Hi there,
I just want to wish all the MOD a great thank you for your work ! You handle this forum really well, and it helps make it a great forum !
You are nor too lazy neither too harsh/severe.
A lot of people come here every day and talk about a lot of thing, and you succeed in keeping it open and ordered at the same time !
So, well done, guys !

Hey thanks!

We wouldn't be bothered if it weren't for so many great posters who choose to discuss their hobby here. So thanks to you as well!

Looks like you're losing your touch guys. What happened to the iron fisted mods of old?
Time to break out the banehammer and set an example or two before us civillians get too complacent.

TBH I think all of us have mellowed out. Years ago, there was a lot more vitriole. Maybe it's because, as a whole culture, we are more used to being on the internet?

I'm also pretty impressed sometimes. When I first joined I was a bit peeved that certain topics were taboo and that the rules of the forum can easily be skirted by making implications or indirect ad hominems that would be impossible to respond to without incurring a strike. However, as much as things get heated on areas where we tend to disagree, and certain subjects basically always lead to mudslinging and thread locks, I think the mods err on the side of letting people speak their mind as long as things are civil. Some of the discussions we've had here would be totally impossible elsewhere, and in even other environments would be totally one sided with dissent or debate being verboten.

 Manchu wrote:
TBH I think all of us have mellowed out. Years ago, there was a lot more vitriole. Maybe it's because, as a whole culture, we are more used to being on the internet?

Or you established a culture over time on Dakka that allows peer pressure to keep things in line - i.e. people who have been here longer know not to rise to flame-war bait.

@Luciferian - The staff certainly errs to the lighter touch.

@John Prins - Perhaps so, although perhaps developing such a culture is the result of posters mellowing.

 Manchu wrote:
@Luciferian - The staff certainly errs to the lighter touch.

Except with certain topics...

I'm not gonna start new thread for this so I say this here.

The female Custodes thread was locked. It was pretty civil, and it was really just discussing the game lore, there were no noticeable detours to real politics or social topics. But then in comes some troll saying something like 'Bloody SJWs, I hope this gets locked.' Instead of starting to argue with that person and letting them to derail the topic, I report said derailing attempt. An lo and behold, within minutes a mod swoops in and does the troll's bidding, promptly locking the thread! This is completely inexcusable. It cannot be the case that by being rude to others such people will get their wish granted. Why does this forum let people who wish to shut down certain topics to do so with impunity?

You are mischaracterizing the situation. The question was, can a polite and constructive discussion follow a blanket accusation of bigotry? As a matter of reason and, more importantly, as a matter of demonstration by posters representing all ideological positions participating in that thread, the answer was clearly No. The trouble with the particular topic is inherent to the topic itself. I didn't lock it because people who don't agree with you wanted me to lock it. I locked it because the inevitable outcome is both sides, so utterly convinced they are morally righteous, will attack each other (including without any self-awareness of being rude). This is also why we have a US Politics ban.

This whole thread is peak Munchausen syndrome. Complimenting a mod is like telling the police they're great because they have not yet beat you. The day will come when some arbitrary line is drawn that brings them swarming like wasps.

The only thing the mods have done right is keep US Politics off the forum. Looking forward to the day when that's lifted so the world can know our pain. But it's too soon.

Well to be honest it might be because people have calmed down on the internet, people here have grown older and wiser and see the internet less as anonyomous and more of a way to connect and discuss with people. Like the Forums of Athens. I think it is just mellowed out just by constant use as @Manchu suggests.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The only thing the mods have done right is keep US Politics off the forum. Looking forward to the day when that's lifted so the world can know our pain. But it's too soon.

If I may be honest, I think it's a little sad they had to resort to that. I guess the wrong people kept being right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Except with certain topics...

Yeah, people kinda got sick of seeing it repeated, just so a handful of people could say, "If you disagree with me you're sexist" in some form or another.

 Manchu wrote:
You are mischaracterizing the situation. The question was, can a polite and constructive discussion follow a blanket accusation of bigotry? As a matter of reason and, more importantly, as a matter of demonstration by posters representing all ideological positions participating in that thread, the answer was clearly No. The trouble with the particular topic is inherent to the topic itself. I didn't lock it because people who don't agree with you wanted me to lock it. I locked it because the inevitable outcome is both sides, so utterly convinced they are morally righteous, will attack each other (including without any self-awareness of being rude). This is also why we have a US Politics ban.

I was not talking about the earlier female Marine thread, I was talking about this recent female Custodes thread:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751011.page

You didn't lock it, Alpharius did, and there certainly was no blanket accusations of bigotry there. It was about the game lore, and pretty relevant as Custodes are a new army and lot of people are probably musing about their lore.

 Crimson wrote:
You didn't lock it, Alpharius did, and there certainly was no blanket accusations of bigotry there. It was about the game lore, and pretty relevant as Custodes are a new army and lot of people are probably musing about their lore.

Oh, THAT one.

Yeah, that one was pretty civil and I don't think it was bad at all.

 Manchu wrote:
@Luciferian - The staff certainly errs to the lighter touch.

Now that's certainly an amusing claim. I can't even count the number of times I've seen trigger-happy mods locking threads or threatening people over minor issues (most of them ones I wasn't involved in personally) that didn't deserve any attention. If that's what counts as "erring to a lighter touch" I'd hate to see you guys get in a banning mood...

I am liking the continued ban on US politics. Thats helped out a certain region of darkness and depravity. : )

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Luciferian - The staff certainly errs to the lighter touch.

Now that's certainly an amusing claim. I can't even count the number of times I've seen trigger-happy mods locking threads or threatening people over minor issues (most of them ones I wasn't involved in personally) that didn't deserve any attention. If that's what counts as "erring to a lighter touch" I'd hate to see you guys get in a banning mood...

I think it's been fairly well established in past discussions that you have a very different opinion on what constitutes acceptable discussion to that of Dakka's administration.

Which is fine... Different people draw the line in different places. But if you think Dakka has heavy moderation, I can only speculate that you haven't frequented very many forums.

 Crimson wrote:
You didn't lock it, Alpharius did

Looks like he left an explanation. I'll let him answer you further, if he wants.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'd hate to see you guys get in a banning mood...

Happens every once in a while. At that point, they paint our power armor black and there's a special chaplain who helps us remember our names.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats helped out a certain region of darkness and depravity.

Yeah, I can't see the ban being lifted anytime soon.

 Frazzled wrote:
I am liking the continued ban on US politics. Thats helped out a certain region of darkness and depravity. : )

I'm not certain how bad it is. Any time a current event pops up, everyone gets toxic if it happens in the USA. Apparently being in the NRA make you complicit in child murder.

Actually, I see exactly why that toxic cesspit was barred.

No need to evoke it here though.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Luciferian - The staff certainly errs to the lighter touch.

Now that's certainly an amusing claim.

I dunno, man. The last thread I saw innovatively moderated saw a poster generalizing about one side of the argument as a cult of idiots, a cancer, and compared to ISIS freely. I can vouch for the "light touch" I saw that day.

Much like with anything, you have the good and the bad.

Mods need to look with both eyes. It's pretty common for worked up posters to only see others' faults.

 Ouze wrote:
I dunno, man. The last thread I saw innovatively moderated saw a poster generalizing about one side of the argument as a cult of idiots, a cancer, and compared to ISIS freely.

It would be terrible if someone could prove that individual wrong someday.

We don't all have an apparent free pass to break rule one.

In that thread, I said I was sadder and wiser, and you said "I wasn't", presumably because that was the edgelordiest thing you could think of. It's certainly left me wealthier since that was when I decided after nearly a decade I would never pay for DCM again.

So in a way I should be thanking you.

Again, we're not going to go through the whole thing again here.

I locked that particular thread because of this very mode of unproductive, discourteous "tit-for-tat" discussion. It's a slow-burn Rule One nightmare with lots of passive aggression.

And it's off topic in this thread. So stow it, both of ya.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, we're not going to go through the whole thing again here.

A couple of posters have attempted to drag those conflicts into other discussions, to the point of harassment. I think it's been made obvious.

I have to admit, I like you, Manchu- I do. And I know it's not all on you.

But 'Rule One' is subjective and rarely is it enforced unless the right people are offended.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

But 'Rule One' is subjective... .

Which is exactly why people tend to disagree on how well it is applied.

And also why every single moderator action is logged and where necessary vetted by the rest of the mod team.

We may not get it right every time, certainly. But opinions on how often we get it wrong are always going to be skewed by personal perception of the situation.

Well as anyone can see from this very thread, everyone thinks the "other side" gets a pass.

It's worth noting that most posters just talk about their hobby without ever getting angry or taking (serious) jibes at others.

 insaniak wrote:
We may not get it right every time, certainly. But opinions on how often we get it wrong are always going to be skewed by personal perception of the situation.

And that's fair, you're human.

I suppose it would be fair to assume the following: Sometimes one of you guys sees things differently. One guy's 'rude' might be someone else's 'firm reply'. Some people can take personal offense to things that aren't personal. Sometimes you just don't catch things.

I'll straight-up say I'm a jerk. I won't ever say I'm the only one, and I won't say I do so unprovoked, but I'm a jerk. And generally speaking, I've been trying to give you mods a chance to deal with some of the issues and trying to do a little less sniping back.

We certainly appreciate anyone trying to be less of a jerk.

Seconded!

For the record, until GW comes out on the record as saying female Space Marines and/or Custodes are a thing, quite frankly, these discussion aren't worth the trouble they inevitably cause.

So until that time, enjoy talking about female Stormcast, and keep hoping for GW to...do something else different too.

But also keep expecting those other threads to get locked fairly quickly.

 Manchu wrote:
Well as anyone can see from this very thread, everyone thinks the "other side" gets a pass..

Indeed.

I've lost count of the number of times over the years I've received PMs from people on both sides of an argument accusing me of showing favouritism to the other side...

 insaniak wrote:
I've last count of the number of times over the years I've received PMs from people on both sides of an argument accusing me of showing favouratism to the other side...

Well, since you're at least communicating like this, it is easier to put it into perspective. I can see how that would be an issue.

I suppose the only thing to ask would be that you're equally fair and apply it across the board evenly. I don't remember exactly why the US Politics thread got closed, it was kinda awful- but it seemed that a lot of it got bad around the Election.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@Luciferian - The staff certainly errs to the lighter touch.

Now that's certainly an amusing claim. I can't even count the number of times I've seen trigger-happy mods locking threads or threatening people over minor issues (most of them ones I wasn't involved in personally) that didn't deserve any attention. If that's what counts as "erring to a lighter touch" I'd hate to see you guys get in a banning mood...

I think it's been fairly well established in past discussions that you have a very different opinion on what constitutes acceptable discussion to that of Dakka's administration.

Which is fine... Different people draw the line in different places. But if you think Dakka has heavy moderation, I can only speculate that you haven't frequented very many forums.

See, I wasn't even talking about rule #1 here. I'm talking about things like locking a thread with "off topic, locked, feel free to start a new thread". What is the point of that, besides showing off your ability to lock a thread?

But as for rule #1, I think the problem is nicely highlighted by the fact that someone who directly called me "the most toxic poster on the forum" last night and had it deleted (along with most of their other posts in the thread, including other rudeness) is still posting without even a 24 hour ban, while I can guarantee that if i had said the same thing I'd be banned now.

Peregrine, that is a great example of the lack of self-awareness we have to deal with. I deleted a bunch of your own rule violating posts in that same thread rather than ban you, as well.

 Manchu wrote:
Peregrine, that is a great example of the lack of self-awareness we have to deal with. I deleted a bunch of your own rule violating posts in that same thread rather than ban you, as well.

Uh, what? All of my posts are still there, not even edited. You deleted posts by someone arguing with the person who insulted me, but they weren't mine.

Nope, check again, I did actually edit several of your posts.You can tell because there is an automatically appended message that says they were edited.

Like so:

 Manchu wrote:
Nope, check again, I did actually edit several of your posts.You can tell because there is an automatically appended message that says they were edited.

Like so:

Uh, no? Everything I posted is still there untouched, except for where you removed quoted text from the deleted posts by the guy who insulted me. The edit notes are because I edited my own posts (typos, etc). You know the dumpster fire pic and such wasn't me, right?

 Alpharius wrote:
Seconded!

For the record, until GW comes out on the record as saying female Space Marines and/or Custodes are a thing, quite frankly, these discussion aren't worth the trouble they inevitably cause.

The thread you locked was not really going off the rails. I was following it closely. As I said, and as you well know, some poster dropped in with usual 'SJW' and I hope this gets locked. Now, as previous thread indeed have gone off topic when attempting to debate such people, I did not, and instead reported said post. And yes, you did delete that offending, post but you also did exactly what the troll desired, IE. locked the thread.

This is completely crazy situation and it is utterly maddening that mods keep enabling such people. You're letting people who are willing to resort to insults to derail topics they don't like dictate what can be discussed here.

So until that time, enjoy talking about female Stormcast, and keep hoping for GW to...do something else different too.

But also keep expecting those other threads to get locked fairly quickly.

Isn't the Custodes situation basically the same as the Stormcast situation was originally? That they seem to be all male but it is not explicitly said they cannot be female. And then people kept talking about it and GW said that there are indeed female Stormcasts and later made some models. But apparently such discussion regarding Custodes is not allowed.

You seem to be assuming that the thread was locked because of a single troll, rather than because of the topic.

The simple fact is that some topics serve very little purpose other than to attract trolls, so we have a choice of waiting until they go stupid and locking them then, or saving everyone the bother and locking them early.

It's not about letting the troll have his way. It's about not leaving the front gate open in troll season.

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to be assuming that the thread was locked because of a single troll, rather than because of the topic.

So basically anything that contains word 'woman' or 'female' is a banned topic. Does this seem reasonable to you?

The simple fact is that some topics serve very little purpose other than to attract trolls, so we have a choice of waiting until they go stupid and locking them then, or saving everyone the bother and locking them early.

Of course it serves purpose! The fact that such threads are created and at least some people manage to discuss the topic civilly proves that people want to discuss these topics. And with Custodes being a new army and their fluff being rather sparse and scattered, such discussion is actually pretty useful (unlike with Space Marines where pretty much everyone knows at this point what the fluff say.)

It's not about letting the troll have his way. It's about not leaving the front gate open in troll season.

If the desire of said trolls is to shut down certain topics (and it is, they openly say so), then it is absolutely them getting their way. But here's a novel thought: how about you ban the trolls and let the people who actually want to discuss these topics do so in peace?


If I for some reason decided that I hated Blood Angels, and every time someone would mention Blood Angels I would swoop in and stat to insult people and stir gak up, would the result be that mods would just lock all Blood Angel threads, or perhaps that I would just get banned? Which option seems more reasonable to you?

 insaniak wrote:
The simple fact is that some topics serve very little purpose other than to attract trolls

On the other hand, the fact that people keep making the threads and keep turning them into long discussions would pretty strongly suggest that they do have a purpose besides trolling, and that the solution is to deal with the trolls directly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Nope, check again, I did actually edit several of your posts.You can tell because there is an automatically appended message that says they were edited.

Like so:

Uh, no? Everything I posted is still there untouched, except for where you removed quoted text from the deleted posts by the guy who insulted me. The edit notes are because I edited my own posts (typos, etc). You know the dumpster fire pic and such wasn't me, right?

Correction: perhaps you did get a bit aggressive in editing and delete a comment about "the only thing fleshing it out is going to do is reveal exactly how people will min-max it and break it", which is not a rule #1 violation by any sane standard, in the process of deleting all the other stuff. And I can say you're wrong with a lot of confidence here, because I specifically ignored this person's attempts to bait me into saying something ban-worthy and only commented on the game design ideas. Literally the only thing I said about the OP as a person was "I didn't look at who posted this, this is entirely about your bad idea" in response to accusing me of harassment and having a vendetta against them.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to be assuming that the thread was locked because of a single troll, rather than because of the topic.

So basically anything that contains word 'woman' or 'female' is a banned topic. Does this seem reasonable to you?

The simple fact is that some topics serve very little purpose other than to attract trolls, so we have a choice of waiting until they go stupid and locking them then, or saving everyone the bother and locking them early.

Of course it serves purpose! The fact that such threads are created and at least some people manage to discuss the topic civilly proves that people want to discuss these topics. And with Custodes being a new army and their fluff being rather sparse and scattered, such discussion is actually pretty useful (unlike with Space Marines where pretty much everyone knows at this point what the fluff say.)

It's not about letting the troll have his way. It's about not leaving the front gate open in troll season.

If the desire of said trolls is to shut down certain topics, then it is absolutely them getting their way. But here's a novel thought: how about you ban the trolls and let the people who actually want to discuss these topics do so in peace?


If I for some reason decided that I hated Blood Angels, and every time someone would mention Blood Angels I would swoop in and stat to insult people and stir gak up, would the result be that mods would just lock all Blood Angel threads, or perhaps that I would just get banned? Which option seems more reasonable to you?

So, uh, I don't like defending Mods. But are you trying to prove some point by derailing this thread?

Suggesting the entire group is a bunch of misogynists could be called trolling.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Suggesting the entire group is a bunch of misogynists could be called trolling.

At least in the Custodes thread no one certainly did so or anything even remotely sounding like that. (And it rarely happens otherwise either, it is just that some people interpret 'There is sexism in the gaming community' to mean 'all gamers are sexist'.)

And I guess I do want to give the Mods some credit for protecting the environment that exists on Dakka.

It's very easy to find people online who will agree with you. But the Internet is not good for fostering actual discussions on difficult topics. This is because many channels / communities are designed to promote a specific perspective, and anything that challenges that view becomes an offense to the group. And a group reaction follows, with all the subtlety that goes along with it.

Sometimes, the term Troll gets thrown around too easily. It could mean someone who is deliberately trying to antagonize a group online. Often, it's used against anyone whose perspective differs from that of the dominant group.

It's not fair to ask Mods to sort the former from the later. And mobs don't need defending from people who don't share their perspective, it's the other way around.

Again, I don't like Mods or attempts to cosy up with them. But the Mods on Dakka have done a good job keeping US Politics - aka an endless excuse to fight - off the boards. Asking them to single out people for whatever reason is not going to work well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Suggesting the entire group is a bunch of misogynists could be called trolling.

At least in the Custodes thread no one certainly did so or anything even remotely sounding like that. (And it rarely happens otherwise either, it is just that some people interpret 'There is sexism in the gaming community' to mean 'all gamers are sexist'.)

That's right, no one in the Custodes thread did.

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to be assuming that the thread was locked because of a single troll, rather than because of the topic.

So basically anything that contains word 'woman' or 'female' is a banned topic. Does this seem reasonable to you?

This is the quote that I was responding to.

On the one hand, there are threads on Dakka that do mention women and females that have not been locked.

On the other hand, discussions about gender are very polarizing and very few of them have lead to any kind of constructive discussion on Dakka. Of course they are going to be locked.

 techsoldaten wrote:
It's not fair to ask Mods to sort the former from the later.

Of course it is. We do it all the time. If someone says " space marines and every plays them, this thread needs to be locked" the mods delete the post and ban the poster for trolling, they don't shrug and say "we can't take a position on this, space marine discussion is banned". The idea that we can't sort out trolls on particular subjects has way more to do with individual biases and a reluctance to call certain posts/posters (which the mod in question often sympathizes with)* trolls than any actual difficulty in separating the two.

*And no, I am not referring to a specific subject or mod here, just a general trend across multiple people and subjects.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
It's not fair to ask Mods to sort the former from the later.

Of course it is. We do it all the time. If someone says " space marines and every plays them, this thread needs to be locked" the mods delete the post and ban the poster for trolling, they don't shrug and say "we can't take a position on this, space marine discussion is banned". The idea that we can't sort out trolls on particular subjects has way more to do with individual biases and a reluctance to call certain posts/posters (which the mod in question often sympathizes with)* trolls than any actual difficulty in separating the two.

*And no, I am not referring to a specific subject or mod here, just a general trend across multiple people and subjects.

In the far flung future, there will be a species of Mod capable of perfect judgement, with the time to read through all conversations and instantly determine the right and proper fate for all who choose to argue. They will become living embodiments of the forums themselves and keep detailed files on every user and every transgression so that we may know their name. And none shall escape their divine judgement.

Until then... strawman arguments like this, where you are assigning work to people already tasked with difficult jobs, will be treated as pleas for better babysitters.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
It's not fair to ask Mods to sort the former from the later.

Of course it is. We do it all the time. If someone says " space marines and every plays them, this thread needs to be locked" the mods delete the post and ban the poster for trolling, they don't shrug and say "we can't take a position on this, space marine discussion is banned". The idea that we can't sort out trolls on particular subjects has way more to do with individual biases and a reluctance to call certain posts/posters (which the mod in question often sympathizes with)* trolls than any actual difficulty in separating the two.

*And no, I am not referring to a specific subject or mod here, just a general trend across multiple people and subjects.

Indeed. And these people often even make it super easy by flat out stating that they want to get the thread locked.

The best part of this thread is why it was started and where it has gone!

I've been on a few forums here and there and I can pretty confidently say that this one really does have the most hands off Moderation - especially in terms of letting people who consistently break the rules of the site continue to post here on the site.

After the occasional warning and/or suspension, of course.

But yes, there's always room for improvement!

 techsoldaten wrote:
In the far flung future, there will be a species of Mod capable of perfect judgement, with the time to read through all conversations and instantly determine the right and proper fate for all who choose to argue. They will become living embodiments of the forums themselves and keep detailed files on every user and every transgression so that we may know their name. And none shall escape their divine judgement.

Until then... strawman arguments like this, where you are assigning work to people already tasked with difficult jobs, will be treated as pleas for better babysitters.

Perfect judgement is hardly required. We're talking about a thread where the troll literally came in and said "I'm going to get this thread locked". It's not that hard to see that yes, that person is a troll, and the solution is to remove the troll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alpharius wrote:
I've been on a few forums here and there and I can pretty confidently say that this one really does have the most hands off Moderation - especially in terms of letting people who consistently break the rules of the site continue to post here on the site.

On the other hand, I've been on a few forums here and there and this one has some of the strictest moderation, both in terms of banning people because superficial politeness is more important than being right or honest or even a decent person, and in terms of eagerness to lock threads for things like minor tangents. And things would be greatly improved by moving in that hands-off direction.

(And by appointing Peregrine head of moderation policy, but we know nobody is going to be brave enough to take that necessary step.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
In the far flung future, there will be a species of Mod capable of perfect judgement, with the time to read through all conversations and instantly determine the right and proper fate for all who choose to argue. They will become living embodiments of the forums themselves and keep detailed files on every user and every transgression so that we may know their name. And none shall escape their divine judgement.

Until then... strawman arguments like this, where you are assigning work to people already tasked with difficult jobs, will be treated as pleas for better babysitters.

Perfect judgement is hardly required. We're talking about a thread where the troll literally came in and said "I'm going to get this thread locked". It's not that hard to see that yes, that person is a troll, and the solution is to remove the troll.

Perfect judgement and a lot of patience is required in threads like this one, the original topic is being hijacked. You've already called the Mods a bunch of misogynists, now you're saying they're too lax on people who disagree with you.

This may not be the explicit, shut the thread down variety of Trolling mentioned in the earlier post. It's more of the suggestive, low-level angry, let's start an argument but not discuss anything constructive variety.

Be glad they are so patient with you.

 techsoldaten wrote:
You've already called the Mods a bunch of misogynists

Lolwut? No, I haven't. Please pay more attention to who you're replying to if you're going to make accusations of ban-worthy behavior like that.

And no, I am not saying they're too lax on people I disagree with, I'm saying they're too lax on trolling. There are plenty of people who I disagree with that don't post things like "I'm going to get this thread locked" and then do it.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Perfect judgement and a lot of patience is required in threads like this one, the original topic is being hijacked.

The OP of this thread is congratulating the mods for killing discussion he wasn't interested in reading. To say that any discussion that feels differently is hijacking the thread seems... inaccurate, lets say.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
You've already called the Mods a bunch of misogynists

Lolwut? No, I haven't. Please pay more attention to who you're replying to if you're going to make accusations of ban-worthy behavior like that.

And no, I am not saying they're too lax on people I disagree with, I'm saying they're too lax on trolling. There are plenty of people who I disagree with that don't post things like "I'm going to get this thread locked" and then do it.

Yeah, that's right, Crimson is the one calling Mods misogynsts.

You're just the one who wants to tell the Mods how to do their jobs, and to have more people banned.

Thank you for making that more clear.

 techsoldaten wrote:
You're just the one who wants to tell the Mods how to do their jobs, and to have more people banned.

I'm not really sure where "ban people who are openly trolling" became a controversial point of view.

I do, however, admit to telling them how to do their jobs, because I'm right. They would be better off listening to me (and even better, making me a mod). If you want to offer your own opinions on how they should do their jobs, feel free. It is, after all, the feedback section of the forum, so such opinions are entirely appropriate.

 Peregrine wrote:
On the other hand, I've been on a few forums here and there and this one has some of the strictest moderation

I agree but generally I've found it excellent. I think this site has some really great moderators in specific, like Reds8n, Alpharius, Motyak, Insaniak, KK, etc. If you go to Facebook groups around the h-h-hobby you'll quickly find lighter moderation isn't always better.

Mostly I'm just really disappointed and dejected not only by some (imo) really high profile bad moderation I saw recently, but a tacit endorsement of the heckler's veto. ITT you have mods saying some threads are problematic, but I think you have problematic posters, not problematic topics. Perhaps I am being naive and not just accepting that this is how the community actually is despite ample evidence that well, it is.

It's not reasonable that some people can see a topic they're not interested in, flat out declare in the thread they're going to get it locked, proceed to crap it up, and then successfully have it locked, over and over again.

 Peregrine wrote:
I do, however, admit to telling them how to do their jobs, because I'm right.

Oh. Thank you for making it clear your opinion is right.

Put 'Mod Boss' on your sig so the rest of us can remember.

 Ouze wrote:
If you go to Facebook groups around the h-h-hobby you'll quickly find lighter moderation isn't always better.

It isn't, and that's part of the problem. Moderation is excessive at certain times, but then nonexistent at others. For example, people complaining about "WAAC TFGs" and other thinly-veiled insults aimed at competitive players have a lot of freedom to make those insults as long as they don't say the word at any point. It's just taken for granted that attacking competitive players is ok, while saying similar things about casual/narrative players gets you banned for being "rude".

Or consider this thread: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/263433.page#9838862. Yeah, it was bumped after a long time by an advertising bot, but instead of just deleting the advertising post and leaving the thread to disappear again it was locked, keeping it on the front page for a while, and then an identical thread was posted soon after. What's the point in locking the original thread if you're just going to have another copy of it again? It seems like way too often threads are locked just to have the discussion move to the next thread, often with the locking moderator encouraging a new thread. Just let things continue in the original thread, it's not like there are bonus points for locking lots of stuff.

 Peregrine wrote:
(and even better, making me a mod).

SOON BABY.

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, that's right, Crimson is the one calling Mods misogynsts.

What? When did I do that?

Not sure what to say to that, other than that this thread, serving so many purposes!

 Ouze wrote:

It's not reasonable that some people can see a topic they're not interested in, flat out declare in the thread they're going to get it locked, proceed to crap it up, and then successfully have it locked, over and over again.

Yep. I really hope that the moderation team would reconsider their stance on this.

 Peregrine wrote:
But as for rule #1, I think the problem is nicely highlighted by the fact that someone who directly called me "the most toxic poster on the forum" last night and had it deleted (along with most of their other posts in the thread, including other rudeness) is still posting without even a 24 hour ban, while I can guarantee that if i had said the same thing I'd be banned now.

 Peregrine wrote:
And no, I am not saying they're too lax on people I disagree with, I'm saying they're too lax on trolling..

Here's a few things that come to mind when I see you post:

You've jumped into forum discussions more than once to make them volatile. I've seen you do it more than once, in fact- I've commented that "Here comes Peregrine, he doesn't like the topic so he's going to turn it into a toxic mess to get it shut down".

You seem to think everyone disagreeing with you in some way is 'trolling', you reduce an opposing argument to someone 'just being a troll' an dismiss their entire argument. That's volatile and inflammatory, but almost ironic given the last statement i just made.

I'll even say this, you are not the most 'toxic' person on this forum. But you can turn a discussion toxic pretty quick. You actually got one of my threads locked because you and your pal came in to harass me, and it was bad enough that a Moderator had to edit it, but by then it was completely destroyed. I want to make it clear- the moment someone came out and tried to express an unformed idea and shape it, you and someone else started harassing the poster. I'm a jerk, but I wouldn't do that to another person. I don't even like using this phrase, but it is clearly cyber-bullying behavior.

I don't even like calling someone 'toxic' but that is pretty damned scummy behavior. You're shocked I'm not on a 24 hour ban? I'm shocked you're not on a permanent one.

You and a handful of other persons on this forum have a very simple problem where you think you can just snipe at people all day long, and you think it's subtle- but any idiot can see it. Then, whenever it gets thrown back at you, you get upset.

Or, when you do what I've been doing and doing as one mod asked me to do and use the feature when someone starts outright flaming and insulting people, then we get what we have right here.

Anyway, off topic- but on my mobile phone I logged in 3 times with the wrong password and it said my account was banned until 3018. Weird glitch but I lol'd.

EDIT: And, of course, addressing grievances with moderator action is another violation of forum rules.

 Crimson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, that's right, Crimson is the one calling Mods misogynsts.

What? When did I do that?

When you said this:

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to be assuming that the thread was locked because of a single troll, rather than because of the topic.

So basically anything that contains word 'woman' or 'female' is a banned topic. Does this seem reasonable to you?

You're making a blanket accusation of bigotry.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, that's right, Crimson is the one calling Mods misogynsts.

What? When did I do that?

When you said this:

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to be assuming that the thread was locked because of a single troll, rather than because of the topic.

So basically anything that contains word 'woman' or 'female' is a banned topic. Does this seem reasonable to you?

You're making a blanket accusation of bigotry.

What? I most certainly am not. I was merely stating the effective end result of this moderation stance.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
You've jumped into forum discussions more than once to make them volatile.

No I haven't. I have jumped into discussions with an opinion, sometimes an opinion that people disagree strongly with, but I normally post only things that are my sincere opinion. I can't say I have with every single post I've made, because I've made a lot of posts and I don't remember every one of them, but posting something I don't believe is certainly a rare event if it ever happens.

I've seen you do it more than once, in fact- I've commented that "Here comes Peregrine, he doesn't like the topic so he's going to turn it into a toxic mess to get it shut down".

I am not responsible for your mistaken assumptions about my intent. My goal is never to get discussions shut down. In fact, if I'm posting in a discussion, I'm almost always going to be annoyed if it gets shut down because I want to keep posting about it.

You seem to think everyone disagreeing with you in some way is 'trolling', you reduce an opposing argument to someone 'just being a troll' an dismiss their entire argument. That's volatile and inflammatory, but almost ironic given the last statement i just made.

{citation needed}

Please stop making up stories about what I post, especially when I have explicitly stated that there are people who disagree with me who are not trolling.

You actually got one of my threads locked because you and your pal came in to harass me

Again, please stop making up stories like this. I came into the thread because I saw the title, read the post, and decided that it was a piece of bad game design that needed to be commented on. Only after that did I happen to see that it was you that posted it, and only after you jumped in with your ridiculous "HARASSMENT" post did I bother to care who the OP was. The same post by any other person would have received the exact same reply.

I want to make it clear- the moment someone came out and tried to express an unformed idea and shape it, you and someone else started harassing the poster. I'm a jerk, but I wouldn't do that to another person. I don't even like using this phrase, but it is clearly cyber-bullying behavior.

Uh, no. "This is bad design and doomed to failure" is not harassing and cyber-bulling. Please stop being so over-dramatic.

Then, whenever it gets thrown back at you, you get upset.

No, actually I don't. My disagreement with the forum's obsession with politeness applies to insults directed at me as well. I would be quite happy to laugh off attempted insults and return them with interest, except that doing so gets moderator attention. The only thing I disagree with is the double standard where people are free to post thinly-veiled insults aimed at me (when they aren't making direct insults), but replying with similar comments of my own is ban-worthy.

 Peregrine wrote:
The only thing I disagree with is the double standard where people are free to post thinly-veiled insults aimed at me (when they aren't making direct insults), but replying with similar comments of my own is ban-worthy.

Then perhaps you should take it up with a mod, instead of violating more forum rules by discussing mod actions in the forums instead of privately?

You -do- realize they'll talk to you if you message them, right?

 Crimson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


Yeah, that's right, Crimson is the one calling Mods misogynsts.

What? When did I do that?

When you said this:

 Crimson wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
You seem to be assuming that the thread was locked because of a single troll, rather than because of the topic.

So basically anything that contains word 'woman' or 'female' is a banned topic. Does this seem reasonable to you?

You're making a blanket accusation of bigotry.

What? I most certainly am not. I was merely stating the effective end result of this moderation stance.

Make an outrageous claim, walk it back when you are called out, pretend other people are stupid.

Trolling like this worries me a lot more than the explicit, shut-down-the-thread statements other people in this thread have been complaining about. It's called gaslighting and it just destroys online communities.

While I am glad the Mods are being very patient with people who do this sort of thing, it's very dirty. I don't see why you would want to do this to other members of your community.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Then perhaps you should take it up with a mod, instead of violating more forum rules by discussing mod actions in the forums instead of privately?

You -do- realize they'll talk to you if you message them, right?

And I also realize that this is the (current) thread for discussing opinions of moderator actions. Do you think that the forum feedback section is supposed to only be for praising the moderators? I mean, I'm sure their egos might like that policy, but I don't think anyone could defend it as reasonable...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, could you quote this supposed "no discussion of mod actions" rule? I am aware that some forums have such a policy, but it does not appear in the rules: https://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Unreasonable and insulting assumption!

You seem to have a skewed and jaundiced view of the Moderators here - why is this?

When did it start?

NOTE: There is no such rule - don't discuss Moderator actions - that I'm aware of.

 Alpharius wrote:
Unreasonable and insulting assumption!

You seem to have a skewed and jaundiced view of the Moderators here - why is this?

When did it start?

NOTE: There is no such rule - don't discuss Moderator actions - that I'm aware of.

Perhaps you should quote the message you are responding to, so we are all clear.

 Alpharius wrote:
You seem to have a skewed and jaundiced view of the Moderators here - why is this?

Me? I call it being realistic. Just as I would approve of a whole forum section dedicated to praising me (get on this now, admin) I assume that the mods are at least half as narcissistic as I am.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Make an outrageous claim, walk it back when you are called out, pretend other people are stupid.

Trolling like this worries me a lot more than the explicit, shut-down-the-thread statements other people in this thread have been complaining about. It's called gaslighting and it just destroys online communities.

While I am glad the Mods are being very patient with people who do this sort of thing, it's very dirty. I don't see why you would want to do this to other members of your community.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. I said nothing about the motivations of the mods. They just probably think it is less work this way. But the end result is crazy regardless.

 Peregrine wrote:
And I also realize that this is the (current) thread for discussing opinions of moderator actions. Do you think that the forum feedback section is supposed to only be for praising the moderators? I mean, I'm sure their egos might like that policy, but I don't think anyone could defend it as reasonable...

Right. But right now it seems to be you complaining because someone who's almost as rude as you are isn't being booted permanently.

I'll gladly take a permanent ban from Dakkadakka. If you think that's fair. If that's what you want.

But I'll ask the mod doing so to hold you to the same standard.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, could you quote this supposed "no discussion of mod actions" rule? I am aware that some forums have such a policy, but it does not appear in the rules: https://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

 Alpharius wrote:

NOTE: There is no such rule - don't discuss Moderator actions - that I'm aware of.

Ah. Well, I am mistaken. It's usually the thing on most forums. This might be the first I've seen that rule not in effect.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
But right now it seems to be you complaining because someone who's almost as rude as you are isn't being booted permanently.

{citation needed}

I don't recall ever calling for a permanent ban for you, but it's nice to see you admit that you said some pretty rude things.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And I also realize that this is the (current) thread for discussing opinions of moderator actions. Do you think that the forum feedback section is supposed to only be for praising the moderators? I mean, I'm sure their egos might like that policy, but I don't think anyone could defend it as reasonable...

Right. But right now it seems to be you complaining because someone who's almost as rude as you are isn't being booted permanently.

I'll gladly take a permanent ban from Dakkadakka. If you think that's fair. If that's what you want.

But I'll ask the mod doing so to hold you to the same standard.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, could you quote this supposed "no discussion of mod actions" rule? I am aware that some forums have such a policy, but it does not appear in the rules: https://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

 Alpharius wrote:

NOTE: There is no such rule - don't discuss Moderator actions - that I'm aware of.

Ah. Well, I am mistaken. It's usually the thing on most forums. This might be the first I've seen that rule not in effect.

Most Mod actions here are done privately - outside of the necessary post edit or in thread warning.

Most times if a user is warned or suspended, the only way for someone else to know that is if the warned or suspended party brings it up.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't recall ever calling for a permanent ban for you, but it's nice to see you admit that you said some pretty rude things.

Oh yes, I've said some rude things. I admit it. And generally speaking, everything I said to you I have no regrets about and will never say was 'wrong'.

I've said some things that are simply 'firm, but disagreeable' and some folks have taken great offense to this. You and I both know some gamer geeks can be hyper-sensitive manchildren at times.

Again, I'm less rude than you are by a long shot (You don't see me going in to harass you when you make a creative thread).

I'll take a permanent ban. If you're held to the same standard.

In fact, I think the mods would be wise to review both of our behavior and make a decision.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't recall ever calling for a permanent ban for you, but it's nice to see you admit that you said some pretty rude things.

Oh yes, I've said some rude things. I admit it. And generally speaking, everything I said to you I have no regrets about and will never say was 'wrong'.

I've said some things that are simply 'firm, but disagreeable' and some folks have taken great offense to this. You and I both know some gamer geeks can be hyper-sensitive manchildren at times.

Again, I'm less rude than you are by a long shot (You don't see me going in to harass you when you make a creative thread).

I'll take a permanent ban. If you're held to the same standard.

In fact, I think the mods would be wise to review both of our behavior and make a decision.

Or maybe no one gets banned and we stop asking the Mods to be adult babysitters.

They keep the spam off the forum, they keep US politics out of the forums, and they enforce some set of rules no one has ever read.

That should be enough.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
(You don't see me going in to harass you when you make a creative thread)

And you continue to demonstrate your rudeness by accusing me of harassment, despite me telling you (and anyone else reading) that my posts about your idea had nothing to do with the fact that you were the author, and had been written before I even noticed who made the OP.

Please note that, while obviously it isn't going to court, your blatantly false accusations of harassment (potentially a crime) are arguably an act of libel against me. And TBH, your only possible defense would be that nobody finds you a credible authority on anything or cares that you said it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
(You don't see me going in to harass you when you make a creative thread)

And you continue to demonstrate your rudeness by accusing me of harassment, despite me telling you (and anyone else reading) that my posts about your idea had nothing to do with the fact that you were the author, and had been written before I even noticed who made the OP.

Please note that, while obviously it isn't going to court, your blatantly false accusations of harassment (potentially a crime) are arguably an act of libel against me. And TBH, your only possible defense would be that nobody finds you a credible authority on anything or cares that you said it.

Peregrine, just start your own forum and make yourself the Mod. Stop criminalizing the actions of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Peregrine, just start your own forum and make yourself the Mod. Stop criminalizing the actions of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

There is a distinct difference between disagreeing with me and making public (and clearly false) accusations that I have committed a crime.

 Peregrine wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Peregrine, just start your own forum and make yourself the Mod. Stop criminalizing the actions of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

There is a distinct difference between disagreeing with me and making public (and clearly false) accusations that I have committed a crime.

Harassment has a legal meaning and a social meaning. No one took that comment to mean the former.

Call your forums Banhammer and take Crimson with you.

 Peregrine wrote:
And you continue to demonstrate your rudeness by accusing me of harassment, despite me telling you (and anyone else reading) that my posts about your idea had nothing to do with the fact that you were the author, and had been written before I even noticed who made the OP.

Except that a name is right beside a post in the little menu.

 Peregrine wrote:
Please note that, while obviously it isn't going to court, your blatantly false accusations of harassment (potentially a crime) are arguably an act of libel against me. And TBH, your only possible defense would be that nobody finds you a credible authority on anything or cares that you said it.

Right. I don't know what nanny state you live in, but it's not illegal to have a disagreement on the internet.

By all means, I would love to see you go wailing and whinging to the authorities because someone said you were harassing them on Dakkadakka.

I want you to throw as much money as possible into the legal fees, too.

Just do it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And you continue to demonstrate your rudeness by accusing me of harassment, despite me telling you (and anyone else reading) that my posts about your idea had nothing to do with the fact that you were the author, and had been written before I even noticed who made the OP.

Except that a name is right beside a post in the little menu.

 Peregrine wrote:
Please note that, while obviously it isn't going to court, your blatantly false accusations of harassment (potentially a crime) are arguably an act of libel against me. And TBH, your only possible defense would be that nobody finds you a credible authority on anything or cares that you said it.

Right. I don't know what nanny state you live in, but it's not illegal to have a disagreement on the internet.

By all means, I would love to see you go wailing and whinging to the authorities because someone said you were harassing them on Dakkadakka.

I want you to throw as much money as possible into the legal fees, too.

Just do it.

Egging him on just means this will never stop. Don't feed the trolls.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Call your forums Banhammer and take Crimson with you.

...actually, if they left- so would I.

XD

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Call your forums Banhammer and take Crimson with you.

...actually, if they left- so would I.

XD

Me too.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Except that a name is right beside a post in the little menu.

And not everyone bothers to look at what that name is. Or bothers to remember who you are. You genuinely weren't that interesting to me before now, and if you stop with the hyperbolic responses to criticism and open insults you'll probably fade back into the anonymous crowd of people who I can't bother to keep track of.

I don't know what nanny state you live in, but it's not illegal to have a disagreement on the internet.

Having a disagreement on the internet is not illegal. Falsely accusing someone of a crime in a public manner is not mere "disagreement".

Boy this, uh, took a turn.

 Ouze wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
On the other hand, I've been on a few forums here and there and this one has some of the strictest moderation

I agree but generally I've found it excellent. I think this site has some really great moderators in specific, like Reds8n, Alpharius, Motyak, Insaniak, KK, etc. If you go to Facebook groups around the h-h-hobby you'll quickly find lighter moderation isn't always better.

Mostly I'm just really disappointed and dejected not only by some (imo) really high profile bad moderation I saw recently, but a tacit endorsement of the heckler's veto. ITT you have mods saying some threads are problematic, but I think you have problematic posters, not problematic topics. Perhaps I am being naive and not just accepting that this is how the community actually is despite ample evidence that well, it is.

It's not reasonable that some people can see a topic they're not interested in, flat out declare in the thread they're going to get it locked, proceed to crap it up, and then successfully have it locked, over and over again.

This is a really great point, and it's getting lost in the noise. Which is exactly what he's talking about, really.

 Crimson wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Suggesting the entire group is a bunch of misogynists could be called trolling.

At least in the Custodes thread no one certainly did so or anything even remotely sounding like that. (And it rarely happens otherwise either, it is just that some people interpret 'There is sexism in the gaming community' to mean 'all gamers are sexist'.)

So is this. I remember a thread way, waaaay back, wondering where female Guardsman models were. Most people were pointing out alternate companies you could use, others were speculating about what GW could make or talking about how cool Lieutenant Mira from the Space Marine video game was, and a couple of people were yelling about how the Imperium would never use female Guardsmen because women make terrible soldiers and you're an Ess-Jay-Doubleyew idiot for even bringing it up, so on and so forth.

Actually, I don't remember if that one was locked or not...

 Peregrine wrote:
And not everyone bothers to look at what that name is.

[citation needed]

 Peregrine wrote:
Or bothers to remember who you are.

[citation needed]

 Peregrine wrote:
You genuinely weren't that interesting to me before now, and if you stop with the hyperbolic responses to criticism and open insults you'll probably fade back into the anonymous crowd of people who I can't bother to keep track of.

And if I don't stop you'll do what, exactly?

 Peregrine wrote:
Falsely accusing someone of a crime in a public manner is not mere "disagreement".

You also kicked my dog and broke into my house.

Take that to court, too. Just knock yourself out.

 Ouze wrote:
Boy this, uh, took a turn.

Might need to get the Mods involved.

 Ouze wrote:
Boy this, uh, took a turn.

Yeah, it did.

Anyone is, of course, free to PM and Mod or Admin here to discuss just about anything.

Since this has devolved into an excuse to beat the hell out of Rule #1 - looks like we're done here.