Forum Moderation Feedback

[Alene]

I think it's worth mentioning that there was more going on in that "art" picture than just nudity: the men were having sex with each other.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

I think it's worth mentioning that there was more going on in that "art" picture than just nudity: the men were having sex with each other.

Pretty much this.  The artistic value was lost due to lack of context pointed out by Goker and the lewd nature pointed out by Alene.  Unfortunately in this instance, you rant doesn't hold water.

Also someone doesn't have to be offended by something they deem inappropriate, generally speaking. 

 

[Untitled.]

I think it would be fairly easy to make an argument that the post was satirical in nature and thus falls under the artistic category. For an example of artistic nudity that hasn't been banned see Adorno's avatar or whatever renaissance art has been posted over the years.

However, I also think images that are explicitly sexual in nature (e.g. portraying visible intercourse, such as the picture in question) are things that should be posted with a great deal of consideration. I'm not sure if there is any associated health risk to children seeing porn. I walked in on my parents when I was like four years old and I grew up to become incapable of being a normal part of society, so I guess there's that.

Anyway, to the purpose of my post: how should we know how heavy-handedly we will be punished for breaking the rules? It appears to me that a lot of the time when warnings/mutes are handed out the perpetrator believes they did nothing wrong, except in very clear-cut situations. To clarify: why was Urgrevling muted instead of banned? Isn't he one of those people who gets a single warning in like 3 years or something, and he has IIRC never been warned for breaking this particular rule. I was under the impression that most of the time regulars will get warnings for minor transgressions unless they break the rules again. Or was this instance considered a serious offense?
If there are other criteria for deciding the gravity of a punishment, are they available for users to read somewhere or should we just expect the Spanish inquisition?

 

[Age of Empires ¶ Densetsu]

I'm sure it's slightly dependant on who's doing the punishing. Some people are less strict than others.

 

[Austupaio]

Well, the moderators had to literally clean up scat porn some time ago. I'm sure none of us are actually offended by a bit of nudeness but rules need enforcing, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. I'm sure the existence of such a rule isn't unexpected when you consider the goals behind the existence of the forums.

Where the hell did that happen? I can't even think of who would post scat in the Anachronist's.

I think it's worth mentioning that there was more going on in that "art" picture than just nudity: the men were having sex with each other.

Pretty much this.  The artistic value was lost due to lack of context pointed out by Goker and the lewd nature pointed out by Alene.  Unfortunately in this instance, you rant doesn't hold water.

This may be a shock to you, but there's art from all cultures and eras depicting sex. Usually referring to another culture's art as "art" because you don't appreciate it would be considered rude or even prejudiced.
Also
>one post
>rant

 

[Evelyn]

Where the hell did that happen? I can't even think of who would post scat in the Anachronist's.

The scatposter was mostly in the on-topic sections IIRC, but it did happen.

 

[Lord Brutus]

Basically correct.  Scat poster was Rempica, who posted only in the Guildhall.  After posting images was blocked, he began posting porn stories, often across multiple threads.

 

[Austupaio]

I suspected as much, so why is the Anachronist's being judged based on what the idiots in On-Topic do?

 

[Lord Brutus]

I suspected as much, so why is the Anachronist's being judged based on what the idiots in On-Topic do?

That is a leap in logic that probably will not stand scrutiny.

 

[Austupaio]

This whole discussion has been about a post buried in Fun Stuff.

 

[Lord Brutus]

I can't speak for the current moderators but IMO Fun Stuff = Guildhall.  There are no special snowflakes.

 

[Austupaio]

I didn't say that we were special snowflakes, but if you can't recognize a difference between spamming trolls and regular posters, there's probably a reason people complain about half the mutes.

 

[Lord Brutus]

I blame faulty assumptions based on a false sense of entitlement.  Bye-bye.

 

[Austupaio]

I blame faulty reading comprehension based on a false sense of arrogance. Bye-bye.

 

[Almalexia]

I blame faulty assumptions based on a false sense of entitlement.  Bye-bye.

I blame your rampant senility, OLD MAN. 

 

[Janus]

I didn't say that we were special snowflakes, but if you can't recognize a difference between spamming trolls and regular posters, there's probably a reason people complain about half the mutes.

Nobody should expect special treatment or to be considered above certain rules. This goes both ways; people who consider themselves as "forum regulars" shouldn't expect to be given a pass for breaking or skirting the rules, but also people who are considered annoying or undesirable by subsets of the forum population (such as the aforementioned "forum regulars") will not get harsher judgment just because they are disliked. Simple.
What we do actually consider are the severity of what they've done that breaks the rules, along with the user's previous warning history.

And as Brutus pointed out, the Off-Topic boards are still under the same rules as the rest of the forum.

Having seen the image in question, I think the mute should have been entirely expected.

 

[Mad_Dawg]

Anyway, to the purpose of my post: how should we know how heavy-handedly we will be punished for breaking the rules? It appears to me that a lot of the time when warnings/mutes are handed out the perpetrator believes they did nothing wrong, except in very clear-cut situations. To clarify: why was Urgrevling muted instead of banned? Isn't he one of those people who gets a single warning in like 3 years or something, and he has IIRC never been warned for breaking this particular rule. I was under the impression that most of the time regulars will get warnings for minor transgressions unless they break the rules again. Or was this instance considered a serious offense?
If there are other criteria for deciding the gravity of a punishment, are they available for users to read somewhere or should we just expect the Spanish inquisition?

I'm going to assume you mean why wasn't he warned instead of banned?  I'd like to think that if there is a red sash hanging from a lance in your profile you've been around long enough to realize what is and is not ok and really lack an excuse for your actions.  Expecting less punishment or special treatment in the case of a purposeful ignoring of the rules is rather backwards, imo.

This may be a shock to you, but there's art from all cultures and eras depicting sex. Usually referring to another culture's art as "art" because you don't appreciate it would be considered rude or even prejudiced.
Also
>one post
>rant

There are cultures and people different than my current life experience?!  I'm shocked!  Don't pop my paradigm bubble. 
The point is not whether the picture in the post "is art".  The point is it was not presented as art for critique or comment in an appropriate way or thread, as point out by Goker, and the lewd nature of the painting pushed it past the boundaries of letting it slide as simple nudity...as pointed out by Alene. 

I will say in general more work is put into the context and situation of a report to attempt to make a proper judgement than I feel many people realize and more reports are let slide as the benefit of the doubt than most realize.  There is actual "work" that goes into this moderation thing. 

 

[Austupaio]

At literally no point did I say anyone was above the rules - I asked why when discussing posts and threads in the Anachronist's and their tendencies, a troll from On-Topic was used as an example. Really, it goes beyond 'regulars' and 'unpopular people'. A person posting scat porn in random threads is not a poster, that is a spammer which is only a level above a bot. You guys are so caught up in dispelling Off-Topic's cliques you're not even understanding what I am saying.

Having seen the image in question, I think the mute should have been entirely expected.

I disagree, as worse offenses in the past have received only warnings. Whether a user receives a mute or a warning is completely unpredictable. What's the point of having warnings if you will not use them to warn people off unusual behavior? It's not like Urgrevling makes a habit of posting NSFW material, unless I'm gravely mistaken.

Expecting less punishment or special treatment in the case of a purposeful ignoring of the rules is rather backwards, imo.

Here we go with special treatment again. You guys are as bad as the Falkners that come through for a month for a two at a time.

more reports are let slide as the benefit of the doubt than most realize. There is actual "work" that goes into this moderation thing.

Believe me, I have an idea as to how many reports have been let slide over the years. As for the actual work, yeah right. Warnings and mutes have been proven to be BS several times in the past, which is why the threads had to be shuffled around so that we're posting somewhere completely new now. I will at least thank you guys, sincerely, for allowing me to argue here though. There was a time when I've would have been told to piss off and been muted in turn. Even if I am getting a ton of snark for making legitimate points, including from people who aren't even moderators anymore.


Edit: Also, consider letting Goker make his own response? Without all the other unnecessary input, I find it unlikely this would have stretched beyond a couple of posts - where I'm certain we would have come to an understanding because Goker is a pretty reasonable guy.

 

[Untitled.]

I'm going to assume you mean why wasn't he warned instead of banned? Expecting less punishment or special treatment in the case of a purposeful ignoring of the rules is rather backwards, imo.

You misunderstand. As one of the authorities mentioned here, I thought an individual's earlier warning history had something to do with the severity of a punishment. If the person being punished is one who behaves very well most of the time, then one would imagine that the punishment would not be Draconian in nature (I realize the punishment in this case could have been worse, yes). I am however not suggesting that the user get a lesser punishment just because they visit regularly.

I'd like to think that if there is a red sash hanging from a lance in your profile you've been around long enough to realize what is and is not ok and really lack an excuse for your actions.

As Aust said, there is a lot of inconsistency in the moderation, which is understandable, but it does diminish the ability of the userbase to predict what kind of punishment goes with a specific kind of transgression.

Not to mention that when a lot of the sash-wearing people registered, members got banned on the whims of individuals with power. The way the forum deals with stuff like this is wildly different from before, and I would argue that it is for the better, but if you look at a timespan of ten years, the inconsistencies are even greater.



1 new post

 

[Austupaio]

It doesn't actually matter to this conversation in particular, but yeah I didn't realize how new some of these mods are. You guys really can't talk about consistency or predictability. To clarify, I am not saying it affects your judgment or that anybody has or should have any special privileges, just that it's a different perspective.