We retain all rights to uphold our user agreements in all ways. The way these agreements are enforced are rarely modified because of any one person’s opinion; the conduct system is designed for the whole of the community, not its individual members. This means that your personal views, opinions, location, and experiences do not have an impact on the conduct system. To use a common example, an activity may be legal in your area, but this does not make it appropriate for our community.
It's not a big deal, just use a little common sense, perspective, understanding, and respect. It's just a message board after all, not a platform for exhibiting your rights to free speech.
Also, some people do not (usually) report things. Other people get a perverse pleasure out of reporting every single little thing that could be a CoC violation.
It seems the standard answer is "if it violates the CoC, report it", but I don't think a forum full of informants is the answer.
PbPs are/should have more leniency in topics than the other boards given the nature of roleplaying. I don't think it is a good argument to compare discussion topics to roleplaying threads in this regard.
A point that has been made about the OTT, since it's a place to (as the description states) "let your hair down". Personally, I would agree that there are portions of the boards where moderation shouldn't be as strict as it is, but WotC's official line is that all areas are policed equally.
Furthermore, I think the vast majority of the PbP threads are on group boards. Do ORCs have authority/as much authority to moderate those groups?
Officially, no. Although they can still swoop in if group posts are reported. Unofficially, WotC only knows.
Personally, I would agree that there are portions of the boards where moderation shouldn't be as strict as it is
Those would be private groups. If the OTTers want a place where they can post any topic they like, make a private OTTer invite-only group and invite people to it. That way people in the Otter Grotto wouldn't worry about moderation because the reason they are there is to post inappropriate stuff, so nobody will report it. But the OTTer isn't private and thus has to be kept PG, with all the other vagueness that gets the OTTers so often wrangling with the ORCs.
Do ORCs have authority/as much authority to moderate those groups?
Yes, but they don't patrol them, and people in a group rarely report other group members' posts.
I just want to take this opportunity to say that the CoC is vague and open to interpretation, and that is another part of the problem.
Also, some people do not (usually) report things. Other people get a perverse pleasure out of reporting every single little thing that could be a CoC violation.
It seems the standard answer is "if it violates the CoC, report it", but I don't think a forum full of informants is the answer.
Just reporting something doesn't mean the Orcs are going to agree that it's a violation of the CoC.
Over reporting a single post is a form of Trolling. Always reporting every post a single person makes, is trolling.
But I agree, the CoC is vague at points. They try and insist that they are fair and even with their moderation, but at the same time, say the Orcs have to make judgement calls.
You can't make judgment calls without being biased. It's just not possible. Heck you don't even have to have a view on the person who's post got reported. The Orc that looks into it could just be having a crappy day, week, life at that moment and just doesn't want to deal with what they consider other peoples petty squabbling.
WoTC can come and swear up and down that's not true and the Orcs and Mods all put their personal views and lives aside, and I will never believe it, because that's just completely denying what people are like.
PbPs are/should have more leniency in topics than the other boards given the nature of roleplaying. I don't think it is a good argument to compare discussion topics to roleplaying threads in this regard. Furthermore, I think the vast majority of the PbP threads are on group boards. Do ORCs have authority/as much authority to moderate those groups?
I'm not talking about PbP stuff, though. I'm talking about What's a DM/Player to Do? and, to some extent, General. There people ask for all sorts of advice on in-game illegal actions. They also frequently discuss kewl stuff that happened in-game that would have been illegal if it happened in reality. The point is simply that there's no way to know where the exact boundry lies (for the most part, of course - graphic discussion of kitten **** is always gonna be outta bounds ;)) until it's been crossed.
If you think an activity is shady, don't post about it. If Wizards thinks the activity is shady, don't be surprised if they yank the post. I don't thnk they need to post a legal dictionary to appease people that want to know what lines people cannot cross.
It's not a big deal, just use a little common sense, perspective, understanding, and respect. It's just a message board after all, not a platform for exhibiting your rights to free speech.
If that was the way it worked, then I wouldn't have an issue with it. If I post something that seems appropriate but some ORC arbitrarily decides it's not and deletes it, ok. But for one, the moderation is incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent. Posts get modded more in some areas than in others, even when other posts are reported by multiple people for similar infractions. We keep hearing that there is a very systematic process yet it appears to be anything but. Instead, what likely happens is they delete topic X, ok no issue, but then they look and see that a week ago they also deleted topic Y, and then decide to ban you, even though neither topic was clearly over the line.
Or if you call an ORC out (whether in the public forum or not) for something that appears to have been handled incorrectly, you get banned. In one case, they dug up a post that was like 3 days old to use as "justification" even though it occurred suspiciously right after the individual reported an ORC. In another case, someone pointed out in the forum that the ORC's post was a little vague. The ORC went back and edited his post to fix it, but still banned the poster that pointed it out.
And emailing CS is useless. Their answers amount to "we always back our ORCs so it just sucks to be you".
And emailing CS is useless. Their answers amount to "we always back our ORCs so it just sucks to be you".
Which is why I suggested ORC supervisors in the thread that just got locked with no explanation. Senior ORCs who can actually do something and have been around long enough and actually interacted with the boards, back when they were allowed to do so, to be trusted by a significant portion of the users. If, for example, Chaos mods one of my posts, I trust her enough to not be offended by it, and figure that it she had a reason, even if it was something that I thought was borderline at worst. Other mods, I'm not so sure about.
If that was the way it worked, then I wouldn't have an issue with it. If I post something that seems appropriate but some ORC arbitrarily decides it's not and deletes it, ok. But for one, the moderation is incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent. Posts get modded more in some areas than in others, even when other posts are reported by multiple people for similar infractions. We keep hearing that there is a very systematic process yet it appears to be anything but. Instead, what likely happens is they delete topic X, ok no issue, but then they look and see that a week ago they also deleted topic Y, and then decide to ban you, even though neither topic was clearly over the line.
Or if you call an ORC out (whether in the public forum or not) for something that appears to have been handled incorrectly, you get banned. In one case, they dug up a post that was like 3 days old to use as "justification" even though it occurred suspiciously right after the individual reported an ORC. In another case, someone pointed out in the forum that the ORC's post was a little vague. The ORC went back and edited his post to fix it, but still banned the poster that pointed it out.
And emailing CS is useless. Their answers amount to "we always back our ORCs so it just sucks to be you".
I've had that happened to me, right after a WoTC employee sent me a PM saying he didn't like what I was saying, and if I didn't stop, he would report me. 15 minutes a post that in NO way had any CoC violation that was 3 days old, gets me a ban.
It was a clear message, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, and it's totally biased.
And you are dead on about mailing CS. The answer you always get is what you say.
I just want to take this opportunity to say that the CoC is vague and open to interpretation, and that is another part of the problem.
Also, some people do not (usually) report things. Other people get a perverse pleasure out of reporting every single little thing that could be a CoC violation.
It seems the standard answer is "if it violates the CoC, report it", but I don't think a forum full of informants is the answer.
I don't think this is necessarily a problem. Not everything needs to be an ironclad legalese document that spells out exactly what you can and can't do. The real issue is how biased and inconsistent the moderation is. Better trained mods, better supervised mods, and/or an appeals process where they actually looked and the post and the action taken and made a reasonable decision instead of the blanket "we always support our mods" answer could all alleviate those issues. There is also some issue in that some of the gray areas are a bit broad but even moreso that actions that are perfectly acceptable within the Code of Conduct yet somehow are still banned.
For example, myself and Silversword (in separate but similar events) both got modded for mentioning files available for download from WotC's website. He was modded for "advertising" and I was modded for "advocating illegal activities". That right there shows some of the inconsistencies we run into. Furthermore, neither one of us was advertising or advocating anything illegal. These were files that could be downloaded from the WotC site. The answer was that those files were not intended to be available for download. Ok, that's great, but how are we supposed to be aware of that? They are files hosted on WotC's server, we weren't talking about downloading from a torrent site or anything. We assumed that if the files were still available to download from their official links, then they were also legal to download. I mean really, who would decide that it's illegal to download that stuff but still leave it available for download? It's not like there's anything posted out there that says we shouldn't have posted that stuff. And its infractions like this that people get banned over.
I've had that happened to me, right after a WoTC employee sent me a PM saying he didn't like what I was saying, and if I didn't stop, he would report me. 15 minutes a post that in NO way had any CoC violation that was 3 days old, gets me a ban.
It was a clear message, we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, and it's totally biased.
And you are dead on about mailing CS. The answer you always get is what you say.
Well as sad as it is, I am sort of glad to hear we're not the only ones who see this. Some of the answers OTTers have received seemed to imply that we were the only ones that see these issues (and by implication there must obviously be a problem with us and not with the mods or CS).
I just want to take this opportunity to say that the CoC is vague and open to interpretation, and that is another part of the problem.
Also, some people do not (usually) report things. Other people get a perverse pleasure out of reporting every single little thing that could be a CoC violation.
It seems the standard answer is "if it violates the CoC, report it", but I don't think a forum full of informants is the answer.
I don't think this is necessarily a problem. Not everything needs to be an ironclad legalese document that spells out exactly what you can and can't do. The real issue is how biased and inconsistent the moderation is. Better trained mods, better supervised mods, and/or an appeals process where they actually looked and the post and the action taken and made a reasonable decision instead of the blanket "we always support our mods" answer could all alleviate those issues. There is also some issue in that some of the gray areas are a bit broad but even moreso that actions that are perfectly acceptable within the Code of Conduct yet somehow are still banned.
For example, myself and Silversword (in separate but similar events) both got modded for mentioning files available for download from WotC's website. He was modded for "advertising" and I was modded for "advocating illegal activities". That right there shows some of the inconsistencies we run into. Furthermore, neither one of us was advertising or advocating anything illegal. These were files that could be downloaded from the WotC site. The answer was that those files were not intended to be available for download. Ok, that's great, but how are we supposed to be aware of that? They are files hosted on WotC's server, we weren't talking about downloading from a torrent site or anything. We assumed that if the files were still available to download from their official links, then they were also legal to download. I mean really, who would decide that it's illegal to download that stuff but still leave it available for download? It's not like there's anything posted out there that says we shouldn't have posted that stuff. And its infractions like this that people get banned over.
I don't think they can spell out everything. The problem comes when you are told "What you are doing is a violations of the CoC" and the next person that does the same thing, doesn't even get their post deleted or moderated. It's like, why was mine singled out?
You can't spell out everything, but once you say "This is specifically against the CoC" You have to apply that to everyone that does that, not just those that you decide to apply it to.
If you think an activity is shady, don't post about it. If Wizards thinks the activity is shady, don't be surprised if they yank the post. I don't thnk they need to post a legal dictionary to appease people that want to know what lines people cannot cross.
It's not a big deal, just use a little common sense, perspective, understanding, and respect. It's just a message board after all, not a platform for exhibiting your rights to free speech.
If that was the way it worked, then I wouldn't have an issue with it. If I post something that seems appropriate but some ORC arbitrarily decides it's not and deletes it, ok. But for one, the moderation is incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent. Posts get modded more in some areas than in others, even when other posts are reported by multiple people for similar infractions. We keep hearing that there is a very systematic process yet it appears to be anything but. Instead, what likely happens is they delete topic X, ok no issue, but then they look and see that a week ago they also deleted topic Y, and then decide to ban you, even though neither topic was clearly over the line.
Or if you call an ORC out (whether in the public forum or not) for something that appears to have been handled incorrectly, you get banned. In one case, they dug up a post that was like 3 days old to use as "justification" even though it occurred suspiciously right after the individual reported an ORC. In another case, someone pointed out in the forum that the ORC's post was a little vague. The ORC went back and edited his post to fix it, but still banned the poster that pointed it out.
And emailing CS is useless. Their answers amount to "we always back our ORCs so it just sucks to be you".
They are fairly accurate on most of the items they do remove. Sometimes, I am stunned at some things they don't remove. If anything, they are probably too lenient, but it probably all balances out in the end. Just like an umpire in baseball, the human element is a factor. Just like in real life, all we can truly control is our own individual behavior.
If people would respond to others, on a whole, more civilly and respectfully, we probably wouldn't even need moderators. Unfortunately, sometimes the "innocent" get caught up in it. That's just part of the territory, I suppose.
I once had a post modded for 'discussing moderation' when all I did was say that an ORC's (and not a specific ORC) link to the CoC in their sig didn't work. Yeah ...
Well, you pointed out they made a mistake, and the Orc's don't make mistakes.
Heh, at least they fixed the link, right?
True! Well done!
As for the tangent that this thread has gone into with calling out orc mistakes and making fun of them/it - stop it. There's no reason for that - it's mean and petty. The orcs have a hard job, made harder by some people who want to push that line, and others who can't seem to stop themselves from verbally attacking people. They're not always going to get it right, but they are pretty dang impartial and follow the code of conduct as best as anyone can. I get that you can be upset at moderation, or specific moderation actions, but this attacking and insulting of the orcs doesn't do anybody any good.
Okay, so we're not going to lay out all the possible illegal activities that a person shouldn't' be discussing - it's just not a realistic request. You really should be able to use your own judgement and apply some decent human being standards. If you step over the line and it's reported, we'll take care of it - it's not the end of the world.
As for the tangent that this thread has gone into with calling out orc mistakes and making fun of them/it - stop it. There's no reason for that - it's mean and petty. The orcs have a hard job, made harder by some people who want to push that line, and others who can't seem to stop themselves from verbally attacking people. They're not always going to get it right, but they are pretty dang impartial and follow the code of conduct as best as anyone can. I get that you can be upset at moderation, or specific moderation actions, but this attacking and insulting of the orcs doesn't do anybody any good.
Trevor, with out trying to push it or make fun. Our issues comes from something you've said. The bolded part.
They aren't always going to get it right. And when they do make mistakes, the response is always the same. We stand behind their choice no matter what, and we never reverse an Orc's choice. I'm not paraphrasing, I'm not exaggerating.
Once that stand is taken, people are going to start pushing it and getting upset. Because no one likes being told that while mistakes get made, you aren't going to do anything to correct that. And if you try and open a dialog about the issue with WoTC, they just tune you out and never respond.
Just like you say that attacking and insulting the Orcs doesn't do any good, what good does knowing that when an Orc makes a mistake, nothing is going to be done about it?
While some people might like a list of banned topics; I think consistancy is what the majority of us want. We are not getting it.
That's another big issues. It's hard to see that the Orcs are being impartial, when what gets one person banned, another person gets off scott free. That also just adds to the impression that it's not impartial.
Okay, so we're not going to lay out all the possible illegal activities that a person shouldn't' be discussing - it's just not a realistic request. You really should be able to use your own judgement and apply some decent human being standards. If you step over the line and it's reported, we'll take care of it - it's not the end of the world.
This makes sense. Thank you.
As for the tangent that this thread has gone into with calling out orc mistakes and making fun of them/it - stop it. There's no reason for that - it's mean and petty. The orcs have a hard job, made harder by some people who want to push that line, and others who can't seem to stop themselves from verbally attacking people.
Again, point taken. OTOH, the fact that the ORCs take it as a personal insult is more their fault than ours. However, because there are no repercussions for their behavior, it becomes our problem.
They're not always going to get it right, but they are pretty dang impartial and follow the code of conduct as best as anyone can. I get that you can be upset at moderation, or specific moderation actions, but this attacking and insulting of the orcs doesn't do anybody any good.
Emphasis added. Again, if ORCs violate the CoC, why shouldn't they be called on it? It has been noticed several times that they don't follow the CoC and when someone points it out, bans happen.
While some people might like a list of banned topics; I think consistancy is what the majority of us want. We are not getting it.
That's another big issues. It's hard to see that the Orcs are being impartial, when what gets one person banned, another person gets off scott free. That also just adds to the impression that it's not impartial.
I might have an answer to that.
Poster A posts something that could be a CoC violation.
Poster B posts something that could be a CoC violation.
Poster Z doesn't like poster A and reports his post.
Poster A gets moderated.
Poster B goes about his business.
Poster Z sits back smugly.
While some people might like a list of banned topics; I think consistancy is what the majority of us want. We are not getting it.
That's another big issues. It's hard to see that the Orcs are being impartial, when what gets one person banned, another person gets off scott free. That also just adds to the impression that it's not impartial.
I might have an answer to that.
Poster A posts something that could be a CoC violation.
Poster B posts something that could be a CoC violation.
Poster Z doesn't like poster A and reports his post.
Poster A gets moderated.
Poster B goes about his business.
Poster Z sits back smugly.
And I expect the Orcs to go in and read not just the posts that are reported, but that section of the thread, and get a better picture of what is going on that it got to that point.
Generally it's never one sides fault. But it seems to come down to who gets the report in first, and then like you said, Poster z sits back smugly. Even though what he posted can be way worse then what got reported.
Because there are people that don't spend all their time with their mouse over the report button just waiting.
And I expect the Orcs to go in and read not just the posts that are reported, but that section of the thread, and get a better picture of what is going on that it got to that point.
You're not serious are you?
Meh, we can say the same stuff over and over again and I guarantee you we'll get the same answers over and over again. It's common sense* but people (plural) are asking for clarification, clarification and consistancy requests are misinterpreted as a demand for a list, we're told to follow the proper channels (including emailing WotC staff, in some cases) though we have and know those channels rarely do anything - if they even bother to take the time to answer, etc, etc. No point. We've been told to just eat it. May as well dig in.
_______________
*Common sense. Well, it's common sense to me that the act of setting someone on fire because they're a different type of person than I am without any other justification (I, a Human Wizard, Scorching Burst a Goblin because, of course, he is a Goblin) is hardly 'PG'. But what-evs. We shall eat it ... or else.
And I expect the Orcs to go in and read not just the posts that are reported, but that section of the thread, and get a better picture of what is going on that it got to that point.
You're not serious are you?
its hard to tell sometimes isnt it? but i think he truly is serious.
And I expect the Orcs to go in and read not just the posts that are reported, but that section of the thread, and get a better picture of what is going on that it got to that point.
You're not serious are you?
its hard to tell sometimes isnt it? but i think he truly is serious.
If the ORCs did, indeed, do such things, we wouldn't have the current level of agitation that we do.
And people wouldn't have had so many rides on the banned wagon.
And I expect the Orcs to go in and read not just the posts that are reported, but that section of the thread, and get a better picture of what is going on that it got to that point.
You're not serious are you?
Not sure what you are exactly saying.
I don't think the Orc needs to read the whole thread. But certainly then just look at that one post. If two people are bickering and flaming each other, it's going to be clear.
I got a one day ban for replying "yeah" to a someone that had been trolling and baiting me in a thread. I finally got tired of trying to answer his questions seriously and just said yeah, to end it.
And when I was told why, it was for responding to a person's trolling. Come on, how messed up is that? I get a one ban for responding to a persons trolling, but the troller was allowed to keep posting.
Again, point taken. OTOH, the fact that the ORCs take it as a personal insult is more their fault than ours.
As far as I know the orcs aren't taking it personally and they may not feel insulted - but that's not the point. Regardless if someone is thick-skinned or not, regardless if they laugh when you poke fun at them, even if they don't care a bit, harassing and belittling others, or a group they belong to, isn't cool.
Again, if ORCs violate the CoC, why shouldn't they be called on it? It has been noticed several times that they don't follow the CoC and when someone points it out, bans happen.
So the orcs aren't violating the code of conduct when they take moderation action, they're enforcing it. I get that it's not always crystal clear what was done to violate the code of conduct, but I'm fairly certain that almost every time that someone steps over the line, they know it, or at the very least can look back at it later and see how what they did wasn't okay.
And most of those bans happen because continuing to discuss specific moderation actions in a thread is not allowed - everyone knows this or learns this quickly when it comes up. And this isn't something unique to our forums, this is pretty standard practice for most forums. This particular thing isn't new in any way shape or form, and I have a hard time understanding how veteran forum goers would be surprised or ignorant of this.
On the topic of people reporting CoC violations. It was noted that some people get a kind of pleasure in reporting any possible CoC violation. It seems to me that when something gets reported, it almost always results in the post or thread getting modded for a violation and/or the poster being banned. This makes it seem as if the ORCs are taking the feelings of the person reporting the post into consideration when determining if there was an actual violation or not. This should not happen in the slightest. The feelings of the person reporting a post have absolutely no bearing on whether or not a violation actually occurred.
I guess I can see that, but you don't have a window into all the things getting reported, you just see what things are being actioned. The Orcs are as impartial as you can get. If the reported post violates the code of conduct, them some action is taken. If it doesn't, then no action is taken and nobody sees anything. For all sorts of privacy reasons, we don't discuss details of specific actions we do or don't take on individual users.
The Orcs are as impartial as you can get. If the reported post violates the code of conduct, them some action is taken. If it doesn't, then no action is taken and nobody sees anything.
Sorry Trevor, I ain't buying it.
I have had too many experiences that makes your claim look less than truthful.
You know, I have an incident in mind that pretty much flies in the face of that. A shame I can't get into it due to the CoC, but I can tell you for certain application is not always equal.
You can PM him.
You know, I have an incident in mind that pretty much flies in the face of that. A shame I can't get into it due to the CoC, but I can tell you for certain application is not always equal.
You can PM him.
For what purpose?
It is apparent that Wizards mind is made up.
Okay, so we're not going to lay out all the possible illegal activities that a person shouldn't' be discussing - it's just not a realistic request. You really should be able to use your own judgement and apply some decent human being standards. If you step over the line and it's reported, we'll take care of it - it's not the end of the world.
Trevor, that's fine and makes sense. Trying to write up a giant document covering every single subject would just cause people to look for loopholes anyway. But that's not what most people want anyway, that's just another example of CS making assumptions from our emails. We ask for guidance on a specific issue and we get told they can't hand out a master list, even though that's clearly not what was requested.
The problem is twofold. One is that there is a lot of inconsistency in how the standards are applied. Something that seems ok for one poster to do gets another poster banned. The other is that sometimes we have asked for clarification, not even a master list, just some extra clarification on certain subjects, and we can't get it.
If it happened just like you said, where you step over the line and an ORC edits it and it ends there, it wouldn't be a huge issue. But that's not how it goes. Instead, it's poster A and poster B make very similar posts. Poster A gets off scott free and poster B gets banned for something that wasn't even a clear violation (of the CoC or just good taste). Then when poster B goes to CS (because that's what we keep getting told to do), the answer is something along the lines of "yes we see how that wasn't communicated to you very well but we back our ORCs and won't change their decisions". I could see if it was a blatant over-the-top violation that gets you an immediate ban, or if it was violating the exact same thing over and over. But some things really are in gray areas and it doesn't seem right that people get banned for something that could reasonably be seen as not being a violation. And again, there's absolutely no recourse for this.
As for the tangent that this thread has gone into with calling out orc mistakes and making fun of them/it - stop it. There's no reason for that - it's mean and petty. The orcs have a hard job, made harder by some people who want to push that line, and others who can't seem to stop themselves from verbally attacking people. They're not always going to get it right, but they are pretty dang impartial and follow the code of conduct as best as anyone can. I get that you can be upset at moderation, or specific moderation actions, but this attacking and insulting of the orcs doesn't do anybody any good.
I understand that you don't want people attacking the ORCs in the open forums since animosity towards them only makes there jobs harder, but again what is the recourse for anyone that feels that they are not doing their jobs correctly? Emails to CS generally fall on deaf ears. Even if you receive something other than the generic response, the best any of us have generally seen is "we'll keep that in mind for the future". Why are they so afraid to change any action taken by an ORC? And maybe if there was more open discussion possible so that people could understand the reasoning behind a decision (CS sometimes helps with that, but rarely, and PMs to the ORC in question don't seem to work), there wouldn't be so much animosity towards them.
And I know ORCs do get it right a lot of times. I know that there have been times when I was modded and I didn't fight it at all because it was fully justified. But at the same time, every time we complain about something that seems like a legitimate concern, the answer is that ORCs are unbiased, impartial, and follow a systematic process. Well I hate to say it, but our own direct observations sometimes contradict that. And again, if once in a while someone said "ok, that wasn't right, but we'll fix that", then it wouldn't be a problem. Instead it's "the ORCs are never wrong" when we know full well that's not true.
You can PM him.
Remember how I said we've tried all of the proper channels? Yeah, I know I have. I'll just, well, I'll just leave it at that.
Meh, we can say the same stuff over and over again and I guarantee you we'll get the same answers over and over again. It's common sense* but people (plural) are asking for clarification, clarification and consistancy requests are misinterpreted as a demand for a list, we're told to follow the proper channels (including emailing WotC staff, in some cases) though we have and know those channels rarely do anything - if they even bother to take the time to answer, etc, etc. No point. We've been told to just eat it. May as well dig in.
_______________
*Common sense. Well, it's common sense to me that the act of setting someone on fire because they're a different type of person than I am without any other justification (I, a Human Wizard, Scorching Burst a Goblin because, of course, he is a Goblin) is hardly 'PG'. But what-evs. We shall eat it ... or else.
You know, I have an incident in mind that pretty much flies in the face of that. A shame I can't get into it due to the CoC, but I can tell you for certain application is not always equal.
I really wish we had that +1 button right now. I give you +5 for both.
On the other hand, I think that it isn't as simple to explain a ban with one quote from one thread; that multiple problems within a short amount of time are what may be causing some of the OTT bans and that some of the people in the OTT are looking for something concrete like "You did this" when the real problem is "You did this, that, the other, and this the sequel". If there is a set boundry; then I can understand ORCs not wanting to reveal it. After all, if the rule was "Three Strikes, You're Out", then people would stop at two to try to take advantage of that system.
My main problem with how the ORCs go about their business is that I feel like people get banned way too often; and that makes me more reluctant to report anything that isn't copyright infringement or obvious.
On the other hand, I think that it isn't as simple to explain a ban with one quote from one thread; that multiple problems within a short amount of time are what may be causing some of the OTT bans and that some of the people in the OTT are looking for something concrete like "You did this" when the real problem is "You did this, that, the other, and this the sequel". If there is a set boundry; then I can understand ORCs not wanting to reveal it. After all, if the rule was "Three Strikes, You're Out", then people would stop at two to try to take advantage of that system.
I see that point, but stopping just short of the boundary isn't always "how can I get over?" Sometimes stopping at the boundary is because it is the boundary and you weren't trying to cross it. When guidance is vague and you can't get any more details, it's almost asking to have people step over it. Yes, sometimes it is pushed just to see how far someone can go, I've been guilty of it a couple times myself, but many times it is an honest mistake. But when you don't tell someone why you thought they were over the line or where the line is, you're just setting them up for failure because chances are it will end up happening again.
The Orcs are as impartial as you can get. If the reported post violates the code of conduct, them some action is taken. If it doesn't, then no action is taken and nobody sees anything.
Sorry Trevor, I ain't buying it.
I have had too many experiences that makes your claim look less than truthful.
Same here. The Evidence we have EXPERIENCED personally says it just isn't as clear cut as it's made out to be by Trevor.
We are all a bunch of different people, with nothing in common saying the same thing. There has to be something to what we are all independently seeing that leads us to say the same thing.
After trying to go through CS route I turned to you. I turned to you, because when I asked who I can talk to, I was told that I should contact you. But when I contacted you, I was first told this isn't really your area, but that you would say something to the poster.
You contacted the poster and then told me you had.
The harassment stopped for a while, but then about a month later, started up again.
If you personally telling someone to stop harassing another poster doesn't work, all the banning from an Orc isn't going to slow the person down? Can't you see how frustrating that makes people to feel that nothing is being done? I might have my issues with how WoTC is handling certain products and such, but I always keep it directed at WoTC.
And I can see that; but I don't think it's a line, it's an EXP bar. Telling someone to bugger off might be 50 xp, trolling and baiting might be 250 xp, and anti-semetic comments will level you off the forums. A line implies that you did one thing that got you banned; when in reality you could have told someone to bugger off twice, baited once, and trolled three times.
This is true. But at the same time there was a line that you crossed each time. Bugger off might have just kind of put your toe across the line to feel the water while anti-semetic comments were a standing long jump across it. But either way, you can sometimes cross the line without knowing it. If you know exactly where that was, the accidental times wouldn't happen so often. However, especially since moderation seems to have changed lately and gotten much harsher (in some cases) than it used to be, it's easy for someone to accidentally step over that line in a different way just doing stuff that they used to have no problems with, and then suddenly they're banned.
This does not mean that the ORCs are absolved. Sure they've made mistakes. But they are definitely not the only one's to blame.
The Orcs are as impartial as you can get. If the reported post violates the code of conduct, them some action is taken. If it doesn't, then no action is taken and nobody sees anything.
Sorry Trevor, I ain't buying it.
I have had too many experiences that makes your claim look less than truthful.
Same here. The Evidence we have EXPERIENCED personally says it just isn't as clear cut as it's made out to be by Trevor.
We are all a bunch of different people, with nothing in common saying the same thing. There has to be something to what we are all independently seeing that leads us to say the same thing.
So it sounds like for some of you, there's nothing I can say or do here. I cannot show you all the reported incidents behind the scenes to show you all the good/right things the ORCs do. I can't show you all the things that aren't reported either, because well, they're not reported. If I say something, and it goes counter to your personal experience of beliefs, then some of you think I'm lying or covering - which I'm not, but I understand where you're coming from.
Also, in this thread and another, I see the idea that if you guys show me something that is clearly violating the code of conduct, I won't report it or follow up with the ORCs to make sure it's acted on (references to a post that people won't PM me about because their experience proves we won't do anything). Now I don't know if the post or thread actually violates the code of conduct because you don't feel like you can open up that dialog with me.
With these two things combined, I'm not sure what I can do for that particular group of people.
The Orcs are as impartial as you can get. If the reported post violates the code of conduct, them some action is taken. If it doesn't, then no action is taken and nobody sees anything.
Sorry Trevor, I ain't buying it.
I have had too many experiences that makes your claim look less than truthful.
Same here. The Evidence we have EXPERIENCED personally says it just isn't as clear cut as it's made out to be by Trevor.
We are all a bunch of different people, with nothing in common saying the same thing. There has to be something to what we are all independently seeing that leads us to say the same thing.
So it sounds like for some of you, there's nothing I can say or do here. I cannot show you all the reported incidents behind the scenes to show you all the good/right things the ORCs do. I can't show you all the things that aren't reported either, because well, they're not reported. If I say something, and it goes counter to your personal experience of beliefs, then some of you think I'm lying or covering - which I'm not, but I understand where you're coming from.
Also, in this thread and another, I see the idea that if you guys show me something that is clearly violating the code of conduct, I won't report it or follow up with the ORCs to make sure it's acted on (references to a post that people won't PM me about because their experience proves we won't do anything). Now I don't know if the post or thread actually violates the code of conduct because you don't feel like you can open up that dialog with me.
With these two things combined, I'm not sure what I can do for that particular group of people.
Trevor, my answer is to repeat what I just posted a few up:
"Trevor, let me put it like this. I had a problem with another poster stalking and harassing me. To the point they said their goal was to get me kicked off the forum. They got a 3 day ban for that. I tried to make a truce with the person and that only resulted in a flurry of baiting from them.
After trying to go through CS route I turned to you. I turned to you, because when I asked who I can talk to, I was told that I should contact you. But when I contacted you, I was first told this isn't really your area, but that you would say something to the poster.
You contacted the poster and then told me you had.
The harassment stopped for a while, but then about a month later, started up again.
If you personally telling someone to stop harassing another poster doesn't work, all the banning from an Orc isn't going to slow the person down? Can't you see how frustrating that makes people to feel that nothing is being done? I might have my issues with how WoTC is handling certain products and such, but I always keep it directed at WoTC. "
On top of that, I never asked for the other poster to be banned or kicked from the forums. I just wanted to be left alone by them. And yet, they keep going out of their way to try and get a rise out of me. Even by making second and third accounts to pretend to be someone else.
Inconsistency in the execution of CoC violations is a major issue. So I'd like to ask, do you have the vague CoC areas more specifically defined for your ORCs? Or barring that, do you have a section where precedents are set down? So that if ORC #1 rules the Fritos are a violation of the CoC, all future ORCs know that Fritos are a violation and can be consistent about it.
So it sounds like for some of you, there's nothing I can say or do here. I cannot show you all the reported incidents behind the scenes to show you all the good/right things the ORCs do. I can't show you all the things that aren't reported either, because well, they're not reported. If I say something, and it goes counter to your personal experience of beliefs, then some of you think I'm lying or covering - which I'm not, but I understand where you're coming from.
Trevor, the fact that we're taking the time to respond to you means that even if we're not overly optimistic based on our own experiences, we're at least hoping our concerns can be heard and understood. The reason we're not believing you is simple. Look back at your own posts. We're getting the same vibe from you that we get from CS, which is that the ORCs are always right so quit your whining. Our concerns are routinely brushed aside (oh you don't see behind the scenes therefore everything you say is invalid) or completely taken out of context (you wanted to know if this general topic was ok because it falls into a sort of gray area? oh well well we can't provide you with a master list and you'd just look for loopholes anyway, so we're not going to tell you where the line is but if you cross it again you're getting banned).
We're not asking to review every single case. Most of us know when we've completely and blatantly crossed the line and that's not the issue. We're not asking that you reverse every decision made by an ORC just because someone complained. Heck some of the ORCs (namely Chaos and Paradox) are widely respected and we generally don't have complaints about them. We're asking that someone realize that there is a sudden increase in threads complaining about moderation and CS for a reason. We're asking that someone at least hear us out and not simply dismiss us all out of hand, and although you've been polite about it, that does appear to be what you're doing. We're asking someone to at least acknowledge that there are some legitimate complaints out there and help us find a solution.
Let's be honest here. Repetitive bad behavior is not an excuse to blame the ORCs for bias. I know I've crossed the line a couple times, and I've been suspended for it. People really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and behavior instead of pointing the finger at everyone else.
This does not mean that the ORCs are absolved. Sure they've made mistakes. But they are definitely not the only one's to blame.
I've been banned a fair number of times. I'd say 20% of the time I was angry and should not have posted what I said and deserved the ban. 60% of the time I was surprised to have been banned due to the vague nature of the CoC and what seemed like "Creative interpretions" by the ORCs involved. Those upset me. The remaining 20% were so far away from what I was told I violated, that only someone really out of touch would have ruled that way. Those few times got me so angry, that I engaged customer service rather harshly and let them know exactly how I felt about being banned.
And the same goes that if I block someone, just like on facebook, they see nothing from me. If I find myself always at a disagreement with someone, who I feel is going out of their way to cause trouble, I'm trying to avoid that.
But clearly reporting posts that break the CoC, is open to interpretation by the Orc that gets it.
So if I can stop someone from all ways trying to stir up some trouble with me, simply by blocking them from seeing my posts, that's me being responsible. But I can't do that.
If someone I have blocked works at trying to get around that, it's clear they are attempting to harass that poster. If I end up with no one to talk to, it's my own fault.
There is no down side to making a better blocked feature. It's certainly hasn't killed facebook, has it?
So it sounds like for some of you, there's nothing I can say or do here. I cannot show you all the reported incidents behind the scenes to show you all the good/right things the ORCs do. I can't show you all the things that aren't reported either, because well, they're not reported. If I say something, and it goes counter to your personal experience of beliefs, then some of you think I'm lying or covering - which I'm not, but I understand where you're coming from.
Sure there is. Tell us exactly what we want to hear.
On a serious note, I'm going to give bonesclone a big
for saying it (probably) more concisely and (definitely) more politely than I could and/or would have.Also, in this thread and another, I see the idea that if you guys show me something that is clearly violating the code of conduct, I won't report it or follow up with the ORCs to make sure it's acted on (references to a post that people won't PM me about because their experience proves we won't do anything). Now I don't know if the post or thread actually violates the code of conduct because you don't feel like you can open up that dialog with me.
With these two things combined, I'm not sure what I can do for that particular group of people.
I wonder where we got that idea? Maybe from the MULTIPLE times that ORCs, you, or the Monkey have posted something along the lines of "We don't talk about moderation. Doing so is considered a violation of Section 6 of the Code of Conduct: Disruption." Makes me think that, no matter what you say here, you REALLY don't want to hear it.
It's the same response we get if we e-mail CS, which makes it really bothersome when we see ORC posts that say "If you have a problem with moderation, contact Customer Service".
I killed my account over Gamer Zer0. You're better than he is, in that you're not baiting the posters. But telling us two completely different things ("We don't discuss moderation" and "If you have a problem with moderatio, you can PM me") and then wondering why we do the one that we're told is not a violation of the CoC is counter-productive, at the least.
Some written stuff that needs replying to
We don't discuss specific moderation actions in the forums. If you want to PM me about something, I'll do my best to talk about what I can. But I can't discuss what actions we took or didn't take against the reported action, I can't tell you who reported you or what their emotional state might have been.
If you PM me about some moderation action that happened to you, I'll do my best to try to give you an idea of what you did wrong and try to make sure we can avoid it in the future. And if I'm convinced that you didn't do anything to break the code of conduct, I'll take care of it.
*The you is the generic "all community members" you, and it almost always is from me, so please don't feel targeted.
We're asking someone to at least acknowledge that there are some legitimate complaints out there and help us find a solution.
I hope you realize that this is counter productive to your impartiality claim, when you fail to seek out all of the information.
Here I'll take one for the team. This happened yesterday: There are links imbedded to my onsite e-mail. Dude is basicly telling me to leave. I've been here for ten years, I have no plans to go anywhere and as this is a free country I can disagree with the company as often as I wish. BTW as of an hour ago he is still posting so I know nothing was done regarding my complaint.
So TB, there was no reason to do that - it was blatant harassing and baiting of another user. And yes, showing that you reported another user to the world is harassing and baiting that user for those who aren't sure. That really served no purpose other than the fan the flames and break the code of conduct.
I'm not saying that ORCs don't make mistakes, or that judgement doesn't go wrong somtimes. What I am saying is that they are very well trained, and those mistakes are the exception by far. When a mistake is pointed out, I will do my best to make sure it is addressed, but I can only do that if you bring it up me - and the best place for that is in PMs.
With all that said - the best help any of us can offer is to be understanding and friendly to others. Insulting another user or their opinion isn't necessary or helpful, and will lead to those back and forth harassment-fests. You can disagree with someone without insluting them or their ideas.
We're asking someone to at least acknowledge that there are some legitimate complaints out there and help us find a solution.
I hope you realize that this is counter productive to your impartiality claim, when you fail to seek out all of the information.
Here I'll take one for the team. This happened yesterday: There are links imbedded to my onsite e-mail. Dude is basicly telling me to leave. I've been here for ten years, I have no plans to go anywhere and as this is a free country I can disagree with the company as often as I wish. BTW as of an hour ago he is still posting so I know nothing was done regarding my complaint.
So TB, there was no reason to do that - it was blatant harassing and baiting of another user. And yes, showing that you reported another user to the world is harassing and baiting that user for those who aren't sure. That really served no purpose other than the fan the flames and break the code of conduct.
I'm not saying that ORCs don't make mistakes, or that judgement doesn't go wrong somtimes. What I am saying is that they are very well trained, and those mistakes are the exception by far. When a mistake is pointed out, I will do my best to make sure it is addressed, but I can only do that if you bring it up me - and the best place for that is in PMs.
With all that said - the best help any of us can offer is to be understanding and friendly to others. Insulting another user or their opinion isn't necessary or helpful, and will lead to those back and forth harassment-fests. You can disagree with someone without insluting them or their ideas.
But if you are banned unfairly, there's no way to send you a PM, unless you make a second account. And isn't that a violation of the ToS?
Because I've tried going this route with Customer Service, both email and on the phone. And each time it's the same. Orcs decisions are irreversible. So, my ban is lifted, and I send a PM, well you don't have a time machine. You can't go back and fix anything.
And like I said earlier. You stepped in, said something and the harassment still continues. I report, the person eventually gets a ban, and creates a new account to continue harassing, until their main account gets restored.
It's not so much you, it's that the system isn't doing anything to stop these kinds of people, and it also can be used against people who really aren't breaking the CoC.
Some written stuff that needs replying to
We don't discuss specific moderation actions in the forums. If you want to PM me about something, I'll do my best to talk about what I can. But I can't discuss what actions we took or didn't take against the reported action, I can't tell you who reported you or what their emotional state might have been.
If you PM me about some moderation action that happened to you, I'll do my best to try to give you an idea of what you did wrong and try to make sure we can avoid it in the future. And if I'm convinced that you didn't do anything to break the code of conduct, I'll take care of it.
*The you is the generic "all community members" you, and it almost always is from me, so please don't feel targeted.
Fair enough. Thank you, sir.
