Off Topic in the D&D (the old troll)

[GrnEyedDvl]

What is excessive is you arguing that a rule needs to go, when the rule is not being abused. Its doing what it is intended to do.

As I said I would be ok with a 1 point option for Insulting, but all that will accomplish is that the people currently getting 1 point Off - Topic notes will start getting 1 point Insulting notes.

[removeduser_487563287433]

What is excessive is you arguing that a rule needs to go, when the rule is not being abused. Its doing what it is intended to do.

As I said I would be ok with a 1 point option for Insulting, but all that will accomplish is that the people currently getting 1 point Off - Topic notes will start getting 1 point Insulting notes.

I am saying the rule banning people from referring to one another needs to go, not the rule against insults. I am more than for a 1 point option for insulting, and have given my support for Farnan's proposal for tiered insult penalties.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=176621

So essentially we have a natural compramise here. Tiered insult penalties but the removal of the ban on user's referring to one another.

[GrnEyedDvl]

You realize that the definition of "insult" will most likely change, because of this?

[imb39]

We're not here to make everybody happy. And people are more than willing to play the "I am insulted" card in the debate forums to get at somebody they dislike.

And no one is claiming to be. We are trying to achieve a medium whereby as many people are at ease with the rules. One side effect of this is that we have active forums that cater for as wide a range of viewpoints as possible.

I've seen some of the posts, for example, referencing Mansa Musa and, to my mind, much of it is bullying. I most certainly don't agree with his PoV. Neither do I agree with his style but I do find the continual way he is mocked by some to be disagreeable. I tend not to infract (though I have toned down some stuff and done some informal things, such as PMing) but when I see the rubbish written about him then I am pleased we have some sort of defence against it.

As Pann has said, no matter what it is called, it is needed. Discretion, not always applied correctly, I suppose, enables it to work productively. That's the key word here - productively. I happen to believe it is much more advantageous to have it than not to have it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You realize that the definition of "insult" will most likely change, because of this?

That is another debate, though. We simply cannot have a ToS that says those harmlessly referring to one another should be punished. It potentially makes outlaws of those who only want to behave themselves on the forums.

[pannonian]

It also extremely unfair to ask me for examples of the off-topic thing being abused as I hardly have access to a list of all infractions (as you well know) but as luck would have it we have young Pontifex today moderating against people referring to one another, even though no harm or disruption was coming from it...

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=176642&page=3

This also is why you cannot have off-topic rules in the ToS aimed at dealing with something unrelated such as personal insults. Sure, you are right and experienced moderators can use their judgement. But inexperienced ones? Pontifex has shown how misappropriated this off-topic rule is.

It shows nothing of the sort. To show how the OT rule has been abused, you need to show how the OT rule has been applied in the form of an infraction. No infractions were handed out by Pontifex. He did moderate the thread, in the form of edits and a general warning to keep on topic. This kind of moderation is geared to the character of the forum, and is meant to keep things calm, and is not bound by the ToS, but by the judgement of the moderator, as overseen by senior moderators and the CoM.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The application of the ToS does not begin at infractions and him taking action in this thread shows as well as anything how the rule is unnecessary and liable to stir unwarrented aggrovation.

[pannonian]

The ToS does not begin at infractions and him taking action in this thread shows as well as anything how the rule is unnecessary and liable to stir unwarrent aggrovation.

The ToS applies when infractions are given. General moderation is not governed by the specific rules of the ToS, but by the aim of keeping the forums running smoothly.

[imb39]

Pontifex acted perfectly correctly. I cannot see anything wrong at all. One job of a moderator is to intercept problems BEFORE they occur. Seems to me that Pontifex did a good job there.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Pontifex acted perfectly correctly. I cannot see anything wrong at all. One job of a moderator is to intercept problems BEFORE they occur. Seems to me that Pontifex did a good job there.

But why stop there, Imb? If Pontifex does to every example what he has done there he will probably have to make an edit every other page on every thread.

[pannonian]

But why stop there, Imb? If Pontifex does to every example what he has done there he will probably have to make an edit every other page on every thread.

Methinks this is stretching a point to cover the world.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Methinks this is stretching a point to cover the world.

Shall we go count every single instence of one member being referenced by another in the debate forums?

[imb39]

Some are missed. Others ignored if discretion has been applied. This happens. Doubtless you can find all sorts of misdemeanours that have not been removed. Presumably, you'll advocate no TOS at all on that basis.

As I said, Pontifex has acted well. He moderated, the thread has carried on. All is well with the world.

[removeduser_487563287433]

"Others ignored."

What is the point of a rule that we all know is going to be ignored 99% of the time?

We should get rid of it and instead focus instead on refining the insults rules.

[pannonian]

Shall we go count every single instence of one member being referenced by another in the debate forums?

This kind of argument is called making a strawman, for it relies on setting up a hypothetical situation that can be easily demolished, instead of looking at concrete examples that can be properly studied. In the previous example, you used one example of general moderating, and asked what would happen if this happened in everything. The answer is, of course it would be silly, as would any other action if one repeated the action for everything. This is why we have human moderators who use their discretion to decide where and how to act, or not. In this example, you suggest an exercise that I think we all know is impractical, and can thus lead to no useful conclusion. Why do you thus suggest such an exercise? Goodness knows, but perhaps you can give your reasoning.

Infractions are subject to the specific rules of the ToS, backed up by the appeals system, because they can negatively impact the posting ability of members.

General moderation is done according to the feel of the individual moderator relative to the forum being moderated, because the goal is fairly general and wide-ranging - keep the forums running smoothly. Because the goal is so general, and because it does not impact a member's posting ability, this kind of moderation is not subject to specific rules of the ToS.

[imb39]

Discretion has always been a part of the moderators armoury. There have been times where a post has sailed perilously close to the rules and I have left it. Others might have done something about it and vice versa. Moderating is no science. There is no right and no wrong. What we try to do is get a fair and reasonable balance. As I have already stated I have left some comments about Mansa Musa in the Tribunal Commentary, for example.

[removeduser_487563287433]

pannonian, it is not a straw man. It is collecting data on precisely how much the OT D&D rule is broken and I am betting ( it, we all know) that it's a hell of a lot with no negative consquences. We should refine the insults rules if we are trying to prevent insults, not confuse matters with this OT rule.

[pannonian]

pannonian, it is not a straw man. It is collecting data on precisely how much the OT D&D rule is broken and I am betting ( it, we all know) that it's a hell of a lot with no negative consquences. We should refine the insults rules if we are trying to prevent insults, not confuse matters with this OT rule.

If you feel the exercise is practical, why not carry it out yourself? In the past, when I've tried to look at certain aspects of moderation, I've researched the archives and spent hours collating data. If you feel the exercise is practical and useful, try doing it yourself as I've done in the past.

IIRC I checked up to page 7 in that exercise before I got bored.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Let's get a grip on the discussion, and summarise what we agree on rather than focusing so much on where we diverge.

Firstly it seems we are all agreed that members referring to one another is usually not negative and should not be punished.

We agree that it is focused on combatting personal insults.

We agree that refining the insult rules could probably achieve the same thing (and I think much better) without this Off-topic rule.



We seem to diverge, perhaps naturally, on how this is to be achieved. I personally take the stand that the ToS should be clarified and pannonian seems to think that moderator's should be left to their own discretion. I am not willing to accept this as I have personal experience of where a moderator's discretion can leave the forums.

In the spirit of compramise I sincerely suggest the best solution is scrapping the D&D OT rule and maintaining its spirit in new or refined insult rules (for example, Farnan has made an excellent start with introducing infraction tiers).

[pannonian]

Let's get a grip on the discussion, and summarise what we agree on rather than focusing so much on where we diverge.

Firstly it seems we are all agreed that members referring to one another is usually not negative and should not be punished.

We agree that it is focused on combatting personal insults.

We agree that refining the insult rules could probably achieve the same thing (and I think much better) without this Off-topic rule.



We seem to diverge, perhaps naturally, on how this is to be achieved. I personally take the stand that the ToS should be clarified and pannonian seems to think that moderator's should be left to their own discretion. I am not willing to accept this as I have personal experience of where a moderator's discretion can leave the forums.

In the spirit of compramise I sincerely suggest the best solution is scrapping the D&D OT rule and maintaining its spirit in new or refined insult rules (for example, Farnan has made an excellent start with introducing infraction tiers).

I won't accept the removal of an effective moderation tool when I've had plenty of experience of what it was like without said tool. The best solution is to retain the rule, and train junior moderators so they'll know when to apply it and when not to. Funnily enough, that's exactly what we're doing at the moment.

Instead of summarising the argument to suit your case, explain, as I've asked you to before, how the situation has changed, so that the rule that was brought in to deal with said situation is no longer useful. Until you've done this adequately, the rule stays, under whatever category we decide to place it, with the same working form.