|
Stephenls posted:Oh, I’ll give you that the situation was a disaster. That was like my least favorite month of the last five years. Your immediate handling was, as noted, adequate. The fact that you've made no policy changes that aren't secret is a disaster. The fact that you all seemed to be much more interested in protecting the honor of big purple instead of explaining what's changed is a disaster.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
counterspin posted:Your immediate handling was, as noted, adequate. The fact that you've made no policy changes that aren't secret is a disaster. The fact that you all seemed to be much more interested in protecting the honor of big purple instead of explaining what's changed is a disaster. What precisely were the public policy changes that occurred here on SA when some of our mods had either stepped down or were removed due to this or that scandal? I think getting informed about this would be valuable for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Write me a better Rule 2 and I'll change it. I've already criticized your rules as opaque, so I hope you understand that I can't actually know exactly what you guys consider rule-breaking, but in terms of rough guidelines, this: quote:Do not make attacks against other gamers. Challenging arguments and ideas is fine, but not attacking the people holding them. This includes attacks on an individual poster, or groups that any reasonable person would understand includes fellow RPGnetters. Gaming industry professionals are assumed to be users of the site for this purpose. Racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic posts will not be tolerated. Support of Gamergate, Stormfront or any other hate group is not tolerated and will result in banning. Could read something like: quote:Do not make attacks against other gamers, gaming industry professionals, or any group that could reasonably include your fellow RPGnetters. Racism, fascism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia will not be tolerated and may result in a summary ban. This rule is not meant to prevent you from challenging another poster's ideas or argument, but such challenges must be made without personal attacks. The following is a non-exhaustive list of unacceptable behaviour: Perhaps a bit lengthy, but it's also the rule like 90% of your non-sockpuppet infractions are about so it's pretty important. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:You're missing the point. The handling was adequate. But even if it had been exemplary, it would still be a cause for major review of policy. How about this? Go over our heads. Seriously, I'm not being snarky at all. As I've said, a lot of this is out of the capacity of us, as volunteers, to address to everyone's satisfaction. Send an e-mail to the site's owner. (shannona@skotos.net) Tell him your concern, and your proposal - suggest that he impose a new policy on us, or call in a third party if he has the resources to do so. He has the final say here, and we'll go along with his decisions, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I've already criticized your rules as opaque, so I hope you understand that I can't actually know exactly what you guys consider rule-breaking, but in terms of rough guidelines, this: Mind if I repost that for the other mods to look over?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Mind if I repost that for the other mods to look over? Go ahead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:This rule is meant to prevent you from challenging another poster's ideas or argument, but such challenges must be made without personal attacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
Of all the Rule 2 interpretations the rule against describing a game industry professional's actions as unprofessional is the one I bemoan the most. It is a term entirely fitting, say, GMS's Far West debacle. And giving industry professionals this protected status means that stories that are clearly in the public interest become difficult to discuss on an important forum for the hobby. I get that there's a big overlap between RPG.net users and industry professionals, and it wants to be friendly to those professionals. But the friendliness has hit a point where RPG.net is compromised as a result. The moderation policy serves the interests of professionals above that of customers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 12:07
|
|
|
Wait, so I couldn't go to RPG.net and state that my opinion is that Matt MacFarland's conduct in moderating a thread about his own game to shut down conversation - an incredibly crystal clear conflict of interest - was unprofessional without being censured, because he's a game dev? Even leaving aside the rest of his grossly unprofessional conduct? That is a terrible rule.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
You literally can't say "XYZ was unprofessional behavior", because that counts as a personal attack? Can anyone explain why that isn't exactly as fuckwitted as it sounds?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Allowing game developers to moderate places where their games may be discussed critically is a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
Serf posted:Allowing game developers to moderate places where their games may be discussed critically is a mistake. Also, the bit when someone said 'I was scared of the moderators, even though I have done nothing wrong,' a few posts ago. That seems like an environment that would not foster good, open and honest discussion if everyone has to be on their best behaviour like it's a loving regency garden party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Write me a better Rule 2 and I'll change it. Are you serious that if the thread comes up with a better rule you can change it? You don’t have to get permission from the rest of the admins or Skotos?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Serf posted:Allowing game developers to moderate places where their games may be discussed critically is a mistake. It's a reason why I can't make a F&F of Breakfast Cult
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Are you serious that if the thread comes up with a better rule you can change it? You don’t have to get permission from the rest of the admins or Skotos? No, but I'll certainly pass it along and say "here's something we should consider doing" and push for change. Edit: I've done this for a few things from this thread already. I think a blanket "never moderate a thread on any game you've ever worked on" is a slam-dunk rule we should have had written out formally for years, and I think a more proactive explanation of how to handle harassment claims - and an avenue for handling them - is also an obvious change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You literally can't say "XYZ was unprofessional behavior", because that counts as a personal attack? Yeah that’s why we all post here and not there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
Cessna posted:No, but I'll certainly pass it along and say "here's something we should consider doing" and push for change. Not only should it have been a rule, it should have been an automatic demodding the second it first happened. It's such a blatantly obvious conflict of interest that it is inherently inconsistent with the trust placed in moderation staff on an ongoing basis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Cessna posted:No, but I'll certainly pass it along and say "here's something we should consider doing" and push for change. Among other conflicts of interest, yes. Frex, Matt's wife is still a mod, and that's a helluva COI when it comes to talking about Matt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Also everybody over there really, really needs to understand that neither 1) an accusation of wrongdoing or 2) criticism taken personally constitutes a personal attack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
moths posted:Also everybody over there really, really needs to understand that neither 1) an accusation of wrongdoing or 2) criticism taken personally constitutes a personal attack. This is honestly the biggest issue, any criticism has to be done with five layers of eggshells around it because all it takes is someone taking it personally to turn 'I don't think this is a good idea and you seem to be handling it the wrong way' into 'a personal attack'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Cessna posted:Edit: I've done this for a few things from this thread already. I think a blanket "never moderate a thread on any game you've ever worked on" is a slam-dunk rule we should have had written out formally for years, and I think a more proactive explanation of how to handle harassment claims - and an avenue for handling them - is also an obvious change. The guiding principle should be that not only must you avoid conflicts of interest, but you must also avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. Even if Designer A's feelings about Game 2 in the above example are as objective and fair as they could possibly be, it still looks dodgy as hell. moths posted:Also everybody over there really, really needs to understand that neither 1) an accusation of wrongdoing or 2) criticism taken personally constitutes a personal attack. It seems to be generally understood that arguing against an idea is legit. Fine. It also seems to be understood that attacking someone's personal characteristics and identity is out of bounds. Wonderful, fantastic, great job. Somehow the hazy middle ground seems to be when it comes to someone's actions, and it seems like the idea has taken root that condemning someone's actions is too close to a personal attack. Which is nonsense. As for criticising people's work, there's some pretty serious double standards going on there to be honest. People are allowed to rag on FATAL to an extent that they'd never be allowed to on, say, a particularly controversial Exalted product.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
(...in retrospect, this policy does explain the thing that Changeling 20th seems to have going where it regards criticism of art as being a force of Banality - rather than, as I'd characterise it, a sword and shield against the creeping forces of Banality, slapping down the mediocre so that works of genuine Glamour and merit can shine forth without being overgrown by weeds or crowded out by bandwagon-hoppers.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Warthur posted:I'd extend that to "any game by a publisher you're currently doing work for", to be honest. Because even if Designer A only works on Game 1 and never touches Game 2, if Publisher X publishes both games and pays Designer A for their work on Game 1 it looks incredibly dodgy to have Designer A moderating threads about Game 2. Especially if harsh criticisms suddenly get silenced as a result of that. This is: A) harder than it looks. B) probably still a good idea. I'm vaguely reminded of the time Mark McKinnon showed up trying to promote a new game (after blatantly robbing everybody else who dealt with Guardians of Order) and took a few personal attacks along the way. The mods more or less said "we went looking for a mod who you haven't robbed personally, or who isn't a friend of somebody you robbed personally, and whoops, out of twenty or so mods it turns out there isn't one, so it looks like we're going to be letting this case go." It's an incestuous industry. You could make it a policy to have fewer mods with professional industry ties going forward, which would rotate things along in reasonably short order, since usually the newest mods do most of the actual work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:I'm vaguely reminded of the time Mark McKinnon showed up trying to promote a new game (after blatantly robbing everybody else who dealt with Guardians of Order) and took a few personal attacks along the way. The mods more or less said "we went looking for a mod who you haven't robbed personally, or who isn't a friend of somebody you robbed personally, and whoops, out of twenty or so mods it turns out there isn't one, so it looks like we're going to be letting this case go." Are you saying that the rule is “no personal attacks unless you’re someone the mod community dislikes”, or are you saying that enforcement should be more principled than it was in the case you describe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Are you saying that the rule is “no personal attacks unless you’re someone the mod community dislikes”, or are you saying that enforcement should be more principled than it was in the case you describe? Mostly I'm saying that the community is tiny and incestuous and sometimes it's legitimately difficult to find somebody neutral. Usually you can find somebody, though, of course, although I'm also reminded of the banning of Zak S, where, because of the general rule that you shouldn't ban people you strongly dislike, Zak S problems kept being passed off onto someone who hadn't met him yet, and this went on and on until finally there were no mods left who could stand the guy and he was finally banned. Avoiding mods who are industry figures sounds like a better idea the more I think about it. It's kind of an obvious trap to fall into, because industry figures tend to be prolific posters, invested in maintaining an online presence, and natural authority figures within the scene, but it does have perception downsides even if the actual amount of abuse is very low* (which I still maintain it is, and that Matt was a big exception). * honestly, if RPGnet is biased in favor of say, OPP, it's less because 4/25 staff members are OPP employees and more because 20/25 are either friends of OPP employees or fans of OPP themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
The phrase "personal attacks" is a vague, and rules can't successfully be based on vague ideas. The issue here isn't how to finely slice what is an acceptable form of criticism and what isn't: that's always going to be tough. Rather, this is what I call a category error*: We don't like thing A Thing A belongs to Category X Everything in Category X is the same as Thing A Therefore we'll ban Category X The bold part is the fallacy. And the mistake RPGNet is making is perhaps founded on this error. To spell it out, in case it's not totally clear: the word "attack" has negative connotations, and especially when directed at another person who has feelings and rights, vs. some other entity like a company or an inanimate object to which we do not ascribe feelings or rights. However, the word "criticism" carries less negative connotations. And there are other words that are even less burdened: "critique," "analysis," "review," "debate," "deliberation," "dispute." ...."Argument." But these words are all just adjectives that are potentially applicable to the same activity. While not perfectly synonymous by dictionary definition, you'll find them all cross-referenced in any thesaurus. Especially once we accept a definition of "attack" as being not necessarily a violent physical action. So what we have here is the selection of a word with the worst possible connotative meaning, to apply to a category of actions that is inclusive of many different types of speech; and then moderation of that category as if anything that fits into the category is as unethical as its worst constituent. That's absurd, and the result is as absurd as the policy. When people get together to discuss things, differences of opinion aren't just inevitable, they're kind of the point. Healthy debate necessarily entails disagreement. But the phrase "personal attack" can be read so broadly that it includes literally any form of contradiction: if someone says X, and I think X is wrong and declare that, I have escalated the situation and initiated a conversation... a discussion... a debate... an argument... an attack. The worst of this is that there actually is a useful-for-moderation definition of "personal attack:" quote:Making of an abusive remark on or relating to one's person instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. The key part here is "instead of providing evidence." If RPGnet wants sensible policy, I think it should avoid this imperfect, vague phrase entirely... but it could instead use this definition and probably apply it effectively. "Such-and-such game developer is poo poo." An abusive remark with no evidence. "Such-and-such game developer is poo poo, because he made X product, and that product was garbage." Abusive, but allowed, because evidence was provided. Perhaps against a separate rule about using abusive language, but not against the personal-attack rule. "Such-and-such game developer made X product, and that product was garbage." Unequivocally allowed, because evidence is provided, and no abusive language is used. Notably, the product itself is unprotected from abusive language, because it's an inanimate concept with no personal feelings. It should be noted that I am also explicitly arguing that it's a bad idea - and also impossible - to attempt to create rules that protect everyone's feelings completely from any possibility of being hurt. As I noted, all conversations that include any form of conflict - any disagreement of any nature - can hurt someone's feelings. It does not feel good to have one's preconcieved notions or convictions be challenged. As social animals, we get an emotional reward when others reinforce our beliefs, and we get an emotional penalty when others challenge our beliefs. This is probably an evolutionary adaptation to the psychology of living in groups, where beliefs and convictions often had significant impacts on survival and prosperity, social status controlling access to resources, inter-group conflict moderation, etc. I dunno, I'm not a psychologist and I'm getting into the weeds here my point is that you can't hope to universally protect people's feelings from being hurt at all. So my recommendation is to understand very clearly exactly what behavior you actually want to prevent, while avoiding descriptive words or phrases that are wildly open to interpretation or which clearly can include many kinds of behavior that you are not actually trying to prevent. "Personal attacks" is an excellent example of a phrase you should avoid. Even the suggestion I laid out above is problematic and I think going too far, because while the developer is not explicitly impugned in the third example, there is a passive implication that the developer did wrong by making a garbage product, and the moderator is forced to either ignore or moderate suggested but not explicitly stated "abuse." You're still setting yourself up for very difficult moderation tasks, and toeing a line where there is a strong chilling effect on debate and discussion that you actually want to promote or permit, due to posters' inability to clearly identify that line and the strong desire to avoid punishment for crossing it. In the end you're better off just telling people not to be huge assholes to one another, and then being as transparent as possible about handing out punishment for rear end in a top hat behavior. If someone is clearly a huge rear end in a top hat, kick them out; and the response to anyone complaining about that is "he was being a huge rear end in a top hat and had lots of warnings to stop being a huge rear end in a top hat and he refused to stop being a huge rear end in a top hat." Of course this requires you to have excellent moderators, and that's probably a bigger challenge than writing really good rules. *Formally, I think this is a combination of the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of false equivalence, but I'm not sure. As a writer, I'm chiefly concerned with semantic errors, and "category error" or "category mistake" is, strictly speaking, a type of semantic or ontological error rather than a fallacy... but exactly how you define this error is unimportant, the key thing is to understand that there is a significant error. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
That's a useful analysis, although I think it's worth pointing out that the atmosphere RPGnet generally tries to encourage would probably mean discouraging using comparisons like "garbage" except in extreme circumstances, so it may not be a great example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Moderating how "mean" you can be about your opinions is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, moderating it loosely lets you drive out actual garbage. On the other hand, there's no guarantee the majority will get it right, and then you're left with a community that's ugly and obnoxious and wrong and no one with better opinions is interested in participating. Enforced civility limits your ability to let loose, but it's also what allows large and diverse communities to exist at all. SA learned this lesson once, and then consciously abandoned it, and then hemorrhaged membership at an incredible rate, so I'm not going to say we got that one completely right (even if everyone who still posts here is, at least, toughened up to it.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:That's a useful analysis, although I think it's worth pointing out that the atmosphere RPGnet generally tries to encourage would probably mean discouraging using comparisons like "garbage" except in extreme circumstances, so it may not be a great example. Yeah I don't like RPGnet's atmosphere, if that's not clear, and I also think it's totally fair to refer to any company as "garbage." People need to be able to express their emotions, and that means using words that are explicitly or implicitly emotional. "That product had some flaws" - very neutral. "That product was bad" - expresses my emotional reaction better "That product was total garbage" - more emphatic, the reader can see that I feel more strongly and can infer things about the product itself based on my reaction "That product was a loving pile of poo poo, and I hope everyone involved in publishing it dies in a fire" - still yet more emphatic, and any reasonable person would suspect I do not actually want the people involved to die, because hyperbole is a common and useful rhetorical device... but they can also be very warned that this isn't just me saying that product did not suit my personal tastes but maybe would be OK for someone with different personal tastes, this is me saying that product is harmful is a shameful embarassment to the industry and demonstrates extreme unprofessionalism or bad taste or bad faith by the publishers etc. etc., but using more colloquial language that doesn't make me sound like I've been sniffing my own farts a lot. RPGnet draws the line after the second or maybe even after the first example. I find that so suppressive and obnoxious that I don't bother posting there. I could understand drawing a line between the third and fourth, although I still think that's overly protective of apparently really fragile egos. SA's line is well beyond the fourth, and I think it's totally fine and adult people can actually handle it especially because they are capable of recognizing hyperbole and even that at some level, tossing about swears and such can be a fun and harmless form of interaction between basically decent people. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
The idea that expressing yourself without swearing and wishing people to die is "sniffing your own farts" is not really an argument in SA's favor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The phrase "personal attacks" is a vague, and rules can't successfully be based on vague ideas. I think we prefer the term “natural language”.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:The idea that expressing yourself without swearing and wishing people to die is "sniffing your own farts" is not really an argument in SA's favor. No no I'm not saying there's only two possible ways to express yourself, only that - and this is intentionally self-deprecating - long bloviating posts picking apart details using high-falutin' language is a bit fart-sniffing and I think it's cool and good to support many different people's preferred modalities of self-expression. But yes you do have to draw a line somewhere, and there is a line here at SA too. You can see this for example in that helldump was eventually shut down and the constant calls for it to return by various old-guards have been consistently turned down for many years now... at some point, you're actively promoting people being huge assholes to one another just for fun, and that's pretty gross. Even if the targets picked by helldump were, very often, highly deserving of criticism, the result was toxic. But yeah there's an unlimited variety of ways to express yourself, and that's why drawing the line between what's OK and what's not OK is hard. Using vague terms in your rules doesn't help, and making significant categorical errors by robotically applying vague terms as if they weren't vague at all is an active impediment to successful moderation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But yeah there's an unlimited variety of ways to express yourself, and that's why drawing the line between what's OK and what's not OK is hard. Using vague terms in your rules doesn't help, and making significant categorical errors by robotically applying vague terms as if they weren't vague at all is an active impediment to successful moderation. I think your analysis of how to write good rules is very much on point, I just think that SA was significantly better when it limited how hard posters could fling poo poo at each other and had more of a top-down moderation approach instead of relying quite so hard on community self-policing, which is related to if not exactly identical to the question of where moderation draws the line. It's also kind of funny coming from me because I probably make a couple posts a week that would get me probated under that regime, but that's more a testament to my own (mal)adjustment to how things work here than anything else. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I think we prefer the term “natural language”. At my company there's this new push to use "natural language" in our documentation, and it's... well, it's in some cases a fine and good reaction to overly-formal writing, but in a lot of cases it's just stupid. Every industry has jargon, which outsiders can find impenetrable and difficult to navigate. But jargon terms often develop specifically as a reaction to ambiguity, and ambiguity in technical writing defeats its purpose. Rules are, of course, a type of technical writing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I think your analysis of how to write good rules is very much on point, I just think that SA was significantly better when it limited how hard posters could fling poo poo at each other and had more of a top-down moderation approach instead of relying quite so hard on community self-policing, which is related to if not exactly identical to the question of where moderation draws the line. You're talking about culture, really, and moderation and rules definitely have large input into what a culture will be. However, culture is ultimately created (as an emergent gestalt and not really intentionally) by the participants, and it is futile for administrators to try to 100% dictate culture through rules writing or enforcement. SA's culture has changed over the years, for sure, and its usership has risen and then fallen, and those numbers may have some correlation... but there are a lot of other factors in play, so it's impossible to tease it all apart. Not to mention that any given user cannot possibly be a full participant in every subforum of SA, so every person's perception of what SA's culture even is is necessarily incomplete. My experience in mostly reading and posting in a half-dozen or so specific subforums is obviously very different from someone who mostly doesn't read any of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You're talking about culture, really, and moderation and rules definitely have large input into what a culture will be. However, culture is ultimately created (as an emergent gestalt and not really intentionally) by the participants, and it is futile for administrators to try to 100% dictate culture through rules writing or enforcement. Administration has a tremendous influence over culture because administration has near-total control over who they exclude from participating. To be sure, if you're too picky you run the risk of not having any participants because nobody's left, but the key thing here is that good rules and consistent enforcement are incredibly attractive reasons to participate in a community.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Objectionable posters can also be silenced with the Ignore feature here, which goes a long way towards mitigating high noise / low content blowhards. It puts the onus of policing tone onto the individual user, rather than forcing moderators into the impossible task of arbitration between any two individuals whose boundaries don't align. Determining the content a user can and cannot post far more challenging, unhealthy for the community, and problematic than just empowering users to choose whose content they view.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
moths posted:Objectionable posters can also be silenced with the Ignore feature here, which goes a long way towards mitigating high noise / low content blowhards. that's not an impossible task, that's literally the definition of moderation lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
also what content you personally see or don't see is only a tiny fraction of the effect that lovely posting and/or moderation of lovely posting have; the difference between a forum that, for example, bans for racism and one where you personally hide the posts of anyone making racist comments is massive, and the former is significantly better and healthier for the community as a whole than the latter obviously not every issue is important enough to regulate this way and there's sort of a parallel question of what kind of tone or attitude is appropriate vs. what sort of content and how hard you want to come down on one thing or another. but making these decisions and updating them based on the social / discursive consequences is exactly the responsibility you take on if you're managing a community.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
moths posted:Objectionable posters can also be silenced with the Ignore feature here, which goes a long way towards mitigating high noise / low content blowhards. That can make the forum very unappealing to new posters though. If I start to throw n-bombs around on RPGnet from now on, and some prospective new member reads that, can we really expect them to sign up for an account and put me on ignore? Or is it more likely they'll just nope the gently caress out and stay away forever? (I'm assuming the prospective poster is a person of good taste. Seeing that kind of poo poo go unmoderated can also quickly attract an entirely different sort of crowd.) That's a bit of an extreme example of course, but not by much. I recall the old Exalted Compendium site's forum in... 2002? Ish? Anyway, there was this one obnoxious poster who just had to hurl the most obscene kind of gutter language around all the loving time and it seriously drove people off because there was no moderation to be found. Not saying RPGnet moderation is flawless or anything, but some of these proposed fixes... aren't. edit: ninja'd Sage Genesis fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Feb 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2018 21:53
|
|