaint about, that would be just one more step towards perfection.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so now we're bringing up "certain subjects". I can't argue an infinity of hypotheticals. Are we talking about dead baby jokes on a thread about abortion? Because that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm also not talking about trolling, which is arguably just as close to knightnday's preferred style of post (on-topic arguing) as it is to mine (off-topic silliness). After all, people involved in on-topic arguments bait each other all the time. It's basically the #2 reason threads go downhill around here. :P
For my part, I have no problem with people injecting humor into a thread if that's what they want to use it for. If I'm not in the mood, I don't reply (and just scroll past the people who are being lighthearted if I'm reading other people's more "serious" posts). I think that's just part and parcel of a public conversation. In a crowd of people all talking about stuff, you're not going to be interested in what everyone else is saying.
Having said that, I don't think the people doing so should operate under the assumption that it has no impact on those of us not participating in the witticisms. It can be annoying or irritating - for example, it makes it harder to scroll back and read a few posts, since the fifty post per page limit is now being partly filled with banter rather than on-topic discussion. When the topic gets sufficiently in depth, I quite often want to go back and read large posts from earlier (since we can't keep quoting indefinitely).
EDIT: To keep this more focussed on moderation, I'll make the non-comment that I think Paizo's community team are pretty spot-on in weeding out off-topic comments whilst still leaving room for the community to play around. They allow it to wander if that seems to suit the "mood" of the thread and keep things more tightly focussed when that seems to be what the participants are looking for. As far as subjectiveness goes, I don't think you can get much more judgement based than "how much jokiness is allowed" yet I very rarely see complaints about this sort of moderation. So thumbs up Chris, Sara, (Liz) and co.
*wonders where he (Thomas) falls on that spectrum...*
*wonders where he (Thomas) falls on that spectrum...*
It probably depends on which thread you're posting in. I don't think many of us have rigid posting styles across all topics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a courtesy to our moderation team and to folks providing feedback, let's keep the thread centered around the original topic. Having to address spam flags and derailing posts in this thread distracts from our ability to review and respond as necessary to valuable discussion occurring.
Back to the original subject:
A few cues could be taken from GameFAQs:
+ the Marking/Flagging has an "Other" option where the person reporting the post must write a reason, the text entry box can also be used to add additional details if one of the other option was used, often used to tell the mods where in the wall of text the offensive part is.
We've suggested this one in the past, and I think it might be a great one to add if we can. The more information that we can give on the situation can help all the sides understand why the item was flagged and help the mods with a less vague system.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, Miss Price, when you said "Beans and Cornbread" I got that song stuck in my head...
Darn you! :P ;)
I'm fine with everyone calling me Jessica. But if you're going to use an honorific, it's Ms., not Miss. My marital status isn't relevant to my professional life, and honorifics advertising it are inappropriate.
Quoting yourself instead of editing...Irritation?Look, I sympathize. You aren't totally off-base here. And I do try to be careful about where I employ humor. But I feel like people are reacting too stiffly to, like, four posts about bacon on a 263-post thread.Actually, for me it was the one word traded back and forth while quoting the entire posts that took it too far.
Haha! That wasn't the joke. The joke was me repeating someone else's line, then calling that "imitation". :)
Imitation?Unification!Unification!Yes? So? you'd prefer I talk about defecation? Urination? Obliteration? Negation?Moderation?
Cavitation!
Cavitation!Imitation?Unification!Unification!Yes? So? you'd prefer I talk about defecation? Urination? Obliteration? Negation?Moderation?
Divert...ation?
Shoot, I lose. Good game, everyone! Let's pack it in!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with everyone calling me Jessica. But if you're going to use an honorific, it's Ms., not Miss. My marital status isn't relevant to my professional life, and honorifics advertising it are inappropriate.You know, Miss Price, when you said "Beans and Cornbread" I got that song stuck in my head...
Darn you! :P ;)
My apologies! Also I figured I'd use your last name since it seemed like we weren't yet on a first name basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My apologies! Also I figured I'd use your last name since it seemed like we weren't yet on a first name basis.I'm fine with everyone calling me Jessica. But if you're going to use an honorific, it's Ms., not Miss. My marital status isn't relevant to my professional life, and honorifics advertising it are inappropriate.You know, Miss Price, when you said "Beans and Cornbread" I got that song stuck in my head...
Darn you! :P ;)
I appreciate the desire to convey respect through formality, but I have no objection to strangers using my first name. :-)
Well okay Jessica. I should also point out I never use my first name much among friends. But that's something for later.
I think you should use your surname more. I want to see the Seitz. :D
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a courtesy to our moderation team and to folks providing feedback, let's keep the thread centered around the original topic. Having to address spam flags and derailing posts in this thread distracts from our ability to review and respond as necessary to valuable discussion occurring.
Not sure what to think about this and then seeing the forum game posts going on nearly filling a page. Makes me really wonder about some underlying things.
What´s going on here in parts is represantative of other parts of the forum and seems like a strategy. "We don´t like this, we don´t like what some people say, so let´s occupy the thread and fill it with jokes and nonsensical small talk untill it´s so derailed and everyone is discouraged from going on with the topic that it dies down."Providing a valuable discussion indeed...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a courtesy to our moderation team and to folks providing feedback, let's keep the thread centered around the original topic. Having to address spam flags and derailing posts in this thread distracts from our ability to review and respond as necessary to valuable discussion occurring.Not sure what to think about this and then seeing the forum game posts going on nearly filling a page. Makes me really wonder about some underlying things.
What´s going on here in parts is represantative of other parts of the forum and seems like a strategy. "We don´t like this, we don´t like what some people say, so let´s occupy the thread and fill it with jokes and nonsensical small talk untill it´s so derailed and everyone is discouraged from going on with the topic that it dies down."
Providing a valuable discussion indeed...
I apologize for the confusion that that may have presented. Rather that devoting moderation resources to cleaning the thread out, this was intended to be a nudge to get the thread back on track. Removing posts isn't the only method of moderation we use.
As a courtesy to our moderation team and to folks providing feedback, let's keep the thread centered around the original topic. Having to address spam flags and derailing posts in this thread distracts from our ability to review and respond as necessary to valuable discussion occurring.+1 and Amen to that.
@ knightnday, I did say "taking cues" and not 1:1 "copy", what work for one site might not work for another, and some stuff "stop working" if/when the ownership change.
I understand that. My comment was that we've suggested something along the lines of more complete notation in the past, and it still stands as a good idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a courtesy to our moderation team and to folks providing feedback, let's keep the thread centered around the original topic. Having to address spam flags and derailing posts in this thread distracts from our ability to review and respond as necessary to valuable discussion occurring.Not sure what to think about this and then seeing the forum game posts going on nearly filling a page. Makes me really wonder about some underlying things.
What´s going on here in parts is represantative of other parts of the forum and seems like a strategy. "We don´t like this, we don´t like what some people say, so let´s occupy the thread and fill it with jokes and nonsensical small talk untill it´s so derailed and everyone is discouraged from going on with the topic that it dies down."
Providing a valuable discussion indeed...
Except the jokes didn't derail anything. The complaints about the jokes did. And hey, I've shut up, as requested.
To bring this on-topic, I've always appreciated Paizo taking a light hand to the "off-topic" posts. Sometimes threads get derailed. Sometimes that derail leads to some of our all-time greatest threads. Just look at SiaG, or better yet, FAWTL. Paizo nudges threads back on track when it's necessary, but mostly, the community has enough attention span to do it ourselves. We'll get distracted for a page or two, sure, but we always get back on track when it matters to people.
I like that relaxed style. This isn't about "I should be allowed to spam this thread". It's about a general moderation practice. Community members are welcome to tell me to zip it, but I do appreciate that the mods don't usually delete off-topic posts unless it's needed. There was a phase a little while back where they were locking a lot of sidetrekked threads, and I found that distressing because I felt like the forums were losing some of their flavor.
I'm glad things are the way they are. At least with regards to staying on-topic, I like the community being left to police itself. It leads to more organic and relaxed conversation.
|
What we need is a clear and communicated description of the process of banning so that posters know where they stand when they are in less than peaceful interaction with the moderating team
Guidelines are all well and good but every corner case cannot be anticipated and some people are adept at skirting the limits
Hence why moderation is done by humans rather than machines
Just always make an effort to be polite when you're interacting with the mods, and everything should be fine. If a poster is in less than peaceful interaction with the moderation team, it's probably safe to assume that poster is in big, big trouble.
|
Except the jokes didn't derail anything. The complaints about the jokes did.
Complaints which wouldn't exist if not for the jokes.
]Just always make an effort to be polite when you're interacting with the mods, and everything should be fine. If a poster is in less than peaceful interaction with the moderation team, it's probably safe to assume that poster is in big, big trouble.
I think that's an impression moderators should try to avoid at all costs. If something is considered to be inappropriate behavior shouldn't depend on whom you adress with this behavior. Now if you get all agressive if the mods are only doing their job, then you deserve to get problems.
So my advice would more be on the line of "Just always make an effort to be polite when you're interacting with anyone." Would definitely make the moderators' job much easier.
I don't disagree Wormy, but the post I was responding to specifically mentioned posters knowing "where they stand when they are in less than peaceful interaction with the moderation team." Sure, tone is tough to interpret on the interment, so sarcasm gets taken seriously more often than it should, but if you're behaving badly (with a mod particularly, but any with any poster) you're standing at the center of a bullseye.
I've had my share of arguments with other posters, but that doesn't make it any less disingenuous to to be argumentative and feign innocence. I have no problem's with the moderation as is. All my deleted posts have deserved deletion, and I've never been PM'd, suspended or banned; take that for what you will.
Except the jokes didn't derail anything. The complaints about the jokes did.Complaints which wouldn't exist if not for the jokes.
Yeah, a lot of things exist in response to other things. That includes people posting derailing complaints in response to non-derailing jokes.
Derailing a thread to complain about jokes is not a constant. Not every thread with off-topic jokes gets derailed like that—in fact, this is the first time anyone's ever done it. So maybe it's not the jokesters that are to blame.
The word "derailing" is starting to sound like a fake word. Derailing. Derailing. Can someone get this kobold a thesaurus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "derailing" is starting to sound like a fake word. Derailing. Derailing. Can someone get this kobold a thesaurus?
Not to derail the thread, but digress and digression work. :).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, HitDice. In seriousness, before somebody accuses me of derailing a thread just to protest that I don't derail threads, let me make this clear:
We don´t like this, we don´t like what some people say, so let´s occupy the thread and fill it with jokes and nonsensical small talk untill it´s so derailed and everyone is discouraged from going on with the topic that it dies down.
This post was made after everyone else agreed to drop it, and so I take this kind of personally. I regard it as a personal attack, albeit not one likely to get deleted by mods, and one I will be scolded for reacting to because "we're done talking about that" (except HayatoKen apparently is not). And six people favorited it, too, so apparently a lot of people agree with these accusations. I am being accused of trying to silence Hayato and people like them simply because I and others made some goofy posts that took up a tenth of the threadspace.
HayatoKen, please consider how that post comes across. You are sniping at us when we have just been told not to snipe back. Moreover, you are accusing us of attempting to silence dissent, which is a pretty serious accusation. It's extremely relevant to this thread, too, since you're asserting that this is one of the ways in which your views are being policed by the community.
To be clear, all this started because some posters made some utterly harmless jokes and some other posters got mad about it. The latter group are responsible for the digression—they took what was a minuscule number of humorous posts and turned it into a whole damn page of arguments. So maybe stop trying to blame us for derailing, censorship, and every other problem under the Internet Sun. The jokes did not derail the thread. At worst, they clogged it a little, but it's really not that hard to scroll past three near-identical "nested quotes" posts.
We didn't start the fire.
Someone else set fire to our little goofy wagon, and said it was because it was making the rest of the parade harder to watch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word "derailing" is starting to sound like a fake word. Derailing. Derailing. Can someone get this kobold a thesaurus?
{whispers:} The thesaurus will be one of the new dinosaurs in Bestiary 6. It's gotta a high CR, so be careful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{whispers:} The wordfinder will be one of the new Mesozoic reptiles in Monster Treatise Six. It's gotta a [sic] lofty DL, so be cautious.
Hey, look, I found one!