[Parnassus]

Originally Posted by scandum But how did the Newbie find TMS? Probably with google entering "mud newbie help forum" as a search query. To me it seems more trouble to register to a site and ask than using google. If basic physics apply, mainly the law of the path of the least resistance, you can conclude there's a large probability that the newbie did try alternative means to help himself.

This confused me a bit. It makes it sound as if "Dawn of the Ages" may have just hopped, fully grown, onto his computer screen. He has no client, so he hasn't actually been on the mud. Did he pull it off the database here? Right now, its 39 on the list, so it has to be dug for...and when you click it, it takes you to the website. The website mentions two different ways of logging in. This makes it a bit of a mystery to me, so if someone can explain it, I'd be very grateful.

Mud isn't a term that non-mudders instinctively know. When people ask me what I do for all those hours on the computer, if I answer "I mud", they get all confused and start trying to figure out dirt and stuff. We've all been there, haven't we? So, you find there's an interesting game out there, called Dawn of Ages, and its a mud, but you aren't on any page about muds that describes what muds are and how to use them? Personally, if I accidentally tripped over a website that described an interesting sounding game, I'd probably google the name of the game, rather than "mud newbie help forum". This may reflect a personal problem though, since I never consider a forum as first stage of information. Also, I can't see the word "newbie" coming to mind at all, unless I read it on the same page (something like: "Dawn of the Ages is a mud that welcomes newbies" while refusing to give any information that would help said newbie).

My next point is that I have to agree with Cratylus about his treatment of newbies. I'm admittedly biased, since I've never been to IRE, but I've been to Dead Souls. When I say that he was surprisingly patient and helpful, I don't mean that he doesn't come across that way. What I mean is that I didn't understand a single thing going on which must have been very irritating to him. To help me with anything required him explaining something else first, which must be very frustrating. He spent a lot of time going over things that must have been extremely basic and that he had probably been over many times. In fact, during the time I spent there, he was equally patient and helpful to many other newcomers.

My final observation here is that Brody's second post was more helpful than his first, although I totally agree with the first one. To my mind, considering the response of the OP, the second post went above and beyond what I would have expected from anyone.

[Molly]

Two things bother me with this thread.

1. That many of the posters use the term 'Newbie' as a derogative.

To me, 'Newbie' just means new. It doesn't even have to mean 'new to Muds in general', it could just as well mean 'New to this particular game'.
All Newbies are not jerks. Some of them certainly are, but no more than the average percentage among all players.
A horse is an animal. An animal is not necessarily a horse.

2. That no real Newbie would label himself 'Noobiest noob that ever noobed'.

You have to have played Muds to be familiar with the term 'Newbie', let alone 'Noob'.
My theory is that the OP is not a Newbie at all, and consequently, that he probably was trolling.
If so, he certainly got the effect he was looking for.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Molly Two things bother me with this thread. 1. That many of the posters use the term 'Newbie' as a derogative. To me, 'Newbie' just means new. It doesn't even have to mean 'new to Muds in general', it could just as well mean 'New to this particular game'. All Newbies are not jerks. Some of them certainly are, but no more than the average percentage among all players. A horse is an animal. An animal is not necessarily a horse.

I completely agree.

2. That no real Newbie would label himself 'Noobiest noob that ever noobed'. You have to have played Muds to be familiar with the term 'Newbie', let alone 'Noob'.

Not at all. Newbie and 'noob' are both used generically when speaking about internet-based activities (and even some real-life activities).

I'm reluctant to refer to Wikipedia, especially articles that are locked because of vandalism (and are thus controversial) but the zeitgeist seems to be captured here. Newbie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note in particular that the national US tv show 'Scrubs' has a character that frequently refers to another character as 'Newbie.' (A more senior doctor referring to new doctor.)

--matt

[Emil]

Originally Posted by the_logos Note in particular that the national US tv show 'Scrubs' has a character that frequently refers to another character as 'Newbie.' (A more senior doctor referring to new doctor.)

And how likely do you think a new doctor would be to refer to himself as 'Noobiest noob that ever noobed', while posting a question on a general Medicin-related board about where the entrance to the hospital he was about to start work in was located? A much more liklely title would have been; 'Need some help to connect'.

I think Molly has got a point. Actually I remember having the same kind of gut-feeling when I first saw the thread. And possibly this would also accoiunt for Brody being a bit less kind and helpful than usual, while responding to it. Most of those that have followed these boards for some time would testify that Brody generally is among the nicest posters here.

[cratylus]

That many of the posters use the term 'Newbie' as a derogative.

Actually I'm not that sure I agree. Maybe I was so
distracted by the rude assaults of matt/sarapis/thelogos/whatever
that I didn't notice, but it seemed to me that where people
used the term [noob|noobie|newb|newbie] it was in a
literal descriptive sense, rather than a deprecative,
pejorative sense.

In my mind it's only an insult when hurled as a
direct epithet, and even *then*, it's more of a
referent joke (I am mocking people who mock newbies
by pretending to be mocking you) than an actual insult.

If I am talking with a third party about a
newbie, my reference to the [noob|noobie|newb|newbie]
is typically not meant as belittlement, but as a
simple description of the person's most relevant
characteristic in the conversation at hand:
being inexperienced.

Maybe that's what matt/sarapis/thelogos/whatever
was taking umbrage at....maybe it sounded like I
was trashing new people by slapping them around
with the "noob" label. In my defense I can only say
that if you interpreted my use of the word negatively,
that's your baggage and your problem, not my
responsibility to fix.

That no real Newbie would label himself 'Noobiest noob that ever noobed'.

I have to disagree here too. There are
lots of places that a person can run across that
terminology before blundering onto this forum.
If, for example, they play Half-Life 2 deathmatches
online, they will quickly learn lots of terminology
we take for granted. If on a chat program (where
one also can become familiar with basic net terms) they
are told to visit TMS because of some awesome game
they can play, that's a way of finding yourself here.

I think we may never *really* know if noob guy
was truly a noob, but in my opinion it is just
as plausible he was as he wasn't.

And possibly this would also accoiunt for Brody being a bit less kind and helpful than usual

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think this
assumes an intentional decrement by Brody of
his nice-a-trons, and I feel this is an unwarranted characterization.

Let's look agan at what he literally said in response to
noob guy jumping up and down hollering for attention:

Re: Noobiest noob that ever noobed 1) This is a forum, not a chat room. Don't expect immediate replies. 2) Google is your friend. Perhaps if you visit the Dawn of Ages website, you'll find helpful connection info. _______________________________________ Join the Saga :: Wes Platt's OtherVerse :: Join the Saga ::

If folks find that less than kind or less than helpful, seriously, I
don't know where we can find common ground.
And reading hostility, or even lack-of-courtesy, into it is
an excess of imagination on the part of the reader.
IMO.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by Threshold Why does this random, petulant "newbie" get all the benefit of the doubt and not Brody? That makes no sense to me. Being new is not a free pass to be a jerk.

I never gave the newbie much benefit of the doubt. He was wrong to respond to Brodys initial post sarcastically, after which Brody responded in a sarcastic way himself (and no-one can tell me there's no implied insult in his second post in the thread, regardless of whether it was justified) and then people started arguing. As Brodys first post was the one to cause the initial response by the new member, it got deleted along with the others which held no useful information that wasn't contained in other posts. Perhaps it would have been better to delete all the ones I did but not Brodys initial response, but either way the moderation would have happened. I'm not really interested in laying blame, and the only reason Brodys initial response has come up for such an examination is because he's an active, vocal member of the forum and also the first to reply to the thread, and since the new member appears to have wandered off again it seems pointless to argue about how he should have been less sarcastic and not called people "jerkoff" etc.

I pointed out that, to my mind having visited more forums than I care to remember, helped to run a number of them, and seen the sort of implied malice people can lace their comments with even whilst seeming innocuous, Brodys first response about this not being a chatroom could be misunderstood by us somewhat jaded individuals It was not the cause for the deletion of posts, nor was Brody solely responsible for the moderation.

I don't really see why this is still being debated, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[Brody]

No denying, my response to being told my first helpful response was anything but helpful led to a degree of snarkiness (deserved, I think) for the impatient newcomer. (There. Not noob. Not newbie. Hopefully, not at all offensive to anyone.)

In any event, I've learned my lesson about trying to be helpful in the Newbie Help forum. (Are we changing that name so it's not potentially offensive to newcomers?)

I doubt SteveStevenson was a "n00b" at all. I agree with others who suspect he was a troll from the outset. And I'm bemused that I end up being, for all intents and purposes, punished for trying to help and when that help got snark, gave a little snark back (but not nearly as much as could have been dealt).

[Samson]

At the risk of sounding too authoritarian, I think the moderation of the thread was entirely appropriate. It never ceases to amaze me how much "freedom" people on TMC, TMS, or any other MUD related forum think they're entitled to when most other forums I've been to are moderated regularly and it's considered perfectly normal.

Removing posts from a thread while maintaining its flow isn't always easy, or even possible. But if the forum is supposed to be "newbie friendly" leaving a bunch of argumentative responses that have nothing to do with the question behind for all to see doesn't do much for advancing that.

And further, when the usual suspects complain about censorship and oppression and the moderators cave in and reverse everything, it leaves people who are unfamiliar with our anarchist ways with a feeling that there's no authority in place at all. This is especially evidenced by how Cratylus challenged Matt to take the argument to TMC, where he knows "the law" doesn't exist.

That said, I agree Steve was rude and deserved what he got - but that should have been left in the hands of the moderators to put a stop to it. Not in the hands of a bunch of vigilante posters who think they're the moderators.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Samson At the risk of sounding too authoritarian, I think the moderation of the thread was entirely appropriate. It never ceases to amaze me how much "freedom" people on TMC, TMS, or any other MUD related forum think they're entitled to when most other forums I've been to are moderated regularly and it's considered perfectly normal.

The problem I had with it (and perhaps others had the same problem) is that there is a severe lack of consistency in the moderation on TMS. If the real goal is to maintain a sense of civility on these forums (a laudable goal), then a lot more personal attacks need to get moderated throughout the forums.

In other forums, you have outright, off topic personal attacks being left alone with the explanation "we want to let things play out and resolve themselves." Then you have this forum, where some random twit acts up and posts get moderated for simply telling the guy he needs to tone it down and stop being a nuisance.

Originally Posted by Samson That said, I agree Steve was rude and deserved what he got - but that should have been left in the hands of the moderators to put a stop to it. Not in the hands of a bunch of vigilante posters who think they're the moderators.

Enforcing community standards and applying positive peer pressure is not being a vigilante. The "noob thread" poster was an immature jerk, and deserved a lot worse than the gentle instruction he received.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Samson At the risk of sounding too authoritarian, I think the moderation of the thread was entirely appropriate. It never ceases to amaze me how much "freedom" people on TMC, TMS, or any other MUD related forum think they're entitled to when most other forums I've been to are moderated regularly and it's considered perfectly normal.

Agreed. Moderation is a good thing, not a bad thing. Freedom of speech is a right in the public sphere (in some countries), not the private sphere.

--matt

[cratylus]

if the forum is supposed to be "newbie friendly" leaving a bunch of argumentative responses that have nothing to do with the question behind for all to see doesn't do much for advancing that.

I think the unedited thread is more educational to
a newbie than the edited thread. Someone now reading
that thread will see an example of transgressive
behavior by a newbie, and know to avoid it.

She will also see the community actually caring
about the way it responds to newbies and attempting
to establish norms.

And she will also see that strong disagreement
can be registered and competing opinions debated
about interesting topics, even in the newbie area.

Also she'll learn a bit about what's expected of
her before she asks a question, and how she should
ask it, and also some information about a
particular mud.

All in all, I think that restoring the posts leads
to a thread that is of good value to a newbie. The
thread may contain material that some folks consider
irrelevant, but such people can start developing
the filters they will need to navigate elsewhere
here and on other forums and on the internet, where
meta-discussion and digression is as normal in
text communication as in spoken conversation.

To believe that newcomers need meta material removed
infantilizes them, and I don't think there's a
lot of point to it. If they really really can't
handle scanning past tangents (and really, if
they asked a question, they should be expected to
put in a little bit of effort in reading the
result) then perhaps they're just not ready to
handle the internet at all, and I don't see this
forum's mission involving such fundamental education.

I think I resent being lumped in as a "usual suspect"
complaining about censorship because I don't
believe that is a fair characterization of me
or what I was doing. I believe I was defending
the value of the thread which *benefited*
from the digressions. Making me sound like a member
of a group of anarchists agitating against
oppression has the insidious implication that my
argument is invalid because my position is fundamentally
political. I reject this implication and point
to the facts of my arguments, which have been
reasonable and made in good faith.

This is especially evidenced by how Cratylus challenged Matt to take the argument to TMC, where he knows "the law" doesn't exist.

I'd got the feeling people wanted to avoid the
sort of bitchslapping that matt/sarapis/thelogos/whatever
seemed intent on engaging in. Taking it elsewhere
seemed the polite thing to do.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that
sentence other than explicitly paint me as someone
interested in anarchy. If that is what you were
up to, I have to say I'm a little disappointed in the
disregard you apparently have for the validity of
my specific arguments, washing them away with the
sort of "YOU want ANARCHY" dismissal of a Fox News
commentator.


"That said, I agree Steve was rude and deserved what he got "

I think he got much better than he deserved, and I
think Brody deserves kudos for that, not deletion
of his posts.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index

[Samson]

Originally Posted by cratylus I think the unedited thread is more educational to a newbie than the edited thread. Someone now reading that thread will see an example of transgressive behavior by a newbie, and know to avoid it.

I disagree. Someone who is truly a newbie will more likely see the unedited thread as an example of hostility toward newcomers to mudding. First impressions are everything and if that thread had been mine, despite Steve being a jerk first, the massive off-topic bickering about it that came afterward would cause me to go elsewhere. That's where good moderators come in handy and should be allowed to step in.

Originally Posted by cratylus To believe that newcomers need meta material removed infantilizes them, and I don't think there's a lot of point to it.

I don't agree with this opinion of moderation. It implies that doing so is a negative activity with no value. I think it's more of a disservice to have a question asked, rudely bumped, and then have 5 million chattering posters debating why the newbie was a jerk, and why telling him so was mean spirited and wrong. It serves no purpose other than to inflate post counts and bloat up the database with useless crap.

Originally Posted by cratylus If they really really can't handle scanning past tangents (and really, if they asked a question, they should be expected to put in a little bit of effort in reading the result) then perhaps they're just not ready to handle the internet at all, and I don't see this forum's mission involving such fundamental education.

This kind of elitism and condecsention is exactly what drives people away and ends up breeding more and more of the same pile of troll postings and bitter flamewars to begin with. The kind of person it takes to overcome that type of treatment is often not going to then make a very good source of help for a newbie. If the goal of this site is to be informative, then one of two things needs to happen:

1. People need to shape up and behave themselves and stop bickering with each other at the drop of a hat. So far I don't see this happening on its own.

or,

2. Moderators need to step in and enforce whatever policies they deem appropriate for their sections. All I see when this comes up is resistance and talk of censorship and oppression. Which is just plain silly.

Originally Posted by cratylus Originally Posted by samson This is especially evidenced by how Cratylus challenged Matt to take the argument to TMC, where he knows "the law" doesn't exist. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with that sentence other than explicitly paint me as someone interested in anarchy. If that is what you were up to, I have to say I'm a little disappointed in the disregard you apparently have for the validity of my specific arguments, washing them away with the sort of "YOU want ANARCHY" dismissal of a Fox News commentator.

It wasn't terribly hard to understand. The tone of your challenge to Matt to take it to TMC came off like the "lets go where the evil liberal censor freaks won't be able to stop me" tone of a CNN commentator.

Originally Posted by Threshold Enforcing community standards and applying positive peer pressure is not being a vigilante.

It is when you appoint yourself as the enforcer of those standards and you aren't a staff member for the site.

Granted, moderation policy here is inconsistent at best. But the solution is not to turn the masses loose for mob justice. The solution is to reign things in to where they should have been had the rules been enforced consistently from the start.

[cratylus]

First impressions are everything and if that thread had been mine, despite Steve being a jerk first, the massive off-topic bickering about it that came afterward would cause me to go elsewhere.

Was there a golden age when no discord occurred
in mudland? There must have been, because if
discord had been around when we were noobs,
surely we all would have fled mudding.

Newcomers are not infants. They can be expected
to handle pointful topic drift just as well
as anyone else. And if they can't, deleting
posts by experienced folk who mean well isn't
going to cure them of their feebleness.

I don't agree with this opinion of moderation. It implies that doing so is a negative activity with no value.

I'm sorry if it implied that. This was not my intention.
I think it is patently obvious that there are
cases of good moderation. This is so obvious I did
not think it was necessary for me to state it.
However, apparently that need exists, and I so do state.

This kind of elitism and condecsention is exactly what drives people away and ends up breeding more and more of the same pile of troll postings and bitter flamewars to begin with.

I do not believe that expecting newcomers to
take some responsibility for their integration
is elite or condescending. I think it is
common sense. My experience when joining a
community is that it is my job to make an effort
to conform to their standards, and in return they
can be expected to try making it easy. But it's
a two way street.

It wasn't terribly hard to understand.

So then you *are* resorting to that dishonest rhetoric.
I'm very surprised because you'd seemed like a good sport.
This swift reach for the ad hominem bat, I'd hoped, was
just a misunderstanding. Instead, to you I actually am one
of these "usual suspects" you can just dismiss with
a conflation of authority and justification. In all candor,
rhetorical jousting aside, I'm genuinely disappointed in you
for it. While siding with authority does seem in character
for you, doing so reflexively and with me as your target
makes me question the care with which you've considered
this thread and the judgment you've used in the manner
you joined it. Forgive me for holding out hope I've
simply misunderstood your intent in some way.

-Crat
LPMuds.net - Index

[Xerihae]

Originally Posted by Threshold The problem I had with it (and perhaps others had the same problem) is that there is a severe lack of consistency in the moderation on TMS. If the real goal is to maintain a sense of civility on these forums (a laudable goal), then a lot more personal attacks need to get moderated throughout the forums. In other forums, you have outright, off topic personal attacks being left alone with the explanation "we want to let things play out and resolve themselves." Then you have this forum, where some random twit acts up and posts get moderated for simply telling the guy he needs to tone it down and stop being a nuisance.

I'd just like to address this point.

Firstly, I have no idea what sort of moderation goes on in other parts of the forum. I rarely visit them these days because I got sick of the bickering, although I have been told once or twice that very little goes on. I think part of this might be down to the fact that moderators on here are drawn from the community, are often well known, and they don't want to have people accusing them of taking sides (even if they weren't). I, however, don't care what people accuse me of. None of you really know me, I don't really know more than one or two of you except by reputation, and I just come here to do my job if and when it's required because I offered to help Adam out if it was needed and he knew I've had a lot of experience moderating forums. I'd agree that if we're going to maintain civility on TMS then a more consistent moderation approach could be needed, but that's something down to Lasher to sort out I guess.

My last real point in this thread is mainly directed at Brody and everyone who seems to think I was victimising him because I "think he's a jerkoff". Brody's initial post WAS NOT the reason the thread got moderated. If all posts after his first had stayed on topic, avoided insults, and just been information, then I'd have happily left it alone even if I personally think his first point could be misunderstood. The argument as a whole caused the moderation, and I felt it best to remove the whole thing. The information given out in the posts that were deleted was covered in other posts left behind, and if you ignored previous knowledge of what was there and those ugly stubs then it scanned perfectly fine.

Random twit or long-standing community member, I don't care. If the thread goes off-topic and descends into a flamefest it's going to get moderated if it's in Newbie Help or Mud Humour. Some people will agree with my style of moderation, some won't. You can't please 100% of people 100% of the time, and I gave up trying long ago.