Moderation Criticisms

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
Voros said:
Not sure what it is about this hobby, which is social and based on collaboration, attracts these anti-social nutters.
Click to expand...
In my experience it's the ability to escape into their fantasies in a socially acceptable manner. For example in an RPG you can be a evil assassin that likes killing for fun and most people won't blink an eye.
 
Brock Savage said:
I have been asking myself whether special "mod text is a good idea for a couple years now and it's a tough one to answer. On one hand the lack of special mod text reinforces the Pub's relaxed, informal, and friendly nature. That said, distinctive mod text could add some clarity when contentious issues arise. In any case, I know a decision wouldn't be made without careful consideration and that's one of the reasons I like this place so much.
Click to expand...
Would a tag feel less formalistic than mod text?

I'm thinking something as simple as this:

[mod] Brock, please put your NSFW ewok pictures behind spoiler tags [/mod]
 
Black Leaf said:
Would a tag feel less formalistic than mod text?

I'm thinking something as simple as this:

[mod] Brock, please put your NSFW ewok pictures behind spoiler tags [/mod]
Click to expand...
Yes. I find the Pub's simple and understated "first among equals" approach to moderation preferable to the aggressive "hammer of the gods" moderation style of other boards.
 
Brock Savage said:
I have been asking myself whether special "mod text is a good idea for a couple years now and it's a tough one to answer. On one hand the lack of special mod text reinforces the Pub's relaxed, informal, and friendly nature. That said, distinctive mod text could add some clarity when contentious issues arise. In any case, I know a decision wouldn't be made without careful consideration and that's one of the reasons I like this place so much.
Click to expand...

Maybe it doesn't need to be standard operating procedure, but just use the blue text if folks aren't taking the hint, or maybe a warning.
 
Baulderstone said:
I need to add that the game also came out long before Pundit became a political blogger.
Click to expand...
Assuming that you're talking about Arrows of Indra, this is not correct. Just because Pundit's old Xanga and LiveJournal can only be accessed via wayback machine, doesn't mean they don't exist. He was known as far back as the early aughts for the exact same kind of bullshit he is known for now.
Black Leaf said:
If I changed my title to "Zak saved D&D" as a "goof" would people be justified in drawing wider conclusion about my views on his general behaviour?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. Point taken.
 
Gringnr said:
Assuming that you're talking about Arrows of Indra, this is not correct. Just because Pundit's old Xanga and LiveJournal can only be accessed via wayback machine, doesn't mean they don't exist. He was known as far back as the early aughts for the exact same kind of bullshit he is known for now.
Click to expand...
Not really I think. Back then he was known a) for really really wanting to be Hunter S Thompson (despite the fact the real Hunter S would have ripped him to shreds) and b) having comically overblown views on the storygamer conspiracy. At the time he was more of a clown, a lot of the other stuff came later. He didn't necessarily stand out compared to other bloggers with an overinflated sense of their own importance.
 
Black Leaf said:
Not really I think. Back then he was known a) for really really wanting to be Hunter S Thompson (despite the fact the real Hunter S would have ripped him to shreds) and b) having comically overblown views on the storygamer conspiracy. At the time he was more of a clown, a lot of the other stuff came later. He didn't necessarily stand out compared to other bloggers with an overinflated sense of their own importance.
Click to expand...
Hard disagree. People were talking about his, well, views on things we don't discuss here, at least as far back as 2006, according to numerous blog/journal entries which I am currently seeing with my own two eyes, on my own monitor.
 
Endless Flight said:
This forum software does have a warning system, which I used on Fenris-77 Fenris-77 post above.
Click to expand...
I like the warning. I think it should be more visible but I like it. It’s close to mod bot, actually. Ironically, it’s anonymous ;)

it will not solve the issue of folks trying to not engage with people they disagree with who are mods, but at least it is pretty clearly mod voice. Unless I get the power to warn people when they commit heresy against Mythras suddenly.
 
Gringnr said:
Hard disagree. People were talking about his, well, views on things we don't discuss here, at least as far back as 2006, according to numerous blog/journal entries which I am currently seeing with my own two eyes, on my own monitor.
Click to expand...
Possibly. I'm no Pundyologist by any means!

I will say that there's a reason I take Fox more seriously than Pundit (and it's no compliment to the latter).

Pundit is a middle aged man who calls himself "the final boss of Internet shitlords". He beats his chest about what a big hard man he is and it's one of the least convincing things I've seen in my life. What would Pundit do in a pub fight? Cast a magic spell on them? His entire public persona is that of a man trying far too hard. He's the internet equivalent of a badly grown teenage mustache. He's a pompous buffoon, has absolutely no sense of humour and responds to criticism with temper tantrums.

Fox is none of those things. He's very intelligent indeed. He has extensive marketing experience which he knows how to use to his advantage when building his personal brand. He's superficially charming when you deal with him on a surface level (he certainly had me fooled for a bit and I'm normally pretty good at spotting this kind of thing). But absolutely everything for him from his heartfelt beliefs (which change where useful) to business relationships and friendships seem to me to be entirely transactional. To quote Granny Weatherwax "When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts.".

And that is why I react to the two differently. I don't expect you to trust my instincts, but they've stood me in good stead over the years so I'm going to. And they tell me that the correct response to Pundit is amused contempt, but Fox is someone far more dangerous than that. His intelligence alone makes him more of a danger.
 
Gringnr said:
No, my pointing out the hypocrisy of Tristram decrying Fox's attempts to whip up "guilt by association", while simultaneously encouraging people to pirate "Fox's" stuff, which has many other contributors who would undoubtedly be affected by such piracy, is absolutely a "moderation criticism".
Click to expand...

You mean Fox lying to imply a false guilt by association that didn't exist vs people choosing to collaborate with Fox?

I'm not sure "Hypocrisy" means what you think it does.
 
Gringnr said:
Assuming that you're talking about Arrows of Indra, this is not correct. Just because Pundit's old Xanga and LiveJournal can only be accessed via wayback machine, doesn't mean they don't exist. He was known as far back as the early aughts for the exact same kind of bullshit he is known for now.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am wrong. It was a long time ago.

Why, of all people, are you so eager to play the guilt-by-association game? You are Daniel Fox's biggest defender, but we extend you the benefit of the doubt. If I am going to become the person who shun people for working with someone years ago who had different political opinions than them, it might make sense for me to ban you for your connection to Fox.

That isn't going to happen, so don't take that as a threat, just a comparison.
 
I will also say (and this does touch on politics so caution from all of us) we have never, with one obvious exception, banned people because of what they believe. We've only banned them because of how they act. That's a crucial distinction.
 
Black Leaf said:
I will also say (and this does touch on politics so caution from all of us) we have never, with one obvious exception, banned people because of what they believe. We've only banned them because of how they act. That's a crucial distinction.
Click to expand...

Even with the exception, that guy plastered his beliefs all over an RPG forum online, which was a deliberate action.
 
Baulderstone said:
Maybe I am wrong. It was a long time ago.

Why, of all people, are you so eager to play the guilt-by-association game? You are Daniel Fox's biggest defender, but we extend you the benefit of the doubt. If I am going to become the person who shun people for working with someone years ago who had different political opinions than them, it might make sense for me to ban you for your connection to Fox.

That isn't going to happen, so don't take that as a threat, just a comparison.
Click to expand...
Where am I playing guilt by association? How? I haven't criticized anyone for working with Pundit. I haven't criticized anyone for Pundit's idiocy except Pundit. However, the statement was made that his [stuff we don't talk about] were unknown until after AoI was published, and that simply isn't true. I'm still not condemning anyone other than Pundit for Pundit being Pundit.
 
Gringnr said:
In the absence of any real way, or attempt even, to distinguish between mod speech and non-mod speech, that isn't really a meaningful distinction, but an arbitrary one.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's a common sense one. No one legitimately read my original post and misinterpreted it as me making an official statement as a Moderator or representing the forum.

At least, I don't believe we have any posters at The Pub that stupid or lacking in reading comprehension skills.
 
As a comment on using another text color or large/bold text for mod text, we've used it on a forum I've run for the last decade or so, and it actually is useful for another reason:

People will often skim threads rather than read through every single post. Making mod notes to say, drop a specific subject, in a color/size/etc that makes them jump out make it easier for people to not accidentally skip over them.
 
TristramEvans TristramEvans No one, myself included, interpreted it as an official Pub statement, no. But that doesn't change the fact that you, a moderator, have encouraged piracy against not only Fox, but many (presumably) blameless others, including but not limited to this site's only advertiser. No amount of after-the-fact weasel words changes that. When called not only the wrongness of such a stance, but the hypocrisy of it when contrasted with your supposed concerns about guilt by association, you doubled down and continue to do so. Thin-skinned and petty, but you do you.
 
If a McDonald's manager bangs a teenage employee in the walk-in, he's obviously not acting on "official McDonald's policy", but he still did it, it's still not cool (and that's putting it WAY too mildly), and he was still wearing the paper hat, in the restaurant, when he did it. And in this example, he's claiming he was "off the clock", even though he was taking drive-thru orders on his headset the whole time he was doin' the nasty.
 
Gringnr said:
If a McDonald's manager bangs a teenage employee in the walk-in, he's obviously not acting on "official McDonald's policy", but he still did it, it's still not cool (and that's putting it WAY too mildly), and he was still wearing the paper hat, in the restaurant, when he did it. And in this example, he's claiming he was "off the clock", even though he was taking drive-thru orders on his headset the whole time he was doin' the nasty.
Click to expand...
It's somewhat different when you're talking about paid employees.

Unless you seriously are proposing we should get paid, a customer service analogy doesn't fit.
 
Black Leaf said:
It's somewhat different when you're talking about paid employees.

Unless you seriously are proposing we should get paid, a customer service analogy doesn't fit.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that behavior wouldn't fly at all-volunteer organizations either
 
Endless Flight Endless Flight IMO it's because it's part and parcel of a convo that started with me asking why Tristram was letting his butthurt affect his objectivity. Does Griswold get a ttle that says "Banned Anti-Semite?" Does Zak Get one that says "Banned (Alleged) Fast Food Pants Shitter and Abusive Dick?" Lopsided moderation like that makes you look like you're too emotional to be an internet janitor.
 
Why does someone’s title mean there’s uneven moderation as a whole here?
 
Endless Flight said:
Why does someone’s title mean there’s uneven moderation as a whole here?
Click to expand...
Not as a whole, just from Tristram. And I want to make clear that I have no personal beef with the guy. But, I'm talking about his behavior only. If another mod/admin did it, I'd call them out, too.

Edit: and it's "uneven" because others, despite being banned for reprehensible things, weren't singled out for such petty treatment, I guess because they didn't personally offend anyone with little things such as anti--semitism and alleged rape.
 
Gringnr said:
Endless Flight Endless Flight IMO it's because it's part and parcel of a convo that started with me asking why Tristram was letting his butthurt affect his objectivity. Does Griswold get a ttle that says "Banned Anti-Semite?" Does Zak Get one that says "Banned (Alleged) Fast Food Pants Shitter and Abusive Dick?" Lopsided moderation like that makes you look like you're too emotional to be an internet janitor.
Click to expand...

So, you're conflating two unrelated events - my post in the copyright thread and Fox's title being changed
 
Gringnr said:
Not as a whole, just from Tristram. And I want to make clear that I have no personal beef with the guy. But, I'm talking about his behavior only. If another mod/admin did it, I'd call them out, too.
Click to expand...
Great, you called him out. We called out Fox for calling the Pub a bunch of racists on Twitter, before any title was changed here.

Moving along.
 
TristramEvans said:
So, you're conflating two unrelated events - my post in the copyright thread and Fox's title being changed
Click to expand...
No, I am not, both of these are part of your vendetta against Fox, which, while it may be perfectly understandable, is still out of proportion with your treatment of others who are arguably just as disgusting as you find Fox. To say that these two things are separate is laughable.
 
I want to make the timeline clear:

Daniel abuses people online for doing things he did himself. So he’s an asshole and a hypocrite.

We made the decision to ban him for his behavior against friends here.

Daniel goes on Twitter accusing us of banning him for being against inclusion, riling up a mob online digging into things like my personal information to see if I like Donald Trump.

A mod changes his title here, which is (begin sarcasm) the worst thing on this list (end sarcasm).
 
Not exactly. I wouldn't say it's the worst, thing, and I didn't say that. In fact, I find the encouragement of piracy against UNINVOLVED PARTIES much worse.
 
Gringnr said:
Pretty sure that behavior wouldn't fly at all-volunteer organizations either
Click to expand...
The agreement always was that moderators are free to act as regular posters as well as doing moderation. Otherwise, I wouldn't have signed up for doing it. Sorry, but there's no way I'd have gone for the idea that I'm a second class citizen who gets to do the work but doesn't get the same level of posting privileges.
Gringnr said:
Edit: and it's "uneven" because others, despite being banned for reprehensible things, weren't singled out for such petty treatment, I guess because they didn't personally offend anyone with little things such as anti--semitism and alleged rape.
Click to expand...
Griswald had entire threads hidden from view, including his hello thread. Are you suggesting that should have happened to Fox?

Again, your chronology is off.

The actual timeline:

It comes to our attention that Fox has been running a harassment campaign against a member of the forum.

It is decided (unanimously if I recall correctly) that is not something we are willing to tolerate, even if it happened off forum. Note that while it's unanimous Tristram is not the main voice for a banning.

Fox is banned and nothing is said at that stage.

Fox lies about the reason on Twitter and tries to stir up his followers accordingly.

Tristram changes his title.

So that's what actually happened.

Honestly, if we did anything wrong I think we should have done what we did with Griswald and made a public statement at the time. Hindsight.

(The difference with Zak is that Zak was banned, fucked off and hasn't acknowledged us since. There was nothing to clarify there).

Edit: Crossposted with Endless. Which is kinda useful, because it clarifies our timelines are the same.
 
Gringnr said:
Not exactly. I wouldn't say it's the worst, thing, and I didn't say that. In fact, I find the encouragement of piracy against UNINVOLVED PARTIES much worse.
Click to expand...
But you've argued that DrivethruRPG is one of those parties. Which, by your argument, means that you are currently doing the same thing as what you're objecting to.

(Which isn't actually my view and I don't give a fuck about you having a pop against Pundit. I just don't see how you aren't doing what you're arguing is beyond the pale, going by your own internal logic).
 
Also worth mentioning that the reason that him working with people who previously worked with Pundit wasn't brought up before now (where if I'm honest you forced people's hand on that) was specifically because we were trying not to drag the names of other people working with Fox into this.

Edit: I'll also be honest. I strongly suspect if it had turned out it was me who changed his title rather than Tristram this would have been forgotten by now.
 
Gringnr said:
No, I am not, both of these are part of your vendetta against Fox,
Click to expand...

No, not really.


Gringnr said:
is still out of proportion with your treatment of others who are arguably just as disgusting as you find Fox.
Click to expand...

You just don't have a comprehensive awareness of my treatment of others.


Gringnr said:
To say that these two things are separate is laughable.
Click to expand...

But...they are completely separate, not just chronologically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top