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

[removeduser_487563287433]

The rules isn't there to establish moderating tools, pannonian, it's there to tell users what they can't do. I think you are being somewhat machiavellian. Besides, there would be no loss in the moderating branch's ability to tackle insults as we will refine the insult rules to include the intended spirit of the D&D OT rule - but I am not willing to accept a ToS that outlaws people for simply refering to one another.

[Dayman]

I think I mentioned this early one, we need to redefine and rewrite the rules here. What would we accomplish if we left every rule in place as it were before the committee? Part of that is recategorizing and reorganizing.

The off topic rule as it stands was a stopgap measure to stop the midpit from imploding, was it not? And then Manstien used it to bring it under control. What we need to do is split these offenses back to their own categories. We also need to allow some form of character reference when they're valid and on point. Things that may influence bias should be allowed to be mentioned.

I said this before, the rights of the posters are more important than the powers of the moderators. When you constrict conversation debate becomes stale. And I say this being an admin of my own pissant little forum.

[pannonian]

I think I mentioned this early one, we need to redefine and rewrite the rules here. What would we accomplish if we left every rule in place as it were before the committee? Part of that is recategorizing and reorganizing.

The off topic rule as it stands was a stopgap measure to stop the midpit from imploding, was it not? And then Manstien used it to bring it under control. What we need to do is split these offenses back to their own categories. We also need to allow some form of character reference when they're valid and on point. Things that may influence bias should be allowed to be mentioned.

I said this before, the rights of the posters are more important than the powers of the moderators. When you constrict conversation debate becomes stale. And I say this being an admin of my own pissant little forum.

The rights of some posters should not infringe on the rights of other posters. The rule was brought in because the right of some posters to target posters was infringing on the right of other posters to post without being targeted. Getting the rule removed is simple. Show that the situation the rule was used to address is no more.

[Dayman]

The rights of some posters should not infringe on the rights of other posters.

That...is a physical impossibility. You grant the right to all posters equally, not some. What right would that infringe, may I remind you that people do not have the right to remain unoffended.

The rule was brought in because the right of some posters to target posters was infringing on the right of other posters to post without being targeted.

Because people were negatively referencing circumstantial things. That I can still see being not allowed.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The rights of some posters should not infringe on the rights of other posters. The rule was brought in because the right of some posters to target posters was infringing on the right of other posters to post without being targeted. Getting the rule removed is simple. Show that the situation the rule was used to address is no more.

Why can't we transfer the spirit of the rule to a more appropriate insults rule, in the process not punishing people for referring to one another, pannonian?

[pannonian]

That...is a physical impossibility. You grant the right to all posters equally, not some. What right would that infringe, may I remind you that people do not have the right to remain unoffended.

We're not talking about hypothetical rights though, but concrete examples of gangs of posters jumping on a discussion simply for the purpose of targeting a particular poster, and shifting discussion towards the discussion of said poster. Before the practial introduction of this rule, there was a lot of that last autumn, and there was a thread I suggested for the Fight Club that was shunted across several forums looking for a home, in my attempt to find an outlet for this without affecting the rest of the Mudpit and other D&D forums. That was the concrete problem, and a concrete solution needed to be found, not a hypothetical discussion. The solution was the D&D OT rule and Manstein to lead its application. Where he set the example, we've followed, and it's proved to be effective.

Moderation policies have been imposed and lifted before, when the situation is deemed to have changed for the rule to be no longer necessary. One example is the Mudpit videos thread, which I imposed to cut down on conspiracy and spam threads in the Mudpit. After a couple of weeks, I felt the situation had improved, the spammers had gone away, so I lifted this restriction. As I see it, the situation has not changed so that the D&D OT rule can be similarly lifted. If you wish it to be removed, present a convincing argument that the situation has changed sufficiently.

[Dayman]

I disagree with it on a philosophical level. I am willing to compromise, and I think that negative character references should be pushed to insulting others. By the way, who are you to level this committee the conditions by which a rule can be removed? You are not Ian.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Why can't we transfer the spirit of the rule to a more appropriate insults rule, in the process not punishing people for referring to one another, pannonian?

[pannonian]

I disagree with it on a philosophical level. I am willing to compromise, and I think that negative character references should be pushed to insulting others. By the way, who are you to level this committee the conditions by which a rule can be removed? You are not Ian.

I'd have thought that senior moderators would have a significant say in moderation policy.

Why can't we transfer the spirit of the rule to a more appropriate insults rule, in the process not punishing people for referring to one another, pannonian?

Are you arguing for its categorisation, or its replacement? If the former, then it matters little what heading it's categorised under, as long as it remains in its current working form. If the latter, then no, as the problem still exists, and it's proved to be an effective solution.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Are you arguing for its categorisation, or its replacement? If the former, then it matters little what heading it's categorised under, as long as it remains in its current working form. If the latter, then no, as the problem still exists, and it's proved to be an effective solution.

Both. At the moment it is in the wrong category and needs to be moved to insults, and it currently bans people from referring to one another which we all agree is fine in most situations.

So what problem do you have with moving the spirit of the rule to an appropriate insults rule, whilst removing the ban on people referring to one another?

Boeing, do you think this is a good idea?

[Dayman]

I'd have thought that senior moderators would have a significant say in moderation policy.

Your say is not greater than anyone elses in this committee. Nor mine greater than yours. There is a reason why non-moderators were chosen to sit on it, and I'll be damned if my voice be dampened because I am not a moderator.

[pannonian]

Your say is not greater than anyone elses in this committee. Nor mine greater than yours. There is a reason why non-moderators were chosen to sit on it, and I'll be damned if my voice be dampened because I am not a moderator.

The rule was brought in because of concerns raised by moderators. If the rule were removed, the problem will still be there, and something will need to be done by Hex because of concerns raised by moderators. The history of the rule has been described in this thread.

[Dayman]

I'm not suggesting the rule be removed Pann, but be rewritten and certain components moved to their relevant offenses. I know the history of that rule, I was here for it. The rule as it stands is flawed. It needs to be updated and it just so happens that we're here to do that.

Both. At the moment it is in the wrong category and needs to be moved to insults, and it currently bans people from referring to one another which we all agree is fine in most situations.

So what problem do you have with moving the spirit of the rule to an appropriate insults rule, whilst removing the ban on people referring to one another?

Boeing, do you think this is a good idea?

Yes, this is exactly what I am arguing for.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yes, this is exactly what I am arguing for.

Excellent. Pannonian are you totally unwilling to engage in any compramise, even for the sake of argument?

[pannonian]

Excellent. Pannonian are you totally unwilling to engage in any compramise, even for the sake of argument?

I'm not looking for compromises, I'm looking for concrete solutions to concrete problems. If you want to move it to different categories, demonstrate how it can remain in its current working form in whatever state you propose.

Here's the basic working form which must remain.

Referencing another poster in the D&D forums is not allowed

That's the baseline that we start with. Moderators will be trained to interpret this so as to allow on-topic discussion. But referencing other posters will be allowed at the moderator's discretion, not as a default - the default is that it will not be allowed.

Now show how your proposals will preserve this basic working form.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well such an attitude is extremely unfortunate. I suppose discussing it with you serves no further purpose, but I would certainly like to thank GED for his excellent idea of inserting the spirit of the D&D OT rule with the expanded insult infractions.

[Dayman]

I disagree with that basic working form.

I would agree to this:

Negatively referencing another poster in the D&D forums when not pertinent to the topic is not allowed

There are cases where personal references are apt and on topic. Since I frequent the D&D as a participant, I can provide examples if need be.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I would agree to this:

Negatively referencing another poster in the D&D forums when not pertinent to the topic is not allowed

I would agree to this.

[pannonian]

I disagree with that basic working form.

I would agree to this:

Negatively referencing another poster in the D&D forums when not pertinent to the topic is not allowed

There are cases where personal references are apt and on topic. Since I frequent the D&D as a participant, I can provide examples if need be.

But moderators, to my knowledge anyway, don't enforce the rule if the reference isn't negative. That's the discretion I'm talking about. The discretion also covers references that we feel are on-topic or harmless. I tell junior moderators to go heavy on chats and light on infractions, to get a feel of the forums and posters they are moderating, and junior moderators are advised not to intervene too heavy-handedly in forums they're unfamiliar with.

That's the rule in practice.

[Dayman]

But moderators, to my knowledge anyway, don't enforce the rule if the reference isn't negative. That's the discretion I'm talking about. The discretion also covers references that we feel are on-topic or harmless. I tell junior moderators to go heavy on chats and light on infractions, to get a feel of the forums and posters they are moderating, and junior moderators are advised not to intervene too heavy-handedly in forums they're unfamiliar with.

Good then we can write it into the law of the land, so to speak, so we don't have to leave it up to a moderators discretion. It's laid out for the moderator, and he needs make no judgment save whether or not it breaks that rule precisely. One cannot cry of a biased moderator either.

I prefer the ToS to be on the side of the poster, not the moderator. I would say that even if I was one here (and like I said before I admin a small forum and was a moderator for two years prior).