Moderation
 

When you start deleting messages from some posters and not from others, you enter a very slippery slope.

When some posts get deleted, and then references to these posts in turn get deleted, sometimes with and sometimes without a comment about what was removed and why, it tends to skew the discussion, whether intentional or not.

When a post of my own gets deleted, with an explanation that I find unsatisfactory, I have to wonder whether it's time to leave these Forums again.

Re: Moderation
 

That's very cryptic. What did the post contain that was removed, and what was the explanation you got? Without that information it really isn't possible to discuss the issue. As it is this thread is a flame bait.

Keep in mind that the website has a new owner. As I understand it Lasher is new to forums and he probably hasn't gotten to know the moderators that well yet either. Perhaps there's just a need of more clear rules, or a special "dump forum" where deleted threads go.

It is clear though that some moderation is needed.

Re: Moderation
 

TMS can be a very unfriendly forum, frankly, always has been. On the "what is free?" issue alone I've received 5 private messages from people wanting to express an opinion but not wanting to post because they may or may not get flamed, accused of having an agenda, accused of having no clue, etc. The original poster of the Nodeka thread turned down the chance to repost his advertising for players note (with or without the "100% free" still in there) because it is "isn't worth the grief".

Nobody is interested in censoring anyone's opinion. Blatant personal attacks, flames that go around in circles yet add nothing new or constructive to a post will be snipped and a note sent to the poster. The thread in question here is the "What is free?" thread. Some good progress has been made there but when the list of posts is already 5 pages long there is no value to anyone interested in the subject reading someone telling Threshold to "shut up whining".

I believe this will make the TMS forums more inviting to a larger audience. If I'm wrong and it kills them, so be it.

Re: Moderation
 

This is a really good attitude to take, and you should be openly commended for having the confidence and foresight to take a proactive stance on improving the quality of the forums.

Re: Moderation
 

I disagree.

However, explaining my disagreement in three separate threads has now
resulted in my posts being deleted in three separate threads, so I
guess I'll just take the hint and keep it to myself.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

Would love to hear your thoughts on it so long as they're relevant to the thread. As I said, nobody is interesting in censoring your opinion, let's just keep it civil.

In fact, the moderation in the other thread was done by someone who has been pretty outspoken about generally agreeing with you on the "pay-vs-free" debate, but decided a small number of threads were heading down the path of flame war/personal attacks rather than offering anything to the subject at hand.

Not to wash my hands of the decision btw, it was discussed beforehand.

Re: Moderation
 

Heh.
Thanks for the laugh, Lasher.
Incidentally I think you are doing very well so far. :)

Just for the record though, that quote was not in any way part of the post from me that got deleted.

I admit however that the post in question would have been better off as a complaint to the Site Admin over Private Messages. Point taken. I'll try that next time instead.

Re: Moderation
 

I thin it's just going to take people a bit of time to get used to more active moderation. It's been allowed to slide now for so long that people just expect to have "complete freedom" when they're posting, even when that freedom turns into flamewar #37,413.

Re: Moderation
 

Since the posts are deleted, there's no way to argue
about their propriety. I can only say that I believe my
posts were appropriate, and that yanking them
prevents me from being able to defend their propriety.

More than that, I now don't feel comfortable responding
to offtopic throwaway assertions by other posters. I now
have to let them stand, because challenging them means
I'm offtopic and subject to deletion.

I suppose you could argue that if I don't post
anything that is wrong, then I have nothing to fear.
However, since the wrongess of the posts cannot be
disputed after their removal, all that is left is that
I was wrong, end of discussion.

Speaking for myself, this has a chilling effect on useful
contributions to the site. You seem to be assuming
that deleted posts were non-contributory flames. I
strongly disagree. Even where the posts discussed the
suspected motivation of a poster, this was done with the
poster's lusty participation in the debate. Good points
were raised, and though the main focus of the thread
was being left behind, my suggestion was to split the thread,
not delete the tangent. Well, the result now is that
the posts are gone and those who participated are
(apparently) presumed to have all been engaged in
violatory behavior.

I have a printout in ghostscript format. I've been doing this
on occasion, figuring at least *I* would have a record of
the discussion. I'd offer to post it so everyone could see
what I'm talking about...but then that's exactly my point.

Should it really be necessary for people to set up private
caches of threads so that their deleted words can be defended?
That's a bad precedent, and tends to reward the unscrupulous.

I'm all for moderation. I engage in it. I don't advocate
"complete freedom" when posting.

I'm stating that normal debate involves questioning premises and
motives, it involves tangents and forks (to different threads,
if necessary). Hose off contributions that edge past a railroad
plot, and you turn me off. If that's ok with the site, then that's how the
world will turn, I guess.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

That's just it. Here, on TMS, it isn't up to you to decide what's proper and what's not. Further, it seems the moderators are not interested in providing you with their reasons every time it happens. One could reasonably conclude that if you keep getting posts deleted, you're doing something the moderators don't like.

Your actions don't seem to support your words though. You engage in moderation, for reasons you feel appropriate, yes? Governed by a set of rules and conditions you've laid out?

I engage in it too. Now granted I am far more tolerant of letting things go off on tangents and allowing for heated debate to take place, and even a few snarky insults here and there. But as a general rule if that's all someone contributes to a site, they'll find their posts missing the next time I'm on. But that's policy which governs sites I admin or co-admin. It seems to have worked pretty well so far.

Lasher is not Synozeer. Synozeer seemed to be willing to let a lot more of this sort of thing stand, based on what I've observed over the years. Lasher appears to be working to clean things up here, and it's all fine by me. Even if that means some of my own posts get torched and I'm not told why. I think in the long run TMS has nothing but good to gain from keeping things in control.

It never ceases to amaze me how much MUD forum junkies seem to hate "the man" and fight so hard against moderation when that's the norm for just about every other forum I've ever seen.

Re: Moderation
 

I am aware of that. However, my opinion on the matter was solicited,
and I expressed it. Not that it's any less obvious, but just a reminder:
it isn't up to you either.

That is a reasonable conclusion, yes.

I engage in moderation. This involves moving violatory threads
or posts to an opt-in-only area. I find deletion to be unnecessarily harsh. I
don't remember ever actually deleting a post that wasn't mine, except
on procedural ground ("you posted this in a different thread already",
for example) in a way that wan't censorious.

I imagine some day I will indeed find myself deleting a post on
content ground...perhaps one with illegal content.

But other than such a thing, deletion wouldn't be the first tool to come out of the box.
There's no need, most of the time.

You're ok with arbitrary post deletion, ok.

Now, perhaps you find my posts sufficiently uninteresting that
it's ok with you not reading what was deleted. Whether it's a
lack of curiosity, or an overarching support of authority
regardless of the justification, you're just
cool with it. Fine.

On the other hand, I *am* curious, and I *do* lack an
overarching support of authority regardless of justification.

I usually find your posts interesting, and even
when I think you are wrong (which apparently happens with greater
frequency lately) I often still learn from reading your words. I would
therefore be very curious to know what you'd written that was
deleted. Since you have much experience in this field and I generally
can gain something from your posts, it would be interesting for
a number of reasons to be able to read posts from you that were
removed from a thread by a moderator.

For that reason I think it would be a wonderful thing to have an
opt-in only board, called "flames" or "offtopic" or "tangents" or
whatever, where people who will not wilt at the sight of
vigorous, heated disagreement can read banished opinions.

Apparently you're still laboring under the impression
that I am against moderation. I am, and have been, explaining
that the deletions in question are not necessary, and per
se make it impossible to debate their justification, and that
is lame. You don't have to delete to moderate. Moderation
in the exercise of moderation is a virtue.

Are you talking about me?

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

No. I'm in favor of removing posts which don't belong where they are and are inappropriate under the rules of the site. Arbitrary post deletion implies that someone is simply taking random shots at the forum and zapping things with no thought behind it. Which would be silly.

It might, but so far as I can tell it hasn't happened to any of mine. But the kind of person who goes digging through troll posts for the interesting stuff might not be the kind of person the community in question wants hanging around. Just a thought. Not directed specifically at you.

Now see, this right here is a matter of opinion. How am I "wrong" to support moderation in the name of civility if that's what the site administrators want? It's not my place to make those kinds of decisions anywhere I don't co-admin. It's also entirely your opinion that I'm "wrong" with increasing frequency lately. I just happen to disagree with your stand on something :)

You and I are in agreement on vigorous, heated disagreement. There have been several instances on my own sites where this has happened, people get defensive, but as long as it remains outside the realm of name calling and personal attacks, I'll let it stand. Even if it is off topic. I will attempt to nudge things back on track though. I have been known to lock topics, "unpublish" them, and yes, delete them. I see very little value in taking posts out of a thread and moving them somewhere else on the board. They're still inappropriate in my mind even if only admins can see them there. But I haven't had to do this very often.

I was speaking in general.

I still think the reason everyone is grating against moderation is because it's not "tradition" here. There does come a time when that needs to be set aside and new traditions formed. "The greater good" isn't a term of evil to be feared.

Re: Moderation
 

I can totally sympathize with that feeling. I have stopped posting on TMS many times in the past because I got so sick of dealing with off topic, personal attacks from people who can't seem to tolerate the existence of professional mud admins.

I actually think we are ALREADY seeing the payoff from this. The rapid moderation of personal attacks has helped keep contentious threads on topic, and is already creating an environment where people are more interested in having discussions.

It is hard to have a discussion when you are constantly wondering how some random person is going to take offense and start flaming you personally. Having confidence that the moderators will quickly remove personal attacks makes me feel a lot more comfortable about having on topic discussions about game design, MUDding, and similar topics.

Earlier today, I was thinking about a game administration issue and actually thought "Hmm, I should post about that on TMS and see what other admins think." That was the first time in YEARS that TMS felt to me like a legitimate site where one could discuss issues of game design or administration.

That isn't a slam on Adam. He did a great job starting up this site and building it up for years. I think he just got overwhelmed by the hate mongering trolls that ruined the forums. But I really like what I see so far regarding the moderation of personal attacks.

Thank you Lasher, and thank you moderators.

Re: Moderation
 

Sometimes when moderating a forum, you end up removing posts that simply address the offending posts because then they stand alone kind of just dangling in space. That can jar the discussion as well.

Usually, from what I've seen, moderators will simply moderate because it is quick and easy to do before the thead is killed by flames or a tangent. If it's JUST a tangent, then moderators will often split the thread. Some forums will squash flame wars because they feel it contributes to a negative image on their site. People who are repeat offenders usually get moderated for a while, and then they start getting warnings via PM or a temporary freeze on their account.

This is pretty standard for most forum communities. It prevents posters from being "driven" from the forums by others who are willing to engage in un-ending flame wars.

Re: Moderation
 

It seems counterproductive for a moderator to not tell someone why they were "moderated". The moderator wastes time deleting posts, and the "offender" wastes time writing a post to have it deleted because they don't understand what they are doing wrong.

Re: Moderation
 

I agree with this. If posts were moderated with no feedback to the poster then we need to fix that, it doesn't really achieve anything. Pure spam (the real "buy cialisvigraxanaxnow!" type spam) of course is just nuked along with the poster.

Keep in mind that if someone posts "Lasher Sucks!" and someone else replies "You know it isn't very constructive to post that!" then when the first comment gets snipped obviously the second will.

The only other exception, exact quote from the moderator section:

Re: Moderation
 

Yes, I believe it would be counterproductive as well. Confusing and potentially offputting even. But certainly not necessary if a site admin deems it so. And apparently Lasher agrees with this, so I'd say we're all ok at this point, right?

Re: Moderation
 

Molly,

I personally enjoy your opinions even if I do not always agree. I'd say stick around, if for no other reason than to provide another perspective and offer comments about your own mud which I found very unique and exciting in its genre when I reviewed it. Cheers for the game, if I was seeking a new mud, I certainly would give it a try!

As to moderators, I can say from experience, moderating is a difficult job and tough to balance what should be allowed based on valued perspective and what should not because it is way off topic or inflamatory without proper cause (or whatever the forum rules dictate).

Invariably, anytime something is deleted a person who spent time writing OR a person that finds a similar post not edited can be offended. With a new leader at the helm, I say give them a little more time to get their own system fleshed out.

Re: Moderation
 

Thanks for the kind words, Newworlds, but my Mud has very little to do with this discussion. :)

I guess most of us will learn the lesson, just by banging our head at the wall enough times. The lesson I've learned myself so far is, that attacks directed at a group of people apparently are acceptable by the moderators, whereas attacks directed against a single person aren't.

I cannot say I am quite comfortable with that, but then again, banging your head at the wall isn't really constructive either.

I frequent other Forums, where flames are unheard of even in heated discussions, not because of heavy moderation, but because the posters there all respect each other. Maybe that is the root of the problems here.

Re: Moderation
 

I disagree with everything you said. Not because you are being illogical. I think your reasoning is logical and correct. The problem is that your original premise is false. There are no rules for this site. I searched using the forum's search engine using every conceivable word for 'rules', 'abuse', 'language', 'faq', 'vulgar', 'foul', 'posts', I also manually searched the forums for a Rules section or thread and I navigated through the forum faq. There are two items there which could be considered 'rules', 'What are moderators' and 'Why have some of the words in my post been blanked'. It is clear from these two items that a) moderators can edit and delete posts and b) it is insinuated that foul language will be censored. It does NOT state any other guidelines or rules for forum behavior. It seems completely illogical to have no rules but enforce some set of undisclosed rules. Is the goal to utterly confuse the posters? Is the goal to alienate the posters?

I will now intentionally take Samson's words out of context.... (my apologies in advance to Samson, but his words here perfectly make my point when taken out of his context) Arbitrary post deletion _is_ exactly what is going on here. I think it is unfair and just plain cruel of the forum owners to make the posters guess what the rules are, or worse, have to 'learn' the rules by trial and error. If I spend 15 minutes crafting a post, then I do not want that time spent for nothing because a moderator creates a new rule and imposes it by deleting my post. [If the rules are not posted, how can anyone be sure that new rules are not created which are unfavorable. I would like to enter this forum with eyes wide open. That does not seem possible if no rules are stated but some are enforced. I do not see how this is a valid model for a forum to run in.] This wastes everyone's time. It is very inefficient for all. Aren't forum rules important enough that they should be clearly marked so everyone has a chance to know them before posting?

If the rules are posted somewhere on this site, then please make it more obvious. I did everything that a reasonable person could be expected to do, to find the forum rules. I just cannot find them.

Detah@Arcania

Re: Moderation
 

I've noticed that some unflattering statements about people
are allowed to stand, and some unflattering statements
about people are not. It's not always easy to tell when
one or the other will happen. I'm still working on sussing
out a pattern.

Whether it's pattern-based or actually random, my
frustration continues to rise at its arbitrariness.

I was told in a chat that Lasher is very
hypocritical because he forbids X but does X, but
I don't think that hypocrisy is the deal. I think that
there is a multiheaded ill-organized mess of
moderation that occurs when rules are not
explicitly laid out governing permitted content.

I think Lasher might *seem* hypocritical when he,
for example, engages in offtopic banter in a
thread that has had posts deleted for offtopic banter.

But in fact the problem is that his moderators
are exercising editorial authority on their own
scripts, and enforcing their own rules and
interpretation of unwritten "understandings"
on some people, but not on others.

The whole thing is just disgusting and while I
continue to exercise the patience being asked for
while things get worked out, I think perhaps it
is not too much to ask that dicretionary
deletions and editings happen only in extreme
cases *until* the formal written policies exist.

Seems only fair that patience is asked of
one group, restraint be expected of the other.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

Fair point. Very valid. The first time. Second, third, fourth time? By then you already know.

There's a new team (newly active team at least) in place and we are working on it. So we can either close the forums while it's done or leave it as it is knowing that most people will use their own judgement, perhaps erring on the side of caution,and the forums can still be productive.

Do you have a MUD?
Do you have a rule that says "Do not hack my server?".
Do you have a rule that says "Do not hunt me down, drive to my house and paint my car Orange?".

This is a forum for discussion and promotion of MUDs. Discussions will get heated, but there is no room for blatant personal attacks adding absolutely nothing constructive to the discussion or posts that have no purpose other than to provoke someone. If someone needs a "rule" to see this then we'll provide it, but if that person decides TMS isn't the place for them in the meantime I can live with that too.

If you're referring to the "f--k" example yesterday, nobody was moderated, nobody was scolded, code wasn't working that now is.


`

Re: Moderation
 

There hasn't been active (or fully effective) moderation on this site in quite a long time, primarily because it never has had a real set of rules. It's safe to accept that the current moderator staff will be working up a set of guidelines and rules to live by for public consumption. Until then, rather than shutting the site down while we sort out the rules, I think it's a necessary evil that moderation will seem arbitrary - at least moderation is happening and the guidelines will be made available as soon as possible.

Thanks for your patience and understanding!

Re: Moderation
 

"You were told", "It might seen" .. convenient and courageous ways to put words into someone else's mouth while you get to be the author.

Keeping a 200+ post thread 100% on-topic is impossible. There was a brief and lighthearted banter which was quickly ended. Nobody was attacked, nobody was provoked, nobody was accused of anything and the discussion was back on track within minutes.

If you don't see the difference, truly don't see the difference between that and the posts of yours that were removed, then we will never agree, your frustration level will continue to rise and you can move on safe and secure in the knowledge that you're not wasting any more of your time on a forum so poorly run.

Re: Moderation
 

When I was a moderator on the Advanced Mud Concepts forum, I wrote up a set of guidelines in a sticky post describing what was expected and what was acceptable - and although I was fairly strict about enforcing those guidelines, I don't recall every receiving complaints about my moderation.

I do think it would be beneficial to have a list of general posting guidelines for the site. Any forums with stricter posting guidelines could then add them as a sticky thread post.

Re: Moderation
 

I feel you Samson, I truly do, your wisdom is touching. But why practice this grand wisdom within the small boundaries of an online forum?

We should do this big, ya know, the real deal. Lets sterilize all trolls, possibly euthanize the worst cases, or just get rid of them all, and the degenerates while at it, in the name of civility. We should appoint me as the fearless leader, and I'd hand out the task of 'moderating' the population at large to a few, possibly incapable, but highly motivated individuals who like to moderate just for the sake of moderating, or simply because they realize the greatness of the work ahead.

We'd have heaven on earth in no time. I swear, it'd be the solution to all of man's problems, and even better, when we fix the problem at the root, moderation for all online forums would no longer be required because everyone left would be a sweet and obedient little forum user, the grandest of grand wet dreams of every forum admin.

Send me a PM to work out the details?

Re: Moderation
 

That there is a difference between your sense of humor
and mine is beyond doubt.

I suggest that the primary difference is yours
is never in danger of moderation.

As to your sarcastic reference to my cowardice (does that
count as flaming?), if it pleases you I'll allocute to full responsibility
for the statements, since I will not "out" someone I was chatting with.
Let me rephrase it then.

------------------------------------------------------------
I might have thought that Lasher is very
hypocritical because he forbids X but does X, but
I don't think that hypocrisy is the deal. I think that
there is a multiheaded ill-organized mess of
moderation that occurs when rules are not
explicitly laid out governing permitted content.

I think Lasher might *seem* hypocritical when he,
for example, engages in offtopic banter in a
thread that has had posts deleted for offtopic banter.
------------------------------------------------------------

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

I'm inclined to agree with this. There seems to be a lot of ego with many of us who are either Admins ourselves or staff members of muds or moderators. I do believe though and have seen both in private messages and in public posts that Lasher is really working hard to bring everything together with his new team and I will give him the chance to do so and try to be a positive part of this development following Molly's suggestion of respect.

In fairness to Crat, he does sometimes seem a bit crass, but I believe that is his sarcasm and perhaps this is the case with many of us. I think we forget sometimes that we are all on the same team, as it were, and that is to make a community of staff and players that want to enjoy MUD style games and MUD style environments.

Re: Moderation
 

Well said. I think most would agree we'd like to attract more people to MUDs in general. On this forum we are like the proverbial family in-fighting constantly, except on this forum the whole world can see our discussions if they choose to look.

What impression of MUDs does an interested third party coming to the forum from Google because they happened to search on "Gold Dragon" (or whatever) come away with?

Re: Moderation
 

It could, and if a moderator finds themselves thinking they would moderate my post if it were from someone other than me then please, moderate it, and give me the same reason why you would give anyone else.

The only way I can really know if our moderation is 'fair', 'appropriate', 'just right', 'heavy handed' or whatever is to experience it. As Brody stated, it's going to take some time to find the right balance and we can only ask for patience in the meatime.

Re: Moderation
 

Make me a mod. You'll solve the problem of me being a rebel
(since I'll be inside the walls) and you'll get to feel first hand what
moderation is like, since I'll be every bit as consistent with you
as your mods have been with me.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

What works for me is to simply not go back any pages, and that way I'll never know one of my posts got deleted, nor get angry, nor have a hissy fit and leave the forum which would leave a lot of people coming here from TIC just to get a sniff of my literal prowess very sad and depressed.

The only thing that is required is for moderators to not delete the steady stream of spam and nonsense I spit forth until it has scrolled off of the last page. And given how everyone here claims to be considerate and respectful, that seems like a small favor to ask for.

Ignorance is bliss.

Re: Moderation
 

Scandum, while the humor is not lost on me, the analogy is broken for one very important reason: TMS is not the government and cannot be guilt of censorship in that sense. Nor could it be considered the gestapo for removing posts. TMS is a private entity and is thus not subject to the protections of the 1st amendment. I know. Shocking. But the Bill of Rights was specifically directed at preventing GOVERNMENT from engaging in censorship and other such nasty business. The 1st amendment specifically designed to prevent them from restricting political speech.

A private entity, like TMS, or say... your employer, can restrict what you say, when you say it, who you say it to, and take action to punish you if you violate the rules. Your recourse? In TMS's case, PM the moderator of the forum or the board admins and make your case. In your employer's case, hire a civil attorney and file suit. At least arguing your case with TMS is free :)

Re: Moderation
 

Got my second vague "warning" in a private message today.

Since a warning implies consequences, I can only assume
I'm being threatened with banishment.

That would be some sad stuff right there, if "patience" were
asked of users but I got kicked for insufficient piety.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

See it's like this, craytus. Lasher runs this joint. He gets to make the rules. He also gets to break them if he wants to. He can post, in his own thread, "You all, personally and intimately, suck. And yes I mean you." And he can toggle his thread so no one can respond. He can siteban anyone who opens their own thread to respond. He can shut the whole damned site down if he gets too many people to respond, and he can remove the whole forum, and leave only a banner on the main webpage, reading, in enormous bold, italicized, underlined red letters, "You all, personally and intimately, suck. And yes I mean you."

Is it being a hypocrite? Nope. It's being "the guy who runs the joint." I run my own household. Therefore, I get to make the rules, and I can break them whenever I damned well feel like it, and if you don't like it, you're welcome to get your shrimp scampi for supper elsewhere.

I'm not even intending to imply that Lasher is breaking any of the rules; because a little off-topic banter that is appreciated by EVERYONE EXCEPT FOR YOU is fine and dandy as far as I'm concerned. But again, it isn't my place to decide. Because...I don't run the joint. I'm just a visitor. And if I ever get tired of visiting, I'll take my ball and go home like a good little girl. I suggest you do the same, instead of working yourself up to an aneurism over it.

Re: Moderation
 

Between you and Samson repeating
this to me, I get the feeling that you guys think
Lasher is in charge around here and gets to
decide how the place is run.

I'd like you to consider that I probably know that,
and that this point is not in debate. Perhaps we
can, you know, get past it.


You may not have realized it, but I was not objecting
to Lasher's tangent. I was pointing out that he is presumed
to have that liberty, while am not.

If we agree that I know Lasher is in charge, and we
can accept that I'm not against the natural flow of
threads tangenting on occasion, then I guess it sounds like
you think I should just shut up.

I don't know how many people you speak for. Let's assume you
speak for everyone, and the consensus is that I should really just
shut up. I guess we can expect the axe to fall soon, then.

On the other hand, suppose there are other people who
have received secret warnings, suppose there are those who
don't mind debating these issues but don't dare incur the
enmity of the admins? I guess they're doing what they should,
too, and just shutting up about it.

If that's the kind of forum TMS is to be, then so be it.
I'll keep getting told by folks like you to keep my place, I'll
keep getting threats from mods to mind my manners, and
eventually I'll just get kicked as being too troublesome, and
the sun will rise the next day and the birds will sing.

So just hang in there, Jazuela. And if it's not too much to ask,
please spell my name correctly.

-Cratylus

Re: Moderation
 

Crat, you're not helping your position at all. The moderators are trying to handle this with you via private messages. If you insist on trying to use that as fodder for continued griping about moderation of the forums, it's just going to make matters worse for you - and implying that The Man is out to get you isn't helping, either.

I don't think the warnings are vague at all, and neither are the consequences. No one wants to see you gone - you've been a valuable contributor here. But we do have to play by Lasher's rules.

Re: Moderation
 

I appreciate that you're trying to help, and I understand
that the moderation is done with the best intentions.

However, I do not know who is in charge of what, and
who has what authority. For all I know, someone that is
not Lasher sending me private warnings is overstepping
their authority.

I feel more comfortable being chastised in public, where
the cleansing scrutiny of the community can discern
how just my castigation is.


Not sure how it could be worse, really, other than
an outright ban. Keep in mind I'm not trying to get
deleted. I'm not trying to get banned. I'm speaking my
mind in good faith and have been doing so in keeping
with what my understanding of the mission of the site is/was.

Now that the rules are less unwritten, perhaps there is
hope for clearer understandings, but I doubt there will
be fewer clashes, because I as a person of good will,
and the moderators as people of good will, differ on the
usefulness and appropriateness of moderation of some
of my posts or parts thereof. It's an honest disagreement,
not a defiant manifesto. And as such, I don't see it
being resolved, because I don't have anything to gain
by compromising my position that the moderation around
here has been out of hand, and I'm just not inclined
to let it slide if it continues to be so.

So I don't see how it gets worse. Looks like I'm on a
rocket sled to bantown, the only question is when.


:) Sometimes I amuse myself with fiery rhetoric. We are
having fun here, after all, or is this site supposed to be
Serious Business?


I understand. At some point the moderation team will
get sick of me. I'm sorry for that, because I enjoy participating
here. I think it's right of me to speak my mind on these
points, and I think it's ok that I not go gently into that good night.
You guys will have to decide what kind of site to be.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

While you might prefer public castigation (despite suggesting it was wrong for people to do that to ME in the n00biest n00b thread), the new approach of the moderation team is to try to handle these differences privately rather than having it devolve into a battle of egos.

Lasher can speak for himself on the matter of our authority, but I can assure you that whoever contacted you earlier was doing so with Lasher's full knowledge and consent.

Re: Moderation
 

I do not see that position espoused by me in that thread.

Was it deleted? I do not remember making it.

Please clarify.

-Crat

Re: Moderation
 

Well, as a starter, lets not get a moderator's panties in a bunch by calling censorship nasty shall we?

I guess I'm one of the few that find it strange that US citizens, perhaps the only nation that allows unrestricted free speech, are so eager to censor whenever a teensy little bit of power comes within their grasp.

Then again, I guess it's much like the situation in Turkey, where separation between state and church is more of a cultural grown tradition long ago installed by a great man, rather than the actual desire of the population at large.

TMS is a community, and being overwhelming American, would supposedly reflect US culture. But instead of copying the freedoms offered by their nation's constitution Americans copy the policies of the mass media they've been indoctrinated by since their childhood.

Despite what your subconscious might believe, words do not cause harm, cannot give you HIV, nor cause testicular cancer. Fortunately that goes both ways, and as I already, more or less, pointed out the actions of the moderators do not cause harm either.

Re: Moderation
 

Unmoderated discussion, however, can be less useful than moderated discussion, assuming competent moderation. It's why business meetings, court proceedings, formal academic debates, and the like adopt sets of rules that the members agree to abide by as part of the agreement to participate in that format.

As a trivial example, if someone was spamming the threads with hundreds of Viagra ads per hour, it would be beneficial to the conversation to remove that person. That decision has nothing to do with 'free speech', or fear that the ads will harm viewers. It's merely a method to elevate signal-to-noise, and give the site better utility to its readers.

Re: Moderation
 

As a trivial example a moderator might delete all messages as well, which wouldn't be very constructive either.

As a more practical example I could point out that some of the most knowledgeable users aren't the most well behaved users either.

The idea seems to be that by pruning the rude, impolite, inconsiderate, and otherwise obstructive users, some kind of Utopian community can be created. While I don't disagree that this is in theory possible, I doubt the selection criteria that are being used. Not to mention that both the argumentation and scientific proof for the claims are lacking. The entire thing is very pseudo-scientific and borderline psychotic.

Looking at it from a historical perspective dictatorships rarely work, especially when the big dictators assigns little dictator to share the load of oppressing the masses.

I must add that having grown up in a relatively free and democratic society it remains extremely exciting and refreshing to experience primitive human behavior carried out with great dedication and vigor in the virtual flesh.

Re: Moderation
 

You are again trying to equate forum moderation on a privately held site with public censorship conducted by an oppressive government. It just doesn't track. It's not at all the same thing. Apparently the free and democratic society you grew up in failed to make that distinction for you, which is a shame, because the difference is just as important as the distinction between private property and the public domain.

Re: Moderation
 

You guys calm down, and Crat, please respect the moderators, they are just trying to do their job. As flor Lasher posting we all suck and can't touch this, well, he's already said he wants to be subjected to moderators as well if needed.

I think that we miss the point again and everyone is getting angry about unfair or seemingly unfair deletions of posts. Forums have to be moderated and be done so without much arbitration or it becomes chaos and petty.

Re: Moderation
 

And we certainly wouldn't want that.

Re: Moderation
 

Since comparing apples and armadillos is a waste of everyone's time, let's compare apples to apples.

Go find me a popular internet forum (say, one that averages over 200 simultaneous users) that isn't moderated. I bet you can't do it. Even if you happened to find the one odd example of a popular forum that isn't moderated, I will find 10 that are for everyone you find that isn't.

Are they "not working?" If not, whatever standard you are employing for "not working" is about as relevant as using the number of sheep-shearing tools a gas station has as the metric for deciding that a convenience store "works."

From a historical perspective, in other words, the idea that these "dictatorships" (as you call them) rarely work is simply insupportable when it comes to internet forums, which is what we're talking about.

--matt

Re: Moderation
 

The obvious ex-example would be Usenet. Did Usenet fail as a forum because of the inability to moderate conflict, language, and topicality, or was it more just the inability to moderate spam? (In the case of actual moderated newsgroups, I'd blame the inability to do post-hoc moderation; having to have a human in the loop before a post can appear is ridiculous.)

Re: Moderation
 

I believe I have not been especially disrespectful to them. I
have treated them with the same regard as I would treat any
other experienced poster.

I'm not pretending I have to wear kid gloves with them, and
I'm not pretending they require special reverence. They are
people, just like you and me, who've volunteered for a
job they feel is important.

I salute them for that, and I support their desire to help
manage this site in a way that is constructive for everyone.

I also want this site to succeed and provide great value
to its visitors and participants.

I simply differ in opinion with the moderators on occasion.
I am not against moderation. I do, however, think it's been
done to excess to the point of vice, and I feel that saying
so is the right thing to do, and saying it publicly the
right way to do it.

It hasn't occurred to me til now that folks might think I'm
disrespecting the site, or the mods, or Lasher. To me
this is clearly not what I'm doing, but presumably it
looks that way to some people. In my opinion is not
disrespect. It is healthy, part of normal discourse, and
indeed part of what the society I grew up in thrives on.
It's silent acceptance of authority that I would consider
suspect, not vigorous questioning of it. Perhaps this
is what Scandum's semi-coherent posts are trying to get at.

I guess to some people it's looked like I was an anarchist,
to others it looked like I was attacking people, to
others it looked like I'm trying to subvert commercial
mudding, even.

I don't know why this all is. I mean what I say. I am saying
I disagree with the way some things were done, but
I support moderation when it is necessary. Evidently there
is room for discussion on the "necessary" part.

But I have been operating under the assumption that
there *is* room for discussion on such things.

If there is not, then that is my fatal error and it is the
thing I will pay for, I suppose.

But I'm trusting that despite being painted as some sort
of ill-justified agitator, folks can see my motivation for
insisting on airing my grievances is not a play for
attention, not an attempt to usurp power, and not a
vulgar display of petulance. I hope people see that I
wish to express my heartfelt dissent, and that I believe
it is ok to do that until I am no longer capable, because
I truly believe in what I'm saying.

If that registers as disrespect, I guess there's not much
I can do about that. All I can do is point to my history
as not-that-bad-a-guy and hope that folks make the
connection that maybe, just maybe, I actually mean what I
say, and I mean well by it.

-Crat
htt[://lpmuds.net

Re: Moderation
 

I don't know why Usenet failed (though I can speculate as well) but it failed so I wouldn't say it's a great example. ;)
--matt