|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted December 10, 2004 12:40 AM |
|
|
I'm with Pandora. Bort IMHO is a truly priceless commodity around this place. I've learned much from him and also think his humor is priceless. He's one of the best posters we have going.
(Thanks also for noticing the true nature of my original request, Pan. We could probably have avoided a lot of time and energy by just deleting the whole thing.)
Bort, if you've a mind to do so, I'd like an IM to hear more about why you think there's a problem in Other Side now. Or you can post it here if you don't care. I really miss your material, man.
Stiven, you keep it up (calling people liars and making false claims and harassing people and suggesting lewd things about people you don't know) and one day you just might slip up; your tongue might just get a bit too loose. Somebody might just slap a libel suit on you. Yes, you can be sued for libel for public statements on the net. That would make your meagre little -qp that all your incredible whining is all about look like a stroll in the park.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 10, 2004 01:18 AM |
|
|
Hmm
I've read Sir_Stiven's post and bort's. I understand exactly how offensive Sir_Stiven's post may have been received via my own personal level. Figuratively speaking, if the man were standing in front of me and accused me of cheating on my wife, I'd punch him in the mouth. That sort of comment is highly insulting, is very very serious, and I maintain absolute pride in my fidelity to my one true love. But Sir_Stiven's post was completely false. It was proven to be such by the facts that both PrivateHudson and Peacemaker posted shortly prior to it. They both clearly state(from my outside opinion) that the entire meeting was within the presence of her husband and son. This tells me that her spouse was openly and honestly included in the meeting. Peacemaker and her husband obviously have such a strong and healthy relationship that they trust each other and want to be a part of each others' experiences. I saw no insult because Sir_Stiven's post was after the facts which points to a clearly uninformed comment. Even her son was with them right? Climbing a wall or something?
Now if Peacemaker claims offense then that is her respected right to voice such. I would not oppose such a reaction. Sir_Stiven's remarks could be regarded as such. And if the Moderators decided she was well within her rights as a human being holding/wanting to retain some degree of honor and respect then I think she deserves compensation.
On the other hand, I am also inclined to agree with bort's perspective. I've agreed with bort from the beginning about the entire conservative/liberal mentality of moderator recruiting. It quite simply doesn't sit well with me. I believe a moderator should be impartial. I also think that each person brings a unique perspective to being a moderator and I would further add....not having two americans as Other Side moderators. I think one is more reasonable whilst looking outside this country for other moderators(Other Side forum only). I think the uniqueness of each moderator should be taken into consideration along with their ability to follow Valeriy's rules. Grouping them into a liberal/conservative category is down-right insulting. It's almost communistic in that doing such seeks to remove a part of the individual indentity of the person. It sort of puts them out to be less special, less uniquely gifted, and less capable of adding their own rightful contribution to the world in the only way they know how....by being their own self.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 01:46 AM |
|
|
Thanks very much Consis, for your words of support. I'm glad someone can understand why I initially reacted so strongly. I'm not exactly a perfect wife or anything, but I'd at least like to think I'm above such innuendo. While I now feel like I overreacted, it sure didn't feel like an overreaction at the moment, especially when another person was also implicated. Sure it was a joke and all, but it was in disgustingly bad taste.
On the conservative-liberal perspective: Do you watch C-Span? You know on their talk shows, they have two phone lines, one for people who are conservative and one for people who are liberal. They do that so they can bounce back and forth between the two phone lines and get a more balanced dialogue thataways.
I personally think it's rather a genius idea, and so I think is the idea of having two diverse perspectives in the Other Side mods. That way when someone of a given perspective posts a really great post in the eyes of others with similar political perspective, it is less likely to be overlooked since the two predominant perpectives in world politics are both represented in the moderation forces.
Just some thoughts in response to your post. A question: would you feel better about it if at least one of them wasn't American?
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 01:54 AM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 9 Dec 2004
|
Quote:
A question: would you feel better about it if at least one of them wasn't American?
I beleive he answered this:
Quote:
I also think that each person brings a unique perspective to being a moderator and I would further add....not having two americans as Other Side moderators.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 02:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
so whats missing really, is anything that reminds of something that would back up your decision.
COC Quote:
Quote:
Insults are not allowed at Heroes Community. Insult is any remark that undermines the persona of another member. Whether censored or not, posting insults will attract a warning and then a penalty.
Note: By posting a message on this forum, you are agreeing to adhere to the guidelines of this forum, and that you understand any message deemed against the said guidelines by moderators will be deleted, and you will be penalized.
Quote:
and i really think you should respect your members opinions better than just writing em off.. its things like that who drives people away.
I really think you have a lot of nerve trying to tell me what drives members away, look at your own posts. And I don’t mean in Real Life Meetings. You have received warnings about things that drive members away.
And I’m not writing the members off, but three members is hardly a substantial amount.
I understand that any moderation on the Other Side is way too much for you. I also understand there is no pleasing some people, as in your case.
It’s my job to enforce the COC, not make you happy. So I don’t intend to bend over backwards to try, that in my opinion is a waste of time.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 10, 2004 03:24 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 9 Dec 2004
|
Yeah....
One american is sufficient in my opinion.
I also fervently disagree with labeling people. I believe that unless a person is in question of committing a crime, he/she should have the right to define his/her self. Others will always have their own opinions but I like to try and understand a person's own unique perspective of his/her self.
In conjunction, I don't think an american conservative is the same as a conservative from another country. That would be like comparing British parliament to our Congress. The two simply are not the same. They may have similarities but they are in fact quite different. That's why I love this community. I love learning about people from other countries. This place has a plethora of good-hearted foreigners that I know I can learn a great deal from.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 03:28 AM |
|
|
wolfie, i didnt ask for a CoC quote. I know where to find the CoC thank you.
What i asked was how you back up that post to be insultive, what makes it an insult?
As already stated to take an example of an equally ridicioulus "insult" as mine.. PM claimed me to be a heyoka. She has earlier and i said i didnt like it then either.
Thats an example of inconsistancy or imbalance if you want to put it like that.
So my question is, what makes my post an insult and the others not?
I could bring up plenty of examples of "insults" such as mine. Will you give them all penalties too?
And i didnt really say you drive members away, i say you already have.
Bort is the perfect example, read his posts and try to learn from them. Look what he said in a previous post that i quoted. You may have classified me as some kind of a troublemaker, but bort?
see.. your moderation drives people away. not because i say you do, but how you moderate speaks for itself.
Look at the number of interesting threads and posts while for example nidhgrin or val was in charge of this forum. Then look at it now.
Basically.. you got four people keeping it alive. Svarog, consis, PM and PH.
Are you happy with that result?
And it might just be me but.. hasnt activity dropped alot too?
I remember when niddy moderated here.. then it was new posts almost every time i logged on.. now? hardly.
Funny thing is, even you cant blame me here as im not a regular poster in this forum 
how does that feel?
what im getting at, is my problem doesnt lie within moderation or not. It lies within how you moderate.
And when you get critised for it in tribunal.. you wont reply.
Atleast with khaelo i just recently about the QP subjective thingy disagreed with her and frankly i dont think many do.
You? ya ive gotten comments.. plenty of em.
Just i dont see the fun in making posts like this, but then now i think you better realise where this moderation of yours is going. Consis, Ph and PM loves this forum so im sure they will be around no matter what... the rest? we´ll see
in conclusion, please respond atleast to the questions about my so called insult in the beginning. And this time please back it up, dont give me some more CoC quote
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:55 AM |
|
|
A side note.
Something Stiven said earlier.
Who are the 'keystone' Mods?
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 05:00 AM |
|
|
I don't think that the penalty should stand, personally. It wasn't a malicious insult, and, while wholly inappropriate in a thread such as the one it was posted in, was not worthy of a penalty because it was what it is, simply a joke (the reason the  was included). Granted, it was distasteful and is worthy of deletion, but to leave a penalty sitting on a post with no malintent is a bit harsh. Did Stiven mean to harm Peacemaker? Doubtful. If not, the penalty should go, I say. The CoC may be the law here at HC, but I believe the mods should be willing to bend a bit and use discretion to discern between what is penalty-worthy and what is not.
In short, I vote against the penalty.
____________
>_>
|
|
pandora
Honorable
Legendary Hero
The Chosen One
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 05:54 AM |
|
|
When I look at the different forums at HC my thought about the Other Side is generally that this is where the grown-ups post. To that effect, I feel that the moderation here should take on a slightly different flavour than elsewhere at HC.
I feel that in this instance the situation went bad, and it was both unfortunate and unneccessary. Peacemaker reacted in an understandable way, ideally Sir_Stiven would have respected her request, deleted the post and the whole thing would have been over. That didn't happen, and what did is too many people became involved making an unpleasant situation become an ugly one.
Its a recurring thought here that the OtherSide does not need heavy handed moderation. (moderation in moderation if you will ) For such a thing to work there needs to be a level of respect shown here amongst the posters. In a forum where we're all adults we should expect that there will be disagreements, we should expect that there will be heated arguements, we should expect there to be some ribbing, innuendo and tongue in cheek comments. In fact, i don't see how this forum could be even remotely interesting without these things. And I don't see how those things could be considered for QP or -QP.
I don't really see the relevance here in what country a Moderator is from, as any nationalistic belief or opinion shouldn't influence judgement anyways. I just don't see why even bring that up.
To me, "Quality" in the Otherside are posts wherein one member has made an effort to share their opinions and feelings with everyone in order to either add to a discussion that is ongoing, or to start a new one here. I think members that are constantly inspiring others to look at things through a different light, and those who write something that makes you say "yeah!! that's it!" are the ones that deserve QP, and that's pretty much everyone who posts here. I don't think it should matter where you are from, or which side of the fence you sit on what should matter is that you are keeping the discussions here going strong.
In this situation I believe that Peacemaker has acted in the most adult way, she reacted, she rethought it, and after a deep breath has asked that we move on. So I think as far as this issue goes Peacemaker's wishes should be the resolution.
What I do think is important though is that longtime members are unhappy and feeling excluded so maybe a more constructive dialogue as to what we can do to make things better would serve to help the forum a lot more than all this fighting. It would be a huge loss to the community to see more of these people leaving.
____________
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 11:27 AM |
|
|
Oh dear…
If I had to sum this discussion up I’d say “over-reaction”.
Lets face it, like it or not SS has a point, remarks like that are frequent here, and one could easily point to a number of things said by me or Svarog or indeed most people on this site and penalise them for such things. The overriding points when judging such a remark must therefore be:
1) Did it cause offence to the people it referred to
2) Was it humorous in nature rather than a serious suggestion
This is what must be considered when determining if a remark should be considered an insult or not. Personally I view 1 to be more important than 2, but if someone was offended by a humorous remark, the solution would best be an edit rather than penalty. If the remark was serious and offence caused, then and only then I would suggest a penalty. If neither of the above are relevant, no action is needed.
So let us apply this to SS’ comment. He made what he considers to be an amusing remark and I very much doubt he intended it seriously. It caused initial offence to PM obviously who requested the moderators take action over it, specifically that the post be deleted. There was in my mind no need to hand out a penalty to him, and though editing the post (or asking him to) may have brought complaints anyway, it’s better than a penalty. PM takes time to think about things and decides she over-reacted and feels bad that the penalty occurred, especially since she does not wish it to. For my part I ignored the remark in terms of wanting any action taken.
So yes, the mods have over-reacted here, there was never a need for a penalty, and frankly now there’s not even a need for the remark to be removed. The simplest solution would be to remove the penalty and admit that it was a mistake to do it, but one guided by the person involved feeling slighted and overeacting.
Then we come to everyone else’s over-reaction. People leaving, accusations flying of bias and discussions about what may or may not have been the opinion of the mods overall. It’s a small issue, but highlights and magnifies the problems and divisions in the community which are caused by more than one side here. I say if people want to leave, that’s their choice and their problem. Oh and as for another moderator for the other side, I don’t see why making it non-American would resolve the issue. The problems some have with the existing team (be they justified or not) run deeper than nationality.
And yes, the posting level on the other side has gone down, but I think this is an issue for the community at large rather than simply the moderators.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:08 PM |
|
|
Perhaps I didn't word my post well, I'm not leaving or threatening to leave. It was commented on in another thread that I don't post much right now, and I was simply stating why. It's not particularly enjoyable to anymore.
There is one reason and one reason alone to read and post on an online message board like this -- it's enjoyable. Whether you enjoy meeting people, reading other opinions, joking around or just want feedback on your fan fiction or whatever, we come here by choice because it can be entertaining and/or informative.
Khaelo at some point commented on how she was very stingy with QPs over the summer and was somewhat invisible as a mod. That is perfect for this forum. This forum benefits greatly from being able to say more or less what one wants. I'm not convinced QPs should be given at all in this forum, but apparently I am in a minority opinion on this issue. Negative QPs should only be given in truly extreme situations, such as the Dear Morons situation.
The biggest problem that there is right now with the moderating in this particular forum is that it is wildly inconsistent. The Khaelo -- Wolfman experiment(more on the logic behind the experiment later) was supposed to bring "balance." What in fact has happened is that Wolfman applies what can be most kindly referred to as extremely selective administration of CoC and Khaelo is excessively deferential to Wolfman for what appears to be fear of being viewed as partisan. The end result is that posts that are critical of the Bush admistration are automatically penalized if they contain any CoC violation while CoC violating posts supportive of Bush are either swept under the rug or given a bonus. This has also led to a redefining of "insult" from "calling someone a pigf****r" to "any post which upsets someone and is made by someone who the mods want to penalize." Final result of "balanced moderating" experiment : 1 conservative mod, 1 rubberstamper.
With regard to QPs in general, the CoC says that QPS can be awarded for posts that are judged to be among the top 2%. It does need to be noted that it doesn't say "the top 2% of posts receive QPS." What is interesting is that there now seems to be a new trend towards "monthtime acheivement awards" where QPs are given essentially because the poster has been making halfway decent posts for awhile. If that's what is wanted, fine, but the problem is that whenever a QP, or -QP for that matter is awarded and then questioned, the response is always "well, its for a complete body of work, not just for that post." In other words "I felt like it."
How does this affect posting? Well, rather than speaking freely, there's the little thought in the back of the mind of "oh no, is this going to drop us right back into the QP debate?" Since the QP awards are so random, you don't really know anymore how to gain them or to avoid penalties. The end result is often, "why bother? It's not worth it."
Now, as far as the "liberal + conservative mod = good" argument, the theory as well as the application is ill advised. What is this? Crossfire? Do you want this to be Hannity screeching at Colmes with Khaelo and Wolfman holding up scorecards? The experiment has not made the conservative viewpoint louder, its just made both sides shut up. I also question the need to enforce so called "balance" and making sure that both "sides" have the same number of posts and QPs. There's this reflexive view now, mostly because of shows like Crossfire and Hannity and Colmes that 1. on every issue, each side is equally valid and 2. the middle is always the most reasonable viewpoint. That's bull, on some issues the right is just wrong and on some (admittedly. far fewer) the left is just wrong. On some the left and the right actually agree, so the extremists are given equal time. If there was a debate on whether or not pedophilia is a good thing, do you really want to make sure the "pro" position gets heard? As far as I'm concerned and probably 95% of people or more are concerned, humping little boys is wrong. We don't need to listed to half hour arguments from the "pro" and "anti" viewpoints and we certainly don't need to come to some middle ground like "on some occasions, humping little boys is okay." Left to their own devices, people will wander in and post their own viewpoint and sometimes it will be on the right and sometimes on the left and even within the right or the left there can be and is disagreement and interesting discussions. Don't try to engineer the discussion because that just kills it.
Anyway, PM, I hope that answers your question about why I think there's a problem with the Other Side right now.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:15 PM |
|
|
Good Heavens
Have you people been up all night writing about this?
( )
Honestly, I suppose I'm only fanning the flames by posting on this topic yet again, but all the attention it's getting is almost more embarassing than the original post was!
<BLUSHES>
P.S. Thanks to PH and Pan and all for the great posts. I do wish they would just delete all this mess -- and the -qp -- as you both have noted.
Unfortunately, however, it is now laced with really interesting dialogue that isn't necessarily related to this instance. So now I don't know quite what to suggest, except that primarily we all just move on.
<EDIT>
Bort, you and I were apparently posting at the same time. Thanks for the detailed response to my question. Not that I'm the most observant mind around, but you're describing a phenomenon I hadn't noticed, not in the least.
I had a question about your post:
Quote:
The end result is that posts that are critical of the Bush admistration are automatically penalized if they contain any CoC violation while CoC violating posts supportive of Bush are either swept under the rug or given a bonus.
Just wondering -- could you set out some examples where this is happening? (I don't know how to search just for "qp's" or negative "qp's without going through every post -- do you? Or do you have some example threads in mind?)
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:25 PM |
|
|
I think this has re-raised the important point about the divisions in how people see the forum and it's moderation. I agree though that with the penalty removed, that topic should close.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:27 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 10 Dec 2004
|
RedSoxFan was given a bonus for a post that Wolfman went in and edited a CoC violation. To cover their tracks, the bonus was later moved to another post. Note, I do not think that the post deserved a penalty, just that I find it interesting that RedSoxFan received a bonus for a CoC violation while Svarog received a penalty for one (A**holes). The difference? One swore in support of Bush, the other swore in anger at Bush.
Hudson -- Moving on because the penalty has been removed presupposes that it's been removed. If you go and check, you'll see that as of this post, it hasn't been removed.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:33 PM |
|
|
well, I think this debate is worthwhile. Why? because us N00bs don't fully understand the internal workings of HC and for someone that is VERY interested in QP's, it is nice to read. Good material.
I like this debate, but no one should get upset about it. As long as it's a healthy debate, and since times are always changing, questionning is always a good thing. I think we must always question how things work and if someone finds there is a problem with the way things are done, they should state it.
SS stated before that he thinks there is a problem with QP's. I beleive that he is using what happened to his post as an argument for what he is trying to say. And that is good. Arguing, in a respectfull manner is healthy.
Keeping it respectfull, therefore should be the issue here.
I for one, find this very usefull.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hudson -- Moving on because the penalty has been removed presupposes that it's been removed. If you go and check, you'll see that as of this post, it hasn't been removed.
I know, I'm hoping it will be, and if it is, suggesting we let the issue lie at that so that we can adress the more important issue about the divisions in this part of the forum. I'm not suggesting we move on now, just that we do when (if) it happens.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 04:48 PM |
|
|
the gootch said:
Quote:
My business with this thread is concluded Khaelo. Do what you need to do with it.
While you're at it and since you're in such a policing mood why don't you do us a favor and erase some of the real garbage...if you want some tips I'll be more than happy to give advice.
And yes, that is the most ridiculous qp penalty I've ever seen.
Did you even bother to read Peacemaker's succeeding comment before applying the heavy hand of god? If you did and still applied the qp penalty...well...perhaps Stivin was right all along...
bort said:
Quote:
Well, that may well qualify as the most absurd penalty ever applied at HC.
Wonder how long this post will last before being swept under the rug.
consis wrote:
Quote:
I saw no insult because Sir_Stiven's post was after the facts which points to a clearly uninformed comment. Even her son was with them right? Climbing a wall or something?
shadowcaster wrote:
Quote:
I don't think that the penalty should stand, personally. It wasn't a malicious insult, and, while wholly inappropriate in a thread such as the one it was posted in, was not worthy of a penalty because it was what it is, simply a joke (the reason the was included).
PrivateHudson wrote:
So yes, the mods have over-reacted here, there was never a need for a penalty, and frankly now there’s not even a need for the remark to be removed. The simplest solution would be to remove the penalty and admit that it was a mistake to do it, but one guided by the person involved feeling slighted and overeacting.
Peacemaker wrote:
Quote:
I do wish they would just delete all this mess -- and the -qp -- as you both have noted.
thats 6 members, with me it becomes 7. The only 7 that made a statement over the penalty/insult thingy.
Even the person my joke was directed too and the member who felt offended by it is in the above list.
So thats 7 outta 7 members, still wanna dismiss their opinions as nothing?
And from what im hearing, this is more starting to become a one (wolf)man show behind the scenes aswell.
You claim to listen to the community wolfie, i really cant say i see it here.
@PM, to reply to your first post in this page (3) which edit i missed.
See, i never make calls in things i have no insight in. Here on the other hand i have. I have first hand insight from own personal discussions backing up every words i speak.
And its the reason that i do value these private conversations that this hasnt turned to a battlefield. Trust me on that one.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted December 10, 2004 05:27 PM |
|
|
Que Sara Sara....
Whatever will be, will be....Let's move forward with openness and wisdom.
I don't think these posts should be deleted. It's already ancient history to me.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
TheRealDeal
Promising
Supreme Hero
Foobum* of Justice!
|
|
posted December 10, 2004 06:35 PM |
|
|
I'm a member aswell. I think that the -QP was very fitting, and it's been overdue for SO FRIGGIN long. You should have gotten a penalty for the that little thang you did in library against mr rage.. but noone seemed to care about some else them themselves there.
I think it should stand.
____________
*We all know the that Foobum is the class of all that is Cake.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
