The problem with "Post Removal" moderation


Paizo General Discussion

1 to 50 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, the primary form of moderation I've seen on these forums has been simple removal. Some post gets made, people get offended (quite possibly with good reason) and respond accordingly, and then the original post and all follow-on posts get removed, to exist only in the memory of those who read them while they were there.

As far as I can tell, this is actually doing toxic things to the forum. Right now, we're in Covid (which makes everything worse for everyone). We also have a lot of people who are feeling betrayed by the Paizo leadership - people who had been seriously emotionally invested in the company and are now dealing with the pain of seeing some of the ideals they had been invested in betrayed, and uncertainty on how bad the betrayal was and/or is going to be. Those of you who are in that particular suck place have my sympathy for that one. Regardless, that's making those folks more sensitive than normal to anything that looks like it might be an attack. I'm really not blaming anyone here. For this kind of situation, this is completely normal. It does make it somewhat harder for people to understand each other and get along, though... especially when there are folks who walk into the situation without realizing that the whole thing's become a bit of a powderkeg.

The current style of moderation is making it worse.

It's like this. Legitimately Bad Actor A posts something legitimately offensive, in order to mess with people. This gets read by a number of people - mostly those that spend a lot of time on the forums... who tend to be the folks who are most emotionally invested, and most likely to be feeling touchy right now. Those people are duly offended, and they feel under attack, because it is an attack. After all, LBAA over there posted it more or less specifically to cause emotional harm. So now they're feeling even more unhappy. They post responses, investing a degree of effort into countering points or trying to be reasonable or pointing out fallacies or just calling LBAA out for being a terrible person,
or whatever. At some point shortly thereafter, the original post and all follow-on posts are deleted. Worth noting that the original post here inherently gets more views than the follow-ons, because follow-ons often take time to write, and all of them get nuked at the same time. So what are the effects? LBAA got everything they wanted. People are offended, people are hurt. At the same time, the people who put in effort to respond get... basically nothing that they were going for, because their posts were nuked before any sort of discussion could come out of them. The folks who saw the original posts are feeling even more attacked, and this is making them feel even more touchy, but they have nothing to point to.

Now we have Clueless But Well-Meaning Newbie B. CBWMNB comes by after the dust has settled... and what they see is a bunch of people getting enormously upset about bigots in a forum where... there aren't any posts that look like unreasonable bigotry. Every post that they can see that anyone objects to is almost painfully reasonable, because all of the posts that anyone got offended to that were in any way unreasonable got rapidly removed, and CBWMNB just doesn't come by the forums often enough to see one in the brief period while it's up. The standards for what is and is not acceptable are deeply unclear, because every example of "not acceptable" that's ever been posted is just gone. CBWMNB sees people calling for blanket banning of bigots (presumably referring to people like LBAA) and has no clue where the line might be, or even what everyone is getting so upset about. The radical disconnect in forum experience between those who are on consistently enough to see the sort of bile that the various LBAAs post and those who are not makes communication break down even further between people who might well agree with each other if they were actually talking about the same thing... and that breakdown in communication just dumps even more toxicity into the emotional tenor of the forums, with all the associated follow-on effects.

It effectively becomes a weird sort of reverse dog whistle - a political statement that cannot be perceived except by the opposition. It poisons the environment, but doesn't stick around long enough for anyone to try to actually address it productively, or fix anything, or point to it as a "don't be that guy" or anything.

Some of the other forums I'm on have a feature where mods can add a clear mod banner under infracted posts, stating what the poster did wrong, the fact that they shouldn't do it again, and any associated punishment. That sort of a response (especially when combined with a clearly laid-out and detailed explanation of What Is Not Cool Here with clearly visible links) seems to work *much* better at getting people to actually stay within an acceptable-to-the-community standard of discussion than the "sweep it under the rug" moderation style that seems to be in use in this place.


Can you clarify whether you're actually saying the offensive posts should be left, with an addition to say why it's offensive, or that the post should be replaced with the explanation.

Because the first one is just a call to leave offensive posts visible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andy Brown wrote:

Can you clarify whether you're actually saying the offensive posts should be left, with an addition to say why it's offensive, or that the post should be replaced with the explanation.

Because the first one is just a call to leave offensive posts visible.

Ideally you'd have some sort of spoiler tag set up, so that they would require a bit of effort to be made visible and anyone who didn't wish to see them wouldn't. Actually having them at least potentially visible, though, is kind of important for being able to tell people that the behavior is offensive and why - which in turn is important for actually establishing a coherent set of community standards that people in general can agree on and that can be taught to newcomers.

The big problem that I see with leaving offensive posts in place is that their presence normalizes them to a degree - it can send a message of "People are doing this, so it's okay. People think this, so it is normal." That in turn both makes the space mroe hostile to those that that message is hostile to and leads to further bad behavior. If the infracting messages have "this is not acceptable behavior, and here is the punishment" posted right on them, that rather counters that issue. Having the evidence of their misbehavior right there, called out as such, is also an important part of applying social penalties. Just saying "this post was deleted and X was infracted" doesn't really do that.

In the places that I've seen this used (and used well), the offending posts are not removed unless they're egregiously offensive at the "full-on illegal, pornographic, or horribly abusive" level, and it works just fine. The bar for "banner comment and infraction" is a lot lower than that.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

18 people marked this as a favorite.

So, the biggest problem with this is we absolutely do not have the staff to enforce it. The best option, frankly, is to shoot us an email with all this information (community@paizo.com is probably best), so that it can be passed along to the people who can actually make concrete changes that would allow better moderation.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

These changes are needed, they need to be handled carefully, and it's management's responsibility to work out how to fund them, not the team's.


Raychael wrote:
So, the biggest problem with this is we absolutely do not have the staff to enforce it. The best option, frankly, is to shoot us an email with all this information (community@paizo.com is probably best), so that it can be passed along to the people who can actually make concrete changes that would allow better moderation.

It is done. I hope you find it helpful.

For what it's worth, the places I've seen using this technique have generally had volunteer mods. I'm really not sure how feasible that is in Paizo's case, though.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO, if Paizo deems a post offensive, they should strike the text from public view. While I am first and foremost a freedom of speech purist, this is not my forum and willing to accept moderator oversight as long as they have to explain to the offender what, specifically, they did wrong, not just a vague and dismissive, "we have determined your comment/s violate our rules. You are banned from the kingdom. Bye-bye."

However, that post should remain visible to the offender, perhaps in their post history and the moderator notes attached. Further, the moderator must be available to communicate with the offender if they want clarification and there should be a method of appeal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:

IMO, if Paizo deems a post offensive, they should strike the text from public view. While I am first and foremost a freedom of speech purist, this is not my forum and willing to accept moderator oversight as long as they have to explain to the offender what, specifically, they did wrong, not just a vague and dismissive, "we have determined your comment/s violate our rules. You are banned from the kingdom. Bye-bye."

However, that post should remain visible to the offender, perhaps in their post history and the moderator notes attached. Further, the moderator must be available to communicate with the offender if they want clarification and there should be a method of appeal.

I'll agree that telling people what they did wrong is good. It helps those who might wish to not do wrong to correct themselves after they make mistakes. Personally, though, I'd rather be able to learn from other people's mistakes, too. It would do a lot to reduce the overall number of mistakes that get made (and must be moderated) along the way.

...and in the cases where it's not a mistake, telling the person who did it what they "did wrong" doesn't do a lot for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel like the Paizo forums have historically valued the "right to forget"--the right to screw up and be reprimanded, have the posts deleted, and allowed to move on. This might explain why mods are so loathe to comment on whether abusive posters have been banned, or to ever call out a specific bad actor by name in public. I do think it's... it has its place, and its problems, too.

"Huh. I wonder who that sign's reprimand's for."

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
I'll agree that telling people what they did wrong is good...

I agree. Personally, I believe that most posts should be left alone, but in this instance I am accepting the notion that the moderators are not going to do that and focusing on what they could/should do when they do decide to scrub posts.

I am happy to argue freedom of speech but since I am doing so in anther thread, if I also do it here, it will be considered cross-posting and the moderators will be inclined to delete my entire post which is counter-productive if I want to be able to contribute to the ongoing discussion.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This might explain why mods are so loathe to comment on whether abusive posters have been banned

I have always worked from the notion that you praise in public, but punish in private. I know people would like to see their hated enemies strung up by their entrails, but in our "enlightened" society, as long as they are sanctioned, it should be sufficient. Though I admit that there are a lot of cases where offenders do not seem to be getting sanctioned and that puts even more pressure on the already overworked moderators. The simple fact that customer service, who already struggles to remain current with inbound customer issues is also tasked with maintaining the message boards containing hundreds of active threads just demonstrates Paizo's general inability to properly manage their business. Not to mention, if Paizo was to publicize someone's sanctioning, it could possibly open them up to litigation. It is generally hard to prove slander/liable, but why create the opportunity?

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This might explain why mods are so loathe to comment on whether abusive posters have been banned
I have always worked from the notion that you praise in public, but punish in private. I know people would like to see their hated enemies strung up by their entrails, but in our "enlightened" society, as long as they are sanctioned, it should be sufficient. Though I admit that there are a lot of cases where offenders do not seem to be getting sanctioned and that puts even more pressure on the already overworked moderators. The simple fact that customer service, who already struggles to remain current with inbound customer issues is also tasked with maintaining the message boards containing hundreds of active threads just demonstrates Paizo's general inability to properly manage their business. Not to mention, if Paizo was to publicize someone's sanctioning, it could possibly open them up to litigation. It is generally hard to prove slander/liable, but why create the opportunity?

Praise in public. Correct in private.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not about stringing people up by their entrails, geez. What a morbid way to interpret me, honestly! :P

It's about clarity. If someone's making the space feel unsafe, I want to know he won't be able to do it anymore. Heather did a good job of that this morning when she noted that some posters were no longer able to post.

I also like to be able to see what I and others do wrong so I can learn, and specificity tends to help a lot more than general vague "hey girls, play nice!". When I get called out and told to simmer down, I like to know they're talking to me, not have to guess. I assume others are the same way. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I see very little reason to keep up harmful, bigoted content.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leg o' Lamb wrote:
Praise in public. Correct in private.

Semantics. Whatever. You know precisely what I meant.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I also like to be able to see what I and others do wrong so I can learn, and specificity tends to help a lot more than general vague "hey girls, play nice!". When I get called out and told to simmer down, I like to know they're talking to me, not have to guess. I assume others are the same way. :)

I agree, but that should occur in private. IMO, the moderator has a responsibility to address the offender directly, explain exactly what they did wrong and perhaps suggest corrective action. That is the manager/parent in me. The problem is, that is not how moderation has been done in the past. You get what is essentially a form letter indicating you did something to violate the terms of forum usage and you are suspended/banned. Any attempt to get further clarity was met with silence. Perhaps that is changing now, but given the volume of posting, I don't know if the moderators have the time to do so.

The exception being a permanent ban I guess since you no longer expect any change in behavior so I could see them just banning without a detailed explanation and moving on. Participation in the forums is equivalent to at will employment in that regard.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I see what you did there.... :>


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Leg o' Lamb wrote:
Praise in public. Correct in private.
Semantics. Whatever. You know precisely what I meant.

It's a useful distinction.

Dark Archive

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
Leg o' Lamb wrote:
Praise in public. Correct in private.
Semantics. Whatever. You know precisely what I meant.
It's a useful distinction.

A difference in theory of management and language.


Not to mention systems of justice ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TwilightKnight wrote:
Leg o' Lamb wrote:
Praise in public. Correct in private.
Semantics. Whatever. You know precisely what I meant.
It's a useful distinction.

It's a useful distinction and correct is better, but the basic public/private dichotomy has the problem if the correction is private, no one else sees it happen and that makes it hard to see that any correction is done. Which leaves the place feeling unsafe when someone blows the dog whistle and nothing apparent happens.


Yeah, I stand by what I said elsewhere.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:


I have always worked from the notion that you praise in public, but punish in private.

You might be interested in a years-old discussion between Tonya and the inimitable Jiggy, in which the latter argues that praise in public, reprimand in private is sometimes an appropriate approach to some problems of forum moderation (or people management in general) but in other situations is frankly not the right approach.

In other words, questioning how good of an idea it is to "always" work from that notion, as if it were a required and indispensable principle. An alternative is to treat praise in public, reprimand in private as one among several moderating solutions, better suited to some problems and worse suited to others.

While the details of the problems were quite different (PFS stuff), a number of the broader themes of the problems were strikingly similar to those being discussed now, such as the trouble that arises when reprimand in private turns into toxic behavior goes publicly unchallenged.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gosh, Jiggy is amazing.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, doesn't change my opinion on public praise and private punishment (or reprimand or correction or whatever word you prefer)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Problematic/dangerous viewpoints gain strength, validity, and converts through repetition and exposure. Nip the bud, delete the content so other people can't see it later, seems good to me. You can only stop cancer by destroying the dividing cells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Problematic/dangerous viewpoints gain strength, validity, and converts through repetition and exposure. Nip the bud, delete the content so other people can't see it later, seems good to me. You can only stop cancer by destroying the dividing cells.

The basic problem is... removing the posts is just hiding it. It pretends that the thing has been unsaid, but people have seen it. It has already had an effect, and then the evidence is wiped away until the next time. It doesn't actually do anything to discourage anyone from posting it yet again.

- The Legitimately Bad Actor (overt) gets everything they could want - they get to say hurtful things, and see that they've been hurtful, and then everything that anyone says to try to counter them gets wiped away at the same time the evidence of their misbehavior does.

- For the Legitimately Bad Actor (covert) it's even better, since they also get to pretend to be completely innocent every time, and play "the reasonable one" while slowly raising the toxicity of their rhetoric... until, yet again, the slate is wiped clean.

...so part of your problem is that just removing the posts lets both of the above groups continue to do exactly what they were doing. As long as they can stay in that sweet spot between "post removed" and "outright suspended" then for them, it's all upside, no downside. Even better, they get to make the actual honest, reasonable people that are arguing with them look crazy. It's an ideal environment for trolls. Also, the effective lack of history limits the rhetorical tools that others can respond to them with. If there were explicit rules, and enough of a body of use to get a clear idea of what they meant, people could just say things like "This is a violation of Rule 8.3: No unpersoning" or whatever, rather than having to try to address each hateful point individually. It would also help with knowing when to report and what reasons to give.

- The blundering idiot doesn't really get any sort of wakeup call. Their posts are being removed, but so are everyone else's. If they don't go back and look at post history, there's a good chance that they wont' even realize that their posts have been removed. They have no incentive to change and, worse, may not even have any indication that they should change.

- The clueless newbie is getting minimal useful information, and loads of misinformation. The covert bad actors look entirely reasonable, and unfairly persecuted. Many of the folks who are completely fed up but still trying to do the right thing just look like they're crazy. There are no real indicators of what behavior is and is not acceptable or where the lines are, and even when they themselves post something they shouldn't... well, they aren't really getting any more information (or incentives) than the blundering idiots are.

These two groups are people who could be brought into alignment with the acceptable use policies of the board (if we had clearly laid out acceptable use policies) given sufficient education. The clueless newbie is trying, but still needs ways to get some clue, while the blundering idiot needs to have that clue force-fed to them. I'm not here to get into the argument about what level of cluelessness is no longer worth saving. I'm just saying that these people will show up (most folks start out as one of them) and the current policies mean that it's harder for them to get the clue they need, and therefore they take longer to learn and post more regrettable mistakes along the way... which are also hurtful (however unintended).

/******/

Basically... inefficient attempts to sweep things under the rug don't work. You get Potemkin Village harmony - it maybe looks good at a distance, but people are still getting hurt, and you've done real damage to any efforts to actually address root problems. It's basically going all-in on conflict avoidance strategies, and it has the same issue that leaning too heavily on that stuff has everywhere. It treats the symptoms but not the disease. You're facing long-term problems, and all you have are short-term solutions.

It's not that conflict avoidance strategies are inherently bad. There are certainly times and places that they're the right answer... but wallpapering over rot doesn't really work well in the long term.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Problematic/dangerous viewpoints gain strength, validity, and converts through repetition and exposure. Nip the bud, delete the content so other people can't see it later, seems good to me. You can only stop cancer by destroying the dividing cells.

After some more thought, I've realized that I went off on my own rant about why I thought I was right, and did not actually address the core concern you raised. I apologize for that, and I'll try to fix that this time.

In my experience, if you just leave aforementioned dangerous/problematic viewpoints lying around, that can grant them strength/validity/converts. That's much less the case when they are countered with compelling arguments. It's even less the case when they're called out and marked (correctly) as being in violation of clearly posted forum rules. Having the argument laid out with its flaws clearly exposed for all to see generally does more to undermine it than support it.

Past that, though, there's the question of how much additional exposure they'd get. People don't generally read back all that far through the archives unless something is linked, and if such a thing is linked, it's more likely to be as evidence of prior misbehavior than as a supporting argument. Again, the overall effect on the presented toxic ideology is likely to be to undermine it rather than support it... especially given how much easier it will be to address those cases where known bad actors pretend that their initial arguments are innocent.

Toxic viewpoints are at least as much a disease as they are cancer, and antibodies are kind of important there.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This might explain why mods are so loathe to comment on whether abusive posters have been banned
I have always worked from the notion that you praise in public, but punish in private. I know people would like to see their hated enemies strung up by their entrails, but in our "enlightened" society, as long as they are sanctioned, it should be sufficient. Though I admit that there are a lot of cases where offenders do not seem to be getting sanctioned and that puts even more pressure on the already overworked moderators. The simple fact that customer service, who already struggles to remain current with inbound customer issues is also tasked with maintaining the message boards containing hundreds of active threads just demonstrates Paizo's general inability to properly manage their business. Not to mention, if Paizo was to publicize someone's sanctioning, it could possibly open them up to litigation. It is generally hard to prove slander/liable, but why create the opportunity?

I mean grow the hell up. I've been yelled at Paizo employees and others in publiclish venues before and you know what happened. At worst I felt embarrassed for being a jerk and apologized. I don't think anyone was gleefully calling for my head.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Gotta agree that it's really disorienting to come to the forum and see a new string of "Can you believe all this bigotry!" posts, when all the bad stuff has already been removed. Different time zones and also work hours and all that stuff, I guess.

Yeah, I got no good solution to the phenomenon, either. But it isn't just disconcerting to forum newbies.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Having now seen a permaban handed out with a public mod explanation of what was said and how it broke the rules, I'm pretty content with how it seems to work.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:

- The Legitimately Bad Actor (overt) gets everything they could want - they get to say hurtful things, and see that they've been hurtful, and then everything that anyone says to try to counter them gets wiped away at the same time the evidence of their misbehavior does.

- For the Legitimately Bad Actor (covert) it's even better, since they also get to pretend to be completely innocent every time, and play "the reasonable one" while slowly raising the toxicity of their rhetoric... until, yet again, the slate is wiped clean.

I do recall engaging in some conversations with you during the initial days of the current forum controversies that began with you posting some fairly inflammatory things.

Would you want all of those comments to have stuck around? You launched the exchange, and are now saying that post removal allows people to sweep such actions and the offending poster to pose as behaving more rationally.

You benefited from that system and are now saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant against you own behavior.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sanityfaerie wrote:

In my experience, if you just leave aforementioned dangerous/problematic viewpoints lying around, that can grant them strength/validity/converts. That's much less the case when they are countered with compelling arguments. It's even less the case when they're called out and marked (correctly) as being in violation of clearly posted forum rules. Having the argument laid out with its flaws clearly exposed for all to see generally does more to undermine it than support it.

Past that, though, there's the question of how much additional exposure they'd get. People don't generally read back all that far through the archives unless something is linked, and if such a thing is linked, it's more likely to be as evidence of prior misbehavior than as a supporting argument. Again, the overall effect on the presented toxic ideology is likely to be to undermine it rather than support it... especially given how much easier it will be to address those cases where known bad actors pretend that their initial arguments are innocent.

Toxic viewpoints are at least as much a disease as they are cancer, and antibodies are kind of important there.

I completely agree with everything you just said, although I'd like to add to it with a bit of personal experience. I think people's ability to respond to toxic ideas and engage in free speech is greatly enhanced when people are also afforded zones of control (often pejoratively called "safe spaces"), where they have an environment they can feel free. In Pathfinder terms, a GM is not going to make their player characters stronger by hurling battle after battle at them without giving them short and long rests. Having a community where you feel like you can be free, goes a long way to giving people the confidence and peace of mind they need to engage in meaningful conversation with people of different views.

Speaking from personal experience, I've had several gay and trans friends over the years I've watched suffer from living in an environment where they were perpetually repressed and, on particularly bad occasions, threatened or worse. Those antagonizing people had an abundance of zones of control in local churches, schools, charity groups (lol) and political organizations. I grew up in such a bubble and had very little contact with anyone who was not a conservative Christian until I was in my twenties. Inside this bubble, anyone who diverged from ideological boundaries were beset by a cavalcade of "religiously correct" discipline and argumentation they were expected to endure, and received no quarter from. It's hardly a surprise to me that those sorts of people on the receiving end often seemed like lunatics to me, at the time. They rarely had the energy left to engage in anything like civil discourse; not because most people were even rude when confronting them, but because they couldn't catch a freaking break.

Rest is as important to dialogue as struggle. Paizo, in my view, is a tavern where adventurers can stop and rest between adventures. Without places like these, it can be very hard to find the strength to keep engaging with people of very adverse opinions.

And yes, I think zones of control are important for everyone, including people I disagree with strongly. But for people who otherwise have a hard time finding places where they aren't constantly beset by people trying to knock them down, I value places like Paizo — that watch their back while they catch their breath — very, very much.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's funny how the most "fragile, emotional" trans people are actually usually the ones ensuring the most BS at any given time.


The best solution remains mute and block, IMO.

Though I'm kind of baffled why anyone would come to the Paizo boards and argue theology. Or at least theology not involving Iomedae, Pharasma, and the rest...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is a subset of some faiths who feel it is necessary to go to the places where their faith is not held in any sort of view and proselytize 'to save lost souls'.

In that subset, there are a few different belief paths that hold that trans women are not women, trans men are not men, and that they are being deluded by the darker forces their faith fights against.

As a result, there are some who would come here and attempt to 'fight the Good Fight' to try and 'save the souls of sinners'.

Muting and blocking would not help with that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Catholic theologian here by training, my posts in all the time I have been here have not been theological except for one that I posted about goodness yesterday.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


There is a subset of some faiths who feel it is necessary to go to the places where their faith is not held in any sort of view and proselytize 'to save lost souls'.

Uh, yeah. I grew up with the people who think Southern Baptists are flaming theological liberals, so sort of familiar.

Quote:
Muting and blocking would not help with that.

No, it's the perfect solution.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a good personal protection measure, but not a good community protection measure.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Yeah, it's funny how the most "fragile, emotional" trans people are actually usually the ones ensuring the most BS at any given time.

Enduring?

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Also, don't know if you noticed, but the Paizo forums do not have a Mute and Block feature.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Enduring, yes. Typing is hard. XD


MurderHobo#6226 wrote:
The best solution remains mute and block, IMO..

Don’t these forums lack either function?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I assume they mean mute and block need to be added. It would sure help, though it's not on its own a solution.

As an aside, we saw the mods put into practice a very effective form of moderation today. I can tell it takes extra work--deciding which posts to delete and which to leave for illustration, writing a big summary--but it does help a lot. I hope they're getting the support they need from management.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It's a good personal protection measure, but not a good community protection measure.

Nah. I've never found the solution to someone saying something I find wrong/offensive/bad to be to try to control them into "good thoughts."

Oh, well.


Cori Marie wrote:
Also, don't know if you noticed, but the Paizo forums do not have a Mute and Block feature.

Yes, that was the point.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I suppose whether an abusive poster develops a better attitude is secondary to me to the priority of ensuring they aren't posting abuse and harassment on my forums.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah muting and blocking is fine for each individual, but not for those who still have to see it after you've muted and blocked.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I suppose whether an abusive poster develops a better attitude is secondary to me to the priority of ensuring they aren't posting abuse and harassment on my forums.

Ah, "yours."

OK, if you say so.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm glad we agree, neighbor. :)

1 to 50 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / The problem with "Post Removal" moderation All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.