I have noticed quite a few posts being deleted but there is no editing of the posts that responded to them. What is up with that? One post started with a quote and the accompanied name, time, and date with a part of the post being quoted. Then several chunks of the quoted post were broken into individual quotes without the added info (noriginally posted by, time, date). They were ther typical generic quote. There was enough in there that I wondered why the original post was not edited rather than deleted. And, why was not the responding post removed also since it was entirely responding to a post that was removed?
This bugs me because there is a new filter (new for a few months now...) at work that keeps the computers from accessing anything it tags as being "games". So, now I can't read it at work and I come home to find fragments of a post being quoted but can't find the actual post to read for myself without viewing it through the eyes of the responder.
What gives?
Anybody?
I have noticed quite a few posts being deleted but there is no editing of the posts that responded to them. What is up with that? One post started with a quote and the accompanied name, time, and date with a part of the post being quoted. Then several chunks of the quoted post were broken into individual quotes without the added info (noriginally posted by, time, date). They were ther typical generic quote. There was enough in there that I wondered why the original post was not edited rather than deleted. And, why was not the responding post removed also since it was entirely responding to a post that was removed?
This bugs me because there is a new filter (new for a few months now...) at work that keeps the computers from accessing anything it tags as being "games". So, now I can't read it at work and I come home to find fragments of a post being quoted but can't find the actual post to read for myself without viewing it through the eyes of the responder.
What gives?
Anybody?
What probably is happening is that the person breaking up the quote is not copying and pasting the original ]user=234234123 post=2342342342[ part and instead is just typing ]quote[. This would cause the system to not recognize it. but like many things in life this is just an educated guest.
@ lokiare
At the beginning the information is all included. So, the post will start with a previous quote saying something like this: "Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:50PM, RUMPLESTIX wrote:" But, a casual view of the thread will show that the post is no longer there. There is a gap without the post between a post before the time and a post after the time.
Can the moderation edit posts the way they did before and leave a calling card within the post or can the moderation just remove posts?
Note about the above post: The post makes it sound like I was referring to my posts that had been deleted with responses left untouched but that is not the case. I was referring to posts that had appeared and disappeared in between time looking at the forums. I was merely using a quote of mine as an example...
@ lokiare
At the beginning the information is all included. So, the post will start with a previous quote saying something like this: "Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:50PM, RUMPLESTIX wrote:" But, a casual view of the thread will show that the post is no longer there. There is a gap without the post between a post before the time and a post after the time.
Can the moderation edit posts the way they did before and leave a calling card within the post or can the moderation just remove posts?
I'm not entirely sure, but I still think you don't understand what I'm saying. When a post is quoted the whole thing is surrounded by [ quote author=58222308 post=347042533 ] quote here [ / quote ]. when someone then breaks up the quoted material they usually just use [ quote ] peice of quote here [ / quote ] instead of the full "author = 58222308 post=347042533" part. Once that happens there is no way for the system to tell if the parts of the quote are from the same user.
@ lokiare
At the beginning the information is all included. So, the post will start with a previous quote saying something like this: "Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:50PM, RUMPLESTIX wrote:" But, a casual view of the thread will show that the post is no longer there. There is a gap without the post between a post before the time and a post after the time.
Can the moderation edit posts the way they did before and leave a calling card within the post or can the moderation just remove posts?
I'm not entirely sure, but I still think you don't understand what I'm saying. When a post is quoted the whole thing is surrounded by [ quote author=58222308 post=347042533 ] quote here [ / quote ]. when someone then breaks up the quoted material they usually just use [ quote ] peice of quote here [ / quote ] instead of the full "author = 58222308 post=347042533" part. Once that happens there is no way for the system to tell if the parts of the quote are from the same user.
But, if they do not remove the parts that are from the deleted post?
Also, within the span of a few minutes or couple hours do you think that deleted posts are erased and that moderation can't read them to compare using the date/time at the beginning of the post?
Yeah, we definately could use some more ORC's or have the VCLs gain a little more power over moderating threads...
The moderation on these forums swings form almost non-existant to extremely heavy handed in very short periods of time. Over the time i have been here I have seen poster get away with racial comments, posting obsene images, threats of violence and trolling so often they have had to create 5 and 6 accounts, and at the most they have received a temp ban (I am still only aware of one permaban - which was thoroughly deserved)
Then again, recently I saw somebody receive a week because he said he would probably find another poster's game a bit boring (and this is from a poster who is usually well liked by most people on here and I have only rarely seen get baited into edition wars etc)
Sometimes i think certain people get away with some stuff because the mods don't want to be seen supporting one side or the other in the little edition war that went on in general especially. But this only works to go so far.. how long did it take for the rampart trolling to calm down there? and it still flares up on a regular basis.
The moderation should be very black and white, i now there are grey areas, but the examples given above don't even really fall into these grey areas, but they were treated as such. Perhaps a list of "examples" should be drawn up, with what amounts to a mandatory sentence attached to it. That way it is fair, everyone knows the rules, and no posters can be favoured over other posters.
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Judging from the "post=347132897" part of the quote system, yes it should link directly to the post, as to the other parts I don't know without dissecting the code.
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Judging from the "post=347132897" part of the quote system, yes it should link directly to the post, as to the other parts I don't know without dissecting the code.
Maybe that is a bug in the system because I can access a profile but not the original quote. Am I just missing a link somewhere?
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Judging from the "post=347132897" part of the quote system, yes it should link directly to the post, as to the other parts I don't know without dissecting the code.
Maybe that is a bug in the system because I can access a profile but not the original quote. Am I just missing a link somewhere?
I don't think you are missing anything, I think lokaire is stating how he thinks it should work, not how it is currently working. As it stands now, clicking a name in a quote links to the persons profile, not the post that was quoted (Don't know why, It would be more practical to link to the post, as lokaire suggests, but thats not how it works At the Moment)
Perhaps a list of "examples" should be drawn up, with what amounts to a mandatory sentence attached to it. That way it is fair, everyone knows the rules, and no posters can be favoured over other posters.
As explained by the Orcs themselves..that won't happen because then you would have folks looking for loop holes to abuse....
Perhaps a list of "examples" should be drawn up, with what amounts to a mandatory sentence attached to it. That way it is fair, everyone knows the rules, and no posters can be favoured over other posters.
As explained by the Orcs themselves..that won't happen because then you would have folks looking for loop holes to abuse....
Given what I have already seen occur in the past, there are already loopholes, and they are being abused, either that or the orcs themselves struggle with comprehending and enforcing the CoC.
That's actually not true. All ORCs receive the same training.
Just because the moderators won't get rid of the people "you" don't like, doeesn't mean they're bad moderators. 
(The other side of the coin, just because the moderators won't allow "you" to run amok and break all the rules means they're awesome moderators.)
(Use of "you" is in general terms, not aimed at anyone in particular.)
Right...
And when they let pro 4e people bait and flame the haters, the haters are the ones who get rides on the banned wagon and have their posts deleted when they retort.
Nothing you can say or do is going to convince me that there is not bias and favoritism involved.
Well, since nothing said or done can change your mind, I suppose it would be fair to say nothing you say or do can prove there is bias at all.
When you dig that deep into a position, then it's pointless to even have a discussion. Then things don't change or improve. And that's a shame.
Nobody got a free ride. Flaming and baiting isn't allowed. But who is going to break the rules more? People that are happy, or people that are unhappy? Who's going to drop the f bomb? Did pro 4e people invade the previous edition board and post negatively on every single pro 3e thread, or did "haters" invade the 4e boards and post negatively on every single pro 4e thread?
Folks on BOTH sides of the "edition war" got warnings and/or bans. Denying and ignoring that fact won't make it untrue or disappear.
Right...
And when they let pro 4e people bait and flame the haters, the haters are the ones who get rides on the banned wagon and have their posts deleted when they retort.
Nothing you can say or do is going to convince me that there is not bias and favoritism involved.
Well, since nothing said or done can change your mind, I suppose it would be fair to say nothing you say or do can prove there is bias at all.
When you dig that deep into a position, then it's pointless to even have a discussion. Then things don't change or improve. And that's a shame.
Nobody got a free ride. Flaming and baiting isn't allowed. But who is going to break the rules more? People that are happy, or people that are unhappy? Who's going to drop the f bomb? Did pro 4e people invade the previous edition board and post negatively on every single pro 3e thread, or did "haters" invade the 4e boards and post negatively on every single pro 4e thread?
Folks on BOTH sides of the "edition war" got warnings and/or bans. Denying and ignoring that fact won't make it untrue or disappear.
Are you saying that pro 4e people on the old forums didn't bash3.x?!
Are you really saying that?!
And, consequently, there is no way for you to prove there isn't bias or favoritism. And besides, I wouldn't expect you to see it anyway.
Sure, both sides got rides on the banned wagon or whatever, but the haters get it more often and for lesser offenses.
I am a prime example of it.
Webster, I really don't mind you, and hold no grudges, but I believe I am right here.
Well, you aren't right. Pro 4e people were banned, and there is no bias. If you violate the CoC, you are punished, usually with a suspension , or possibly ban.
"Haters", as you put it, don't "get it more often". Also, if, as this post seems to allude to, if you're a hater, and you're only here to be antagonistic and cause trouble, you deserve to be suspended or banned.
Right...
And when they let pro 4e people bait and flame the haters, the haters are the ones who get rides on the banned wagon and have their posts deleted when they retort.
Nothing you can say or do is going to convince me that there is not bias and favoritism involved.
Yes, because being biased about a subjective opinion of bias certainly isn't hypocritical at all, Hated. ',: S
I never experience this one-sidedness some people espouse; I don't get that. I'm on General all the time, and the most I see is someone getting into it with people who disagree with them (generally making it personal when it gets moderated) and then the whole thing escalates until the Mods step in. Since haters tend to be the most vocal (with a few exceptions), they tend to make the broad, subjective statements first (again, this is just in my experience). People Flame them, and then, rather than anyone Reporting the Flaming (because it's generally 1 or 2 haters versus the entire 4E Boards :S), they attack back, then they are Reported, and then they get Moderated. I know plenty of pro-4E people who've been Moderated (haven't all the 4vengers been banned at one point or another?), including myself quite a few times, and since this is the type of behavior and the causes and effects of people's actions that I've seen, again, I can't say I've seen too much bias from the ORCs.
YMMV
EDIT: Oh, and no, there were not many cases of 4E-supporters going to the Previous Editions Boards and just randomly posting in every Thread they could find that everyone there was a childish Diablo-lover. On the 4E Boards, however, I'm pretty sure there was a time where that did happen, but with WoW instead of Diablo, of course. Web's right here; people who are happy with something don't go out of their way to antagonize others, except for those few who basically try to crush their happiness by explaining how wrong they are. Unhappy people, on the other hand...well, "misery loves company," as the saying goes.
Stop hijacking my thread guys! :-)
Just because the moderators won't get rid of the people "you" don't like, doeesn't mean they're bad moderators.
(The other side of the coin, just because the moderators won't allow "you" to run amok and break all the rules means they're awesome moderators.)
(Use of "you" is in general terms, not aimed at anyone in particular.)
This thread is about something completely different however.
It is about an entire post being deleted but not posts that respopnded to it with (at least a significant part of) the deleted post in quotes. And beginning with the tags that give the user and post numbers.
If a post is so bad that it needs to be deleted in its entirety then why is a post that responds to it with a significant portion included within quotes left untouched even after being reported that it is left in?
This is a messageboard which often contains nested quotes. How can we have any trust in what we read if moderation will remove the original post but leave the response with no way for us to track down the original and verify?
Is the new system more difficult to use when trying to track down responses to posts? Without the ability to follow the quote to the original (other than looking at te date and time and flipping through the pages until I find it...) I have no way to verify and determine for myself te accuracy of the post that remains.
Yet, I will be in trouble if I ask it to be reposted or if I get it via pm and then use it to challenge the post that remains with the quoted material.
If a post is deleted in its entirety then posts that respond to it with material from it in quotes should also be deleted. Why is that only sporadically happening.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
I am speaking of instances where there are a couple hours in between. In other words, there is a quoted post that is missing and there is a few hours (and a number of posts) difference between the time stamp on the post that quoted the deleted one and the post by the ORC.
Further, I did report it and received no response to it.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
I am speaking of instances where there are a couple hours in between. In other words, there is a quoted post that is missing and there is a few hours (and a number of posts) difference between the time stamp on the post that quoted the deleted one and the post by the ORC.
Further, I did report it and received no response to it.
They are probably too busy dealing with all of my posts.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
I am speaking of instances where there are a couple hours in between. In other words, there is a quoted post that is missing and there is a few hours (and a number of posts) difference between the time stamp on the post that quoted the deleted one and the post by the ORC.
Further, I did report it and received no response to it.
They are probably too busy dealing with all of my posts.
ROFL
Actually yours are tame compared to what I have been referring. Unless, of course, you are referring to some terrible deleted posts that I never had the opportunity to see. :-)
Well what do you know!
Another example...
I posted something, calling no names, just giving my opinion about something. Another pro 4e poster replies to my post with baiting and harrassment. I report it.
Both of our posts get deleted.
End of story.
Actually the person I was referring to who got the week for saying he thought he would fins another posters game boring, is a pro 4th ed poster. He is one of the more moderate 4th ed posters, and rarely looses his temper when posting, but he is pro 4th ed and he got banned.. so.. i don;t believe their is bias, I just question the consistency.
Apologies Rumplestix.. i will bow out here! 
Well what do you know!
This could be considered baiting. it is certainly an aggressively toned statement intended to draw attention (and possibly a response). Did you realize it could come off as such?
Another example...
I posted something, calling no names, just giving my opinion about something. Another pro 4e poster replies to my post with baiting and harrassment. I report it.
Was your opinion being given relevant to the discussion? could it have lead to the topic being derailed into an edition war? you don't need to call people names, even being polite, for your post to be disruptive. you didn't get banned for the removal of the post, so it's more likely that it was removed in order to prevent a thread derailment (I have seen several of you and others posts not entirely unreasonable posts (AKA: shouldn't be modded) in utterly inappropriate threads (for the opinion stated), where the only logical outcome will be derailment of the original topic (I've even fallen for it a few times)
End of story.
Truth is, without knowing what thread you posted in, what was said by you (word for word) and whether there were other posts also deleted beyond yours and the one responding to you, (but as posting all that info would likely be a violation, don't (i'm honestly not interested anyways)) there really is no story to end.
This could be considered baiting. it is certainly an aggressively toned statement intended to draw attention (and possibly a response). Did you realize it could come off as such?
No it couldn't; the ORCs never punish sarcasm, as tone and the like are notoriously hard to define on the Internet.
There is bias and favoritism, but most likely not to the degree I was insinuating.
No, there isn't, and repeating it over and over again isn't going to make it true. If someone violates the CoC, they are suspended or banned. Those are the rules. It doesn't matter what "side" of the "edition war" they're on. Indeed, that is completely irrelevant when the mods decides which posts to edit or delete, and which people to ban.
Oh, and as you should know, I have a reserved seat on the banned wagon... seeing as how often I ride it.
Yeah, and how often you, "ride the banned wagon", as you so elegantly put it (as though it's something to be proud of), is nothing to do with your stance on 4e. Indeed, your stance on D&D is one of apathy, one of, "I don't play it, so I don't care". So your (admitted) repeated bannings (in the past*) can't be anything to do with the edition war.
No, your bannings are because you, in the past*, spoke, and indeed started, several topics discussing religion and politics, and made many many posts that discussed politics, and discriminated against certain political groups and the people affiliated with them.
I understand that you have your opinion about these particular groups and the people that support them, and that you have the right to free speech, but when you joined these forums, you agreed to adhere to a Code of Conduct. It was made clear in the Code of Conduct that you agreed to follow, that discussion or mention of certain topics were unacceptable, and these topics included religion and politics, which you have repeatedly engaged, or tried to engage, in. In addition, the CoC also stated that you agreed to a term of suspension, or prehaps a ban, if you engaged these topics.
The victim card does not work here. You violated the CoC, and you were suspended for it. It's that simple, and it would apply to anyone else, just the same way it applies to you.
* I say, "In the past", because I have yet to see any evidence of you doing this since the new forums opened up.
No, there isn't
Yes there is.
As I said before, saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
In any case, can you find any proof to support your claims, or are they completely baseless (and therefore biased, and thus, hypocritical)?
No, there isn't
Yes there is.
As I said before, saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
In any case, can you find any proof to support your claims, or are they completely baseless (and therefore biased, and thus, hypocritical)?
It is impossible to involve humans in things and not have any bias. However, I believe that hated is taking things a little bit out of proportion.
Are you sure?
Maybe I just haven't said it long enough....
Said what? :P
Sam, back to your old tricks I see... calling me names and attacking me ...
Again, it is my perception... nothing more. Feel free to disagree, but stop calling people names and baiting them. It doesn't make you look very good...
Ah, I see how this works. All I have to do is hide behind the "Its my perception" arguement and I can say pretty much anything I want.
Well its my perception and feel free to disagree that you are a very biased hypocrite that hides behind the "Im just defending 3.5 because no one else will" and using it to troll the 4e forums. The term "criticism" to you means "lets harass the devs and just call it that because we like attacking people"
but then again thats only my perception... so I guess baiting people by just retreating back behind this "its my opinion" and calling other's opinions baiting isnt as honorable as well. it makes you look bad.
Sam, back to your old tricks I see... calling me names and attacking me ...
Again, it is my perception... nothing more. Feel free to disagree, but stop calling people names and baiting them. It doesn't make you look very good...
Ah, I see how this works. All I have to do is hide behind the "Its my perception" arguement and I can say pretty much anything I want.
Well its my perception and feel free to disagree that you are a very biased hypocrite that hides behind the "Im just defending 3.5 because no one else will" and using it to troll the 4e forums. The term "criticism" to you means "lets harass the devs and just call it that because we like attacking people"
but then again thats only my perception... so I guess baiting people by just retreating back behind this "its my opinion" and calling other's opinions baiting isnt as honorable as well. it makes you look bad.
Incorrect conclusions.
There is nothing in the the CoC that says you must support your opinions about the products.
However, this is specifically in the CoC:
3. Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. For example:
• Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information)
Calling someone a hypocrit is a personal attack. Although it might be a close call, it would be better to say that something is a hypocritical argument or even better that two arguments being made contradict each other. However, just calling someone a hypocrit is a personal attack. It is a derogatory remark made with the intention of reducing the respect given to a person as well as their ideas.
And calling the VCL's biased and prone to favouritism with nothing to back the claim is also a personal attack. It is attacking their judgement, motivations and character (not their product). The fact HATED feel justified in making such unfounded attacks, yet crys foul and tells Sam not to attack him in response is very much hypocritical (and is thus support for calling him a hypocrite. Significantly more then HATED has provided for his personal attacks against the VCL's). Beyond the hypocrite comment, Sam's statement seems to be his perception of HATED's method of arguing, and is no different then HATED's perception of the ORC's and VCL's motives. If Sam is guilty of Violating the CoC, so is HATED, not only for derailing this thread with his personal, off topic opinions, despite your requests not to, but also for his personal attacks on the VCL's... But then, if they did anything about his posts, he would just take it as further evidence against a perceived bias against him. He is taking advantage of the nature of this thread (being about VCL moderation) to make personal attacks against the VCL's, and if they act on it, he can claim they are taking it personally and acting in a biased manner, and if they don't act on it, he has been given free rein to do what he wants. Even you have to see the rock vs hard place the VCLs have been put in here, and given your opinions on CoC violations (between this thread and the one on private groups), I would not be surprised to see you personally request this thread be closed (as the thread OP) to grant the VCL's a reasonable, fair way to end this flamewar.
... I would not be surprised to see you personally request this thread be closed (as the thread OP) to grant the VCL's a reasonable, fair way to end this flamewar.
Thank you Rumple.
Actually, one of the reasons that I started this was that I was not sure if edits could be made by moderation rather than just deletes. I have learned that they can. It appears that no one has a good reason (IMO) as to why quotes taken from a post that was later deleted were not themselves deleted or edited. So, some of what I asked has been answered and the rest will probably get no answer. So, yes, I think it might be time for a close.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: ww2.wizards.com/Company/Misc/Index.aspx?... You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.
I have noticed quite a few posts being deleted but there is no editing of the posts that responded to them. What is up with that? One post started with a quote and the accompanied name, time, and date with a part of the post being quoted. Then several chunks of the quoted post were broken into individual quotes without the added info (noriginally posted by, time, date). They were ther typical generic quote. There was enough in there that I wondered why the original post was not edited rather than deleted. And, why was not the responding post removed also since it was entirely responding to a post that was removed?
This bugs me because there is a new filter (new for a few months now...) at work that keeps the computers from accessing anything it tags as being "games". So, now I can't read it at work and I come home to find fragments of a post being quoted but can't find the actual post to read for myself without viewing it through the eyes of the responder.
What gives?
Anybody?
What probably is happening is that the person breaking up the quote is not copying and pasting the original ]user=234234123 post=2342342342[ part and instead is just typing ]quote[. This would cause the system to not recognize it. but like many things in life this is just an educated guest.
@ lokiare
At the beginning the information is all included. So, the post will start with a previous quote saying something like this: "Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:50PM, RUMPLESTIX wrote:" But, a casual view of the thread will show that the post is no longer there. There is a gap without the post between a post before the time and a post after the time.
Can the moderation edit posts the way they did before and leave a calling card within the post or can the moderation just remove posts?
Note about the above post: The post makes it sound like I was referring to my posts that had been deleted with responses left untouched but that is not the case. I was referring to posts that had appeared and disappeared in between time looking at the forums. I was merely using a quote of mine as an example...
@ lokiare
At the beginning the information is all included. So, the post will start with a previous quote saying something like this: "Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:50PM, RUMPLESTIX wrote:" But, a casual view of the thread will show that the post is no longer there. There is a gap without the post between a post before the time and a post after the time.
Can the moderation edit posts the way they did before and leave a calling card within the post or can the moderation just remove posts?
I'm not entirely sure, but I still think you don't understand what I'm saying. When a post is quoted the whole thing is surrounded by [ quote author=58222308 post=347042533 ] quote here [ / quote ]. when someone then breaks up the quoted material they usually just use [ quote ] peice of quote here [ / quote ] instead of the full "author = 58222308 post=347042533" part. Once that happens there is no way for the system to tell if the parts of the quote are from the same user.
@ lokiare
At the beginning the information is all included. So, the post will start with a previous quote saying something like this: "Sep 17, 2009 -- 8:50PM, RUMPLESTIX wrote:" But, a casual view of the thread will show that the post is no longer there. There is a gap without the post between a post before the time and a post after the time.
Can the moderation edit posts the way they did before and leave a calling card within the post or can the moderation just remove posts?
I'm not entirely sure, but I still think you don't understand what I'm saying. When a post is quoted the whole thing is surrounded by [ quote author=58222308 post=347042533 ] quote here [ / quote ]. when someone then breaks up the quoted material they usually just use [ quote ] peice of quote here [ / quote ] instead of the full "author = 58222308 post=347042533" part. Once that happens there is no way for the system to tell if the parts of the quote are from the same user.
But, if they do not remove the parts that are from the deleted post?
Also, within the span of a few minutes or couple hours do you think that deleted posts are erased and that moderation can't read them to compare using the date/time at the beginning of the post?
Yeah, we definately could use some more ORC's or have the VCLs gain a little more power over moderating threads...
The moderation on these forums swings form almost non-existant to extremely heavy handed in very short periods of time. Over the time i have been here I have seen poster get away with racial comments, posting obsene images, threats of violence and trolling so often they have had to create 5 and 6 accounts, and at the most they have received a temp ban (I am still only aware of one permaban - which was thoroughly deserved)
Then again, recently I saw somebody receive a week because he said he would probably find another poster's game a bit boring (and this is from a poster who is usually well liked by most people on here and I have only rarely seen get baited into edition wars etc)
Sometimes i think certain people get away with some stuff because the mods don't want to be seen supporting one side or the other in the little edition war that went on in general especially. But this only works to go so far.. how long did it take for the rampart trolling to calm down there? and it still flares up on a regular basis.
The moderation should be very black and white, i now there are grey areas, but the examples given above don't even really fall into these grey areas, but they were treated as such. Perhaps a list of "examples" should be drawn up, with what amounts to a mandatory sentence attached to it. That way it is fair, everyone knows the rules, and no posters can be favoured over other posters.
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Judging from the "post=347132897" part of the quote system, yes it should link directly to the post, as to the other parts I don't know without dissecting the code.
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Judging from the "post=347132897" part of the quote system, yes it should link directly to the post, as to the other parts I don't know without dissecting the code.
Maybe that is a bug in the system because I can access a profile but not the original quote. Am I just missing a link somewhere?
Mainly, I am just wondering if te new system has anything to do with not recognizing the source for a responded quote. in the old system one could open a page which held the post by itself and one could touch the link to take oneself back to the original quote. Those things can't be done anymore.
So, I was wondering if that would make it more difficult to determine what quotes were responses. In the old system (I am not much of a computer person), was it possible by looking within the system to determine when a link was made to a particular post? I have seen instances of artwork linked from outside this forum "disappearing" and seen the link lead to a note about not wishing for things to be directly linked toor something like that.
So, when looking at the old system did it have the capability of showing links (such as quote tags) that were made to a post that was being moderated?
Judging from the "post=347132897" part of the quote system, yes it should link directly to the post, as to the other parts I don't know without dissecting the code.
Maybe that is a bug in the system because I can access a profile but not the original quote. Am I just missing a link somewhere?
I don't think you are missing anything, I think lokaire is stating how he thinks it should work, not how it is currently working. As it stands now, clicking a name in a quote links to the persons profile, not the post that was quoted (Don't know why, It would be more practical to link to the post, as lokaire suggests, but thats not how it works At the Moment)
Perhaps a list of "examples" should be drawn up, with what amounts to a mandatory sentence attached to it. That way it is fair, everyone knows the rules, and no posters can be favoured over other posters.
As explained by the Orcs themselves..that won't happen because then you would have folks looking for loop holes to abuse....
Perhaps a list of "examples" should be drawn up, with what amounts to a mandatory sentence attached to it. That way it is fair, everyone knows the rules, and no posters can be favoured over other posters.
As explained by the Orcs themselves..that won't happen because then you would have folks looking for loop holes to abuse....
Given what I have already seen occur in the past, there are already loopholes, and they are being abused, either that or the orcs themselves struggle with comprehending and enforcing the CoC.
That's actually not true. All ORCs receive the same training.
Just because the moderators won't get rid of the people "you" don't like, doeesn't mean they're bad moderators.
(The other side of the coin, just because the moderators won't allow "you" to run amok and break all the rules means they're awesome moderators.)
(Use of "you" is in general terms, not aimed at anyone in particular.)
Right...
And when they let pro 4e people bait and flame the haters, the haters are the ones who get rides on the banned wagon and have their posts deleted when they retort.
Nothing you can say or do is going to convince me that there is not bias and favoritism involved.
Well, since nothing said or done can change your mind, I suppose it would be fair to say nothing you say or do can prove there is bias at all.
When you dig that deep into a position, then it's pointless to even have a discussion. Then things don't change or improve. And that's a shame.
Nobody got a free ride. Flaming and baiting isn't allowed. But who is going to break the rules more? People that are happy, or people that are unhappy? Who's going to drop the f bomb? Did pro 4e people invade the previous edition board and post negatively on every single pro 3e thread, or did "haters" invade the 4e boards and post negatively on every single pro 4e thread?
Folks on BOTH sides of the "edition war" got warnings and/or bans. Denying and ignoring that fact won't make it untrue or disappear.
Right...
And when they let pro 4e people bait and flame the haters, the haters are the ones who get rides on the banned wagon and have their posts deleted when they retort.
Nothing you can say or do is going to convince me that there is not bias and favoritism involved.
Well, since nothing said or done can change your mind, I suppose it would be fair to say nothing you say or do can prove there is bias at all.
When you dig that deep into a position, then it's pointless to even have a discussion. Then things don't change or improve. And that's a shame.
Nobody got a free ride. Flaming and baiting isn't allowed. But who is going to break the rules more? People that are happy, or people that are unhappy? Who's going to drop the f bomb? Did pro 4e people invade the previous edition board and post negatively on every single pro 3e thread, or did "haters" invade the 4e boards and post negatively on every single pro 4e thread?
Folks on BOTH sides of the "edition war" got warnings and/or bans. Denying and ignoring that fact won't make it untrue or disappear.
Are you saying that pro 4e people on the old forums didn't bash3.x?!
Are you really saying that?!
And, consequently, there is no way for you to prove there isn't bias or favoritism. And besides, I wouldn't expect you to see it anyway.
Sure, both sides got rides on the banned wagon or whatever, but the haters get it more often and for lesser offenses.
I am a prime example of it.
Webster, I really don't mind you, and hold no grudges, but I believe I am right here.
Well, you aren't right. Pro 4e people were banned, and there is no bias. If you violate the CoC, you are punished, usually with a suspension , or possibly ban.
"Haters", as you put it, don't "get it more often". Also, if, as this post seems to allude to, if you're a hater, and you're only here to be antagonistic and cause trouble, you deserve to be suspended or banned.
Right...
And when they let pro 4e people bait and flame the haters, the haters are the ones who get rides on the banned wagon and have their posts deleted when they retort.
Nothing you can say or do is going to convince me that there is not bias and favoritism involved.
Yes, because being biased about a subjective opinion of bias certainly isn't hypocritical at all, Hated. ',: S
I never experience this one-sidedness some people espouse; I don't get that. I'm on General all the time, and the most I see is someone getting into it with people who disagree with them (generally making it personal when it gets moderated) and then the whole thing escalates until the Mods step in. Since haters tend to be the most vocal (with a few exceptions), they tend to make the broad, subjective statements first (again, this is just in my experience). People Flame them, and then, rather than anyone Reporting the Flaming (because it's generally 1 or 2 haters versus the entire 4E Boards :S), they attack back, then they are Reported, and then they get Moderated. I know plenty of pro-4E people who've been Moderated (haven't all the 4vengers been banned at one point or another?), including myself quite a few times, and since this is the type of behavior and the causes and effects of people's actions that I've seen, again, I can't say I've seen too much bias from the ORCs.
YMMV
EDIT: Oh, and no, there were not many cases of 4E-supporters going to the Previous Editions Boards and just randomly posting in every Thread they could find that everyone there was a childish Diablo-lover. On the 4E Boards, however, I'm pretty sure there was a time where that did happen, but with WoW instead of Diablo, of course. Web's right here; people who are happy with something don't go out of their way to antagonize others, except for those few who basically try to crush their happiness by explaining how wrong they are. Unhappy people, on the other hand...well, "misery loves company," as the saying goes.
Stop hijacking my thread guys! :-)
Just because the moderators won't get rid of the people "you" don't like, doeesn't mean they're bad moderators.
(The other side of the coin, just because the moderators won't allow "you" to run amok and break all the rules means they're awesome moderators.)
(Use of "you" is in general terms, not aimed at anyone in particular.)
This thread is about something completely different however.
It is about an entire post being deleted but not posts that respopnded to it with (at least a significant part of) the deleted post in quotes. And beginning with the tags that give the user and post numbers.
If a post is so bad that it needs to be deleted in its entirety then why is a post that responds to it with a significant portion included within quotes left untouched even after being reported that it is left in?
This is a messageboard which often contains nested quotes. How can we have any trust in what we read if moderation will remove the original post but leave the response with no way for us to track down the original and verify?
Is the new system more difficult to use when trying to track down responses to posts? Without the ability to follow the quote to the original (other than looking at te date and time and flipping through the pages until I find it...) I have no way to verify and determine for myself te accuracy of the post that remains.
Yet, I will be in trouble if I ask it to be reposted or if I get it via pm and then use it to challenge the post that remains with the quoted material.
If a post is deleted in its entirety then posts that respond to it with material from it in quotes should also be deleted. Why is that only sporadically happening.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
I am speaking of instances where there are a couple hours in between. In other words, there is a quoted post that is missing and there is a few hours (and a number of posts) difference between the time stamp on the post that quoted the deleted one and the post by the ORC.
Further, I did report it and received no response to it.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
I am speaking of instances where there are a couple hours in between. In other words, there is a quoted post that is missing and there is a few hours (and a number of posts) difference between the time stamp on the post that quoted the deleted one and the post by the ORC.
Further, I did report it and received no response to it.
They are probably too busy dealing with all of my posts.
Most likely, Rumplestix, it's because people type slowly much of the time. An ORC steps in, Mods your post, leaves his note (or doesn't), and then goes on to do other things. Meanwhile, some guy's multi-quoted your post, and is now taking an hour and a half to respond to the Modded post. Once he's done, it pops on to the Thread (after the ORC is long gone), no one Reports it, and so the ORCs are completely unaware such a thing occurred. Your best bet is almost certainly to just Report the post, informing the ORCs that someone has quoted Modded content.
I am speaking of instances where there are a couple hours in between. In other words, there is a quoted post that is missing and there is a few hours (and a number of posts) difference between the time stamp on the post that quoted the deleted one and the post by the ORC.
Further, I did report it and received no response to it.
They are probably too busy dealing with all of my posts.
ROFL
Actually yours are tame compared to what I have been referring. Unless, of course, you are referring to some terrible deleted posts that I never had the opportunity to see. :-)
Well what do you know!
Another example...
I posted something, calling no names, just giving my opinion about something. Another pro 4e poster replies to my post with baiting and harrassment. I report it.
Both of our posts get deleted.
End of story.
Actually the person I was referring to who got the week for saying he thought he would fins another posters game boring, is a pro 4th ed poster. He is one of the more moderate 4th ed posters, and rarely looses his temper when posting, but he is pro 4th ed and he got banned.. so.. i don;t believe their is bias, I just question the consistency.
Apologies Rumplestix.. i will bow out here!
Well what do you know!
This could be considered baiting. it is certainly an aggressively toned statement intended to draw attention (and possibly a response). Did you realize it could come off as such?
Another example...
I posted something, calling no names, just giving my opinion about something. Another pro 4e poster replies to my post with baiting and harrassment. I report it.
Was your opinion being given relevant to the discussion? could it have lead to the topic being derailed into an edition war? you don't need to call people names, even being polite, for your post to be disruptive. you didn't get banned for the removal of the post, so it's more likely that it was removed in order to prevent a thread derailment (I have seen several of you and others posts not entirely unreasonable posts (AKA: shouldn't be modded) in utterly inappropriate threads (for the opinion stated), where the only logical outcome will be derailment of the original topic (I've even fallen for it a few times)
End of story.
Truth is, without knowing what thread you posted in, what was said by you (word for word) and whether there were other posts also deleted beyond yours and the one responding to you, (but as posting all that info would likely be a violation, don't (i'm honestly not interested anyways)) there really is no story to end.
This could be considered baiting. it is certainly an aggressively toned statement intended to draw attention (and possibly a response). Did you realize it could come off as such?
No it couldn't; the ORCs never punish sarcasm, as tone and the like are notoriously hard to define on the Internet.
There is bias and favoritism, but most likely not to the degree I was insinuating.
No, there isn't, and repeating it over and over again isn't going to make it true. If someone violates the CoC, they are suspended or banned. Those are the rules. It doesn't matter what "side" of the "edition war" they're on. Indeed, that is completely irrelevant when the mods decides which posts to edit or delete, and which people to ban.
Oh, and as you should know, I have a reserved seat on the banned wagon... seeing as how often I ride it.
Yeah, and how often you, "ride the banned wagon", as you so elegantly put it (as though it's something to be proud of), is nothing to do with your stance on 4e. Indeed, your stance on D&D is one of apathy, one of, "I don't play it, so I don't care". So your (admitted) repeated bannings (in the past*) can't be anything to do with the edition war.
No, your bannings are because you, in the past*, spoke, and indeed started, several topics discussing religion and politics, and made many many posts that discussed politics, and discriminated against certain political groups and the people affiliated with them.
I understand that you have your opinion about these particular groups and the people that support them, and that you have the right to free speech, but when you joined these forums, you agreed to adhere to a Code of Conduct. It was made clear in the Code of Conduct that you agreed to follow, that discussion or mention of certain topics were unacceptable, and these topics included religion and politics, which you have repeatedly engaged, or tried to engage, in. In addition, the CoC also stated that you agreed to a term of suspension, or prehaps a ban, if you engaged these topics.
The victim card does not work here. You violated the CoC, and you were suspended for it. It's that simple, and it would apply to anyone else, just the same way it applies to you.
* I say, "In the past", because I have yet to see any evidence of you doing this since the new forums opened up.
No, there isn't
Yes there is.
As I said before, saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
In any case, can you find any proof to support your claims, or are they completely baseless (and therefore biased, and thus, hypocritical)?
No, there isn't
Yes there is.
As I said before, saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
In any case, can you find any proof to support your claims, or are they completely baseless (and therefore biased, and thus, hypocritical)?
It is impossible to involve humans in things and not have any bias. However, I believe that hated is taking things a little bit out of proportion.
Are you sure?
Maybe I just haven't said it long enough....
Said what? :P
Sam, back to your old tricks I see... calling me names and attacking me ...
Again, it is my perception... nothing more. Feel free to disagree, but stop calling people names and baiting them. It doesn't make you look very good...
Ah, I see how this works. All I have to do is hide behind the "Its my perception" arguement and I can say pretty much anything I want.
Well its my perception and feel free to disagree that you are a very biased hypocrite that hides behind the "Im just defending 3.5 because no one else will" and using it to troll the 4e forums. The term "criticism" to you means "lets harass the devs and just call it that because we like attacking people"
but then again thats only my perception... so I guess baiting people by just retreating back behind this "its my opinion" and calling other's opinions baiting isnt as honorable as well. it makes you look bad.
Sam, back to your old tricks I see... calling me names and attacking me ...
Again, it is my perception... nothing more. Feel free to disagree, but stop calling people names and baiting them. It doesn't make you look very good...
Ah, I see how this works. All I have to do is hide behind the "Its my perception" arguement and I can say pretty much anything I want.
Well its my perception and feel free to disagree that you are a very biased hypocrite that hides behind the "Im just defending 3.5 because no one else will" and using it to troll the 4e forums. The term "criticism" to you means "lets harass the devs and just call it that because we like attacking people"
but then again thats only my perception... so I guess baiting people by just retreating back behind this "its my opinion" and calling other's opinions baiting isnt as honorable as well. it makes you look bad.
Incorrect conclusions.
There is nothing in the the CoC that says you must support your opinions about the products.
However, this is specifically in the CoC:
3. Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. For example:
• Harass a specific person (repeated flaming, personal attacks or posting their private information)
Calling someone a hypocrit is a personal attack. Although it might be a close call, it would be better to say that something is a hypocritical argument or even better that two arguments being made contradict each other. However, just calling someone a hypocrit is a personal attack. It is a derogatory remark made with the intention of reducing the respect given to a person as well as their ideas.
And calling the VCL's biased and prone to favouritism with nothing to back the claim is also a personal attack. It is attacking their judgement, motivations and character (not their product). The fact HATED feel justified in making such unfounded attacks, yet crys foul and tells Sam not to attack him in response is very much hypocritical (and is thus support for calling him a hypocrite. Significantly more then HATED has provided for his personal attacks against the VCL's). Beyond the hypocrite comment, Sam's statement seems to be his perception of HATED's method of arguing, and is no different then HATED's perception of the ORC's and VCL's motives. If Sam is guilty of Violating the CoC, so is HATED, not only for derailing this thread with his personal, off topic opinions, despite your requests not to, but also for his personal attacks on the VCL's... But then, if they did anything about his posts, he would just take it as further evidence against a perceived bias against him. He is taking advantage of the nature of this thread (being about VCL moderation) to make personal attacks against the VCL's, and if they act on it, he can claim they are taking it personally and acting in a biased manner, and if they don't act on it, he has been given free rein to do what he wants. Even you have to see the rock vs hard place the VCLs have been put in here, and given your opinions on CoC violations (between this thread and the one on private groups), I would not be surprised to see you personally request this thread be closed (as the thread OP) to grant the VCL's a reasonable, fair way to end this flamewar.
... I would not be surprised to see you personally request this thread be closed (as the thread OP) to grant the VCL's a reasonable, fair way to end this flamewar.
Thank you Rumple.
Actually, one of the reasons that I started this was that I was not sure if edits could be made by moderation rather than just deletes. I have learned that they can. It appears that no one has a good reason (IMO) as to why quotes taken from a post that was later deleted were not themselves deleted or edited. So, some of what I asked has been answered and the rest will probably get no answer. So, yes, I think it might be time for a close.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: ww2.wizards.com/Company/Misc/Index.aspx?... You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
************
Please return discussion to the topic of the thread, or it may need to be closed.