What your ignoring here is that many who would speak on their behalf are stunned into silence by the callous nature of the opposition's attacks, or are scared of (to use the vernacular of the Forum Rules I hope you understand and this shouldn't be taken as an insult) "feeding the trolls." Thus we have sought to provide our opinions in other, non-visible venues, and you're fallaciously taking that as a sign that you are in the right because you can't see it.
Does that mean you're in the right? I'm confused. Which vocal minority matters more: the one in threads or the one in PM's?
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
What your ignoring here is that many who would speak on their behalf are stunned into silence by the callous nature of the opposition's attacks, or are scared of (to use the vernacular of the Forum Rules I hope you understand and this shouldn't be taken as an insult) "feeding the trolls." Thus we have sought to provide our opinions in other, non-visible venues, and you're fallaciously taking that as a sign that you are in the right because you can't see it.
What if I told you I also have a secret army of dissenters supporting me?
EDIT: I was being facetious here in order to counter Misclick's unverifiable claim^^^. Sorry if that was unclear!
As I've seen in their helpdesks, 2 users supporting them vs. 10 against them is interpreted by them to be widespread support of their policies. Also, when pressed for reasons for these changes, they were unable to provide evidence that any significant number of users had asked for them. So forgive me if I don't give much credence to your secret supporters.
We need new staff in WCT. I'm done deluding myself that Senori and Teia are serious participants in this discussion.
Although tangentially related to this discussion, for kicks or valid reasons, I was wondering whether the following could be made public to all or, at least, known to some.
Please redact the names of the successful applications; Frox, Senori, and Teia Rabishu, though. Also, I've italicized arguably the most important question.
How often do you read through that/those forum(s)?:
Why do you think you should be a moderator?:
Do you have any prior forum or similar moderation experience? If so, where? If applicable, what were your reasons for leaving that position?:
If you could make one change to the forum(s) you are applying to, what would that be?:
Is there anything else relevant to your application that you would like us to know?:
I'm not sure what's going on with WCT or the site now.
I think this modification/addition of a long-standing implied rule is appreciated (or I can understand where you're coming from) but clearly it's been met with some opposition. What a mixed blessing this all is.
Does that mean you're in the right? I'm confused. Which vocal minority matters more: the one in threads or the one in PM's?
Oh, no, I don't pretend to know what is best for the subforum, only what I would like to see. My earlier comments were designed to prevent LogicX from making this hopefully structured conversation into something more based in emotional response.
What if I told you I also have a secret army of dissenters supporting me?
Then I'd wonder why they'd have to remain a secret, Logic. I've already provided my reasons for my own position.
As I've seen in their helpdesks, 2 users supporting them vs. 10 against them is interpreted by them to be widespread support of their policies. Also, when pressed for reasons for these changes, they were unable to provide evidence that any significant number of users had asked for them. So forgive me if I don't give much credence to your secret supporters.
But that's my problem! The basis for these new rules seems so self-evident that it shouldn't even need user validation: it's simply bringing the subforum more in line with how General Discussion is treated on pretty much every other website; moreover, I don't believe we need the "freer" atmosphere while the site has a Speakeasy. Nobody has said anything to convince me otherwise, and instead have resulted mostly in ignoring these claims in favor of a more emotionally invested response. Case in point:
We need new staff in WCT. I'm done deluding myself that Senori and Teia are serious participants in this discussion.
which is a reasonable judgment call for you to make but has little bearing on the discussion.
The thing is, it's not really bringing it in line with other sites. I can't even think of a site who's equivalent requires sources for a general topic. Also, as has been noted by many users on both sides of the issue, MTGS has some of the strictest moderation. It is not at all in-line or average, in my experience.
I'm not against them making changes. I'm against vague rules that don't give us a clear, fair starting point for both sides of any topic.
The best way, IMO, to reach understanding isn't censorship, or dictating; it's rational discussion and discourse. In order to have that you need a table where both parties feel comfortable taking a seat to break bread.
As for those that complained in PM's or other private means, it's very hard for those of us seen as opposition to these changes to present arguments against "people are uncomfortable, but I can't give you an instance or further specific information why". So it's very difficult for us to understand exactly the what and why for these changes that have been deemed necessary.
An edited pm to protect the innocent would be nice. I'd personally like to see some sort of rule addressing /sarcasm as many wct threads aren't serious and I think there should be some leeway for it.
When looking at the top 10-20 threads in wct, can the mods or anyone show us instances that made these changes necessary?
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
The thing is, it's not really bringing it in line with other sites. I can't even think of a site who's equivalent requires sources for a general topic.
The full text of rule 5 is as follows:
"Sources and Articles: If you are starting a thread about an article or news event, please include a link to the article in question along with a brief summary or abstract. If you want to post a link to an article, please accompany it with some content of your own. A thread that consists of "[link] LOL" will be considered spam. Similarly, if you quote an article or other media, please try to include a link to it."
This is basically just a combination of the anti-plagiarism and abstract/summary rules which existed without incident under Viricide. In fact, Viricide himself enforced the rules in question, again without incident. While it's true that a certain sourcing rule was implemented rather poorly under the current moderation staff, that rule is now off the table, and continuing to raise that point is counterproductive.
"Sources and Articles: If you are starting a thread about an article or news event, please include a link to the article in question along with a brief summary or abstract. If you want to post a link to an article, please accompany it with some content of your own. A thread that consists of "[link] LOL" will be considered spam. Similarly, if you quote an article or other media, please try to include a link to it."
This is basically just a combination of the anti-plagiarism and abstract/summary rules which existed without incident under Viricide. In fact, Viricide himself enforced the rules in question, again without incident. While it's true that a certain sourcing rule was implemented rather poorly under the current moderation staff, that rule is now off the table, and continuing to raise that point is counterproductive.
In fact, I can tell you that it is exactly the rule Brandon enforced without controversy:
Quote from his rules »
6. If you post a thread about a current issue or news story, especially a controversial one, please try to include a link to a relevant news story so that the discussion can stay informed. If it is a particularly controversial issue we may contact you to make a request that you post a link.
Quote from his rules »
10. All threads created for discussion of a linked article must include a synopsis of the article or the article's abstract. If you want to post a link to an article, please accompany it with some content of your own. A thread that consists of "[link] LOL" will be considered spam.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The thing is, it's not really bringing it in line with other sites. I can't even think of a site who's equivalent requires sources for a general topic. Also, as has been noted by many users on both sides of the issue, MTGS has some of the strictest moderation. It is not at all in-line or average, in my experience.
I can see the validity of that, thank you. I still disagree, however; my often-visited website list is... probably different. I might suggest, though, that our two points here don't actually invalidate each other: I don't see this as an aspect of moderation, I see this as an aspect of policy.
[...]The best way, IMO, to reach understanding isn't censorship, or dictating; it's rational discussion and discourse. In order to have that you need a table where both parties feel comfortable taking a seat to break bread.
I completely agree, which is why I felt behooved to speak up tonight. Additionally, I do sympathize with your position, and imagine that it is difficult for you as well, regardless of which side of the fence on this issue you may sit on; I apologize if I made you feel like you were in a violence gang.
As for those that complained in PM's or other private means, it's very hard for those of us seen as opposition to these changes to present arguments against "people are uncomfortable, but I can't give you an instance or further specific information why". So it's very difficult for us to understand exactly the what and why for these changes that have been deemed necessary.
Yes, that's the kicker. Can you understand that it's likewise difficult for those of us on "this side" not to be hesitant to bring forth this evidence if it is to be met with overly emotional responses/fillibusters instead of the discussion we both desire?
Sorry for the seeming cherry picking, just didn't want to make my post bigger than it needed to be.
A thought popped into my head about a way perhaps to help some of the posters in this thread that are concerned about being able to determine where the line is in what they can and cannot post in WCT without getting a warning/infraction.
Why not have a trial period. Make it say, a week? Where no warnings/infractions would be given in regards to the changed aspects of the rules in WCT. The mods would however point out whenever something would be considered innapropriate under the new rules so that with a weeks worth of real experience under the new rules, people could see for themselves where the line now was, and what was, and was not acceptable. The mods would still move threads and post modtext and post reminders as neccessary, but without the warnings/infractions that would stay on a person's record.
Its just a thought anyway, not sure if it would be feasable.
As far as someone's comment about a mod not enforcing certain rules in their part of the forums when they were a mod, to me this would say that the mod wasnt really doing their full job, and chose to err on the side of ignoring the rules and their duties to avoid confrontation and avoid having to deal with the potential negative aspects of the job. I really cannot speak on my own personal experiences with mods not doing their jobs as mentioned above, I just recall someone mentioning it, I believe in this thread, so figured I would comment. I will say though, that I can certainly sympathize if that was the case. Im a rather non-confrontational sort of guy and prefer to try to find peaceful solutions to things if at all possible and avoid such situations.
When I was a manager at the place I used to work at though, it no longer mattered what my personal feelings were on things, it was my duty to enforce the rules and do my best to make sure that things ran smoothy while making sure those rules were enforced. Inevitably I ran into some difficulties with that those many years ago, and in the end opted for a different sort of position between that of a manager and that of a normal worker. Basically I did my best to help out the managers in other ways to help make their jobs easier and allow them to have more focus on dealing with enforcement and other aspects that I wasnt as good at, at the time.
One thing about me as well, is that I try very strongly to try to understand the positions of both sides of a discussion and do my best to try to help both sides perhaps understand a little better what each side may be trying to get across. Oftentimes when I see a situation like we have lately where there are a bunch of people seemingly ganging up on a couple of mods, I may step in on thier side in an effort to try to help the situation as a whole, to try to help balance things out a little. I can sympathize with their position and understand their position, and understand what they may be trying to do. If I believe their reasoning, is reasonably sound, or there are at least some aspects of their work that is being disagreed with that I agree with, then I will come in and comment. If I feel the mods are being overly persecuted for what they are trying to do, then I may step in and make a comment or two in order to try to get the conversation back to a more productive discussion, rather than whatever it may be at the time. I realize that my inserting myself into situations can and does bother some people, and while thats unfortunate, I simply try to do my best to say what I mean to say and leave it at that, Ive not reported a user for disagreeing with me, especially in CI and never will, everyone is entitled to their opinions, which is as it should be.
Sorry if I went off on a personal tangent a little towards the end, but its been something Ive at least wanted to say something about, and found a good openning to do so. In the end I still think a trial period like I mentioned towards the top might be a good way to help those that are concerned learn from experience what is an is not allowed and be able to thusly understand why it isnt over the course of that time as well.
I want to preface this by saying that there's a link I'm going to post. If you're not going to read this post fully, at least click on the link and read that, because every bit of controversy that has come out of Teia's mod career is an extension of that thread in real-life application.
I find this update -- specifically #4 -- to be disgusting, ridiculous, and utterly unsurprising. I continue to be incredibly disappointed in the work your team is doing.
It's like, hey, wasn't the entire point of this whole thing to have clearly defined guidelines? Therefore, isn't #4 entirely against this?
How would you improve it? Keeping in mind that trying to avoid hotly-contestable subjects that will only provoke heated arguments is largely a good thing if WCT is going to be kept an easy-going, inviting place.
It's not the rule itself, it's the people enforcing it. Specifically Teia. Teia has been the source of the problems in this forum since they started, and it is clear that she has undermined public trust in the staff's ability to moderate the WCT forum at all.
Let's be honest here, the reason we're asking for very specific written rules is Teia-insurance. We don't trust Teia like the Founding Fathers didn't trust King George, and consequently both they and we are insisting on very, very clearly defined parameters for those with power specifically because there's no way we trust Teia to be neutral as opposed to manipulating power for her own political agenda.
As said, none of these rules would be a problem under someone who could be trusted to not throw around his own political agenda. Teia just is not one of those people. The mods have even admitted this.
So we knew this kind of controversy was going to start from the beginning. The question I have is why the mod/admin community decided to appoint Teia the mod of a community where this would be a serious impediment to her job and gaining the trust of the community, which I will remind you has been undermined. I understand that not all of you post in the Debate thread, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but surely someone would have thought to review Teia's posting record. I repeat, Teia is not to blame for this, because she's doing exactly what anyone would have expected. The mystery is who thought she wasn't going to cause serious controversy and undermine the integrity of a forum whose purpose is free discussion.
Had Teia been the moderator of Other Games? She would have been fine. I actually appreciate discussing video games with her. But she's totally the wrong mod for Water Cooler Talk.
I know what the response is going to be, "You guys never gave Teia a chance, it's only been [insert time here]." Well that's a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. If we speak now, we're regarded as not giving people a chance. If we don't speak up, it will be, "This has gone on for so long with no one saying anything."
I am completely happy if someone comes into WCT and declares B and D to be good things. Awesome.
I'm also happy if someone comes in and says A and C are good things. I grew up in the A and C household. I disagree with it. But that's about it.
Now, if you come in and tell me that A and C are the only ways to live and that there's a problem if I'm a B and D dude? Now we have a problem.
In my contribution to the rule in question, I'm trying to avoid a place where poster B (B and D dude) has forced poster A (A and C dude) to leave, because he's declaring that B and D are the only ways to go.
Realistically though, how is this any different from someone saying, "If you think Batman can beat the HULK, you're wrong, and that's the only way to go," in a discussion amongst mature people who are willing to thoughtfully write their opinions and are committed to a mature discussion?
Especially when you specifically have blanket laws for people who are not willing to have a mature discussion (trolling, flaming rules) regardless of topic?
So, applying that mindset, you say that you're not creating a gag rule on homosexuality, when in fact, that effectively is what you're doing.
I've been waiting for a chance to put this statement in, as I believe it'll help illuminate my feelings on this matter.
With the way this rule works, we're not outlawing Homophobia and promoting Homosexuality. We're asking you to keep your Heterophobia and Homophobia to yourself and allow us to be heterosexual and homosexual as we so choose. If you wish to speak out about it, there's better places on the site for it.
The problem is who you're choosing to enforce this rule. A rule that says, "No police brutality," becomes a rule in favor of police brutality if the person whose job it is to enforce the rule is someone with a history of police brutality, because that's the oversight.
You've got one person with a checkered history and who's warranted multiple rules changes. It's very clear Teia cannot neutrally enforce the rules of this forum, and she has freely admitted this.
Teia does not involve herself in moderating posts in which she could have a personal bias. Any discussion in moderation she is involved in is tempered by every other moderator of MTGSalvation. Everyone knew what she was like before modding her and she demonstrated herself to be responsible, level-headed, and a valuable addition to the staff.
The hate speech rule you speak of actually factored into how I approached the situation. Basically, I determined that "hate speech" was a bit narrow of a category to have included in the rules, so my reason (other mods may have different ones) for promoting and supporting rule 4 was a more generalized form of that rule that applies equally to both sides of the spectrum:
Ok, this should set off alarm bells for anyone who read that Debate thread I linked.
Since the issue of liberal/conservative was brought up, I'd like to clarify that the intent and my intended enforcement of rule 4 would protect both sides equally. Things like anti-LGBT sentiment per se aren't a problem. Stating them in such a way as to ascribe inherently negative qualities to them or that glorifies exclusionary practices, however, only serves to foster argument (note the distinction between argument and debate).
Except you can't have anti-gay sentiment without tying negative qualities to being gay. That's the whole point. People who are anti-gay are saying that being gay is immoral, and "being gay is immoral" is a position that they hold because they believe that gay people express harmful and negative qualities.
So in other words, you are creating a rule against anti-gay sentiments.
Opposing change simply to oppose change is being inflexible, however. It results in not giving a fair chance to something that could very well be an improvement.
We're not opposing change to just be opposed to change. We're opposing what we believe to be unnecessarily harsh rule changes.
And you seem to have forgotten this, so let me remind you: The official position of the staff was that our objections to your rules changes were entirely justified in the last thread.
It was you, not us, who were told that you had been in error. So don't come here acting like our grievances have no justification and your job is to tune them out.
Well that can't really be true when she's involved in the creation of WCT forum rules that specifically target those posts, can it?
She is giving input into the creation of the rules, as is everyone else in the WCT staff (and again the rest of the staff is able to comment and help out with that). She won't be making any decisions as to whether posts of that nature are breaking the rules or not.
@Highroller: can you explain to me, please, why you believe maturity to be a prerequisite to posting in WCT?
The issue is, as Azrael said, the mods are treating WCT as though it were a kindergarten class.
There will be immature posters, and there's no reason to expect otherwise. The thing is, we have rules for those people should they be disruptive already with the flaming and trolling rules.
The problem with the approach the new WCT mods are taking lies in their default assumption that the community does not have the capacity to carry on a mature discussion about something. This results in, as Azrael said, a stifling level of paternalism.
This is, in fact, what we explicitly said we were doing in the previous CI thread. We stated we were going to mod the forum in a more Viricide-like style until a new rules system, tempered by user feedback (the stage we're ostensibly in) could be put in place. Then to address concerns of uncertainty over what would merit action and what wouldn't, we stated our plans to introduce changes gradually, with verbal reminders and other light touches to start with so people would know where the boundaries lay.
And we're expressing that we don't like your boundaries. I think the relevant issue is that for all of your talk about being open to feedback, you're basically saying you're open to feedback in support of you, but not open to feedback which is largely/overwhelmingly negative, which is what you're getting. That's at least the impression I'm getting.
For the record, saying that you're listening and actually listening are two separate things, and lest you say, "Well we changed the rules, didn't we," the answer is yes, but that's because the admins had to step in to make you listen.
Talore that is a thin arguement at best, if you make the rules you don't need to be involved in enforcing them.
It would be akin to saying Mod X helped with our "no people with letter o in their name can post" rules but won't be allowed to enforce them.
Teia's real life bias's (not just gender/sexuality but her lack of impartiality in many issues from race to religion to "life") do not make her suitable to have input on rulings.
Now again I highly doubt this will matter soon but it should be clarified that making the rules is far more key than enforcing.
I'd appreciate backing away from the absurdities as they really don't help the conversation :/ Unless you're saying that Teia should not be on the moderation team period (in any part of the website) I don't see the problem since any staff member can give their input. I wouldn't put too much stock into something we still know very little about, personally...
She is giving input into the creation of the rules, as is everyone else in the WCT staff (and again the rest of the staff is able to comment and help out with that). She won't be making any decisions as to whether posts of that nature are breaking the rules or not.
Lets say I was a moderator for WCT. My biases are well known. Even if I didn't warn or infract a single post that conflicted with my biases, I would still have influence over those posts by having input on the rules.
For example, I would not infract a post that was critical of Conservatives or Republicans. But if I made a rule that said any post critical of Conservatives or Republicans will receive an infraction is, in essence, the exact same thing.
Teia may not (further) be involved in moderating threads that are LGBT-related, but can still influence the rules in such a manner that there is little to no difference between Teia actively moderating the thread with warnings/infractions, and passively moderating the thread by the creation of rules that would result in other mods warning/infracting the same posts.
I'd appreciate backing away from the absurdities as they really don't help the conversation :/ Unless you're saying that Teia should not be on the moderation team period (in any part of the website) I don't see the problem since any staff member can give their input. I wouldn't put too much stock into something we still know very little about, personally...
If any mod from any forum can have input on the rules of a particular subforum (even if they aren't a mod for that forum), then no - I do not believe Teia should be on the moderation team in any forum. Teia cannot control Teia's biases, Teia cannot be impartial. This goes beyond LGBT issues - we all know how Teia feels about freedom of speech (opposes it), race and racism (racism against majority classes is impossible), and life in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
She is giving input into the creation of the rules, as is everyone else in the WCT staff (and again the rest of the staff is able to comment and help out with that). She won't be making any decisions as to whether posts of that nature are breaking the rules or not.
The person who makes a rule has made no decision as to whether or not someone has broken a rule? Explain how that makes any sense.
Especially when the controversy is over the validity of the rule in the first place.
It's like saying a person who passed a segregation law but never specifically asked anyone to sit in the back of the bus had no part in segregation.
For example, I would not infract a post that was critical of Conservatives or Republicans. But if I made a rule that said any post critical of Conservatives or Republicans will receive an infraction is, in essence, the exact same thing.
You seem to be suggesting Teia is the only one making the rules... I was under the impression the other two mods and any involved senior staff all had imput. It's awfully hard to push something through by yourself as a mod. I know, I tried in the Mill, and was overruled by my co-Mill Mods.
So what that would suggest is you believe that all of the WCT mods and the Senior staff share Teia's bias. Correct?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She wants a ride on the pony, dude.
Mafia Stats
Kill shot: BB
Issue with my shooting? Please visit my helpdesk and help me learn to aim!
If any mod from any forum can have input on the rules of a particular subforum (even if they aren't a mod for that forum), then no - I do not believe Teia should be on the moderation team in any forum. Teia cannot control Teia's biases, Teia cannot be impartial. This goes beyond LGBT issues - we all know how Teia feels about freedom of speech (opposes it), race and racism (racism against majority classes is impossible), and life in general.
That is crossing the line to a baseless personal attack. I know that she is a lot better than that.
I would accept somewhere like art/market street/ other games , however if it's a choce between WCT mod or off moderation team entirely then yes I do not think she should be on it period.
She has the same voice in WCT as she does in Artwork.
The person who makes a rule has made no decision as to whether or not someone has broken a rule? Explain how that makes any sense.
Especially when the controversy is over the validity of the rule in the first place.
It's like saying a person who passed a segregation law but never specifically asked anyone to sit in the back of the bus had no part in segregation.
She is not involved with any further interpretation of the relevant rules including the sitewide rules currently in place. We have a broad mix of voices and stances in the staff and in the community, all of which are listened to. She does not make any rules by herself.
The issue is, as Azrael said, the mods are treating WCT as though it were a kindergarten class.
There will be immature posters, and there's no reason to expect otherwise. The thing is, we have rules for those people should they be disruptive already with the flaming and trolling rules.
The problem with the approach the new WCT mods are taking lies in their default assumption that the community does not have the capacity to carry on a mature discussion about something. This results in, as Azrael said, a stifling level of paternalism.
Wait, now we're back to the mod team? I thought your problem was with Teia!? Shift that goalpost MOAR, please.
Is it so wrong of me to want to see what younger readers wish to say about sensitive issues without having them lambasted? Many of the issues on the chopping block, while definitely deserving of adult and informed discussion, are of great import to the younger people experiencing them.. currently, this website is of no great use to them, as there is no place for them to seek the council of their more mature elders, and I wish to see that changed. Honestly, it seems like having that is worth maybe having the more mature discussion taking place in, oh I dunno, Debate.
You seem to be suggesting Teia is the only one making the rules... I was under the impression the other two mods and any involved senior staff all had imput. It's awfully hard to push something through by yourself as a mod. I know, I tried in the Mill, and was overruled by my co-Mill Mods.
So what that would suggest is you believe that all of the WCT mods and the Senior staff share Teia's bias. Correct?
I don't know if they share Teia's biases or are just allowing the more extreme voice to dictate where the discourse goes. Either way, it's a problem.
That is crossing the line to a baseless personal attack. I know that she is a lot better than that.
I would point to Teia's first infraction. The one where Teia infracted a post that was made in response to a post Teia made before becoming a mod. Of course, this action was defended by the other mods and admins...but that doesn't change the fact that it was a clear abuse of moderator power. Teia should have stepped back and let another mod handle it to avoid the appearances, at the least, of a conflict of interests.
I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in Teia's ability to be impartial enough to be a mod. Teia's biases are too widespread and run too deep. And I am not the only one who feels this way.
You seem to be suggesting Teia is the only one making the rules... I was under the impression the other two mods and any involved senior staff all had imput. It's awfully hard to push something through by yourself as a mod. I know, I tried in the Mill, and was overruled by my co-Mill Mods.
So what that would suggest is you believe that all of the WCT mods and the Senior staff share Teia's bias. Correct?
It has already been stated that the other mods would have infracted the same post Teia did that started this ****storm in two moderator help desks and, now, three threads in CI.
It is cleared that the biases are either shared, or Teia's bias is supported by the other staff involved.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Does that mean you're in the right? I'm confused. Which vocal minority matters more: the one in threads or the one in PM's?
What if I told you I also have a secret army of dissenters supporting me?
EDIT: I was being facetious here in order to counter Misclick's unverifiable claim^^^. Sorry if that was unclear!
As I've seen in their helpdesks, 2 users supporting them vs. 10 against them is interpreted by them to be widespread support of their policies. Also, when pressed for reasons for these changes, they were unable to provide evidence that any significant number of users had asked for them. So forgive me if I don't give much credence to your secret supporters.
We need new staff in WCT. I'm done deluding myself that Senori and Teia are serious participants in this discussion.
Sounds like it is time to escalate your discussion to their bosses, then.
Please redact the names of the successful applications; Frox, Senori, and Teia Rabishu, though. Also, I've italicized arguably the most important question.
I think this modification/addition of a long-standing implied rule is appreciated (or I can understand where you're coming from) but clearly it's been met with some opposition. What a mixed blessing this all is.
I'm not sure what's going on with WCT or the site now.
Oh, no, I don't pretend to know what is best for the subforum, only what I would like to see. My earlier comments were designed to prevent LogicX from making this hopefully structured conversation into something more based in emotional response.
Then I'd wonder why they'd have to remain a secret, Logic. I've already provided my reasons for my own position.
But that's my problem! The basis for these new rules seems so self-evident that it shouldn't even need user validation: it's simply bringing the subforum more in line with how General Discussion is treated on pretty much every other website; moreover, I don't believe we need the "freer" atmosphere while the site has a Speakeasy. Nobody has said anything to convince me otherwise, and instead have resulted mostly in ignoring these claims in favor of a more emotionally invested response. Case in point:
which is a reasonable judgment call for you to make but has little bearing on the discussion.
I'm not against them making changes. I'm against vague rules that don't give us a clear, fair starting point for both sides of any topic.
The best way, IMO, to reach understanding isn't censorship, or dictating; it's rational discussion and discourse. In order to have that you need a table where both parties feel comfortable taking a seat to break bread.
As for those that complained in PM's or other private means, it's very hard for those of us seen as opposition to these changes to present arguments against "people are uncomfortable, but I can't give you an instance or further specific information why". So it's very difficult for us to understand exactly the what and why for these changes that have been deemed necessary.
An edited pm to protect the innocent would be nice. I'd personally like to see some sort of rule addressing /sarcasm as many wct threads aren't serious and I think there should be some leeway for it.
When looking at the top 10-20 threads in wct, can the mods or anyone show us instances that made these changes necessary?
The full text of rule 5 is as follows:
"Sources and Articles: If you are starting a thread about an article or news event, please include a link to the article in question along with a brief summary or abstract. If you want to post a link to an article, please accompany it with some content of your own. A thread that consists of "[link] LOL" will be considered spam. Similarly, if you quote an article or other media, please try to include a link to it."
This is basically just a combination of the anti-plagiarism and abstract/summary rules which existed without incident under Viricide. In fact, Viricide himself enforced the rules in question, again without incident. While it's true that a certain sourcing rule was implemented rather poorly under the current moderation staff, that rule is now off the table, and continuing to raise that point is counterproductive.
In fact, I can tell you that it is exactly the rule Brandon enforced without controversy:
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Did he actually enforce it? A rule existing doesn't mean it's actually enforced.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I can see the validity of that, thank you. I still disagree, however; my often-visited website list is... probably different. I might suggest, though, that our two points here don't actually invalidate each other: I don't see this as an aspect of moderation, I see this as an aspect of policy.
I completely agree, which is why I felt behooved to speak up tonight. Additionally, I do sympathize with your position, and imagine that it is difficult for you as well, regardless of which side of the fence on this issue you may sit on; I apologize if I made you feel like you were in a violence gang.
Yes, that's the kicker. Can you understand that it's likewise difficult for those of us on "this side" not to be hesitant to bring forth this evidence if it is to be met with overly emotional responses/fillibusters instead of the discussion we both desire?
Sorry for the seeming cherry picking, just didn't want to make my post bigger than it needed to be.
Why not have a trial period. Make it say, a week? Where no warnings/infractions would be given in regards to the changed aspects of the rules in WCT. The mods would however point out whenever something would be considered innapropriate under the new rules so that with a weeks worth of real experience under the new rules, people could see for themselves where the line now was, and what was, and was not acceptable. The mods would still move threads and post modtext and post reminders as neccessary, but without the warnings/infractions that would stay on a person's record.
Its just a thought anyway, not sure if it would be feasable.
As far as someone's comment about a mod not enforcing certain rules in their part of the forums when they were a mod, to me this would say that the mod wasnt really doing their full job, and chose to err on the side of ignoring the rules and their duties to avoid confrontation and avoid having to deal with the potential negative aspects of the job. I really cannot speak on my own personal experiences with mods not doing their jobs as mentioned above, I just recall someone mentioning it, I believe in this thread, so figured I would comment. I will say though, that I can certainly sympathize if that was the case. Im a rather non-confrontational sort of guy and prefer to try to find peaceful solutions to things if at all possible and avoid such situations.
When I was a manager at the place I used to work at though, it no longer mattered what my personal feelings were on things, it was my duty to enforce the rules and do my best to make sure that things ran smoothy while making sure those rules were enforced. Inevitably I ran into some difficulties with that those many years ago, and in the end opted for a different sort of position between that of a manager and that of a normal worker. Basically I did my best to help out the managers in other ways to help make their jobs easier and allow them to have more focus on dealing with enforcement and other aspects that I wasnt as good at, at the time.
One thing about me as well, is that I try very strongly to try to understand the positions of both sides of a discussion and do my best to try to help both sides perhaps understand a little better what each side may be trying to get across. Oftentimes when I see a situation like we have lately where there are a bunch of people seemingly ganging up on a couple of mods, I may step in on thier side in an effort to try to help the situation as a whole, to try to help balance things out a little. I can sympathize with their position and understand their position, and understand what they may be trying to do. If I believe their reasoning, is reasonably sound, or there are at least some aspects of their work that is being disagreed with that I agree with, then I will come in and comment. If I feel the mods are being overly persecuted for what they are trying to do, then I may step in and make a comment or two in order to try to get the conversation back to a more productive discussion, rather than whatever it may be at the time. I realize that my inserting myself into situations can and does bother some people, and while thats unfortunate, I simply try to do my best to say what I mean to say and leave it at that, Ive not reported a user for disagreeing with me, especially in CI and never will, everyone is entitled to their opinions, which is as it should be.
Sorry if I went off on a personal tangent a little towards the end, but its been something Ive at least wanted to say something about, and found a good openning to do so. In the end I still think a trial period like I mentioned towards the top might be a good way to help those that are concerned learn from experience what is an is not allowed and be able to thusly understand why it isnt over the course of that time as well.
It's like, hey, wasn't the entire point of this whole thing to have clearly defined guidelines? Therefore, isn't #4 entirely against this?
It's not the rule itself, it's the people enforcing it. Specifically Teia. Teia has been the source of the problems in this forum since they started, and it is clear that she has undermined public trust in the staff's ability to moderate the WCT forum at all.
Let's be honest here, the reason we're asking for very specific written rules is Teia-insurance. We don't trust Teia like the Founding Fathers didn't trust King George, and consequently both they and we are insisting on very, very clearly defined parameters for those with power specifically because there's no way we trust Teia to be neutral as opposed to manipulating power for her own political agenda.
As said, none of these rules would be a problem under someone who could be trusted to not throw around his own political agenda. Teia just is not one of those people. The mods have even admitted this.
I would also like to add that none of this is actually Teia's fault. We can't blame Teia for being Teia, and there's nothing in the history of Teia posting on this site that demonstrates that Teia is not very outspoken, belligerent, and controversial on the topics she feels strongly about. Teia's philosophies on things such as free speech are all well-documented, and so this controversy comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone in the Debate thread, because we've heard Teia say them. Brandon, for instance, has a problem with Teia's view that people who hold certain opinions are automatically to be infracted. I already knew Teia held this view, as did others, because we had a whole thread about a similar law Canada passed, and how such a restriction on free speech does not exist in the US and whether or not it should, to which Teia revealed herself as being in favor of the government taking it upon itself to censor speech regarding people who are not white or straight.
So we knew this kind of controversy was going to start from the beginning. The question I have is why the mod/admin community decided to appoint Teia the mod of a community where this would be a serious impediment to her job and gaining the trust of the community, which I will remind you has been undermined. I understand that not all of you post in the Debate thread, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but surely someone would have thought to review Teia's posting record. I repeat, Teia is not to blame for this, because she's doing exactly what anyone would have expected. The mystery is who thought she wasn't going to cause serious controversy and undermine the integrity of a forum whose purpose is free discussion.
Had Teia been the moderator of Other Games? She would have been fine. I actually appreciate discussing video games with her. But she's totally the wrong mod for Water Cooler Talk.
I know what the response is going to be, "You guys never gave Teia a chance, it's only been [insert time here]." Well that's a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. If we speak now, we're regarded as not giving people a chance. If we don't speak up, it will be, "This has gone on for so long with no one saying anything."
Realistically though, how is this any different from someone saying, "If you think Batman can beat the HULK, you're wrong, and that's the only way to go," in a discussion amongst mature people who are willing to thoughtfully write their opinions and are committed to a mature discussion?
Especially when you specifically have blanket laws for people who are not willing to have a mature discussion (trolling, flaming rules) regardless of topic?
So, applying that mindset, you say that you're not creating a gag rule on homosexuality, when in fact, that effectively is what you're doing.
The problem is who you're choosing to enforce this rule. A rule that says, "No police brutality," becomes a rule in favor of police brutality if the person whose job it is to enforce the rule is someone with a history of police brutality, because that's the oversight.
You've got one person with a checkered history and who's warranted multiple rules changes. It's very clear Teia cannot neutrally enforce the rules of this forum, and she has freely admitted this.
Ok, this should set off alarm bells for anyone who read that Debate thread I linked.
Except you can't have anti-gay sentiment without tying negative qualities to being gay. That's the whole point. People who are anti-gay are saying that being gay is immoral, and "being gay is immoral" is a position that they hold because they believe that gay people express harmful and negative qualities.
So in other words, you are creating a rule against anti-gay sentiments.
Well that can't really be true when she's involved in the creation of WCT forum rules that specifically target those posts, can it?
We're not opposing change to just be opposed to change. We're opposing what we believe to be unnecessarily harsh rule changes.
And you seem to have forgotten this, so let me remind you: The official position of the staff was that our objections to your rules changes were entirely justified in the last thread.
It was you, not us, who were told that you had been in error. So don't come here acting like our grievances have no justification and your job is to tune them out.
@Highroller: can you explain to me, please, why you believe maturity to be a prerequisite to posting in WCT?
She is giving input into the creation of the rules, as is everyone else in the WCT staff (and again the rest of the staff is able to comment and help out with that). She won't be making any decisions as to whether posts of that nature are breaking the rules or not.
The issue is, as Azrael said, the mods are treating WCT as though it were a kindergarten class.
There will be immature posters, and there's no reason to expect otherwise. The thing is, we have rules for those people should they be disruptive already with the flaming and trolling rules.
The problem with the approach the new WCT mods are taking lies in their default assumption that the community does not have the capacity to carry on a mature discussion about something. This results in, as Azrael said, a stifling level of paternalism.
And we're expressing that we don't like your boundaries. I think the relevant issue is that for all of your talk about being open to feedback, you're basically saying you're open to feedback in support of you, but not open to feedback which is largely/overwhelmingly negative, which is what you're getting. That's at least the impression I'm getting.
For the record, saying that you're listening and actually listening are two separate things, and lest you say, "Well we changed the rules, didn't we," the answer is yes, but that's because the admins had to step in to make you listen.
I'd appreciate backing away from the absurdities as they really don't help the conversation :/ Unless you're saying that Teia should not be on the moderation team period (in any part of the website) I don't see the problem since any staff member can give their input. I wouldn't put too much stock into something we still know very little about, personally...
Lets say I was a moderator for WCT. My biases are well known. Even if I didn't warn or infract a single post that conflicted with my biases, I would still have influence over those posts by having input on the rules.
For example, I would not infract a post that was critical of Conservatives or Republicans. But if I made a rule that said any post critical of Conservatives or Republicans will receive an infraction is, in essence, the exact same thing.
Teia may not (further) be involved in moderating threads that are LGBT-related, but can still influence the rules in such a manner that there is little to no difference between Teia actively moderating the thread with warnings/infractions, and passively moderating the thread by the creation of rules that would result in other mods warning/infracting the same posts.
If any mod from any forum can have input on the rules of a particular subforum (even if they aren't a mod for that forum), then no - I do not believe Teia should be on the moderation team in any forum. Teia cannot control Teia's biases, Teia cannot be impartial. This goes beyond LGBT issues - we all know how Teia feels about freedom of speech (opposes it), race and racism (racism against majority classes is impossible), and life in general.
The person who makes a rule has made no decision as to whether or not someone has broken a rule? Explain how that makes any sense.
Especially when the controversy is over the validity of the rule in the first place.
It's like saying a person who passed a segregation law but never specifically asked anyone to sit in the back of the bus had no part in segregation.
You seem to be suggesting Teia is the only one making the rules... I was under the impression the other two mods and any involved senior staff all had imput. It's awfully hard to push something through by yourself as a mod. I know, I tried in the Mill, and was overruled by my co-Mill Mods.
So what that would suggest is you believe that all of the WCT mods and the Senior staff share Teia's bias. Correct?
Mafia Stats
Kill shot: BB
Issue with my shooting? Please visit my helpdesk and help me learn to aim!
She has the same voice in WCT as she does in Artwork.
She is not involved with any further interpretation of the relevant rules including the sitewide rules currently in place. We have a broad mix of voices and stances in the staff and in the community, all of which are listened to. She does not make any rules by herself.
Wait, now we're back to the mod team? I thought your problem was with Teia!? Shift that goalpost MOAR, please.
Is it so wrong of me to want to see what younger readers wish to say about sensitive issues without having them lambasted? Many of the issues on the chopping block, while definitely deserving of adult and informed discussion, are of great import to the younger people experiencing them.. currently, this website is of no great use to them, as there is no place for them to seek the council of their more mature elders, and I wish to see that changed. Honestly, it seems like having that is worth maybe having the more mature discussion taking place in, oh I dunno, Debate.
I don't know if they share Teia's biases or are just allowing the more extreme voice to dictate where the discourse goes. Either way, it's a problem.
... *Blinks* I'm... Wow. I'm genuinely speechless as to just how childish that outburst was.
No, that's what I want as well. This is why I'm arguing against posts regarding sensitive topics being censored. I'm not sure what you're arguing.
I would point to Teia's first infraction. The one where Teia infracted a post that was made in response to a post Teia made before becoming a mod. Of course, this action was defended by the other mods and admins...but that doesn't change the fact that it was a clear abuse of moderator power. Teia should have stepped back and let another mod handle it to avoid the appearances, at the least, of a conflict of interests.
I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in Teia's ability to be impartial enough to be a mod. Teia's biases are too widespread and run too deep. And I am not the only one who feels this way.
It has already been stated that the other mods would have infracted the same post Teia did that started this ****storm in two moderator help desks and, now, three threads in CI.
It is cleared that the biases are either shared, or Teia's bias is supported by the other staff involved.