Dear Doodan:
And yes, I agree that people complain when they view a moderator's action as unfair, but that boils down to perception. Say a Neo-Nazi believes that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. Just because most everyone else finds that ridiculous doesn't mean he doesn't, and he might view a moderator's action against his statement as unfair.
Subjectivist fallacy. However, why would a moderator be taking action against his statement if he expresses himself appropriately? If he doesn't, then
that is why a moderator is taking action, not because of the subject of his message. There is opinion, and then there is
how that opinion is expressed. The "how" is the realm of the moderators.
The exception would be anything that goes against the core rules, such as no hacks, wares, pornography, etc. When people argue against the rules using something like America's Bill of Rights or the First Amendment as their platform, I like to use a simple analogy to put things into perspective. My forum is my house. Like guests in my home, I expect posters to follow my house rules, or they will not be welcome in my home.
Applying that analogy to your above example about a Neo-Nazi, that would be like him walking into a Jewish home and wondering why he's getting kicked out. =oP
---------------------------------------------
Dear Esponeo:
Perhaps it has not occurred to you that certain people getting pissed off when I moderate them is a sign that I am doing something right.
Non sequitur.
Sometimes people being moderated actually deserve it.That wasn't the point.
Non sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow", and is a logical fallacy. My meaning was that people getting pissed off does not equate to you doing a good job moderating. They are unrelated. Good moderating can result in no one being pissed off. Contrary, bad moderating can result in people being pissed off.
I do not intend to lock such topics in the future. Any new posts in that forum that are idle compliments or idle complaints will be swiftly removed.
Good about not locking, but with deleting be wary of nitpicking. (For my definition,
read #5.)
Believe it or not there was a time when I made several maps and used these forums extensively, especially the terrain forum. I know far better than most people about what goes on in the Terrain section. Trust me when I say that the creator of the topic I locked isn't missing out on anything.
Really?
Thanks
, actually its my very first blend so im glad for the comments xD
Sounds to me like they were helping to encourage him.
Hah, very cool. How long did it take you?
Ah, not too long.. an afternoon? I was trying to find out if you could link structure to water and was about to give up when I saw the structure side wall doodads. Then it hit me and I made this XD.
And look, even some actual conversation beyond compliments. Just one post after this, you locked the thread.
Someone being dead is not a matter of personal opinion.
Avoiding the Issue with an
Equivocation Fallacy as your
Straw Man? C'mon, who are you trying to fool here? Do I
really need to quote everything in context just to demonstrate how absurdly obtuse that comment is?
2. Ignored me trying to talk to him, (ask why he deleted my posts)
2. Whether he ignored you or simply hasn't gotten around to responding is a difficult distinction to make. A moderator should be willing to explain his actions to anyone who asks, however.
Perhaps it has something to do with your PM looking like this:
whats your problem?I would ignore that too. Well, in actuality, I wouldn't. I would yell at you to be more polite/respectful/specific/etc. Regardless, I can not say that such a PM merits any positive response.
Dear Zell:
The PM of yours Mini Moose posted is most certainly in poor form.
Dear Esponeo:
Regardless of a person's attitude, I find the best approach to a PM like that is to ignore the insult and ask the person to be more specific, rather than ignoring the question entirely.
Regardless of a person's attitude, I find the best approach to a PM like that is to ignore the insult and ask the person to be more specific, rather than ignoring the question entirely.
I don't talk to dead men.
I don't talk to dead men.
You will
never be worthy of moderatorship with that attitude.
Later...
Believe it or not there is a reason the same people get moderated over and over again and it has nothing to do with any personal bias on my part.
I don't talk to dead men.
= personal bias. Granted, you didn't say you
lack any personal bias, just that it isn't a factor in the way you moderate. When you express so clearly the existance of such bias, however, how can people, both members and your fellow administration,
not wonder about your intentions? You've created an uphill battle for yourself.
Someone being dead is not a matter of personal opinion.
And there you have it, plain as day. You know I'm going to call you on this kind of stuff, so why are you wasting both our time?
My original points still stand.
Esponeo lets things get to him. His comment above about dead men demonstrates contempt. Anger.
None of my actions in the past few days have been motivated by anger.Maybe, maybe not, but that wasn't the point. You have shown that quality several times in the past, with the comment on dead men having been the latest. If you are taking measures to avoid responding emotionally, I applaud you and hope that it continues. However, only your actions will prove this.
Now, let's address the point you wanted to make. That within the past few days you have not responded with contempt, anger, or negative emotions of that ilk. Granted, you only specificed anger, but you were referencing my post about how you let things get to you, and the comment I quoted within showed contempt, a passive expression of anger. Thus, I think this is fair cause to broaden the definition that you cast.
You posted July 1st, 3:51am, saying that you have not acted on anger, etc, within the last few days.
Posted July 1st, 12:19am, just 4 hours earlier (literally three posts above), you wrote:
People like Zell who actually had a problem with me have now been swiftly brought to my side. Even a sheep like Excalibur who had some ancient grudge against me has been wooed by my prompt moderation actions.
Is anyone who was actually affected by my moderation still against me? I'd love to create another convert.
I suspect only sheep remain.
This post oozes with smug contempt. Sophomoric pigeonholing. Another facet of the same attitude. This thread got to you, and anger demands retribution. Case in point.