Moderator Abuse...again

[Magi]

I doubt Durf is autistic. Provide proof please, or I won't believe it! I will give you instructions as to how to prove it.

Proof? Read his posts, nuff said

[Phytotron]

Durf has a voice and it should be heard.

No. F*ck this guy. Get him out of this community. Seriously.

I think there should be some sort of "click to see original post" button. Why shouldn't I be allowed to read it?

Agreed. There's no legitimate reason you shouldn't, if you want. Cleaning up such trash enables casual readers to read casually. But if you want to see the original, at least in this case, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to.

Disagree. Clean it up. Allowing prohibited/sanctioned content to remain, you may as well have not done anything. You know who most supports that? The people posting that stuff. It's just as bad as locking a thread while giving the offending party the last word. There's no discouragement to future offenses at that point, as they know they'll be able to get away with it, with everything they originally said still visible, each and every time in the future. What's the point then? Doesn't even qualify as a slap on the wrist. It's like a cop seeing some kid spraying horrible graffiti and just standing there saying, "hey, that's naughty" while it carries on and remains up there. Well, gee, thanks for protecting and serving our community there.

There are plenty of toxic waste forums all over the web where deranged assholes can post any and all the excrement they can imagine with impunity. There's no reason, no (disingenuous) lofty appeal to "freedom of speech," that this forum should appeal or acquiesce to that element. No reason we can't or shouldn't carve out our own community standards and enforce those.

[Lucifer]

Trolling, by definition, is something along the lines of "trying to piss someone off". Ironically, I think the "rule":

7. "It was meant to be funny" is no valid excuse, unless the moderators think it was funny. Do you want to take your chances with that?

Most accurately describes when it is crossing the line. If I personally think it's funny (and not too degrading), then I'm okay with it.

I always read that one as specifically targetting bullies and other excessively aggressive people. You know, the kind who pick on others while hiding behind jokes. "Oh, we're just having a little bit of fun!" You know, that sort of thing.

If a joke simply misfires, there's no reason for a moderator to get involved, the community generally responds to that sort of thing quickly. And it's perfectly ok to tell a joke and have it misfire. Trust me, that happens a lot with me (I often look at my non-laughing wife and potentially offended kid(s) and say "That was a lot funnier in my head").

Maybe something along the lines of "can they take it?"

There, I removed the sexism and left the idiom intact. See how easy that was?

Um, there was a post of Vogue's I edited that Durf objected to me editing that clearly falls under this statement. I knew damn well Vogue would get a laugh out of it, or at the very least not be offended.

If you know that they're capable of joking back with you about it, go for it; if you know they're not going to get butthurt about it, it's not as fun (ah, well), but you save yourself from these kinds of topics.

Again, still depends on the situation. It's not fun to make a joke about/involving someone knowing they'll feel hurt and that the joke is inherently hurtful. It can be quite rewarding to make a joke that's on the line and to have the person involved be quite entertained, but it's often not worth the risk. I guess that depends on the joke.

Whatever else can be said about my edit log message that spawned this thread, it wasn't inherently hurtful. In fact, had I written something like "This guy failed his speech class", Durf would probably have just passed it right up. The reason I don't think it was inherently hurtful is because I think the edits made clearly show that the post needed moderator attention. Had I done it as a prank, then my edit log message might cross over into inherently hurtful.

Eh, maybe not.

I obviously spend too much time thinking about jokes. But I did run into Phil Collins the other day. It was very weird.

[Z-Man]

@Z-man: Can you transparently give us all a sort of painted picture as to why this situation still exists? Can you shed some insight into our community about what is being done to prevent this in the future, as well as take care of this particular case? Many people have expressed displeasure, and I prefer having Sinewav and Phytotron around.

Well, dunno what you mean by transparently here, but from my point of view, the situation still exists because Durf does not know when to shut up and can't ever, ever admit he was wrong. (Convict is wrong, of course. Every normal person can admit when they have been wrong.) And because he does not accept who runs this place.
As for the future, I guess we will define an appeals process with a definite end. One of Durfs complaints was that we did not follow proper procedure. That is only 25% right; we do not have a properly defined procedure right now. But we did follow the common sense procedure of escalating an issue to the next higher authority. If you're unhappy with the service at a store, you ask to see the supervisor or manager. Here, if you're unhappy with a moderator, you go to the forum admin (Tank). That happened. If you are unhappy with that, you go to the triumvirate. That also happened. But then, there were two problems: first, two of the three triumvirate members were already previously involved. It was a theoretical problem because the actual decision was unanimous, but we can do better. The more serious problem is that he was then still unhappy and would not shut up about it. Even without the defined procedure, we could have done better, we should have right away pointed at the bit you sign off when you sign up telling you that you agree to us being allowed to moderate you whenever and however we please. We didn't because a) I had totally forgotten about it and b) it's a bit of a dick move. Anyway, for the future:
1. I think we should, for the final instance, allow the offended user to select alternative judges. Must be moderators or other "officials", though.
2. Put a cap on how much protest is tolerated after the final instance. I'm thinking one thread, one post only.

Now, of course, even with those implemented, Durf would still have been unhappy about the decision in the end. So I don't think all that much would have changed.

The guidelines as recently linked to by Z-man, as far as I'm concerned, do a fine job of establishing reasonable expectations, especially when paired with the ongoing (as in: it will never be a closed thread) thread about what to expect from your moderators. While this place isn't a democracy, it's also a solid free speech zone.

Err. Free speech zone within reasonable limits.

Convict: I did forward your message. You even have seen me forward the message, I also sent it to you. You should have seen it in your inbox, addressed Tank and yourself.

[Titanoboa]

If I start attacking you, Durf, and claim that you're unfit to use these forums and try to get rid of you (for the well-being of these forums, of course), would you see that as acceptable behaviour?
You say Lucifer and Z-man are unfit to moderate these forums, you're doing your uttermost to get rid of them and the list of insults towards them is ever growing. And this is acceptable, why exactly? And without trying to put words into your mouth, I'm going to assume it's because they have been violating your right to use these forums and express yourself in whichever manner you see fit.
But wait, as little as it is mine or anyone else's, it's not your right to use these forums; it's a privilege. They, however, have every right to regulate the users on here as they see fit, as is their privilege granted by the owner. He can take that away from them whenever he wants to, too, but he hasn't.

Plus, the current system is fine. If Lucifer and Z-man did such a horrible job all the time, we wouldn't just bend over and take it. We'd let them know, and something would happen about it. Either we'd all eventually stop coming here, or they would adjust. Lucifer might have made mistakes, but none of them are unforgivable. So, I'm sorry to say it... and, mind you, this is coming from a Christian... but Lucifer is really the lesser of two evils here.

You're causing a communal headache here. I might have been wrong to accuse you of doing it on purpose, but will you please get over yourself and stop it?


**note: I wrote this post right away after reading the first post as not to get derailed by the rest of the posts before I could write down my thoughts, but then proceeded to read the entire thread before submitting. At times, I may be repeating what others have said, but maybe that's not such a bad thing in this case.**

[Phytotron]

I always read that one as specifically targetting bullies and other excessively aggressive people. You know, the kind who pick on others while hiding behind jokes. "Oh, we're just having a little bit of fun!" You know, that sort of thing.

Yep. Understanding the context of the kind of crap that was going on at the time, which provoked those rules, lends credence to that interpretation.

But I would agree with Ratchet that the term "trolling" particularly refers to actions that are a) in some way malicious, having ill-intent, even if it's couched in supposed jokes and "lulz" (a term itself that implies inherent maliciousness, I believe), and 2) for the purpose of eliciting a negative reaction for its own sake.

If what someone is doing or saying is truly, sincerely, in basically good-natured and mutual fun, then there's already another term for that: teasing. (Or yanking a chain, ribbing, etc..) And sure, teasing can sometimes walk a tightrope/fine line, and occasionally overstep it. But the result doesn't define the intent in those cases.

The difference is between the person who sincerely says, "oh shit, sorry, didn't mean it that way / to upset you" and the person who says "lol why u mad fgt itz just a joke grow a thicker skin i didnt do nething wrong."

[Lucifer]

@Z-man: Can you transparently give us all a sort of painted picture as to why this situation still exists? Can you shed some insight into our community about what is being done to prevent this in the future, as well as take care of this particular case? Many people have expressed displeasure, and I prefer having Sinewav and Phytotron around.

Well, dunno what you mean by transparently here, but from my point of view, the situation still exists because Durf does not know when to shut up and can't ever, ever admit he was wrong. (Convict is wrong, of course. Every normal person can admit when they have been wrong.) And because he does not accept who runs this place.

Heh, now I can chime in here.

When you mentioned the threat to "exposing hypocrisy" via publishing PMs, the entire reason I said it might be worth doing was to give Durf enough rope with which to hang himself. I believe that milestone has been reached, so after you've found the time to write the other answers in the other thread, and a suitable period of having it unlocked for more discussion, I believe the next milestone is going to be figuring out what to do with him.

As for the future, I guess we will define an appeals process with a definite end. One of Durfs complaints was that we did not follow proper procedure. That is only 25% right; we do not have a properly defined procedure right now.

I'm not convinced we need a properly defined procedure other than what we already have, which is "talk to another mod, or escalate to Tank". By my count, we've had only one user who seemed to have difficulty with this, and his difficulty is that y'all didn't take his side.

However, I won't resist coming up with one, and will actively participate in doing so.

I would caution about it, though. Anybody else would have shrugged off the 24-hour ban, maybe had an argument thread about it after it expired, and moved on, and that's assuming I still ended the event with the same position I ended it with (meaning: Durf might have gotten a partial apology if he hadn't turned around and proved to the world that my hasty actions were righter than they appeared at the time). Considering the cost to everybody but Durf of the 24-hour ban, putting in a properly defined procedure for appeals (particularly if it has to meet Durf's standards) could lead to a chilling effect for moderators, or the abuse of the procedure to retaliate against the ban (you know, by wasting more than 24 hours each for the other people required by the procedure).

[Amaso]

If only you mother ******* could code this much tron might not be so dead.

[Vogue]

I doubt Durf is autistic. Provide proof please, or I won't believe it! I will give you instructions as to how to prove it.

Proof? Read his posts, nuff said

it was a parody on "ur not rly a grill" goddamnit magi

[Vogue]

If only you mother ******* could code this much tron might not be so dead.

Tron is "dead" because people who've played this game for years are getting tired of it and won't play as much, people move away to other games and there aren't enough new players to fill the gap. Seriously, the developers don't owe you anything.. learn to code and contribute.

[ConVicT]

Convict: I did forward your message. You even have seen me forward the message, I also sent it to you. You should have seen it in your inbox, addressed Tank and yourself.

I just cleared my inbox last week, so I couldn't even check.
I don't recall that message though, I can only remember a message from you telling me you would forward it.

Doesn't matter now anyway, I started using this name in-game again, to try and help the game become more active. Maybe if people see familiar names, they might play again.

[Lucifer]

I doubt Durf is autistic. Provide proof please, or I won't believe it! I will give you instructions as to how to prove it.

Proof? Read his posts, nuff said

it was a parody on "ur not rly a grill" goddamnit magi

I laughed out loud over it.

[Venijn]

it was a parody on "ur not rly a grill" goddamnit magi

I laughed out loud over it.

Me too. Goddamnit Magi!

Also agreed with Vogue's other post above.

[Amaso]

If only you mother ******* could code this much tron might not be so dead.

Tron is "dead" because people who've played this game for years are getting tired of it and won't play as much, people move away to other games and there aren't enough new players to fill the gap. Seriously, the developers don't owe you anything.. learn to code and contribute.

I'd rather sit back and laugh at you peasants

[Vogue]

If only you mother ******* could code this much tron might not be so dead.

Tron is "dead" because people who've played this game for years are getting tired of it and won't play as much, people move away to other games and there aren't enough new players to fill the gap. Seriously, the developers don't owe you anything.. learn to code and contribute.

I'd rather sit back and laugh at you peasants

Like the time you came on TS to "troll" but got too scared to actually speak and made your friend rap battle us instead? 2cool bruh, and to keep the sexism alive, grow a pair and use your voice next time.

PS: The rap battle actually happened, I'm being serious.