Moderation Issues

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was googling "dust" to see if there were any good dust memes besides the one from The Amazing Bulk, and all that kept coming up was "Dustmen memes" from Britain which is apparently what they call garbagemen?? (I honestly don't recall that from the time I was there), which indavertantly led me to the internet's very first meme...




ahhh...memories...
 
I was googling "dust" to see if there were any good dust memes besides the one from The Amazing Bulk, and all that kept coming up was "Dustmen memes" from Britain which is apparently what they call garbagemen??
"I get up when I want except on Wednesdays
When I get rudely awakened by the dustmen
Parklife!"
 
I found them hit and miss. Some were... Wow, just WOW. Others seemed like they were trying too hard.
Yeah some are lower tier film school quality, some are obviously just tech demos/job resumes, some match the best Hollywood’s put out. Even Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Black Mirror, etc. have their duds.
 
No, dustmen is universal, unless you want to call them ‘refuse collection operatives...’ They are also commonly called ‘binmen’ because they empty the bins.

I think it comes from the days when people had coal fires and they generated a lot of coal dust that needed to be taken away.

Anyhoo.. I can recommend this Dust...

19A4CC22-5C6E-4EDC-82B7-F3491A965405.jpeg 879597AC-40D2-4FA9-BEA4-54527D9DC7D9.jpeg 82632AF8-EDEC-4D7A-835C-3A685CC733B5.jpeg

Great trilogy...
 
I like the current Moderation, just leave things as they are I reckon :thumbsup:

Seconded. If you change, I'll have James Blunt come around and sing "You're Beautiful" to persuade you otherwise. Nobody! Wants! That!
 
No, dustmen is universal, unless you want to call them ‘refuse collection operatives...’ They are also commonly called ‘binmen’ because they empty the bins.

I think it comes from the days when people had coal fires and they generated a lot of coal dust that needed to be taken away.

Folks I know, myself included, still call them dustbinmen to give them their full title. Its still surprising how many folks still have coal fires. We even had a local rock band called No Hot Ashes.
 
Do you want your mod to be an engaged and active member of a community he likes, or that he be forced to not engage with that community except in his role as mod? How would you ever get a good moderator out of that equation? Saying you can only be a mod if you dont have the same fun as the rest of us isn't a good answer.
I ran various gaming organization over the decades and sometimes I could be a participant, other times I couldn't. But overall it better to try to setup things so that that people in charge can play as well. That gaming is a highly optional leisure activity often outweighs the potential of bias spoiling the group activity. So losing the opportunity to participate versus the extra hassle of being "in charge" is often not worth it to most individuals.
 
Last edited:
While I think the issue that started this was Silva going off the deep end, I don't think that he is entirely wrong about the idea that Tristram will bait people, even if unintentionally, and then the people who get annoyed at the baiting are the ones who get blamed in the end. I'll pull a recent discussion to show what I mean:


The first post I made. I asserted two things: I didn't particularly care about things like realism in the amount of farming land, and find it kind of weak to have your immersion shattered by if it isn't being focused on by the campaign.

Tristrams immediate response sums up to: Well if you don't have an issue with it it is because you are ignorant, and the writers of the settings are ignorant to.

I respond to specify that 1. I can know about stuff and still not care about whether it is completely accurate as long as it still is fun. and 2. I would find in unfun to play with someone who couldn't get over stuff like that. (Keep in mind, I'm not even addressing anyone in specific in the thread, just a general "man if it would be a big enough deal to run your fun in the game, I would not have fun playing with you." I feel like if we are going to start saying that finding a certain style of player unfun to play with is insulting, half this forum is about to get threadbanned).

At this point, Tristram again doubles down on the idea that, the only people who wouldn't have an issue with it are people who are ignorant:

" I mean, I'm sure you can find plenty of gamers who know nothing about history, so I doubt this is an issue plagueing your hobby activities very often."

He continues to over and over again double down on this idea that the reason people wouldn't have issues is not STYLISTIC DIFFERENCE IN PLAYING, it is that they are ignorant.

When I state again that "No, people can know about stuff and still not care. I know Star Wars makes no sense, but I can still enjoy it." He starts making out the idea that A. I don't care even though I do understand things aren't necessarily realistic, and B. I wouldn't want to play with people who can't deal with what I consider small issues with "realism" as being "onetruewayism" and I'm saying my thoughts should be universal.

I never in the thread stated my style should be universal. I did say that I wouldn't want to play with people who did not match that style, but that is hardly onetruewayism.

Additionally I posited a hypothetical scenario about a players reaction, and asked if he would find it to be a pain. His response " because I don't consider it a "pain" to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players." heavily implies that to hold the opinion I do IS considering it a pain to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players.

This kind of shit continues, where he skips over any point I'm making, calls it all "onetruewayism" and ignores that he both has implied that the only people who wouldn't care are ignorant, or that I don't care about creating a good environment for my players, continues to poke at me until I lose my temper.

Then he thread bans me.

Did I behave perfectly in the thread: No, not really.

Did Tristram bait me into being more and more aggressive? In my opinion, yes.
 
Last edited:
While I think the issue that started this was Silva going off the deep end, I don't think that he is entirely wrong about the idea that Tristram will bait people, even if unintentionally, and then the people who get annoyed at the baiting are the ones who get blamed in the end. I'll pull a recent discussion to show what I mean:


The first post I made. I asserted two things: I didn't particularly care about things like realism in the amount of farming land, and find it kind of weak to have your immersion shattered by if it isn't being focused on by the campaign.

Tristrams immediate response sums up to: Well if you don't have an issue with it it is because you are ignorant, and the writers of the settings are ignorant to.

I respond to specify that 1. I can know about stuff and still not care about whether it is completely accurate as long as it still is fun. and 2. I would find in unfun to play with someone who couldn't get over stuff like that. (Keep in mind, I'm not even addressing anyone in specific in the thread, just a general "man if it would be a big enough deal to run your fun in the game, I would not have fun playing with you." I feel like if we are going to start saying that finding a certain style of player unfun to play with is insulting, half this forum is about to get threadbanned).

At this point, Tristram again doubles down on the idea that, the only people who wouldn't have an issue with it are people who are ignorant:

" I mean, I'm sure you can find plenty of gamers who know nothing about history, so I doubt this is an issue plagueing your hobby activities very often."

He continues to over and over again double down on this idea that the reason people wouldn't have issues is not STYLISTIC DIFFERENCE IN PLAYING, it is that they are ignorant.

When I state again that "No, people can know about stuff and still not care. I know Star Wars makes no sense, but I can still enjoy it." He starts making out the idea that A. I don't care even though I do understand things aren't necessarily realistic, and B. I wouldn't want to play with people who can't deal with what I consider small issues with "realism" as being "onetruewayism" and I'm saying my thoughts should be universal.

I never in the thread stated my style should be universal. I did say that I wouldn't want to play with people who did not match that style, but that is hardly onetruewayism.

Additionally I posited a hypothetical scenario about a players reaction, and asked if he would find it to be a pain. His response " because I don't consider it a "pain" to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players." heavily implies that to hold the opinion I do IS considering it a pain to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players.

This kind of shit continues, where he skips over any point I'm making, calls it all "onetruewayism" and ignores that he both has implied that the only people who wouldn't care are ignorant, or that I don't care about creating a good environment for my players, continues to poke at me until I lose my temper.

Then he thread bans me.

Did I behave perfectly in the thread: No, not really.

Did Tristram bait me into being more and more aggressive? In my opinion, yes.

Uhhh, you're the one who started the baiting dude. You did what's becoming a standard arguing tactic around here. You claimed that someone who cares about something you don't care about has something wrong with them mentally, in this case their Immersion is so fragile that they can't handle a setting that doesn't go Full.Harnmanor.

In reality, people were discussing the setting assumptions of D&D (and their many failings) without any rancor or argument at all. You're the one who came in and took a personal shot for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't enough to just state your opinions, you had to belittle the people who were discussing something you don't like. It sounds now like you're trying to convince yourself it was because they were insulting people who don't think like them, but no...that was just you.
 
While I think the issue that started this was Silva going off the deep end, I don't think that he is entirely wrong about the idea that Tristram will bait people, even if unintentionally, and then the people who get annoyed at the baiting are the ones who get blamed in the end. I'll pull a recent discussion to show what I mean:


The first post I made. I asserted two things: I didn't particularly care about things like realism in the amount of farming land, and find it kind of weak to have your immersion shattered by if it isn't being focused on by the campaign.

Tristrams immediate response sums up to: Well if you don't have an issue with it it is because you are ignorant, and the writers of the settings are ignorant to.

I respond to specify that 1. I can know about stuff and still not care about whether it is completely accurate as long as it still is fun. and 2. I would find in unfun to play with someone who couldn't get over stuff like that. (Keep in mind, I'm not even addressing anyone in specific in the thread, just a general "man if it would be a big enough deal to run your fun in the game, I would not have fun playing with you." I feel like if we are going to start saying that finding a certain style of player unfun to play with is insulting, half this forum is about to get threadbanned).

At this point, Tristram again doubles down on the idea that, the only people who wouldn't have an issue with it are people who are ignorant:

" I mean, I'm sure you can find plenty of gamers who know nothing about history, so I doubt this is an issue plagueing your hobby activities very often."

He continues to over and over again double down on this idea that the reason people wouldn't have issues is not STYLISTIC DIFFERENCE IN PLAYING, it is that they are ignorant.

When I state again that "No, people can know about stuff and still not care. I know Star Wars makes no sense, but I can still enjoy it." He starts making out the idea that A. I don't care even though I do understand things aren't necessarily realistic, and B. I wouldn't want to play with people who can't deal with what I consider small issues with "realism" as being "onetruewayism" and I'm saying my thoughts should be universal.

I never in the thread stated my style should be universal. I did say that I wouldn't want to play with people who did not match that style, but that is hardly onetruewayism.

Additionally I posited a hypothetical scenario about a players reaction, and asked if he would find it to be a pain. His response " because I don't consider it a "pain" to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players." heavily implies that to hold the opinion I do IS considering it a pain to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players.

This kind of shit continues, where he skips over any point I'm making, calls it all "onetruewayism" and ignores that he both has implied that the only people who wouldn't care are ignorant, or that I don't care about creating a good environment for my players, continues to poke at me until I lose my temper.

Then he thread bans me.

Did I behave perfectly in the thread: No, not really.

Did Tristram bait me into being more and more aggressive? In my opinion, yes.

You came in heavy and seemed to be trying to be condescending and insulting to people who were in the discussion already.
I commented on it to you before even reading Tristram's comments further in the thread.
You got the reaction you seemed to be aiming for tbh.
 
I get this feeling there is this huge disconnect in the way my post was intended and how it was perceived. And I'll take responsibility for the disconnect.

I was not reacting to the discussion as a whole (I find that stuff particularly interesting, though not that useful for at the table gaming), it was addressing the turn it was taking with the exchange here.


Where it was starting to make fun of people who don't care about stuff that is generally outside the scope of what our campaigns are about.
 
I get this feeling there is this huge disconnect in the way my post was intended and how it was perceived. And I'll take responsibility for the disconnect.

I was not reacting to the discussion as a whole (I find that stuff particularly interesting, though not that useful for at the table gaming), it was addressing the turn it was taking with the exchange here.


Where it was starting to make fun of people who don't care about stuff that is generally outside the scope of what our campaigns are about.
It seemed off for your usual.
It did not come off well. It came off as if you were looking down on us that want more plausibility in our campaigns as somehow flawed.
 
I get this feeling there is this huge disconnect in the way my post was intended and how it was perceived. And I'll take responsibility for the disconnect.

I was not reacting to the discussion as a whole (I find that stuff particularly interesting, though not that useful for at the table gaming), it was addressing the turn it was taking with the exchange here.


Where it was starting to make fun of people who don't care about stuff that is generally outside the scope of what our campaigns are about.

So in other words, you thought, erroneously, that there was a whiff of playstyle criticism in the thread and jumped in to stop the pogrom.

Like...every other time you've gone batshit loco in a thread. :devil:
 
You can criticize Tristram for thread-banning, but I would have done the same thing. When I read that he had done so already, I didn't think there was any reason to say anything in the thread at that point.
 
You can criticize Tristram for thread-banning, but I would have done the same thing. When I read that he had done so already, I didn't think there was any reason to say anything in the thread at that point.

Honestly, I don't feel like my threadban is necessarily incorrect, I reacted badly, but I still disagree with Tristram being able to shit on playstyles by calling them ignorant, characterizing people who don't care about those details as "people who don't know anything about history" or implying that I don't care about making sure my players are having a good time, and calling saying that I would find it unfun to play with people who worried about certain things as "onetruewayism".

He repeatedly made it about people being ignorant or uneducated.

The thing I am annoyed about is that Tristram gets free reign to say shit because he's a mod.
 
In your first post at that part of the conversation, I see this:

"Idk, I feel like some people have really really fragile suspension of disbelief if they are counting out farmland to population and if it doesn't match up their immersion is broken."

What is this exactly? An attack? An insult? A joke? Or is that "shit"?
 
OK, I'm going to do something weird here and step in in defense of Norton's complaints against me, not because I agree with them, but because I'd rather he didn't get piled on for something that already was resolved insofar as the threadban. It was I who suggested that Norton take his complaints to this thread, because, as I said to him, I can't moderate myself. And I think it's important to say the context of that is Norton telling me he did not have an issue with my moderation, but how I act as a poster.

I think a few things are perhaps unclear here. I engaged with Norton in that thread "in moderator mode", meaning my intention was initially to de-escalate hostilities, but when that approach did not work (and you can put the blame for that on either of us), I threadbanned him. As I tried to make clear, normally we don't step in just because posters are just being insulting to each other (we definitely prefer they don't, but it really depends on escalation, otherwise we assume posters are going to work things out for themselves), but we've consistently been asked to address the problem of people denigrating playstyles different to their own, so I am dealing with that a bit more directly. It would be the same if a poster was in a PBtA thread attacking a narrative playstyle.

But Norton feels that, as a poster, that I "bait" people, and that I act in ways that other posters would not get away with because I believe myself immune to moderation. I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty sure Endless or Baulderstone would not have a problem saying to me if they thought I was acting out of line ( I do recall one situation where that happened, involving a particularly spiteful memedrop). But I don't have any personal problems with Norton, I can't recall even having an argument with him before this one (I mean, I'm sure we have - he mentioned something in the Thac0 thread from a while back, but I just don't really remember it and haven't looked it up), and so even if I think his perception is wrong in this case, I respect him enough to treat his concerns as legitimate enough to be examined.

I feel, at the least, even if I don't agree with him, he should feel free to voice that concern and have it addressed. And that's also why I'm abstaining from defending myself insofar as those acusations and the events in that thread for the moment, to provide him that opportunity.
 
You're one to talk.
Exactly. That’s my point. When I go off in a thread to the point that the mods are thinking about shutting me down, you’re probably not going to need very many guesses to determine what the topic was.

You’ve got a pet peeve that sets you off, and you’ve been threadbanned more than I have because of it.

What does that tell you?
 
In your first post at that part of the conversation, I see this:

"Idk, I feel like some people have really really fragile suspension of disbelief if they are counting out farmland to population and if it doesn't match up their immersion is broken."

What is this exactly? An attack? An insult? A joke? Or is that "shit"?

A joke. One that was probably ill conceived and not reacted to well, but it wasn't intended as a serious commentary on anyone in the thread. It was as just a bit of a barb in reaction to exaggeration like "oh magic exists so nothing has to be realistic" that TJS did. I wasn't attempting to characterize anyone in the thread.

And again: this is not addressing whether what I said was correct or incorrect. I accept that I was threadbanned, and I accept that 1. There was a disconnect between my original comment because I both didn't make it clear which comment I was responding to, and didn't make it clear that it wasn't intended as a characterization of anyone posting, and 2. I was part of the reason the thread continued to escalate over the next page of comments. I don't agree with how I handled it.

On the other hand, I do think that Tristram was also responsible for the escalation. His constant characterization of people who don't care about stuff like that as ignorant, and implying I don't care about making sure my players are having fun heavily contributed to how things turned out.
 
So you are basically saying that you a) said something unfortunate which Tristram responded to as a fellow member, b) that it went back and forth until it got testy, and c) Tristram finally banned you from the thread because he was baiting you into saying more unfortunate things?

Is that the gist of it?
 
A joke. One that was probably ill conceived and not reacted to well, but it wasn't intended as a serious commentary on anyone in the thread. It was as just a bit of a barb in reaction to exaggeration like "oh magic exists so nothing has to be realistic" that TJS did. I wasn't attempting to characterize anyone in the thread.

And again: this is not addressing whether what I said was correct or incorrect. I accept that I was threadbanned, and I accept that 1. There was a disconnect between my original comment because I both didn't make it clear which comment I was responding to, and didn't make it clear that it wasn't intended as a characterization of anyone posting, and 2. I was part of the reason the thread continued to escalate over the next page of comments. I don't agree with how I handled it.

On the other hand, I do think that Tristram was also responsible for the escalation. His constant characterization of people who don't care about stuff like that as ignorant, and implying I don't care about making sure my players are having fun heavily contributed to how things turned out.

Well, on the one hand, I didn't read that as a joke, at all. Granted that's a common issue online that we've all dealt with.

I would say at the same time that I did not intend to characterize "people who don't care about that stuff" as ignorant, the only statement where I used that term was in regards to saying that I thought that it's not the fault of the people critiquing a writer's work for mistakes the writer makes, rather that a writer who choses not to put any research into the things they are writing about (i.e. writing in ignorance) are inviting those critiques. It was not directed at all at players who don't care.

Likewise, it was not my intention to imply that you don't care about you player's fun, you presented me with a scenario and I addressed how I would handle it/feel about it and why. You implied that dealing with a player who voiced such a criticism would be a pain in the ass, and I was saying that I don't see it that way, I was trying to present an alternate PoV.

And that's also why, once I saw the ways you were interpreting my replies, I ceased attempting to offer my differing perspective and simply focused on the issue at hand re: insults.
 
I didn't take it as a joke either, but at this point I'm trying to find out why he thinks he was being baited.
 
In no way did it come across as a joke to me either. It's why I reacted to.
 
We don’t like to handle individual moderations in public because we don’t want pile ons. That’s why we like members submitting reports and sending PMs to members to settle down a bit. This thread should be more about general moderation issues. I know Norton wanted this to be public but just wanted to say this normally would have been forgotten by now and we would have moved on.
 
I know Norton wanted this to be public but just wanted to say this normally would have been forgotten by now and we would have moved on.


That may be more my fault, I should probably have suggested that he PM you.
 
I just feel like the idea that statements like these:

"I mean, I'm sure you can find plenty of gamers who know nothing about history, so I doubt this is an issue plagueing your hobby activities very often."
that implies that that is the type of people who wouldn't be bothered by inaccuracies in parts of the world that the players will probably never interact with.. He never addresses it from a perspective of people who just don't find it a big deal, both times he actually addresses my actual points rather than addressing my tone, he addresses it as ignorance. When I point out that that isn't the only reason someone wouldn't care, he just doesn't respond. In what way am I supposed to interpret it differently?

"because I don't consider it a "pain" to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players."
As a response to the fact that I would find something to be a pain. How is this interpreted as anything but "you find it a pain to provide the best possible gaming experience to your players"?

Stuff like this is pretty inflammatory, even if they weren't intended that way.
 
I know Norton wanted this to be public but just wanted to say this normally would have been forgotten by now and we would have moved on.

Nope, I tried to address it with Tristram privately first. He was the one who said that was the reason he made this thread.
 
I just feel like the idea that statements like these:

"I mean, I'm sure you can find plenty of gamers who know nothing about history, so I doubt this is an issue plagueing your hobby activities very often."

that implies that that is the type of people who wouldn't be bothered by inaccuracies in parts of the world that the players will probably never interact with.. He never addresses it from a perspective of people who just don't find it a big deal, both times he actually addresses my actual points rather than addressing my tone, he addresses it as ignorance.

Well, no, the context is me stating to you that my opinion is that the main reason for people not being bothered by inaccuracies is a lack of awareness. So a player with no knowledge of these historical subjects are not going to raise the objections that you find nitpicky. If they aren't aware, then of course they aren't going to care.

"because I don't consider it a "pain" to provide the best possible gaming experience I can for my players."
As a response to the fact that I would find something to be a pain. How is this interpreted as anything but "you find it a pain to provide the best possible gaming experience to your players"?

Well, it could have been interpreted as I intended it, as described above. But isn't it just as possible the issue here is more that my response inadvertantly pointed out the flaw in the way you presented your query, not in how I responded to it?


This thread was started by Silva.

Ah, no, sorry, after the stuff with Silva happened, the next day Stevethulhu started replying to it, and so rather than continue the thread derail, I transfered the posts out to this thread and described that in post #30 I think, with a note at the beginning directing people to that post.

So yeah, I mean, I did bring this on myself, but at the time I thought it was the fairest way to deal with it without people percieving me as using my mod powers to shut down any criticism.
 
Last edited:
It was as just a bit of a barb in reaction to exaggeration like "oh magic exists so nothing has to be realistic" that TJS did. I wasn't attempting to characterize anyone in the thread.
Why do you think that’s exaggeration? I’m quite sure I’ve seen that dismissive line used against realism concerns many times.

EDIT: I’m sorry to bring this back to the argument that precipitated the current issue, but truth be told, I didn’t think EN should have been threadbanned. OTOH, maybe someone needed to splash cold water on the thread so this particular sore point (of people pooh-poohing realism) could be discussed in a little more sober atmosphere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top