Excessive moderation sucking the fun out of AH

K-9

OldGoat wrote: »

I hate the "Rate the poster above you" type nonsense. Others on the other hand feel that is exactly what AH should be, all frippery and banter.

I've never looked at that thread, easy enough to ignore them.

There seems to be still some more political threads in AH despite the politics cafe. Not sure why that is really.

Azalea

The "Grrrrrrrr people are so ****ing sensitive these says :mad:" brigade strike me as likely to lose it all together if *they* got personal insults thrown at them.

Penn wrote: »

It was very clear from Seamus' post that it was an over-exaggerated joke comment to make a point about AH and moderation.

It isn't remotely clear.

smash

I think that sometimes there's too much moving of threads and it's as if AH is just used as a filter. I had a thread moved recently regarding funny election poster slogans and asked people to make their own. It was moved to politics even though it was a parody thread...

The Moldy Gowl

Azalea wrote: »

The "Grrrrrrrr people are so ****ing sensitive these says :mad:" brigade strike me as likely to lose it all together if *they* got personal insults thrown at them.

It isn't remotely clear.

steddyeddy

That's really my only problem with AH. The moving of threads creates a forum where only a certain type of thread exists and that limits the market so to speak.

smash

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's really my only problem with AH. The moving of threads creates a forum where only a certain type of thread exists and that limits the market so to speak.

You don't see RIP threads moved to the RIP forum so I don't know why so many others get moved.

K-9

smash wrote: »

I think that sometimes there's too much moving of threads and it's as if AH is just used as a filter. I had a thread moved recently regarding funny election poster slogans and asked people to make their own. It was moved to politics even though it was a parody thread...

Parody threads are welcome in the cafe too, could be doing with a few actually.

smash

K-9 wrote: »

Parody threads are welcome in the cafe too, could be doing with a few actually.

Yea, but nobody really ventures in there...

MadDog76

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

Ah piss off with peddling that crap.

It's you that makes ah boring and sterile with all this taking the rules literally.
You're the reason we can't have nice things.


They should make reporting posts public so we can see who the perpetually ****ing offended are.

If you looked into my posting history you'd find I'm more of a "no-holds-barred" type of Poster, ie. I think there is way too many rules and way too many Posters with thin skin ........... however, if we're all subject to the rules then we should ALL be subject to the rules.

Btw nobody, least of all me, is asking to read my posts so feel free to piss off yourself.

Mr E

smash wrote: »

Yea, but nobody really ventures in there...

Speak for yourself. All threads on the front page of the Café have activity in the last 17 hours. It's like me saying that nobody really goes to the Soccer forum, just because I don't use it.

smash

Mr E wrote: »

Speak for yourself. All threads on the front page of the Café have activity in the last 17 hours. It's like me saying that nobody really goes to the Soccer forum, just because I don't use it.

Well then nobody really ventures in there for a bit of fun.

MadDog76

Penn wrote: »

Okay, so let's put you in the hypothetical position of moderator. You would not only permaban An File from the Feedback forum, you'd put him on a mod watchlist throughout Boards. For attacking the poster.

I presume you'd ask an Admin to do the same to yourself based on your own post?



All of the bolded are attacking the poster. You're commenting directly on the poster, and not his posts. So tell me, should you be banned from Feedback too for that post? Should I be banned for pointing this out?

Or, and this is the crux of the issue, should the spirit of the law be more important than the letter of the law, and should mods be able to use discretion where needed? Should the mods not issue cards/bans unless absolutely necessary even if a rule has been broken?

People are quick to jump to "BURN THE RULE-BREAKER" when it suits them, and "Ah sure it's only banter" when it doesn't. The role of the mod is to distinguish the serious breaches from the minor, based on history of the poster and tone of the post, and action accordingly. It was very clear from Seamus' post that it was an over-exaggerated joke comment to make a point about AH and moderation. Anyone calling for him to be carded/banned clearly doesn't understand the value of mod discretion and spirit of the law.

My post, and it's tone/content, is a direct response to An File's personal attack post towards me ........ nice try though.

Is An File's posting-style acceptable? If so, then it should be for all of us ......... if not, then he should have been de-Modded and actioned well before now.

Penn

Azalea wrote: »

It isn't remotely clear.

Really? I took it as a pretty obvious comment of what would have previously been considered typical AH-fare, while also (intentionally or otherwise) making a point about how people are for full enforcement of the rules when it suits them, but not when they're the one who breaches the rules.

Admittedly, there are probably few posters who could pull off such a comment, but considering the type of poster seamus is and his usual style of posting, to me it was very obvious he was joking.

Penn

MadDog76 wrote: »

My post, and it's tone/content, is a direct response to An File's personal attack post towards me ........ nice try though.

Ah ah ah, the actions of one poster doesn't give another poster permission to breach a rule.

So I ask again, should you be banned for your post, if AF were to be banned for his?

Penn

smash wrote: »

Well then nobody really ventures in there for a bit of fun.

You've obviously never read the United People thread. Most fun I've had on Boards in ages.

smash

Penn wrote: »

You've obviously never read the United People thread. Most fun I've had on Boards in ages.

Nope. Can't see it there either... I'll have to go digging

MadDog76

Penn wrote: »

Really? I took it as a pretty obvious comment of what would have previously been considered typical AH-fare, while also (intentionally or otherwise) making a point about how people are for full enforcement of the rules when it suits them, but not when they're the one who breaches the rules.

Admittedly, there are probably few posters who could pull off such a comment, but considering the type of poster seamus is and his usual style of posting, to me it was very obvious he was joking.

It wasn't obvious to me either ............ what if I was a Mod on Feedback and I decided to Ban him for his post?
He'd be up in arms with "it was only a joke!??!!!" ......... my response, as a Mod, would probably be "Joke or no joke, your post is not acceptable." .......... it's either that or we can all post what we like with a on the end of it "coz I'm only jokin'! ".

K-9

smash wrote: »

Well then nobody really ventures in there for a bit of fun.

Some of those threads can be funny, I suspect a few aren't intended to be though!

steddyeddy

Penn wrote: »

Ah ah ah, the actions of one poster doesn't give another poster permission to breach a rule.

So I ask again, should you be banned for your post, if AF were to be banned for his?

I don't think a banning for any post would be warranted but I think some of the comments on this thread were a bit much. If the opening insult was subject to a warning then there would be less subsequent insults.

I will say it's a lot of entertainment though.

oscarBravo

MadDog76 wrote: »

It wasn't obvious to me either ............ what if I was a Mod on Feedback and I decided to Ban him for his post?

Maybe that's why you're not a mod on Feedback?

smash

MadDog76 wrote: »

It wasn't obvious to me either ............ what if I was a Mod on Feedback and I decided to Ban him for his post?
He'd be up in arms with "it was only a joke!??!!!" ......... my response, as a Mod, would probably be "Joke or no joke, your post is not acceptable." .......... it's either that or we can all post what we like with a on the end of it "coz I'm only jokin'! ".

Jesus man, at least be consistent with your dots...

MadDog76

Penn wrote: »

Ah ah ah, the actions of one poster doesn't give another poster permission to breach a rule.

So I ask again, should you be banned for your post, if AF were to be banned for his?

Ah ah ah ......... if Seamus had been Banned for his post in the first place then An File might not have posted his post as a message would have been sent out to us all on this thread as to what is, and is not, acceptable .......... and I definitely would not have posted my post after having seen Seamus (and/or An File?) Banned for his/their post(s) .......... see how that works?

MadDog76

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe that's why you're not a mod on Feedback?

You think?

Penn

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ah ah ah ......... if Seamus had been Banned for his post in the first place then An File might not have posted his post as a message would have been sent out to us all on this thread as to what is, and is not, acceptable .......... and I definitely would not have posted my post after having seen Seamus (and/or An File?) Banned for his/their post(s) .......... see how that works?

I see how dodging the question works. Didn't really need a demonstration thanks.

Third and last time; If you were to hold yourself and the post I quoted of yours to the same standard that you are attempting to hold AF to, should the same mod actions (banned from Feedback forever, put on some hypothetical mod watch-list) be taken against you?

Mr E

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ah ah ah ......... if Seamus had been Banned for his post in the first place then An File might not have posted his post as a message would have been sent out to us all on this thread as to what is, and is not, acceptable .......... and I definitely would not have posted my post after having seen Seamus (and/or An File?) Banned for his/their post(s) .......... see how that works?

Excessive dots. Banned.

Penn

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think a banning for any post would be warranted but I think some of the comments on this thread were a bit much. If the opening insult was subject to a warning then there would be less subsequent insults.

I will say it's a lot of entertainment though.

As well as being a source of entertainment, it's also a pretty good example of why discretion of the moderator is required and vital, and why a holistic view of all elements has to be taken rather than "Poster said bad thing. Naughty poster".

It was clear, to me anyway and doubtless to others, what the point of seamus' post was. Agree or disagree with how he made that point, mod discretion allows the mods to assess the situation and not have to issue mod actions where they feel it isn't warranted.

Other posters' misinterpretation of the situation and responding in kind (without trying to make the same kind of point seamus was trying to make but rather "He insult him, I insult him back") means that they can't be judged by the same yardstick as seamus' post, because the intent and purpose of the post is completely different.

But instead, as I've stated, people, in a thread about excessive moderation, want what would have to be considered excessive moderation applied to one post where mod discretion would dictate that a mod action isn't required at all. The rules can't be both black & white and 50 shades of grey, otherwise moderation becomes even less consistent than people are claiming it already is.

MadDog76

Penn wrote: »

I see how dodging the question works. Didn't really need a demonstration thanks.

Third and last time; If you were to hold yourself and the post I quoted of yours to the same standard that you are attempting to hold AF to, should the same mod actions (banned from Feedback forever, put on some hypothetical mod watch-list) be taken against you?

Questions ........ ok.

What is your stance on the rules exactly?

Are you in favour of the rules? If so, then Seamus would have been actioned before we ever got here rendering your question irrelevant.

Or are you against the rules? In which case we can all post whatever we like ......... again rendering your question irrelevant.

Or do you feel that the rules apply to some posts/posters but not others? If you do then the Charters should contain "these rules do not apply to Seamus, An File, xxx, zzz, yyy, etc." ........... which would let me personally know that I am one of the chosen ones that the rules do apply to and then, yes, I should be actioned against by the Mods for breaking a rule that I'm not exempt from ........... feel free to dodge any questions I asked you in this post if it makes it easier for you.

oscarBravo

MadDog76 wrote: »

Questions ........ ok.

What is your stance on the rules exactly?

Are you in favour of the rules? If so, then Seamus would have been actioned before we ever got here rendering your question irrelevant.

Or are you against the rules? In which case we can all post whatever we like ......... again rendering your question irrelevant.

Or do you feel that the rules apply to some posts/posters but not others? If you do then the Charters should contain "these rules do not apply to Seamus, An File, xxx, zzz, yyy, etc." ........... which would let me personally know that I am one of the chosen ones that the rules do apply to and then, yes, I should be actioned against by the Mods for breaking a rule that I'm not exempt from ........... feel free to dodge any questions I asked you in this post if it makes it easier for you.

And that's where the phrase "rules lawyering" comes from.

smash

Everybody calm down. I think I know what you all need!

Penn

MadDog76 wrote: »

Questions ........ ok.

What is your stance on the rules exactly?

As per my post above (posted while you were typing this but I'll reiterate regardless), the rules are the rules. It's up to the mods to enforce those rules. And most importantly, it's up to the mods to use their discretion to judge posts on their own basis, take a holistic view of everything, and apply the rules or not as they see fit. There are many factors to be taken into account. The rules cannot and should not be black and white.

If someone says they're gay and I respond "You disgust me", I should be banned. If someone says they dip a ham salad sandwich into their tea while eating it and I respond "You disgust me", I shouldn't be banned. Exact same comment, but tone, context and intent are all different. (Side note - That ham salad sandwich thing isn't a random thing I made up. Old guy I used to work with did it. And he did disgust me.)

MadDog76 wrote: »

Are you in favour of the rules? If so, then Seamus would have been actioned before we ever got here rendering your question irrelevant.

Or are you against the rules? In which case we can all post whatever we like ......... again rendering your question irrelevant.

As per above, the rules cannot be applied black & white. 50 shades of grey an' all that jazz. What was obviously a joke to some of us, was personal abuse to others. In the words of Scroobius Pip: "What I thought were quite clear messages were taken to unusual extremes / My teachings taken out of context to meet the agendas of others / Interpretations taken in different ways and hidden meanings discovered"

You see personal abuse in his post. I don't. Who's right? Dunno. It's the mods who decide. Hence, Mod Discretion.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Or do you feel that the rules apply to some posts/posters but not others? If you do then the Charters should contain "these rules do not apply to Seamus, An File, xxx, zzz, yyy, etc." ........... which would let me personally know that I am one of the chosen ones that the rules do apply to and then, yes, I should be actioned against by the Mods for breaking a rule that I'm not exempt from ........... feel free to dodge any questions I asked you in this post if it makes it easier for you.

Posters should be treated the same. The exact same. And that exact same way dictates that the posters' history is taken into consideration. If seamus was a regular troublemaker, constantly getting banned for personal abuse and making similar comments, it'd be a sign that his post was personal abuse. If he rarely, if ever, gets in trouble, it'd be a sign that he likely wasn't trying to attack the poster.