Moderation Criticisms

[TristramEvans]

"So the game is not centered around the characters and their choices, it's centered around the premise set by the GM, and if they don't engage with the premise, they wouldn't be a part of the game anymore."

This is absolutely 1, not what I said, and 2, what you cut my post in half to say.

It is absolutely an argument you made in that thread multiple times, and yes, it was what I was illustrating when I quoted the part of your post that was relevant to my point.

 

[EmperorNorton]

No, defense implies I've done something that needs defending. Just how I questioned your earler description of them making excuses for me vs simply not agreeing with you that I had done something wrong.




That....was not my point. Wow not even close.

Let me try to explain in another way...

How much do you want to bet that I provide a substantial list of names of posters that you did not PM and ask if they agreed with your perceptions?

That;s what I mean by selection bias. Saying "my friends agree with me" isn't an argument. Its actually a formalized logical fallacy - it has a Latin name and everything.

And that isn't the point. The point is that the perception of you isn't some isolated thing. It isn't about proving I'm right, it is about pointing out that this isn't some isolated incident of a couple of people. Endless has his whole "but it's only like the 5 same people over and over" but I'll tell you that it isn't just 5 people. For that matter, I actually have never privately talked (at least in recent memory) to ANY of the people who tend to make complaints about you.

 

[EmperorNorton]

It is absolutely an argument you made in that thread multiple times, and yes, it was what I was illustrating when I quoted the part of your post that was relevant to my point.

The part that was relevant to your point was an incomplete thought that removed the CONTEXT THAT MADE IT WHOLE.

Again, this is what I'm talking about when I say you refuse to admit when you are wrong. You removed context to argue with a strawman. I'm pretty sure there is a latin term for that too.

 

[Fenris-77]

Argument ad populum.

Poat above the one above.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Argument ad populum.

It was a response to the idea that it's only the same 5 people over and over. I would say it is relevant that it is more than just those people. If the argument is going to be made that it is a minority that believe that so it isn't a big deal, I think saying that it isn't as small as they believe is a valid point.

 

[Fenris-77]

It was a response to the idea that it's only the same 5 people over and over. I would say it is relevant that it is more than just those people.

Not really. Not in the way you want it to be. No offense.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Not really. Not in the way you want it to be. No offense.

So Tristram can be defended by saying that it is only a minority of people who dislike his posting style... but pointing out that it is more people than they think is a fallacy?

Endless started the conversation on how many people it was that had a problem with Tristram, not me.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

You realize just earlier in this thread, in defense of me saying none of the moderator staff have ever said a word about anything you've done in the forums, you used the defense that they would speak up if they thought you had done something wrong.

I literally said that Tristram can be abrasive and that I found his feud with GW tiresome in this very thread.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not at all. Saying "some people agree with me" doesn't make you more correct, that's all. That's what argument ad populum is.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Not at all. Saying "some people agree with me" doesn't make you more correct, that's all. That's what argument ad populum is.

And again, as I said:

And that isn't the point. The point is that the perception of you isn't some isolated thing. It isn't about proving I'm right, it is about pointing out that this isn't some isolated incident of a couple of people.

 

[Fenris-77]

And again, finding some unnamed and unumbered number of people that agree with you doesn't make your argument better or more correct.

 

[Fenris-77]

To be clear, I don't give a shit about your beef with Tristram, either way. Fallacy is fallacy though. *shrug*

 

[TristramEvans]

The part that was relevant to your point was an incomplete thought that removed the CONTEXT THAT MADE IT WHOLE.

The context of the point you were making, not the point I was making.

Why is this so difficult for you to wrap your head around. I was not arguing with the point you were trying to make in that post. I was not arguing against the context that sentence was made in.

I was making a different point, that the context didn't matter to, and did not change.

Again, this is what I'm talking about when I say you refuse to admit when you are wrong. You removed context to argue with a strawman. I'm pretty sure there is a latin term for that too.

If it was a strawman it would be an argument that you don't believe that I came up with wholecloth and then argue against.

I'll prove this was not the case in just a moment, gathering evidence from that thread.

 

[EmperorNorton]

To be clear, I don't give a shit about your beef with Tristram, either way. Fallacy is fallacy though. *shrug*

Then wouldn't the argument that "only a few people have a problem with Tristram" ALSO be a fallacy.

Also as I said, that wasn't even a statement I made in an attempt to say "I'm right" it was a statement made in support of the idea that it isn't just a few isolated people who have a problem with him, as people were stating. The only point I was making with that statement was not about whether my perception of Tristram is "correct" only that it is more widespread than they think.

 

[Fenris-77]

No, the issue is that they are an unquantified number and type of people. Could be anybody, could be nobody. Logical fallacy. Anyway, jesus, if you don't believe me look it up. I didn't think I was starting debate club 101 here.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Then wouldn't the argument that "only a few people have a problem with Tristram" ALSO be a fallacy.

Also as I said, that wasn't even a statement I made in an attempt to say "I'm right" it was a statement made in support of the idea that it isn't just a few isolated people who have a problem with him, as people were stating. The only point I was making with that statement was not about whether my perception of Tristram is "correct" only that it is more widespread than they think.

I consider "99% of people love Tristram's posts" and "99% of people hate Tristram's posts" to be equally irrelevant, tbh.

Does Tristram meme more than I personally prefer on forums? Yeah, but he's hardly the only one. I also don't like overuse of smilies and the Oxford comma, as it happens.

But all of that is just personal preference, not anything to do with modding.

 

[EmperorNorton]

1. I'm not going to name names, if they don't want to make their opinion public, it isn't on me to do that. It was a private conversation and it is staying that way.

2. If a bunch of people were privately talking about me and saying they thought I was an issue, I would want to know about it. Again, it isn't about some kind of PROVING I'M RIGHT, it's talking about problems on the forum.

Consistently negative opinions of a moderator is a problem. I'm pointing out that it is more widespread than they think. I'm not trying to prove Endless wrong, I'm adding ADDITIONAL CONTEXT to the idea that only a few people complain about him. He's right it is the same few people that complain publicly about Tristram. I'm adding the context that there are quite a few more people who aren't going to say publicly that they have a problem with a moderator.

Because guess what. I have no idea why I've ever brought up any problem I've had with a moderator here. Cause 1. Every single time it has resulted in no change, 2. Every single time it just gets me painted as the bad guy.

Hell at this point, moderators barely respond to my PMs at all. It's why I do it here instead. So you know. Cool.

 

[Fenris-77]

I also don't like the Oxford comma

FIGHT!!

 

[Endless Flight]

I didn’t realize I was the talk of the town.

I wasn’t being literal. It could have been four people or six people.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

2. If a bunch of people were privately talking about me and saying they thought I was an issue, I would want to know about it. Again, it isn't about some kind of PROVING I'M RIGHT, it's talking about problems on the forum.

If a bunch of people didn't like your posting style I'd consider it as relevant as I do with Tristram, which is to say not at all.

It's only a moderation issue for me in one of two situations.

If there's a claim that Tristram is abusing his moderator powers. You've said yourself that isn't the case; you only have issues with the specific way the mod+ threads were modded. (And you're never going to get universal approval for every bit of moderation).

If Tristram has hit the bar, as a poster, for moderation action. And I don't think that's even close to being the case. On that, I judge him in exactly the same way as any other poster. And if he's hit that bar, so have most of us.

 

[TristramEvans]

Allright, here's the claim:

You chopped my post in half to twist what I said into something I didn't.

Let's back that up to put the conversation in context

The tangent starts here:

Blades in the Dark's entire system is built around the characters proactively deciding what they want and going out and getting it, then the consequences of those actions falling on them. Then making decisions about their new positions to decide what they want next and going out and getting it. And in all of those cases it is built around them having the option to go get it and who to get it from based on the info they can uncover. And the option of "you failed to get it" is also a thing.

How does that not fit the definition of sandbox you seem to be promoting?

Norton asks how Blades in the Dark's system does not fit the definition of a Sandbox that "I seem to be promoting"

For reference, this is the definition that I am using for a Sandbox:

SANDBOX
An approach to playing RPGs, defined by how players and referee behave instead the details of a given system, wherein the players are granted complete freedom to do anything within the setting as their character, limited only by common sense restrictions. The players have the ability to "trash the campaign", their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconcieved premise, while the GM acts as a neutral arbiter of events in the gameworld and the manner in which the gameworld responds to the players, without an objective or steering the action in any particular direction.

So here is my response. Not knowing BitD, I ask some questions to ascertain how it matches/doesn't match the definition of a Sandbox:

I suspect there's more to the system than just what you are describing. But I guess I'll just ask a simple question - can a character in Blades in the Dark hop a plane to Japan to attend a friend's funeral? Can they decide to look into government corruption? Can they start a business?

The purposes of these questions should be obvious based on the definition - a Sandbox is being defined as being predicated upon player choice, limited only by common sense restrictions, and includes the concept of players being able to "thrash the campaign", meaning " their actions not limited to staying within the bounds of a preconcieved premise"

I mean, they can't hop on a plane to Japan because of the setting but yes, they could just attend a friends funeral? Why would they not be able to?

My current campaign has a lot to do with our shared hatred of the nobility and the power structures of the city so... yes? Gaining information on government corruption sounds like a great heist.

I mean they can, but to answer the question more thoroughly: Why are they doing it? What is the purpose of the business? Because how I'd handle it would be different depending on the answer.

Are they using it for money laundering? It would probably be some kind of turf.

Are they using it to create some legitimate money on the side? Probably some stuff with downtime progress clocks.

Is the purpose to make the game no longer about being criminals and instead just operating a legit business? I mean, I guess you can do this, but uh, why? What are the chances that the entire team, as a whole, decides that suddenly they don't want to engage with the premise of the game. And if it is just an individual character I'd be like "sure, why not, you retire from the life and we all continue on without you" because I don't think that the other 3 players want to sit through the guy running his textile shop that none of them are involved in. And if everyone decided to, I'd probably either just go "ok, well, you live happily ever after in retirement" or switch to a different system.

I'm still baffled though. Why does Blades in the Dark have to jump through all these hoops because it has a narrow premise, but superhero games don't?

So, Norton's response here is contradictary, because first he says "yes, they have complete freedom of choice (that BitD took place in a fantasy world rather than a modern setting I was unaware of, but that's covered by "common sense restrictions" - obviously PCs cant hop a plane to Japan if planes and Japan don't exist in the setting, but that wasn't the point, the point was about the PCs having the freedom to do whatever a real person living in the game world could do, and are not bound by a premise set by the GM.

So Norton says "yes" at first but then complaigns about the players then "not engaging with the premise" and that if they chose to ignore the premise of the game (ie "thrash the setting" that he'd end the game. Which isn't an argument against someone being able to use BitD for a sandbox, but is a pretty straightforward argument that Norton doesn't want to run a Sandbox. He wants hs players to stick to his premise.


So my next response, seems self-explanatory:

I don't know from Blades in the City, only what people have said on this forum. You describe it one way, other posters describe it another way.

But I don't know what hoops it has to jump through that a superhero game doesn't. OK, in BitD, players are choosing to be theives, engaging with the premise. In a superhero game it's assumed players will chose to be superheroes. But if the GM is running either as a Sandbox, that means the characters can make any choice that they would if they were real people in a real world. The point of the questions I had was to determine if BiTD's systemspecifically prevented those choices. FASERIP doesn't, DC Heroes doesn't. I haven't played it, but I assume Champions doesn't.

So I guess I'd need to know why people say BiTD isn't a sandbox to see if I agree with them or not (because I honestly didn't commit previous conversations about the game to memory. All I have is a vague impression that the system was kinda Narrativey).

Again what Im trying to explain or illustrate is that, in a Sandbox, players have complete freedom of choice, not dependent on the premise of the game, but based upon the idea that they are real people living in a real world.

To wit, Norton replies specifically to this sentence "if the GM is running either as a Sandbox, that means the characters can make any choice that they would if they were real people in a real world":

I would just point out that this kind of feels like every game I've ever been in.

As I said: Would you consider Mutant City Blues, as I described it, a Sandbox. (Link for reference)

The link leads to the point in question. I was not reponding to the post linked, of course, I was responding to this post above, specifically, the question: "Would I consider Mutant City Blues, as Norton describes it, a Sandbox?"

And soo I read the linked post, and I looked for anything in the description of his Mutant City Blues game that contradicted the definition of Sandbox I was using.

Ok, I think people are missing my point. First, I said that it isn't "Pure Sandbox" not that it can't be sandboxy.

But Superheroes are probably a little more vague, but let's look at a different game. Say, Mutant City Blues.

In Mutant City Blues, the characters play as (mostly mutant) police detectives who specialize in crimes committed by or against people with mutant abilities (10% of the population in the game setting are mutants).

Ok. so you work within a structure where you are given cases to solve. I mean, yes, you can decide not to investigate it, but well, you'd then be fired cause you aren't doing your job, and you probably wouldn't be part of the game anymore (the character would be retired) unless the entire unit decides to go rogue or something (though then you are playing a pretty different game than we prepared).

The general assumption is that you will be handed an investigation. You go about it however you want investigating it, face consequences of those actions (say if you did something illegal to get info and have to cover it up), and try to solve the crime.

Then it goes to prosecutors and you move on to the next case you are assigned.

100% this matches the description of Living World that you and tenbones are talking about. The world moves, you do your thing in it, etc. But I don't think anyone would describe this game as "pure sandbox".

And I find that, in the 4th paragraph, there is a statement about the game that contradicts the definition, and I quote that part and answer the question posed to me ("Would I consider Mutant City Blues, as Norton describes it, a Sandbox?")

No, because of this sentence:
" I mean, yes, you can decide not to investigate it, but well, you'd then be fired cause you aren't doing your job, and you probably wouldn't be part of the game anymore "

So the game is not centered around the characters and their choices, it's centered around the premise set by the GM, and if they don't engage with the premise, they wouldn't be a part of the game anymore.

And this is when Norton accuses me of "You chopped my post in half to twist what I said into something I didn't."

Holy shit dude. That is some selective reading:

"I mean, yes, you can decide not to investigate it, but well, you'd then be fired cause you aren't doing your job, and you probably wouldn't be part of the game anymore (the character would be retired) unless the entire unit decides to go rogue or something (though then you are playing a pretty different game than we prepared)."

You completely cut out the second half of the sentence.

I was commenting on if ONE character got fired and the rest of the players continued on working for the unit. I followed it with UNLESS.

I'm centering the game on the characters, just not that ONE GUYS character. I'm not going to waste 3 other players time going over the dude applying at Radio Shack or whatever he is doing that is unrelated to what everyone else is doing.

I honestly feel like you read everything I write as uncharitably as possible, because this 100% did not match the actual words I typed and you had to cut my sentence in half and remove the actual context to make it say the strawman you are beating up.

To wit:

Dude you literally cut one of my posts in half, removing huge amounts of context from it to accuse me of saying something I didn't say, and when I pointed it out that you had done it, you were like "nuhuh". And keep in mind this was done in a Mod+ thread, one of the places were these kind of bad faith things are supposed to be policed.

Now, I'm relativelly certain everyone reading this can understand where Norton went wrong. But he himself cannot for some reason, so for his edification, let's try that response again, and I'll quote the whole paragraph:

Norton: "Would you consider Mutant City Blues, as I described it, a Sandbox?"

Me:

No, because of this part of your description:

Ok. so you work within a structure where you are given cases to solve. I mean, yes, you can decide not to investigate it, but well, you'd then be fired cause you aren't doing your job, and you probably wouldn't be part of the game anymore (the character would be retired) unless the entire unit decides to go rogue or something (though then you are playing a pretty different game than we prepared).

If the player characters, individually, decide not to engage with the premise, they would be fired, and "wouldn't be a part of the game anymore". That does not fit my definition of a Sandbox. The fact that you might go along with it, if the entire party decided as a group to abandon the premise is immaterial, because the definition of Sandbox that I'm using isn't predicated on the entire group making a decision to "trash the setting" it is that any character can make a choice in the game as if they were a real person living in a real world.

The "context" that Norton holds so dear, and is so affronted by me leaving out, changes nothing. I did not invent an argument he never made, I answered the question he posed to me, and he simply didn't like the answer.

 

[TristramEvans]

1. I'm not going to name names, if they don't want to make their opinion public, it isn't on me to do that. It was a private conversation and it is staying that way.

2. If a bunch of people were privately talking about me and saying they thought I was an issue, I would want to know about it. Again, it isn't about some kind of PROVING I'M RIGHT, it's talking about problems on the forum.

Consistently negative opinions of a moderator is a problem. I'm pointing out that it is more widespread than they think. I'm not trying to prove Endless wrong, I'm adding ADDITIONAL CONTEXT to the idea that only a few people complain about him. He's right it is the same few people that complain publicly about Tristram. I'm adding the context that there are quite a few more people who aren't going to say publicly that they have a problem with a moderator.

Because guess what. I have no idea why I've ever brought up any problem I've had with a moderator here. Cause 1. Every single time it has resulted in no change, 2. Every single time it just gets me painted as the bad guy.

Hell at this point, moderators barely respond to my PMs at all. It's why I do it here instead. So you know. Cool.

"There's this problem, that I can't prove, you just have to take my word for it, so no one can respond to or offer any contrary PoV, but I'm upset that my bringing it up isn't resulting in any change in forum policy and I feel like I'm being painted as the bad guy"

(sigh)

Sometimes I can empathize with the way RPGnet Mods run things...

 

[Fenris-77]

I didn’t realize I was the talk of the town.

I wasn’t being literal. It could have been four people or six people.

But not 4.5 people. I always tell my students that you don't get half people when you're doing word problems. It's messy.

 

[EmperorNorton]

"There's this problem, that I can't prove, you just have to take my word for it, so no one can respond to or offer any contrary PoV, but I'm upset that my bringing it up isn't resulting in any change in forum policy and I feel like I'm being painted as the bad guy"

(sigh)

Sometimes I can empathize with the way RPGnet Mods run things...

Dude, I'm not going to name names. They can speak for themselves or not. It is not my place to do that. You can believe me or not. I don't fucking care at this point. They exist, I know they exist. Either you believe me or you don't. And at any point have I ever given you the impression that I lie about things?

And yeah, I do think it is a problem that anyone who makes complaints about the moderation get painted as always in the wrong. Especially when this all started because I said that if the forum position is going to always be "well the ignore list exists for a reason" as a solution to all ills, then moderators kind of have to think just a touch harder about how they post.

If the answer to "people can be abrasive, whatever, you can put them on ignore" as the answer when people complain about lax moderation... then it kind of sucks that one of those abrasive people can't actually be put on ignore.

 

[EmperorNorton]

As it is, ignore still doesn't actually solve a lot of issues. It doesn't stop people from replying to you, and one of the largest problems I have is people twisting what I'm saying, and then other people taking that as my position. All ignoring someone who does that does is make me unaware of how someone is painting me.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Also, also. Man just sorry for today. Like, I'm not saying I don't think that what I'm saying is valid, but I'm probably not expressing it well. I got my second vaccine dose earlier and it is wrecking me, so I'm probably not as coherent or as calm as I'd like to be in trying to explain what I mean.

The basic point I'm making is that there is, I think, a valid complaint to be made about the moderations insistence that the ignore function is good enough to deal with any real issues that come from the lax moderation here, when one of the people who several people seem to be having an issue with is also immune to being put on the ignore list.

Is it FAIR that moderators have to consider altering their posting style to avoid escalating situations more than regular users do? I mean not really. But honestly, I think we all need to be considering how we post and what is escalating situations. Like, I've been doing my best to alter how I post recently as well. For instance ever since taking CRK off ignore for instance, I've actively made a point of only really interacting with him on stuff that doesn't have to do with anything we'd beef about. (I think I responded to him in the video game thread, and maybe the real life thread?). I posted in the Game Balance thread, but I tried my best to keep it as low key as possible.

I don't know man. I just feel like a lot of people could do better, me included. If you don't think you could do better, then idk, I guess cool.

Honestly, I should probably just not post when I'm not feeling well either.

 

[Raleel]

go with swo or do not go

 

[E-Rocker]

I like Oxford comas.

 

[Voros]

A shame that the term gets abused these days to mean 'someone disagrees with me.'

Fun movie though.

 

[Endless Flight]

 

[Brock Savage]

A shame that the term gets abused these days to mean 'someone disagrees with me.'

It is hard for me to take people seriously when they express their disagreement, anxiety, embarrassment, etc through the inappropriate use of hyperbolic language like toxic, gaslighting, harassment etc. At the last party I went to (pre Covid obviously) someone accused me of "gaslighting" them (using her outdoor voice, no less) because I rebutted her opinions on drug policy/addiction treatment. What does it say about a person when they are willing to make such a dreadful accusation simply because they are embarrassed and want to save face?

 

[Gabriel]

I just want to say that I had never heard the term "gaslighting" until a couple of years ago, when suddenly it was being tossed into conversations like it was a term that everyone had always used. It took me a while to learn the definition. But people had insisted that the term had been in constant usage forever and that my recollection it had only popped up to prominence recently was a false memory.

I find that deeply and profoundly ironic.

 

[Stumpydave]

My first experience of 'gaslighting' was Mr Twit messing with Mrs Twit.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

It is hard for me to take people seriously when they express their disagreement, anxiety, embarrassment, etc through the inappropriate use of hyperbolic language like toxic, gaslighting, harassment etc. At the last party I went to (pre Covid obviously) someone accused me of "gaslighting" them (using her outdoor voice, no less) because I rebutted her opinions on drug policy/addiction treatment. What does it say about a person when they are willing to make such a dreadful accusation simply because they are embarrassed and want to save face?

Yeah, I think it's safe to just assume anyone who does that is prone to dishonesty and take everything they have to say in the context of that.

 

[CRKrueger]

Why? I'll be honest, I find a lot of people are treated this way on the forum. Just you know, when they aren't a moderator it's treated differently. I'm considered a problem poster. CRK is. etc. And I'm pretty sure the reason is we are common denominators in a lot of the kerfluffles on the board.

But put the same eye on you as a moderator and it is slimy? Honest question: Why do you think that you are called out more than every single other moderator? Why do you think every single one of these posts centers on you?


Fair enough, glad to be proven wrong.

Well...I have been a problem poster. Sure, a lot of people need to stop being Fainting Couch Potatoes spamming Report all day, but despite that, I’ve been on a downslide, I’ll own that.

Tristram hasn’t been anywhere close to that. People get upset when he takes the piss out of them because he’s a mod.

 

[Dammit Victor]

On the other hand, there are some topics in the usual political discourse where I would readily and matter-of-factly describe the tactics of one entire side of the argument as "gaslighting". Certainly, there is no absence of actual toxicity and actual harrassment on all manner of topics in all manner of venues.

In my personal experience, whenever some sanctimonious shitgremlin tells me that "nobody" says or does or believes something, I can personally guarantee you that the very next thing that's going to happen is they're going to say, or do, or tell me they believe, that exact same fucking thing.

 

[chuckdee]

So Tristram can be defended by saying that it is only a minority of people who dislike his posting style... but pointing out that it is more people than they think is a fallacy?

Endless started the conversation on how many people it was that had a problem with Tristram, not me.

In order to say that it is not a minority, you'd need to poll the majority. Or get a representative sampling.

That is what argument ad populum talks about. It's one basis discussed in the book lying with statistics.

 

[chuckdee]

Well...I have been a problem poster. Sure, a lot of people need to stop being Fainting Couch Potatoes spamming Report all day, but despite that, I’ve been on a downslide, I’ll own that.

I have to say, I'm just not up on this fascination with hitting report either. I mean, can someone explain to me why just because a function is there, we feel the need to use it rather than just not engage? If someone's being a dick, don't make it the mods problem, just deal with it by disengaging. There's only a few times I'd use the report button- and none of them have come up here. Being abrasive is not a reportable offense, IMO.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Paragon]

Being abrasive is not a reportable offense, IMO.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That is sometimes the key to the question, isn't it? To some people I suspect being obnoxious is, indeed, something to report. For those whom it isn't, it'll seem inexplicable.

 

[Endless Flight]

We’ve had reports from people who don’t like other’s debating style so we’ve seen all kinds.