There is no way in hell I would get away with posting this without getting an infraction for flaming/spam/trolling/adding nothing to the discussion. But a mod is able to get away with such an inflammatory post. Was the post he was responding to ridiculous? Yes. Was his response inappropriate? Yes.
MTGS is one of the strictest forums I post on, and while I have certainly disagreed with some mod decisions regarding my own posts, I recognize that it is all in an attempt to keep these forums from degrading into flame wars and trolling. But posts from mods like the one above, and the seeming indifference to what I see as a blatant disregard for the forum rules, really undermines this effort.
To me, this is just one example of a larger problem where mods feel they are allowing to take on a very disparaging tone towards other users. Most of the time they really are responding to idiocy and are well justified in their comments, but a greater emphasis on professionalism would be nice.
Eh I think most people would get away with that. It would depend on what section it was in and what mod saw it. Ass isn't censored. It's not really a flame, it's just a snarky response to extreme religious intolerance.
I think the mods are just playing for higher stakes. We get warned (meaningless), infracted (almost meaningless by itself), suspended, and banned. If they screw up, they get de-modded.
Also consider that many many warnings and infractions are given out without red text. If Mikey did something that Hannes didn't like, Hannes would probably say something to him about it if it was a big deal. Would he say it in public? No. It'd be through PM or in the mod lounge at the very least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
No, you probably wouldn't have been infracted for that post. No one would have.
It's on topic as I was requesting a user who had provided absolutely no reasoning for a rather bold and extreme statement supply something to back up what he was saying. That sort of post (a request for further clarification/reasoning) is typically welcome in Debate).
At no point is it inflammatory because (as mentioned) I was criticizing the opinion, not the poster. And considering he'd have to do some rather impressive dancing with logic to get that statement to hold water, I don't believe snarking about how ridiculous (and nigh un-supportable) the statement was out of line. He knew it was a ludicrous statement himself, and he posted afterward admitting as much.
I would've made the same post even if I weren't a member of staff. I, in fact, made that post just as a member who had been following that thread.
I'm not really trying to start anything. I don't really have any problems with any of the staff here (actually, this is one of only two forums that I even bother going to because it's so well moderated). But what about this post? It seems a little excessive and I've seen normal users get infractions being way less hostile:
Where the ☺☺☺☺ are you people getting your random, arbitrary prices from? There's many streamlined price points and none of them involve ranges or varying price points in a point-by-point analysis. If you don't want to use MOTL, that's fine, you're an idiot, but it's fine. Do an average of recent Completed Sales listings on eBay for the most accurate and up-to-date price, but even then you should have two approximate ranges for each listed card and still not have "fixed value A vs. divergent unfounded range B." Hell, go to ONE ONLINE STORE and just do a straight up search for the two cards. VV is going for $45 on SCG, Jace for $80. WHAM, THAT WAS HARD. Jesus Christ on a cross, do your homework or don't even bother "answering" the guy's question if you're just going to be incorrect and give bad advice. /rant
I'm not really trying to start anything. I don't really have any problems with any of the staff here (actually, this is one of only two forums that I even bother going to because it's so well moderated). But what about this post? It seems a little excessive and I've seen normal users get infractions being way less hostile:
I dont see anything wrong with this. it was clear one poster was trying to rip off another, and that mod pointed out how easy it was to look up prices.
I mean i'd rather a mod call me an idiot then to give me a warning or an infraction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Randall 0705 - 2219 - 6000 and my pokemon safari is water, Azumarill Bibarel and Floatzel
Quote from "Megiddo" »
i like banning people because it makes people I don't like go away
Was the post he was responding to ridiculous? Yes.
You could probably stop right there.
Is the degree of mockery proportional to the absurdity of the statement in question? Not in most, well-read, halfway decent books. The mod was responding to someone actually endorsing the banishment of a place of worship. In what proper context is this statement NOT worthy of mockery?
ShadowFenril's example is much better, as not only was the mod in question's post inflammatory, but it was abrasive and unnecessary, as if he hadn't even read the thread in which the problems he was whining and being insulting about weren't already addressed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
Dredge, Evo-Chord, U/G Faeries, Living End, Something New
Ah, there is a misunderstanding here, LogicX. You're new so it's forgivable. The Cadet, or BPC, is one of the members you're allowed to make fun of. (like myself) There are only a few members like that, so its understandable that you did not know.
But seriously. What {mikeyg} said was basically "I find this statement ridiculous. Please back it up."
Which is perfectly allowed. If he said "YOU are ridiculous." It might be a different story. As was said.
I wouldn't necessarily classify Mikey's post as "inflammatory." Could it have been worded better? Yeah, but it was worded just fine given the context.
As for mods "overstepping," I don't really see it that much. It's a proven fact that any sort of title can get to your head (I used to see it a lot), but conceit doesn't really manifest itself in the mods that know what they are supposed to be doing. It is important for mods to adhere to some sort of standard of decency, without sacrificing the qualities that make their posts unique.
Ah, there is a misunderstanding here, LogicX. You're new so it's forgivable. The Cadet, or BPC, is one of the members you're allowed to make fun of. (like myself) There are only a few members like that, so its understandable that you did not know.
But Mikey was not making fun of The Cadet,, he was saying that what the cadet said was just silly, like you said.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Randall 0705 - 2219 - 6000 and my pokemon safari is water, Azumarill Bibarel and Floatzel
Quote from "Megiddo" »
i like banning people because it makes people I don't like go away
I think that if they are funny enough, the moderators should be allowed some leniency in regards to their verbal demolishing, even when acting as regular users. If they are not funny then they should be treated as regular members and possibly even warned or infracted for not being funny.
I think that if they are funny enough, the moderators should be allowed some leniency in regards to their verbal demolishing, even when acting as regular users. If they are not funny then they should be treated as regular members and possibly even warned or infracted for not being funny.
My two cents.
Problem with that is that "funny" is rather subjective, as we just learned (would we have to take a poll or something?)
Anyway,
There are plenty of ways to "make-fun" of someone without breaking any forum rules (many of which can be quite funny). You just have to be slightly careful about what you're saying, which is a good thing.
Problem with that is that "funny" is rather subjective, as we just learned (would we have to take a poll or something?)
Well, I always thought that laughter broke all barriers, but if some people just don't have an eye for humor then we can bypass that issue. The solution? Create a small panel of moderators that only judge red text and moderate the mods based on the levels of hilarity about the forum. The panel will consist of members who ascend subjectivism and simply know "funny" from "trying to be funny."
I think that if they are funny enough, the moderators should be allowed some leniency in regards to their verbal demolishing, even when acting as regular users.
Why should mods be entitled to this? I don't think you are grasping what the role of a moderator is. They are there to preserve the integrity of the forum and its established precedent, not to act like pompous dicks (even if what they are saying is funny). Furthermore, mods are not persons of a higher caste. They should never, ever, be exempt from any sort of regulation.
Quote from "Madding" »
The solution? Create a small panel of moderators that only judge red text and moderate the mods based on the levels of hilarity about the forum. The panel will consist of members who ascend subjectivism and simply know "funny" from "trying to be funny."
This is unnecessary. The last thing any forum needs, is mods modding mods. Not to mention the high degree of subjectivity involved.
Problem with that is that "funny" is rather subjective, as we just learned (would we have to take a poll or something?)
Anyway,
There are plenty of ways to "make-fun" of someone without breaking any forum rules (many of which can be quite funny). You just have to be slightly careful about what you're saying, which is a good thing.
You're still missing the fact that he wasn't making fun of anyone. And I quote:
Oh please, pretty please, try to back this statement up. I'm actually dying to see what feat of logic you rip from your ass to support that particular piece of absurdity.
He uses colorful language to enhance the readers understanding of his feelings of absurdity towards the user's statement. The only attack is towards his opinion of mosques in the states, not him himself. As I understand the concept of a debate, that is the actual point.
Oh, and mods totally should be allowed to say whatever they want as long as it is funny. Some people need to hear these critiques, desperately. Humor just serves to soften the blow, making the experience educational and enjoyable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
Why should mods be entitled to this? I don't think you are grasping what the role of a moderator is. They are there to preserve the integrity of the forum and its established precedent, not to act like pompous dicks (even if what they are saying is funny). Furthermore, mods are not persons of a higher caste. They should never, ever, be exempt from any sort of regulation.
This is unnecessary. The last thing any forum needs, is mods modding mods. Not to mention the high degree of subjectivity involved.
For misinterpreting sarcasm, you will not be on that secondary panel of moderators.
I see mods getting away with some things (in the Market street forum mainly) that others get infracted for, even when they are reported. Anytime I begin to care about it, I remember I'm on an internet forum about magical cardboard, and all is right with the world again.
For misinterpreting sarcasm, you will not be on that secondary panel of moderators.
I'm not a mod, so it doesn't even matter. My "misinterpreting sarcasm" just goes to show you the degree of interpretation of the written word. Setting tone in text is a skill.
I'm not a mod, so it doesn't even matter. My "misinterpreting sarcasm" just goes to show you the degree of interpretation of the written word. Setting tone in text is a skill.
or better reading skills. I got what he was trying to convey, and i have no skills with written words as my posts scream out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Randall 0705 - 2219 - 6000 and my pokemon safari is water, Azumarill Bibarel and Floatzel
Quote from "Megiddo" »
i like banning people because it makes people I don't like go away
or better reading skills. I got what he was trying to convey, and i have no skills with written words as my posts scream out.
That, and this thread isn't really so much about staff behavior as a thinnly veiled attempt to take a shot at "the man", just like the multitude of other threads created on a similar basis.
That, and this thread isn't really so much about staff behavior as a thinnly veiled attempt to take a shot at "the man", just like the multitude of other threads created on a similar basis.
No, it is about staff behavior, and the odd obligation that some mods feel to be as disparaging as possible. That other threads have complained about this staff member just means that he is a good example of this problem.
He wasn't talking about Mikey in particular, Logic. This exact same issue came up in the What Constitutes Backseat Moderation thread about a week ago, on one of the last couple of pages. Someone basically asked the same question you did, citing a different source. And, as I said to them then, I'll say to you now.
We -are- subject to the rules, with some slight alterations. We don't have to worry about Backseat Moderation or Red Text, for obvious reasons. We're allowed to get away with spam for the sake of putting in a post to warn users to calm down, or to point out that they're about to get infracted. Things that are not on topic and don't contribute to the conversation, yet required to do our jobs.
However, we can't troll, no matter how badly we may want to in a given instance. We can't flame. We can't just spam for no reason. We can't necro without following the necro guidelines. Luckily, there's no rule against being abrasive, or being dismissive of the -ideas- of others.
Lastly, there is a panel of moderators that looks after other moderators. They are called 'Admin' and, to a very tiny extent, 'Global Moderators'. Globals have no anti-mod powers on their own, but they can bring things up with the Admin. The Admin do police the moderators and globals as part of their job description. And the Admin are policed by other admin and by Hannes. No one polices Hannes, because he owns the site and can do pretty much whatever he wants with it.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=5387845&postcount=13
There is no way in hell I would get away with posting this without getting an infraction for flaming/spam/trolling/adding nothing to the discussion. But a mod is able to get away with such an inflammatory post. Was the post he was responding to ridiculous? Yes. Was his response inappropriate? Yes.
MTGS is one of the strictest forums I post on, and while I have certainly disagreed with some mod decisions regarding my own posts, I recognize that it is all in an attempt to keep these forums from degrading into flame wars and trolling. But posts from mods like the one above, and the seeming indifference to what I see as a blatant disregard for the forum rules, really undermines this effort.
To me, this is just one example of a larger problem where mods feel they are allowing to take on a very disparaging tone towards other users. Most of the time they really are responding to idiocy and are well justified in their comments, but a greater emphasis on professionalism would be nice.
Thanks to DNC at Heroes of the plane studios for this awesome sig and SGT_Chubbz for the awesome avy.
Check out the Shop Thread
I think the mods are just playing for higher stakes. We get warned (meaningless), infracted (almost meaningless by itself), suspended, and banned. If they screw up, they get de-modded.
Also consider that many many warnings and infractions are given out without red text. If Mikey did something that Hannes didn't like, Hannes would probably say something to him about it if it was a big deal. Would he say it in public? No. It'd be through PM or in the mod lounge at the very least.
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
It's on topic as I was requesting a user who had provided absolutely no reasoning for a rather bold and extreme statement supply something to back up what he was saying. That sort of post (a request for further clarification/reasoning) is typically welcome in Debate).
At no point is it inflammatory because (as mentioned) I was criticizing the opinion, not the poster. And considering he'd have to do some rather impressive dancing with logic to get that statement to hold water, I don't believe snarking about how ridiculous (and nigh un-supportable) the statement was out of line. He knew it was a ludicrous statement himself, and he posted afterward admitting as much.
I would've made the same post even if I weren't a member of staff. I, in fact, made that post just as a member who had been following that thread.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=5382755#post5382755
Namely this part:
Trades
Pucatrade with me!
(Signature courtesy of Argetlam of Hakai Studios
I dont see anything wrong with this. it was clear one poster was trying to rip off another, and that mod pointed out how easy it was to look up prices.
I mean i'd rather a mod call me an idiot then to give me a warning or an infraction.
www.diestoremoval.com
A truly great petition
You could probably stop right there.
Is the degree of mockery proportional to the absurdity of the statement in question? Not in most, well-read, halfway decent books. The mod was responding to someone actually endorsing the banishment of a place of worship. In what proper context is this statement NOT worthy of mockery?
ShadowFenril's example is much better, as not only was the mod in question's post inflammatory, but it was abrasive and unnecessary, as if he hadn't even read the thread in which the problems he was whining and being insulting about weren't already addressed.
Modern
Dredge, Evo-Chord, U/G Faeries, Living End, Something New
But seriously. What {mikeyg} said was basically "I find this statement ridiculous. Please back it up."
Which is perfectly allowed. If he said "YOU are ridiculous." It might be a different story. As was said.
As for mods "overstepping," I don't really see it that much. It's a proven fact that any sort of title can get to your head (I used to see it a lot), but conceit doesn't really manifest itself in the mods that know what they are supposed to be doing. It is important for mods to adhere to some sort of standard of decency, without sacrificing the qualities that make their posts unique.
MTGS Retired Administrator
This is a sig. Yes it is.
But Mikey was not making fun of The Cadet,, he was saying that what the cadet said was just silly, like you said.
www.diestoremoval.com
A truly great petition
Right, it was a joke. Hence the " " and the "But seriously." And then the real explanation, as you pointed at.
LogicX got an infraction for making fun of me, so, he too, knows it's a joke.
(I guess it was not that funny? Ah well. I try. )
My two cents.
Anyway,
There are plenty of ways to "make-fun" of someone without breaking any forum rules (many of which can be quite funny). You just have to be slightly careful about what you're saying, which is a good thing.
Well, I always thought that laughter broke all barriers, but if some people just don't have an eye for humor then we can bypass that issue. The solution? Create a small panel of moderators that only judge red text and moderate the mods based on the levels of hilarity about the forum. The panel will consist of members who ascend subjectivism and simply know "funny" from "trying to be funny."
This is unnecessary. The last thing any forum needs, is mods modding mods. Not to mention the high degree of subjectivity involved.
MTGS Retired Administrator
This is a sig. Yes it is.
You're still missing the fact that he wasn't making fun of anyone. And I quote:
He uses colorful language to enhance the readers understanding of his feelings of absurdity towards the user's statement. The only attack is towards his opinion of mosques in the states, not him himself. As I understand the concept of a debate, that is the actual point.
Oh, and mods totally should be allowed to say whatever they want as long as it is funny. Some people need to hear these critiques, desperately. Humor just serves to soften the blow, making the experience educational and enjoyable.
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
For misinterpreting sarcasm, you will not be on that secondary panel of moderators.
I see mods getting away with some things (in the Market street forum mainly) that others get infracted for, even when they are reported. Anytime I begin to care about it, I remember I'm on an internet forum about magical cardboard, and all is right with the world again.
I'm not a mod, so it doesn't even matter. My "misinterpreting sarcasm" just goes to show you the degree of interpretation of the written word. Setting tone in text is a skill.
MTGS Retired Administrator
This is a sig. Yes it is.
or better reading skills. I got what he was trying to convey, and i have no skills with written words as my posts scream out.
www.diestoremoval.com
A truly great petition
That, and this thread isn't really so much about staff behavior as a thinnly veiled attempt to take a shot at "the man", just like the multitude of other threads created on a similar basis.
(Also known as Xenphire)
No, it is about staff behavior, and the odd obligation that some mods feel to be as disparaging as possible. That other threads have complained about this staff member just means that he is a good example of this problem.
We -are- subject to the rules, with some slight alterations. We don't have to worry about Backseat Moderation or Red Text, for obvious reasons. We're allowed to get away with spam for the sake of putting in a post to warn users to calm down, or to point out that they're about to get infracted. Things that are not on topic and don't contribute to the conversation, yet required to do our jobs.
However, we can't troll, no matter how badly we may want to in a given instance. We can't flame. We can't just spam for no reason. We can't necro without following the necro guidelines. Luckily, there's no rule against being abrasive, or being dismissive of the -ideas- of others.
Lastly, there is a panel of moderators that looks after other moderators. They are called 'Admin' and, to a very tiny extent, 'Global Moderators'. Globals have no anti-mod powers on their own, but they can bring things up with the Admin. The Admin do police the moderators and globals as part of their job description. And the Admin are policed by other admin and by Hannes. No one polices Hannes, because he owns the site and can do pretty much whatever he wants with it.
My helpdesk should you need me.