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.
So you decided to go off topic to discuss ways to "make fun" of people without breaking the rules because....? Thread degradation?
What does ^this post of yours have to do with the topic of the thread?
In other news, this is your first time posting in SYM isn't it?
However, yes, the point of this thread is to talk about people making fun of others and if that is within the rules or not, so I WAS on topic.... at this point it's less clear.
In other news, this is your first time posting in SYM isn't it?
IIRC, it's now called CI. I think the renaming happened to help avoid situations where users think they can post whatever is on their minds, solely because of the forums name.
However, yes, the point of this thread is to talk about people making fun of others and if that is within the rules or not, so I WAS on topic.... at this point it's less clear.
Again, you are completely failing to understand the situation, as it seems the OP is as well. That is the point. In no way did he make fun of the guy. He attacked his argument, not him. The difference in monumental, and cannot be mistaken.
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.
IIRC, it's now called CI. I think the renaming happened to help avoid situations where users think they can post whatever is on their minds, solely because of the forums name.
Again, you are completely failing to understand the situation, as it seems the OP is as well. That is the point. In no way did he make fun of the guy. He attacked his argument, not him. The difference in monumental, and cannot be mistaken.
Well, you missing the point of the thread. The OP is the one that sets the tone of the thread, so while I agree he, the OP, missed the point of what {mikeyg} said, he, the op, is the on that sets the stage for this topic.
Which is why this thread is about members and mods "making fun" of or TROLLING other members.
But, now I do understand how all of your posts have been 'on topic'
Well, you missing the point of the thread. The OP is the one that sets the tone of the thread, so while I agree he, the OP, missed the point of what {mikeyg} said, he, the op, is the on that sets the stage for this topic.
Which is why this thread is about members and mods "making fun" of or TROLLING other members.
But, now I do understand how all of your posts have been 'on topic'
Well then. Without proof of what he is talking about, its all moot. It hardly seems to be a community issue without any instances of what he is claiming to have actually taken place.
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.
Well then. Without proof of what he is talking about, its all moot. It hardly seems to be a community issue without any instances of what he is claiming to have actually taken place.
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.
And the answer is "No, the mods should not be held to the same standard. They should, and are, held to a higher one."
How can a mod be held to the same rules? They could not do their job with out getting an infraction. (and then the person giving them said infarction would also be infracted)
The mods are held to a different set of rules, they have to be.
Dude the guy who posted either had no knowledge of what Force of Will did (which would mean his entire argument was spam), or was simply trolling. Both of those are infractable offenses, that the guy got just a plain warning means the mods where being generous.
It also means you failed to provide proper proof for your case.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from »
Call me old fashioned, but an evil ascension to power just isn't the same without someone chanting faux Latin in the background.
Oreo, Glazing people better than Dunkin' Donuts since 2009
That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange eons even death may die.
I think it simply comes down to being held to a higher standard than the people you are supposed to hold order for. I've been a police officer for 3 years, and we are instructed to NEVER use foul language, or degrade someone regardless on what they do. If they swear, call me a pig, anything... we are supposed to be professional. I would NEVER get away with being so disgustingly rude to someone who I'm supposed to be objective towards. The post by Mikey is a textbook example of someone who is supposed to be a NEUTRAL MODERATOR, letting his emotions get the best of him. Where I work, that's a paid suspension.
I think it simply comes down to being held to a higher standard than the people you are supposed to hold order for. I've been a police officer for 3 years, and we are instructed to NEVER use foul language, or degrade someone regardless on what they do. If they swear, call me a pig, anything... we are supposed to be professional. I would NEVER get away with being so disgustingly rude to someone who I'm supposed to be objective towards. The post by Mikey is a textbook example of someone who is supposed to be a NEUTRAL MODERATOR, letting his emotions get the best of him. Where I work, that's a paid suspension.
Just saying
There are different levels of expectations placed on the police and on MTGS moderators.
I think it simply comes down to being held to a higher standard than the people you are supposed to hold order for. I've been a police officer for 3 years, and we are instructed to NEVER use foul language, or degrade someone regardless on what they do. If they swear, call me a pig, anything... we are supposed to be professional. I would NEVER get away with being so disgustingly rude to someone who I'm supposed to be objective towards. The post by Mikey is a textbook example of someone who is supposed to be a NEUTRAL MODERATOR, letting his emotions get the best of him. Where I work, that's a paid suspension.
Just saying
Part of that is that the people you're dealing with (if they live or work in your jurisdiction) are the ones paying you. Plus you're an employee of the government.
While that second part is slightly relatable to the moderator position, it's still not the same. Add to that we're on the internet and no one has the immediate capability of doing serious harm or ending someone else's life. All of these factors make the big difference. Police have to be calm, level headed, and courteous. Otherwise the risk of people dying goes way up.
If Mikey makes fun of someone or someone's post, there's some nerd rage. That's about it.
Where I work, that's a paid suspension.
@Mikey: Dude, if you get a paid suspension for flaming a member, that's a raise and a vacation, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
I don't think post like that should be allowed just because you are insulting the opinion rather than the person.
I would say calling someones opinion idiotic (as the only point of your post no less) is flaming just as much as calling a person an idiot.
And there IS a difference between saying "I don't agree with your opinion, please back it up" and what mikey posted. When you have forum rules based on upholding civility and maintaining good discussions, tone matters.
I don't think post like that should be allowed just because you are insulting the opinion rather than the person.
I would say calling someones opinion idiotic (as the only point of your post no less) is flaming just as much as calling a person an idiot.
And there IS a difference between saying "I don't agree with your opinion, please back it up" and what mikey posted. When you have forum rules based on upholding civility and maintaining good discussions, tone matters.
Honestly, considering my last two infractions were given purely because of my "tone" and not actually breaking any forum rules, I'd highly agree.
I don't think post like that should be allowed just because you are insulting the opinion rather than the person.
I would say calling someones opinion idiotic (as the only point of your post no less) is flaming just as much as calling a person an idiot.
And there IS a difference between saying "I don't agree with your opinion, please back it up" and what mikey posted. When you have forum rules based on upholding civility and maintaining good discussions, tone matters.
There's a big difference between calling a product garbage and calling the person who mad it garbage. Yes, you're insinuating that they may have made some poor decisions or didn't entirely think something through, but you aren't calling them garbage, just what they put forth. If I try to get one of my paintings put into the Louvre, they'll laugh their asses off. Not because I'm a terrible person and deserve to be put down, but because my artwork is fairly shoddy.
See the difference?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
I don't think post like that should be allowed just because you are insulting the opinion rather than the person.
But, you do understand there is a BIG difference? I, personally, feel that ad hominems SHOULD be infracted in debate, but attacking someone's argument is fine... how else do you debate? You attack what the person is saying, but you should not attack who is saying it.
But, what you and I think does not matter does it? Rules are rules...... which I guess is sad for you
And there IS a difference between saying "I don't agree with your opinion, please back it up" and what mikey posted. When you have forum rules based on upholding civility and maintaining good discussions, tone matters.
I captured the essence of what he said.
And that essence is allowed on in debate. I would HOPE someone with a name like "LogicX" would be able to look PAST the words, and get to the MEANING, the essence, of a person's statements.
But, you do understand there is a BIG difference? I, personally, feel that ad hominems SHOULD be infracted in debate, but attacking someone's argument is fine... how else do you debate? You attack what the person is saying, but you should not attack who is saying it.
Yes there is a difference, but it is hardly debate to just call someones opinion idiotic.
But, what you and I think does not matter does it? Rules are rules...... which I guess is sad for you
Ok.
Not under the definition used on this forum.
Imagine the quality of these forums if everyone just ran around saying "WOW, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, you really pulled that out of your ass."
You do understand, I hope, at least there IS a difference between those two things?
Yes, but that doesn't mean one is acceptable by default.
I captured the essence of what he said.
But again, tone matters. I have had infractions before where I have been modded not because I lacked an underlying essence of a valid debate point, but because I said it with a bad tone.
I still maintain that if I had made the same post as mikey, BlinkingSpirit would have modded me without batting an eye, and if I had tried contesting it, he would be saying the same thing I am saying in this thread. But I guess we will never know.
And that essence is allowed on in debate. I would HOPE someone with a name like "LogicX" would be able to look PAST the words, and get to the MEANING, the essence, of a person's statements.
Like I said before, tone matters. You can post something that has a valid underlying essence, but if it is buried within unnecessary and inflammatory language, the post as a whole may still not be appropriate. You can't just ignore how someone says something because it has MEANING.
But, you do understand there is a BIG difference? I, personally, feel that ad hominems SHOULD be infracted in debate, but attacking someone's argument is fine... how else do you debate? You attack what the person is saying, but you should not attack who is saying it.
There is a difference between ad hominem and an attack. It's barely worth noting because of it's irrelevance in the forums, but it exists. If the attack is ad hominem-oriented then it should be infracted as a flame, as it is. I don't know why it isn't infracted if that's the current case.
Sure. I don't disagree at all. Is the BASIC core principle of being an unbiased neutral party the same? You had better believe it is.
Just sayin.
There's more to it than that. We aren't a neutral party. To claim we are is foolish and ignorant of our humanity. We don't have "moderator mode" and "member mode" the way you have "on duty" and "off duty". Sure you're still held to some standards off duty, but if you swear at someone off duty, you're okay.
For us, "on duty" and "off duty" blend and mix. When we're online, we're both on duty and off duty, maintaining order in our moderated forums, and also maintaining interest in the discussions taking place. We care about the discussions just like you do - that's why we become moderators for those sections.
So, also just sayin', we aren't all that comparable to police officers.
I would like to point out that the member mikeyg is quoting is a younger male who will sometimes spout things without thinking, much like the rest of us when we were at that age
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
There's a big difference between calling a product garbage and calling the person who mad it garbage. Yes, you're insinuating that they may have made some poor decisions or didn't entirely think something through, but you aren't calling them garbage, just what they put forth. If I try to get one of my paintings put into the Louvre, they'll laugh their asses off. Not because I'm a terrible person and deserve to be put down, but because my artwork is fairly shoddy.
See the difference?
While that's true, there's little difference in the eyes of the person that made the product. If you were to tell an artist that after 10 years of hard work and skill refinement, his entire compilation of work was utter crap, his soul would be crushed and he'd take it very personally (and I actually have a close friend who had this happen to him).
Also please make sure its from the same part of the forum, otherwise whatever proof you present may not be relevant.
So you decided to go off topic to discuss ways to "make fun" of people without breaking the rules because....? Thread degradation?
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
In other news, this is your first time posting in SYM isn't it?
However, yes, the point of this thread is to talk about people making fun of others and if that is within the rules or not, so I WAS on topic.... at this point it's less clear.
IIRC, it's now called CI. I think the renaming happened to help avoid situations where users think they can post whatever is on their minds, solely because of the forums name.
Again, you are completely failing to understand the situation, as it seems the OP is as well. That is the point. In no way did he make fun of the guy. He attacked his argument, not him. The difference in monumental, and cannot be mistaken.
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
Well, you missing the point of the thread. The OP is the one that sets the tone of the thread, so while I agree he, the OP, missed the point of what {mikeyg} said, he, the op, is the on that sets the stage for this topic.
Which is why this thread is about members and mods "making fun" of or TROLLING other members.
But, now I do understand how all of your posts have been 'on topic'
Well then. Without proof of what he is talking about, its all moot. It hardly seems to be a community issue without any instances of what he is claiming to have actually taken place.
banner by god child. he'd make you one too, if you weren't so bad at posting.
And the answer is "No, the mods should not be held to the same standard. They should, and are, held to a higher one."
How can a mod be held to the same rules? They could not do their job with out getting an infraction. (and then the person giving them said infarction would also be infracted)
The mods are held to a different set of rules, they have to be.
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
It also means you failed to provide proper proof for your case.
Just saying
There are different levels of expectations placed on the police and on MTGS moderators.
Just saying.
Sure. I don't disagree at all. Is the BASIC core principle of being an unbiased neutral party the same? You had better believe it is.
Just sayin.
Part of that is that the people you're dealing with (if they live or work in your jurisdiction) are the ones paying you. Plus you're an employee of the government.
While that second part is slightly relatable to the moderator position, it's still not the same. Add to that we're on the internet and no one has the immediate capability of doing serious harm or ending someone else's life. All of these factors make the big difference. Police have to be calm, level headed, and courteous. Otherwise the risk of people dying goes way up.
If Mikey makes fun of someone or someone's post, there's some nerd rage. That's about it.
@Mikey: Dude, if you get a paid suspension for flaming a member, that's a raise and a vacation, right?
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
I don't think post like that should be allowed just because you are insulting the opinion rather than the person.
I would say calling someones opinion idiotic (as the only point of your post no less) is flaming just as much as calling a person an idiot.
And there IS a difference between saying "I don't agree with your opinion, please back it up" and what mikey posted. When you have forum rules based on upholding civility and maintaining good discussions, tone matters.
Honestly, considering my last two infractions were given purely because of my "tone" and not actually breaking any forum rules, I'd highly agree.
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH
There's a big difference between calling a product garbage and calling the person who mad it garbage. Yes, you're insinuating that they may have made some poor decisions or didn't entirely think something through, but you aren't calling them garbage, just what they put forth. If I try to get one of my paintings put into the Louvre, they'll laugh their asses off. Not because I'm a terrible person and deserve to be put down, but because my artwork is fairly shoddy.
See the difference?
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
But, what you and I think does not matter does it? Rules are rules...... which I guess is sad for you
Not under the definition used on this forum.
You do understand, I hope, at least there IS a difference between those two things?
I captured the essence of what he said.
And that essence is allowed on in debate. I would HOPE someone with a name like "LogicX" would be able to look PAST the words, and get to the MEANING, the essence, of a person's statements.
Yes there is a difference, but it is hardly debate to just call someones opinion idiotic.
Ok.
Imagine the quality of these forums if everyone just ran around saying "WOW, that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, you really pulled that out of your ass."
Yes, but that doesn't mean one is acceptable by default.
But again, tone matters. I have had infractions before where I have been modded not because I lacked an underlying essence of a valid debate point, but because I said it with a bad tone.
I still maintain that if I had made the same post as mikey, BlinkingSpirit would have modded me without batting an eye, and if I had tried contesting it, he would be saying the same thing I am saying in this thread. But I guess we will never know.
Like I said before, tone matters. You can post something that has a valid underlying essence, but if it is buried within unnecessary and inflammatory language, the post as a whole may still not be appropriate. You can't just ignore how someone says something because it has MEANING.
There is a difference between ad hominem and an attack. It's barely worth noting because of it's irrelevance in the forums, but it exists. If the attack is ad hominem-oriented then it should be infracted as a flame, as it is. I don't know why it isn't infracted if that's the current case.
There's more to it than that. We aren't a neutral party. To claim we are is foolish and ignorant of our humanity. We don't have "moderator mode" and "member mode" the way you have "on duty" and "off duty". Sure you're still held to some standards off duty, but if you swear at someone off duty, you're okay.
For us, "on duty" and "off duty" blend and mix. When we're online, we're both on duty and off duty, maintaining order in our moderated forums, and also maintaining interest in the discussions taking place. We care about the discussions just like you do - that's why we become moderators for those sections.
So, also just sayin', we aren't all that comparable to police officers.
You weren't talking to me, but I just gotta say, that's awesome. If I sigged quotes, I'd be tempted to sig that one.
My Moderator Helpdesk| My Custom Set List | My MSE Template HostingBeers Tasted: 113 | Last Beer Sampled: Flying Dog Horn Dog Barley Wine Ale
www.diestoremoval.com
A truly great petition
While that's true, there's little difference in the eyes of the person that made the product. If you were to tell an artist that after 10 years of hard work and skill refinement, his entire compilation of work was utter crap, his soul would be crushed and he'd take it very personally (and I actually have a close friend who had this happen to him).
My art blog
Claims:
The kicker variant in WWK will be "Kicker without a kicked effect." - proven wrong Jan 2010 : 2 wrongs
Decks:
:symu::symb: Bloodchief Ascension - Modern
:symb::symr: Rakdos, the Defiler - EDH
:symu::symb::symw: Sharuum the Hegemon - EDH
:symw::symu::symb: Zur the Enchanter - EDH