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

[removeduser_487563287433]

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.

Agree entirely. If pannonian thinks it isn't enforced he should have no problem with this clarification

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).

The ToS should under no circumstances have a "side". It is a set of rules, applicable to all, no matter what their rank.

[Dayman]

The ToS should under no circumstances have a "side". It is a set of rules, applicable to all, no matter what their rank.

Perhaps my language is confusing. The rules are applicable to all. Think of it like this in terms of the real world, there are the citizens and there are the police, the laws should protect the rights of the citizens overall, not the ability of the police to enforce the laws. Do you understand my meaning?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Perhaps my language is confusing. The rules are applicable to all. Think of it like this in terms of the real world, there are the citizens and there are the police, the laws should protect the rights of the citizens overall, not the ability of the police to enforce the laws. Do you understand my meaning?

I do. And yes, I disagree with pannonian's declared intention on this committee as to protect effective moderating tools, regardless of how appropriate a rule is.

[pannonian]

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.

I prefer the ToS to be on the side of the poster, not the moderator.

Increasing specification and reducing judgement opens loopholes for rules lawyers, and "imaginative" posters. Rules are drawn up to deal with the character of certain offences. Examples are given, and in the case of this rule, examples were set, showing what the spirit of the rule is intended to be. Experienced mods are around to discuss with and explain how the spirit of the rule applies or otherwise to any individual case.

[Dayman]

The rule I suggest doesn't remove moderator judgment entirely, and the fact is that even with the rule as is today, it is ultimately up to the tribunal, and people still find loopholes, especially regarding reasoning. And besides the point, there are always people who try and post on the edge of the ToS. That will never go away.

The spirit of the rule is irrelevant, because a new CoM could decide the spirit of the rule is something else entirely. You put it down in stone so none may change it save through something like this.

[Farnan]

I agree with Boeing's proposition.

[Dayman]

Good to see that there are moderators who agree with us.

[GrnEyedDvl]

In the Trib commentary thread the worth of the current Off-Topic language has just been proven if you ask me.

Two members have a disagreement. One member suggests that the way to solve the disagreement is to go back in time, punch the other members mother in the stomach to cause an abortion so that the argument wont occur 20 years later.

Now what place does that have in any real discussion?

Removing that kind of language and issuing the note is what Pan and Ian mean by stopping a thread from totally degenerating.

[Dayman]

Now what place does that have in any real discussion?

It doesn't, because it is a negative reference and is already covered under insulting others.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Technically thats not an insult.

[Dayman]

Sounds like one to me. But it could be considered a negative personal reference, which I do not support being allowed.

What my position is:
Negatively referencing another poster when not pertinent to the topic is not allowed

What would be pertinent is accusations of hypocrisy backed by fact, same with bias, etc.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Which is currently how its being enforced even though the ToS says any personal reference.

[Dayman]

Did you read the topic? Hell, this page?

The rule I suggest doesn't remove moderator judgment entirely, and the fact is that even with the rule as is today, it is ultimately up to the tribunal, and people still find loopholes, especially regarding reasoning. And besides the point, there are always people who try and post on the edge of the ToS. That will never go away.

The spirit of the rule is irrelevant, because a new CoM could decide the spirit of the rule is something else entirely. You put it down in stone so none may change it save through something like this.

[Farnan]

Here's how I see it though:

Right now we have a good set of moderators, but next week, next month, next year we may not. Thus we cannot make rules assuming our moderation staff will always be this good, so this is a case when specificness is good.

[Dayman]

Nor that their intentions will always be good, or that the tribunal will interpret the rule the same way. Eliminate the human factor where it is not needed.

[GrnEyedDvl]

You cant remove the human element, especially with something as loosely defined as "negative personal reference".

I have no problem with that being changed to say negative personal reference, as opposed to any personal reference, but I do think all this debate over what could happen or what might happen is a bit far out there.

[removeduser_487563287433]

But with "negative personal reference" we do prevent people from being punished for making correct and useful references to one another, thus helping the quality of debate and preventing rogue moderation.

[Dayman]

You cant remove the human element

Nor do I intend to, at least not totally. I intend to remove it where it is unnecessary.

But with "negative personal reference" we do prevent people from being punished for making correct and useful references to one another, thus helping the quality of debate and preventing rogue moderation.

Exactly.

[scottishranger]

Sounds like one to me. But it could be considered a negative personal reference, which I do not support being allowed.

What my position is:
Negatively referencing another poster when not pertinent to the topic is not allowed

What would be pertinent is accusations of hypocrisy backed by fact, same with bias, etc.

I agree here with Boeing here, as I have said in the OP.

Here's how I see it though:

Right now we have a good set of moderators, but next week, next month, next year we may not. Thus we cannot make rules assuming our moderation staff will always be this good, so this is a case when specificness is good.

Exactly, we need to make sure the TOS clearly defines this. In my opinion, it should be limited to negatives. Accusations of hypocrisy should be fine. Accusations of ignorance, when the person is clearly ignorant of what he is talking about and the facts, should be allowed.

[imb39]

Rogue moderation? I don't think it's been even remotely that bad - let's not over play things here. I know we all have audiences to play to, but let's keep things in perspective.

The spirit of the rule is irrelevant, because a new CoM could decide the spirit of the rule is something else entirely. You put it down in stone so none may change it save through something like this.

If you want to be technical, any new CoM that makes changes like that will probably be a part of Hex that would simply change the ToS at a whim anyway.

There are already ways of expressing the views, but in ways that are not personal, for example you could argue that 'a post is ignorant' as opposed to 'the member is ignorant'. It's quite easy... Semantics, I suspect some will argue, but a useful way of approaching so many arguments. Why is the latter more preferential to the former?