To be honest about it, the overall feeling amongst the WCT staff is that the users are already not trying to work with us.
How about you and Senori try working with the users of WCT instead of writing us off as a "vocal minority" and ignoring us because of some mythical mass of people who are complaining "in private" while neither you nor Senori can prove they even exist because you both are, essentially, claiming "executive privilege" on them. This is no different than me making some outrageous claim about you and Senori, and then refusing to prove it by claiming many people told me about it in confidence.
Based on participation since this ****storm started in both of your moderator help desks and then turned into not one, but three threads in CI...those who support your changes are very few, and those who oppose your changes are legion and come from all across the political spectrum. I mean...you got me, Fahley, and mystery standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Logic and jedi with all of us telling you this is wrong. And there are more than five of us...I'm just naming the five most likely to not be civil with each other who are joined in arms against these changes.
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.
We have already in so many ways made the rule so much less contentious and so much closer to the status quo and it hasn't given us the slightest bit of thanks here, so the question for me is why bother trying to compromise?
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.
How about you and Senori try working with the users of WCT instead of writing us off as a "vocal minority" and ignoring us
We've given ground. We've removed and changed rules as a result of concerns raised in this subforum. We've done our absolute best to reach a compromise position. And all we've gotten for it is the same treatment we've been getting from the beginning, as if all our efforts have been for naught.
How are we not working with the users? How are we writing you off? Why have our efforts been all but disregarded?
We have already in so many ways made the rule so much less contentious and so much closer to the status quo and it hasn't given us the slightest bit of thanks here, so the question for me is why bother trying to compromise?
So your idea of "compromise" is to only "slightly" modify a perfectly fine rule from the "status quo?"
The standard forum rules are fine for WCT. No spamming, no flaming, no trolling...that pretty much covers everything relevant. Making other stupid rules like "Don't say something that will possibly offend someone else" is just ridiculous, because someone will be offended by something.
There was absolutely no reason to change the rules or add rules to WCT, aside from you and Teia wanting to flex your brand new moderator muscle, supported by this legion of complaints about WCT that you say you can't talk about because you were told them in confidence. And we all know it is a complete cop out, we called you on it, and what did you do?
You threatened us for it. Very mature and a perfect example of moderator material.
We've given ground. We've removed and changed rules as a result of concerns raised in this subforum. We've done our absolute best to reach a compromise position. And all we've gotten for it is the same treatment we've been getting from the beginning, as if all our efforts have been for naught.
How are we not working with the users? How are we writing you off? Why have our efforts been all but disregarded?
This is your idea of "giving ground?"
You've still changed the rules in response to some imaginary complaints you and Senori were told "in private" and refuse to share with the rest of us, and you call it "giving ground" when your remove a couple of your new rules and alter some others to be closer to the original rules?
That is not "giving ground." That is you and Senori panicking and doing damage control after you both got called on the carpet for your abuses. Senori resorted to threats, and now you are trying to act like you're the innocent victim in the situation.
But you and Senori can easily quell this.
Prove that there are complaints. Show them to us. Show us that there are more complaints than there are people fighting your changes. Or remove all your otherwise unwarranted changes from the WCT subforum.
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.
So your idea of "compromise" is to only "slightly" modify a perfectly fine rule from the "status quo?"
The rules are all but identical to the previous ones. Rule 5 is a near verbatim combination of two related rules. Rule 4 is the only one that's really any kind of new, and it's mostly just there to draw the exact line where a thread crosses over from WCT material to Debate material. Given that "WCT is not Debate" was a rallying cry in the previous thread, it seems perfectly logical to codify that difference in a way that can be understood by the users, rather than leaving it to vague moderator judgement.
The standard forum rules are fine for WCT. No spamming, no flaming, no trolling...that pretty much covers everything relevant. Making other stupid rules like "Don't say something that will possibly offend someone else" is just ridiculous, because someone will be offended by something.
With all due respect, I have two points to make about this:
1) There is no rule that says "don't say something that will possibly offend someone else." Again, rule 4 comes closest, but that's not what it says, because that's not what it's about.
2) We've gotten complaint over enforcing the basic forum rules as written, too.
Because it was a relevant data point to "our non-participation has made activity in WCT crater". It's not a relevant data point when what you're asking for is essentially a weighted vote.
First you claimed the problem was that you didn't have time. Now you claim the problem is that it's not relevant. Which is it?
Is it that you have the time to do it when it supports* your case, but not when it might not? That doesn't seem fair, does it?
Also, why is one side allowed to decide the relevance of data? If I and/or other members of the community believe it's relevant, shouldn't that opinion be considered?
* - In your opinion; I would argue that a 20% is actually quite a problem.
Edit: For clarity, there are five distinct questions here. I am kindly requesting an answer to each. Thank you in advance.
Also, why is one side allowed to decide the relevance of data? If I and/or other members of the community believe it's relevant, shouldn't that opinion be considered?
I think it is pretty obvious that this forum has crossed into Animal Farm territory, namely the "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" part of the novel.
The staff (most of them, not all) on these forums are clearly the pigs from Animal Farm, who believe they are better than the rest of us, are more important, and as such their opinions should carry more weight than the rest of us lowly common animals on the farm.
At this point, I truly believe the mods don't care what the users think. Now that precedent has been set that mods can just claim they were told "in private" about some concerns and cannot share those messages with us because they were told "in confidence," they pretty much can just do whatever they please and claim that they have a lot of people supporting them "in private" and refuse to share them with us because the communications are "in confidence."
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.
The rules are all but identical to the previous ones. Rule 5 is a near verbatim combination of two related rules. Rule 4 is the only one that's really any kind of new, and it's mostly just there to draw the exact line where a thread crosses over from WCT material to Debate material. Given that "WCT is not Debate" was a rallying cry in the previous thread, it seems perfectly logical to codify that difference in a way that can be understood by the users, rather than leaving it to vague moderator judgement.
This doesn't make any sense. Rule 3 is the one defining the difference between Debate and WCT. In fact, Rule 4 says absolutely nothing about the Debate forum. It simply says that "some of these [opinions]" aren't welcome. That's actually the definition of vague moderator judgment.
I think it might be helpful if I reiterate, simply and for the record, what the actual changes are in this version of the rules, so that there isn't any misunderstanding. Note that I'm going over my reasons for supporting these changes. Senori's and Frox's may differ.
Rule 5 is the simplest and easiest to explain, so I'll cover it first. It's just a combination of the old plagiarism rule and the old abstract/summary rule, both of which were enforced by Viricide without incident. This was mainly an attempt to tighten the list, rather than introduce any new changes for their own sake. The only reason this even bears mention is the fact that it does not incorporate the proposed and rejected sourcing rule.
Rule 3 is another fairly simple one in my mind. The basic premise is, as many users have said, that WCT is not Debate. There's classically been a problem of overlap between the two subforums, and this is a problem that clearly needed to be addressed. Similarly, there've also been problems with moderators applying professional judgement without clearly-defined rules. Therefore, the solution was to delineate exactly what WCT was and wasn't in relation to Debate. In essence it's the "don't post something if you expect it to become a debate" rule, which does in fact make it a solution to a discrete problem.
Rule 4 is sort of a thematic continuation of rule 3 in that it's meant to prohibit things that become arguments instead of debates. This is a key distinction. A debate thread, in this context, is one where the focal point is to prove and disprove points related to a central issue. An argument, by contrast, would be something where tempers could very easily flare over the subject matter, and which could in turn make some users feel uncomfortable (again, I've heard concerns from LGBT members that the forum feels unwelcoming, although note that unlike Senori I am not making this central to my reasoning). This is a different issue from flaming or trolling since, at the end of the day, those two things are seen as being intentional. Something that breaks rule 4 may well be inadvertent. And in keeping with that, a thread breaking rule 4 would probably not be infracted unless it was particularly egregious. This is absolutely not a rule meant to advance an agenda or to protect specific groups from offense. It's a rule meant to ensure that threads don't descend into arguments and to ensure that users don't feel unsafe or unwelcome, under the logic that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
If Rule 4 is explicitly designed to prevent threads that would be better suited to Debate, why does it not mention Debate at all? Similarly, why is it not included in Rule 3, which is the rule defining what kinds of posts belong in Debate rather than WCT?
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
The rules are all but identical to the previous ones. Rule 5 is a near verbatim combination of two related rules. Rule 4 is the only one that's really any kind of new, and it's mostly just there to draw the exact line where a thread crosses over from WCT material to Debate material. Given that "WCT is not Debate" was a rallying cry in the previous thread, it seems perfectly logical to codify that difference in a way that can be understood by the users, rather than leaving it to vague moderator judgement.
This doesn't make any sense. Rule 3 is the one defining the difference between Debate and WCT. In fact, Rule 4 says absolutely nothing about the Debate forum. It simply says that "some of these [opinions]" aren't welcome. That's actually the definition of vague moderator judgment.
Rule 4 is sort of a thematic continuation of rule 3 in that it's meant to prohibit things that become arguments instead of debates. This is a key distinction. A debate thread, in this context, is one where the focal point is to prove and disprove points related to a central issue. An argument, by contrast, would be something where tempers could very easily flare over the subject matter, and which could in turn make some users feel uncomfortable (again, I've heard concerns from LGBT members that the forum feels unwelcoming, although note that unlike Senori I am not making this central to my reasoning). This is a different issue from flaming or trolling since, at the end of the day, those two things are seen as being intentional. Something that breaks rule 4 may well be inadvertent. And in keeping with that, a thread breaking rule 4 would probably not be infracted unless it was particularly egregious. This is absolutely not a rule meant to advance an agenda or to protect specific groups from offense. It's a rule meant to ensure that threads don't descend into arguments and to ensure that users don't feel unsafe or unwelcome, under the logic that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
If Rule 4 is explicitly designed to prevent threads that would be better suited to Debate, why does it not mention Debate at all? Similarly, why is it not included in Rule 3, which is the rule defining what kinds of posts belong in Debate rather than WCT?
If Rule 4 is explicitly designed to prevent threads that would be better suited to Debate, why does it not mention Debate at all? Similarly, why is it not included in Rule 3, which is the rule defining what kinds of posts belong in Debate rather than WCT?
Thanks for bringing this up. It seems logical that since the two go hand-in-hand that they should probably be combined into one. I guess it was separated because we were going for a type of "bullet point" approach to it at the time, but it would make most sense to put them together.
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
Thanks for bringing this up. It seems logical that since the two go hand-in-hand that they should probably be combined into one. I guess it was separated because we were going for a type of "bullet point" approach to it at the time, but it would make most sense to put them together.
Thank you Frox. Since I see that you're active, could you please address my question on your Helpdesk that you've ignored for more than four days? Thanks in advance.
Brandon gave you reasons already. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at this point, and like many others have lost hope. I'm done.
I restated my positions because I recognize that sifting through hundreds of previous posts may be inconvenient for users. Therefore, I request that the specific reasons for concern over rule 4 be reposted so that we can further this dialogue without impediment or misunderstanding.
Edit: First, I am going to assume that this is the relevant portion:
On the topic at hand, I believe the new rule is disgusting because the concept of making it infraction-worthy to simply hold certain opinions -- regardless of the manner in which those opinions are raised or expressed -- is outrageous. My disgust is only heightened by the fact that this list of infractable opinions is non-public, non-inclusive, and chosen by a non-representative minority group absent any input from the community. That disgusts me.
The new rule is ridiculous because it's either completely inappropriate (see above) or completely unnecessary. Threads that are clearly debates are already against the rules. Trolling is already against the rules. Flaming is already against the rules. Any conceivable situation that would be sufficiently problematic to warrant action under this new rule would already be actionable under the existing rules, unless the goal is to explicitly push the forum toward uniformity and forced coherence with a pre-set agenda.
The rule is unsurprising because the team of Senori, Teia, and Frox have demonstrated flawed thinking, overly zealous moderation, and agenda-driven policies on numerous occasions already. Evidence can be found in a variety of threads both here and among the Helpdesks.
Before anything else, I'd like to point out that the combative tone in this post doesn't help either party. It automatically puts us on the defensive, and it serves to reinforce a negative mood on your part. That said, the basic arguments as I see them are as follows:
- Holding certain opinions being infraction-worthy is bad.
- The list of forbidden positions isn't public.
- It's seen as unnecessary.
- Any conceivable situation warranting action under the new rules could be infracted under the old rules.
To address each in turn, then:
- We aren't policing opinions per se. Someone is free to be racist, to be homophobic, to hold whatever negative opinion they want. They're even free to express this opinion as long as it's kept civil and done in such a manner so as not to be inflammatory. "I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is fine, although we'd naturally watch it in case it became Debate-worthy. "I believe gay people are bad" would not be fine. This does extend the other direction, too. "I believe straight people are bad" would break the rule just as much as its opposite.
- Any attempt to codify an exhaustive list would only serve to invite nitpicking. The spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of it, and the spirit is largely to prevent sweeping negative qualities from being ascribed to any group, not just minority groups or groups I have an interest in.
- My arguments as to its necessity are in my previous post.
- What rule 4 covers isn't traditional flaming or trolling per se. Flaming and trolling are generally seen as intentional attacks or provocations of others. This rule is meant to prohibit posting likely to start an argument (note: distinct from debate) even inadvertently, because once an argument starts, tempers have already flared and the damage has already been done.
Hey, Solaran, want to get a beer and talk this over? I'm hurt reading your posts because I emphatically do not believe that the way you are seeing this situation is the truth, but over the internet there's only so much we can do.
I live in your city, you know.
Serious offer. Contact me via PM if you'd like to arrange it.
Thank you Frox. Since I see that you're active, could you please address my question on your Helpdesk that you've ignored for more than four days? Thanks in advance.
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
The rules are all but identical to the previous ones. Rule 5 is a near verbatim combination of two related rules. Rule 4 is the only one that's really any kind of new, and it's mostly just there to draw the exact line where a thread crosses over from WCT material to Debate material. Given that "WCT is not Debate" was a rallying cry in the previous thread, it seems perfectly logical to codify that difference in a way that can be understood by the users, rather than leaving it to vague moderator judgement.
This doesn't make any sense. Rule 3 is the one defining the difference between Debate and WCT. In fact, Rule 4 says absolutely nothing about the Debate forum. It simply says that "some of these [opinions]" aren't welcome. That's actually the definition of vague moderator judgment.*
Rule 4 is sort of a thematic continuation of rule 3 in that it's meant to prohibit things that become arguments instead of debates. This is a key distinction. A debate thread, in this context, is one where the focal point is to prove and disprove points related to a central issue. An argument, by contrast, would be something where tempers could very easily flare over the subject matter, and which could in turn make some users feel uncomfortable (again, I've heard concerns from LGBT members that the forum feels unwelcoming, although note that unlike Senori I am not making this central to my reasoning). This is a different issue from flaming or trolling since, at the end of the day, those two things are seen as being intentional. Something that breaks rule 4 may well be inadvertent. And in keeping with that, a thread breaking rule 4 would probably not be infracted unless it was particularly egregious. This is absolutely not a rule meant to advance an agenda or to protect specific groups from offense. It's a rule meant to ensure that threads don't descend into arguments and to ensure that users don't feel unsafe or unwelcome, under the logic that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
If Rule 4 is explicitly designed to prevent threads that would be better suited to Debate, why does it not mention Debate at all? Similarly, why is it not included in Rule 3, which is the rule defining what kinds of posts belong in Debate rather than WCT?**
We aren't policing opinions per se. Someone is free to be racist, to be homophobic, to hold whatever negative opinion they want. They're even free to express this opinion as long as it's kept civil and done in such a manner so as not to be inflammatory. "I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is fine, although we'd naturally watch it in case it became Debate-worthy. "I believe gay people are bad" would not be fine. This does extend the other direction, too. "I believe straight people are bad" would break the rule just as much as its opposite.
This is a wonderful point. Unfortunately, this directly contradicts the written language of the rule***, which explicitly defines certain opinions as not welcome in WCT. Please address this discrepancy.
* - To be clear, the implied question is "What is your response to these criticisms, and how do you reconcile what you have claimed with the contradictory facts that I have provided?"
** - Frox has addressed this issue. However, as you made the original point, I would like you to address it.
** - For reference, the rule states: "Remember Where You Are: Water Cooler Talk is meant to be a casual and easy-going place with a rather diverse crowd with quite a lot of opinions. Some of these [opinions] wouldn't be acceptable in such mixed company, such as casual racism, the support of slavery, or other controversial topics that instantly lead to heated words. Please keep these topics out of Water Cooler Talk as they ruin the atmosphere.". Relevant parts are bolded, brackets indicate an editorial addition for clarity.
Unacceptable opinions in mixed company are ones that would almost certainly spark argument and make tempers flare. As such, then, the rule's wording is in fact within its spirit, although if your point is that the wording could be improved, I could get behind that.
As for everything else, refer to the post whereupon I laid out the specific rationales and spirits behind each of the three rules in question. The answers to your questions can all be found in there.
Unacceptable opinions in mixed company are ones that would almost certainly spark argument and make tempers flare. As such, then, the rule's wording is in fact within its spirit, although if your point is that the wording could be improved, I could get behind that.
No, my point is that you have said one thing while the rules say another thing. You said that unpopular opinions could be expressed if they were calm and civil. The rule states that some opinions are not welcome at all. These two are mutually exclusive for certain opinions. Please explain which one is accurate. Your response that "unacceptable opinions would make tempers flare" directly contradicts your earlier statement that unpopular opinions would be allowed if expressed civilly. Please pick one.
As for everything else, refer to the post whereupon I laid out the specific rationales and spirits behind each of the three rules in question. The answers to your questions can all be found in there.
No, they cannot. For clarity, I will enumerate my questions. Please address them individually and specifically. As you requested that we re-post the complaints we had, and as I complied with that request, I will ask you the same courtesy.
1. Your claim that Rule 4 is designed to prevent topics that better belong in Debate is incongruent with the language of the rule. Rule 4 says nothing about debate. There was even an existing rule that defined the different between Debate and WCT. Please address the discrepancy between your claim and the facts that contradict it, or withdraw your claim.
2. If the intent of Rule 4 is to prevent posts that would be better suited to Debate, why does it not mention Debate, and why is its content not included in Rule 3?
3. You claim that unpopular opinions can be expressed if they are calm and civil. Rule 4 states that some opinions are not welcome in WCT. These two are mutually exclusive. Please explain which one is accurate.*
* - Note that this is a restatement of my questions in the top part of this post. I reiterated it for clarity and courtesy.
Brandon, if I may, may I make a suggestion that may help both you with getting your questions answered and the mods in making it easier for them to be able to answer your questions as fully as you may want them to be answered?
Why not take the time to consolidate all of the questions (from anywhere here) that you've made but havent been answered into one large, possibly really large, depending on how many you feel havent been answered, post. Then, give the mods a full 24 hours to respond to your post and all its questions in its entirety. If you feel 24 hours is too much time to be given, then I suppose that would depend on how important it would be for you to have all of your questions answered. Sometimes when there are a bunch of people all posting, asking questions, and demanding responses, it can take time for all of the posts to get responded to. Sometimes the mods may feel that the answer to a question may allready have been covered previously so they may decide not to go and answer the question again. Sometimes, as mentioned when there are a half dozen pages of posts being recorded over a couple hours time, things can be missed, try as they might not to miss something. When the posts are flying at them faster than they could possibly be able to reasonably reply, while also keeping to their normal mod duties and anything else they may have going on otherwise.
In this case Im simply suggesting that organizing ALL of your questions into one post that can be easily referenced from here on out without having to look a bunch of places to find them, would make it easier for them to reply to all of them, and hopefully get the answers that you are seeking so strongly. Otherwise, it would be a matter of having some patience to give them the time to be able to fully respond and cover each and every question that you would be presenting them with.
Once again, this is simply a suggestion, and you all are free to do what you want, but I think this might be more productive than the constant complaint posts that your questions arent being answered, when its clear to me that the mods are at least trying to answer questions as best they can with the many users that have been asking them as they have time to be able to do so.
*If this post comes after something like this has been taken care of, then feel free to ignore it. Im at work and have been putting this post together for a little while now, so forgive me if this has allready been resolved.
No, my point is that you have said one thing while the rules say another thing. You said that unpopular opinions could be expressed if they were calm and civil. The rule states that some opinions are not welcome at all. These two are mutually exclusive for certain opinions. Please explain which one is accurate. Your response that "unacceptable opinions would make tempers flare" directly contradicts your earlier statement that unpopular opinions would be allowed if expressed civilly. Please pick one.
People are free to be racist/homophobic/whatever as long as it's done in a civil manner. That is true. However, as previously explained, there's a difference between "I don't like Chinese people" and "Chinese people are all passive-aggressive." The former is just an opinion. The latter seeks to ascribe a negative quality to an entire group. Similarly, "I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is a far different thing from "gay people are bad." In either case, one's homophobia, racism, etc isn't the underlying problem. It's what they're saying, and to an extent how they say it. If this was unclear originally, then it was unclear.
1. Your claim that Rule 4 is designed to prevent topics that better belong in Debate is incongruent with the language of the rule. Rule 4 says nothing about debate. There was even an existing rule that defined the different between Debate and WCT. Please address the discrepancy between your claim and the facts that contradict it, or withdraw your claim.
This is simply a slight gaffe as I was operating from memory when I made that statement. As this also serves as the answer to question 2, I will proceed directly to question 3.
3. You claim that unpopular opinions can be expressed if they are calm and civil. Rule 4 states that some opinions are not welcome in WCT. These two are mutually exclusive. Please explain which one is accurate.
As above, one simply being racist, homophobic, etc isn't the underlying problem, and expression of this is likewise not inherently problematic as long as it's done in a calm, civil way which isn't likely to spark argument.
The elephant in the room here, which wasn't directly stated by you but was the source of some concern earlier in the thread and is an easy tangent from the above, is that this apparently favours a liberal standpoint over a conservative one. I'd argue that this isn't the case, as conservatism isn't mutually inclusive with homophobia and so forth. In fact, it's easily possible to be a liberal and cross the line with rule 4. Political ideology has nothing to do with it. Now, if one argues that their version of social conservatism is inherently anti-gay or whatever, then that's their own personal ideology at work, but it's not representative of all social conservatism.
People are free to be racist/homophobic/whatever as long as it's done in a civil manner. That is true. However, as previously explained, there's a difference between "I don't like Chinese people" and "Chinese people are all passive-aggressive." The former is just an opinion. The latter seeks to ascribe a negative quality to an entire group. Similarly, "I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is a far different thing from "gay people are bad." In either case, one's homophobia, racism, etc isn't the underlying problem. It's what they're saying, and to an extent how they say it. If this was unclear originally, then it was unclear.
Why does the text of Rule 4 not reflect this explanation?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How about you and Senori try working with the users of WCT instead of writing us off as a "vocal minority" and ignoring us because of some mythical mass of people who are complaining "in private" while neither you nor Senori can prove they even exist because you both are, essentially, claiming "executive privilege" on them. This is no different than me making some outrageous claim about you and Senori, and then refusing to prove it by claiming many people told me about it in confidence.
Based on participation since this ****storm started in both of your moderator help desks and then turned into not one, but three threads in CI...those who support your changes are very few, and those who oppose your changes are legion and come from all across the political spectrum. I mean...you got me, Fahley, and mystery standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Logic and jedi with all of us telling you this is wrong. And there are more than five of us...I'm just naming the five most likely to not be civil with each other who are joined in arms against these changes.
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.
We've given ground. We've removed and changed rules as a result of concerns raised in this subforum. We've done our absolute best to reach a compromise position. And all we've gotten for it is the same treatment we've been getting from the beginning, as if all our efforts have been for naught.
How are we not working with the users? How are we writing you off? Why have our efforts been all but disregarded?
So your idea of "compromise" is to only "slightly" modify a perfectly fine rule from the "status quo?"
The standard forum rules are fine for WCT. No spamming, no flaming, no trolling...that pretty much covers everything relevant. Making other stupid rules like "Don't say something that will possibly offend someone else" is just ridiculous, because someone will be offended by something.
There was absolutely no reason to change the rules or add rules to WCT, aside from you and Teia wanting to flex your brand new moderator muscle, supported by this legion of complaints about WCT that you say you can't talk about because you were told them in confidence. And we all know it is a complete cop out, we called you on it, and what did you do?
You threatened us for it. Very mature and a perfect example of moderator material.
This is your idea of "giving ground?"
You've still changed the rules in response to some imaginary complaints you and Senori were told "in private" and refuse to share with the rest of us, and you call it "giving ground" when your remove a couple of your new rules and alter some others to be closer to the original rules?
That is not "giving ground." That is you and Senori panicking and doing damage control after you both got called on the carpet for your abuses. Senori resorted to threats, and now you are trying to act like you're the innocent victim in the situation.
But you and Senori can easily quell this.
Prove that there are complaints. Show them to us. Show us that there are more complaints than there are people fighting your changes. Or remove all your otherwise unwarranted changes from the WCT subforum.
The rules are all but identical to the previous ones. Rule 5 is a near verbatim combination of two related rules. Rule 4 is the only one that's really any kind of new, and it's mostly just there to draw the exact line where a thread crosses over from WCT material to Debate material. Given that "WCT is not Debate" was a rallying cry in the previous thread, it seems perfectly logical to codify that difference in a way that can be understood by the users, rather than leaving it to vague moderator judgement.
With all due respect, I have two points to make about this:
1) There is no rule that says "don't say something that will possibly offend someone else." Again, rule 4 comes closest, but that's not what it says, because that's not what it's about.
2) We've gotten complaint over enforcing the basic forum rules as written, too.
First you claimed the problem was that you didn't have time. Now you claim the problem is that it's not relevant. Which is it?
Is it that you have the time to do it when it supports* your case, but not when it might not? That doesn't seem fair, does it?
Also, why is one side allowed to decide the relevance of data? If I and/or other members of the community believe it's relevant, shouldn't that opinion be considered?
* - In your opinion; I would argue that a 20% is actually quite a problem.
Edit: For clarity, there are five distinct questions here. I am kindly requesting an answer to each. Thank you in advance.
I think it is pretty obvious that this forum has crossed into Animal Farm territory, namely the "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" part of the novel.
The staff (most of them, not all) on these forums are clearly the pigs from Animal Farm, who believe they are better than the rest of us, are more important, and as such their opinions should carry more weight than the rest of us lowly common animals on the farm.
At this point, I truly believe the mods don't care what the users think. Now that precedent has been set that mods can just claim they were told "in private" about some concerns and cannot share those messages with us because they were told "in confidence," they pretty much can just do whatever they please and claim that they have a lot of people supporting them "in private" and refuse to share them with us because the communications are "in confidence."
This doesn't make any sense. Rule 3 is the one defining the difference between Debate and WCT. In fact, Rule 4 says absolutely nothing about the Debate forum. It simply says that "some of these [opinions]" aren't welcome. That's actually the definition of vague moderator judgment.
Rule 5 is the simplest and easiest to explain, so I'll cover it first. It's just a combination of the old plagiarism rule and the old abstract/summary rule, both of which were enforced by Viricide without incident. This was mainly an attempt to tighten the list, rather than introduce any new changes for their own sake. The only reason this even bears mention is the fact that it does not incorporate the proposed and rejected sourcing rule.
Rule 3 is another fairly simple one in my mind. The basic premise is, as many users have said, that WCT is not Debate. There's classically been a problem of overlap between the two subforums, and this is a problem that clearly needed to be addressed. Similarly, there've also been problems with moderators applying professional judgement without clearly-defined rules. Therefore, the solution was to delineate exactly what WCT was and wasn't in relation to Debate. In essence it's the "don't post something if you expect it to become a debate" rule, which does in fact make it a solution to a discrete problem.
Rule 4 is sort of a thematic continuation of rule 3 in that it's meant to prohibit things that become arguments instead of debates. This is a key distinction. A debate thread, in this context, is one where the focal point is to prove and disprove points related to a central issue. An argument, by contrast, would be something where tempers could very easily flare over the subject matter, and which could in turn make some users feel uncomfortable (again, I've heard concerns from LGBT members that the forum feels unwelcoming, although note that unlike Senori I am not making this central to my reasoning). This is a different issue from flaming or trolling since, at the end of the day, those two things are seen as being intentional. Something that breaks rule 4 may well be inadvertent. And in keeping with that, a thread breaking rule 4 would probably not be infracted unless it was particularly egregious. This is absolutely not a rule meant to advance an agenda or to protect specific groups from offense. It's a rule meant to ensure that threads don't descend into arguments and to ensure that users don't feel unsafe or unwelcome, under the logic that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
For what reasons?
This doesn't make any sense. Rule 3 is the one defining the difference between Debate and WCT. In fact, Rule 4 says absolutely nothing about the Debate forum. It simply says that "some of these [opinions]" aren't welcome. That's actually the definition of vague moderator judgment.
If Rule 4 is explicitly designed to prevent threads that would be better suited to Debate, why does it not mention Debate at all? Similarly, why is it not included in Rule 3, which is the rule defining what kinds of posts belong in Debate rather than WCT?
(Click to enter the Frox Experience)
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
Brandon gave you reasons already. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated at this point, and like many others have lost hope. I'm done.
Thanks to Heroes of the Plane for the awesome Sig.
Currently Playing- EDH
GGGOmnath, Locus of the LifestreamGGG
BBBShirei, Lord of PoniesBBB
UWRasputin Dreamweaver, Russia's Greatest Love MachineUW
UBWZur, Killer of FunUBW
UGWTreva, Princess of CanterlotUGW
RWTajic, Master of the Reverse BladeRW
RRRZirilan, How to Train Your DragonRRR
PDH Decks
Gelectrode
Ascended Lawmage
Blaze Commando
Thank you Frox. Since I see that you're active, could you please address my question on your Helpdesk that you've ignored for more than four days? Thanks in advance.
Thank you. In case anyone doesn't want to go searching, I did this originally in post #40, in addition to my comments to Teia above.
I restated my positions because I recognize that sifting through hundreds of previous posts may be inconvenient for users. Therefore, I request that the specific reasons for concern over rule 4 be reposted so that we can further this dialogue without impediment or misunderstanding.
Edit: First, I am going to assume that this is the relevant portion:
Before anything else, I'd like to point out that the combative tone in this post doesn't help either party. It automatically puts us on the defensive, and it serves to reinforce a negative mood on your part. That said, the basic arguments as I see them are as follows:
- Holding certain opinions being infraction-worthy is bad.
- The list of forbidden positions isn't public.
- It's seen as unnecessary.
- Any conceivable situation warranting action under the new rules could be infracted under the old rules.
To address each in turn, then:
- We aren't policing opinions per se. Someone is free to be racist, to be homophobic, to hold whatever negative opinion they want. They're even free to express this opinion as long as it's kept civil and done in such a manner so as not to be inflammatory. "I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is fine, although we'd naturally watch it in case it became Debate-worthy. "I believe gay people are bad" would not be fine. This does extend the other direction, too. "I believe straight people are bad" would break the rule just as much as its opposite.
- Any attempt to codify an exhaustive list would only serve to invite nitpicking. The spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of it, and the spirit is largely to prevent sweeping negative qualities from being ascribed to any group, not just minority groups or groups I have an interest in.
- My arguments as to its necessity are in my previous post.
- What rule 4 covers isn't traditional flaming or trolling per se. Flaming and trolling are generally seen as intentional attacks or provocations of others. This rule is meant to prohibit posting likely to start an argument (note: distinct from debate) even inadvertently, because once an argument starts, tempers have already flared and the damage has already been done.
I live in your city, you know.
Serious offer. Contact me via PM if you'd like to arrange it.
(Click to enter the Frox Experience)
About Frox: for nearly 10 years, Frox has been helping women look good and feel great in easy-fit, mix-and-match, and work-to-weekend with just a few pieces by helping them make the right choices when it comes to clothing and accessories.
This is a wonderful point. Unfortunately, this directly contradicts the written language of the rule***, which explicitly defines certain opinions as not welcome in WCT. Please address this discrepancy.
* - To be clear, the implied question is "What is your response to these criticisms, and how do you reconcile what you have claimed with the contradictory facts that I have provided?"
** - Frox has addressed this issue. However, as you made the original point, I would like you to address it.
** - For reference, the rule states: "Remember Where You Are: Water Cooler Talk is meant to be a casual and easy-going place with a rather diverse crowd with quite a lot of opinions. Some of these [opinions] wouldn't be acceptable in such mixed company, such as casual racism, the support of slavery, or other controversial topics that instantly lead to heated words. Please keep these topics out of Water Cooler Talk as they ruin the atmosphere.". Relevant parts are bolded, brackets indicate an editorial addition for clarity.
As for everything else, refer to the post whereupon I laid out the specific rationales and spirits behind each of the three rules in question. The answers to your questions can all be found in there.
No, they cannot. For clarity, I will enumerate my questions. Please address them individually and specifically. As you requested that we re-post the complaints we had, and as I complied with that request, I will ask you the same courtesy.
* - Note that this is a restatement of my questions in the top part of this post. I reiterated it for clarity and courtesy.
Why not take the time to consolidate all of the questions (from anywhere here) that you've made but havent been answered into one large, possibly really large, depending on how many you feel havent been answered, post. Then, give the mods a full 24 hours to respond to your post and all its questions in its entirety. If you feel 24 hours is too much time to be given, then I suppose that would depend on how important it would be for you to have all of your questions answered. Sometimes when there are a bunch of people all posting, asking questions, and demanding responses, it can take time for all of the posts to get responded to. Sometimes the mods may feel that the answer to a question may allready have been covered previously so they may decide not to go and answer the question again. Sometimes, as mentioned when there are a half dozen pages of posts being recorded over a couple hours time, things can be missed, try as they might not to miss something. When the posts are flying at them faster than they could possibly be able to reasonably reply, while also keeping to their normal mod duties and anything else they may have going on otherwise.
In this case Im simply suggesting that organizing ALL of your questions into one post that can be easily referenced from here on out without having to look a bunch of places to find them, would make it easier for them to reply to all of them, and hopefully get the answers that you are seeking so strongly. Otherwise, it would be a matter of having some patience to give them the time to be able to fully respond and cover each and every question that you would be presenting them with.
Once again, this is simply a suggestion, and you all are free to do what you want, but I think this might be more productive than the constant complaint posts that your questions arent being answered, when its clear to me that the mods are at least trying to answer questions as best they can with the many users that have been asking them as they have time to be able to do so.
*If this post comes after something like this has been taken care of, then feel free to ignore it. Im at work and have been putting this post together for a little while now, so forgive me if this has allready been resolved.
People are free to be racist/homophobic/whatever as long as it's done in a civil manner. That is true. However, as previously explained, there's a difference between "I don't like Chinese people" and "Chinese people are all passive-aggressive." The former is just an opinion. The latter seeks to ascribe a negative quality to an entire group. Similarly, "I believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman" is a far different thing from "gay people are bad." In either case, one's homophobia, racism, etc isn't the underlying problem. It's what they're saying, and to an extent how they say it. If this was unclear originally, then it was unclear.
This is simply a slight gaffe as I was operating from memory when I made that statement. As this also serves as the answer to question 2, I will proceed directly to question 3.
As above, one simply being racist, homophobic, etc isn't the underlying problem, and expression of this is likewise not inherently problematic as long as it's done in a calm, civil way which isn't likely to spark argument.
The elephant in the room here, which wasn't directly stated by you but was the source of some concern earlier in the thread and is an easy tangent from the above, is that this apparently favours a liberal standpoint over a conservative one. I'd argue that this isn't the case, as conservatism isn't mutually inclusive with homophobia and so forth. In fact, it's easily possible to be a liberal and cross the line with rule 4. Political ideology has nothing to do with it. Now, if one argues that their version of social conservatism is inherently anti-gay or whatever, then that's their own personal ideology at work, but it's not representative of all social conservatism.
Why does the text of Rule 4 not reflect this explanation?