What to do when I feel like an admin/mod is attacking me?

[TristramEvans]

Norton is correct, he never asked for an apology, public or otherwise.

His claims were that,

1) even though I was posting as a regular poster, that I would never face the same consequences as a regular poster because of my admin status. He also implied that I should have been threadbanned, because he was threadbanned once for saying another poster was acting like an asshole

2) he wanted Endless or someone in the modstaff to confirm to him that they agreed with his interpretation of the situation, and that I was "over the line"

I also note that, besides simply not wanting to engage, the primary reason that I did not comment on the thread in my defense, initially, is because I could understand Norton feeling like his concerns weren't getting addressed and even, I imagine, like he was getting "dogpiled". I think this is because he has in this thread dropped implications that the other mods "aren't doing their jobs" by (through his narrow and skewed perception) ignoring my transgressions and refusing to affirm his PoV, which no doubt raised their hackles.

Norton also early on dropped the ultimatum:

And if none of you think Tristram crossed the line. I want to know that as well. Because I'm not going to be part of a forum where an admin can make personal attacks against a user for disagreeing with him and all the staff just think that is OK

...basically threatening to quit the forum if no one agreed with him.

I think this escalated faster than it needed to, both because Norton became impatient and because the moderation staff thought his demands were unreasonable and unclear (for the record, I don't think they were unclear, but they were also Norton demanding something he had no right to demand of other human beings (mods or otherwise)- for other people to share his perspective or affirm to him that he was completely in the right and I was completely in the wrong).

I think Norton leaving is now born out of both frustration, embarrassment, and a point of pride. I see that as unfortunate. I don't think this situation needed to be taken to this point. But I also don't feel responsible for that.

Norton is not banned, faces no moderation, and is not subject to any bias or ill will. If he choses to come back and post, there is no particular fallout over this, other than what grudges he may bear for not getting his way. If he choses to ragequit over this, as is apparently the case - well, I'm sure that's not a "win" for anyone, certainly not myself.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Norton is correct, he never asked for an apology, public or otherwise.

His claims were that,

1) even though I was posting as a regular poster, that I would never face the same consequences as a regular poster because of my admin status. He also implied that I should have been threadbanned, because he was threadbanned once for saying another poster was acting like an asshole

2) he wanted Endless or someone in the modstaff to confirm to him that they agreed with his interpretation of the situation, and that I was "over the line"

I also note that, besides simply not wanting to engage, the primary reason that I did not comment on the thread in my defense, initially, is because I could understand Norton feeling like his concerns weren't getting addressed and even, I imagine, like he was getting "dogpiled". I think this is because he has in this thread dropped implications that the other mods "aren't doing their jobs" by (through his narrow and skewed perception) ignoring my transgressions and refusing to affirm his PoV, which no doubt raised their hackles.

Norton also early on dropped the ultimatum:



...basically threatening to quit the forum if no one agreed with him.

I think this escalated faster than it needed to, both because Norton became impatient and because the moderation staff thought his demands were unreasonable and unclear (for the record, I don't think they were unclear, but they were also Norton demanding something he had no right to demand of other human beings (mods or otherwise)- for other people to share his perspective or affirm to him that he was completely in the right and I was completely in the wrong).

I think Norton leaving is now born out of both frustration, embarrassment, and a point of pride. I see that as unfortunate. I don't think this situation needed to be taken to this point. But I also don't feel responsible for that.

Norton is not banned, faces no moderation, and is not subject to any bias or ill will. If he choses to come back and post, there is no particular fallout over this, other than what grudges he may bear for not getting his way. If he choses to ragequit over this, as is apparently the case - well, I'm sure that's not a "win" for anyone, certainly not myself.

This is partially correct. And I'll say thank you for actually addressing what I said rather than perceptions of what I said.

That said, there is one part that I think you are wrong on: I wanted one of two things: To say that they thought you crossed the line, or say they did not think you crossed the line.

In reality, either would let me make a decision on things. And if I miscommunicated that, I'll apologize for that (it may have gotten lost in a bit of the mess, I may have said it to some people but not others, and I don't feel like hunting through this thread to see if I said it in thread, but I feel like I've said that multiple times).

My point being either they think you crossed the line, and it is reassurance that the mods at least understand what my problem was, or they didn't think you crossed the line, and I don't really belong here. And that is OK. If I don't belong here, I don't belong here. But I would like to know rather than it being danced around whether they think what you said was over the line or not so I know whether I can feel like this is a place I want to be.

Also, if something I said or did in that thread was a problem, I wanted to be told what the hell it was. Because throughout that entire conversation I was only addressing the subject. (EDIT: To clarify, when I say "That thread" I mean the one in which I was talking about the vtuber)

I was asking for an honest assessment. I was not asking for anyone to unequivocally agree that you were wrong and I was right. And I feel like no one was answering the question. Except you. Which I do appreciate even if I disagree with you. I do still think it was an attack on my character to imply that I would harass her.

It isn't "if you don't agree with me, I'll leave" it is "If you don't see a problem, I don't think it will ever change, and as I've had this problem for a long time, it is better for me to leave than to deal with it anymore".

 

[TristramEvans]

It isn't "if you don't agree with me, I'll leave" it is "If you don't see a problem, I don't think it will ever change, and as I've had this problem for a long time, it is better for me to leave than to deal with it anymore".

I think you may have inadvertently placed them between a rock and a hard place there, however, which may explain why they were reluctant to give a straight answer.

If there is one thig that I can say for sure it's that no one on the modstaff wanted you to leave. No one even so much as hinted at wanting that, here or backstage. So, even if they did disagree with you, it's very unlikely that they would have said so and thus had to accept any responsibility for your departure. OTOH, that doesn't mean they did disagree with you, or not entirely, but they may have felt that it would be inappropriate or unfair to me, especially without hearing my perspective, to publicly or privately condemn me to another poster. Maybe they had a different, more nuanced perspective.

Based on what I read, I think a lot of them simply washed their hands of even having to make a decision because Endless had already made his decision, "taken care of the situation", and that was that as far as anyone was concerned. It wouldn't matter what they thought, so why even wade into those waters?

You're not an unliked poster here Norton, at all. The thing is, neither am I. Both of us are well loved. And I think the standard outsider perspective here is that of seeing two folks you like bickering. Let's use the analogy of children, and since I'm including myself you shouldn't take it as patronizing. Imagine your two kids are bickering back and forth. And you tell them both to knock it off. And then one of them comes to you and is like "but the other one called me a bad name!" How seriously do you take that? How likely are you to agree with one kid they are right and their brother is wrong? How likely are you t tell the kid that no, they are wrong and the other is right? Or is the answer just to roll your eyes and say "it doesn't matter, wash your hands for dinner and get over it?" That may not be what the kid wants to hear, but you also know the situation just isn't as important as it seems to them.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

2. I probably do get annoyed with Tristram faster than other people. That is because of a thing called a pattern of behavior. That said, find one part of the thread talking about that Vtuber's video where I insulted him in any way. Even a "mild" insult. All I was doing was disagreeing. He got aggressive, first with his whole insistence that I was asking her to "abase herself", which I responded to saying that wasn't accurate at all, and then ending with him acting like I would harass her on her youtube and twitter. At which point I immediately stopped responding and messaged Endless. I didn't even respond to it in the thread.
3. You are like the 4th person who either privately or publicly has pointed out that Tristram reacts to me differently. Most have said it seems like he has a grudge. you just say he probably got annoyed because it was me. For someone who claims to have zero grudge here, a whole lot of people seem to think he does treat me differently.
4. Nah, the complaint I've usually have had is moderation should be clear and identify what the problem behavior was so it doesn't happen again. This is yet another situation where this hasn't happened. Not a single moderator or admin on the site has said that Tristram's behavior was a problem at all. Even though several of the rest of you have pointed out he was a bit of a dick.

Yeah, I've said before and I've said before that you and Tristram repeatedly clash because of personality incompatibility or whatever.

I have also said (both publically and privately) that my preferred solution is for you two not to interact because I find it fucking boring.

But the situation is:

a) it has been decided that we do not enforce "do not interact" orders on people.

b) you are both either unwilling or unable to use willpower and do so voluntarily.

So when my prefered solution is not an option, my hands are tied.

And 90% of the time these issues happen I just say nothing because guess what, saying anything about them just leads to a bunch of people shitting on you for ever having a problem.

That's not why I had a go. I had a go because I found and still found you telling me that mods should be at your beck and call personally offensive. I had no personal problem with you before that exchange. I now have a personal problem with you because you've made it clear you consider my life off the board worthy of contempt. So yeah, it might be a minor issue to you. It isn't for me. And yet you still aren't under threat of moderation for it.

Notice that YOU'VE had to manage. Tristram doesn't manage his tone with anyone. Other people have to adjust to him.

Um, yeah, people have had to adjust to Tristram. People have had to adjust to you. People have had to adjust to other posters on this board. That, generally, is how we encourage people to handle finding other posters annoying, abrasive or whatever.

There is a whole lot of bitching about me complaining and how much work y'all have to do right now and how I'm the problem for having a problem. But has a single one of you gone "Hey, Tristram, you know, we are so goddamn busy, can you tone it back a bit and not create more work for us?"

This is a lie. Nobody said you were the problem for having a problem. You were told that it was a problem that you have been repeatedly told that instant replies are not something that can be expected on the board and you not only asked for one again but you doubled down on it. On this specific issue, if you don't like it fine, but it's not going to change.

According to Tristram, not a single one of you has said anything about his behavior. None of you have said you thought what he said was wrong, or shouldn't have been done.

You're either missing or carefully ignoring the part of his post where he said that's because the only focus was whether moderation action was necessary. Because, y'know, that's actually the only thing within our remit.

There is in fact a handful of posters on here I dislike at least as much as you dislike Tristram (no, I'm not providing a fucking list). That is irrelevant to my modding and I deliberately avoid interacting with them.

I will say from experience that no one on this mod staff has ever had a problem with telling me when they think I'm being an asshole. So why is it so different with Tristram. Look through the thread. Multiple non-moderators have said that they felt Tristram was being an asshole in that thread in various words. So why do you have a problem with saying it?

I've only ever told you I think you're being an asshole when you've actively contacted me to get my opinion, at least from what I recall. The only exception is the expecting instant replies issues which a) I've tried being nice in private about and b) I'm still pissed out about. So I'm being open about that one because it is specifically a problem between you and me and you've raised it in public.

But you might want to ask Tristram if I have any trouble telling him when I think he's in the wrong before jumping to conclusions? Do I PM you to let you know I've done it? No, of course not, any more than I do with anyone else? Do I do it as a public call out? No, because I've only actually done that once with someone who was repeatedly making libellous slurs against me. Generally, believe it or not, I do not PM posters to tell them which posters I think are assholes. (Which isn't to say I'm saying either you or Tristram are assholes. Merely that if I thought that I would feel no need to communicate that to the other party).

Why will none of you acknowledge what Tristram said, rather than it all being about what I've done?

I've already said in this thread that I think it was something I'd have deleted which is how I generally deal with these things when it's getting to heated. However, in this particular case, your complaint was partially about it being deleted so I got it restored instead. Make up your mind here. Do you want things like this dealt with how I'd deal with it in any other case or do you want your preferences taken into account? Because I genuinely cannot do both in this situation and resinstating Tristram's posts for ten minutes so I can delete it ten minutes afterwards.

And again, the reason it's about what you've done for me is because Tristram hasn't told me that my life is less important than his online feuds and you have.

 

[TristramEvans]

I can confirm that the moderator formerly known as Black Leaf has no problem telling me when he thinks I'm being an asshole and has on occasion exasperatedly suggested that I just not talk to posters that I'm likely to argue with.

 

[EmperorNorton]

If you think that was what I was saying that I didn't care about your life outside the boards BlackLeaf, then I apologize for that. That wasn't what I was trying to say, and while I'm not sure how you got that impression, but clearly you have, and I'm sure that something I said or didn't say is in some way responsible for that.

You did respond to me. You basically responded with "Yeah, I can't do anything about it, as Endless has made a decision" I even pointed that out in the initial post. I actually do appreciate you responding even if it wasn't a response I specifically liked.

I also apologized to Endless because I thought he had seen one of my PMs but he hadn't. I didn't realize Tristram had deleted his own posts after my second PM. I made assumptions because of the order things happened (I PMed Endless with a short message, he did the calm down post, I messaged again, the posts were deleted), and I made an incorrect assumption. And that is on me, and I said as much in the thread.

And if I need to apologize again for that I will. That was on me for thinking he had seen it when he hadn't.

I said earlier that even a message of "hey, yeah, I'm a bit busy right now" would have been enough to at least make it feel like someone was listening. I know now that he hadn't seen my second PM at all. And I am upset with myself over that.

When Endless actually DID say that in the second post of this thread, the only thing I responded to was direct questions from other moderators, up until I felt like someone was putting words in my mouth rather than try to listen to me. I was trying to wait for what he had to say and just address questions about how I felt what I felt had happened.

Then the thread felt like it went off the rails. Honestly until this last page, the only moderator who didn't seem to want to say shit about me was Tristram. And I actually do appreciate that.

And I'll be honest: I'd love to just try to ignore Tristram on this forum and not interact with him. But 1. I can't actually ignore him using the forum tools, and 2. He is one of the most prolific posters on the site. If I just decided to not opine on any discussion he was part of, I might as well leave the forum anyway.

 

[TristramEvans]

So, yeah, Norton and I ignoring each other (at least officially) isn't an option, and he's correct, as one of the most prolific posters here, trying to avoid me is not a viable option (there are a few threads that I deliberately stay out of for one reason or another, but in general, as I've stated before, I am omnipresent).

But I can offer an unofficial/untechnical solution if you are amenable: an ongoing truce in which, rather than artificially ignoring each other, we both simply agree not to argue with each other. Meaning, if you say anything I'd like to respond to, or I say anything you'd like to respond to, we just don't. And that includes obliquely referring to something one or another has said. We simply don't. Doesn't mean we can't interact, doesn't mean we pretend the other doesn't exist, it just means that 1 in 10 times something one or the other says that we disagree with, we simply let it go and forgo any debates.

I think, as adults, we could both do that out of courtesy for each other and the rest of the forum, and a mutual understanding that our differing perspectives and personalities will clash and lead nowhere good.

 

[Bunch]

From my perspective. We have lots of lines that get crossed here usually over politics and occasionally over civility. By many folks including myself at times. We've always had a desire to see the community deal with it by not feeding it. Moderation comes in when people don't seem to be able to restrain themselves. We don't look to moderate and when we do the last resort is in public. Mostly because public moderation changes it from an event driven request to a personal attack in my opinion. I have never seen a public "You stop that!" that doesn't come across as personal.

I don't think you two can restrain yourselves sometimes when dealing with each other. At times I don't think you two can resist the urge to look for a reason to see the worst in each others comments.

Personally I would like TristramEvans to think more before posting when he's annoyed.

I would like EmperorNorton to stop expecting public modding. It isn't our default. It isn't going to happen as often as you want it.


Everyone in my opinion should leave people alone when they leave either by choice or force. It's just not classy in my opinion.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

If you think that was what I was saying that I didn't care about your life outside the boards BlackLeaf, then I apologize for that. That wasn't what I was trying to say, and while I'm not sure how you got that impression, but clearly you have, and I'm sure that something I said or didn't say is in some way responsible for that.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

You did respond to me. You basically responded with "Yeah, I can't do anything about it, as Endless has made a decision" I even pointed that out in the initial post. I actually do appreciate you responding even if it wasn't a response I specifically liked.

That's either a slight misremembering or I worded it badly I think. Essentially, for decisions on moderation specifically (whether that's about me, Tristram or anyone else) you really do need to go to Endless. Someone has to have the final say on any forum and here Endless is the final line of decision making. I don't think any of this is news though; I'm sure you're already fully aware of that.

I said earlier that even a message of "hey, yeah, I'm a bit busy right now" would have been enough to at least make it feel like someone was listening. I know now that he hadn't seen my second PM at all. And I am upset with myself over that.

Ok, I accept that's how you think you'd respond. My general impression is that if I'm going to reply to you, I need to have the time and energy for a lengthy back and forth because that's normally what you're after. I apologise if that's not actually the case, but I'll be totally honest and say that it does influence how and when I reply.

And I'll be honest: I'd love to just try to ignore Tristram on this forum and not interact with him. But 1. I can't actually ignore him using the forum tools, and 2. He is one of the most prolific posters on the site. If I just decided to not opine on any discussion he was part of, I might as well leave the forum anyway.

Tristram's already touched on this I think. I appreciate that the two of you can't mechanically ignore each other. And it wouldn't work anyway; it wouldn't be fair on you if Tristram acted as a moderator (telling people to drop a topic say) and then you got modded for not seeing that. I'm suggesting a much more informal arrangement where you just don't respond to each other's posts. If the other is making a point so awful that it must be responded to someone else will step in. If not, I think it's pretty clear by now that "assume good faith" isn't going to work in exchanges between the two of you and you're better off interacting with people that don't rub you up the wrong way.

 

[EmperorNorton]

So, yeah, Norton and I ignoring each other (at least officially) isn't an option, and he's correct, as one of the most prolific posters here, trying to avoid me is not a viable option (there are a few threads that I deliberately stay out of for one reason or another, but in general, as I've stated before, I am omnipresent).

But I can offer an unofficial/untechnical solution if you are amenable: an ongoing truce in which, rather than artificially ignoring each other, we both simply agree not to argue with each other. Meaning, if you say anything I'd like to respond to, or I say anything you'd like to respond to, we just don't. And that includes obliquely referring to something one or another has said. We simply don't. Doesn't mean we can't interact, doesn't mean we pretend the other doesn't exist, it just means that 1 in 10 times something one or the other says that we disagree with, we simply let it go and forgo any debates.

I think, as adults, we could both do that out of courtesy for each other and the rest of the forum, and a mutual understanding that our differing perspectives and personalities will clash and lead nowhere good.

It's probably the best that can be done. And I'd be ok with giving it a shot. Though I will say sometimes we will end up on opposite sides of a disagreement even without directly interacting with each other.

Also, if I step on your toes without noticing (as like I said, even if we don't directly interact in disagreements, I'm sure there will be topics where we just happen to be on opposite sides, it's hard to avoid it (though in the case of most of the controversial things going on right now (OGL shit), I'm sure we are mostly aligned, so I imagine it won't be soon)), if you ever want to PM me to give me a heads up if you feel like I'm pushing any boundaries, I'm fine with that, and will do my best to be respectful about it in return.

 

[TristramEvans]

It's probably the best that can be done. And I'd be ok with giving it a shot. Though I will say sometimes we will end up on opposite sides of a disagreement even without directly interacting with each other.

Also, if I step on your toes without noticing (as like I said, even if we don't directly interact in disagreements, I'm sure there will be topics where we just happen to be on opposite sides, it's hard to avoid it (though in the case of most of the controversial things going on right now (OGL shit), I'm sure we are mostly aligned, so I imagine it won't be soon)), if you ever want to PM me to give me a heads up if you feel like I'm pushing any boundaries, I'm fine with that, and will do my best to be respectful about it in return.

Sounds fair to me

 

[CRKrueger]

There is in fact a handful of posters on here I dislike at least as much as you dislike Tristram (no, I'm not providing a fucking list).

Tease.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

Since it weirdly came up, if I think someone here is the type to harass women on the internet, I probably have them on my ignore list.

 

[Fenris-77]

Tease.

Jesus. He didn't say your name and you appeared anyway.

 

[JAMUMU]

It's probably the best that can be done. And I'd be ok with giving it a shot. Though I will say sometimes we will end up on opposite sides of a disagreement even without directly interacting with each other.

Also, if I step on your toes without noticing (as like I said, even if we don't directly interact in disagreements, I'm sure there will be topics where we just happen to be on opposite sides, it's hard to avoid it (though in the case of most of the controversial things going on right now (OGL shit), I'm sure we are mostly aligned, so I imagine it won't be soon)), if you ever want to PM me to give me a heads up if you feel like I'm pushing any boundaries, I'm fine with that, and will do my best to be respectful about it in return.

 

[Silverlion]

I've not said much of anything about this topic because I didn't pay close attention to the original thread. However, I prefer that this can be talked out to 'secret' modding and whisper networks that are fundamentally gossip kept where people can't be called on it at all. What do the rest of you think?/

 

[Fenris-77]

Secret modding isn't a problem and isn't what's going on, and despite the issue at hand we don't have a problem with mods "not be able to be called on things" here. The mods do have a private place to chat, but that's necessary in order to be able to do the job. There's nothing wrong with the moderation threads of course, but they don't need to exist in order to prevent great moderation wrongs from be perpetrated here. I have a lot of resect for the mods here and I think they do a great job.

 

[Agemegos]

Secret trials with hidden evidence are shit. On the other hand, the forums with open processes for denunciation and condemnation don't seem in practice to be more pleasant places than this is under current arrangements, and it doesn't make their mods less condescending, sarcastic, and snide, nor more civil in any way.

An optimist believes that the Pub is the best of all possible forums;​

A pessimist fears that this may be true.​

 

[JAMUMU]

The RPGPUB is the only civilised forum for RPG discussion in RPGdom. It's pretty uncivilised, sure, but we'd have each other's backs if it all kicked off in the car park, which is Glaswegian for "civilised".

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I've not said much of anything about this topic because I didn't pay close attention to the original thread. However, I prefer that this can be talked out to 'secret' modding and whisper networks that are fundamentally gossip kept where people can't be called on it at all. What do the rest of you think?/

I think the public threads more or less invite piling on and public shaming (to mods or forum members), myself.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Personally, I think public threads will happen from time to time, and are not a negative by default (though this one probably could have been handled better by me), but in general I actually do prefer private discussion.

 

[Ladybird]

Since it weirdly came up, if I think someone here is the type to harass women on the internet, I probably have them on my ignore list.

I have depression and anxiety, I'm too busy harassing myself to harass any other women.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I think the public threads more or less invite piling on and public shaming (to mods or forum members), myself.

I think that's a "least worst option" question. If you reject someone's complaint and tell them they can't mention it (or in more extreme cases refuse to hear them at all) people feel silenced. And with mod policy discussions they pretty much need to be open.

Generally though, if it feels like moderation is done in public that's only because the 90 of it that isn't goes unnoticed.

I'd say the vast majority of my moderation (aside from validating new accounts) comes down to just going "can people chill a bit" in threads. Which is kinda public I guess, but not in the way you mean.

It's a big drop from there to the next standard one which is post deletion. That's probably about equal to giving my view in these kinds of threads.

Then it's probably replying to PMs. And the vast majority of those are no more contentious then "can you explain why my post was deleted? Because reason. Ok, cool".

Everything else like thread bans, temp bans and even perma bans are rare enough that each one is both notable and a unique case. And every one gets extensive discussion backstage. Nobody bans without consultation, unless it's a porn spammer or something.

So yeah, if you think most moderation is public that actually means the moderation that isn't is flying under the radar, which is kinda the aim.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

I think that's a "least worst option" question. If you reject someone's complaint and tell them they can't mention it (or in more extreme cases refuse to hear them at all) people feel silenced. And with mod policy discussions they pretty much need to be open.

Generally though, if it feels like moderation is done in public that's only because the 90 of it that isn't goes unnoticed.

I'd say the vast majority of my moderation (aside from validating new accounts) comes down to just going "can people chill a bit" in threads. Which is kinda public I guess, but not in the way you mean.

It's a big drop from there to the next standard one which is post deletion. That's probably about equal to giving my view in these kinds of threads.

Then it's probably replying to PMs. And the vast majority of those are no more contentious then "can you explain why my post was deleted? Because reason. Ok, cool".

Everything else like thread bans, temp bans and even perma bans are rare enough that each one is both notable and a unique case. And every one gets extensive discussion backstage. Nobody bans without consultation, unless it's a porn spammer or something.

So yeah, if you think most moderation is public that actually means the moderation that isn't is flying under the radar, which is kinda the aim.

I generally have no issue with the moderation here.

And I’ve been a mod and know how thankless of a job it can be.

I’m not even presuming to speculate on how much of the job is done publicly or privately.

I’m just saying I see little inherent value in these threads. Just a general observation and one that I’d recommend very little weight.

 

[Toadmaster]

I think that's a "least worst option" question. If you reject someone's complaint and tell them they can't mention it (or in more extreme cases refuse to hear them at all) people feel silenced. And with mod policy discussions they pretty much need to be open.

Generally though, if it feels like moderation is done in public that's only because the 90 of it that isn't goes unnoticed.

I'd say the vast majority of my moderation (aside from validating new accounts) comes down to just going "can people chill a bit" in threads. Which is kinda public I guess, but not in the way you mean.

It's a big drop from there to the next standard one which is post deletion. That's probably about equal to giving my view in these kinds of threads.

Then it's probably replying to PMs. And the vast majority of those are no more contentious then "can you explain why my post was deleted? Because reason. Ok, cool".

Everything else like thread bans, temp bans and even perma bans are rare enough that each one is both notable and a unique case. And every one gets extensive discussion backstage. Nobody bans without consultation, unless it's a porn spammer or something.

So yeah, if you think most moderation is public that actually means the moderation that isn't is flying under the radar, which is kinda the aim.

I have great appreciation for the mods here engaging in open discussion even when they are being called out for not handling something to a posters satisfaction.

A lot of places mods will just close and delete those kinds of posts and at the far end that other place drops bans just for asking for clarification of the offense.

 

[bleys21]

So is it Group Hug time?

 

[TristramEvans]

modern D&D is so gay

 

[Bunch]

modern D&D is so gay

If it was happy and a snazzy I wouldn't be so annoyed with it right now

 

[Ladybird]

modern D&D is so gay

...and yet, we can still find ways to make it gayer.

 

[Bunch]

...and yet, we can still find ways to make it gayer.

D&D - The Musical!!!!

 

[EmperorNorton]

On the subject of RPGs being made gayer, I'll just take this time to say despite not being a fan of PbtA, Thirsty Sword Lesbians is probably the second best PbtA game I've read and one of the few I'd actually play.

 

[TristramEvans]

D&D - The Musical!!!!

"V.E.C.N.A." to the tune of YMCA

 

[EmperorNorton]

"V.E.C.N.A." to the tune of YMCA

That is horrendous both for the mental image and for the fact they would have to do some bizarre slurring together of two letters for one of the beats.

 

[Bunch]

That is horrendous both for the mental image and for the fact they would have to do some bizarre slurring together of two letters for one of the beats.

That's how you know you're saying it right!

 

[Mankcam]

Hang some glitter balls outside the Temple Of Elemental Evil
Gygax posters everywhere, wearing his +1AC Tom Of Finland garb
D&D could be some secret coded bdsm bar lingo
Eye Of The Beholder sounds cheeky now
Call Passive Perception Checks for new patrons
Active WIS checks with Advantage for those on the cruise


(ok I am randomly posting from my phone at a shopping centre, being in boring Dad mode while waiting for my kids to get their haircuts. I’ll jump out now before I’m the centre of some drama over my thought-disordered posts, heh heh)

 

[EmperorNorton]

Get a drag performance by Claire Voyance and Eva Cation.

 

[Silverlion]

modern D&D is so gay

As a hetero dude, I've no problem with that. I've problems with D&D, but not that one.

 

[Fenris-77]

...and yet, we can still find ways to make it gayer.

As a hetero-normie male who is very comfortable with his sexuality, I agree with this statement. I don't play female characters much, but I enjoy playing a wide variety of male characters.

 

[Ladybird]

"V.E.C.N.A." to the tune of YMCA

Earworm of Vecna.

 

[lategamer]

A lot of places mods will just close and delete those kinds of posts and at the far end that other place drops bans just for asking for clarification of the offense.

As a Purple Refugee, I'm kinda expecting the blue-haired hand of Thor on my shoulder at any point, but so far... and probably because this isn't my server, I don't pay for it, I don't really mind if an Admin/Mod (who is both held to a higher standard AND trusted more than an ordinary user) decides to delete the thread or posts. Moments of annoyance and then onto the next shiny thing (my recent threadban on the purple site was because I compared religions (currently Islam but Christianity and Judaism in the past) to hegemonising swarms. Apparently I offended God but he was too upset to punish me himself so he sent his appointed agents instead.

Four pages huh. This is democracy at work.