So in other words, you took it upon yourself to look back into that topic, skip over everyone elses posts that broke the rules you specifically outlined and jumped straight to mine to delete? There were about 7 posts at that time, many of which being one, two or three worded, so it would be hard to "miss" them in my opinion at least.

It's not my intention to get anyones posting deleted (in case this is running through anyones head) or to "troll" as poison put it (as i would have rather just reported everyones posts if this were the case). My intention is rather to have everyone treated equally. In other words, if you're going to penalize someone for breaking a rule then bring down the hammer on others breaking that rule as well, or at very least show an effort to make it seem like you're treating each member equally by moderating within a page or two of the reported post. This is by no means me telling the moderators how to do their job either (in case you interpreted it that way) but rather a suggestion to bring equality amongst members.

This would be the "philosophy" i was attempting to describe in the paragraph above. I'm glad at least one moderator on this site shares my vision.

The same could be applied to the vast majority of questions that have been asked on this site.

No one also specifically said "suck it up buttercup" to me but i'm sure you can agree thats the vibe thats put out there. "lol stupid noob, report and delete" much of which rather a vibe that was felt as well.

I agree. However, apparently moderators "let stuff slide" which is why i brought it up. So in which case, if you argue your point, then all i would have to say about the following quote is.
Favouritism?

Because watching the show will give me insight on why this character is specifically YOUR favourite?

Your post disregarded Moose's warning post as well. Your excuse being?

Perhaps the rules should be amended to better portray their application. In other words add a line to all current rules stating "at the staff members discretion" seeing as that's how they're currently used anyways.

I don't really know why these forums have so much angst around forum rules. Other forums I go to don't appear to have this sort of crap going on.

No other forums have such bipolar rules. It wouldn't be a problem if these rules were enforced all the time, but since they're only enforced whenever a mod feels like cracking down, it causes a lot of frustration.

That is a fair point to make (despite a slight distinction between not posting and posting + elaborating). It was specified for those interested in the subject to elaborate on their answer, and many posts did not. (This is fairly common for "Favorite" topics, but I digress.)

Is your argument that you should not have been moderated, or that other people should have been moderated? If the latter, a discussion topic isn't really the best way to approach your argument; maybe a more appropriate action to have taken would have been to report those offending posts and/or contact the moderator regarding the issue.

This could be for a variety of reasons, such as the quality standard expected here, or that we allow open discussion on these things. In any case, that's slightly moving away from the discussion at hand.

To put it bluntly: if you don't want to get moderated, don't break any rules. We are allowed flexibility, but the "frustration" as you put it only arises when you're overstepping the boundaries to begin with. Would you honestly be happier if we had all flexibility taken away? Contrary to what you're saying, I believe it would be a problem if these rules were enforced with an iron fist.

I'm not saying a dictatorship would be good, but having consistent rules would be nice. I mean, I don't really care that much; I was just responding to Lanth.

First off, that was a joke. But okay.

My post may have gone against the elaboration concept in theory, but at the same time I didn't just say "I voted Other" and left it at that, I elaborated by saying what my other choice would be. Supposing my choice of Evil Abed or Inspector Spacetime was on the poll, I would have voted for them and left it at that. My post did not go against anything else in Moose's post, however, specifically the portion relating to why people shouldn't post in the topic if they don't have any character to post about (or whatever).

The rules don't need to be amended as that point is already covered in the SEN Terms of Service. Specifically:


Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 29 2012, 6:06 am by DevliN.

That's not a fair representation of it either, though. There's certainly something wrong if everyone in a thread is breaking the same rule, and only one person among them gets moderated for it (or one person gets 4 severity, and everyone else gets 0, as an example).

It doesn't have to be "enforce every rule with an iron fist" or "enforce some rules with an iron fist some of the time against some people". There is a more consistent, more fair way, which doesn't involve the word "iron fist" at all.

I feel that the staff should seriously consider implementing a policy where in these situations, instead of issuing severity and post deletions, they instead contact the person telling them what their offense is, and ask them to edit their post to adhere to the rules. I think severity should be given to people who are intending to cause harm to the site or its members; not to people who make unintentionally nonconstructive posts in Null topics, or people who are joking with other members, or people who accidentally double post (seriously?). All of these have happened recently, and received severity as a result, and I don't think that was necessary or helpful to anyone.

Many of the moderators seem to be asking themselves "Can I justify this action with the rules?" rather than "Is this action necessary for the well-being of the site and its community?", when the latter question is the one that should be important.

Updating the moderation policy to take a more user-friendly approach might be a good way to not generate so much resentment among the users. If a moderator can't be bothered to contact the member with a few words on what they need to change in their post, then maybe the post isn't worth moderating in the first place.

I thought my intentions were clear from my OP. (Equality)

As i've mentioned, the reason for me posting here is...

This. It is pointless to vote for an "other" or "please specify option" and then not specify. If anything, my solution would be to add this exception to the rules, leaving Fire_Kame's as the only questionable post.

This is true as the internet is filled with information, but there are some things that are more difficult to look up than others. Therefore, we cannot reasonably expect a lot of questions to be looked up. In the case of finding out what Community is, Community TV Show Series on NBC: Find Cast Info and Episode ... is the first result (for me, anyway) for "Community" on Google and the Wikipedia Page, Community (TV Series) is the third. (The second is the Wikipedia page on actual communities, which are logically not being posted about in the Media forum.) Because of this, I would argue that is not only reasonable to use Google to find out what Community is, but also that it is easier to do so than making a post.

Geez, why are we pulling out the big guns on this guy?

Yeah... I'm confused about why people are still getting on your case for this.

-----------

Anyway... at this point, if you cannot agree or see why a post of the nature "I've never heard of this" contributes less than others specifying what their Other votes are meant to indicate or the TC expressing her opinion on one of those choices, then we have reached an impasse and we will have to agree to disagree. But, if you do understand my side of things, then perhaps we can agree that the rules need to be more clear on something like this. Especially given that at this point I am working with the spirit of the rules more than the letter.

I would also note that if I were to make the same post, or say, walk into one of your map's threads and post "What's [map name]?", I would hope that my post would be removed, as well. My decision had nothing to do with the name of the poster.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 29 2012, 7:35 am by Mini Moose 2707.

I could argue that I specified why I voted other as well but I dropped that long ago. Essentially by deleting my posting and leaving my vote untouched as other you're kind of contradicting yourself. I still stand my ground that simply voting other and only posting "i voted [x]" without elaborating by saying "i voted [x] because..." still breaks the rules that you specifically quoted in the topic. So yes, if you feel it is ok to post "i voted [x]" then i agree the rules have to be amended to better portray the exceptions, but at current state i didnt do any different than multiple others and yet they were left untouched.

There lies the difference between mapmaking threads and general chat threads. Map making threads require you to post a substantial amount of information about your map otherwise they face the possibility of being deleted, whereas general chat threads do not. Perhaps a similar rule should be applied to the general chat area. By general chat i'm referring to the few sub-forums located at the bottom of the forum index in case there is any confusion (Null, media, etc.). I could probably already predict where you're going to take this though.

I completely agree with this.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 29 2012, 8:08 pm by staxx.

The moderators of this website, and especially Moose, are of a high standard given the nature of the website and the average age and maturity level of its inhabitants. Please don't feel personally attacked or humiliated in any way - Moose would never even think of being disrespectful like that. As a case of screaming injustice of the moderators, this is pretty weak. Some would act like Moose did, others would not.

Tad confused after briefly going through all these posts.

1. Where are you guys all getting this "elaboration" rule from? Moose said if you "legitimately don't have a favorite character or hate them all" then you have to elaborate. I don't see how mine, Kame's, or DevliN's posts broke that rule. None of us didn't have a favorite character. And I'm completely confused why Kame's post is not allowed. It didn't break any rules and it continued the discussion. Why should she have to elaborate why Evil Abed makes her sad?

As far as the "If you take a poll and vote for something, please don't make a post of "I voted for [x]"," clearly that doesn't apply for voting "other". If you really report a post because someone specified who they voted when they voted for other, you are being dense. And that justifies DevliN's post without him elaborating.

And I posted the reason why I voted for Troy. Why would I ever need to elaborate more than that.

2. Staxx, your post said that you have never heard of Community. Moose specifically said that if one has never heard of Community, don't post in that thread. How could you have possibly followed that statement? Also, you didn't express curiosity either. If you had asked, "What is it about?" I would be more on your side. But you neither contributed to discussion or followed Moose's statement. Your post did not give Kame the tip to add links about Community. If you had asked a question, then it would have given her a tip to add information about the TV show.

Completely, totally and utterly agree with all of this. I think it sums up the situation very well.

And I think it's unfounded rhetoric and doesn't sum up the situation at all.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2012, 12:33 pm by Roy. Reason: Removed flaming

Yes, I agree completely; there would be something wrong if that ever were to happen. This is not the norm, and you have a right to complain if it happens, as it is absolutely unacceptable.

I would argue, however, that what has been presented in this thread is not the scenario you're describing. Moose made a "Don't do this" post which staxx's post ignored.

My reply was to Demon (whose reply was to Lanthanide) when he said it wouldn't be a problem if all of the rules were always enforced. My point was that the leniency provided is beneficial rather than detrimental, especially because context matters. We follow the spirit of the law: we won't necessarily enforce a rule just because it's there, and we won't necessarily allow something just because there isn't a specific rule against it.

Now, that being said, we are all different people with different ideologies; the staff tries to stay consistent, but it isn't always possible, and I personally appreciate your feedback when you feel one of us has made a mistake.

The original name for severity was the warning system, if I remember correctly. If you do something wrong, you get warned, and the warning is more severe if you were being malicious or intentionally violating the rules. Your idea of contacting is essentially warning the person to fix their offense, which is perfectly acceptable in some instances (we don't always have to use the severity system), but it is still a warning; the only difference is that it is not audited (which would be a bad thing for various reasons). The term "severity" is a poor description of how the system in place is supposed to work.

Moderating != handing out severity. I don't know the specific examples you mean by "all of these have happened recently," but in a lot of cases, no severity is given (common for double-posting), or the severity is revoked (and I can talk to you about a specific case you probably have in mind if you'd like about that). Repeat offenders usually get 1 severity (which is for the absolute "tiniest wrongdoing," which arguably should be used a lot of times when 0 severity is given instead) or more depending on the context.

Again, I agree. I try to take the latter approach myself.

Well, you may disagree with me on this point, but I think if a member cannot be bothered to make sure they're following the rules when they post, a PM and waiting for their response and/or action is being a bit generous for most situations. If someone makes a completely off-topic post that derails the topic, for example, a moderator's job is to correct that issue first, and then contact the person second. For cases where the post doesn't need immediate moderation, yes, there's no harm in going directly to the individual and notify them of the necessary change, and I think this should be the standard approach (especially for newer members).

This is getting more into standards for topics with polls. There's a number of different forms of etiquette that aren't addressed in the rules, and maybe this topic would serve as a good discussion point for that:

1) Should it be standard that anyone answering the poll must also make a post explaining their choice?
2) Should it be standard to post if you've selected an "other" option that implicitly demands an answer of some kind? Should this be held to the same standard as #1?
3) Should members be answering polls of which they have no opinion or appropriate knowledge to answer?

My answer is that you shouldn't have to post if you want to answer the poll. If you select "Other" and don't say what that "other" thing is, you're really leaving an incomplete answer, so I think you should provide your answer. However, I do not believe that you should be forced to explain your answer when no explanation is required for choosing the definitive options: you are simply completing your vote. As for the last question, I don't believe it to be important whether or not someone answers a poll, but it would probably be preferred by the one asking the poll to have genuine and accurate results. To pick an option without knowing your answer or doesn't reflect your true answer is being disingenuous, and selecting the "Other" option with an answer that is outside the scope of the question (in this topic's scenario, the scope of the question was which character is your favorite, and you answered with something that was not a favorite character) makes the poll inaccurate.

Not that I really care about polls (I think they're silly and pedantic, in the friendliest of terms). I have a feeling many people disagree with my answers to those questions regarding polls, and I think that's where the issue originates.

What rule is "everyone" breaking? Besides Staxx, of course. @Azrael and Staxx.

Raccoon, this conversation has turned a mole hill into a mountain. I agree with Vrael:This is the sum of most of the conversation. I'm not for sure why people are getting wound up about one severity point.

If moderation would like me to I can go back into my "Evil Abed makes me sad" post and explain more thoroughly why...although I didn't do it there because I thought it was obvious, if you knew who he was, why he might make someone sad. I can even go back and change the first post, if moderation wishes, to include...a trailer...or a wikipedia link...or imdb link (even though this all follows the google rule, and I felt that since this wasn't an SD topic it wouldn't be necessary...like with other topics I've started in the media forum).

I strongly doubt this would change any attitudes, though. I think the same people who are complaining here wouldn't even go back and look at the thread to find out it had been updated.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2012, 3:52 am by Roy. Reason: Updated edited quote

I would be interested in knowing how the specific examples I gave, along with a detailed outline of what I think the issue at hand is and suggestions for improving it, are possibly "unfounded rhetoric". I know it's easy to reply to a five paragraph post with two words completely dismissing it, but that doesn't actually mean anything.

If there's actually some basis for the criticism, outside of it being just an opportunity to attack my post, then by all means, I would like to see an explanation.

As far as I can tell, "unfounded rhetoric" isn't applicable in any way to what I said.


I think the name "severity" suits it really well, actually. The difference between communicating with a member and issuing severity is the same difference between verbal and written warnings in the workplace. One is a way to inform the person of their error in a way that will allow them to fix it with no harm to anyone, the second is a doomsday clock ticking down toward being forcefully removed.

Using the current situation as an example, I don't think Staxx should be banned for his reply. It wasn't offensive or problematic to anyone. If it isn't something he should be banned for, then why was his progress bar towards being banned increased by 10%?

Even if it's not going to reach 100% due to eventual decay, no one likes facing that kind of ultimatum for making comments that are completely innocuous. As I was saying earlier, considering the serious implications that come with severity, they shouldn't be being issued to people so freely for completely inoffensive actions, and would be better served directed solely at those who are purposely acting against the interests of the site and its community.

The only thing I find surprising is that anyone is surprised that this system generates resentment when doomsday points are issued to people so casually.


And hopefully this can actually be integrated into the moderation policy, because there are others who apparently don't even consider this an option, never mind it being the standard (not necessarily referencing the incident which inspired this thread).


My reply wasn't about this incident, as I was directly replying to a post which was regarding general policy. That specific line was referencing a number of recent examples of selective moderation (which, although I don't believe this is an example of, is what was being discussed).

A thread can have its own rules (see pretty much any forum game), and Moose had already posted saying "If you don't know what Community is, don't reply to this thread." I don't think the moderation against Staxx was selective, and I don't even think it was unwarranted. However, I do think it was unnecessary, which is part of what I was addressing in my post.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 30 2012, 4:48 am by Azrael.

I don't have much time on hand so i'll make this one short.

What? The whole argument i've been trying to make since i started this thread is that i was penalized while others weren't. Azrael just pretty much summed it up in one post and threw in some suggestions as well.

Refer to my original post. Those quotes portray a lack of effort and thought.
As for Kame's post. "Something like "I like blue" or "I dislike [x]" is a violation." In other words "[x] makes me sad" is applicable to that violation.

Please keep in mind i'm only working with the rules that mini moose had used to moderate that topic. I don't know why the google rule and SEN terms were brought up seeing as they werent used for moderation in that topic. If you would like me to throw other rules in the mix I can do so, but I don't really think that it is appropriate for this matter seeing as the whole purpose of this thread has been about equality.

That's not accurate. Don't bring analogies into this: they should be used for clarity, not argumentative purposes. For example, a written warning in the workplace never goes away, so severity would be more akin to a verbal warning. Severity is even less than that, though, because once it's gone, it's never counted against you again (in your analogy, no workplace would actually allow you to receive infinite verbal warnings as long as they were spaced 20 days apart).

Analogies aside, you don't get banned for reaching 10 severity; you normally get a 1-week suspension, which would already be 30% over if it started from the point of this topic existing.

These are far from "doomsday" points.

The others you cited were discussing characters and answering the poll question. Saying you picked "Other" because you never heard of the show is not answering the poll question and it is not mentioning any character(s). That's why I'm saying the scenario is not as Azrael described it (everyone breaking the same rule and only one person getting punished).

The "lack of effort or thought" is said to be removed "at moderation's discretion," which I take to mean, "if it seems like it's detrimental to the discussion." They still satisfy the first portion of the rule stating to actually contribute to the discussion (in this case, of favorite character).

As for Kame's post, it's hard to judge whether or not it contains enough content for people who don't watch the show; details could have been omitted for spoiler reasons, or the emotion could be speaking more volume than what it appears. It's also a response to someone else's choice, which I'd say is contributing to the discussion, wouldn't you?

Yes, I agree: they're not relevant to this discussion.