It seems that there is an interestin g way to get away with violating the CoC.
By violating, I mean using racially discriminatory remarks, talking insultingly about other posters, probably posting nude pics, and even making plans for violating the CoC!
Just start a rgoup and make it private!
People will be unable to view what you talk about and thus you can talk about such things with it not being reported. If you set your account to private, posters can't see nude pics that you upload to it. Then you can upload them to your private group. Heck, you can even make links to all sorts of porn for your other roup members to watch!
There will be no reports unless you actually invite someone to join who chooses to!
And, although I do not know about the porn bit, this has already happened with respect to the racism bit!
I know because I was a member of an open group where it occurred multiple times. Rather than respond to the stuff within the group I reported it to CS. They removed the material. I also sent a pm to the group owner who had stated that disruption would result in removal. This happened on more than one occasion and actually resulted in the suspension of a poster by CS. Not only did the group owner not remove the poster who was suspended but the owner removed me from the group after my last post pointing out the behavior. Then the owner made the group private. So, now it will be difficult to know whether or not the behavior is continuing.
Yeah!
Look at all the fun you can have with your groups!
So, if you have a bunch of friends that you want a place to talk to them about your prejudices without fear of repurcussion, start a group and get them to join!
I think it should be noted that this below was part of a submission for discussion with the community management team that I made before the particular group I was referring to above became private:
I hope you guys have some fun with the new community you are creating using the group capabilities of the new system. Sorry about the snide comment there but I think that in the long run there could be some issues that develop with groups and I hope you can come up with a better way to address them than relying on the good will of posters who happen to read things on the side...
Good luck with this,
This was submitted at 2037 eastern (0537 Pacific time which is what it reads in my submission) Friday the 18th. This is well before the group became private. My issue with what could be done in groups preceeded this group changing to private. This is just in case there are questions otherwise.
So, does anyone have any comments on how this might affect the growth of the community or whether or not you like/dislike it?
Oh, I dislike it.
It seems to me that it will further divide and alienate the community, putting people into select groups that keep stuff hidden...
But I am not surprised by the lack of attention by CS...
Well, I am not sure that there is a lack of attention by CS. They responded to my CS submissions that were "report Conduct", although I had to do one twice and copy into the report the specific part of the CoC that was being violated. No big deal there. I just don't know what they think of the possibilities that have been opened up for people to take advantage of once a group is made private.
Hypothetically, if someone does make a group where everyone is cool with certain CoC violations, and they never get reported, is it a big deal? They're not hurting anybody or disrupting anything if they keep it to their group and nobody can stumble upon their group.
The entire site falls under the Code of Conduct. This includes all groups, public and private.
The entire site falls under the Code of Conduct. This includes all groups, public and private.
I kind of figured that you'd have to say that as the official stance, but I for one wouldn't go through groups I'm not a part of looking for stuff to report...
I don't give a damn what idiots choose to write or post in a private group. That's the point of "private" groups. Moderate the public forums, and let the private forums (private groups) do what they want. It might even keep some of the idiot comments off the public forums.
I don't give a damn what idiots choose to write or post in a private group. That's the point of "private" groups. Moderate the public forums, and let the private forums (private groups) do what they want. It might even keep some of the idiot comments off the public forums.
Though that can get quite bad if underage minors have a haven of stuff that they are not supposed to have access to on WotCs site.
I don't give a damn what idiots choose to write or post in a private group. That's the point of "private" groups. Moderate the public forums, and let the private forums (private groups) do what they want. It might even keep some of the idiot comments off the public forums.
Though that can get quite bad if underage minors have a haven of stuff that they are not supposed to have access to on WotCs site.
This is actually an extremely good point that I had not considered.
I don't give a damn what idiots choose to write or post in a private group. That's the point of "private" groups. Moderate the public forums, and let the private forums (private groups) do what they want. It might even keep some of the idiot comments off the public forums.
We can only hope...
As Wizards owns the boards, they have some responsability for the content, if a minor gets in one of these groups and his/her parents finds out, that could cause trouble for Wizards, and not doing anything about certain topics could be seen as Wizards endorsing them by the more radical segments of the population.
Ya, doesn't make much sense, but they still need a way to enforce it, I guess they need for a mod(s) to check group contents actively.
I don't give a damn what idiots choose to write or post in a private group. That's the point of "private" groups. Moderate the public forums, and let the private forums (private groups) do what they want. It might even keep some of the idiot comments off the public forums.
In the group I mentioned earlier there was a CoC violating link posted as well as a suggestion (not a joke) that posters put it in their signatures. The one who made the suggestion and posted the link did so.
So, now you have an example of planning to violate the CoC (forum wide) within a group that was not previously private This was a discussion that could have resulted in thousands of posts suddenly bearing the CoC violating link.
Most of the CoC is based around 'disruptive' behavior. So technically it should be ok if everyone is ok with it. On the other hand the 13 year old that stumbles into that group or whatever would be violating the laws.
Of course the solution would be to mark threads, groups, and other subsections as 18+ by either a moderator or the original poster group master or whatever. This would lock all children from viewing the material.
Other than that the solution would be to have the ORCs troll the groups and look for stuff. This would take a lot of time and probably require them to hire more ORCs. The way the main boards work is that someone has to report a post before it gets removed, otherwise nothing happens.
So you would be ok with me starting a private club that doesn't allow non-whites, and further, talks mad smack about them and posts links to KKK websites
I didn't say I would be ok with it. I said I wouldn't give a damn.
What idiots do behind closed doors doesn't bother me unless I have to be behind that closed door too. Until those idiots bring that idiocy past the closed door, I truly don't give a damn.
It doesn't really take all kinds. There just are.
So, now you have an example of planning to violate the CoC (forum wide) within a group that was not previously private
While it is public, I give a damn.
Once it goes private, I don't give a damn.
So you would be ok with me starting a private club that doesn't allow non-whites, and further, talks mad smack about them and posts links to KKK websites?well, you know, since everybody in the group would be ok with it...
This probably shouldn't be a big surprise if you've ever paid attention to my rants about free speech, censorship, and defending the undefendable, but I would be ok with that. I may not approve of or like the things you discuss, but you certainly have a right to do so, so long as no actual laws are being broken.
It is, of course, Wizard's ultimate decision to what degree they permit such things here, and so ultimately it is their call. But personally? Yes, I would be "ok" with you and whoever is willing to start a private little group and discuss and link to all sorts of things I would find morally reprehensible.
Well, I wouldn't like it, private or not.But I guess you guys are more tolerant than I...
What can I say? I like the first amendment, and think that's more important then my personal comfort.
So you would be ok with me starting a private club that doesn't allow non-whites, and further, talks mad smack about them and posts links to KKK websites?well, you know, since everybody in the group would be ok with it...
This probably shouldn't be a big surprise if you've ever paid attention to my rants about free speech, censorship, and defending the undefendable, but I would be ok with that. I may not approve of or like the things you discuss, but you certainly have a right to do so, so long as no actual laws are being broken.
It is, of course, Wizard's ultimate decision to what degree they permit such things here, and so ultimately it is their call. But personally? Yes, I would be "ok" with you and whoever is willing to start a private little group and discuss and link to all sorts of things I would find morally reprehensible.
Same here. Freedom of speech is far more important than personal comfort.
The CoC is the CoC, and we have to trust people to be responsible enough to report it when it's obviously violated, regardless of which group they're in. But some areas of the CoC are not easily defined, and depend a lot on the surroundings.
Take something like 'disruptive' behaviour. What is it? Posting endlessly about how much you like 3E is great.... if you're on the 3E boards. On the 4E boards, however, such a behaviour comes across as far more provocative, and likely to start an edition war. In this case, the issue is not what is written, but where it's written. The same holds true for groups, if every member of the group agree to the same premise, things that would be flammable on the actual boards are no longer disruptive.
The CoC is the CoC, and we have to trust people to be responsible enough to report it when it's obviously violated, regardless of which group they're in. But some areas of the CoC are not easily defined, and depend a lot on the surroundings.
Take something like 'disruptive' behaviour. What is it? Posting endlessly about how much you like 3E is great.... if you're on the 3E boards. On the 4E boards, however, such a behaviour comes across as far more provocative, and likely to start an edition war. In this case, the issue is not what is written, but where it's written. The same holds true for groups, if every member of the group agree to the same premise, things that would be flammable on the actual boards are no longer disruptive.
Beyond Disruptive Behavior there are items that are specifically noted:
2. Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content. This includes "masking" language by using alternative characters/spelling /spacing to get around profanity filters or claims of profanity filter “testing."
Beyond Disruptive Behavior there are items that are specifically noted:2. Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content. This includes "masking" language by using alternative characters/spelling /spacing to get around profanity filters or claims of profanity filter “testing."
I know. I'm just saying that disruptive behaviour depends on your audience. There are lots of things I consider disruptive that aren't obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, and whose status as derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory is up for debate. When people express these things in debates I participate in, which often ends up derailing the whole thing, I find it disruptive, but I couldn't care less what they do in their own group.
I see only three alternatives: 1) Wizards hires enough staff to read everything everyone does, which is cost-prohibitive;
Not to mention the breach of privacy complaints/issues that would arise from such action.
there is no right solution to this problem.
I'm not sure how this scenario differs from using private messages to violate the Code of Conduct.
Well, the ammount of people reached would be one, not to mention that it's easier to reach all the people within the group.
But there is a 4th option. Do not alllow Private Groups.
I don't really see why there is a need for them to be Private anyway? Why should there be a necessity to hide the fact that you're playing D&D every sunday? Or that you like crab cakes? or whatever else groups are used for.
Private groups are a tool to keep out harassment. By restricting membership, you can prevent people from targeting the group or specific members. That said, that is what the Report button is for.
There is, however, another reason for private groups that I can think of. You can use groups to keep certain information hidden from people that you'd not like to see it. For example, there was a game that was run in the Off Topic Tavern that had groups of board members playing against other groups of board members. To talk strategy, PMs were used. If the group function was available, it would have been used instead because it offers a central place for everyone to look for information. Oh, and a calendar. A calendar would have been awesome. ;) Anyhoo, it's a helpful tool. How helpful in the overall scheme of things is certainly up for debate, but private groups definitely can serve a purpose.
Private groups are a tool to keep out harassment. By restricting membership, you can prevent people from targeting the group or specific members. That said, that is what the Report button is for.
Well, restricting membership and making it private are two seperate things. (or should be at least)
There is, however, another reason for private groups that I can think of. You can use groups to keep certain information hidden from people that you'd not like to see it. For example, there was a game that was run in the Off Topic Tavern that had groups of board members playing against other groups of board members. To talk strategy, PMs were used. If the group function was available, it would have been used instead because it offers a central place for everyone to look for information. Oh, and a calendar. A calendar would have been awesome. ;) Anyhoo, it's a helpful tool. How helpful in the overall scheme of things is certainly up for debate, but private groups definitely can serve a purpose.
Fair enough... 
Well, restricting membership and making it private are two seperate things. (or should be at least)
Good point.
Well, restricting membership and making it private are two seperate things. (or should be at least)
Yeah... see, I tested this earlier in the week. I left a group that had restricted membership. What I expected was that since the group wasn't private I would be able to see their forum. I was right on this count. What surprised me was that I was also able to post to their forum. So yeah, restricted? That doesn't mean much at the moment if the group isn't also private.
LOL
You guys have waaaayyyyy too much times on your hands...
I love ya tho!
Seriously (removed for flaming/baiting)
Since we don't get emails anymore, can you PM me and tell me what I said that was offensive?
I see only three alternatives: 1) Wizards hires enough staff to read everything everyone does, which is cost-prohibitive;
Not to mention the breach of privacy complaints/issues that would arise from such action.there is no right solution to this problem.
There would be no breach of privacy complaints/issues as this site is owned by WotC and you agree to a CoC and ToU before you are allowed to post.
I see only three alternatives: 1) Wizards hires enough staff to read everything everyone does, which is cost-prohibitive;
Not to mention the breach of privacy complaints/issues that would arise from such action.there is no right solution to this problem.
There would be no breach of privacy complaints/issues as this site is owned by WotC and you agree to a CoC and ToU before you are allowed to post.
And yet, we still hear constant complaints that the ToS aren't reasonable or fair and that personal rights are being trampled by it. Imagine if WotC started reading PM's. Just because it's within their rights doesn't mean people aren't going to moan and complain (after all, it was within their rights to change the site and yet ...
I know because I was a member of an open group where it occurred multiple times. Rather than respond to the stuff within the group I reported it to CS. They removed the material. I also sent a pm to the group owner who had stated that disruption would result in removal. This happened on more than one occasion and actually resulted in the suspension of a poster by CS. Not only did the group owner not remove the poster who was suspended but the owner removed me from the group after my last post pointing out the behavior. Then the owner made the group private. So, now it will be difficult to know whether or not the behavior is continuing.
Okay, a few points with various tags.First, it seems you want someone punished more than they were. You took the correct course of action by reporting it rather than getting into it, and the ORCs removed the material. (Underlined part.)
But, it starts to cross over to harassing someone if you're trying to get rid of them from the community. You want them kicked from a group, but you are not the group owner, thus it's not your decision. (Italics). Why do you want this person removed from the group so badly? The ORCs already handled the situation, and you have no proof that said person didn't learn their lesson and will now obey the Code of Conduct.
Your concern doesn't seem to be that you were kicked from the group, but you're more interested in not being able to keep an eye on this poster. It's not your job to monitor other people's behaviors. (Bold part.) At the same time, it seems the only point of this thread is to complain about being kicked out of a group.
Now, this is NOT saying if you see something you shouldn't report it. But, you shouldn't actively be going after someone. That IS harassment. (And the ORCs don't take kindly to being used in such a way. I've always said the report button isn't a "I Win" button.) I don't have any info on this particular situation, but - (And these are purely retorical, I don't want or expect answers.) did you check the person's history and report every single post you didn't like? Did you report posts months old? Were things that weren't really violations reported as such?
I harassed no one webster and I do not appreciate the implication.
I was not actively going after someone. I frequented the group forums and occasionally posted there because I was a group member. What the heck is wrong with that?
To answer specifically your questions:
"Why do you want this person removed from the group so badly?"
I don't. I was the only one doing the reporting and I was informed that I was being kicked out in a response to my message about a violation to the owner.
"The ORCs already handled the situation, and you have no proof that said person didn't learn their lesson and will now obey the Code of Conduct."
The first time that this behavior occurred I both reported it and pm'd the owner. It was removed by CS.
Did the poster learn a lesson from this?
The second time that it occurred in this forum, I ignored it and afterward thought it had been removed only later to discover that it had been moved to a different subforum instead.
The third time it occurred I reported it to CS and pm'd the group owner. The response to this was to boot me from the group. CS removed the material.
While reading the stuff that I was reporting I noticed a fourth violation and reported it. This resulted in the suspension of the poster. No removal from the group.
"Your concern doesn't seem to be that you were kicked from the group, but you're more interested in not being able to keep an eye on this poster. It's not your job to monitor other people's behaviors. (Bold part.) At the same time, it seems the only point of this thread is to complain about being kicked out of a group."
You are attacking me thrice in this paragraph, webster, and I am getting tired of it. So, my concern is not that I am kicked out of the group but apparently that is the only reason I made this thread? Kind of contradictory there, webster. Furthermore, it is our responsibiolity to report things we see, especially if we are in the group where it occurs. It is not to keep an eye on this poster.
The group owner had a blog specifically stating that disruption would result in removal. I had nothing but constructive posts in the group. I was supposedly removed from the group for my posting in another forum but was so informed in the response to my message to the owner informing of the CoC violations. The other poster had also some similar and some explicitly worse posting in the same other forum as well as having three significant CoC violations within the group but was not removed. Apparently, it is not disruptive to the forum to post racially derogatory remarks but it is to report them.
Further, no one but me had reported the violations. In fact I had noticed another explicit CoC violation that I did not report and, after being kicked out, I continued to view the forum to see if anyone would bother reporting this obvious CoC violation. It was obvious that the group owner had seen it and not reported it.
Up until the group finally became private and I could no longer view it, the other obvious CoC violation was still in plain sight in the forum of the group.
So, when I could no longer view the group it became clear to me that CoC violating material would continue to be posted there.
I realized the same could be done in any private group and that is why I made this thread. t and straight forward: I was the only one reporting obvious and repeated CoC violations and I was removed upon messaging the owner. Now, apparently it will continue (and was still continuing upon it being made private...) and no one will do anything to stop it.
About this:
"I don't have any info on this particular situation, but - (And these are purely retorical, I don't want or expect answers.) did you check the person's history and report every single post you didn't like? Did you report posts months old? Were things that weren't really violations reported as such?"
Well, you are getting answers anyway.
I did not check the history. See above, I reported them while browsing the group forum which I frequently browsed and occasionally posted in.
They were reported when I saw them and they were not months old.
I am not talking about minor infractions that have been reported here, webster. Do you want me to send you via pm some of the nasty racial things that were posted to judge for yourself? Everything reported was removed by CS. The fourth thing (the third report) was not on the first email submission. An hour or two after they said it was "solved" and it remained, I pointed out the CoC violation that said you could not link to racially derogatory stuff and it was then removed.
If you seem to think this stuff linked to and posted wassn't really CoC violating, how about giving me a free pass (without fear of repurcussions from CS) to repost some of it here then?
How about it?
Edit Note: perhaps the word "attack" that I used may be too strong when referring to webster's statements but I don't reaaly think so. These questions did not address the purpose of the thread which should be obvious is to point out to people what can actually happen right under their nose in this forum. The ability to do it in group form allows for a level of sophistication to violating the CoC that was not previously available using private messages. instead they addressed my motivations in a negative light.
The ORCs already handled the situation
Removing content is not the same as handling the situation. Mopping up water from a leaking pipe alleiviates the immediate concern but does absolutely nothing to fix the source of the problem.
That being said it does do some good and I personally think the ORcs take way too muchflack over what they do.
The ORCs already handled the situation
Removing content is not the same as handling the situation. Mopping up water from a leaking pipe alleiviates the immediate concern but does absolutely nothing to fix the source of the problem.
That being said it does do some good and I personally think the ORcs take way too muchflack over what they do.
True.
But, in case clarification is needed, I am not complaining about the ORCs responses to this stuff.
Private groups are a tool to keep out harassment. By restricting membership, you can prevent people from targeting the group or specific members. That said, that is what the Report button is for.
The funny thing is that I was reporting posts that targeted a specific member of the group: me.
When I messaged the owner concerning it, I received a message in response saying that I was being kicked out for my posts in another forum. I also noted that other posters had not only viewed but had responded to some CoC violating material (not flaming responses, mind you) and had not cared to report it. I did not report this at the time to keep from causing too much trouble after reporting other stuff. Now, there is apparently no one left whowill report such stuff when it is posted.
Rumplestix,
Maybe you are the only one that perceives that those posts violate the CoC if no one else is complaining about them.
Sometimes people can get so focused on hating the poster that they actually can't read the content objectively.
You might benefit from talking with other people out of the poster area to see if they read the posts the same way you do. Even better if you pick a partner who doesn't always agree with your opinions on things.
This is something I have done several times, when particular postings on the WotC deeply offended me. I would try to find out if I was over reacting or if the garbage that I swear I see is really there by talking with others. This keeps me from just reporting every post from some posters that make me want to pull my hair out.
If you seem to think this stuff linked to and posted wassn't really CoC violating, how about giving me a free pass (without fear of repurcussions from CS) to repost some of it here then?
How about it?
It's probably not a good idea to do so, and I doubt CS would give a "pass" for posting.
But- ask yourself this- why do you want to post it? It was removed. It is gone. CS did their job, now it's time to move on.
If you seem to think this stuff linked to and posted wassn't really CoC violating, how about giving me a free pass (without fear of repurcussions from CS) to repost some of it here then?How about it?
It's probably not a good idea to do so, and I doubt CS would give a "pass" for posting.But- ask yourself this- why do you want to post it? It was removed. It is gone. CS did their job, now it's time to move on.
I'm sorry webster, I generally respect you and your opinions, but do you seriously not get what the point of this thread is? I suggest you re-read the entire thing, cause your wayy off the ball.
This has nothing to do with reporting or not reporting, it has to do with the fact that groups can be used, without any moderation, to post inapporpriate material, not to mention violate the CoC without fear. And on a massive scale too, not just person to person PM.
This has nothing to do with reporting or not reporting, it has to do with the fact that groups can be used, without any moderation, to post inapporpriate material, not to mention violate the CoC without fear. And on a massive scale too, not just person to person PM.
I'm not sure that "massive" is an appropriate term. If it's a private group, anything offensive is limited ot the membership of the group, and if any of the group's members are offended, they should report it. ORCs can moderate things that happen in private groups if it gets reported.
After all, there doesn't seem to be a limit to how many people I can send a PM to. I have about three dozen friends. To my knowledge that's more people than any private group currently on the boards. I could therefore hit more people with offensive material than anybody could with a post to a private group. And if nobody reports me, I get away with it. (I amm not plannign to do this, by the way -- it's a hypothetical.)
It's also wrong to say it's "without any moderation". Anybody can report offensive behavior. And ORCs only act when something is reported. If I posted something offensive in a public forum and it doesn't get reported, it will not be moderated. (But the likelihood is small that it won't be reported, as VCLs and Forum Guides tend to see most posts in frequented forums.)
So I still don't see how any of this is new. People can conspire to infringe the CoC in private groups, just as they used to be able to do it (and still can) in PMs or emails. If you see something, report it. If you don't see anything, don't imagine violations that might be happening behind a veil.
I guess thats the answer he is looking for, He wanted to know what was going to be done about it and if it is as you say that the stance is "As long as its not public" then thats the answer.
The_HATED, can I join? I promise that I won't report anything. Unless I find it offensive.
This has nothing to do with reporting or not reporting, it has to do with the fact that groups can be used, without any moderation, to post inapporpriate material, not to mention violate the CoC without fear. And on a massive scale too, not just person to person PM.
I'm really not sure what you want done. There is, quite simply, no practical solution.
Because as long as we have... private profiles, private groups, public groups, personal messages, or any way to communicate links to other forums, e-mail addresses, IM screen names, etc... then people can do exactly what you're worried about.
Heck, if people really wanted to they could get into stenography, using code words, or any of those other fun information warfare techniques to slip in secret messages in the completetly open forums and no one would know.
So you're upset that people can communicate CoC violating ideas without fear? Well, there is only one solution to that. To not have a forum at all.
Actually, there is another solution: To not have a CoC.
This has nothing to do with reporting or not reporting, it has to do with the fact that groups can be used, without any moderation, to post inapporpriate material, not to mention violate the CoC without fear. And on a massive scale too, not just person to person PM.
That could be done on the old forums as well. It just required that nobody clicked the "report post" button. The moderation on the WOtC forums has been, since I joined at least, of the "we don't go looking for problems, we crowdsource it to the community".
Heck, I think that was the big reason that the mature forums got nuked on the old forums. Nobdy reported stuff, and when the ORCs/WizOs finally did get in there, it was so bad that they nuked the entire forum. (Note, this is only based no what I read about the fallout, not on first-hand info.)
He wanted to know what was going to be done about it and if it is as you say that the stance is "As long as its not public" then thats the answer.
What should be done about it? I'm not sure what the options would or should be to address this concern and nobody has proposed anything.
Actually, there is another solution: To not have a CoC.
How is that a solution? There would still be offensive material. Only there'd be nothing the ORCs could do about it. That's 4chan. I hope that nobody seriously wants that for these forums.
He wanted to know what was going to be done about it and if it is as you say that the stance is "As long as its not public" then thats the answer.
What should be done about it? I'm not sure what the options would or should be to address this concern and nobody has proposed anything.
A proposed solution above would be to make groups not private but still implement the closed posting feature.
He wanted to know what was going to be done about it and if it is as you say that the stance is "As long as its not public" then thats the answer.
What should be done about it? I'm not sure what the options would or should be to address this concern and nobody has proposed anything.A proposed solution above would be to make groups not private but still implement the closed posting feature.
That solution solves nothing. There would still be private profiles (to which people could post CoC violating blogs, pictures, and other content, visible only to their firends.), private messages (anything goes, again, and only visible to the participants), obfuscating language or codewords that people don't realize are code.
Heck, even the big scary case that's supposed to take care of, a private group posting CoC violating stuff, is only "fixed" if someone who is not a member is taking it upon themselves to police the group for the moderators. At which point I think a fair case of harassment could be made.
In short, your "solution" solves nothing.
How is that a solution? There would still be offensive material. Only there'd be nothing the ORCs could do about it. That's 4chan. I hope that nobody seriously wants that for these forums.
It's a solution in the same vein as having no forums at all - hence the quoted text in that post. It's obviously no more a real 'solution' than the idea of abolishing the boards altogether.
There is no real solution to the problem. This is a forum that relies on member participation to point out CoC violations - a policy I understand. As such, so long as there are methods of communication available that prevent a large swath of members from viewing what's said, this will always be an issue.
So what happens after something illegal is posted and we have some kind of haven for that kind of thing?
The same thing that happened before the new boards - likely nothing. See, before there were groups, there were still PMs. If you had an illegal link and wanted to share without getting in trouble, you could send it via PM to a like-minded member. It was - and is - that simple. And, so long as the moderation policy stays as-is, it will be.
So what happens after something illegal is posted and we have some kind of haven for that kind of thing?
That is an issue for WotC's legal department to work out and really has nothing to do with us. They have opted to take the risk with an "ignorance is bliss" attitude. As we arew unlikely to be affected by it in any way anyways, why concern ourselves with it.
So what happens after something illegal is posted and we have some kind of haven for that kind of thing?
If you see something illegal, report it. If you don't see it, don't assume it's lurking in the shadows somewhere.
What did we do about offensive PMs? Nothing. What could we do? Nothing?
What do we do about offensive PMs and posts in a private unseen group? Nothing. What can we do? Nothing.
I'm still not seeing why this is causing sudden consternation.
Rumplestix,
Maybe you are the only one that perceives that those posts violate the CoC if no one else is complaining about them.
Sometimes people can get so focused on hating the poster that they actually can't read the content objectively.
You might benefit from talking with other people out of the poster area to see if they read the posts the same way you do. Even better if you pick a partner who doesn't always agree with your opinions on things.
This is something I have done several times, when particular postings on the WotC deeply offended me. I would try to find out if I was over reacting or if the garbage that I swear I see is really there by talking with others. This keeps me from just reporting every post from some posters that make me want to pull my hair out.
Well, CS considered it a violation so I am not the only one who perceived it that way.
Since you have apparently read those posts where I mentioned others would not report the violations I suppose that you also saw where I sent the information regarding violations to the group owner since that information was mentioned inthe same posts and at the same time. Why did you not contact the owner before taking me off "permanent" block to respond and insinuate I was incorrectly interpreting how subjects were being presented?
That question is assuming, of course, that you have not already seen or heard of the violations. You are the moderator of the forum where the CoC violations occurred and are actually insinuating that the material I reported is not really CoC violating material. Posting it just got me a 72 hour ban.
I think that should say a lot right there about the arguments that I have been making.
This has nothing to do with reporting or not reporting, it has to do with the fact that groups can be used, without any moderation, to post inapporpriate material, not to mention violate the CoC without fear. And on a massive scale too, not just person to person PM.I'm not sure that "massive" is an appropriate term. If it's a private group, anything offensive is limited ot the membership of the group, and if any of the group's members are offended, they should report it. ORCs can moderate things that happen in private groups if it gets reported.
After all, there doesn't seem to be a limit to how many people I can send a PM to. I have about three dozen friends. To my knowledge that's more people than any private group currently on the boards. I could therefore hit more people with offensive material than anybody could with a post to a private group. And if nobody reports me, I get away with it. (I amm not plannign to do this, by the way -- it's a hypothetical.)
It's also wrong to say it's "without any moderation". Anybody can report offensive behavior. And ORCs only act when something is reported. If I posted something offensive in a public forum and it doesn't get reported, it will not be moderated. (But the likelihood is small that it won't be reported, as VCLs and Forum Guides tend to see most posts in frequented forums.)
So I still don't see how any of this is new. People can conspire to infringe the CoC in private groups, just as they used to be able to do it (and still can) in PMs or emails. If you see something, report it. If you don't see anything, don't imagine violations that might be happening behind a veil.
And, one of my arguments has been that it is without any moderation if the group limits its members to those who will not report CoC violating material in general or limits their membership to those who will not report CoC violating material that is not disagreeable to them.
Previiously they could get away with it in private messages and emails. Emails are outside the scope of these forums. however, there is a big difference in communicating via messageboards and through private messages.
To illustrate this, I will refer back to post 51:
Private groups are a tool to keep out harassment. By restricting membership, you can prevent people from targeting the group or specific members. That said, that is what the Report button is for.
There is, however, another reason for private groups that I can think of. You can use groups to keep certain information hidden from people that you'd not like to see it. For example, there was a game that was run in the Off Topic Tavern that had groups of board members playing against other groups of board members. To talk strategy, PMs were used. If the group function was available, it would have been used instead because it offers a central place for everyone to look for information. Oh, and a calendar. A calendar would have been awesome. ;) Anyhoo, it's a helpful tool. How helpful in the overall scheme of things is certainly up for debate, but private groups definitely can serve a purpose.
The point is that things can still be done with private messages but that using private groups makes it easier. If it is easier and there is motivation to do it then the incidence of its occurrance will increase. it really is that simple.
there is a difference that will lead to an increase of occurrance.
Don't imagine that things are happening behind a veil? There is no imagining that things occur. Want a concrete example?
I see a violation and report it. It is deleted.
I see a second violation and don't report it to keep from looking like I am causing trouble. It is clearly a CoC violation. I am also curious if it will be reported by anyone else.
I see a third violation and report it. It is deleted.
I see a fourth violation and it is a repeat of the second violation. I report it. It is deleted.
The group goes private a couple of days later and the second violation is still intact when it does so.
At that point, I knew there was a violation occurring behind the veil. Case closed. Whether or not there is now after I have made this thread I have no idea. I don't care. I just bring it up as a concrete counter example. The point is that there is certainty that violations are occurring.
He wanted to know what was going to be done about it and if it is as you say that the stance is "As long as its not public" then thats the answer.
What should be done about it? I'm not sure what the options would or should be to address this concern and nobody has proposed anything.A proposed solution above would be to make groups not private but still implement the closed posting feature.
That solution solves nothing. There would still be private profiles (to which people could post CoC violating blogs, pictures, and other content, visible only to their firends.), private messages (anything goes, again, and only visible to the participants), obfuscating language or codewords that people don't realize are code.Heck, even the big scary case that's supposed to take care of, a private group posting CoC violating stuff, is only "fixed" if someone who is not a member is taking it upon themselves to police the group for the moderators. At which point I think a fair case of harassment could be made.
In short, your "solution" solves nothing.
Remove the privacy features allowing private postings and it is taken care of. And, with respect to private messages, as stated by Zombie Babies the groups and blogs and all those things make the exchange of informationeasier. Giving a restriced posting feature but not a restricted viewing feature will solve the problem.
The case for harassment does not hold water. One can always say that harassment is harassment. But, there are reasons to view groups and teir postings if one is not a member and the viewing is public but the posting is restricted.
1.) It is public. Anyone can look at it and that is enough reason by itself to look at it and it not be harassment. If a CoC violation is reported then it is not harasment but the system working how it is supposed to work.
2.) Someone is interested in joining the group. Johnboy is interested in topic A so when he sees a group about topic A he becomes interested in joinig and decides to read its forums. he is shocked by a CoC violation and reports it.
3.) The postings from a group forum or blog show up in the most viewed or most recent topics (blog?) and so Tammy Sue decides to read it. (Note: I have looked at many group game threads that way as well as a couple of blogs) Tammy Sue discovers a post talking about how all blond haired girls are whores and she reports it.
4.) Billy Joe often posts in a forum which is about topics A, B, and C because those topics hold his interest. Otther posters in that forum belong to a restricted group about topics A, B, and C and although he doesn't wish to join he finds the topics to be interesting and closely related to what he spends a considerable time posting about. Legitimate interest. He notices a blatant CoC violation and reports it.
I could probably name at least one or two more. But, the point stands that there are numerous perfectly legitimate reasons to browse such forums and blogs and wikis. The way I see it, the idea that one may claim harassment is actually an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the CoC is being violated. They are two seperate issues.
So what happens after something illegal is posted and we have some kind of haven for that kind of thing?
That is an issue for WotC's legal department to work out and really has nothing to do with us. They have opted to take the risk with an "ignorance is bliss" attitude. As we arew unlikely to be affected by it in any way anyways, why concern ourselves with it.
why worry about it?
1. I have witnessed it propagated from one venue to the next
2. It is legitimate discussion and can go to community knowledge and whether or not to recommend this site to friends, especially those with children.
As another note, I remember that calronmooflower (I think) used to speak of groups of trolls who would gather at off-site messageboards and plan their "attacks" on the D&D forums. He discovered this by using google search and the right keywords to find where these discussions were taking place.
Now, they can just make their setting private and have a jolly old time relaying their tales in a ptivate forum without ever leaving te site. Wahoo!
Further, the private settings disallowing search (including off-site searches such as google) to show the posts of a poster can make it a pain to debate in a long tread. it gives leeway for posters to contradict themselves and get away with it.
Having read your post above, the best I can glean is that the difference between violating the CoC in PMs (which you could do on the Gleemax board) and violating the CoC in PMs and Private Groups (which you can do now) is that it's slightly easier to do it now.
I don't see why we should care, if nobody is being offended. It seems you're taking metaphysical offense to the notion that people are violating rules without bein seen, as if the rules are involate in some sort of cosmic sense.
And I still don't see a good solution to this supposed problem. And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you propose one.
Having read your post above, the best I can glean is that the difference between violating the CoC in PMs (which you could do on the Gleemax board) and violating the CoC in PMs and Private Groups (which you can do now) is that it's slightly easier to do it now.
I don't see why we should care, if nobody is being offended. It seems you're taking metaphysical offense to the notion that people are violating rules without bein seen, as if the rules are involate in some sort of cosmic sense.
And I still don't see a good solution to this supposed problem. And maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you propose one.
why worry about it?
1. I have witnessed it propagated from one venue to the next (group to general public), a sort of metastasizing if you will.
2. It is legitimate discussion and can go to community knowledge and whether or not to recommend this site to friends, especially those with children. For one, because it is easier to do, it is more likely that someone else just might happen to see some stuff that their parents don't want tem to see if they join a group. Also, as I stated that I have witnessed it propagating from one venue to the next it would increase the probabilty that it will be witnessed by such even if a group is not joined.
1. I have witnessed it propagated from one venue to the next (group to general public), a sort of metastasizing if you will.
If it leaves the private groups, it will get noticed, reported and dealt with.
2. It is legitimate discussion and can go to community knowledge and whether or not to recommend this site to friends, especially those with children. For one, because it is easier to do, it is more likely that someone else just might happen to see some stuff that their parents don't want tem to see if they join a group. Also, as I stated that I have witnessed it propagating from one venue to the next it would increase the probabilty that it will be witnessed by such even if a group is not joined.
If a group is intentionally using the privacy settings to violate the CoC, there is no chance someone will just "happen to see" some stuff, firstly because the group would be private (and thus it's content would be hidden to non members) and secondly, because if a group is intentionally violating the CoC, they will not be inviting people randomly who could report them. If the child were to be invited into this hypothetical violating group, it would be because they are demonstrating like minded tendencies prior to the invite. If that was the case, it is not an issue with the board but with the child and their parents to begin with.
The most likely means of using these boards private groups for CoC violations would be people organizing outside the site, and then using the groups for inappropriate business. This site would then be just one of many options, and the consequences would be for WotC, not the users. And that is their choice to make, not yours.
And again you speak of spillover, but the truth is, if the group is intentionally violating CoC (and that is what your discussing), they will only get themselves caught if they start bringing it outside the group. and seriously, do you believe the kind of CoC violation content you are suggesting will cause issue with child and parent would not be caught and dealt with very quickly? You even admitted that the VCL's dealt with the posts you did report.
While I can understand your concern, you've brought it to the attention of the authorities of the boards and received their stance on the issue. It's seems to me that your continuing your crusade because you were offended and those offenders have not been punished to the level you want (their group taken away).
The only thing I can think of that might help would be periodic checks of private groups to ensure no consistent and serious violations occur (no pornographic images, no disruptive, bigoted or dangerous discussions obviously apparent). beyond this would be an unreasonable expectation of the staff and volunteers. removing the option for privacy would then be denying the option to the many many people who would use it properly because of the fears of a very select few that a likely select fewer are using it inappropriately
Rumplestix: If you are in a private group that has a post violating the CoC, report it. But don't get your panties in a twist about the existence of posts you do not see. Let the member sof those private groups worry about it. If they want to do CoC violating stuff and nobody in the group reports it, who cares? And if the answer to "who cares" is that you do, then that is your problem. The answer to "what happens if nobody reports it" is: nothing.
1. I have witnessed it propagated from one venue to the next (group to general public), a sort of metastasizing if you will.
And when it goes public it will be reported. I don't see the fact that private groups (like private messages) can be used to plan things that violate the CoC is a reaosn to get rid of either.
2. It is legitimate discussion and can go to community knowledge and whether or not to recommend this site to friends, especially those with children.
So don't recommend this site to friends with children. For the third time, what do you want Community Management to do about this supposed problem you've identified? What institutional solution do you propose? Do you want to eliminate private messages and groups? Do you want Wizards to hire a dozen censors (or more) whose job it is to review every comment, blog, wiki, post, message, photo, and group description for inappropriate content?
because it is easier to do
I acknowledged this. I specifically said that's pretty much the entire basis of this whinge. It's easier to plot public violations of the CoC when you have privacy. You even witnessed this occur. Consider me unimpressed with this as a reason to do propose any changes
I've removed content from this thread because baiting, profanity. and other forms of inappropriate content are Code of Conduct violations. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg....
Please keep your posts clean, polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I believe that when in contention, freedom far outways any other concern, ESPECIALLY the imaginary "right not to hear or see things that upset me".
I do not agree with racists, I do not agree with hate mongers. I WILL fight you to the death to defend their freedom to express there crazy, freakish, absurd beliefs, because those same rights protect my right to voice contrary opinions.
Personally, I still feel that including limitations on speech, in any form, even things like limits on what can be said on a "privately owned forum" under terms of use and CoC, by a US Citizen or US Company SHOULD be considered unconstitutional.
I know this won't hold up in a court, but that's still how I feel.
People who are racist are aweful people. Simply preventing them from saying racist things, however, doesn't stop them being racist. It just makes it harder to spot the loonies. I want them nice and vocal so I can tell which ones are the dangerous ones.
I believe that when in contention, freedom far outways any other concern, ESPECIALLY the imaginary "right not to hear or see things that upset me".
I do not agree with racists, I do not agree with hate mongers. I WILL fight you to the death to defend their freedom to express there crazy, freakish, absurd beliefs, because those same rights protect my right to voice contrary opinions.
Personally, I still feel that including limitations on speech, in any form, even things like limits on what can be said on a "privately owned forum" under terms of use and CoC, by a US Citizen or US Company SHOULD be considered unconstitutional.
I know this won't hold up in a court, but that's still how I feel.
People who are racist are aweful people. Simply preventing them from saying racist things, however, doesn't stop them being racist. It just makes it harder to spot the loonies. I want them nice and vocal so I can tell which ones are the dangerous ones.
But, what do you think about the right to see and hear what others have to say?
This is a public forum, so where is the sense in having postings and blogs that others are not allowed to see?
How come those who cry for free speech do not cry against the privacy? Free speech allows those who espouse such ideals to be addressed. But, if they are held in private the only beneficiary is the ones who wish to misuse it.
But, we do have a CoC. So, why not eliminate the "privacy" setting (on all but messaging which would be a return to the prior status quo) which disallows viewership and retain the restricted access with respect to posting?
This would allow posting without fear of trolling interruptions. Since the messaging would be in plain sight, CoC violations could be addressed when they occur.
No one's free speech is being violated at all. What makes you think that you have some sort of free speech "obligation" to fight against what WotC wants to do on its own forum? Why should it be considered unconstitutional when the constitution says the government can't pass laws against it?
Further, by demanding that WotC be required to allow anything to be displayed on its private domains you are depriving them of their free speech and right to control their property. By that argument (what you are stating is how you think things should be), if I were to come into your home and begin to insult and berate your family then it should be unconstitutional for you to ask me to leave for doing so. Plus, I should not even require your permission to enter to begin with.
That is ridiculous.
But, what do you think about the right to see and hear what others have to say?
It is WotC's choice to offer or not offer that option on their domain, not yours.
This is a public forum, so where is the sense in having postings and blogs that others are not allowed to see?
So, malls, which are public locations, shouldn't have closed stalls in their washroom or change rooms in their stores? just because something is public, does not mean it must be devoid of anything private.
This would allow posting without fear of trolling interruptions. Since the messaging would be in plain sight, CoC violations could be addressed when they occur.
umm. this makes no sense. People in private groups are still entitled to report trolling violations if their threads are being disrupted.
What makes you think that you have some sort of free speech "obligation" to fight against what WotC wants to do on its own forum?
same can be asked to you. What makes you think that you have some anti-privacy obligation to fight against what WotC wants to do on it's own forums. they have already stated that they do not desire to dismantle to private groups and have asked you for an alternative solution. you have refused to acknowledge their choice to keep the privacy settings and refused to offer up an alternative solution. yet you continue to rail against their choice.
Further, by demanding that WotC be required to allow anything to be displayed on its private domains you are depriving them of their free speech and right to control their property. By that argument (what you are stating is how you think things should be), if I were to come into your home and begin to insult and berate your family then it should be unconstitutional for you to ask me to leave for doing so. Plus, I should not even require your permission to enter to begin with.
Your analogy is completely inappropriate for the situation. Your analogy includes a violation of ones privacy (trespassing into someones home) and then proceeding to assault them (verbally), which is not the same as having a private dwelling and doing what you want within that dwelling (the current situation on the boards). The board equivalent to this analogy of yours would be someone entering into a private group and enforcing his opinions on the occupants (which is what your actually attempting to do, by granting yourself access to peoples private groups), which is protected from by the CoC. What your trying to do is state, because someone can rent an apartment and break the law (sell drugs, start a racist cult faction, etc), that you should just abolish apartments altogether, and those who can't own their own house should be forced to live in the streets or in public hostiles. Now THAT is ridiculous.
I think I'm done with this.
But, what do you think about the right to see and hear what others have to say?
It is WotC's choice to offer or not offer that option on their domain, not yours.
This is a public forum, so where is the sense in having postings and blogs that others are not allowed to see?
So, malls, which are public locations, shouldn't have closed stalls in their washroom or change rooms in their stores? just because something is public, does not mean it must be devoid of anything private.
This would allow posting without fear of trolling interruptions. Since the messaging would be in plain sight, CoC violations could be addressed when they occur.
umm. this makes no sense. People in private groups are still entitled to report trolling violations if their threads are being disrupted.
What makes you think that you have some sort of free speech "obligation" to fight against what WotC wants to do on its own forum?
same can be asked to you. What makes you think that you have some anti-privacy obligation to fight against what WotC wants to do on it's own forums. they have already stated that they do not desire to dismantle to private groups and have asked you for an alternative solution. you have refused to acknowledge their choice to keep the privacy settings and refused to offer up an alternative solution. yet you continue to rail against their choice.
Further, by demanding that WotC be required to allow anything to be displayed on its private domains you are depriving them of their free speech and right to control their property. By that argument (what you are stating is how you think things should be), if I were to come into your home and begin to insult and berate your family then it should be unconstitutional for you to ask me to leave for doing so. Plus, I should not even require your permission to enter to begin with.
Your analogy is completely inappropriate for the situation. Your analogy includes a violation of ones privacy (trespassing into someones home) and then proceeding to assault them (verbally), which is not the same as having a private dwelling and doing what you want within that dwelling (the current situation on the boards). The board equivalent to this analogy of yours would be someone entering into a private group and enforcing his opinions on the occupants (which is what your actually attempting to do, by granting yourself access to peoples private groups), which is protected from by the CoC. What your trying to do is state, because someone can rent an apartment and break the law (sell drugs, start a racist cult faction, etc), that you should just abolish apartments altogether, and those who can't own their own house should be forced to live in the streets or in public hostiles. Now THAT is ridiculous.I think I'm done with this.
About the following:
"It is WotC's choice to offer or not offer that option on their domain, not yours."
Moot point. I never said that it was my choice.
I have been discussing what is offered here so that everyone can know what the possible ramifications are. I have only listed alternative possibilities after others say there are none. Tiwaztyrsfist was making an argument that free speech is so important that it not be stopped. I responded with a question for Tiwaztyrsfist asking why it is not important to hear thiese things if they are so important to be said.
About this:
"So, malls, which are public locations, shouldn't have closed stalls in their washroom or change rooms in their stores? just because something is public, does not mean it must be devoid of anything private."
This is an analogy made into a bad one by the "mix and match" effect.
First, I specifically stated that there should be the availability of restrictions on postings. However, the public forums are for the posting of information. The private forums are for posting of information. The malls are for the selling of products. The private forums are for the posting of information. The individual bathroom stalls are for the purpose of performing bodily functions. Those functions are not allowed to be done in public within the mall. The changing stalls are for the purpose of ensuring that one's personal bodily privacy is not compromised while changing into an item that is being sold without. The privacy is for the body of the person and not the item being bought. With private groups there is no bodily privacy at issue. The only issue is the privacy of the posted material. It is the same issue being discussed with respect to private and no-private groups and yet two different issues for the mall booths.
Next on the list:
"umm. this makes no sense. People in private groups are still entitled to report trolling violations if their threads are being disrupted."
But, in a restricted group, the trolls will not be able to post into the group even if they are able to read the group forum. Therefore the group members will not need towaste time reporting the trolls. If viewing were public with restricted access then material could be posted and no one would have to worry about discussions being interrupted by trolls. However, if the public viewers witnessed CoC violations then those violations could be reported.
Next:
"same can be asked to you. What makes you think that you have some anti-privacy obligation to fight against what WotC wants to do on it's own forums. they have already stated that they do not desire to dismantle to private groups and have asked you for an alternative solution. you have refused to acknowledge their choice to keep the privacy settings and refused to offer up an alternative solution. yet you continue to rail against their choice."
Wrong on multiple counts.
I do not believe that WotC representatives have stated anything in this thread to that effect. i do not believe they have publicly addressed the arguments tat I have made in this thread. Before starting this thread I sent an email to CS asking them about some of these things and have not received a response answering my questions. I have not even received a response to the simple question asking whether or not a group owner is notified if CS removes content from a group's forum.
Further, I have offered an alternative: restricted posting with public viewing.
These questions have not been answered by WotC.
Further in your quote responding to me the quote I was responding to was left out.
Finally:
"Your analogy is completely inappropriate for the situation. Your analogy includes a violation of ones privacy (trespassing into someones home) and then proceeding to assault them (verbally), which is not the same as having a private dwelling and doing what you want within that dwelling (the current situation on the boards). The board equivalent to this analogy of yours would be someone entering into a private group and enforcing his opinions on the occupants (which is what your actually attempting to do, by granting yourself access to peoples private groups), which is protected from by the CoC. What your trying to do is state, because someone can rent an apartment and break the law (sell drugs, start a racist cult faction, etc), that you should just abolish apartments altogether, and those who can't own their own house should be forced to live in the streets or in public hostiles. Now THAT is ridiculous."
False conclusions.
I never said that the person tresspassed into the house. So, it very well could have been someone who was invited into the residence who began insulting the owner. But, Tiwaztyrsfist argued that he would fight tothe death against private ownership being used to infringe upon freedom of speech. Again by leaving out the quote I was responding to my answer is taken out of context. This forum including the private groups are the property of WotC. Tiwaztyrsfist was arguing against the right of WotC to regulate (perform moderations and not just referring to the allowing of) private groups within forums owned by WotC. I was challenging that argument.
The residence argument is not viable simply for the fact that we are not talking about residences. The Pacific Ocean is a body of water. A puddle outside my bedroom window is a body of water. Since they are both bodies of water any conclusions I can draw regarding the Pacific Ocean I can also draw regarding the puddle. Therefore the deepest part of the puddle is over 6 miles deep just like the Marianas trench in the Pacific Ocean. That is ridiculous but thanks for the laugh. Actual living residences receive extra protections because people need a place to live. No one is going to die from exposure to the elements because we do not give them a place to post that others cannot see it.
WotC is under no obligation to offer private groups to anyone. They do so and I have brought up reasons that I believe they are a bad idea. WotC has not addressed these arguments.
WotC is under no obligation to offer private groups to anyone. They do so and I have brought up reasons that I believe they are a bad idea. WotC has not addressed these arguments.
You have brought up one reason -- it makes it easier for people to plot public CoC violations. I think the cure -- eliminating privacy -- is worse than the problem you've identified. I find the problem you've identified trivial, at most.
At any rate, you've now identified the problem. WotC has indeed not responded to you, but then again they don't generally respond to anything posted here, since this isn't the forum for communicating with WotC. This forum is for communicating with Community Management's volunteers, and they have responded. All who have responded have disagreed with your opinion. As do I.
If you want to communicate directly to WotC, send an email to Customer Service. They will make note of your complaint, but don't expect a response beyond the fact that they received your message.
Is there anything else?
WotC is under no obligation to offer private groups to anyone. They do so and I have brought up reasons that I believe they are a bad idea. WotC has not addressed these arguments.
You have brought up one reason -- it makes it easier for people to plot public CoC violations. I think the cure -- eliminating privacy -- is worse than the problem you've identified. I find the problem you've identified trivial, at most.At any rate, you've now identified the problem. WotC has indeed not responded to you, but then again they don't generally respond to anything posted here, since this isn't the forum for communicating with WotC. This forum is for communicating with Community Management's volunteers, and they have responded. All who have responded have disagreed with your opinion. As do I.
If you want to communicate directly to WotC, send an email to Customer Service. They will make note of your complaint, but don't expect a response beyond the fact that they received your message.
Is there anything else?
This forum is not just for contacting the community management's volunteers. It is for discussions regarding the community.
Also, CS has not even responded to a basic simple question that I asked:
"If a forum within a group (private or not) receives moderation, will the group owner be notified of the moderation that occurred (including content that was removed) and what personas were actually involved?"
I believe that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask because it would be important to know for anyone who may actually have a group. Yet, I have received no answer.
As for anything else, I had not yet had an opportunity to respond to your previous post:
1. I have witnessed it propagated from one venue to the next (group to general public), a sort of metastasizing if you will.
And when it goes public it will be reported. I don't see the fact that private groups (like private messages) can be used to plan things that violate the CoC is a reaosn to get rid of either.2. It is legitimate discussion and can go to community knowledge and whether or not to recommend this site to friends, especially those with children.
So don't recommend this site to friends with children. For the third time, what do you want Community Management to do about this supposed problem you've identified? What institutional solution do you propose? Do you want to eliminate private messages and groups? Do you want Wizards to hire a dozen censors (or more) whose job it is to review every comment, blog, wiki, post, message, photo, and group description for inappropriate content?because it is easier to do
I acknowledged this. I specifically said that's pretty much the entire basis of this whinge. It's easier to plot public violations of the CoC when you have privacy. You even witnessed this occur. Consider me unimpressed with this as a reason to do propose any changes
First:
"And when it goes public it will be reported. I don't see the fact that private groups (like private messages) can be used to plan things that violate the CoC is a reaosn to get rid of either."
Two points.
First, the previously mentioned "propagation" from one venue to another was made for a reason. It will increase the intensity and frequency in my opinion. In fact, one of webster's arguments against allowing political discussions to occur within the OTT was that they would spill over into places they don't belong. Why is it so difficult to believe that if posters can exhibit CoC violating behavior within private groups that they might become emboldened to do so in public where they might not have done so if they had not had the opportunity to congregate and do so in private forums? It is a sound reason for the expectation of the increase of CoC violating behavior.
Second, why not remove the private viewing option but retain the restricted posting option? How much would be lost? Why is this such a bad idea? With this option the possible restrictions are greatly reduced and the ability for CoC violations to occur with impugnity would be removed.
What I find is hilarious is that people are talking about privacy and free speech, when there are none and there is no expectation of it. First Amendment rights doesn't say that you can say whatever you want whereever you want to. They (WoTC if caught) will take appropriate actions according to the rules they have set forth. While it is a publically accessible forum, it is not a public venue. If WoTC wanted to make a program that tracks what people type on their site, they can because that is in the Terms of Use. Case after case, has been in favor of the company. There is actually nothing truly private communicated on these forums or if there is, they understand that they didn't have it to begin with.
This forum is not just for contacting the community management's volunteers. It is for discussions regarding the community.
You specifically mentioned communicating with CS. I didn't say it was the only reason.
Also, CS has not even responded to a basic simple question that I asked
So what? Nobody said they would respond. I imagine you got a notice that the email was received. Don't expect anything else.
It will increase the intensity and frequency in my opinion.
My opinion differs (or rather, my opinion is that any increase would be unappreciable). If I see a significant increase in bad behavior, I'll reconsider that opinion.
In fact, one of webster's arguments against allowing political discussions to occur within the OTT was that they would spill over into places they don't belong. Why is it so difficult to believe that if posters can exhibit CoC violating behavior within private groups that they might become emboldened to do so in public where they might not have done so if they had not had the opportunity to congregate and do so in private forums? It is a sound reason for the expectation of the increase of CoC violating behavior.
why not remove the private viewing option but retain the restricted posting option?
Because I think private groups is not so different from PMs to warrant any change whatsoever, even the minor change for which you so ardently argue. I would think this a tempest in a teapot, except they don't make teapots small enough to make the analogy accurate.
Also, CS has not even responded to a basic simple question that I asked
So what? Nobody said they would respond. I imagine you got a notice that the email was received. Don't expect anything else.
That is an automated notice and not a response.
If CS does not respond to its customers then it is not CS. CS is Customer Service. If they do not respond to questions then they are not providing customer service.
It is one thing to ask for policies or to ask for specifics as to how the ORCs will adjudicate situations. They may not wish to give concrete answers to either in order to not box themselves in.
However, the creation of groups is a new option that is available. There are questions that will arise when creating them. It occurred to me that since it is expected of posters to report violations in groups that it might be reported to CS and moderated without the knowledge of the owner or any moderator assigned by the owner. Therefore it seemed to me to be prudent for CS to notify a group owner of moderation that occurs. This seems to me to be especially true for some groups that are rather large, a couple of examples being PbP Haven and Real Adventures. Those two forums don't typically have subject matter that leads to CoC violations but they are large enough with enough postings that something could be posted and moderated without the owner knowing. If such a thing did occur in a group of similar size, it would be nice for the group owner to be made fully aware by CS.
So, the question is does CS do that? It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. Answering such a question is something that "customer service" should do. If they simply do not bother answering questions then their is no need for a CS to exist outside of conduct report and technical report. However, there are separate choices to make for the message to be directed to such as community management. If community management will not answer questions directed to them through CS then there is no reason for the option. And, to repeat, this is a perfectly legitimate question because it pertains to how a group owner may need to act to effectively manage a group that (s)he creates.
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
What I find is hilarious is that people are talking about privacy and free speech, when there are none and there is no expectation of it. First Amendment rights doesn't say that you can say whatever you want whereever you want to. They (WoTC if caught) will take appropriate actions according to the rules they have set forth. While it is a publically accessible forum, it is not a public venue. If WoTC wanted to make a program that tracks what people type on their site, they can because that is in the Terms of Use. Case after case, has been in favor of the company. There is actually nothing truly private communicated on these forums or if there is, they understand that they didn't have it to begin with.
And I find it funny how people can consistently misread "I think free speech is important, even though I recognize that it isn't legally applicable to this situation" as "the first amendment applies here! WotC is breaking the constitution!"
What I find is hilarious is that people are talking about privacy and free speech, when there are none and there is no expectation of it. First Amendment rights doesn't say that you can say whatever you want whereever you want to. They (WoTC if caught) will take appropriate actions according to the rules they have set forth. While it is a publically accessible forum, it is not a public venue. If WoTC wanted to make a program that tracks what people type on their site, they can because that is in the Terms of Use. Case after case, has been in favor of the company. There is actually nothing truly private communicated on these forums or if there is, they understand that they didn't have it to begin with.
And I find it funny how people can consistently misread "I think free speech is important, even though I recognize that it isn't legally applicable to this situation" as "the first amendment applies here! WotC is breaking the constitution!"
But, this is WotC's property and they have invited us in.
If you invited someone into your home and they insulted you and your family, would you continue to invite them in and allow them to do so in your home?
If you invited someone into your home and they insulted you and your family, would you continue to invite them in and allow them to do so in your home?
Rumple... I love ya... but in regards to the above...
I'm still here...
But, are you arguing that WotC should not have a right to deactivate your account if they chose to?
The point is that Muktar's post came after that by Tiwaztyrsfist post where he stated he would fight to the death to protect the right that others be able to say what they want.
This sounds good but he was explicitly stating this with respect to private holdings and in explicit reference to racists whom he vehemently disagreed with. So, I asked Tiwastyrsfist if he would kick someone out of his own house for insulting his family.
Muktar's post shoertly followed and I am still waiting on an answer.
Question: Does CS notify group owners regading moderation that they perform and if so do they inform as to the nature of what brought about the moderation?
Answer: No on the first part which leads to N/A on the second.
What does everyone else think?
If moderation were removing and editing posts in a group that you owned would you want to know about it?
Would you want to know what material was deemed necessary to remove?
While I generally don't agree with you on the bulk of this threads content, I must agree that this is in no way an issue of free speech (unless someone wanted to make an incredably thin argument that it is WotC's right to provide a venue in which posters can express themselves, including both public and private forums... but thats really a stretch). But I also need to point out that your analogies appear to be doing the very thing you've accused me of doing... Mixing and matching. Your analogies on entering someones home and belittleing them have in no way related to your stance on private groups, and in fact, the goal of the analogy seems almost contradictory to your stance on public forums.
While I generally don't agree with you on the bulk of this threads content, I must agree that this is in no way an issue of free speech (unless someone wanted to make an incredably thin argument that it is WotC's right to provide a venue in which posters can express themselves, including both public and private forums... but thats really a stretch). But I also need to point out that your analogies appear to be doing the very thing you've accused me of doing... Mixing and matching. Your analogies on entering someones home and belittleing them have in no way related to your stance on private groups, and in fact, the goal of the analogy seems almost contradictory to your stance on public forums.
I am not sure that I follow this.
I am merely pointing out where the logic of arguments being made by others leads to.
In Tiwastyrsfit's post it was stated that:
I do not agree with racists, I do not agree with hate mongers. I WILL fight you to the death to defend their freedom to express there crazy, freakish, absurd beliefs, because those same rights protect my right to voice contrary opinions.
Personally, I still feel that including limitations on speech, in any form, even things like limits on what can be said on a "privately owned forum" under terms of use and CoC, by a US Citizen or US Company SHOULD be considered unconstitutional.
This was an argument by someone else relating private groups to a "greater context" (free speech evereywhere and in everything) and using that greater context to pass judgement upon free-speech limitations in private groups.
So, I followed the argument of how it was stated "freedom of speech" should be applied everywhere including private groups and asked how it would be applied in one's own house since it should personally apply everywhere according to Tiwastyrsfist.
I never stated that it should apply in privately owned areas. I never stated that WotC should not have the right to make whatever decisions it chooses to make with their own privately owned forums. I clearly believe they do have the right to do so.
I was reacting to another poster setting criteria for passing judgment and demonstrated where that criteria leads. The criteria was specifically set for freedom of speech in any form which includes privately owned forums.
Therefore I am not oplaying mix and match with the post being discussed. The post said limitations "in any form" so I chose a form that was included: speech within one's personal residence.
What does everyone else think?
From this thread, it would appear that most (myself included) don't care.
What does everyone else think?
From this thread, it would appear that most (myself included) don't care.
The what does everyone else think was to a completely different question that had not been put forth before.
Do the owners of groups want to be notified if the ORCs do moderation upon their group?
I will note that you are on the list of those not caring as is wrecan.
However, I will not consider you as speaking for most everyone else.
So, for those who have so vehemently supported free speech in all its forrms, do you want to know if the ORCs are removing content from a group that you own?
How about everybody else?
I personally do not see the problem here. So what if we the public can't monitor private groups? It is exactly like the PM messages from before. There is no difference.
As for the groups question, why bother? If I create a thread I don't get notafied if it is modded and to be honest I could not care less.
I personally do not see the problem here. So what if we the public can't monitor private groups? It is exactly like the PM messages from before. There is no difference.
As for the groups question, why bother? If I create a thread I don't get notafied if it is modded and to be honest I could not care less.
Why bother?
You may have an open group but upon finding out that posters are coming in and trolling you may wish to close it. Or, you may wish to kick out someone who is a member if your group has private membership.
Why is everyone saying PM's didn't used to get moderated?I know they did.
One time, a while ago, I sent one of my "favorite" posters a PM, telling them quite distinctly what I thought about them. It wasn't flattering at all, I guessed he reported it because I got banned. I had to make another account to get back in.
So, yes, PM's are/were moderated...
But only if they were reported. Just like with private groups.
Why is everyone saying PM's didn't used to get moderated?I know they did.
One time, a while ago, I sent one of my "favorite" posters a PM, telling them quite distinctly what I thought about them. It wasn't flattering at all, I guessed he reported it because I got banned. I had to make another account to get back in.
So, yes, PM's are/were moderated...
But only if they were reported. Just like with private groups.
What about my question?
Do you think that CS should inform the owner of a group if moderation is performed within the group?
If you owned a group, would you want to know of it?
Would you want to know what was moderated and why?
What about my question?Do you think that CS should inform the owner of a group if moderation is performed within the group?
If you owned a group, would you want to know of it?
Would you want to know what was moderated and why?
I don't really care. I'd probably think it would be nice enough, assuming I was invested enough in the group to have an interest. But only if it didn't mean less energy directed in other places, which I suspect it would. But I'm having trouble seeing what this had to do with the original topic (that people could use private groups to commit CoC violations in secrecy).
What about my question?Do you think that CS should inform the owner of a group if moderation is performed within the group?
If you owned a group, would you want to know of it?
Would you want to know what was moderated and why?
I don't really care. I'd probably think it would be nice enough, assuming I was invested enough in the group to have an interest. But only if it didn't mean less energy directed in other places, which I suspect it would. But I'm having trouble seeing what this had to do with the original topic (that people could use private groups to commit CoC violations in secrecy).
It grew out of discussion and is tangentially related.
wrecan and I ended up discussing what CS would/would not respond to as far as inquiries are concerned. This led to me bringing up a question I had asked CS regarding groups and had not received an answer.
First, it had to do with moderation within groups and many posters had stated that they were against moderation in general, it seemed to me that they would want to be aware if things posted in their forum were being deleted because it would fit their definitions of censorship.
Second, since it could lead to a desire to make a group restricted and/or private so as to prevent trolling by posters who are not members, I thought group owners might wish to know if posters were disrupting their forums. (Note: in most forums nonmembers can still post, I think) So, this is tangentially related to private and restricted forums.
Third, if a group has members who are posting material that is being removed, a group owner may wish to know what was posted and removed. Again, tangentially related since it has to do with groups and moderation of CoC violating material.
The question is tangentially related and I thought that it might be interesting for posters and group owners to consider. Fair enough? :-)
I don't really care. I'd probably think it would be nice enough, assuming I was invested enough in the group to have an interest. But only if it didn't mean less energy directed in other places, which I suspect it would. But I'm having trouble seeing what this had to do with the original topic (that people could use private groups to commit CoC violations in secrecy).
He's asking if people who think free speach is relevant here also think the moderation of peoples posts should also have some transparency, and as a group leader, who can control it's membership (particularly private groups), you'd want to know if your members posts are being moderated. On the flip side, I suspect the fact that group leaders could then attempt to track down, not the offender for removal of the group, but the reporter (as happened to him), will eventually be brought up.
I think it's a reasonable question and deserves an answer that is considered seperately from the original issue (as it could help lead to better self moderation of those private groups who are attempting to work within the CoC... AKA an alternate solution to the denial of private groups). As to my answer to the question, I'm really not sure, as I don't particularly use groups in any form, let alone having my own... However, I can imagine that if I was attempting to run a private group, I would appreciate the additional transparency from the moderators to help me keep a further eye for self moderation. That said, given the current level of inconsistent transparency, I realy can't see it happening.
RUMPLESTIX, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. My statement was to anyone that was trying to say that they had a right to say whatever they want to say. Just like everything else in life, while you might physically be able to say what you want to say, it doesn't stop the people from hearing it to give you the boot out the door. The second thing that some people (I wasn't naming names or even implying names) that PM's and messages in the 'private' portion of the site is considered private. My point on that is that they need to reread the terms of use for the site again as that they have no such protections implied or otherwise. I giggle everytime I see someone talk about 'rights of free speech' or 'privacy'.
I didn't respond right away because I was too busy having fun kicking the crap out of elemental nagas, demons, and other nasty things.
(removed content for continuity)
RUMPLE claimed that I do not speak for the majority when I offered the observation that it appears most on this thread do not share the concern he has raised (i.e., they do not care as he does). Although I do not claim to speak for the majority, I do believe my observation reflects the majority of opinions offered in this thread.
(removed content for continuity)
RUMPLE claimed that I do not speak for the majority when I offered the observation that it appears most on this thread do not share the concern he has raised (i.e., they do not care as he does). Although I do not claim to speak for the majority, I do believe my observation reflects the majority of opinions offered in this thread.
But, you did speak for the majority since all the posting prior to my question had been in relation to CoC violations behind closed doors and not with respect to the question I had asked. When you looked at the prior responses and concluded that most of the posters would not care about a different question, you chose to speak for them.
You spoke for their answers to a question that they had not posted in response to.
I've removed content from this thread because Disruption is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. Just remember to keep posts on the topic and if you see something that's baiting, trolling or flaming, just hit the report button. Do NOT respond to it.
Thank you.
Now get it back on topic.
ORC_CHaoS
If you have any questions about Conduct Violations, please contact us using the EMAIL US link on the Customer Service page. Please, do NOT post those inquiries on the forums as we will not answer them publicly and they simply serve to disrupt the ongoing conversation.
If you have any questions about Conduct Violations, please contact us using the EMAIL US link on the Customer Service page. Please, do NOT post those inquiries on the forums as we will not answer them publicly and they simply serve to disrupt the ongoing conversation.
And...if we contact via email and do not get an answer?
And...if we contact via email and do not get an answer?
Corporate Contact Information
Location:
Wizards of the Coast LLC
1600 Lind Ave. SW, Ste. 400
Renton, WA 98055
Mailing Address:
Wizards of the Coast LLC
PO Box 707
Renton, WA 98057
From the Contact Us link at the bottom of every page.
And...if we contact via email and do not get an answer?Corporate Contact Information
Location:
Wizards of the Coast LLC
1600 Lind Ave. SW, Ste. 400
Renton, WA 98055
Mailing Address:
Wizards of the Coast LLC
PO Box 707
Renton, WA 98057From the Contact Us link at the bottom of every page.
Thanks wrecan, but I think that you missed the point I was making.
The point is that the suggestion to email CS about that particular line of interest is not a particularly good one, IMO. Do you agree? Unless I misinterpreted (quite possible, IMO), you were putting forward the point that CS will not answer a lot of questions.
Also, I am curious about something. What types of response do most people get when they actually mail a letter in to WotC? How many of those instances do you know to have occurred and how many do you know of that led to some sort of resolution that was different than the status quo? Because, if there is no chance of success then there is no reason to do it.
So, what is the history of success and failure with the old snail mail method?
I don't necessarily agree that going through CS resulted in a "failure." Did you ask a question that required a response, or just send them information? If your goal was to alert them to something you saw as a problem, and they read it, then it was successful. If they didn't give you a proper hand-written response, well, yeah, that could be seen as kind of rude, but not automatically an indication of failure. If you don't see them acting on the information, that doesn't mean they didn't receive the information, but could mean that they just don't agree with your assessment of the problem or are currently trying to decide how to handle it.
Thanks wrecan, but I think that you missed the point I was making.
Oh, I got it. I just decided to ignore your insinuation and address the literal question you asked instead.
The point is that the suggestion to email CS about that particular line of interest is not a particularly good one, IMO. Do you agree? Unless I misinterpreted (quite possible, IMO), you were putting forward the point that CS will not answer a lot of questions.
You misinterpreted. You asked what to do if you don't get a response from your email to Customer Service. I told you what the next step would be -- write directly to Customer Service via snail mail and explain your dissatisfaction.
Also, I am curious about something. What types of response do most people get when they actually mail a letter in to WotC?
No idea. I've never been dissatisfied with the responses to any of the dozens of requests I've sent to Customer Service via email. Frankly, the only times I've ever heard people getting no response from CS email is if 1) they are having email or other access issues, 2) their request is for something self-absorbed like demanding to know why one of their posts was moderated, or 3) offering a suggested change to the forums and never getting more than the auto-response (which, imo, is plenty of response). I don't recall what your issue was.
How many of those instances do you know to have occurred and how many do you know of that led to some sort of resolution that was different than the status quo? Because, if there is no chance of success then there is no reason to do it.
I have no basis to opine on the success rate, because I know nobody who has ever done it. But it can't be worse than the lack fo response you claim to have gotten to your CS email, can it? And it would only cost you a piece of paper, envelope and a stamp.
No idea. I've never been dissatisfied with the responses to any of the dozens of requests I've sent to Customer Service via email. Frankly, the only times I've ever heard people getting no response from CS email is if 1) they are having email or other access issues, 2) their request is for something self-absorbed like demanding to know why one of their posts was moderated, or 3) offering a suggested change to the forums and never getting more than the auto-response (which, imo, is plenty of response). I don't recall what your issue was.
My issue was asking whether or not a group owner would receive notification if his (or her) group received moderation. AlthoughI did not explicitly state this here, it was more in reference to violations that are severe enough to send a CS warning to the perpetrator.
Although many may disagree as to whether or not a group owner should receive notification, I do not think asking whether or not one does receive a notice was in any way an unreasonable question to ask of CS.
I am still not sure exactly what brought Orc Tao's post into play. Was it posted after a deletion that brought something up? Or, should I not be asking that question? (weak attempt at humor)
I am still not sure exactly what brought Orc Tao's post into play. Was it posted after a deletion that brought something up? Or, should I not be asking that question? (weak attempt at humor)
Tao's post was a response to a question asked that was inappropriate (and thus deleted). Ironically, the question was answered by the very response he gave.
I am still not sure exactly what brought Orc Tao's post into play. Was it posted after a deletion that brought something up? Or, should I not be asking that question? (weak attempt at humor)
Tao's post was a response to a question asked that was inappropriate (and thus deleted). Ironically, the question was answered by the very response he gave.
Thanks, that answers it.
For some reason I thought that this thread was locked yesterday even after noticing that Orc Chaos did not lock it with that post. So, the new post today threw me off for a moment.
They don't notify us when they lock threads anymore. The other day I came across a thread where the last post was by an ORC about "keeping it civil or this thread could get locked". That was the last post before it got locked.
That's a Hasty Generalization lokiare.
It is also a Argument From Ignorance as deleted posts after that one are also possible.
[edit]
Here's a lock at Oct 01, 2009 - 11:05AM with ORC announcement.
One of my arguments has been that it is without any moderation if the group limits its members to those who will not report CoC violating material in general or limits their membership to those who will not report CoC violating material that is not disagreeable to them.
If the groups membership is limited to those who agree with the topic (or at least don't find it offensive), then what's the problem? Those members are the only ones who are going to see it.
As a general example, let's say I don't like "X". X could be anything from racism, to pro-life/pro-choice, to something the CoC forbids, such as discussion of politics or religion in general. It could be more specific, such as bashing a certain religion, or political group. And on this site, I notice a group about topic X. What would be the course of action that would make the most sense?
A) Ignore the group.
B) Interact with the group, join, become a member, and flag every post.
C) Report the group as a whole.
Obviously your argument is gunning for option C) all the time, but what if the topic isn't something that the CoC forbids? What if it's something that I personally find offensive (think a pro-life/pro-choice group, or something along those lines) that isn't a violation of the CoC, but that still offends me? C) is not an option in this circumstance, since nothing will be done about the group (it's not violating the CoC, and thus, not worthy of moderation).
The group is private for a reason. Not everyone will agree with what is being said within that group. Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that certain things should just not be allowed on this board, no matter how private the group is (racism, pornography, and things that the CoC forbids, such as religion and politics, as well as discrimination in either of those 2 topics), but other things? Not so much.
I see a violation and report it. It is deleted.I see a second violation and don't report it to keep from looking like I am causing trouble. It is clearly a CoC violation. I am also curious if it will be reported by anyone else.
I see a third violation and report it. It is deleted.
I see a fourth violation and it is a repeat of the second violation. I report it. It is deleted.
The group goes private a couple of days later and the second violation is still intact when it does so.
At that point, I knew there was a violation occurring behind the veil. Case closed. Whether or not there is now after I have made this thread I have no idea. I don't care. I just bring it up as a concrete counter example. The point is that there is certainty that violations are occurring.
Right, but how does this violation existing where you can't see it or interact with it in any way actually affect you and your use of these boards?
One of my arguments has been that it is without any moderation if the group limits its members to those who will not report CoC violating material in general or limits their membership to those who will not report CoC violating material that is not disagreeable to them.If the groups membership is limited to those who agree with the topic (or at least don't find it offensive), then what's the problem? Those members are the only ones who are going to see it.
As a general example, let's say I don't like "X". X could be anything from racism, to pro-life/pro-choice, to something the CoC forbids, such as discussion of politics or religion in general. It could be more specific, such as bashing a certain religion, or political group. And on this site, I notice a group about topic X. What would be the course of action that would make the most sense?
A) Ignore the group.
B) Interact with the group, join, become a member, and flag every post.
C) Report the group as a whole.Obviously your argument is gunning for option C) all the time, but what if the topic isn't something that the CoC forbids? What if it's something that I personally find offensive (think a pro-life/pro-choice group, or something along those lines) that isn't a violation of the CoC, but that still offends me? C) is not an option in this circumstance, since nothing will be done about the group (it's not violating the CoC, and thus, not worthy of moderation).
The group is private for a reason. Not everyone will agree with what is being said within that group. Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with you that certain things should just not be allowed on this board, no matter how private the group is (racism, pornography, and things that the CoC forbids, such as religion and politics, as well as discrimination in either of those 2 topics), but other things? Not so much.
I see a violation and report it. It is deleted.I see a second violation and don't report it to keep from looking like I am causing trouble. It is clearly a CoC violation. I am also curious if it will be reported by anyone else.
I see a third violation and report it. It is deleted.
I see a fourth violation and it is a repeat of the second violation. I report it. It is deleted.
The group goes private a couple of days later and the second violation is still intact when it does so.
At that point, I knew there was a violation occurring behind the veil. Case closed. Whether or not there is now after I have made this thread I have no idea. I don't care. I just bring it up as a concrete counter example. The point is that there is certainty that violations are occurring.
Right, but how does this violation existing where you can't see it or interact with it in any way actually affect you and your use of these boards?
OK, a few notes...
"X could be anything from racism, to pro-life/pro-choice, to something the CoC forbids, such as discussion of politics or religion in general."
The list apparently starts at one end (apparently not explicitly forbidden by the CoC) with racism and then ends with what it states is something forbidden by the CoC: religion and politics.
Racism is explicitly a violation of the Coc. It is covered as follows:
2. Do not use, post, distribute or link to obscene, pornographic, sexually explicit, graphically or gratuitously violent, derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive, hateful or discriminatory language or content.
and...
3. Do not harass, bully, threaten, harm or cause discomfort for other persons, including any other members. For example:
- Use hate speech or racial, ethnic, sexist, homophobic or religious slurs
So, racism is explicitly covered within the CoC and has been for as long as I have been a member.
Politics and religion, on the other hand, may have been covered somewhere in the past but are not forbidden by the CoC now.
The discussion of politics and religion was removed as an allowed topic because the discussions inevitably degenerated into flaming, baiting, and trolling. Thus, when posting about religion and politics after the ban was instituted was considered forum disruption as it would inevitable lead to a disruption of the forum. But, with restricted posting, there would not be the continuous line of baiting, flaming, and trolling. So, one would be allowed to do so by the CoC.
Now, it should be noted that what is considered to be "offensive" by the standards of the CoC is something that the ORCs are trained in. At least, every ORC or community leader (VCLs, etc) who has ever posted with regards to moderation has stated that the ORCs receive specific instruction as to what is and is not a violation.
Having restricted posting but open viewing would prevent the flaming. So, if someone were "offended" by something and reported it then it would be left up to the ORCs (who are trained to interpret the CoC) to determine if moderation were necessary.
Next:
Right, but how does this violation existing where you can't see it or interact with it in any way actually affect you and your use of these boards?
I witnessed growth and propagation from one venue to the next. Its allowance to be posted within the group was an enabling factor that contributed to continued hostility within the public forum.
That's a Hasty Generalization lokiare.
It is also a Argument From Ignorance as deleted posts after that one are also possible.[edit]
Here's a lock at Oct 01, 2009 - 11:05AM with ORC announcement.
I'll give you the hasty generalization and apologize for it, but the 'argument from ignorance' is not possible as every time in the past a thread was locked, an ORC had the final post and explained why it was locked.
If your talking about what is up with moderation?, then you are ignoring the fact that the OP of the thread requested it be closed, not an ORC closing it for violations. It was discussed within the thread as well between myself and RUMPLE. The please don't violate the CoC post by the orc was in response to several posts that were deleted, then about 30 minutes later, the thread got locked as per the OP's request and the discussion contained within.
I'll give you the hasty generalization and apologize for it, but the 'argument from ignorance' is not possible as every time in the past a thread was locked, an ORC had the final post and explained why it was locked.
They most likely made an error and didn't post a final message in that thread.
Also, you are still ignoring the possibility of posts happening after the "be nice" posts that where deleted.
So you are defining it as the last post, even though it might not have been, based of the lack of currently visible posts.
Thus it is an Argument From Silence. So I miss identified the fallacy being used.
ORCs do not give any more notification to group owners than they would give notification to thread starters.
Normally when a thread gets locked the last post explains why and is either from an ORC or a VCL.
True, but it's helpful at times if they don't. A prime example is the recent spat of spam messages. It's not helpful to just close those with the messsage "This thread is closed because it's spam." Simple thread removal is better and keeps the fourms cleaned up.