About Forum Rules...

[aelf]

Should have browsed this forum earlier and found this thread. Some questions have been bugging me, and I hope I can get some answers here.

1) Is saying that someone is flaming or trolling in a thread considered a flame/troll itself? This seems to have happened.

I get that it might be unnecessary since there is a report function, but in a discussion the report function doesn't tell the other poster that his/her points are invalid because he/she is doing nothing more than flaming/trolling. Surely to say that "I don't think you have a point here because you're really just flaming/trolling" is not out of line?

2) Is there any standard for deciding whether a post is a flame/troll?

I am asking because sometimes content that appears to be obviously trying to flame/troll passes the test, but another that is unclear gets infracted. Clearly, the issue is with the specific application of the rules, which is naturally uncodified, but which probably has some informal standards.

For one, shouldn't the intent of the poster help make the decision? It's not hard to see when someone's intending to offend.

 

[Mise]

How come a thread starter is allowed to ask for his own thread to be closed, even when there is valid discussion going on in it? But they're not allowed to police their thread in any other way, such as to keep it on topic by telling people who clearly have no business in the thread not to post in it? The point I keep hearing is that the OP is no different from any other poster -- yet an OP can close the thread just by asking.

 

[Agent327]

I don't know: it just seems fair when a threadstarter observes his thread being highjacked or something his/her request for closure be rewarded. (If people are intent on continuing a discussion on their own, anyone can start a thread on basically any subject within the confines of Forum Rules.)

1) Is saying that someone is flaming or trolling in a thread considered a flame/troll itself? This seems to have happened.

I'd suggest to just report any flaming or trolling.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

How come a thread starter is allowed to ask for his own thread to be closed, even when there is valid discussion going on in it? But they're not allowed to police their thread in any other way, such as to keep it on topic by telling people who clearly have no business in the thread not to post in it? The point I keep hearing is that the OP is no different from any other poster -- yet an OP can close the thread just by asking.

I don't know where you get this idea but we don't just close any thread just because the OP asked. I don't know about the other mods; I will certainly ascertain there's a reasonably good reason before doing so.

For specific threads, pls PM the mod(s) who did the actual closure.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

1) Is saying that someone is flaming or trolling in a thread considered a flame/troll itself? This seems to have happened.

I get that it might be unnecessary since there is a report function, but in a discussion the report function doesn't tell the other poster that his/her points are invalid because he/she is doing nothing more than flaming/trolling. Surely to say that "I don't think you have a point here because you're really just flaming/trolling" is not out of line?

It's situational.

2) Is there any standard for deciding whether a post is a flame/troll?

I am asking because sometimes content that appears to be obviously trying to flame/troll passes the test, but another that is unclear gets infracted. Clearly, the issue is with the specific application of the rules, which is naturally uncodified, but which probably has some informal standards.

Again, it's situational.

Moderating is not an exact science. It's usually a judgement call, on the part of the moderator.

That's why we have you guys to PM the mod in question if you want to discuss it further and/or to appeal to the admins, if you want to make a protest. Because moderators don't always get it right either (posts on Internet forums are limiting in many ways - much more difficult to discern flaming/trolling intent than in face-to-face conversations), so we leave you room to discuss/protest/appeal.

 

[LucyDuke]

I don't know where you get this idea but we don't just close any thread just because the OP asked. I don't know about the other mods; I will certainly ascertain there's a reasonably good reason before doing so.

I've asked and been granted thread closures before, and I've seen it happen elsewhere. At the very least, a request from the OP to close the thread gets more traction than a request from any other random poster.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There are frrequent mod discussions about whether or not a specific reported post is a flame or troll. The answers can be elusive. ***cue music: "Elusive Butterfly**

 

[ainwood]

How come a thread starter is allowed to ask for his own thread to be closed, even when there is valid discussion going on in it? But they're not allowed to police their thread in any other way, such as to keep it on topic by telling people who clearly have no business in the thread not to post in it? The point I keep hearing is that the OP is no different from any other poster -- yet an OP can close the thread just by asking.

I've asked and been granted thread closures before, and I've seen it happen elsewhere. At the very least, a request from the OP to close the thread gets more traction than a request from any other random poster.

If I get a request to close a thread, I look at the content first.

If the thread is one of those about a poster or their specific issues, then their request gets more weight. If they are pointing out that a question asked has been conclusively answered, then I will often agree.

Otherwise, I look to see how the thread is progressing: is it still on-topic? Is it full of flaming & trolling?

 

[aelf]

It's situational.

With regards to the answer to my first question, I was given the impression before this that it's a standard rule of some sort - i.e. that saying a post is trolling is itself trolling.

So which is is true, really? I'm a little confused now

 

[ainwood]

1) Is saying that someone is flaming or trolling in a thread considered a flame/troll itself? This seems to have happened.

I get that it might be unnecessary since there is a report function, but in a discussion the report function doesn't tell the other poster that his/her points are invalid because he/she is doing nothing more than flaming/trolling. Surely to say that "I don't think you have a point here because you're really just flaming/trolling" is not out of line?

I generally view an accusation of flaming or an accusation of trolling to be trolling, simply because it invariably results in making any situation worse rather than better. Similarly for people announcing that they're putting someone on ignore.

2) Is there any standard for deciding whether a post is a flame/troll?

I am asking because sometimes content that appears to be obviously trying to flame/troll passes the test, but another that is unclear gets infracted. Clearly, the issue is with the specific application of the rules, which is naturally uncodified, but which probably has some informal standards.

A very basic rule (and it doesn't address all cases) is whether the post is aimed at the poster or at the post they made. Generally, we're a lot more tolerant towards the latter than the former.

For one, shouldn't the intent of the poster help make the decision? It's not hard to see when someone's intending to offend.

Actually, it can be difficult. How do we know what the specific intent of the poster is? We try to determine it from the content of the post they make, but it can be subjective. We certainly try our best.

 

[Zack]

One time I criticized an IGN guide for declaring Serfdom the ultimate Civics - and I was warned by a mod to "discuss the topic, not each other"

 

[Phlegmak]

* this is not meant as a discussion thread about Moderator Actions (check the Forum Rules for that)
* use common courtesy in your posts
* respect others.

Forum rules = moderator actions.

 

[Agent327]

Did you read all of the OP? Discussing specific Moderator Actions is restricted to PMs. Discussing Moderator policy is another matter, IMHO. (Also, I have specifically asked if it was alright to start a thread on Forum Rules prior to doing so.)

 

[Moss]

I have a suggestion:

In the forum rules it mentions many varieties of "contact the admins" if a problem/situation arises. Yet it gives no mention of who those admins are or how to contact them. Not really a big deal for those of us who know the admins and/or know where the Forum leader link is located, but for newer members it would be nice if the "admins" word in such circumstances in the rules was hyperlinked to the Group leaders page, as the three admins are listed at the top of that page.

 

[Thunderfall]

Good idea, Moss. I will add it. Thanks.

EDIT: It's done.

 

[Moss]

Can I put that "Good idea, Moss" quote in my sig?

Now we just need to get more people to read the rules...

 

[Kozmos]

I think the rules are a bit too strict lately or perhaps zealously enforced. You cant get any sort of discussion on OT going without it being closed for X ridiculous reason. What's the point of having an OT forum if you cant discuss anything OT on the grounds of it being unsuitable or without relevance or in bad taste (huh?) and/or forced to have a intelligent discussion or face closure. It's just mad. But I know how this complaint is going to be responded: The offending threads have been spam or lacking substance in the eyes of the mods. Mod judgement is beyond questioning. The end. Grrr here's a red -2 point card for even bringing it up Cleric. Grrr.

Oh and the autocensor. Why have it in the first place if you get moderated when mods see those dots? What do you people have against dots??? I know this is supposed to be a family-friendly forum, but surely how many innocent little kiddies do you think will be corrupted beyond salvation by seeing the horrible blasphemous dots? Am I supposed to go around saying gosh darn it or H-E-double hockey sticks? What was wrong with these (*****) anyways??? Kids are not stupid anyway. They know how to swear by the fourth grade. What is next, blacklisting words like ******, nazi and fag? (since their use in English is almost exclusively insulting)

I dont know...maybe I'm just sentimental for the olden OT days. Such great classics were spawned back then. It's like this gleaming golden city of freedom and happiness where the sun always shines has been replaced by a grimy, rundown town with CCTV cameras on every corner and a ominous blimp hovering around it with ainwoods grrr face on the screen.

 

[Sharwood]

I think the rules are a bit too strict lately or perhaps zealously enforced. You cant get any sort of discussion on OT going without it being closed for X ridiculous reason. What's the point of having an OT forum if you cant discuss anything OT on the grounds of it being unsuitable or without relevance or in bad taste (huh?) and/or forced to have a intelligent discussion or face closure. It's just mad. But I know how this complaint is going to be responded: The offending threads have been spam or lacking substance in the eyes of the mods. Mod judgement is beyond questioning. The end. Grrr here's a red -2 point card for even bringing it up Cleric. Grrr.

Oh and the autocensor. Why have it in the first place if you get moderated when mods see those dots? What do you people have against dots??? I know this is supposed to be a family-friendly forum, but surely how many innocent little kiddies do you think will be corrupted beyond salvation by seeing the horrible blasphemous dots? Am I supposed to go around saying gosh darn it or H-E-double hockey sticks? What was wrong with these (*****) anyways??? Kids are not stupid anyway. They know how to swear by the fourth grade. What is next, blacklisting words like ******, nazi and fag? (since their use in English is almost exclusively insulting)

I dont know...maybe I'm just sentimental for the olden OT days. Such great classics were spawned back then. It's like this gleaming golden city of freedom and happiness where the sun always shines has been replaced by a grimy, rundown town with CCTV cameras on every corner and a ominous blimp hovering around it with ainwoods grrr face on the screen.

I agree with all of this, especially the first paragraph. As long as I am not encouraging illegal behaviour, trolling, spamming, or otherwise breaking the rules, the mods have absolutely no right to dictate to me what is or isn't "in bad taste." If I have an opinion, I'll voice it, and if you try to stop me I'll just do it more, because I refuse to recognise such flagrant abuse of moderator priveleges.

 

[LucyDuke]

I agree with all of this, especially the first paragraph. As long as I am not encouraging illegal behaviour, trolling, spamming, or otherwise breaking the rules, the mods have absolutely no right to dictate to me what is or isn't "in bad taste." If I have an opinion, I'll voice it, and if you try to stop me I'll just do it more, because I refuse to recognise such flagrant abuse of moderator priveleges.

There's really nothing good to gain in punching a brick wall, even if it called your mother a whore.

 

[Sharwood]

There's really nothing good to gain in punching a brick wall, even if it called your mother a whore.

Releases anger. Besides, what's the worst that could happen, I get banned? Not exactly a threat to me.