Re: Posts undeleted
 

One more attempt to make things clear.

I did not remove posts for aesthetic reasons (although I did put them back because the stubs made the thread look messy).

I did not remove posts because of Brodys initial response.

I did not remove posts which did not continue the argument. If they contained information, said information was covered in the remaining replies.

I had no interest in stifling debate. When I mentioned keeping the reason for moderation to PMs, I should also have mentioned starting a new topic elsewhere. I forgot. One of the forums I used to help moderate had a rule that moderation discussions were kept to PMs between the affected parties and moderators. Looks like I'm human too! ;) Does not my continued participation here indicate my willingness to debate the issue?

I have no idea if my moderation is to the satisfaction of Lasher. Please remember that he inherited the moderation staff from Synozeer, and the fact that I, and any other moderators, are still here does not necessarily mean it is with his blessing. You should not take my actions as an indicator that Lasher agrees with this sort of moderation unless he comes out and says so himself. If he does agree, fine. If not he can tell me so and I will either follow the guidelines he gives me or accept his decision to remove me as a moderator.

And to cratylus, the newcomer was hassled (perhaps not underservedly). The meta-discussion may or may not have been constructive, but it did not belong in that thread. You may be used to/like forums where every thread ends up going off on a complete tangent, but I prefer threads in that particular forum to stick to the question at hand to make it easier for newcomers to read through and find what they might be after. You're certainly welcome to disagree and question my decision, after all no-one is infallible, but saying that it's "noob admin behaviour" because you happen to disagree with my style is perhaps a bit much.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Specifically, one could argue that text MUDs became popular despite the oft-crude Internet subculture and how it tends to treat newcomers (*), if large enough numbers of people were checking the games out. It's fairly common to see veteran MUDers trying to 'haze' new ones unless the atmosphere is actively coached to reduce it.

1) The major difference is that a newcomer to the site has a much lower barrier to simply leaving and not returning. They aren't invested (socially, not necessarily financially, though that may also be the case) in the hobby.

2) The low-effort solution is just to ignore posts from newcomers that you don't feel like answering politely. Xerihae (or anyone) isn't advocating that you must do something. People are advocating that you don't actively do something which may be negative.

3) Whether or not you mean well is irrelevant and subjective. How you are perceived matters. What is "feeble" to you may just be someone who doesn't understand the community standards.

4) I agree that Steve was likely trolling, though obviously only he really knows. The goal of the troll is negative attention, and ignoring them is much more effective than engaging them.

(*): As an aside, I'd advocate this as the default term for new visitors to the site, and renaming the appropriate forum. Kudos to Parnassus and Brody for mentioning it. "Newbie" isn't necessarily derogatory, but it can have that connotation, and I can see how it would be alienating. We're guilty of this on CF as well, and upon reflection I'll see what I can do to change this.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

To be totally fair: I was being a little sarcastic about the idea of renaming the Newbie Help forum. Although I agree it can have a negative connotation, I think it might be a mistake to politically correctify everything just for the sake of preserving someone's overly thin skin.

If the general consensus on TMS is to rename it, of course, that's fine. But the concern I have is that just about everybody might have some little niggling thing that offends them and we'll end up playing PC ping-pong as we try to avoid anything offensive.

Newbie doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

Well, like I said, you don't have to worry about that from me. Yes I thought your first post in that thread could be taken the wrong way, but as I said it was the argument as a whole that caused the deletion not your first reply. I've also said in this thread that I think it would be useful if people used a bit of common sense and courtesy when replying but as long as replies aren't outright rude or offensive I'm not about to start deleting/editing posts because I don't agree with the way you typed something!

Re: Posts undeleted
 

I'd have been much more concerned about it if this thread had not been opened to discuss the issue separately. That was a good move, rather than killing the conversation dead it was just moved to a more appropriate location.

Most people posting here are MUD admins or have been at some point. We are all too familiar with those controversial areas of "policy" where you can pretty much count on half your users being ticked off no matter which way you go, the only question being which half.

In a forum it seems "level of moderation" is very high on that list if not #1. Even within the same thread we had people annoyed that any post was edited period, and others annoyed that there wasn't enough moderation.

Most people don't like a stagnant MUD, they want change, until a change affects them in a way they don't like. Most people don't want a completely unmoderated forum, they want moderators to do their job, until it's them being moderated then the moderators must just be clueless and/or biased.

As for me personally, I'm kind of new to this web forum thing so I'm just going to roll with it for a while .... but the previously mentioned idea of a moderator only forum to hash some of this out is a good one imho.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

True. So what you do then is look at the merits of the thing being discussed.

Assume half will be ticked with heavy moderation (for example, ALL personal attacks nixed), and assume half will be ticked if you do NOT moderate more heavily.

At least if you go with moderation, on top of the half you didn't tick off, you have a forum where civility and common courtesy reign. All you gain from NOT moderating personal attacks is a trolling flamefest.

Seems like that makes the decision an easy one.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

Much as I love getting Kudos, I have to admit: It was Molly who felt that "Newbie" was being used as a derogative term. I've never considered it so, since I often try different games and so am an eternal newbie myself. My point was simply that the phrase the OP used did not seem like the one that would automatically pop to the mind of a non-mudder. Even though, as the_logos mentioned later, newbie is not used exclusively by mudders, the phrase seemed a bit too....well, appropriate, to be used by someone at the level of knowledge he claimed to be. Even though he may have pulled the term from the forum name, the rest of my post still stands. I still don't understand how he ended up here, posting that particular note.

As to the term "newbie", I think I've more often heard it used as an explanation of someone than an insult. In my experience, the conversation goes more often like this:

That person is such an idiot!
No, he's just a newbie.

Since I have no argument with the term, I redirect your kudos to Molly. :)

Re: Posts undeleted
 

I am confused. I am not seeing some posts in this thread
that were there earlier today.

Were they "moderated"?

-Crat

Re: Posts undeleted
 

Well if they were moderated it's not obvious to me that it happened. The last post I recall seeing was from Parnassus and it's the one right above yours right now. Moderation is not evil. If it was done I'd imagine the moderator had a good reason - and they don't need to tell us what it was.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

Yeah, it was a fairly painless cut. A bit of a snarky poke to try to get a reaction that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, followed by a post that noted the lack of usefulness in the snarky poke post. I'm cool with the moderation.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

Well I have to admit to a certain level of
exasperation. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding
something. I hope that is the case.

But I've just had my posts deleted twice in
two separate threads...this last time on a
thread *I* started, each time posts that
were not only well-intentioned, but as far
as I know, violatory of no rule.

I just looked around TMS again for posting rules
regarding content, and did not find them
(except for the typical TOS stuff about
"objectionable" messages).

Perhaps I've just missed something obvious and
I fully deserved the hosing I got.

Absent an explanation, you'll forgive me for
not automatically assuming the action was just.

I'm going to admit to some frustration at
having a thread I started regarding post deletion
be subjected to the arbitrary, aesthetic deletion
I objected to in the first place.

I don't think it's too much to ask to allow
posts that do not violate site rules to stand.

I don't think it's too much to ask that if
posts are deleted for reasons other than rule
violations, that some explanation be provided.

I've yet to challenge Lasher's authority to
do as he pleases. I've yet to denounce all forum
moderation as wrong. Let's not pretend I'm
suggesting moderation is evil, or that I'm declaring
Lasher *has* to do anything.

I'm just feeling like maybe this site isn't
a place that respects my good-faith posting in
a way that conforms to the rules.

So, I don't know. I'm at a loss. Maybe I should just
accept there's an incompatibility here between
what I think is reasonable and how the site will
be run. I suppose I should just get the hint and shut up.

-Crat

Re: Posts undeleted
 

Well, Crat, I agreed in the previous thread that the cuts hindered the comprehensibility of the discussion. I don't recall which of your posts were cut in *this* thread - I just remember someone's post, followed up by something from Xerihae.

It's actually kind of apt that posts are being cut in a thread about the cutting of posts in another thread, but it comes down to the moderation style and judgment calls. And, again, this is the sort of thing I'd love to see discussed in a special moderators-only forum area.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

I don't think there was anything wrong with your post. It was, however, a reply to mine, which in itself was a reply to the post that needed to be deleted. Since just deleting the post would have left yours and mine floating around with the basis of them gone, it made more sense to delete all three to keep the readability of the thread intact instead of apparent gaps appearing because of deleted posts.

If I'd been able to remove the offending post myself then my reply would never have surfaced, and neither would yours to mine, so no harm done really.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

I think this attitude right here is at the heart of the problem. When a post is cut, my first reaction isn't "oh no! censorship!" it's curiosity more than anything else. But my gut doesn't immediately lead me to assuming it WASN'T just.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

I don't see how my not making an assumption
is either "attitude" or a "problem". I also don't recall
my first reaction being "oh no! censorship!"

I simply asked what happened, and was subsequently informed.

I continue to be perplexed by your response to things I have not said.

-Crat

Re: Posts undeleted
 

The overall context of the longer response I quoted that from is where I got it from. The general feel it projected was one of "why are you censoring me?" when the moderation was not directed at you. Your reply was simply collateral damage after removing the one that moderation WAS directed at.

The part I quoted seemed to sum up what I got from it - that you think unexplained moderator action is unjust.

Which leads me to another point. If you hadn't mentioned it happening, would anyone have noticed? I infer from Brody's reply to you that he might have, but aside from that, did anyone else? What purpose is served by mentioning it? Woudln't the "hey, why did you torch my post?" question be better handled as a PM to the particular forum moderator, or to Lasher? Is it really necessary to challenge the authority in public every time?

And you'll have to forgive me if I'm rambling or making no sense - it's a bit late right now :)

Re: Posts undeleted
 

The post was mine, and I am not cool with the moderation.

Given the topic of this thread is posting behavior and moderation, I think my question was on topic, as a reaction to a smug statement from another poster.

Re: Posts undeleted
 

I guess I don't see what's so wrong with asking such a question. And
I would like to point out that even if it is true my post wasn't the
original target, it's been erased all the same, making the moderation
directed at me too. Someone selected my post, and deleted it.

I did not say that, nor did I imply it. I stated that I would not assume
the action was just. This does not mean I assumed anything else. If
I had meant my words to form an argument that Lasher's moderation
was unjust, I would have crafted them so in an unambiguous manner.
I think you know me well enough to know I'm not going to beat around
the bush when I have such an opinion.

What I meant was that I would not be making an assumption,
absent an explanation, and that is what I wrote.

I think it is healthy to openly discuss the criteria
used for the removal of posts. This way, not only the
direct participants learn what's ok/!ok, but so do
folks reading the thread later. It helps become a
body of understood precedent folks can use to
determine whether the unwritten rules are acceptable
to them, and if so, where the boundaries lie.

I feel uncomfortable participating in an activity where
the rules are unwritten and their application by
referees is unexplained.

Asking the referees to openly justify the calls, in
the absence of a rulebook, is not only natural, but
helpful for everyone.

If the decision was just, the question is an opportunity
for the admin to demonstrate her righteousness. If it
was unjust, then it is an opportunity for her to seek
to right the wrong. Either way, public discussion of
rules that apply to everyone isn't what needs justification.

-Crat