Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jerram wrote:


Thats patently false, its treated as a private affair but all moderation effects the climate of the board, for instance this incident shows the mods would rather listen to some of the usual gatekeepers who don't like people acting different (They dont post like i do) than have discussion going on in a subforum that was before and is back to being low traffic.

I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Usual gatekeepers? *I* was the one who started the thread asking for the threads to be consolidated. I don't think my 0.4 posts per day qualifies me as a 'usual gatekeeper', whatever the hell that means. If you don't like the 'climate of the board' then don't come here. Dakka owes you nothing. This thread should have been locked ages ago, the OP is asking for moderation details of another user which he surely must know is not something the mods will publicly divulge, and they shouldn't. It's none of his business. A PM would have been way more appropriate but instead we got this... whatever this is.

I love Dakka but I understand that it isn't for everyone, and that's okay. No one is forcing anyone to be here.

Again, I'm at a loss as to how to explain why everyone deserves equal treatment if you don't already get it.

If the mods would simply come out and agree with you, that this is the way things are and [Expletive-Deleted] you that's why, this thread would not have been made and the original thread Dreadwinter made would be two posts long.

It's worth noting again, that so far the mods do not agree with your stance. Not explicitly, anyway. They're still pretending they're consistent.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Stormatious wrote:
How is one wrong about this? you say its being rationalized with out explaining at all why one is incorrect

You're talking to somebody who opened his Dakka life with this memorable quote

 Excommunicatus wrote:

I alleged that the mods at the B&C acted like fascists, so to prove me wrong they permabanned me.

So the odds were always against any reasonable discussion on the subject of moderation on this site from the get go.

-removed by insaniak-

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Jerram wrote:


Thats patently false, its treated as a private affair but all moderation effects the climate of the board, for instance this incident shows the mods would rather listen to some of the usual gatekeepers who don't like people acting different (They dont post like i do) than have discussion going on in a subforum that was before and is back to being low traffic.

I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Usual gatekeepers? *I* was the one who started the thread asking for the threads to be consolidated. I don't think my 0.4 posts per day qualifies me as a 'usual gatekeeper', whatever the hell that means. If you don't like the 'climate of the board' then don't come here. Dakka owes you nothing. This thread should have been locked ages ago, the OP is asking for moderation details of another user which he surely must know is not something the mods will publicly divulge, and they shouldn't. It's none of his business. A PM would have been way more appropriate but instead we got this... whatever this is.

I love Dakka but I understand that it isn't for everyone, and that's okay. No one is forcing anyone to be here.

The Irony here is off the charts, "Dont you dare complain about my complaining"

-removed-

Isn't that also a rule 1 infringement?

Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

Exo, its clear after you raiding my music thread with disgusting thoughts that you are now trolling because you are angry at every one being correct in this thread.

Get over it you're wrong.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, I'm at a loss as to how to explain why everyone deserves equal treatment if you don't already get it.

But these people don't owe you equal treatment!

If someone in the park shouts out "Hey, who wants to throw a ball around?" then they can still throw it to their friends instead of you if they feel like it. And if they think another guy they meet is a better ball-player, or simply seems more like their sort of person than you, they can throw him the ball more. And if they think you are not a cool guy, and kinda rude, they can freeze you out or ask you to leave. It is their ball. And if they like suckups, they can invite me to stay. Or if they think me buying them an ice-cream and telling them what great ball-players they are is kinda creepy, they can ask me to leave. And they can invite the hot girl and the funny guy to the party afterwards, but leave us in the park. Because they owe you, and me, nothing.

It might make them jerks, but it is their prerogative, and even jerkdom is subjective. Go find a different ballgame, or accept not getting thrown the ball much.

What is the specific inconsitency or unfairness in the veganuary thread?

Cool. So your defence is that the mods are cliquey a-holes.

That's vastly worse than anything I've said about them, but ok.

Jerram wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Jerram wrote:


Thats patently false, its treated as a private affair but all moderation effects the climate of the board, for instance this incident shows the mods would rather listen to some of the usual gatekeepers who don't like people acting different (They dont post like i do) than have discussion going on in a subforum that was before and is back to being low traffic.

I still dont get how having multiple threads on different movies is worse than having the significantly reduced discussion we have now.

Usual gatekeepers? *I* was the one who started the thread asking for the threads to be consolidated. I don't think my 0.4 posts per day qualifies me as a 'usual gatekeeper', whatever the hell that means. If you don't like the 'climate of the board' then don't come here. Dakka owes you nothing. This thread should have been locked ages ago, the OP is asking for moderation details of another user which he surely must know is not something the mods will publicly divulge, and they shouldn't. It's none of his business. A PM would have been way more appropriate but instead we got this... whatever this is.

I love Dakka but I understand that it isn't for everyone, and that's okay. No one is forcing anyone to be here.

The Irony here is off the charts, "Dont you dare complain about my complaining"

Not sure how you read that and came to that conclusion but sure, whatever floats your boat.

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure most of the “faces” of Dakka have run afoul of the moderation team at one point or another.

I’ve served a (deserved) temp ban, at least once. And it stings, yeah. But I got over that. The reason for my temp ban? Something I still engage in, though I tone it down. Because I enjoy a certain activity, but self-moderate that against not wanting to get shown the door. Though I do run a risk of being (fairly) shown that door. Risk I’m willing to hang my brass balls out to take, I guess.

I report the occasional thread that has no public action taken against. I (probably?) have some complaints lobbed my way that I rarely hear about. People get some leeway when the net positive of their being around exceeds the net negative of their being around. That’s just a life thing.

Contribute something positive. Burning gak down and busting walls and being overall negative? Expect to be... focussed upon with restrictive attention. Help people out with positive advice. Give a painting tip. Hell, just say, “Nice job!” On somebody’s painting thread. Talk about things you *like* about the hobby. That’s improving the site.

Why’re certain posters still here? They either did something incredibly good for the site at some point, or they know where the bodies are burried. Or maybe it’s fun to have an unrelenting target that just keeps coming back for more? Someone that consistently gives you justification for a verbal backhand? There’s one poster here that I used to want to leave. Now, I (selfishly) hope they never do and that they never change. While I simultaneously hope (selflessly) that they embrace the light side and turn their efforts to positivity for the site.

But I see that as long odds, and have embraced having a valid target (like, 95% of the time) instead.


And I’m not saying love it or leave it, to be clear. But from personal experience there are some places I didn’t like, so I left and found someplace I like. You’ll get from this site what you put in. Try positivity and treat the mods like any other poster. With respect. Or don’t, It’s your funeral. The rules may not be applied evenly, or at least openly, but people have more freedom here than most places. But that comes with responsibility too. Everyone gets enough rope to hang themselves, here. Your choice what you do with it.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

I think he was talking about you. Your crying here has amused me no end though.

He wasn't, but even if he was the blatant violation of Rule 1 in a thread about the inconsistent and capricious application of rules serves my point, not yours.

Whatever your point actually is.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

I think he was talking about you. Your crying here has amused me no end though.

He wasn't, but even if he was the blatant violation of Rule 1 in a thread about the inconsistent and capricious application of rules serves my point, not yours.

Whatever your point actually is.

Keeping that sort of nonsense under control is a lot easier if you just report it instead of responding to it.


Here's the thing: The fact that you saw a post before the mods did is not a sign of biased moderation.

I agree.

The fact that nothing will happen to that post, while much milder posts other people have made disappear is, though.

 insaniak wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Not when Queen Anne's Revenge posts it.

I think he was talking about you. Your crying here has amused me no end though.

He wasn't, but even if he was the blatant violation of Rule 1 in a thread about the inconsistent and capricious application of rules serves my point, not yours.

Whatever your point actually is.

Keeping that sort of nonsense under control is a lot easier if you just report it instead of responding to it.


Here's the thing: The fact that you saw a post before the mods did is not a sign of biased moderation.

My bad, seems like the web swallowed another Post of mine,. Damn w-lan.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I agree.

The fact that nothing will happen to that post, while much milder posts other people have made disappear is, though.

The post I deleted as soon as I saw it?


The problem here isn't biased moderation. The problem is simply that your opinion of rude and ours don't always align. So you can report a post you think is inappropriate and let us deal with it if we feel it is warranted, or you can not report it, in which case nothing will happen unless we happen to come across the post by ourselves.

Awesome, you deleted that one and left the others.

Almost as if you applied the rules inconsistently and capriciously.

Nothing happens whether I report them or not.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Awesome, you deleted that one and left the others.

Almost as if you applied the rules inconsistently and capriciously.

Nothing happens whether I report them or not.

Something happens when we agree that the reported post is a problem. That doesn't mean that every post you report will be deleted.

You have no way of knowing that. You are in fact assuming it becauae you are aggrieved and that assumption suits how you feel.

Has the thread served it’s purpose yet? I’m just seeing aggression bubbling here. Might be time for a breather...

 Manchu wrote:
You have no way of knowing that. You are in fact assuming it becauae you are aggrieved and that assumption suits how you feel.

Nyet.

I know this because there is no break in the poster posting, as there would be if any ban was applied to them. The evidence is writ large.

They violate the rules and are allowed to continue posting. Others violate the rules (arguably, since the standards are so subjective, inconsistent and capricious) and get banned for 34 days.

But pissing into the wind is also a valid life choice. *shrug* Excom, may you enjoy the harvest you sow.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You have no way of knowing that. You are in fact assuming it becauae you are aggrieved and that assumption suits how you feel.

Nyet.

I know this because there is no break in the poster posting, as there would be if any ban was applied to them. The evidence is writ large.

They violate the rules and are allowed to continue posting. Others violate the rules (arguably, since the standards are so subjective, inconsistent and capricious) and get banned for 34 days.

Yeah, because banning people is the only corrective measure that can possibly be applied to someone, right?

A user’s account is generally not suspended until they have received FIVE formal warnings from moderators. So another user can receive a formal warning, which you would know nothing about, and not be prevented from continuing to post.

Again, your assumptions are based on feeling aggreived rather than facts.

Fine. You're right. There is no further point to this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cool. I got two, but whatever.

Rules, who cares?

We have Peregrine and QAR - who else do we need to summon?

 insaniak wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I agree.

The fact that nothing will happen to that post, while much milder posts other people have made disappear is, though.

The post I deleted as soon as I saw it?


The problem here isn't biased moderation. The problem is simply that your opinion of rude and ours don't always align. So you can report a post you think is inappropriate and let us deal with it if we feel it is warranted, or you can not report it, in which case nothing will happen unless we happen to come across the post by ourselves.

I really do think overall you guys do a good job but the biggest back and forth in this thread is between those who think there's a problem with occasionally biased moderation and those who think the occasionally biased.
moderation is ok. That should cause at least a little bit of self reflection among the team.

EDIT (PS, thanks for leaving this thread open, locking it early would just have made the frustration some are feeling worse)

*generally* not suspended. But if you go way into the deep end in one go, you could be banned in one shot. You might put a toe over the line 7 times and not be suspended.

Human interaction isn’t about hard and fast rules, Excom. If you need that, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Seriously, though. Try posting some positive stuff around here. You get back what you put in. What have you got to lose?

You are operating on the following incorrect assumptions;

1) Your interpretation of the rules is the only possible interpretation - there are multiple interpretations.
2) Your judgement that something is rude is fact rather than opinion - just because you find it rude, it does not mean the majority of people will.
3) Your judgement that your own responses aren't rude
is fact rather than opinion - just because you don't think you were rude, many people still might.

As for "my" statement that the mods are cliquey arseholes, wrong. All people are cliquey. I've seen nerds be cliquey to jocks, jocks be cliquey to nerds, nerds be cliquey to those too nerdy, or not nerdy enough... Everyone has their favourites. Just because you aren't someones favourite, it doesn't mean they are actually out to get you. I don't disrciminate against the students at my school, but when it comes to nominating people for extra opportunities, I'll generally nominate the ones I don't mind spending extra time with after school. If they are obnoxious to me or my colleagues, I'll pick someone more pleasant. If one of the generally amazing kids messes up slightly, I might "forget" to add them to communal detention. If a child who is a known bully, or who draws graffitti and sniggers at other children's misfortune messes up, they'll find themself on that list for sure.

Maybe instead of complaining that you aren't being treated the way you want (expect) to be, think abu how to behave to get treated that way.

Life is NOT fair, and whinging about it won't fix it. If you can get over the lack of fairness, life, and Dakka, can be pretty great.