I have a bit to get off my chest at the moment, after which I can start writing about my Olde Schoole project!
Why StormBringer is irritated at the moment
Context: The thread in question
My posts don't start until #218. The reason for re-instating the ban is post #281:
Originally Posted by StormBringer
You should keep up with Trouble Tickets.
That took, what, a day?
This is how you act when your topic ban is lifted?
No, that's not going to fly.
Your topic ban is reinstated, you're banned from the d20 forum for good, and you're banned from the forum as a whole for two months.
Don't even try appealing this one - just consider it denied.
Email exchange:
Mine:
I reported all three of these, according to the rules, but an off-hand humourous remark gets me banned again? If you don't mind explaining how my statement was a personal attack of even a fraction of the magnitude of these, I would appreciate it.
Next time, if you really don't want me around, deny the original ban appeal and save everyone some time.
Reply:
I read the thread. You were doling out as much abuse as you were getting. But the difference is that you were coming off of a topic ban, and had just promised to try to avoid problems.
That said - no, this is not a case of not wanting you around. I do want you on the board, but I don't want to be flooded with reports resulting in your arguments over 4e yet again, and I don't want to have to watch every thread you're in because I can't trust you to stay out of trouble.
See you in two months.
This is preposterous.
The job of a forum admin isn't just 'complaint counter'. The instant I returned to posting, there were a guaranteed half dozen reports. I am pretty sure I know exactly who they were, also. I was not engaging in abuse whatsoever, as I said I wouldn't. The reply of "You should keep up with Trouble Tickets." in post #251 can be, at best, described as somewhat sarcastic. However, it is also valid advice; I am not responsible for informing every reader individually of board policy, admin decisions, or anything else that goes on. I am certainly not going to go around on every thread and let people know that I am there, like some kind of sex offender in a new neighborhood. That is exactly what Trouble Tickets is for. The implication of the question is that I am not to be there, when I had only once previously posted in a 4e thread, by my own error. The impetus behind the question isn't that I am abusive to everyone; it's that I "don't play nice with others" - meaning I don't agree with every statement uncritically. I am absolutely not there to make sure everyone gets to enjoy their special snowflake status.
In the half dozen posts I was allowed before the complaints started flooding in, there was no way to determine the level of abuse that potentially was forthcoming on my part. The allegations of abuse where overblown, and the negative impact is hardly clear in any case. In fact, if you check activity logs, I am almost certain that you will find most threads I have participated in have had far more views and responses than those I did not, and that is certainly true for threads where I engaged in debate. This contradicts the reason for my original banning, that I am 'bad for the fourms'. Clearly, more views and posts are good for a fourm. Had the 'abuse' been as horrible as the reports had indicated, there would have been fewer responses, as people would be unwilling to place their emotions in harm's way. Yet, whenever I showed up, the same group seemed to follow me in there. And, undoubtedly, that same group filed nearly all of the complaints.
Clearly, just reporting abusive posts isn't enough. I reported one thread that was a direct personal attack (a clear violation of the stated rules), and two others that were thinly veiled attacks. No action was taken on those. My one and only reply to the personal attack by Mr delRosso (post #237):
Originally Posted by Jim DelRosso
You do know the primary difference between masturbation and actual sex, right? Because that difference is sort of key to understanding what T- was talking about.
"Two things:
1) A game is defined, most usefully in this context, by Mirriam Webster's as "3 a (1): a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other" Role Playing Games offer a bit of a twist, in that the competition isn't against the other players, directly, but against the rules, in part, and the current adventure or situation. In one regard, then, the players can be said to be competing with their own decisions, or at least the consequences of those decisions.
2) Reported."
Nothing remotely abusive there.
Further, the ene repsonse to jensun(post #241), who questioned whether or not I understood terms I was using:
Originally Posted by jensun
Hmm, given I am not registered at therpgsite I hardly see how I am trolling them. I occasionaly pop over to see if there is any interesting discussion there.
As for defaming or libelling you, please, get a grip. Do you even understand what the terms mean.
The middle you exclude would be where you characterise your opponents argument as one dimensional hyperbole.
"Trolling:
3 a: to fish for by trolling b: to fish by trolling in c: to pull through the water in trolling d: to search in or at ; also : prowl intransitive verb
Libel:
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means
And if it isn't too much trouble, as I have saved you some time by defining some terms you appear unfamiliar with, would you kindly point out the exact middle you think I am excluding? I mean, you must have had something in mind, right?"
I even pointed out that the thread they quoted from another forum, taken out of context, was a desperate attempt to impugn my argument in any way possible. Both posts were personal attacks, which were reported, and I made no attempt to reply back in kind. Again, the response can be construed as mildly sarcastic; however, it is still a valid request for clarification. If there were an excluded middle in my post, it should have been a simple matter to quote it. This wasn't even attempted in either case.
In fact, the primary response was to launch personal attacks against me, and I am sure there was plenty of reporting going on in the background as well. It wasn't because I was responding to abuse with further abuse. It is because my posts are a direct affront to the conflation of 'opinion' and 'valid point'. I am no more or less abusive than the vast majority of the people who post. What I am is better at stating and demonstrating a point, pointing out logical inconsistencies in statements, and refuting arguments, often with those same inconsistencies.
Therefore, the exact scenario I discussed with another admin at the time of the original incident - that people are banned based on the number of complaints filed - turns out to be utterly true. What was quoted in the re-banning message is completely insufficient in any reasonable sense as a cause. Others have discussed things every bit as vehemently as I, yet no action of any kind was undertaken. I even pointed out where I was being personally attacked, which was clearly futile on my part.
For a site that prides itself on inclusivity and fairness, there is nothing remotely impartial about the moderation. The only guide to moderation now seems to be their own Rule 0, which has come to be, "Don't hassle the moderation", but is stated as "Our word is law", a statement that only re-inforces an adversarial position. In addition, contrary to posted guidelines ("The appeals process has been discussed in previous posts, but appeals can be directed at one of the Administrators of the site... or via PM, or a new thread may be started in Trouble Tickets."), I'm not able to access Trouble Tickets, which is supposed to be available for comments or appeals, despite banning. No other guideline or rule has even the moderation's pretense of adherence. The only trouble I can't be trusted to remain clear of is the trouble caused by other members. I am not responsible for their inability to contribute meaningfully to a discussion or present valid points in a debate. If you don't want to be flooded with reports, then advise people to stop filing dubious claims. When 'avoiding problems' means 'not participating', my original email response holds true: lifting the original ban was pointless, and underscores the "don't hassle the moderation" interpretation.
However, I am not against any and all forms of moderation. There does need to be someone to keep order on a message board. But there also has to be methods in place to publicly challenge the decisions. Additionally, Administrators and Moderators need to be selected for a set term, and periodically replaced. The standard excuse is that the moderation staff is all volunteer, and they have lots of work. The last time I checked, no other volunteer organization accepts that as a valid reason for adversarial attitudes towards the patrons, nor uneven and unprofessional work. When the 'I am the law' attitude is coupled with a lack of accountability, the only result is a fiefdom, where reasoned discussion is replaced with patronage and ego-stroking. Hardly an environment ameniable for keeping "...the forums friendly and welcoming to as wide a range of users as possible."
Tags: Random Rants
