57025236 wrote:
I'm going to try to give a little clarity on this issue if I can
It's true that mentioning illegal activities, even in a jesting manner, can get you actioned, it's not going to get you actioned 100% of the time. There are situations where it could be acceptable, but as with other things, I'm afraid I can't really narrow down the dividing line here.
Another thing to consider is that it has always been true that what is acceptable for wizards.com articles may not always be suitable for our community. For example, we have some D&D products which can deal with subject matters that are not suitable for discussion in our community. This has been the rules for as long as I remember, and I'm from the days when dino-dragons roamed the earth and it was TSR Online, on AOL (yep, I'm that old).
As for what happened to your friend, Draco, I'm truly sorry that something like that happened in your life, and it's definitely a tragedy, no question. I am also a parent, so I understand completely. Given the sensitivity of the subject we have forwarded this feedback on to the wizards.com editorial team.
You can also file additional feedback via the help site, as always.
As to Trevor's not replying to your PMs, he asked me to mention that due to his recent illness his PM box is overflowing. He simply missed your PM and he's working on catching up as best he can.
Anyway, I hope that clears a few things up,
Monica
While a reasonable person might not expect such associations to be made by users—even underage ones—the existence of this thread, as well as the repeated call by a small segment of the forum community for an absolute, unwavering standard of forum moderation proves otherwise.
Or maybe that’ll be the subject of my next blog post.
... the repeated call by a small segment of the forum community for an absolute, unwavering standard of forum moderation proves otherwise.
If by "absolute, unwavering standard" you mean an unambigious, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard, then I agree.
Or maybe that’ll be the subject of my next blog post.
I'm sure it will be...
It's true that mentioning illegal activities, even in a jesting manner, can get you actioned, it's not going to get you actioned 100% of the time. There are situations where it could be acceptable, but as with other things, I'm afraid I can't really narrow down the dividing line here.
Wow.
Really?
That's not what was previously said.
Also, who decides if it is actionable or not?
This helps out not at all. You say it may get you actioned, even if it violates the CoC, but then again, it may not get you actioned... even though it is still a CoC violation. And it all depends on the situation... some of which may even be acceptable... even though it is still a CoC violation.
What?
The people responsible for it should be ashamed of themselves.
Where were the complains about the BoVD?If by "absolute, unwavering standard" you mean an unambigious, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard, then I agree.
No, I don't think you do.
We already have an "unambigious, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard."
A standard, mind, that's been further clarified and detailed by CM's many patient--and often repeated, over and over--responses on the Community Business Forum.
Any reasonable person who is familiar with the back and forth on the Community Business Forum between the House of Trolls (that is, those of you active here on ComBiz that are driving the conversation) and CM knows HoT want something different.
We already have an "unambigious, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard."
No. We don't.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have these threads and the problems they address.
A standard, mind, that's been further clarified and detailed by CM's many patient--and often repeated, over and over--responses on the Community Business Forum.
No, not really. They have tried to explain things, but far from being clear and detailed, as is evidenced by the posts in the various ComBiz threads and the problems they address.
Any reasonable person who is familiar with the back and forth on the Community Business Forum between the House of Trolls (that is, those of you active here on ComBiz that are driving the conversation) and CM knows HoT want something different.
Heh...
Covertly implying that I, or any member of the OTT, is an unreasonable person is baiting, as is calling "us" a "House of Trolls".
And we don't want "something different". And how are you able to speak for CM? Also, how are you able to speak for the HoT and what they want?
In short, many don't see it the way you do.
*shrug*
______________
*Just a note about HoT: we didn't make that up. Someone decided to call us that and we embraced it as a joke in part to show there's no ill will between us and the person that coined the term. All that has been squashed thanks to some quite pleasant PM conversations. But yeah, it's not some sort of actual decree of intent. Not even close.
No. We don't.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have these threads and the problems they address.
You know what, you're mostly right.
To a degree, the system isn't perfect. However, based on the complaints from your average HoT member active on the ComBiz forum, I think what you consider an "unambigious, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard" to be is far from what I think a reasonable person (that is, typical forum user) considers it to be.
No, not really. They have tried to explain things, but far from being clear and detailed, as is evidenced by the posts in the various ComBiz threads and the problems they address.
You might want to re-read those posts.
They are in fact quite clear.
They are in fact detailed.
Several of them consist of CM basically repeating themselves because HoT members keep asking the same questions that have already been answered.
Do you see CM's desire to not create a specific moderation policy for every conceivable situation under the sun as evidence of a lack of detail on their part?
Covertly implying that I, or any member of the OTT, is an unreasonable person is baiting,
Disagreeing with you is not "covertly implying" you're unreasonable.
...as is calling "us" a "House of Trolls".
Not so fast. I wrote "the House of Trolls." I didn't call you "a House of Trolls."
I'm surprised you feel free to write "the House of Trolls" and talk about its members, but presume anyone else who does so is baiting you.
Really, that makes no sense at all.
Either the House of Trolls exists or it doesn't.
Which is it?
And we don't want "something different".
Like I said, anyone who has watched the conversation between the House of Trolls and CM would conclude that's probably not true; at the very least contradictory.
I'm not telling you what you're thinking, I'm just telling you what you write doesn't support the claim that you don't want "something different".
And how are you able to speak for CM?
What makes you think I was?
Also, how are you able to speak for the HoT and what they want?
I don't speak for the HoT, but then again I never claimed to.
Again, I don't claim to know what you want, but I do see how many in the HoT say one thing, then do something else. How? Because I've read post after post from HoT members and corresponded with at least one HoT member by Private Message.
Saying there's a contradiction isn't me speaking for anyone else. It's me speaking for me.
To a degree, the system isn't perfect. However, based on the complaints from your average HoT member active on the ComBiz forum, I think what you consider an "unambigious, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard" to be is far from what I think a reasonable person (that is, typical forum user) considers it to be.
ICwutudidthar. Cute.
Another thing to consider is that it has always been true that what is acceptable for wizards.com articles may not always be suitable for our community. For example, we have some D&D products which can deal with subject matters that are not suitable for discussion in our community. This has been the rules for as long as I remember, and I'm from the days when dino-dragons roamed the earth and it was TSR Online, on AOL (yep, I'm that old).
I understand that, to some degree. But you* purport these forums to be "kid friendly", so a joke about kidnapping I found beyond the pale. Oh, and if I'd had a computer back then, I would have been around that long, too. :cube:
*"you" being the overall, generalistic use for WotC
As for what happened to your friend, Draco, I'm truly sorry that something like that happened in your life, and it's definitely a tragedy, no question. I am also a parent, so I understand completely. Given the sensitivity of the subject we have forwarded this feedback on to the wizards.com editorial team.
Thank you. Believe or not (lookin' at you, Bay Area), that's all I really wanted. Just SOMEONE to say "Hey, maybe that did go a little too far."
Kidnapping is a serious matter, and should be treated as such. If you want to joke about it in private among yourselves, that's your business, but for a family-oriented company to make jokes about such a thing publicly is downright obscene.
Like I said in the group, it's a different situation. Not only is the BoVD not advertised as "kid friendly", there's a disclaimer on the cover saying that it's for "mature readers" only. That and I've never read it.
Odd. I'm pretty sure that I said in the OP that I was only writing publicly because I was feeling privately ignored.
I'm pretty sure I didn't speak to what you're talking about (i.e. your choice to go public since you felt ignored) at all.
So I find it odd you'd think it relevant.
Regardless, the post of mine you quoted was made in response to Thunder's statement in the thread and not your opening statement.
His post made it seem like your concerns overlapped and coincided with his.
FWIW, my reading comprehension is pretty good. But if I make a mistake, I'm sure you'll let me know.
Odd. I'm pretty sure that I said in the OP that I was only writing publicly because I was feeling privately ignored.
I'm pretty sure I didn't speak to what you're talking about (i.e. your choice to go public since you felt ignored) at all.
So I find it odd you'd think it relevant.
Hmm. Better write that blog quick. I think I need it, too.
No. We don't.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have these threads and the problems they address.
You know what, you're mostly right.
To a degree, the system isn't perfect. However, based on the complaints from your average HoT member active on the ComBiz forum, I think what you consider an "unambigious, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard" to be is far from what I think a reasonable person (that is, typical forum user) considers it to be.
And again there you go insinuating that I, personally, and any OTTer that feels the same way I do, are "unreasonable".
And that is your opinion. Myself and others have a different view of things.
No, not really. They have tried to explain things, but far from being clear and detailed, as is evidenced by the posts in the various ComBiz threads and the problems they address.
You might want to re-read those posts.
They are in fact quite clear.
They are in fact detailed.
Several of them consist of CM basically repeating themselves because HoT members keep asking the same questions that have already been answered.
They haven't answered many questions to satisfaction. And everytime they answer a question, the answer changes. Nothing is as clear as it should be. Another reason we have these threads in ComBiz.
Covertly implying that I, or any member of the OTT, is an unreasonable person is baiting,
Disagreeing with you is not "covertly implying" you're unreasonable....as is calling "us" a "House of Trolls".
Not so fast. I wrote "the House of Trolls." I didn't call you "a House of Trolls."
You didn't disagree with me. You stated that a reasonable person would see things the way you are describing them, indirectly insinuating that I, and other OTTers are "unreasonable"... because we don't see things the way you do.
Nice try though.
And you are the one that started calling us a House of Trolls, although we didn't take the bait.
And how are you able to speak for CM?
What makes you think I was?
Because you said this...
"Any reasonable person who is familiar with the back and forth on the Community Business Forum between the House of Trolls (that is, those of you active here on ComBiz that are driving the conversation) and CM knows HoT want something different."
And again there you go insinuating that I, personally, and any OTTer that feels the same way I do, are "unreasonable".
It’s pretty clear from my exchange with Zombie_Babies that this isn’t the case.
Just because ***I*** think your average forum user would define “unambiguous, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard” in a way different than you, personally, as well as in a way different than what most HoT members active in ComBiz would is not proof that I think you, personally, or any HoT member active in ComBiz, are unreasonable.
It just means I think we probably define the term “unambiguous, coherent, clear, and equally enforced standard” differently.
If or when you’d like to create your own definition for the phrase, I’m all ears.
They haven't answered many questions to satisfaction. And every time they answer a question, the answer changes. Nothing is as clear as it should be. Another reason we have these threads in ComBiz.
OK, here’s what I see:
I see HoT members in ComBiz asking the same small set of questions from several different angles.
I see CM answer these questions, but then just about nobody from HoT active in the discussion seems to be able to remember the particulars of what CM just said beyond the length of time it takes to read the CM response.
I see HoT relinquishing their lead position at the forefront of a productive, useful conversation with CM to unearth the particulars of how moderation works and correct the mistakes CM/ORCs have made.
From my point of view, I see more and more HoT spending equal time doing something else besides being leaders. It's like they're making a game out of giving CM headaches, whether it’s nitpicking CM responses, finding corner cases (like the bizarre [again, to me/in my opinion] claim that Wizards is inconsistent since a gaming product they published doesn’t follow their forum Code of Conduct, as though such things as editorial policies don’t exist), or running CM in circles by forcing them to repeatedly cover the same ground due to HoT member’s selective memory loss.
Again, I’m not saying why you’re doing what you’re doing. I’m not telling you that you are all unreasonable. I"m not presenting these observations as facts.
I’m just trying to tell you what *I* see.
You didn't disagree with me.
Yes, I did.
Re-read post #9, please.
And you are the one that started calling us a House of Trolls, although we didn't take the bait.
I’ve looked. Seriously, I’m trying to find this. But all I can find are instances where I talk about the House of Trolls in the same sense that you do.
Can you find the quote where I did this? Or at least attempt to re-read the thread with the sense of where I’m coming from firmly in your mind when you read my use of the phrase “House of Trolls”?
Because you said this..."Any reasonable person who is familiar with the back and forth on the Community Business Forum between the House of Trolls (that is, those of you active here on ComBiz that are driving the conversation) and CM knows HoT want something different."
Well, the HoT is having a rather long discussion with CM here on ComBiz.
It’s not an exclusive conversation as we’re all welcome to participate, but there’s no mistaking who’s driving it.
Both sides are talking, but everyone is watching. If I talk about that conversation, share my opinions on it or even criticize it, how does that prove I’m speaking for CM?
With that, I’m bowing out of this thread.
I’ll close by saying there’s no denying HoT’s aggressive questioning (sometimes friendly, sometimes not) and analysis of CM’s responses in the “What warn or ban thread” have caused a great deal of heretofore unknown information about how the moderation system works to come to light.
Likewise, HoT's questions and critiques have exposed errors and flaws in the ORC/CM system that CM has owned up to and made efforts to correct.
For that, the HoT deserves credit and the thanks of the wider forum community. You’ve made the forum experience better for everyone and I, for one, appreciate it.
You didn't disagree with me.
Yes, I did.Re-read post #9, please.
You disagree with yourself often?
[...]something that makes clear there are certain assumptions and associations about the Code of Conduct one should not make. (I.e. the idea that the Code of Conduct for the Forums somehow governs Wizards’ editorial policy.) While a reasonable person might not expect such associations to be made by users[...]
An old heuristic comes to mind.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
That is, among humban beings it's a common assumption that if it's acceptable for Joe to do X, then Jane should be able to do X as well. One might even say that this belief is one of the core tenants of many modern free societies, that rules and laws should be applied equally.
So I'm not sure I accept your notion that it should be immediately obvious that it's unacceptable for posters to say the same thing WotC's paid writers say.
That said, yes, a FAQ would be simply delightful. Because there's many parts of the CoC that are unclear. For example, you would not divine that "disruption" is a clause that can be attributed to starting a new thread that gets no resonses in the appropriate forum, or that harassment is permissable depending on who it is doing the harassing, or that many topics are acceptable if you frame them in the context of a game but if you talk about the topic itself that it suddenly becomes taboo.
Or, for that matter, that when the Off Topic Tavern's label says "for any topic" what it means is "any light-hearted topic".
A simple FAQ to provide context and clarity to the CoC is something I've been requesting for quite some time now. I bid you good luck in any endeavors to achieve one. Preferrably one that is linked to in the CoC itself so that one cannot easily miss the FAQ if they jump to the Code of Conduct link at the bottom (a failing of many "stickied" posts).
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
[...]
I'm not sure I accept your notion that it should be immediately obvious that it's unacceptable for posters to say the same thing WotC's paid writers say.
All of this is true. But the analogy, while illustrating the content does not capture the context of the reality. The difference that I understood from Dragonette's reply lies not in *who* is saying something, but rather, in *where* they are saying it.
An article on the website is not the same as a discussion in the Forums. What an author might say in an article on the game product website is governed by editorial policy. WotC employees have to follow that policy for articles.
A post on the public forums is governed by a different policy -- the Code of Conduct. All of us, even WotC employees, have to abide by that policy. If the WotC employee had posted the same article on these Boards, it could be reported and would probably be "actioned". In this case, the goose (a WotC employee) and the gander (we non-employee forum members) have to follow the same policy on the Boards.
The complaint seems to be that WotC employees on the website are governed by a different set of rules than the posters on the Forums. Well, that's true. Different place, different rules. Just like the difference in rules at Grandma's house and mine.
The complaint seems to be that WotC employees on the website are governed by a different set of rules than the posters on the Forums. Well, that's true. Different place, different rules. Just like the difference in rules at Grandma's house and mine.
Actually, the complaint is that WotC chooses to see kidnapping as a
joke.The complaint seems to be that WotC employees on the website are governed by a different set of rules than the posters on the Forums. Well, that's true. Different place, different rules. Just like the difference in rules at Grandma's house and mine.
Actually, the complaint is that WotC chooses to see kidnapping as a
Then it has nothing to do with the forums, because that joke wasn't uttered on the forums, but in the online article. So if your complaint is that an online article is offensive, complaining about it in the context of forum moderation is misplaced.
You've clearly made your objection known to Customer Service. They didn't do anything about it. That's pretty much the end of it, I think.
Except that your initial post is trying to make some sort of connction between the editorial policy between online articles and the editorial policy of these forums. So your complaint on this thread was, just as Seeker said, a complaint that the online articles are governed by different standards than the forums.
[spoiler]
As for the kidnapping is a joke bit: explain that to JL Dougarrd. I'm sure she will appreciate some gaming company making fun of her last 18 years. I took exception to the article for many of the same reasons that Draco did, first and formost this person who I went to school with. [spoiler]
Regardless, the complaint is still misplaced here. You clearly complained to CS. They received the complaint. Nothing was done. If you find yourself so emotionally charged by their failure to be more sensitive your complaint that you are simply unable to confine your complaint to the proper channel, maybe it's time to take a break from the forums.
If you find yourself so emotionally charged by their failure to be more sensitive your complaint that you are simply unable to confine your complaint to the proper channel, maybe it's time to take a break from the forums.
I thought about responding to this like the bait that it is. Instead, I'll just say "Great idea! Peace out!"
If you find yourself so emotionally charged by their failure to be more sensitive your complaint that you are simply unable to confine your complaint to the proper channel, maybe it's time to take a break from the forums.
Very well said. Considering it's wrecan that wrote the above, the suggestion ought to be taken seriously.
It's like the advice I give in my WotC, their products, their forums: if you’re doing one or more of the following, then you’re doing it wrong blog post.
To wit: (If you) Have an emotional hat in the game. If you find yourself constantly getting emotional and/or prickly with other forum members about a product, then you have a deeper problem. Leave the forums...
Really, take a break. Won't hurt anything and can only help. Since our messages are all in a written form, we ought to accept the idea that good advice for aspiring and published writers also applies to us as forum users.
Many a writer has been advised (and will give advice) that it's a good idea to step away every now and then.
And yeah, I know I said I was done, but wrecan's statement deserves special notice because many a forum member can benefit from it, provided they choose to take it with the same high level of seriousness with which it was written.