|
| Thread: A survey and a lament |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
posted August 22, 2012 11:21 PM |
|
|
Lol you know what I mean. 
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted August 22, 2012 11:23 PM |
|
|
But who defines what is abusing power? I, and several others, think that the mods are fully in the right in this situation, while you disagree. That is the point I am trying to make; everything you say is subjective, and there are those who disagree.
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted August 22, 2012 11:26 PM |
|
|
There are some who don't think they are abusing their power but then there are others like JJ, Mvass, Lex and me. So no, it's not just me.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted August 22, 2012 11:27 PM |
|
|
Heh, people are still discussing xerox's mum 
Back in the day I had deleted vw posts that would have otherwise been penalized and if memory serves one of those was xerox's. I do not remember the specifics but there was a very offensive thread about him pissing on HC or something - which was actually hilarious! But in poor taste and insulting for the members though I do not remember if he addressed anyone directly. Ah those were the days  Did anyone else penalize him for it? Were the offensive posts many? The details elude me but I'm sure he could have gotten a couple of penalties there. Does it really matter? Would you really feel better if he had earned an extra penalty there and his other one was removed? Because I sure would not want him to end up with more penalties than he started when he brought up the issue. That wouldn't be fair nor would it make much sense.
For what it's worth when I had first seen that post I though, not another wall text about his damn book! Jesus! When I realized what the post was about it did not seem so bad though it could still be considered spam in that it didn't in any way contribute to the discussion and could only serve to derail it. While I did complain about it, I would not have actually penalized but it is quite likely that I would have deleted it for the reasons above. At the time it looked like he did what he could get away with and the path he was taking wasn't looking all that good, there were complaints about his trolling behaviour and requests for penalties. And suddenly his spam invades the osm? That felt like crossing the line. But that IS ancient history and xerox did prove a cool guy and a fun member of HC.
All the same, people seem to forget how much trouble ohforf has caused or his zeal in sharing what he likes to do with his anus, jokes about raping bunnies or hitting on members in a most repulsive way. He has issues with the mods because they did not allow him his 'freedom of speech' and he has tried to be a wise@ss about it on more than a few occasions. And suddenly he starts a campaing to prove that the mods are unjust, evil or whatever after having been warned 3-4 times to drop it? In the past he had privately admitted that he had been trolling JJ in the osm just because he was bored. What are the odds that he is doing the same right now? As he has done again and again? Why do you think he was told to drop it?
Yes, angelito's tone might have looked harsh but he has had plenty of this crap over the years too. So he did what he did to save us the drama and flaming. Was that the right thing? That's up to personal interpretation. Was it done to silence people's opinions? Hardly, they had already been made known. Does a moderator need to follow the popular opinion? Not necessarily. Could he have been more lenient? Certainly but he has his own way of moderation, whether we like it or not. One that has been consistent and one that Val knew. Different than mine and no doubt different than yours but right now, he is in this position and you are not. The most reasonable decision would be to simply contact Val and see what he has to say on the matter, if you feel that there has been a grave injustice and things cannot be allowed to remain as they are. Nobody would object to that but remember that in the end it won't be a matter of popular opinion.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2012 11:27 PM |
|
|
By the way, fun fact: Angelito has been here for almost a decade!
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2012 11:41 PM |
|
|
Vindicator:Quote:
I have never, in my life, seen someone change their opinion due to reasonable arguing. At best, the person will simply go, "Eh," and change the subject. Never have I seen a person go, "You're right, I'm wrong, I now think that way."
My experiences have been different. I've changed people's minds with reasonable arguments, and other people have changed my mind - even here on HC in the OSM, hard as it may be to believe.
Elvin:
I remember Ohforf's annoying posts, but they're not relevant to the current situation at all. And even if his intention is to troll now, it doesn't change the fact that what he's saying is right.
And, again, Angelito could have silenced everyone at HC. That would've stopped all the drama, guaranteed. Would that have been right for him to do? Of course not. So just because he took an action to "save us the drama" doesn't make it right. Angelito has his own way of moderation, and clearly there are many among us who don't like it.
I e-mailed Val. Let's see what he has to say.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 12:08 AM |
|
|
Things happened three years ago? ... Huh?
Honestly, I have been trying to stay out of this but it's gotten a little silly. A single mod made an arrogant, foolish and arbitrary decision 3 years ago, is barely active today (As far as I can tell) and someone got a single penalty that they feel they didn't deserve. Let's remember that as we move on.
That's where this started, a mod let themselves feel something that resembled annoyance at a poster and gave him a warranted (but not for the post in question) penalty and nothing happened three years ago (longer than I've been around). Said penalized poster asks why, and a few members voice their dissent, but the ruling stands and that should be the end of it, right? Fast forward three years, when no one has a really good memory about what happened (hell, I don't even have a memory of this...) and the poster in question asks if he can have the penalty removed. Now, it would seem rather reasonable since most of the reason he got it has disappeared and the post itself is rather on-topic and a little humorous given the context of that thread (and that thread alone). The mods, one of whom remembers the reasons given and one who gave the penalty, tell him no because, let's face it, after three years a single penalty just does not have the same importance or sting to it as one given yesterday. It's old and done, let it be done. Some of the people asking for it to be fixed feel a little miffed and one or two still stand adamant that the penalty is undeserved, but most members move on. Including (at the time) the poster who had made the complaint.
But of course, our now barely-active mod had to be mean about it and act all arrogantly. And no one needs to be reminded about what happened since then... (Thank you, btw Forfy [/sarcasm])
That's what this problem is about at its core, does prior behavior that was punished wrongly (but for generally bad behavior) deserve to be removed years after the fact, when basically everyone forgets about it or doesn't know it even exists. The question of whether or not the removal of a thread without warning is unjustified isn't being argued (it was an over-reaction and most mods admit it).
Should you be allowed to discuss it? Yes. Should this discussion be calm and respectful? Yes. Are the mods required to be part of or influenced by your discussion? No. Should you be able to insult mods (because obviously they are not protected by the CoC as us members are) because they won't change their minds about the subject? ... Obvious answer is obvious.
I would ask if we could continue to discuss this calmly, but since this is the Tribunal and not the OSM... there doesn't seem to be a point...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 12:33 AM |
|
|
people. like. to. whine.
honestly how is that not even clear by now.
Water is wet, the sky is blue
this argument stinks, it splatters me with poo.
~move along~
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 12:37 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:38, 23 Aug 2012.
|
I invite anyone here to explain what part of my moderation in recent days they find to have been inappropriate. I will happily indulge them with an answer. I have always happily explained my reasoning for any decision I have made, although again I stress that in serious cases I always consult the rest of the mod squad before taking any action.
What I will not do is explain my actions again and again to people who only live to grind their little axes. I will also not indulge HC members who seem hell bent on cluttering a feedback thread with belligerent posts once the final moderator decision has been made, explained and explained again. To be clear: Questioning moderator decisions is fine. Questioning the same decision over and over again to the detriment of the board I moderate is not fine. Case in point: I completely missed a nomination for a +QP in the OSM feedback thread because of the continued beating of a horse so dead it is practically soil. That may not seem like much, and in the large scale of things it isn't, but when one member begins to interfere with other members' ability to communicate (especially when it comes to feedack) on other issues, then I need to intercede so that single users do not monopolize the board for their own ends.
People who complain that I deleted part of the OSM feedback thread forget two important things:
(1) As moderator it is my right and duty to delete what I feel needs to be deleted in order to maintain order.
(2) I could have deleted every post in the OSM feedback thread starting with Ohforfsake's first post. I did not. You people fail to mention or realize that in fact I kept almost all of the posts that were made by Ohforfsake. I deleted a single post from the OSM feedback thread, and only after Ohforfsake had been asked politely, and then warned, to drop the issue or suffer consequences. I consider the consequences to be very mild - I did not silence Ohforfsake, I did not give him a penalty, and I did not delete all of his posts. He did have multiple opportunities to express his opinion, and none of them were erased. You can still read his opinion if you wish. You may disagree with my deletion of the post I deleted, but let's not blow things out of proportion or lie about what really happened. I could have erased a lot more than I did, but my approach to moderation is and always has been conservative.
Now JJ has intimated that I refused to trump Angelito out of a sense of solidarity with other mods. In general it is true that mods try to maintain a unified front. Disagreeing with each other in public serves the interests of nobody. Whatever decision is made and executed is usually representative of what the majority of mods feel is the correct course of action. If a moderator acts unilaterally and other mods disagree with the action, the disagreement will be discussed in private. On some rare instances the action may be overturned, if the mods collectively feel that it is CLEAR that the action was unwarranted. But most actions are minor and typically we will back each other up even if we disagree with the action taken. Any parent of a child knows the importance of this approach to discipline. Sometimes it IS more important to be unified in a bad decision of small scale than to make a situation far worse by causing an argument of large scale in front of the victims of the bad decision.
That said, my refusal to remove Xerox's penalty is based on principle, not on JJ's thoughtless accusation that I'm acting out of solidarity. The principles being:
(1) Right or wrong, the penalty awarded happened several years ago. I am not aware of the context under which the penalty was awarded. From just reading the thread, I may be convinced that the penalty was or was not warranted, but penalties are often not given in isolation of other posting activity. Without the ability to determine the context in which this penalty was given, I have no material basis with which to judge whether the penalty was justified or not. None of you do, so all arguments like "read the thread and tell me he deserved it!" hold no water. All I have to go by is Xerox's word versus Angelito's word. No offense to xerox, but when word is taken against word, I must accept it when Angelito says the penalty was justified. Angelito is a moderator who has been entrusted by Val to take care of his property. Xerox is, well, a member of HC that has been entrusted with no such responsibility. This is not to say that Angelito is always right or that Xerox is always wrong. But there is a weight applied to the words of people who have been entrusted with responsibility to govern. Go to court over a traffic ticket and try to pit your word against the word of the officer who issued you the citation and you will see what I mean. That's just the reality of it.
(2) But more generally, I'm not in the business - and nor should any mod be in the business - of going back and re-evaluating QPs and penalties awarded/applied in the past. I'm sure there are many QPs and penalties awarded years ago that I probably would not have awarded had I been a moderator at that time. Shall I be expected, or even be allowed, to go back and say I think this QP was bogus or that QP was undeserved, and remove them at will? Shall I go back years ago and apply penalties to posts that never got them but probably should have? Shall I go back and find all the penalties in the OSM ever applied, and make new judgments on their validity? Aside from the fact that I have no time for this, to do so also would be disrespectful to the authority of moderators who deliberated over taking such actions, would be done without full possession of the facts surrounding why these QPs/penalties were given/applied, and would be unfair to OTHER posters in OTHER forums whose posts would not or could not be so evaluated. You may say, "Well, Corribus, you could do so in this one particular case!" But you would be wrong. In the interest of fairness, I cannot cherry pick which QPs/penalties I go back and re-evaluate. If I went back and reversed Xerox's penalty, someone else would be justified in coming to me and saying, "Well if you re-evaluated his, you should go back and re-evaluate mine!" It would be unproductive to start down that path, and I refuse to do it, particularly on the occasion of a penalty I never applied in the first place.
In the end I have only this to say:
If Xerox feels the penalty was awarded unfairly, and feels victimized by my refusal to give him satisfaction on that account, I do regret that. I hope this post has put in plain language my reasoning in his particular case, as well as in general. Whether he accepts this explanation is up to him, of course. But sometimes knowing why a decision which impacts you negatively has been made can set the mind at ease almost as much as acquiring the justice you are seeking in the first place - even if you disagree with the decision or the logic behind it. Other than that, well, I can give him nothing more.
To the rest of you: you take things too far. I guess we should be used to it by now, and likely all of this will be forgotten in a week, rendering all this time spent on such frivolity a complete waste. Even so, I'll remind you that HC is not a social experiment, and it's not a nation of absolute laws either. The Code of Conduct is a loose set of principles aimed at making HC a good place to come and chew the fat about a computer game. It's not a set of statutes against which you can or should hold moderators decisions. Each of us interprets the CoC in different ways and has the power and right to extend the CoC to cover new situations that haven't been covered before. We do the best we can with an imperfect document that does not (and was not intended to) rigorously define every way a poster or moderator should act. Some of you are fond of pointing to the CoC and saying to us: "The CoC says that THIS is defined as THIS but not THIS, so your deletion of the thread/post/whatever was unjustified." But that's worthless and unproductive. If I feel something else qualifies as spam and is NOT listed in the CoC under the short list of things that are obviously spam - guess what? It's spam. I'll tell you I think it's spam, and if you persist in posting it, you'll get penalized for excessive spamming. Some of you may think that's abuse of power, but I've got to make executive decisions about what is acceptable behavior, and the CoC doesn't always provide a clear, tidy answer. That's the reality that you have to live with if you post at HC. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.
Finally, I'd like to point out, again, that being a moderator is a volunteer job. We do it because we want to help the community. I don't want to speak for other mods, but I'm not here to get a power trip, or to be a tyrant, or to gleefully penalize people while rubbing my hands together. Wielding "power without accountability" in a forum on a game-centered message board, as one of you amusingly pointed out to me, holds no special appeal to me. Believe it or not, I don't wake up in the morning thinking of how I can throw around all my powers and screw people over.
Point being, I think all this high falutin' talk about tyranny and censorship and the universal rights of man is a load of funny bs. This is a message board on the internet. We mods are here to moderate the forums so everyone has a chance to enjoy the place. Sometimes that means making hard decisions (well not REALLY hard - it is a message board after all). Hard decisions are going to be unpopular to someone. I recognize that making such decisions is going to earn me some anger and criticism; it's an unfortunate part of the job. I also don't really care about it, and I'm not too concerned that this system of justice isn't absolute. It'd be nice if certain posters learned to respect moderator decisions for what they are and put things into a little perspective (to wit: we're not burning books here; we're deleting a few posts on a little message board in a small corner of the internet), but I recognize a pipe dream when I see it.
Well, respond to all that as you see fit. I've said my last word on the issue, but I do consider the matter closed in the OSM. To be honest I can't believe I just spent an hour replying to this nonsense.
EDIT: Typos
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 01:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't like it? Go somewhere else.
Well, that's it, then. The mods have driven me away. Goodbye, HC.
For those of you who want to keep in contract with me, my blog is in my sig, I respond to everything I get.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 02:05 AM |
|
|
Time for a melodrama, eh? I guess a public suicide follows. Who's it gonna be - Ohforfsake or xerox?
I've been in a few forums throughout the years - some with pretty harsh moderation, some with next to no moderation at all - but this is certainly the first time when I see such a ridiculous outcry in defense of a member. A topic of 6 pages already discusses the paleolithic penalty of an ex-troll and the behaviour of the mods about it like this is the most important thing that has happened recently. Where were all of you before xerox requested the penalty to be lifted and why didn't you complain about the mods - which now turn to be evil autocrats all of a sudden - on other occasions? If this is going on for years, there should've been at least several similar threads (but with less preposterous origin) if the problem really bothers you. Frankly I'm still not sure if the whole thing is not just a spontaneous group trolling. Damn... just drop it already!
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 02:28 AM |
|
|
You must have a very dim perception to come to that conclusion, this isn't the first instance, but the grain that tipped the scale. (for myself anyhow) And if you really can't/care to make sense of things why bother insulting us? Your incessant trolling is not helping anything.
I'm going to sleep on it, and make an informed decision on how to proceed tomorrow.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 05:20 AM |
|
|
|
Really now? And where are the many similar threads in this section about the power abuse of the mods? Or there's some shadow sub-forum that I don't know about?
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 05:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Really now? And where are the many similar threads in this section about the power abuse of the mods? Or there's some shadow sub-forum that I don't know about?
We call it the Under Hero. I serve muffins every Tuesday and Thursday~
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 05:51 AM |
|
|
The fact is that 99,999% of HC does not care about this. Mods should not even give justifications to such low percentage of disapproval. It may looks like everyone around is on the revolucion edge but the rest of HC simply stays away from, INTERNET being the last place to claim the absolute truth, have the last word or seek for justice. I really don't get what mosquito bite some of guys here, but was a nasty one and effects lasted too long.
And forum is going to live despite this little drama, as it survives because of gaming activity, which was the main HC's purpose. The gaming sub-forums do not even need moderation because they are precise subject oriented, it is when you allow the so called free speech about anything that problems arise.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 09:06 AM |
|
|
Let me address a couple of points here, before I join mvass, since Corribus sacrificed an hour to make his point clear...
Quote:
I invite anyone here to explain what part of my moderation in recent days they find to have been inappropriate.
That's easily explained. THE TONE. The people here are no delinquents, and you are no judge. Still your moderational comments ooze not even "this is my COURT, and I won't have this behaviour" they ooze "this is my PRISON, and non-behavors get spanked". Again, people are not mean or deserve to be treated like children that need to get spanked, just because you feel you need to become active because of one of them now and then. With you it's not the reasoning or decision - it's the tone, that is definitely no example.
Quote:
To be clear: Questioning moderator decisions is fine. Questioning the same decision over and over again to the detriment of the board I moderate is not fine. Case in point: I completely missed a nomination for a +QP in the OSM feedback thread because of the continued beating of a horse so dead it is practically soil. That may not seem like much, and in the large scale of things it isn't, but when one member begins to interfere with other members' ability to communicate (especially when it comes to feedack) on other issues, then I need to intercede so that single users do not monopolize the board for their own ends.
However, the OSM and the feedback thread isn't obliged to make things easier for you. If you overlook a qp nomination because the thread is just home of a discussion about a -qp decision, then it is completely your fault, since the discussion is absolutely on-topic, since it is feedback. However:
Quote:
People who complain that I deleted part of the OSM feedback thread forget two important things:
I don't - complain about THAT. Selective cleaning is completely ok as long as everyone can see what the fuss was actually about (feedback has been given), but ruling that you won't have any more feedback about a specific point seems arbitrary and while within the limits of your powers an abuse of those - it's too much thought police.
That said, we are still dancing around the actual issue, so further:
Quote:
Now JJ has intimated that I refused to trump Angelito out of a sense of solidarity with other mods...
I will spare me citing the rest - but no one asked you to trump angelito's decision. That's not the thing - you BACKED him, that's the thing, and let's see why:
Quote:
But most actions are minor and typically we will back each other up even if we disagree with the action taken. Any parent of a child knows the importance of this approach to discipline. Sometimes it IS more important to be unified in a bad decision of small scale than to make a situation far worse by causing an argument of large scale in front of the victims of the bad decision.
The logics of power. This is EXACTLY what I wrote - but sadly I cannot point to it, since the thread is gone.
It's called covering each other's @ss, by the way, when a person in power did screw up.
Of course there would have been a different option.
Quote:
That said, my refusal to remove Xerox's penalty is based on principle, not on JJ's thoughtless accusation that I'm acting out of solidarity.
So my "thoughtless accusation" is generally right, but in this case you happen to agree with angelito on principle:
Quote:
The principles being:
(1) Right or wrong, the penalty awarded happened several years ago. I am not aware of the context under which the penalty was awarded. From just reading the thread, I may be convinced that the penalty was or was not warranted, but penalties are often not given in isolation of other posting activity. Without the ability to determine the context in which this penalty was given, I have no material basis with which to judge whether the penalty was justified or not. None of you do, so all arguments like "read the thread and tell me he deserved it!" hold no water.
To sum this up: a penalty may be given summarily to a post that - isolated - wouldn't deserve a penalty for people with a "high annoyance factor" who are, let's call it "tap-dancing right this side of the CoC boundary". People that are regularly under investigation, but the prosecution simply doesn't have enough material to nail them.
Now, obviously this is not the way things SHOULD be seen, because it's warping the law. There is no such thing as a record of borderline-behaviour: you either overstep or you don't. Two half-steps doesn't make a full one.
Which means, the second underlined point is really, really doubtful.
Quote:
All I have to go by is Xerox's word versus Angelito's word. No offense to xerox, but when word is taken against word, I must accept it when Angelito says the penalty was justified. Angelito is a moderator who has been entrusted by Val to take care of his property. Xerox is, well, a member of HC that has been entrusted with no such responsibility. This is not to say that Angelito is always right or that Xerox is always wrong. But there is a weight applied to the words of people who have been entrusted with responsibility to govern. Go to court over a traffic ticket and try to pit your word against the word of the officer who issued you the citation and you will see what I mean. That's just the reality of it.
"People who have been entrusted with responsibility to GOVERN...
Let's just sink that in for a second, before we look at the officer giving you a ticket. Now the post that got the ticket is still there, and it is obvious the meter was still running when Xerox came back to his car. So what additional information could angelito have had to offer to shed necessary light onto this? That xerox in the past has been avoiding a ticket five times, coming in the last possible moment, so "he had it coming"?
Is THAT the way how people entrusted with responsibility GOVERN?
Quote:
(2) But more generally, I'm not in the business - and nor should any mod be in the business - of going back and re-evaluating QPs and penalties awarded/applied in the past... You may say, "Well, Corribus, you could do so in this one particular case!" But you would be wrong. In the interest of fairness, I cannot cherry pick which QPs/penalties I go back and re-evaluate. If I went back and reversed Xerox's penalty, someone else would be justified in coming to me and saying, "Well if you re-evaluated his, you should go back and re-evaluate mine!" It would be unproductive to start down that path, and I refuse to do it, particularly on the occasion of a penalty I never applied in the first place.
On the contrary. ON REQUEST, those entrusted with the responsibility to govern, are OBLIGED to review past decisions - and to be fair it should be done by someone who did NOT apply the penalty. At least this is the way how it's done in reality.
Now, this is just an internet forum, and you and the other mods are more like caretakers or groundkeepers - you get no salary for it and do it in your spare time - no one can expect an unreasonable amount of work about this. Also, everyone makes a mistake now and then.
What is left here is basically this: the post says, no -qp. angelito says, maybe, but I wanted to give the brat a penalty because he had it coming, that much I still know; the penalty stays. Policeman slamming down his baton on the quick brat finally, after he was able to squirm himself out of trouble a couple of times, and you know, the bad thing is, that policeman cannot laugh about it 3 years later and say, "man, I was really keen on finding an excuse to hit that annoying brat, and I still think he probably deserved it, but in this case I was a bit too eager because in my eagerness I misinterpreted what he'd done."
To sum up: I don't think anyone excepts FROM YOU to take back angelito's penalty. I wouldn't.
Quote:
...
All nice and well, but why was a whole thread deleted? I read a lot of words from you, trying to bring everything into perspective, and I agree that the CoC isn't the 100% thing and every mod will have to make his/her personal addendums.
However, just because you are mod, it's not YOUR message board. It's not a question of "what I want to have and read on MY message board", it's - like with the US constitution - only a question of whether something is within the spirit of the CoC or not (which means all those addendums should be done in the spirit of the CoC and not against it).
GENERALLY there is freedom to speak, except for offensive behaviour and "spam". "Spam" is somewhat ill-defined, that's in the nature of things. Whether something IS spam or not...
Technically, if you declare further discussion over a standing decision spam, most of the OSM is spam because most of the things discussed there are standing decisions. Most of those are based on a question, like, "Should this be different than it actually is"?
Why should the this board, the OSM or the feedback thread be outside of that? Cluttering a thread is not a valid point: you have to go through all threads to look for stuff to clean or reward, so why would this one be such a different case? Wh, indeed?
The truth is, while it may seem that "the real world" is somewhere else - this is an internet forum - THIS FORUM IS part of the real world. It's the only part of the real world we all share, so the forum as such, the threads and so on, how people and moderators behave, are much more real world than anything "real world" discussed in the OSM.
That's why it HAS a certain importance. That's why deleting a whole thread seems unacceptable behaviour for someone with these powers. An that's why I'm now joining Mvass.
|
|
Miru
Supreme Hero
A leaf in the river of time
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 09:24 AM |
|
|
While I agree that Xerox's penalty should have stayed, deleting Oforfs complaints is not reasonable. The delete power should be almost never used IMO, and the few cases where it should are obvious. Even if someone is flat wrong doesn't mean you should delete the entire discussion of the subject of whether they are wrong.
____________
I wish I were employed by a stupendous paragraph, with capitalized English words and expressions.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 09:58 AM |
|
|
Oh, which is something I forgot to add:
since I would expect Forfy to get a post in here, but didn't/doesn't, it looks like he's on another temporary ban here.
Now, I don't want to discuss Forfy's past misdeeds, but from a distance this looks like a private war between a misfit and the authorities who will simply try to break him: "you will be banned as often as necessary until you've learned how to behave (in this prison)".
Of course, reading stuff, it's not anymore "the law versus a CoC breaker" - it's personal. "The law" thinks he is a notorious troublemaker now, because he took one or more justified temporary bans personal and is now on a crusade to troll the mods for it - so he's banned now for no other reason than to "break him" - to show him who has the power.
Because, let's face it - the mods could simply ignore him and his thread.
You see, there are so many books and movies about these social experiments about how ordinary people suddenly change their behaviour when they are "entrusted with the responsibility to govern", and how easily they overstep any reasonable border...
Seriously, mods: do yourself a big favor, take a step back and try to see it from the position of a third party. You are not guards and you do not have to keep the order by any means. There is no revolution to suppress, no prison break or prisoner riot immediate. You are not having to make a tough decision about life and death or whether a death penalty to give.
It was just a guy asking to remove a what he thinks undeserved penalty - and it wasn't about ending life sentence after 3 years, it was about a silly -qp.
If you feel it necessary to keep the penalty no matter what, to delete threads discussing that decision and generally declare those discussions spam, and to temporarily ban people on the suspicion of having "ulterior motives", you might take things a wee bit too serious here.
Ah, but what do I know about the hardships of having the responsibility entrusted to govern? Me, they probably wouldn't even entrust the responsibility to govern a PO box, I know, I know...
|
|
NoobX
Undefeatable Hero
Now, this is a paradox...
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 10:06 AM |
|
|
ENOUGH!
I'm tired of this discussion. Why can't you understand that you have to move on?!
The penality might have been unjust, but that's how the life is.
Besides, Xerox has quality count of 5, so I really don't see the reason why the penality should be removed. It's not like he can't live with it.
In a nutshell: The discussion is pointless and should stop now.
____________
Ghost said:
Door knob resembles anus tap.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted August 23, 2012 10:27 AM |
|
|
|
exactly guys. NoobX wants you to MOVE ON (pronounced as "MEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWV AWN!"). So.... MOVE ON!
|
| |
|
|
