... and you report posts, at least do us a favor and post why. Feel free to do so here. I know I'd like to know - if this is even the case - why someone would read, not feel inclined to contribute and still report things. Help an OTTer out, homies.
Seconded.
... and you report posts, at least do us a favor and post why. Feel free to do so here. I know I'd like to know - if this is even the case - why someone would read, not feel inclined to contribute and still report things. Help an OTTer out, homies.
Seconded.
Reported! :P
I dont want to get dragged into a flame war, or end up on some troll's radar, or get in trouble with the Mods myself, so I say nothing in the thread, click report, and move on. Even if it is something minor (like someone cursing/swearing in their post), I am not going to bring it up in the thread after I have reported it, because that is a Mod's job and I dont want to tread on their toes. I have learnt lessons the hard way in the past... (Mods tend not to like it when you tell them how to do their jobs)
~ Tim
That said, I do appreciate one lurker coming here and offering us an explanation for their actions. I also caution against any assumptions that this lurker reported any specific poster or posts. We do not know and it's not fair to assume.
Meh, I'll probably never understand it. What-evs.
also, I'm with you ZB. I don't get why people report threads they are not even taking part in. Whatever...
I understand reporting as an active participant, but I just can't wrap my head around reporting when you don't even care enough about the topic to post.
The topics I dont care about, I dont read in the first place. Sometimes caring about something is the reason why I would report a post on that topic (it can be better to nip something in the bud before it derails a thread). Sometimes I really want to post a reply to something, but I know doing so would be a bad idea (the more passionately I object to something the better it is I dont respond publicly, since I am liable to get myself in trouble).
I get the impression that this thread was prompted by some posts being deleted/threads being locked/people being admonished, brought on by posts being reported. FWIW, I havent reported anything here recently, and when I have it has only been minor stuff. I havent been involved in whatever has gone down (assuming something has).
Re: reporting swearing/cursing. The filters dont catch a lot of offensive terms. I wouldnt want my children, or my younger relatives, or my friends children, picking up things here that they shouldnt. I also wouldnt want prospective players being banned from the game because their parents read things over their shoulder that they didnt like. Who knows if that kid who's parents stop him playing because of the bad image swearing on the forums gives wouldnt turn out to be a good friend of mine in a few years if left to carry on playing?
That said, its not for me to tell people to cut it out (although I do when it happens at the FLGS) - there are Mods for that.
~ Tim
I understand reporting as an active participant, but I just can't wrap my head around reporting when you don't even care enough about the topic to post.
The topics I dont care about, I dont read in the first place. Sometimes caring about something is the reason why I would report a post on that topic (it can be better to nip something in the bud before it derails a thread).
The problem though, is that you nip nothing in the bud by reporting a post. All you do is get the thead shut down. That doesn't accomplish you getting a thread you like and it does take away from everyone else having a thread that they like.
I get the impression that this thread was prompted by some posts being deleted/threads being locked/people being admonished, brought on by posts being reported. FWIW, I havent reported anything here recently, and when I have it has only been minor stuff. I havent been involved in whatever has gone down (assuming something has).
Yeah. It started due to threads being closed and deleted.
The problem though, is that you nip nothing in the bud by reporting a post. All you do is get the thead shut down. That doesn't accomplish you getting a thread you like and it does take away from everyone else having a thread that they like.
Not really; quite often it's just a few edits and a reminder of the existence of CoC. A warning, if you like.
The threads that get blocked are usually very flamy.
The problem though, is that you nip nothing in the bud by reporting a post. All you do is get the thead shut down. That doesn't accomplish you getting a thread you like and it does take away from everyone else having a thread that they like.
Not only that, but because the mods never state why a thread has been closed the offenders sometimes don't even realize that they were the ones that caused it to get shut down and so the behavior continues unabated.
Not really; quite often it's just a few edits and a reminder of the existence of CoC. A warning, if you like.
The threads that get blocked are usually very flamy.
Its kind of hit and miss. It seems to me that more often than not threads just get closed even if only one person is causing trouble or even if there's only minor issues rather than an all out flame war.
Not often, and usually I'll post just to say I'm reporting something and why (typically because someone is advertising).
If your throwing a party, and you say "no drinking at my damn party" and someone is drinking at your party, I'll probably tell you. 'Cause its your damn party. Ignoring the rules is disrespectfull to your host.
It is funny, cause the mods only do something when someone reports. But it is nice of you to be self-righteous and guard the forums form what you believe is wrong.
And you do know kids will learn curse words elsewhere, like in school.
I hate people, they are stupid.
You don't have a leg to stand on here Goldie. If he reports a thread you like (not saying he has, because who knows?) and it ultimately gets shut down, well, he was in the right, at least according to the Mods and the CoC. Does it suck? Yes, for you at the very least. Has he commited any wrong? No. No he has not. If you stayed within the CoC the thread wouldn't have been shut down in the first place.
Also, your reasoning is faulty. If I shot you because "meh, you were going to die elsewhere, like in a car crash", would that be acceptable?
Also, your reasoning is faulty. If I shot you because "meh, you were going to die elsewhere, like in a car crash", would that be acceptable?
Good analogy. If someone jumped off the Empire State Building with the purpose of committing suicide, and you were on the second floor, randomly firing a gun, and a bullet struck that jumper just a moment before they struck the pavement, hitting them in the temple, killing them instantly, you would be legally responsible for that ending that person's life prematurely.
Regardless, it's no excuse to act like a uncivil **** to someone when all they are doing is discussing what was asked of them to discuss. I appreciate LMRTK's openness and honesty. He or she did not have to take the time to do so.
The problem though, is that you nip nothing in the bud by reporting a post. All you do is get the thead shut down. That doesn't accomplish you getting a thread you like and it does take away from everyone else having a thread that they like.
Not only that, but because the mods never state why a thread has been closed the offenders sometimes don't even realize that they were the ones that caused it to get shut down and so the behavior continues unabated.
Yeah. And I'd LOVE it if the ORCs were actually honest with us and said, "This thread is closed." and not give us some BS line about it being reviewed to see if it will be re-opened. I've never heard of a thread coming back.
Bad analogy. Because swear words aren't the same has murder. Everyone is exposed to swear words, most people won't be exposed t murder.
Everyone will, however, be exposed to death. The analogy was never about murder, it was simply about ending lives. Check and mate good sir!
There is no accelaration and it is not willful on the net. If I use **** when talking to someone I didn't mean the kid to hear it. But I have a right to use the word ****.
Not here you don't, where it's expressly forbidden. That said, I'll admit to breaking this rule myself.
And religion has everything to do with. Since English swear words are linked to sex and your religiousness (especially Americans) makes you afraid of sex, it is normal that religion is invoked in arguments about swearing.
I am not at all a religious person, and I have no moral qualms about swearing. In fact, I can be quite foul-mouthed in real life. So your jab about christian children fails on a number of levels.
I also find it amusing that since - as previously stated - you don't have a leg to stand on, you've resorted to name calling, picking apart analogies, vague excuses (about the vagueness of the CoC no less), and attempting to incite other posters by invoking religion.
Is the CoC a perfect document? Not even close. Heck, I'll agree that when a thread is closed, they should be telling us why. At the very least they could let the offenders know in private. However, it and the forum rules are very clear on a few things. Swearing is one of them. Religion and politics is another. It's spelled out in a sticky at the top of this board. Yet you repeatedly and deliberately break this rule, and then act shocked when threads get locked, as if it's somehow the person who reported you's fault that you broke a rule. I'd give you another analogy here, probably to do with reporting crimes to the police, but you'd just whine about how it's not apt.
The analogy is appropo. Just because something is imminent for someone, does not alone mean that you are justified to expedite them reaching that goal. Religion has nothing to do with it, so you can leave that weak jab out of it.
There is no accelaration and it is not willful on the net. If I use **** when talking to someone I didn't mean the kid to hear it. But I have a right to use the word ****.
And religion has everything to do with. Since English swear words are linked to sex and your religiousness (especially Americans) makes you afraid of sex, it is normal that religion is invoked in arguments about swearing.
You are completely delusional.
You are completely delusional.
I'm considering retracting my previous post and just replacing it with this. It accuurately conveys my meaning while being short and to the point.
I hate people, they are stupid.
But this is all my imagination, of course.
I agree.
Except I am not the only one having religious and political conversations. And I am not the only one whinning about moding (notice ZB, I believe, whinning friday morning and EE about his drug test/welfare thread). And some comments are just moded for not apparent reason. Even if people report crimes (you'll be happy I'll tolerate you weak analogy), the law is clear on what constitute a crime, here it is just random.
But this is all my imagination, of course.
Don't think I ever said you're the only one having political discussions. "Other people are doing it, so I did too!" doesn't make it right or, y'know, not against the CoC. It just means they're just as guilty as you.
You're not the only one whining about modding, you're right. I don't recall saying that either? I'm not happy with the modding situation, either.
And again with the 'things get modded randomly' argument. Yeah, that happens sometimes, and it sucks. EE's thread is a good example. I've seen a lot more examples of flame fests and political/religious debate getting locked down (fat guy in chair comes to mind). You're acting like you've never been rightfully modded, or at least like the vast majority of the time the mods are draconian, locking down threads that have no business being locked down. And that's simply not true. Regardless, that isn't even the issue we're discussing, anyway. This whole thing started when you ragged on a poster with poor logic for basically no reason. You don't even know if he's ever reported a thread you've even been involved in.
Oh, and I'm operating under the assumption that all this is happening in my imagination. Don't get all meta on me by claiming to have an imagination yourself, figment.
Epic double post edit: Political discussions are not expressly forbidden by the CoC, but they are banned in the OTT by word of Mod.
I think that is the problem. The CoC has specific examples of things that are banned, like advertising. Political and religious discussions are not expressly banned, but are still considered CoC violations. I’m sure some of you remember the various bans on Katanas and novel discussions. The CoC does not specify that those topics were unacceptable, yet those threads were locked, or were deleted for a while. When it comes to politics and religion, I can understand why the mods and CS would want to stop those discussions; however, those types of threads/posts don’t get locked until someone reports them. Worst of all, sometimes when a person reports one post, a whole bunch of other posts that should not have been ORCed get targeted. Look at Jhari’s posts that got deleted. His posts were actually helpful and were very constructive to the conversation. He wasn’t insulting anyone. He wasn’t baiting or flaming, yet his posts were deleted. Even ZB’s post where he said he forgot what he posted got deleted.
Not all ORCs mod the same. There is one ORC that I have noticed goes through the entire thread and mods pretty much everything that he considers a CoC violation. Afterwards he asks people to stay on topic and not flame others. There are others that go into a thread and lock it. There are others that delete the offending post plus any post responding to it. There are even ORCs that just delete the offending post and ignore the other posts that may have quoted and responded to the reported post… even when the thread is clearly political in nature.
Moderation is not consistent. It appears to vary wildly from ORC to ORC and from thread to thread. RH had several posts about China. Some of them got very long. Then he posted one China thread that had 3 responses. The best part: those three responses were just RH posting some more links. No one had even responded to him. It wasn’t even a new thread. It had been up for a while. Then one day… gone… just like that. It was deleted.
This is why I find it annoying when lurkers report posts. They call out the ORCs and we have to hope that the ORC that shows up is competent and moderates the thread while allowing it to continue.
Bad analogy. Because swear words aren't the same has murder. Everyone is exposed to swear words, most people won't be exposed t murder.
Everyone will, however, be exposed to death. The analogy was never about murder, it was simply about ending lives. Check and mate good sir!
no its a bad analogy.
there is a big difference between murder & car crash, while not between cursing on-line and cursing in school.
that makes it a hyperbole. at best.
how about this: why should forums be more utopic then real life?
how about this: why should forums be more utopic then real life?
Because it is not real life. It is a parallel world. But can a parallel world be utopic?
well, if we all try, it might be.
or make that, if we dont try it wount br
which is a good reason why we should refrain ourselves from cursing.
I'm not saying it's right to expose people to swearing, pornography, and trolling. I'm merely pointing out that the CoC isn't an ethical code, but a social one. (For those of you who argue they are one and the same, please take your philosophy elsewhere for the time being.) We've made a social contract with the site moderators that we won't offend others. While it's not necessarily compelling to always follow it, the implications of never following it are worse.
If you want places like 4chan, or the illegal Notchan, go right ahead and go to those places. But do not complain about people being offended about your posts when you are violating the CoC, especially in light of the fact that you break your own word each time you do so. You agreed, even if you did so without knowledge. The burden of restraining yourself rests on you.
On a side note, if re-elected to the lifetime appointment of High General of the Kings of Spam, I promise not to be such an obvious hypocrite in this area of the forums.
Regardless, it's no excuse to act like a uncivil **** to someone when all they are doing is discussing what was asked of them to discuss. I appreciate LMRTK's openness and honesty. He or she did not have to take the time to do so.
Thanks. TBH I only replied to the thread because I was bored (thats usually the only reason I stray from the Magic forums anyway...). If I had realised there was a backstory that had prompted its creation I probably wouldnt have posted (since to my knowledge I am not a part of that backstory).
Oh and I'm a "he".
There is no accelaration and it is not willful on the net. If I use **** when talking to someone I didn't mean the kid to hear it. But I have a right to use the word ****.
Not here you don't, where it's expressly forbidden.
I swear in real life, even at the FLGS - but when a parent and child walk in, I stop. I swear in the evenings when my kids are in bed, but not in the daytime while they are around. I swear in private Facebook chat with my grown up friends, but not in my Status where everyone can see.
And yes, it is against the rules here. Someone made a good point about drinking at someone's party earlier. This is Wizards' forum, and while we are (mostly) customers, while we are here we are guests. We agree to the rules as part of our entry.
Is the CoC a perfect document? Not even close. Heck, I'll agree that when a thread is closed, they should be telling us why. At the very least they could let the offenders know in private.
Agreed. Ive had issues with it myself (regarding Wizards stance on discussing the "forbidden program" that lets you play Magic online with all the cards for free). At the end of the day though, until the rules get changed, they are the rules. If we dont like them, we dont have to stay here.
---
On the topic of some threads being mod'ed while other similar ones arent:
if a post breaks the rules, report it yourself.
Lets say 10 threads break a particular rule, and half of them get mod'ed. This doesnt mean it was wrong for those 5 threads to be mod'ed - it means it was wrong for the other 5 to get missed. The fact that only some violations get punished doesnt you can use that as a defense when you break the same rule, or as a justification to feel outraged when you get caught. It means you need to do more to help the Mods spot all the violations so they can apply the rules consistently across all threads.
Of course, if you do report something that breaks the rules and nothing gets done about it, thats a different matter. I am sure there is some recourse for this, like contacting Customer Services or something, if you feel strongly enough about it.
I also want to echo the point that if you break the rules and get caught, it isnt the fault of the person who reported you: it's your fault for breaking the rules in the first place. Clicking "report" doesnt make a post break the rules - its the other way around.
---
Before I go, some background on myself:
I have been banned from one forum, and chosen to have my account deleted at another to stop me going back. I have also gotten into trouble at work in the past.
This was (in part) due to me trying to fix things myself, getting too involved, losing my temper with trolls and idots, and "mini-mod'ing" (you know, where a non-Mod tries telling people off for breaking the rules etc). Ive stepped on peoples toes, made people look bad for not doing their own jobs properly, and made enemies in the wrong places. Ive broken rules myself because Ive gotten carried away, by letting myself get wound up by people I should be ignoring. Ive even gotten into more trouble myself than the person who did the thing I was trying to stop in the first place.
So in attempt to turn over a new leaf, and protect myself in the future, I have resolved to "Click Report And Move On". I really like Magic, and I really like these forums, and I dont want to do anything to jeopardise my chance to post here. If that means I have to bite my tongue and not say anything when I really shouldnt, then that is what I will do. For example, I am only going to continue taking part in this discussion while it remains civil - the second I feel my blood start to boil, or even when I feel myself getting defensive, I will back off: it just isnt worth it. I wont let myself get baited anymore.
~ Tim
Being a VCL, if I see something that I believe violates the Code of Conduct, I report it whether I'm participating in the thread or not--I feel it's part of my responsibility as a leader in the community to promote productive, intelligent discussion and to help reduce discourse that is offensive or otherwise undesirable to the community. (In the Magic section anyway--I'm not so much a leader over here, though I still hold myself to the same standards.) I do the former by contributing intelligently to whatever topic may be at hand if possible, and I mostly do the latter by reporting. I do comment in-thread and try to cool things down in cases where I feel it will do any good, but stepping into the middle of a flame war is mostly just a good way of getting burned.
There's also the philosophical issue--I believe that each thread in a forum contributes to the overall tone of the community, and a thread gone bad drags the whole community down with it. Whether or not I'm participating in that particular thread is irrelevant--I'm participating in the community, and the thread's a part of the community. Not posting in any given thread, or even all of them, doesn't mean someone isn't not involved. As far as I'm concerned, if someone's interested enough in the forum to be reading its threads, they're a part of the community, and therefore they're involved, no matter how little they post. Plenty of people spend way, way more of their time reading than posting, and there's nothing wrong with that. Those people deserve to be a part of a healthy, vibrant community just as much as any of us vocal types, and if they want to help achieve that, more power to them.
Yeah. And I'd LOVE it if the ORCs were actually honest with us and said, "This thread is closed." and not give us some BS line about it being reviewed to see if it will be re-opened. I've never heard of a thread coming back.
That's actually not a BS line--they do send locked threads in for review. There's a special private forum where they post a link to the thread, an explanation of why it was locked, and the number of reports the thread received. The VCLs for the thread's area are the ones who do that reviewing--for you guys, that'd be Webster. The threads almost always do remain locked, since we generally agree with the ORC's evaluation, but re-opening has happened; I've done it several times myself when I felt that things could be salvaged. A politics or religion thread, though? Not bloody likely.
I generally only come here when something that looks interesting pops up on the 'Recent Posts' sidebar. (In this case it was LMTRK posting on a thread I knew wasn't in the Magic section...aaaand that sounds way more stalkerish than I intended it to be.)
That has made my day, zammm!
---
Oh and as usual, zammm makes a lot of good points.
~ Tim
We've made a social contract with the site moderators that we won't offend others. While it's not necessarily compelling to always follow it, the implications of never following it are worse.
A contract requires that it be absolutely clear and understandable to all parties. A contract written as vaguely as the CoC would not be worth the paper it is written on and would be even less enforcable.
If you want places like 4chan, or the illegal Notchan, go right ahead and go to those places. But do not complain about people being offended about your posts when you are violating the CoC, especially in light of the fact that you break your own word each time you do so. You agreed, even if you did so without knowledge. The burden of restraining yourself rests on you.
I have every right to complain about someone who is offended by something I said that might, possibly, maybe be in the CoC, but has at LEAST equal chance of NOT being in the CoC. The CoC is too vague to hold us to any kind of word. Why? Because it's not possible to know exactly what we agreed to, so it fails as any sort of contractual obligation.
Lets say 10 threads break a particular rule, and half of them get mod'ed. This doesnt mean it was wrong for those 5 threads to be mod'ed - it means it was wrong for the other 5 to get missed.
This only holds true if the CoC is very clear and those 10 threads all in fact do violate the CoC. Most of the time it's unclear and it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the 5 that got pulled were pulled incorrectly. At least as far as the CoC is concerned. When the ORCs interpret the CoC, their personal bias is injected into the mix and the result is some of them pulling threads and others saying that those very same threads are okay. This leaves us with 5 pulled threads and 5 that did not get pulled.
The fact that only some violations get punished doesnt you can use that as a defense when you break the same rule, or as a justification to feel outraged when you get caught. It means you need to do more to help the Mods spot all the violations so they can apply the rules consistently across all threads.
Let me ask you this. Can you go through the CoC and determine exactly what will and won't be in violation in each and every instance? You should be able to if the CoC is written clearly and correctly.
You could say it via pm though.
Let me ask you this. Can you go through the CoC and determine exactly what will and won't be in violation in each and every instance? You should be able to if the CoC is written clearly and correctly.
Maybe you missed this bit:
Is the CoC a perfect document? Not even close. Heck, I'll agree that when a thread is closed, they should be telling us why. At the very least they could let the offenders know in private.
Agreed.
;)
Now, if someone genuinely doesnt believe that something they have done/are about to do is against the rules, then that is different to someone who simply disregards rules that they do understand. I didnt know it was against the rules to mention "the forbidden program" by name, and it's name got Mod'ed out of one of my posts. After that however, I stopped mentioning it, even though some other posts that mentioned it werent deleted.
~ Tim
Let me ask you this. Can you go through the CoC and determine exactly what will and won't be in violation in each and every instance? You should be able to if the CoC is written clearly and correctly.
Maybe you missed this bit:
Is the CoC a perfect document? Not even close. Heck, I'll agree that when a thread is closed, they should be telling us why. At the very least they could let the offenders know in private.
Agreed.
;)
Whoops.
Now, if someone genuinely doesnt believe that something they have done/are about to do is against the rules, then that is different to someone who simply disregards rules that they do understand.
My contention is that it's hard to understand the rules enough to actively disregard them. Let's examine the CoC a bit.
1. Choose your account’s screen names carefully. Screen names that are deemed offensive may be modified or deactivated without notice. For example:
What exactly is "offensive"? How am I supposed to know what might or might not offend someone? Everyone has a list of things that offend them, and often they are very personal.
Names of offensive or notorious persons, controversial political figures, references to cultural tragedies or of significant religious or occult meaning
Again, what is offensive? Or notorious? Or Controversial? I don't consider Ronal Reagan to be offensive, notorious or controversial, but to someone on the far left, he is probably all three. The only way I can be sure to get this rule correct is to not use anyone who might in any way be political, religious or occult, and since I don't know any names of occult people, I can't even avoid that.
Since there are individuals who belong to all three types who are not offensive, notorious or controversial, forcing me to avoid it alltogether in order to obey the rule is a bad thing. All in all, this example is far too vague to be worth much.
Names containing profanity, obscene slang, graphic anatomical references, racial, ethnic, sexist, or religious slurs
What constituted profanity? I can say damn and hell on these forums, so those don't seem to be profanity, but many people do still consider them to be profane. If I name myself the two-nostril-nose, have I violated the graphic anatomical references portion? I don't THINK that's what they mean, but I have violated their vague example.
What consitutes a slur? If I name myself the Muslim Fundamentalist, have I created a religious slur name or not? Some people would think so, others would not.
Names with word combinations that produce an offensive result
Good God! How am I supposed to avoid THIS one. Suppose my grandmother was driving down the road when an angry squirrel ran across the road in front of her, forcing her to swerve down into a ravine and die. When I see Homicidal Squirrel's name on a post and am offended, is it his fault? Should he be forced to change his name due tot he fact that he has a name with a word combination that has produced an offensive result?
The world is too full of people who are offended by too many things for this example to have any worth.
• Names of or references to illicit substances or drug-related paraphernalia
There are so many of these and often with such harmless sounding names, that I can see people getting this one wrong by mistake a lot. There are also new ones being added all the time. However, this one is clearer than the others in that I suppose you could google your name idea to see if it matches.
• Names with the intent or effect of harming the reputation of another
This is another worthless one. It's really hard to prove intent, even in a court with witnesses and evidence. On the forums? Good luck.
• Names including protocol prefixes and domain suffixes (e.g. http://, .org, .com)
OMG!!!!! A clear one!!!!
• Names that impersonate the representation of a specific business or website, including any business or website you may operate or represent
With all the small businesses with odd names and websites out there, this is highly unreasonable. Hell, someone may have opened one with my name in the last 4 years and I may now be in violation of this. Are people going to be forced to change their names if a business opens with their name after they have made it? Who knows? An impersonation again requires intent, and how can anyone show that I or someone else actually intended to represent a business with an odd name?
• Proper names of Wizards of the Coast staff or their titles
This is another clear one.
The rest of the CoC is equally bad, making it nest to impossible to know if you are violating it with anything that you do OR if you get modded, if it was truly a violation. I have gotten to the point that unless an ORC can point me exactly to a section of the CoC that shows me that I CLEARLY violated it, I'm simply not going to change my behavior. Too often I get modded for something that I have done for years and then not modded for it again.
If I was going to use the CoC as a guide for what I should or should not post, I would have to constantly worry about virtually every single word I ever write and wonder if I violated or offended someone somewhere, and I have better things to do than worry so much.
I give the CoC all the consideration that something written that vaguely is due...........which is none.
In fact, as a long time lurker (which makes me sound worse than I actually am!), the Off-Topic Tavern is the least offensive board on the D&D forums. General Discussion and Char-Op are often far more heated, and have far more offensive material than the going's-on of the OTT. Yet, even in those cases, I do not bother to report even those offensive posts found elsewhere.
I have better things to do with my lurking...
Of course, some people take to the internet with an CoC Zeal that would shame most dictatorships. I tend to avoid those types as much as possible whenever I'm online. Which is one of the reasons I prefer to lurk as it is - harder for some up-tight smart-ass with a chip on his deranged shoulder to take offense at something I said if I just don't say anything at all.
Well, those are my two cents at least. Take 'em or trade 'em in for some bubblegum. No guarantee you won't choke on it though!
A clear set of black-and-white rules is by definition rigid, and it's therefore open to abuse by someone looking for loopholes. You can't think of everything. Ban images of genitalia and someone can still post a sexually explicit image with the genitalia blacked out. Ban nude images and someone can post something that's explicit without involving nudity. Ban sexually explicit imagery and someone can post a non-explicit, yet still sexual, image--say a man thrusting his hips forward just behind a woman who's bent over, and so on and so forth--it's a neverending game, and there are people who delight in playing such games. The only way to stop playing is to have a looser set of rules and trust your moderators to use proper judgment.
Whether the moderation system is robust enough to be consistent across the board is something else entirely, sadly--I don't think this system is. It was better when the moderators actively browsed the community, because then they weren't dependent on reports to enforce things; reports have never been sufficient.
What I think is funny is that I've been on these boards for 8 years and I don't think I've ever gotten an official warning (a couple unofficial ones, though). But on the boards at Catalyst Game Labs Battletech site I've received several warnings, a week long ban, a month long ban, and after I got a six month ban I came to the conclusion that someone (possibly on the moderation staff, I made my dislike of their moderation style publicly known) had it in for me and that I won't bother going back. What I think is funny is that I heard over the Battletech Facebook group that less than two weeks after I left their whole board system crashed. Though I felt bad for some of the guys (most of the posters there were decent folk), I had to smile.
Max, I agree that in an ideal world the CoC would be written in such a manner that everything would either clearly be in violation of it or clearly not. However, that kind of precision is impossible to achieve while still accomplishing the goals it's supposed to accomplish, and therefore attempting it is undesirable from a moderation perspective.
A clear set of black-and-white rules is by definition rigid, and it's therefore open to abuse by someone looking for loopholes. You can't think of everything. Ban images of genitalia and someone can still post a sexually explicit image with the genitalia blacked out. Ban nude images and someone can post something that's explicit without involving nudity. Ban sexually explicit imagery and someone can post a non-explicit, yet still sexual, image--say a man thrusting his hips forward just behind a woman who's bent over, and so on and so forth--it's a neverending game, and there are people who delight in playing such games. The only way to stop playing is to have a looser set of rules and trust your moderators to use proper judgment.
Whether the moderation system is robust enough to be consistent across the board is something else entirely, sadly--I don't think this system is. It was better when the moderators actively browsed the community, because then they weren't dependent on reports to enforce things; reports have never been sufficient.
Zamm, I agree with you for the most part. It should not be entirely clear. However, if the current incarnation of the CoC is too vague. If have a CoC that is too vague, it doesn't do anything to help the forum goers know what is right or wrong. It only gives the ORCs the latitude to remove what they FEEL should be removed.
I do also report spam-trolls though. I remember someone who, a while ago, was copy-pasting edition war crap into almost every future release and 4e general thread. I reported every post of his I could find.
The analogy is appropo. Just because something is imminent for someone, does not alone mean that you are justified to expedite them reaching that goal. Religion has nothing to do with it, so you can leave that weak jab out of it.
There is no accelaration and it is not willful on the net. If I use **** when talking to someone I didn't mean the kid to hear it. But I have a right to use the word ****.
And religion has everything to do with. Since English swear words are linked to sex and your religiousness (especially Americans) makes you afraid of sex, it is normal that religion is invoked in arguments about swearing.
I am not sure what you are considering swear words but I can only think of two that would be directly related to sex.
Secondly I think that religions frowning on sex is a misconception. Fornication perhaps but not sex. Even multiple sex partners is condone by a lot of different religions but the caveat is that you must be married. Muslims and Mormon are but religions that allow multiple wives. Christian and Jews seem to have moved away from piligamy but I have not found the actual cause for this. Many people mentioned in the bible, especially the old testament, have had multiple wives. I believe it is more likely a man made law than anything having to do with religion.
Lastly, I would say that even withholding personal morales, an education and good sense is enough to make people afraid of over the top promiscuity. The array of STDs that are known of today and the fact that a contraceptive will not necessarily protect you from them all is a scary fact indeed.
In participating in our games and services you will encounter thousands of other members who come from different backgrounds and have many different experiences. Certain languages, information and images may not be offensive to you, but may have an effect on someone else.
We found content you posted on Wizards Online Community Forums that violates section Inappropriate Content of the Code of Conduct.
(Inappropriate photo of altered animal anatomy)
We have taken the necessary steps to remove this content. Further violations may result in deactivation or termination of your account. We appreciate your cooperation.
Was it a CoC violation? Yes, it was, but only because someone was offended by it and reported it. As the email says, it may not be offensive to you, but it may have an effect on someone else. It is impossible to detertine and define everything that may offend others.
That being said, I laughed for about 5 minutes straight when I read that email.
At least you got an email. I got nothing when they removed theffunny map of Europe I posted with the names of the countries changed to Sodome, Dracula, Commies... I wonder which CoC article I violated then.
You probably offended some Twilight fan because the country was called Dracula and not Sparkly-Vampire-Guy.
Wikileaks Task Force are they talking about it?
And U_S is right, at least you got an e-mail. We simply get hammered.
And this is incredible. One person says one thing is "offensive" to them and it gets pulled?!?!
Wow...
Just ... wow...
I am beside myself with disqust and ire...
What "(Inappropriate photo of altered animal anatomy)"??!
Wikileaks Task Force are they talking about it?
And U_S is right, at least you got an e-mail. We simply get hammered.
And this is incredible. One person says one thing is "offensive" to them and it gets pulled?!?!
Wow...
Just ... wow...
I am beside myself with disqust and ire...
To be fair to the ORCs, I knew the picture was getting close to the CoC. EE suggested that I Sblock it. Funny enough, it wasn't reported until after I Sblocked it. I'm not posting the picture again. I'm sure someone is probably waiting to report something again. I'll PM you the pic.
As to the emails... I usually get an email when I have been reported by someone. If you guys aren't getting one that tells you what you did or at least what section of the CoC you violated, I think you should email CS about that.
*shrugs* How would you suggest it be made more clear?
It would take a lot of time and effort to re-write the CoC and I'm just not willing to do that without money being involved ;)
As far as I know, it's against the CoC to do what the OP suggests. Telling someone you reported him/her is considered baiting.
You could say it via pm though.
You're correct. Posting a specific 'I reported X for saying Y in thread Z' could be considered baiting - even in this environment because it could (and would) be taken out of context. That's why, of course, I made no request for specific information and also, when a lurker did respond that he did report things, I made it clear no one should assume this specific poster reported them or any specific thread. I created this thread out of a sense of frustration and a real curiosity as to what's going on here. Oh yeah, I also aknowledged in my OP that lurkers reporting things here may not even be the case. It's entirely possible that no lurker reports posts here. So, while you're entirely correct, I also want to clarify that I did in no way ask anyone to break the CoC and have been as careful as possible to prevent my questions from leading to that.
I also want to thank the lurkers who've responded for doing so and shedding a little light into why they behave as they do. Cuz, you know, it's not like they talk enough for us to figure it out without help.
And thanks to Zamm who is, as always, topical and helpful. We need to understand a lot more than just who may be reporting what and his insight is a good way to get started with that whole deal. So yeah, thanks all.Just a little insight as to why some of this just doesn't fit my world: I originally came here when some friends told me about it. I didn't even bother with an account. I just lurked and read as a guest. Eventually, I saw enough things that irritated me enough that I wanted to say something about them (what? I'm a person that posts things on the internet. I'm obviously self-important
). So, I made an account and, rather than report them, I responded to them. I talked to them. It's just what seemed to be the way to do things. I have reported posts and will, likely, in the future. Here, though, I like to think we're a bit different. That may be wrong, it may be against the rules, but I honestly feel the Tavern has its own culture and that that culture is significantly different from the other boards. I tried to explain that vibe in the stickied thread up at the top. Anyhoo, it may give some insight as to the way I see things without me needing to go through the trouble of boring ya'all with it again. I've also been stalked and had the report button used as a weapon against me. I had several friends go through the same **** at the same time. It took some very helpful VCLs and some time to get that corrected. And it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth because the fact of the matter is the report button is about as blunt a tool as you can imagine. There's no real thought put into what gets pulled and what gets you in trouble - if the report fits, you must omit. So, people can find crap you said months and months ago in a thread long dead and then take it out of context to get you in trouble. I've seen it. I've had it happen. The report button is an 'I win' button to a lot of the people that use it. It's not something I can, therefore, use without extreme care.
As a moderator, I am sure that if an ORC gets a notification, and it says "This post is offensive." that they will review the post, and if the offense is obvious, they take action. Otherwise, they ignore it. I expect this is most common.
Those notifications that they receive that say "This is post is offensive because..." they probably take to heart a bit more and investigate a bit more closely.
Either way, I know that reputation will have a lot to do with their perception and judgement. Is it a flawed system? I would say that the system is not flawed, only the people enforcing it, reporting posts, and the posters themselves. I.e. the people/subjective element of the entire process. But this isn't a "free speech venue." Wizards has rules and it is up to everyone to adhere to them to the best of their ability, vague or otherwise.
That being said, I've broken them, I will probably break them in the future, and I will be punished accordingly.
I'm very tempted to arbitrarily pick a response to one of my posts and report if for trolling/baiting and see if it goes away.
Sounds like a fun experiment. I humbly volunteer this one.
I'm very tempted to arbitrarily pick a response to one of my posts and report if for trolling/baiting and see if it goes away.
Sounds like a fun experiment. I humbly volunteer this one.
But then it wouldn't be arbitrary!!! Seriously, though, if I do decide to do this, I will keep you in mind. It can't be from this thread, though. That would be too obvious and doomed to failure.
Well, in the case of U_S and R_H, they are such known trouble makers that people seem to just be shooting first and maybe asking questions later.
I have to disagree with you escef.
Troublemakers?
No, not really.
Outspoken and controversial, yes.
It has been quite a while since I, and even U_S, have really done anything deserving of a ban.
People have, and hold, grudges.
*shrug*
Troublemakers?
No, not really.
Outspoken and controversial, yes.
One man's controversy is another's trouble.
Troublemakers?
No, not really.
Outspoken and controversial, yes.
One man's controversy is another's trouble.
Perhaps.
I agree with HS. But it does't explain the rest of the bad moding.
It all depends on which ORC shows up. Not all ORCs are equal. Some take the time to go through a thread and moderate as much as they can. Others delete the reported posts. Others delete the reported post plus posts that quote or respond to the reported post. And then there are the ones that close threads and move on.
A clear set of black-and-white rules is by definition rigid, and it's therefore open to abuse by someone looking for loopholes. You can't think of everything. Ban images of genitalia and someone can still post a sexually explicit image with the genitalia blacked out. Ban nude images and someone can post something that's explicit without involving nudity. Ban sexually explicit imagery and someone can post a non-explicit, yet still sexual, image--say a man thrusting his hips forward just behind a woman who's bent over, and so on and so forth--it's a neverending game, and there are people who delight in playing such games. The only way to stop playing is to have a looser set of rules and trust your moderators to use proper judgment.
Whether the moderation system is robust enough to be consistent across the board is something else entirely, sadly--I don't think this system is. It was better when the moderators actively browsed the community, because then they weren't dependent on reports to enforce things; reports have never been sufficient.
What I think is funny is that I've been on these boards for 8 years and I don't think I've ever gotten an official warning (a couple unofficial ones, though). But on the boards at Catalyst Game Labs Battletech site I've received several warnings, a week long ban, a month long ban, and after I got a six month ban I came to the conclusion that someone (possibly on the moderation staff, I made my dislike of their moderation style publicly known) had it in for me and that I won't bother going back. What I think is funny is that I heard over the Battletech Facebook group that less than two weeks after I left their whole board system crashed. Though I felt bad for some of the guys (most of the posters there were decent folk), I had to smile.
Max, I agree that in an ideal world the CoC would be written in such a manner that everything would either clearly be in violation of it or clearly not. However, that kind of precision is impossible to achieve while still accomplishing the goals it's supposed to accomplish, and therefore attempting it is undesirable from a moderation perspective.
A clear set of black-and-white rules is by definition rigid, and it's therefore open to abuse by someone looking for loopholes. You can't think of everything. Ban images of genitalia and someone can still post a sexually explicit image with the genitalia blacked out. Ban nude images and someone can post something that's explicit without involving nudity. Ban sexually explicit imagery and someone can post a non-explicit, yet still sexual, image--say a man thrusting his hips forward just behind a woman who's bent over, and so on and so forth--it's a neverending game, and there are people who delight in playing such games. The only way to stop playing is to have a looser set of rules and trust your moderators to use proper judgment.
Whether the moderation system is robust enough to be consistent across the board is something else entirely, sadly--I don't think this system is. It was better when the moderators actively browsed the community, because then they weren't dependent on reports to enforce things; reports have never been sufficient.
Zamm, I agree with you for the most part. It should not be entirely clear. However, if the current incarnation of the CoC is too vague. If have a CoC that is too vague, it doesn't do anything to help the forum goers know what is right or wrong. It only gives the ORCs the latitude to remove what they FEEL should be removed.
I do also report spam-trolls though. I remember someone who, a while ago, was copy-pasting edition war crap into almost every future release and 4e general thread. I reported every post of his I could find.
The analogy is appropo. Just because something is imminent for someone, does not alone mean that you are justified to expedite them reaching that goal. Religion has nothing to do with it, so you can leave that weak jab out of it.
There is no accelaration and it is not willful on the net. If I use **** when talking to someone I didn't mean the kid to hear it. But I have a right to use the word ****.
And religion has everything to do with. Since English swear words are linked to sex and your religiousness (especially Americans) makes you afraid of sex, it is normal that religion is invoked in arguments about swearing.
I am not sure what you are considering swear words but I can only think of two that would be directly related to sex.
Secondly I think that religions frowning on sex is a misconception. Fornication perhaps but not sex. Even multiple sex partners is condone by a lot of different religions but the caveat is that you must be married. Muslims and Mormon are but religions that allow multiple wives. Christian and Jews seem to have moved away from piligamy but I have not found the actual cause for this. Many people mentioned in the bible, especially the old testament, have had multiple wives. I believe it is more likely a man made law than anything having to do with religion.
Lastly, I would say that even withholding personal morales, an education and good sense is enough to make people afraid of over the top promiscuity. The array of STDs that are known of today and the fact that a contraceptive will not necessarily protect you from them all is a scary fact indeed.
In participating in our games and services you will encounter thousands of other members who come from different backgrounds and have many different experiences. Certain languages, information and images may not be offensive to you, but may have an effect on someone else.
We found content you posted on Wizards Online Community Forums that violates section Inappropriate Content of the Code of Conduct.
(Inappropriate photo of altered animal anatomy)
We have taken the necessary steps to remove this content. Further violations may result in deactivation or termination of your account. We appreciate your cooperation.
Was it a CoC violation? Yes, it was, but only because someone was offended by it and reported it. As the email says, it may not be offensive to you, but it may have an effect on someone else. It is impossible to detertine and define everything that may offend others.
That being said, I laughed for about 5 minutes straight when I read that email.
At least you got an email. I got nothing when they removed theffunny map of Europe I posted with the names of the countries changed to Sodome, Dracula, Commies... I wonder which CoC article I violated then.
You probably offended some Twilight fan because the country was called Dracula and not Sparkly-Vampire-Guy.
Wikileaks Task Force are they talking about it?
And U_S is right, at least you got an e-mail. We simply get hammered.
And this is incredible. One person says one thing is "offensive" to them and it gets pulled?!?!
Wow...
Just ... wow...
I am beside myself with disqust and ire...
What "(Inappropriate photo of altered animal anatomy)"??!
Wikileaks Task Force are they talking about it?
And U_S is right, at least you got an e-mail. We simply get hammered.
And this is incredible. One person says one thing is "offensive" to them and it gets pulled?!?!
Wow...
Just ... wow...
I am beside myself with disqust and ire...
To be fair to the ORCs, I knew the picture was getting close to the CoC. EE suggested that I Sblock it. Funny enough, it wasn't reported until after I Sblocked it. I'm not posting the picture again. I'm sure someone is probably waiting to report something again. I'll PM you the pic.
As to the emails... I usually get an email when I have been reported by someone. If you guys aren't getting one that tells you what you did or at least what section of the CoC you violated, I think you should email CS about that.
*shrugs* How would you suggest it be made more clear?
It would take a lot of time and effort to re-write the CoC and I'm just not willing to do that without money being involved ;)
As far as I know, it's against the CoC to do what the OP suggests. Telling someone you reported him/her is considered baiting.
You could say it via pm though.
You're correct. Posting a specific 'I reported X for saying Y in thread Z' could be considered baiting - even in this environment because it could (and would) be taken out of context. That's why, of course, I made no request for specific information and also, when a lurker did respond that he did report things, I made it clear no one should assume this specific poster reported them or any specific thread. I created this thread out of a sense of frustration and a real curiosity as to what's going on here. Oh yeah, I also aknowledged in my OP that lurkers reporting things here may not even be the case. It's entirely possible that no lurker reports posts here. So, while you're entirely correct, I also want to clarify that I did in no way ask anyone to break the CoC and have been as careful as possible to prevent my questions from leading to that.
I also want to thank the lurkers who've responded for doing so and shedding a little light into why they behave as they do. Cuz, you know, it's not like they talk enough for us to figure it out without help.
And thanks to Zamm who is, as always, topical and helpful. We need to understand a lot more than just who may be reporting what and his insight is a good way to get started with that whole deal. So yeah, thanks all.Just a little insight as to why some of this just doesn't fit my world: I originally came here when some friends told me about it. I didn't even bother with an account. I just lurked and read as a guest. Eventually, I saw enough things that irritated me enough that I wanted to say something about them (what? I'm a person that posts things on the internet. I'm obviously self-important
). So, I made an account and, rather than report them, I responded to them. I talked to them. It's just what seemed to be the way to do things. I have reported posts and will, likely, in the future. Here, though, I like to think we're a bit different. That may be wrong, it may be against the rules, but I honestly feel the Tavern has its own culture and that that culture is significantly different from the other boards. I tried to explain that vibe in the stickied thread up at the top. Anyhoo, it may give some insight as to the way I see things without me needing to go through the trouble of boring ya'all with it again. I've also been stalked and had the report button used as a weapon against me. I had several friends go through the same **** at the same time. It took some very helpful VCLs and some time to get that corrected. And it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth because the fact of the matter is the report button is about as blunt a tool as you can imagine. There's no real thought put into what gets pulled and what gets you in trouble - if the report fits, you must omit. So, people can find crap you said months and months ago in a thread long dead and then take it out of context to get you in trouble. I've seen it. I've had it happen. The report button is an 'I win' button to a lot of the people that use it. It's not something I can, therefore, use without extreme care.
As a moderator, I am sure that if an ORC gets a notification, and it says "This post is offensive." that they will review the post, and if the offense is obvious, they take action. Otherwise, they ignore it. I expect this is most common.
Those notifications that they receive that say "This is post is offensive because..." they probably take to heart a bit more and investigate a bit more closely.
Either way, I know that reputation will have a lot to do with their perception and judgement. Is it a flawed system? I would say that the system is not flawed, only the people enforcing it, reporting posts, and the posters themselves. I.e. the people/subjective element of the entire process. But this isn't a "free speech venue." Wizards has rules and it is up to everyone to adhere to them to the best of their ability, vague or otherwise.
That being said, I've broken them, I will probably break them in the future, and I will be punished accordingly.
I'm very tempted to arbitrarily pick a response to one of my posts and report if for trolling/baiting and see if it goes away.
Sounds like a fun experiment. I humbly volunteer this one.
I'm very tempted to arbitrarily pick a response to one of my posts and report if for trolling/baiting and see if it goes away.
Sounds like a fun experiment. I humbly volunteer this one.
But then it wouldn't be arbitrary!!! Seriously, though, if I do decide to do this, I will keep you in mind. It can't be from this thread, though. That would be too obvious and doomed to failure.
Well, in the case of U_S and R_H, they are such known trouble makers that people seem to just be shooting first and maybe asking questions later.
I have to disagree with you escef.
Troublemakers?
No, not really.
Outspoken and controversial, yes.
It has been quite a while since I, and even U_S, have really done anything deserving of a ban.
People have, and hold, grudges.
*shrug*
Troublemakers?
No, not really.
Outspoken and controversial, yes.
One man's controversy is another's trouble.
Troublemakers?
No, not really.
Outspoken and controversial, yes.
One man's controversy is another's trouble.
Perhaps.
I agree with HS. But it does't explain the rest of the bad moding.
It all depends on which ORC shows up. Not all ORCs are equal. Some take the time to go through a thread and moderate as much as they can. Others delete the reported posts. Others delete the reported post plus posts that quote or respond to the reported post. And then there are the ones that close threads and move on.