D&D rules and enforcement discussion

[TheSutekh]

Nope, I lost you:
Do you actually read sometimes what you post?

Clearly you don't.

1) Squid says moderation inaction is correct action by definition.

2) You say moderators are not infallible.

3) I point out you disagreed with Squid.

4) You ask about what.

5) I point out to you the point in number 1) due to your point in number 2).

6) You selectively use Squids post to claim that you agreed with him and make a defensive statement that you didn't claim inaction equals being correct a well.

7) I point out that I never claimed you claim inaction to equal to being correct as well.

You don't seem to read posts even when you quote them.

[PikeStance]

Clearly you don't.
1) Squid says moderation inaction is correct action by definition.
2) You say moderators are infallible.
3) I point out you disagreed with Squid.
4) You ask about what.
5) I point out to you the point in number 1) due to your point in number 2).
You don't seem to read posts even when you quote them.

Infallible definition

unfailing in effectiveness or operation

How does 1 and 2 contradict each other?

---

[TheSutekh]

Infallible definition

unfailing in effectiveness or operation

How does 1 and 2 contradict each other?

---

It should have been "not" in there. Thanks, fixed it.

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

but telling some that they argue like an intercourse is completely fine. Interesting...

What the ??How does one do that

We should be happy with what we have.
If we allow each other to name call and call each other racist and other things then who decides when defamation happens.If you just say you are a racist then surely we then have to back this up.We have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the person is a racist.Or we will have people get upset at being called something they are not.Anarchy is what we will have with people going back and forth name calling each other and not actually debating anything about the topic.Just personal grudges being developed.
Let us leave things as they are and let Mods control things as letting the lunatics run the asylum is not advisable.

[Darth Red]

Oh God Tom. I really don't want to discuss this any further but here is the example that Seth provided.

Oh, you're such a tease.

You start out all confident and self-assured. Then things start heating up, and just when it seems a glorious climax of... actual information... is about to erupt...

YOU PULL OUT! It's so tantric.

Post 298 of this thread and continuing for roughly 10 pages or so.

Also, intercourse.

1: connection or dealings between persons or groups

2: exchange especially of thoughts or feelings

Someone was being cute with words and Seth took exception to it.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I'm standing by Ferrets on this one, and I would include other sub-forums of the D&D as well... namely the EMM. Quality has been on a steady decline, the general climate is off putting for potentially innovative and rich posters and the current system of formal sanctions won't stop the degradation brought. I agree, every change in norms policy carries a large degree of intensive labour from our devoted Moderation Branch, and I respect that work, but sadly the dynamics of the Mudpit and other D&D sub-forums are deteriorating beyond their current regulation capabilities.

I believe that maybe to avoid making the Moderators crash with the actual freedoms to be opinionated of our posters we should simply loose the rope on the more "traditional" posters, let natural forces of the argumentative market regulate and discard the harmful, worthless or disrupting posting by the application of user upheld ostracism and a contextual-based approach to moderation.

Also, I repeated myself

[pannonian]

I'm standing by Ferrets on this one, and I would include other sub-forums of the D&D as well... namely the EMM. Quality has been on a steady decline, the general climate is off putting for potentially innovative and rich posters and the current system of formal sanctions won't stop the degradation brought. I agree, every change in norms policy carries a large degree of intensive labour from our devoted Moderation Branch, and I respect that work, but sadly the dynamics of the Mudpit and other D&D sub-forums are deteriorating beyond their current regulation capabilities.

I believe that maybe to avoid making the Moderators crash with the actual freedoms to be opinionated of our posters we should simply loose the rope on the more "traditional" posters, let natural forces of the argumentative market regulate and discard the harmful, worthless or disrupting posting by the application of user upheld ostracism and a contextual-based approach to moderation.

Also, I repeated myself

1. Moderator tries to shift the Mudpit towards some semblance of civility by using discretion and non-standard methods.
2. Ferrets and co keep up a constant barrage of attacks on said moderator.
3, Moderator gives up.

Since discretionary action gives one so much hassle from Ferrets and his fellow freedom lovers (where freedom is defined as the freedom to do whatever they like and persecute anyone they don't like), the ToS is all there is, since that's upheld by the rules.

[Ferrets54]

Care to summon the courage to be specific, or is this just the usual attack on me, disguised as describing an attack on a fantasy victim?

[PikeStance]

I thought it was not allowed to mentioned specific members (3rd person). It would seem prudent to adhere to such a rule.
There are certainly no shortage of instigators on TWC.

---

[Ferrets54]

God PikeStance, the lack of irony in your posts is incredible.

[Jom]

I thought it was not allowed to mentioned specific members (3rd person). It would seem prudent to adhere to such a rule.
There are certainly no shortage of instigators on TWC.

---

A common misconception.

[PikeStance]

A common misconception.

Antagonism or imprudence or both

---

[Sir Adrian]

Quality has been on a steady decline, the general climate is off putting for potentially innovative and rich posters and the current system of formal sanctions won't stop the degradation brought.

You are right. A stricter system of sanctions is needed to weed out the trolls and calm down the overtly-aggressive posters.

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

You are right. A stricter system of sanctions is needed to weed out the trolls and calm down the overtly-aggressive posters.

Infraction points do that already.Get too many and you lose the power to post in the pit.If we allow people to insult each other with new lax rules trolls will have more power believe me they can insult also and then call every body racist and get away with it.We will have the lunatics running the asylum.Anarchy and anybody new to the forum will think being cruel and vindictive and rude is allowed and encouraged by the elites.Nay nay I say and trice nay we must have order and law and the law should not be mocked.

[Vanoi]

You are right. A stricter system of sanctions is needed to weed out the trolls and calm down the overtly-aggressive posters.

Overtly aggressive posters aren't the problem. Its the former that is the problem.

[Tom Cruise HAWK]

The constant goading and bigotry and persecution of people who believe in religion on this forum would be just as bad a issue as Racism IMO.
Why do we not hear the cry for freedom to attack people who are bigots against religion
Are we going to persecute religious people off the forum after alleged racists..

[Claudius Gothicus]

Overtly aggressive posters aren't the problem. Its the former that is the problem.

Lately(with the new wave of young posters who stop by by due to Rome's II release to be more specific) there has been quite a lot of aggressive posting in the Academy... just look at some of the responses given to this guy's question regarding Socialism: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...bout-socialism

Man I could name at least 2 posters who are simply screaming "communism" and 1 who's letting subtle "you are really stupid aren't you?" comments without taking the thread into productive places. Maybe, with years and years of tearing each other a part, we've grown hard and cold to the newcomers OP's. We, as regular D&D posters, have to tone it down with the newbies... avoid degrading them with patronizing behaviours or putting them off with grandiloquent hyperboles, but we have to do it ourselves, stricter sanctions and harder punishments won't do the trick.

[athanaric]

Lately(with the new wave of young posters who stop by by due to Rome's II release to be more specific) there has been quite a lot of aggressive posting in the Academy... just look at some of the responses given to this guy's question regarding Socialism: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...bout-socialism

Man I could name at least 2 posters who are simply screaming "communism" and 1 who's letting subtle "you are really stupid aren't you?" comments without taking the thread into productive places.

If by the latter you're referring to my answer to the OP, I can only tell you it wasn't intended that way.

Maybe, with years and years of tearing each other a part, we've grown hard and cold to the newcomers OP's. We, as regular D&D posters, have to tone it down with the newbies... avoid degrading them with patronizing behaviours or putting them off with grandiloquent hyperboles, but we have to do it ourselves, stricter sanctions and harder punishments won't do the trick.

I believe the forum members with "citizen" and other badges and a lot of bling should be held to a higher standard than others. I'm not seeing that. I mean, if you're going after Ferrets, why not reprimand others too, who're being snide, condescending, bigoted, or always sarcastic?
And it's not just the D&D, it's the Rome II sub-forum as well.

[PikeStance]

... just look at some of the responses given to this guy's question regarding Socialism: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...bout-socialism

I believe the forum members with "citizen" and other badges and a lot of bling should be held to a higher standard than others. I'm not seeing that. I mean, if you're going after Ferrets, why not reprimand others too, who're being snide, condescending, bigoted, or always sarcastic?
And it's not just the D&D, it's the Rome II sub-forum as well.

The problem with the thread is the question was asked by a 15 year old who may not have all the knowledge he needs to form a solid opinion. What he is fed is a series of hyperbolic statements by agenda motivated individuals more interested in semantics than a real discussion. Too often thread degenerate into "bickering" instead of a discussion. In other words, everyone is talking over each other. This kid is probably more confused now than he was when he asked the question.

As far as non citizens vs citizens- Often I see little difference in behavior. Supposedly citizens are held to a higher standard, but the standards are pretty low to begin with. There are really very few people who can stand on the ground to moral superiority in debating on TWC. People like to blame the moderators, but really, it starts with the posters themselves.

[Caduet]

I know that it is your opinion. I understand that you cannot prove it. I'm totally puzzled why you conclude that the reason why the quality of the posting has dropped would be caused by moderation. Last time I checked every single member was solemly responsible for the quality of their own posts, not moderation. I'm more than puzzled by such a conclusion which leaves everything aside and focuses only on something that cannot be proven in the first place and that is most probably absurd to begin with.

Even I don't believe moderation is the sole reason for the decline in quality. I believe it bears a fair portion of the blame by coddling certain attitudes, and more importantly, is a variable we have some control over. Moderators cannot stop people from being retards. In order to be fair, they have to let idiots be idiots. However, they can allow posters, who need not worry about fairness, create a posting environment hostile to far-out stupidity. My conclusion has never left anything aside. I just accept the only thing any of us can directly affect is how moderators do their jobs, which is why I focus on this particular issue.

Addition:
Widely accepted? What number of users do you define "widely" with?

No one has tried to claim things are better now. We have different ideas on why things are not so good now, but no one has said things are better now. That's why I feel I can safely claim that the idea things were better back then is widely accepted.

I perfectly understand that the mudpit is not a nice place to begin with. You brought up the assertion that moderation has not contributed in any form to the mudpit being more civil. That was your argument, not mine. Calling you to deliver evidence for your assertion, you back out. Like you escape in "it's an opinion" to justify your claim.

How can I provide evidence that the moderation has not contributed to making the mudpit more civil when I believe that mudpit is less than civil than before? My evidence for the moderation's lack of contribution towards civility is the absence of civility. If current moderation policy was effective, the mudpit would be civil, but it isn't civil. We just have people trading "you are" for "this post". Darth Red admits that maybe that's the best you can do when you have to draw a line somewhere, but I ask, why bother maintaining a facade of fake civility? Its the same crap either way.

Addition:
While I agree that the mudpit is not a nice place, you claim it was intended to be a place to fight dirty. Interesting, have you been there when the forum was created? Is there some sort of manifesto providing the reasoning of the founders of the mudpit and it's purpose? Oh wait, we've the mudpit debating rules from 04. Strange they don't state that the mudpit would be supposed to be a place to fight dirty.

But it was, despite the lack of some manifesto, a place to fight dirty. Dirty fighting took place and hte site was better for it. Its fun and entertaining, which is what the D&D portions of the site ought to be. Sure there are ideal that we ought to aspire to, but you can't force people to debate in good faith etc. They have to choose to do it. TRying to force it has led to the current problem.

And concerning the evidence, just because you cannot produce evidence and just because you don't think you would need evidence does not, in any way, shape or form imply that no other evidence is needed or can be demanded. I'm very sorry, but I won't shorten my deliberations on the grounds of whatever you might consider sufficient evidence.

lol no one really expects the staff to ever change their mind. Most of you would rather die before admitting ferrets might have a point about anything. Its insane but kinda funny. Still, I doubt there was much "evidence" taken into account when staff decided to go down the path of nanny moderation that is substantially different than the "evidence" I'm using. Its all opinions and gut feelings and subjective approaches.

The only objective fact I know is we are going to have the same argument until the one thing that can change, the moderation, does change. We'd probably still be arguing then tbh, but at least it would be a different argument.