An Open Letter Re: Mods

[SKG_Scintill]

are you really going to delete my post / ban me because my post posing the hypothetical situation where someone's actually racist is the same as posting something actually racist?

[devonin]

Does it look like I am?

Originally Posted by Celirra

So here's the scenario, hyperbolic for further clarity of course:

Jimmy posts an opinion he has for x, y, z reason, with hopes to have his opinion heard, or to hear thoughts about said opinion. This opinion is controversial, and negative, but is a stance regardless.

Susie posts a retort to Jimmy's opinion. It's not terribly civil either honestly, and is the opposite from what was originally said.

Jimmy and Susie bicker back and forth in this thread for a few minutes, when their posts get deleted and the thread gets locked. Maybe they also get a 1 day ban.

Jimmy still has his stance, probably even more strongly than he did before, and he's even more upset about it potentially. He may also dislike Susie now.
Susie still has her stance, probably even more strongly than she did before, and she's even more upset about it potentially. She may also dislike Jimmy now.

9 days later, a new thread comes up, and both Susie and Jimmy are present and their opinions come up. Chances are they'll be even more vitriolic because of what went down, not getting closure, maybe they also didn't like being censored, they essentially got cut off early and had their voice suppressed instead of being corrected. They probably use more poignant grammar and more angry bolded caps now; the cycle repeats and the problem grows each time.



This is an oversimplification as well, and isn't quite accurate but is what I've moreorless noticed happening potentially, with at least a couple people.
Would not deleting posts help this? ....well it couldn't hurt, assuming we want them to stay in the community (I do, because I like 95% of people on ffr well enough).

Person A and Person B getting into a debate, unless it crosses the line (and typically if it does, only the parts that do get deleted) resulting in deleting/locking/banning is just not a thing.

You're leaving out Person C, D and E who show up and tell person A they're a stupid idiot and nobody wants them here, and then one of them goes too far and gets banned, person F, G and H deciding this is a great hill to die on about unfair bannings and horrible mods.

[SKG_Scintill]

sorry I may have assumed such action from your "Um...about that."-post
you know... because I totally haven't gotten banned for less than that before

[devonin]

Do you know, right this minute, how many forum users are currently serving non-perma bans for things that aren't "being under 13"?

Would you like to guess how many users are banned right now?

Five or Eight years ago, the number of people serving non-permanent bans at any giving time was often as high as 40 or 50.

[SKG_Scintill]

yes, there were also more than 15 people online per day

[Celirra]

Originally Posted by devonin

Person A and Person B getting into a debate, unless it crosses the line (and typically if it does, only the parts that do get deleted) resulting in deleting/locking/banning is just not a thing.

You're leaving out Person C, D and E who show up and tell person A they're a stupid idiot and nobody wants them here, and then one of them goes too far and gets banned, person F, G and H deciding this is a great hill to die on about unfair bannings and horrible mods.

My opinion on this then I guess is that it might be good to find a way for people to be able to voice opinions on their bans/post deletions/"horrible" mods/etc, so that it doesn't accumulate like this; be more open to feedback instead of just shutting it down, and all that. to reiterate a point I've made a bunch here, I don't want this forum to be mods vs. regular users like you seem to be making it out to be here, and how the general tone has felt lately.

Also I did mention I left out a lot of factors, like other people, but it's the general premise, perhaps extend to party A and B if that helps.

[devonin]

But when most bans were 1-3 days long, having a steady rate of 30-40 people serving bans is pretty frequent banning. If you scale user-counts from then down to now, there should at least be around 1 or 2 at any given time.

[Celirra]

Originally Posted by devonin

Do you know, right this minute, how many forum users are currently serving non-perma bans for things that aren't "being under 13"?

Would you like to guess how many users are banned right now?

Five or Eight years ago, the number of people serving non-permanent bans at any giving time was often as high as 40 or 50.

Progress doesn't mean there can't be further improvement, or feedback taken...
And yeah, there's also a lot less activity these days so that isn't too great a comparison... but I digress.

[xXOpkillerXx]

Originally Posted by devonin

But when most bans were 1-3 days long, having a steady rate of 30-40 people serving bans is pretty frequent banning. If you scale user-counts from then down to now, there should at least be around 1 or 2 at any given time.

Why is the decrease of bans an argument to anything here again ?

[SKG_Scintill]

at this point I'd be making claims for which I have no statistics to back them up
so whatever
you're doing a joob god

[XelNya]

Originally Posted by Celirra

I hope Xel isn't banned for this because I like Xel well enough, and i think this is a good example of the kind of thing that can be worked out with mutual understanding... and it kinda also is the purpose of this thread, to let people voice opinions about this topic?

Look. If I get banned, we all know I'm gonna laugh it off, and mock it with people one on one, or in a call somewhere, just like I always do. When I get banned, I'll tell you it's usually one I see coming.

I think the current mod team, for the most part, is fine. I might not like their style of moderation, but only one mod in particular has done something I feel is worthy of being made fun of, and then just insulted to hell when the joke is missed, or my point is ignored in favor of pushing their own view point. Especially when it's not exactly the first time it's happened.

I think deleting posts is fine when it serves a purpose. Banning people when they break what's written in the rules thread, sure.

Using the infraction system correctly? I'm for. I still have permanent points I don't deserve according to the old, and new rule set. It's got it's kinks, and tbh most of them are likely worked out with rotating new people in.

Originally Posted by Charu

What will your first action be, Mr. Xel?

You already know what it would be. I'd take the gbin and make it great again. Most of the other mods got the rest of the site in a fairly good place.

Like Rapta over MP? He sent me a message last time I played FFR because I was in the MP room. This man knows what's up. OWA and a few others hit this spot pretty nicely as well.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by xXOpkillerXx

Why is the decrease of bans an argument to anything here again ?

It's to do with the narrative that mods "these days" are somehow being more ban happy, or generally more aggressive with mod actions than they used to.

Using the infraction system correctly? I'm for. I still have permanent points I don't deserve according to the old, and new rule set. It's got it's kinks, and tbh most of them are likely worked out with rotating new people in.

As far as I can see you have no infraction points at all.

[Celirra]

Originally Posted by XelNya

Look. If I get banned, we all know I'm gonna laugh it off, and mock it with people one on one, or in a call somewhere, just like I always do. When I get banned, I'll tell you it's usually one I see coming.

I think the current mod team, for the most part, is fine. I might not like their style of moderation, but only one mod in particular has done something I feel is worthy of being made fun of, and then just insulted to hell when the joke is missed, or my point is ignored in favor of pushing their own view point. Especially when it's not exactly the first time it's happened.

I think deleting posts is fine when it serves a purpose. Banning people when they break what's written in the rules thread, sure.

Using the infraction system correctly? I'm for. I still have permanent points I don't deserve according to the old, and new rule set. It's got it's kinks, and tbh most of them are likely worked out with rotating new people in.

For what its worth I kinda think your general issue with this stems from a dislike you seem to have for raeko rather than a legitimate issue... if V presented that rule I imagine you wouldn't be this upset over it?
but thats also neither here nor there (its also tgb specific isn't it, which has always been a more subjective and disconnected ruleset to an extent)

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by Celirra

For what its worth I kinda think your general issue with this stems from a dislike you seem to have for raeko rather than a legitimate issue... if V presented that rule I imagine you wouldn't be this upset over it?
but thats also neither here nor there (its also tgb specific isn't it, which has always been a more subjective and disconnected ruleset to an extent)

when raeko posted the rules thread in the first place i thought she was aight.

that rules thread is BAD

edit: posted to defend xel thinking rules is bad cause it is

gonna keep tryna hammer that home

[xXOpkillerXx]

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555

when raeko posted the rules thread in the first place i thought she was aight.

that rules thread is BAD

edit: posted to defend xel thinking rules is bad cause it is

gonna keep tryna hammer that home

Have the bad rules been explicitely pointed out in some attempted objective manner ? If so, where is that ? Maybe that would help the community to discuss those.

[devonin]

Some people who decided that anything less than completely comprehensive rules that left no room for any opinion on the part of mods as to whether a rule was broken were completely unacceptable (Read: People who were punished for breaking the rules but decided their actions weren't actually against the rules as written) were the ones who kicked up the original stink, which seems to mostly be continuing due to inertia.

[Celirra]

I guess if I really had to hammer down a point, it would be that I hope there's open-ness to hearing feedback of mod decisions/rules/etc, and this is kind of an attempt at that... admittedly in a way it doesn't feel much like my feedback is being considered? I didn't really word it eloquently which may be part of it, but uh... I hope the point of establishing better co-operation between mods and non-mods is heard and considered.

I still stand by not wanting posts deleted but I guess the other point would need a place before my stance is heard too much.

[XelNya]

Originally Posted by Celirra

For what its worth I kinda think your general issue with this stems from a dislike you seem to have for raeko rather than a legitimate issue... if V presented that rule I imagine you wouldn't be this upset over it?
but thats also neither here nor there (its also tgb specific isn't it, which has always been a more subjective and disconnected ruleset to an extent)

The issue at hand there is that the only reason that word does what she claims it does, is because people like her have given it that pedestal and power to do so. My like or dislike of Raeko aside, what I have to say about it remains the same. Censoring it doesn't solve the issue, removing the power from it does. You do this by not giving it that power in the first place.

I take issue with people who are easily offended, or bothered by things. Partially because I don't get it. Partially because of that, I don't care who I offend. My view of the world and most of the people in it is largely to blame. I know that.

But the reason I'm so in arms about it is that, by letting it into the section of the site, literally meant to have a more loose rule-set, what will make it's way to the main section eventually?

Like seriously. My original posts on this, was a complete hyperbolic parody of the rules, mocking them into oblivion and commenting on them, and intentionally using words and phrases to make my point. But instead of doing things such as adding words to the filter, or really even trying to discuss it (yeah surprise that was an option) I just got deleted. I wanted to talk about it, I would argue rather I may have chose the wrong method.

But, that's not really productive. It's not the correct course of action, because if I had actually broken the rules, I'm well past the point where I deserve any warnings. I know I broke no actual rules with those posts.

The PM I sent to her afterwards in frustration? Which I actually got banned for? 100% broke at least a few site rules. It was nasty.

I can still post in the gbin even. But why the hell would I want to post in the place that's supposed to be for people who post like I do, when the rules there are more rigid and strict.

It makes no sense. If you're gonna keep Raeko as a mod, fine. But over the gbin? Likely the worst assignment here.

And making me a mod? Worst fucking idea ever. Don't ever do that. I'm kidding.

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by xXOpkillerXx

Have the bad rules been explicitely pointed out in some attempted objective manner ? If so, where is that ? Maybe that would help the community to discuss those.

i dm'd raeko a while back, so yeah it was

publicly (at least in tgb) we're not even allowed to. one of the rules

see the issue??

[xXOpkillerXx]

Originally Posted by devonin

Some people who decided that anything less than completely comprehensive rules that left no room for any opinion on the part of mods as to whether a rule was broken were completely unacceptable (Read: People who were punished for breaking the rules but decided their actions weren't actually against the rules as written) were the ones who kicked up the original stink, which seems to mostly be continuing due to inertia.

I mean as much as that could be the case, it'd be constructive to have those complaining about the rules to mention (or redirect to posts about) explicit rules (or parts of) that they believe are wrong, Or rules that should be added, and some reasonning behind it.