Mike1984

Well, speaking as someone who was involved in the incident, I have a couple of observations to make.

Firstly, if you have a problem with the mods, your first port of call must be the mods. If they don't satisfy, you then escalate to the admins.

However, the problem has to be laid out in a reasonable manner. For example: "I'm really frustrated by this. It feels like you weren't taking all the facts into account when you handed out this warning."

Not: "Fucking mods, take your warning and shove it up your fascist ass, then clench really hard."

If you rant and swear, you risk further penalties and you don't get your original objection listened to.

Secondly, it's also not a good idea to make topics that decry the mods and try to curry favour with your fellow forumites. Especially when you wouldn't disclose the contents of the PM's and Hymn was up for it - it looked like you had something to hide.

On a related note, you probably ought not spam topics with the "yours truly, angry mob" stuff. That comes across as petulant and passive aggressive.

PM the mods. Get onto a chat room with them. Grab Darples. The mods and the admins have a responsibility here, but they can't read minds. You've got to let them know there's a problem that you want to see fixed.

To reiterate, please try to do so politely. It really would help your case.

Well, that's my advice on the matter. What you do with it is up to you.

He actually has held a conversation with at least three mods, not including this blog and a few threads either on the subject or subverted, its not precisely that he hasnt spoken with anyone its that he doesnt like the answer he keeps getting, which is basically, we understand he is dissatisfied with the ruling but that happens a lot with warnings and its not going to be changed.


also, since the question has come up, perhaps not phrased very friendly but still valid, we actually dont have a really specific rule we adhere to come hell or high water, it works on a very simple yes or no question "was it intended to be malicious" if yes, we have a problem. anytime you stop attacking an argument and start attacking the poster, or baiting or whatever, mike mentioned passive aggressive baiting and thats valid to, we will step in.


actually, seeing as how we have this thread anyway I am somewhat curious if people feel like there are some questions they don't quite get and want some clarification on.

Trevelyan: honestly, what Tobias has said about covers it. The mods clearly have a different idea of what is "reasonable" to me, and are not willing to take any account of the circumstances. I find this totally unreasonable and totally counter-productive, and since they are unwilling to take the slightest bit of notice of me, the only recourse is for me to complain openly.

I will not sit back and let them walk all over me. Sure, the mods are here to stop arguments becoming malicious, and that is fine, but people get angry sometimes, especially when someone is acting like a jerk towards them. It is far better to step in, tell everyone to calm down and attempt to patch things up than it is to inflame the situation further by giving out warnings at the first opportunity. Sure, there are times when a warning is necessary, but they shouldn't be handed out like candy in the way that Tobias and his fellow mods seem to think.

But, Mike, we were in the wrong. Both of our infractions were against the rules, and we got warned for them. That's the long and the short of it.

The mods have been stepping in and making sure that things don't go too far, but even once they've stopped an argument that's brewing, we're still responsible for the things we said before the argument stopped. That's why you got warned, and that's why I got warned - we'd already crossed the line.

Well, honestly, I don't agree with that assessment. Sure, what we did was "against the rules", but I think they should think a bit more before just handing out warnings. It resolved nothing, ultimately, and has just led to a lot of hassle, as well as making me distrust them. In the long term, it will just make resolving issues more difficult, not less, so why do it?

Handing out warnings because "it's the rules" even when it will not actually help resolve any underlying problems is the absolute height of folly. And, refusing to even listen to people when they point this out is even worse. They are at least talking to me now, but it doesn't seem like they are listening, which is unfortunate.

Still, I guess we'll see. Maybe they have taken account of this, and will be a bit more reasonable next time, or at least will try talking with me before handing out the warnings. I'm not holding my breath, though, to be honest....

Originally Posted by Mike1984

Well, honestly, I don't agree with that assessment. Sure, what we did was "against the rules", but I think they should think a bit more before just handing out warnings. It resolved nothing, ultimately, and has just led to a lot of hassle, as well as making me distrust them. In the long term, it will just make resolving issues more difficult, not less, so why do it?

Handing out warnings because "it's the rules" even when it will not actually help resolve any underlying problems is the absolute height of folly. And, refusing to even listen to people when they point this out is even worse. They are at least talking to me now, but it doesn't seem like they are listening, which is unfortunate.

Still, I guess we'll see. Maybe they have taken account of this, and will be a bit more reasonable next time, or at least will try talking with me before handing out the warnings. I'm not holding my breath, though, to be honest....

In some ways, it feels as if you might be missing the point of the warnings here. It seems to me that warnings are not there as a punishment, or as the only part in 'dealing with the problem' as it were. They're there so that you consider your actions after you've got the warning and re-think getting into similar situations (or continuing the same one despite having a warning). The intent is to have you think.

Dealing with the problem, instead, occurs in two ways. Firstly, people learn what is and is not acceptable, what does and does not constitute harassing another member or breaking the forum code of conduct on cybersex or whatever. That might be encouraged by a warning (or tempbans), but it's fundamentally up to the individual member. If they don't take it upon themselves to change, the mods can't force it on them. (And I'll ask you to consider if you do stop to think about what the staff is defining as acceptable and unacceptable. I, personally, feel that despite getting a number of warnings - and I know of these at least partly because you keep making it public - your posting style and approach is still exactly the same).

And so we come to the second way. If the person can't change, if they're continually breaking the rules, then that's why we have bans. If someone's fouling up our community and won't stop, then they're simply not going to be allowed in it.

Now then, some more opinions. Control is a necessary part of interaction. Yeah, there are people on the forum who can be passive-aggressive about things. I think there are far fewer than you think, but they exist. That in absolutely no way gives you licence to scream at them, clog up threads and so forth. It gives you licence to press the Report button. It gives you licence to talk to them over VMs and PMs, the proper place for calling someone out on that. And whilst swearing isn't inherently bad - that's why it's not a straight-up infringement of the rules and we don't have a word filter - it's often a sign that you've lost control and are being over-aggressive. Remember the mechanisms in place.

And, let's be honest, this blog post in itself is a sign that you're participating in a community with very friendly mods. I can't think of another forum I've been on where a public post made specifically to be mad at the staff wouldn't have earned you another punishment. Most places would consider it a cry for attention, an attempt to move the mods not by reasoned argument, but by weight of popular opinion.

"Occasional angry explosion followed by people making-up". Mmmm. Really, was this a consistent, normal thing? There's a reason that you're not a particularly popular poster, Mike, and I really do think that the 'angry explosions' are a big part of it. Most people don't appreciate that, no matter if the build-up was long or short. It can maybe work in real life, where there's a proper emotional release on both sides (though it's hardly so common as movies would have it), but the internet doesn't give you that same mutual release.

As to your problems with under- or over-reporting, that seems based at least partly on the fact that your standards are not the standards of the mods. (I'd say that your standards aren't the standards of the community, but that's a far more subjective thing.) Anyway, you learn what those standards are and report or appeal on that basis. Not observing and learning those standards is just going to make your time more difficult and make you more angry when those standards are applied. You don't have to believe in those standards, but I think your time here would end up more constructive if you at least took note of them.

actually, seeing as how we have this thread anyway I am somewhat curious if people feel like there are some questions they don't quite get and want some clarification on.

Yeah, why is Caliburn stronger than Excalibur??????

Originally Posted by Satehi

Yeah, why is Caliburn stronger than Excalibur??????

Because C is the third letter of the alphabet while E only gets the 5th place .

Thus Caliburn ranks higher then Excalibur.

Aias could have been the greatest defence, but that would suck for Avalon, so they placed Rho in front of it, nerving it in battle against Gae bolg.

logic!

Originally Posted by Satehi

Yeah, why is Caliburn stronger than Excalibur??????

Because Shirou wasn't touching Saber at night.

Anyway, yeah, I think Seika made an excellent point. The warning system exists to allow us the chance to stop, cool down and consider our current behaviour. Speaking for myself, it's done that successfully - hence, this newfound entente cordiale between Mike and myself.

We've had our fair share of arguments in the past, and to be blunt, there was no tearful reconciliation afterwards. Ever. Each further argument just prepared future butthurt. In all honesty, it was the warning that caused me to reconsider my own actions.

So, yeah, dunno about anyone else, but that seems like a net positive.

Originally Posted by Satehi

Yeah, why is Caliburn stronger than Excalibur??????

I am going with TWU WUV

Berserker was already MOSTLY dead. Not a fair fight. >:[

Originally Posted by Trevelyan

Anyway, yeah, I think Seika made an excellent point. The warning system exists to allow us the chance to stop, cool down and consider our current behaviour. Speaking for myself, it's done that successfully - hence, this newfound entente cordiale between Mike and myself.

We've had our fair share of arguments in the past, and to be blunt, there was no tearful reconciliation afterwards. Ever. Each further argument just prepared future butthurt. In all honesty, it was the warning that caused me to reconsider my own actions.

So, yeah, dunno about anyone else, but that seems like a net positive.

Well, you see, that's the difference between me and you. You see it as a chance to stop and cool down, I see it as an arbitrary punishment which lasts for some unknown time and which is given out without any real communication or discussion.

The mods seem to think of it as the first, but it's easy to say that when they don't have to worry about the position they're in, and when they know the actual details. They don't seem to recognise the effect of dumping a warning on someone for an undefined amount of time, and never even bothering to tell them where they stand.

As for us making up, it certainly did not assist me in that regard. And, even if it did help you, it's only because we had that flame war in the first place that we were able to do so. If we had not, then we would have continued baiting each other just like before.

Report the baiting?

Seems like an option, unless there's something I missed. I admit my eyes glazed over a bit after reading some of the larger posts here.

Originally Posted by Aiden

Report the baiting?

Seems like an option, unless there's something I missed. I admit my eyes glazed over a bit after reading some of the larger posts here.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

And, worse, it seems like "excessive" reporting also gets you warned, according to Lantz anyway (and I don't buy the accusations of lying that Hymn threw at him, either, even if I can't rule out the possibility of him just being mistaken).

And I addressed it at the end of one of those posts which probably made your eyes glaze over. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Mike1984

The mods seem to think of it as the first, but it's easy to say that when they don't have to worry about the position they're in, and when they know the actual details. They don't seem to recognise the effect of dumping a warning on someone for an undefined amount of time, and never even bothering to tell them where they stand.

Much like you don't seem to recognize that "If we told you how long it lasts, there could be the potential for abuse."

The warning system is there to deter from bad behavior, as laid out by the rules we put down (and are likely going to be revising so as to be clearer of what we expect). We're perfectly fine with saying "what not to do" but I can assure you the cool-off times aren't anything unreasonable, even if we can't say how long they are. They're almost certainly not as long as you think they are, but that's all I'll go into about that.

Perhaps the issue on the whole could have been handled better, yes, but one thing I noticed is that, in your opinion, "if it's not in the rules, it's perfectly okay." That is not how this place works. Abuse of someone is abuse (you will note there is a report button even for PMs) and that is one rule we're definitely going to make clear, we don't even need to finish the revisions to say this - the policy on aggressive flaming applies to anything on this site. That means message posts, Blogs, VMs, PMs, Usergroups, and the Wiki once that's put up. If it goes through this site, it counts, so if you can't say it without resorting to personal attacks, we expect you not to say it at all.

Now, mind you, we're going to be watching every little word with itchy trigger fingers. We don't like to do that, in all honesty. You do have a tendency to lash out, as you yourself admit, which ultimately tends to make you more liable to punishments, but not for a swearing list - it's for the fact that when you get angry at someone, you begin to resort to name-calling and personal attacks, which is the actual problem. I know that you say "It's something I do all the time" but really, it's not something we can have anymore; it gives this board a bit of a bad reputation, and obviously I don't need to remind you that some people really, really don't like you or your attitude. (And it's not fair to knock him either, guys, even if he explodes, so stop it. We're going to be cracking down on that too.) Not only is it going to lead to more people attacking you, it's going to lead to an overall crappier board experience for everyone else - and since the community is my responsibility, sometimes I have to make rules that people don't like, but will overall make the community a better place for everyone. Thus, sometimes, in the interest of the community, a few people need to get talked-to when they go over the line, and depending on the perceived severity, warned.

I know we've been accused of having some "magic swear list" or something; no, we don't. I don't give a rat's ass if you swear (and honestly, I do more than my fair share) and we're all adults (or close to it, anyway) on a forum devoted to a couple eroges, for god's sake. But when you do it in anger, directed at a person, and it's not obviously a joke, then we kind of have to stop that. It's not the fact that you're swearing, it's the fact you're being insulting to someone, and are intending to escalate the situation. Cooling things off isn't your style, as you've admitted, but there are other ways to vent without having to resort to calling people names.

So in a way, cracking down on "the usual stuff" is basically what's necessary. Aside from a few incidents, generally the amount of bullshit in the last month or so has really, really gone down. Your personal feelings for a few mods aside, I would think that most agree that the increase in mods has been a general good thing for the board, and since it's been awhile since the last rules revision (along with the changes in the board over the last few months), we're going to try to make it a bit clearer what is, and isn't expected. We want this place to be as free in speech as it possibly can be, without it getting nasty, and we're going to try to clarify what we mean by that.

However, even when the new rules go up, please understand that it doesn't cover every possible rule or every possible situation. For example, I thought that the stuff on "don't be nasty" would logically apply to everything, and yet you seem to be under the assumption that "if it's not public, it's fine." It's not fine, though, that's the problem - a private message still goes through this board, and they can still get reported just like any forum post, blog message, usergorup post... you name it.

At the same time, the policy for the board is NOT "if it's not in the rules, it's okay." And really, I don't want to have to go back and keep redoing them because of that.

No, I'm well aware that it's not "if it's not in the rules, it's OK". But, there was no reason (based on past experience and the way the rules are writte), for me to assume they apply to PMs. I've sent rude PMs like that before (mainly to Altima, but also to others on occasion), and no-one seemed to care. Although, really, I should have expected different from Hymn, since he doesn't like me from the start and seems to think that being a mod entitles him to having his ass kissed at every opportunity.

And, yes, I am more prone to "punishments", because you've designed the system to be like that (and because my outbursts are far more obvious than subtle trolling, and thus easier to moderate if all you care about is sticking rigidly to the rules). Mainly because you seem to think acting like a troll is fine, and that the people who respond to the trolls are the problem. It's the usual authoritarian attitude, and I'm not at all surprised you express it. I'm just glad there are a couple of actually reasonable admins to hold you in check.

Finally, with regards to the time the warning lasts for, I can understand your argument (although, to be quite honest, someone who has got enough warnings could deduce the time anyway, and there's also nothing to stop you just banning them outright if they're clearly taking the piss), but it is still deeply unfair that people have no idea if or when their warnings expire (even after the fact), and are just left to sweat. I can't think of any other forum that does that. Further, you give a pile of bullshit about it "not being as long as you think" but, as I said to Tobias, that is easy to say when you have the numbers in front of you. All you seem to care about is making your own life easier, even if that makes everyone else suffer as a result.

Hell, I've been repeatedly told by multiple people (including Altima) that warnings are "not punishments", hence why you don't do as much oversight of them. Yet, you seem determined to treat them as such without having to be accountable for them, and that is not something I'm going to accept. It's just the typical governmental attitude of "well, we'll keep this secret because we have no reason not to", and ignoring the rights of individuals because it makes things easier for you.

Also, don't give me that crap about you supporting "free speech". It's abundantly clear that you do not. You just want to pretend that you do. The others might, perhaps, but you as an individual only seem to care about what the majority thinks, and anyone else can go get stuffed.

Originally Posted by Aiden

Report the baiting?

Seems like an option, unless there's something I missed. I admit my eyes glazed over a bit after reading some of the larger posts here.

How would that have resolved the problem, though? It might have gotten him in trouble, true, but it wouldn't have actually managed to patch up our relationship. We'd just continue to hate each other privately....

The issue here is that I have a different way of speaking and of resolving issues than DP does, and he seems to want to force me to act exactly like him.

It's much like what Seika said, only I don't see why I should go by DP's "norms". He is not in charge of me, I think for myself. Just because a bunch of you are Lawful Stupid enough to go along with it, that doesn't mean I am.

His rules, not yours. You can not like them and still follow them, or you can leave and make your own place, with blackjack and hookers.

Well, fortunately, there are at least two other admins who actually don't just expect everyone to be a bunch of identical puppets, so....

You can be an individual without sending streams of profanity at people you don't like.