^I'd rather agree that {MikeyG}'s post was debatably spam. A bit more than half of the content of that post was weighted toward crudely (and baselessly) debunking another poster's opinion and only a snippet of the short post actually invited the poster to elaborate, which is barely worth its weight in content by itself.
I'm a bit surprised that Blinking Spirit conceded the fact that the post was infractable. Most of the MTGS staff typically sticks together. Perhaps he wasn't aware of this thread. -.-
It's not that I made a post and am now rationalizing it because of my bias, I made the post knowing that it was alright given the standards of the Debate forum given that we've dealt with similar situations in the past.
You dealt with "similar situations" in the past so you decided that it was positive for Debate to post a comment that the staff has debated infracting in the past?
I don't feel it reflects positively on an Admin when he uses his knowledge of "borderline" posting to make "borderline" posts. While the staff has to let some posts go, this does not mean they should be encouraging posts on the narrowly passable end of the spectrum. Realize that MTGS staff are models to the community.
I'm a bit surprised that Blinking Spirit conceded the fact that the post was infractable. Most of the MTGS staff typically sticks together. Perhaps he wasn't aware of this thread. -.-
Maybe I should have asked before posting that?.... kind of a weird message though: "hey, thanks for the response can I go use it to argue against mikeyG in community issues?"
I'm a bit surprised that Blinking Spirit conceded the fact that the post was infractable. Most of the MTGS staff typically sticks together. Perhaps he wasn't aware of this thread. -.-
Did you miss this part?
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Given your history of temper problems, yes, you would have.
It would have been infracted if LogicX posted it. Not necessarily true of other posters. Blinking Spirit sees LogicX as having a "history of temper problems," so likely LogicX is kept on a shorter leash than a lot of members, not just an Admin.
It's entirely possible that I wouldn't be infracted for making the same post. I'm not saying I definitely wouldn't be, just that BS pointed out that it had something to do with LogicX's history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
It would have been infracted if LogicX posted it. Not necessarily true of other posters. Blinking Spirit sees LogicX as having a "history of temper problems," so likely LogicX is kept on a shorter leash than a lot of members, not just an Admin.
It is undeniable that the post infractable under any condition strengthens LogicX's argument. Most of us would also not debate that moderators would feel less compelled to infract each other, especially when it comes down to the whim discretion of the mod as in the example above. In this way, it is very possible {MikeyG} had leeway.
Regardless, this discussion has become too focused on {MikeyG} and LogicX's example in the OP. No one has even bothered refuting the Kijin post from earlier was not infractable. http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showt...55#post5382755
My intention is less so to single out any one staff but to point out that LogicX's stance that the staff has preferential treatment is not unfounded.
I do not believe that his argument is invalidated by the debatable strength of the single {MikeyG} example.
It is undeniable that the post infractable under any condition strengthens LogicX's argument. Most of us would also not debate that moderators would feel less compelled to infract each other, especially when it comes down to the whim discretion of the mod as in the example above. In this way, it is very possible {MikeyG} had leeway.
Regardless, this discussion has become too focused on {MikeyG} and LogicX's example in the OP. No one has even bothered refuting the Kijin post from earlier was not infractable. http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showt...55#post5382755
My intention is less so to single out any one staff but to point out that LogicX's stance that the staff has preferential treatment is not unfounded.
I do not believe that his argument is invalidated by the debatable strength of the single {MikeyG} example.
I agree, regardless of the verdict on my personal experience, I believe this is a larger problem, as indicated in my original post.
Kijin's post is even more extreme than my example, and is another instance where I think a user would EASILY be given an infraction which I think most mods would agree with. I mean, can you imagine if someone posted this:
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
... and then came to this forum and complained about getting an infraction for it. I don't there would be much sympathy given.
Regardless, this discussion has become too focused on {MikeyG} and LogicX's example in the OP. No one has even bothered refuting the Kijin post from earlier was not infractable. http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showt...55#post5382755
My intention is less so to single out any one staff but to point out that LogicX's stance that the staff has preferential treatment is not unfounded.
I do not believe that his argument is invalidated by the debatable strength of the single {MikeyG} example.
I don't see a big problem, as a mod he should probably inform people on market street to fact check on prices. While that could have been said less intensely I didn't see a problem. If you can point out a counter-example of a non-mod getting infracted for something disturbingly similar I'd say that it's a good point. But as it stands the thread go locked, that usually means it's getting out of control, or can't go in a good direction.
If you really have a problem with an admin, go to another admin. They won't be able to do much, but they'll give you some credibility if both of you take it to the site owner.
That would only be a conceivable option if moderator corruption were a widespread factor in the staff and the staff were consistently abusing their positions. And I haven't seen a single convincing argument that that's the case here.
Just to clear things up, IT was just a satirical statement, which I thought I refuted in my second statement.
But as I have nothing of value to add to the conversation, I'll gracefully bow out.
It would have been infracted if LogicX posted it. Not necessarily true of other posters. Blinking Spirit sees LogicX as having a "history of temper problems," so likely LogicX is kept on a shorter leash than a lot of members, not just an Admin.
It's entirely possible that I wouldn't be infracted for making the same post. I'm not saying I definitely wouldn't be, just that BS pointed out that it had something to do with LogicX's history.
Wait, given his history of "temper problems"? Yeah, because his temper is really going to lead to something like a shootout. /sarcasm
Honestly, if the statement can be considered grounds for an infraction for one user simply because you "think" he has temper issues (kinda hard to tell over the internet if someone is angry or simply passionate about the issue), then the statement should be considered grounds for an infraction for every user, mods included. I've been infracted for a matter of fact "tone". I recently got infracted for responding to someone in the rulings forum that asked for more information on the OPs issue by saying that the information was unnecessary because the OPs issue had already been answered. I was given the infraction because of my history of "acting like a mod". If someone isn't acting like a mod, but simply stating fact, yet are given an infraction because they have a history of acting like a mod, then what kind of system do we have? Similarly, if LogicX had made that post, most likely without losing his temper, but was still given an infraction simply because of his history on the site, then where's the fairness in it?
Wait, given his history of "temper problems"? Yeah, because his temper is really going to lead to something like a shootout. /sarcasm
Shootout no, Flamewar maybe.
Honestly, if the statement can be considered grounds for an infraction for one user simply because you "think" he has temper issues (kinda hard to tell over the internet if someone is angry or simply passionate about the issue), then the statement should be considered grounds for an infraction for every user, mods included. I've been infracted for a matter of fact "tone". I recently got infracted for responding to someone in the rulings forum that asked for more information on the OPs issue by saying that the information was unnecessary because the OPs issue had already been answered. I was given the infraction because of my history of "acting like a mod". If someone isn't acting like a mod, but simply stating fact, yet are given an infraction because they have a history of acting like a mod, then what kind of system do we have? Similarly, if LogicX had made that post, most likely without losing his temper, but was still given an infraction simply because of his history on the site, then where's the fairness in it?
Backseat Moderation is exactly what it sounds like you were doing, which is against forum rules. You are not a mod and so should not act like one. Posting to tell someone that they don't need any more information sounds either like you're a mod closing the thread or it's a spam post because it's useless and not doing anything for anyone.
That said, if you're in the rulings forum and someone is asking for information, it is generally not useless to give it to them just because someone else had their question answered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
So, uh, I hope Blinking Spirit doesn't mind me posting his private message response to me here but....
Hu, well if this is a legit PM you might have just beaten me in an argument LogicX. Gratz.
All I can say is I know FOR A FACT there was a mod around here that would have LOVE for me to get banned. I WISH he had stated that as plainly as BS did do you. Truth is he just never responded to any of my PMs, (but did state on hidden parts of the forum that he was itching to get me gone).
When something like that happen, all you can do is to try to not give that mod a reason. As I said before, they only infract you for gray areas.
Show BS your a changed man and I bet you'll get off his ☺☺☺☺ list.
Oh, okay, good. Good thing I didn't say the "moderation team is above this, as a super elite team of geniuses who are always right and never wrong". I mean, thanks for putting words in my mouth but I already ate today so I just spit them back out. I mean, it is beach time so I gotta be careful what I put in my mouth.
Sorry, that post was dripping with sarcasm, I thought you would detect it. The point is, it's an either-or case. Either the moderators are superhuman elite geniuses who never make mistakes, or they do make mistakes. I think we both know that it's the second case, you certainly aren't a super-genius if you can't even detect sarcasm
Having admitted (in a roundabout fashion) that you and other moderators do make mistakes, I stand by my statement that using a single fallible human's opinion to decide if a post is bad or not is a TERRIBLE way to run a forum.
That is essentially how this site is run. A moderator addresses a problematic post using his or her interpretation of our Forum Rules. The odd time, when a situation is troublesome, a mod will inquire with the others as to the best solution. But by and large, it is one staff member's opinion of a post that leads to punishment.
Oh really? It's just one staff members opinion that leads to punishment most of the time? Are you really saying that the list of forum rules are not used?
I thought the majority of infractions were for posters who disregarded the rules. I'm glad you cleared this up for me, now I understand that following the rules is futile and the real enforcement is based on the whimsical opinions of moderators.
You may think that's terrible, but that's how we do things. And I don't see that changing considering for over five years that system has served us overwhelmingly well.
Yes I do think it's terrible. If you have a big detailed rules post that you force every poster to read, it'd make a lot more sense to FOLLOW THE RULES first and leave moderator opinion out of it.
I understand there are those 1% borderline cases where a call has to be made, but would it really be so hard to have a couple moderators discuss those cases together, instead of leaving them up to one man's opinion?
Someone should report you for backseat moderation.
You are taking him way out of context.
---------------------------
The thing to remember is LogicX HAS a history, a rather colorful history at that, as such he is what in real life would be considered a repeat offender and as such is given less leeway than other members because he has shown a tendency of returning to his posting habits if given the chance (case in point).
Same for Trancebam, he has a history of backseat moderating which is why posts that would normally be grey areas (or permissible if properly worded) are infractions for him.
Honestly if people have a history of bad behavior (or of repeated mistaken actions) they should be given less leeway than a regular clean slate (or at least non repeating slate) members, at least in regards to the nature of the of their repeat offenses (which is to say keep a tighter leash in regards to flaming with a repeat flamer but give them the same chance in regards to spam as other users).
As for the topic at hand i dont think any of the posts at hand (given the proper context) are inappropriate, Mikey as has been mentioned attacked the opinion which is a perfectly reasonable action in the Debate Forum, Kijin's post is also understandable when you consider the context of the thread in question, people had been giving bad/inaccurate price/advice (I have not checked the whole marketplace, i am assuming this is a constant problem there), the staff got fed up and ripped them a new one, yes it was rude but it was not improper, Market Place should have proper pricing not random numbers or idiotic responses regarding the worth of cards not to do so is just enabling people to rip others.
Oh really? It's just one staff members opinion that leads to punishment most of the time? Are you really saying that the list of forum rules are not used?
However, if you have a cut and dry definition of the word "flaming" or "trolling" that can easily be applied to any and all post to give a binary response, and thus eliminate the need for an 'interpretation' of those words, I'm sure we would all love to hear it.
I missed nothing. After that, he followed up with... "But by and large, it is one staff member's opinion of a post that leads to punishment." You do know what "but" means, don't you?
Which indicates that while he is aware of the rules, he thinks that it's just one staff memeber's opionion which really matters for the most part.* I'm far more interested in that majority, rather than the minority where he actually does think the rules apply.
No thanks. You are not a moderator, so your opinion holds no weight. Also not interested in starting another drawn out argument where you ignore my questions and instead bring up irrelevant side-stories.
However, if you have a cut and dry definition of the word "flaming" or "trolling" that can easily be applied to any and all post to give a binary response, and thus eliminate the need for an 'interpretation' of those words, I'm sure we would all love to hear it.
This has never been about that. This has been about the catch-all rule that moderators can use to punish you for any reason they deem fit, without reason.
This has been about the catch-all rule that moderators can use to punish you for any reason they deem fit, without reason.
In my experience, when moderators do invoke the "catch all", it is hardly "without reason". Usually it's in pretty significant situations that are pretty unique in nature, but easily understandable and reasonable given those circumstances.
Or, do you have examples do the contrary, that moderators simply use the "catch all" to infract people they feel like infracting such that a reasonable person would look at and say "That's not appropriate at all"?
Moral of the story: The veterans usually get the benefit of doubt, especially if their track record is clean for the most part. I've seen it happen on other forums and it happens in real life too.
I missed nothing. After that, he followed up with... "But by and large, it is one staff member's opinion of a post that leads to punishment." You do know what "but" means, don't you?
Right, their OPINION of what the forum rules mean. As in, their interpretation of them.
Use your search powers to look up "interpretation" and "opinion."
No thanks. You are not a moderator, so your opinion holds no weight. Also not interested in starting another drawn out argument where you ignore my questions and instead bring up irrelevant side-stories.
You don't want to hear my opinion, but you're mad at me for not answering questions?
This has never been about that. This has been about the catch-all rule that moderators can use to punish you for any reason they deem fit, without reason.
Well, again, this binary definition you must have for "trolling" would eliminate the need for such a rule.
Stop holding out on us and share it! There are plenty of my old posts I would like to apply it to to see if I really was.
And neither are you. You've nullified your own opinion in a statement, so what makes anything you've said worth reading?
What a silly statement. You posted just to point out that the post you are replying to is one that isn't worth reading (except you obviously did read it)?
I was responding to {mikeyG}. I wanted a response from him, or failing that another moderator. I'm sorry it's hard for you to understand, but a response from a regular user is USELESS. Even if they agree 100% with me, it doesn't mater because they can't change anything, only a moderator could. And yes, a response from me would be equally useless. Not to mention silly, responding to my own post.
In my experience, when moderators do invoke the "catch all", it is hardly "without reason". Usually it's in pretty significant situations that are pretty unique in nature, but easily understandable and reasonable given those circumstances.
Or, do you have examples do the contrary, that moderators simply use the "catch all" to infract people they feel like infracting such that a reasonable person would look at and say "That's not appropriate at all"?
The post I was responding to was {mikeyG} claiming that "by and large" it's a moderator's opinion determining if a post is deserving of an infraction or not, rather than the rules of the site. I was responding based on his post, not any personal beliefs of mine.
Right, their OPINION of what the forum rules mean. As in, their interpretation of them.
Uh, no. There is no interpretation or opinion involved in determining if a post is a double-post or not. It either is or it is not. Evading the censor is not a matter of opinion. Usage of bold red text isn't either. Image leeching is pretty easily proven as well, not much opinion involved there. Using font colors to create invisitext isn't really open to interpretation either.
A couple rules do require some additional interpretation, this is true. But if you read {mikeyG}'s post it sounds like he thinks everything is open to opinion, not some subset of the rules.
You don't want to hear my opinion, but you're mad at me for not answering questions?
As above, your opinion is useless to me. Even if you agreed with my point of view nothing would change, as you are not a moderator. So go ahead, disagree all you want, it's irrelevant to me.
Well, again, this binary definition you must have for "trolling" would eliminate the need for such a rule.
No, it wouldn't. For example, take your own example from a past thread about flooding the servers to crash the site. You didn't really think things through before making that statement, did you?
The post I was responding to was {mikeyG} claiming that "by and large" it's a moderator's opinion determining if a post is deserving of an infraction or not, rather than the rules of the site. I was responding based on his post, not any personal beliefs of mine.
Right. And if you READ his post its quite clear he is speaking about their opinion of the forum rules "by and large" determines if a post is deserving of an infraction or not. (you know, since that's what he said)
I don't know why you think he is obligated to repeat himself.
Uh, no. There is no interpretation or opinion involved in determining if a post is a double-post or not. It either is or it is not. Evading the censor is not a matter of opinion. Usage of bold red text isn't either. Image leeching is pretty easily proven as well, not much opinion involved there. Using font colors to create invisitext isn't really open to interpretation either.
A couple rules do require some additional interpretation, this is true. But if you read {mikeyG}'s post it sounds like he thinks everything is open to opinion, not some subset of the rules.
I think it seems that way when YOU read his post. The rest of us seem to be getting something else out of it.
As above, your opinion is useless to me. Even if you agreed with my point of view nothing would change, as you are not a moderator. So go ahead, disagree all you want, it's irrelevant to me.
Right... so why are you mad at me for not answering your questions?
No, it wouldn't. For example, take your own example from a past thread about flooding the servers to crash the site. You didn't really think things through before making that statement, did you?
We are talking about "trolling" and "flaming" on this thread, not "hacking" and "crashing."
If just STATE your opinion free way of determining if a post is a flame or a troll, I'm sure we can come up with a comprehensive definition of that other stuff too. REALLY I would think "hacking" would be much easier to pin down than "trolling," so if you just tell us your method, we can probably do the easier stuff.
(and yes, I do think before I post most of the time, which is probably why my posts don't often have contradictory stuff in them. But, thank you for inquiring about my mental process before I make a post If you want a more in depth description, I would love to tell you!)
The post I was responding to was {mikeyG} claiming that "by and large" it's a moderator's opinion determining if a post is deserving of an infraction or not, rather than the rules of the site. I was responding based on his post, not any personal beliefs of mine.
Yes, it is the moderator's opinion whether a post is an infraction because the moderator is the one that pushes the button.
That opinion is informed by the site rules.
They work hand in hand; one is not used to the exclusion of the other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am no longer on MTGS staff, so please don't contact me asking me to do staff things. :|
A couple rules do require some additional interpretation, this is true. But if you read {mikeyG}'s post it sounds like he thinks everything is open to opinion, not some subset of the rules.
Wow, you're really bad for putting words in peoples' mouths, aren't you? You may want to stop that at some point or people are just going to tire of dealing with you.
We had been discussing the concept of one man's opinion determining if a post is bad for the forums, something you decried as TERRIBLE. I simply noted that a moderator's interpretation of the rules is how most posts wind up warned or infracted. Are there clear cut rules that generally don't require much interpretation? Yes, to a point. Of course, even the rules you stated (doubleposting, censor evasion, etc) can involve interpretation on the part of the mod. Was this an accidental doublepost? Is the font color the user selected fine on the default skin but hard to read on an obscure skin that the user may not know about? etc
Is everything open to interpretation? No, of course not. But a significant portion of the posts moderated on this site required one man's opinion to some degree at some point in the process. What rule was broken, how severe was the offense, how harsh ought the punishment be, what (if any) follow up should be pursued, etc. And given that the two rules you admit to needing a mod's interpretation of the rules (flaming and spamming) are amongst the most common things dealt with here, I think you can begin to see why I said what I said.
Now, I've indulged your need to be contrary and misinterpret the statements of others, this is the last time I'll speak of this tangent in this thread. I'm not about to argue with you over nothing in SYM.
You dealt with "similar situations" in the past so you decided that it was positive for Debate to post a comment that the staff has debated infracting in the past?
I don't feel it reflects positively on an Admin when he uses his knowledge of "borderline" posting to make "borderline" posts. While the staff has to let some posts go, this does not mean they should be encouraging posts on the narrowly passable end of the spectrum. Realize that MTGS staff are models to the community.
So let's say we had a debate where the topic is if it is okay to smoke marijuana medicinally. We, as debaters, decide it is okay to smoke marijuana medicinally, as long as the user doesn't have a history of drug abuse. It was a tough decision for everyone, but we still decided it is okay.
Does that mean it is not okay for us debaters to use medicinally because we know it might have gone the other way? That hardly makes sense. If they debated on similar situations in the past, then the only expectation you can have is for them to uphold their previous decisions as best as possible. To expect or assume otherwise wouldn't make sense.
You don't want to hear my opinion, but you're mad at me for not answering questions?
Perhaps this wouldn't be his sentiment if you hadn't ignored his questions the first time. I mean, had you addressed his questions he may be more interested in your opinion. Maybe not. Maybe he just doesn't like you. :itsamystery:
Is everything open to interpretation? No, of course not. But a significant portion of the posts moderated on this site required one man's opinion to some degree at some point in the process.
Sure, whatever. Backpedal away, go go! There is really a huge difference between the "opinion" required in determining if a double post really is a double post (hint: there isn't any opinion involved at all) and the opinion involved in determining if a post such as the one starting this thread crosses the line or not (hint: the opinion in that case depends solely on whether the person being asked is a moderator or moderator sympathizer).
Your OPINION that "But by and large, it is one staff member's opinion of a post that leads to punishment." is simply wrong, in my opinion. In my opinion, by and large it is the rules post that leads to infraction (not punishment, because an infraction is a joke), as most infractions do cite a specific rule and very few seem to be disputed in here, on the whole.
It is also my opinion that since you think one persons opinion should be enough to get someone else an infraction or suspension, you should be subject to those same rules. As one moderator's opinion was that your post was infractionable, it's pretty obvious what should have happened, but didn't because of your title.
We are talking about "trolling" and "flaming" on this thread, not "hacking" and "crashing."
Even though you quoted it yourself in your previous post, it seems you have totally forgotten what you are talking about. Since you seem to have missed it, let me repeat the part of the post you were writing in response to.
Originally Posted by Drakantus This has never been about that. This has been about the catch-all rule that moderators can use to punish you for any reason they deem fit, without reason.
What part of that makes you think I'm talking about trolling and flaming, not hacking or crashing? The part where I said "This has been about the catch-all rule", means that I am talking about the catch-all rule. Not the trolling rule. Not the flaming rule. Thanks for trying.
Even though you quoted it yourself in your previous post, it seems you have totally forgotten what you are talking about. Since you seem to have missed it, let me repeat the part of the post you were writing in response to.
Originally Posted by Drakantus This has never been about that. This has been about the catch-all rule that moderators can use to punish you for any reason they deem fit, without reason.
What part of that makes you think I'm talking about trolling and flaming, not hacking or crashing? The part where I said "This has been about the catch-all rule", means that I am talking about the catch-all rule. Not the trolling rule. Not the flaming rule. Thanks for trying.
Well, ok, I did not realize you had gone so far off the original topic of the thread.
So, what's your problem with that rule again?
Do you want that clause in the Rules removed so that you can hack the site without fear of repercussion? I'm assuming not....
You seem to be saying you don't can about it for trolling, I guess? So why then? Why do you want that protective clause removed?
How does the good outweigh the bad?
Perhaps this wouldn't be his sentiment if you hadn't ignored his questions the first time. I mean, had you addressed his questions he may be more interested in your opinion. Maybe not. Maybe he just doesn't like you. :itsamystery:
I honestly don't know which questions he is referring to. I pride myself on being thorough when I debate on the internet. I always try to go through a person's complete post (or the part directed at me at least). But, it was possible I missed a question directed at me, however unlikely. Since I don't know, I decided to not address that statement. However, if he wants to restate the question that triggered this problem, I will be more than happy to answer it.
I'm a bit surprised that Blinking Spirit conceded the fact that the post was infractable. Most of the MTGS staff typically sticks together. Perhaps he wasn't aware of this thread. -.-
You dealt with "similar situations" in the past so you decided that it was positive for Debate to post a comment that the staff has debated infracting in the past?
I don't feel it reflects positively on an Admin when he uses his knowledge of "borderline" posting to make "borderline" posts. While the staff has to let some posts go, this does not mean they should be encouraging posts on the narrowly passable end of the spectrum. Realize that MTGS staff are models to the community.
Maybe I should have asked before posting that?.... kind of a weird message though: "hey, thanks for the response can I go use it to argue against mikeyG in community issues?"
Did you miss this part?
It would have been infracted if LogicX posted it. Not necessarily true of other posters. Blinking Spirit sees LogicX as having a "history of temper problems," so likely LogicX is kept on a shorter leash than a lot of members, not just an Admin.
It's entirely possible that I wouldn't be infracted for making the same post. I'm not saying I definitely wouldn't be, just that BS pointed out that it had something to do with LogicX's history.
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
Regardless, this discussion has become too focused on {MikeyG} and LogicX's example in the OP. No one has even bothered refuting the Kijin post from earlier was not infractable.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showt...55#post5382755
My intention is less so to single out any one staff but to point out that LogicX's stance that the staff has preferential treatment is not unfounded.
I do not believe that his argument is invalidated by the debatable strength of the single {MikeyG} example.
I agree, regardless of the verdict on my personal experience, I believe this is a larger problem, as indicated in my original post.
Kijin's post is even more extreme than my example, and is another instance where I think a user would EASILY be given an infraction which I think most mods would agree with. I mean, can you imagine if someone posted this:
... and then came to this forum and complained about getting an infraction for it. I don't there would be much sympathy given.
I don't see a big problem, as a mod he should probably inform people on market street to fact check on prices. While that could have been said less intensely I didn't see a problem. If you can point out a counter-example of a non-mod getting infracted for something disturbingly similar I'd say that it's a good point. But as it stands the thread go locked, that usually means it's getting out of control, or can't go in a good direction.
Just to clear things up, IT was just a satirical statement, which I thought I refuted in my second statement.
But as I have nothing of value to add to the conversation, I'll gracefully bow out.
My Trading Post
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=226506
Wait, given his history of "temper problems"? Yeah, because his temper is really going to lead to something like a shootout. /sarcasm
Honestly, if the statement can be considered grounds for an infraction for one user simply because you "think" he has temper issues (kinda hard to tell over the internet if someone is angry or simply passionate about the issue), then the statement should be considered grounds for an infraction for every user, mods included. I've been infracted for a matter of fact "tone". I recently got infracted for responding to someone in the rulings forum that asked for more information on the OPs issue by saying that the information was unnecessary because the OPs issue had already been answered. I was given the infraction because of my history of "acting like a mod". If someone isn't acting like a mod, but simply stating fact, yet are given an infraction because they have a history of acting like a mod, then what kind of system do we have? Similarly, if LogicX had made that post, most likely without losing his temper, but was still given an infraction simply because of his history on the site, then where's the fairness in it?
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
Shootout no, Flamewar maybe.
Backseat Moderation is exactly what it sounds like you were doing, which is against forum rules. You are not a mod and so should not act like one. Posting to tell someone that they don't need any more information sounds either like you're a mod closing the thread or it's a spam post because it's useless and not doing anything for anyone.
That said, if you're in the rulings forum and someone is asking for information, it is generally not useless to give it to them just because someone else had their question answered.
A card game about Presidents. Stabbing each other. With knives.
All I can say is I know FOR A FACT there was a mod around here that would have LOVE for me to get banned. I WISH he had stated that as plainly as BS did do you. Truth is he just never responded to any of my PMs, (but did state on hidden parts of the forum that he was itching to get me gone).
When something like that happen, all you can do is to try to not give that mod a reason. As I said before, they only infract you for gray areas.
Show BS your a changed man and I bet you'll get off his ☺☺☺☺ list.
Someone should report you for backseat moderation.
Sorry, that post was dripping with sarcasm, I thought you would detect it. The point is, it's an either-or case. Either the moderators are superhuman elite geniuses who never make mistakes, or they do make mistakes. I think we both know that it's the second case, you certainly aren't a super-genius if you can't even detect sarcasm
Having admitted (in a roundabout fashion) that you and other moderators do make mistakes, I stand by my statement that using a single fallible human's opinion to decide if a post is bad or not is a TERRIBLE way to run a forum.
Oh really? It's just one staff members opinion that leads to punishment most of the time? Are you really saying that the list of forum rules are not used?
I thought the majority of infractions were for posters who disregarded the rules. I'm glad you cleared this up for me, now I understand that following the rules is futile and the real enforcement is based on the whimsical opinions of moderators.
Yes I do think it's terrible. If you have a big detailed rules post that you force every poster to read, it'd make a lot more sense to FOLLOW THE RULES first and leave moderator opinion out of it.
I understand there are those 1% borderline cases where a call has to be made, but would it really be so hard to have a couple moderators discuss those cases together, instead of leaving them up to one man's opinion?
---------------------------
The thing to remember is LogicX HAS a history, a rather colorful history at that, as such he is what in real life would be considered a repeat offender and as such is given less leeway than other members because he has shown a tendency of returning to his posting habits if given the chance (case in point).
Same for Trancebam, he has a history of backseat moderating which is why posts that would normally be grey areas (or permissible if properly worded) are infractions for him.
Honestly if people have a history of bad behavior (or of repeated mistaken actions) they should be given less leeway than a regular clean slate (or at least non repeating slate) members, at least in regards to the nature of the of their repeat offenses (which is to say keep a tighter leash in regards to flaming with a repeat flamer but give them the same chance in regards to spam as other users).
As for the topic at hand i dont think any of the posts at hand (given the proper context) are inappropriate, Mikey as has been mentioned attacked the opinion which is a perfectly reasonable action in the Debate Forum, Kijin's post is also understandable when you consider the context of the thread in question, people had been giving bad/inaccurate price/advice (I have not checked the whole marketplace, i am assuming this is a constant problem there), the staff got fed up and ripped them a new one, yes it was rude but it was not improper, Market Place should have proper pricing not random numbers or idiotic responses regarding the worth of cards not to do so is just enabling people to rip others.
You seemed to have missed this part:
You might also want to read this post.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=5406678&postcount=96
However, if you have a cut and dry definition of the word "flaming" or "trolling" that can easily be applied to any and all post to give a binary response, and thus eliminate the need for an 'interpretation' of those words, I'm sure we would all love to hear it.
I missed nothing. After that, he followed up with... "But by and large, it is one staff member's opinion of a post that leads to punishment." You do know what "but" means, don't you?
Which indicates that while he is aware of the rules, he thinks that it's just one staff memeber's opionion which really matters for the most part.* I'm far more interested in that majority, rather than the minority where he actually does think the rules apply.
* "by and large"
No thanks. You are not a moderator, so your opinion holds no weight. Also not interested in starting another drawn out argument where you ignore my questions and instead bring up irrelevant side-stories.
This has never been about that. This has been about the catch-all rule that moderators can use to punish you for any reason they deem fit, without reason.
In my experience, when moderators do invoke the "catch all", it is hardly "without reason". Usually it's in pretty significant situations that are pretty unique in nature, but easily understandable and reasonable given those circumstances.
Or, do you have examples do the contrary, that moderators simply use the "catch all" to infract people they feel like infracting such that a reasonable person would look at and say "That's not appropriate at all"?
And neither are you. You've nullified your own opinion in a statement, so what makes anything you've said worth reading?
Use your search powers to look up "interpretation" and "opinion."
You don't want to hear my opinion, but you're mad at me for not answering questions?
Well, again, this binary definition you must have for "trolling" would eliminate the need for such a rule.
Stop holding out on us and share it! There are plenty of my old posts I would like to apply it to to see if I really was.
What a silly statement. You posted just to point out that the post you are replying to is one that isn't worth reading (except you obviously did read it)?
I was responding to {mikeyG}. I wanted a response from him, or failing that another moderator. I'm sorry it's hard for you to understand, but a response from a regular user is USELESS. Even if they agree 100% with me, it doesn't mater because they can't change anything, only a moderator could. And yes, a response from me would be equally useless. Not to mention silly, responding to my own post.
The post I was responding to was {mikeyG} claiming that "by and large" it's a moderator's opinion determining if a post is deserving of an infraction or not, rather than the rules of the site. I was responding based on his post, not any personal beliefs of mine.
Uh, no. There is no interpretation or opinion involved in determining if a post is a double-post or not. It either is or it is not. Evading the censor is not a matter of opinion. Usage of bold red text isn't either. Image leeching is pretty easily proven as well, not much opinion involved there. Using font colors to create invisitext isn't really open to interpretation either.
A couple rules do require some additional interpretation, this is true. But if you read {mikeyG}'s post it sounds like he thinks everything is open to opinion, not some subset of the rules.
As above, your opinion is useless to me. Even if you agreed with my point of view nothing would change, as you are not a moderator. So go ahead, disagree all you want, it's irrelevant to me.
No, it wouldn't. For example, take your own example from a past thread about flooding the servers to crash the site. You didn't really think things through before making that statement, did you?
In other news, the mods normally have better stuff to do then justify every one of their action to anyone that does not perfectly understand them.
Right. And if you READ his post its quite clear he is speaking about their opinion of the forum rules "by and large" determines if a post is deserving of an infraction or not. (you know, since that's what he said)
I don't know why you think he is obligated to repeat himself.
And we are NOT talking about any of those are we?
I think it seems that way when YOU read his post. The rest of us seem to be getting something else out of it.
Right... so why are you mad at me for not answering your questions?
We are talking about "trolling" and "flaming" on this thread, not "hacking" and "crashing."
If just STATE your opinion free way of determining if a post is a flame or a troll, I'm sure we can come up with a comprehensive definition of that other stuff too. REALLY I would think "hacking" would be much easier to pin down than "trolling," so if you just tell us your method, we can probably do the easier stuff.
(and yes, I do think before I post most of the time, which is probably why my posts don't often have contradictory stuff in them. But, thank you for inquiring about my mental process before I make a post If you want a more in depth description, I would love to tell you!)
Yes, it is the moderator's opinion whether a post is an infraction because the moderator is the one that pushes the button.
That opinion is informed by the site rules.
They work hand in hand; one is not used to the exclusion of the other.
Wow, you're really bad for putting words in peoples' mouths, aren't you? You may want to stop that at some point or people are just going to tire of dealing with you.
We had been discussing the concept of one man's opinion determining if a post is bad for the forums, something you decried as TERRIBLE. I simply noted that a moderator's interpretation of the rules is how most posts wind up warned or infracted. Are there clear cut rules that generally don't require much interpretation? Yes, to a point. Of course, even the rules you stated (doubleposting, censor evasion, etc) can involve interpretation on the part of the mod. Was this an accidental doublepost? Is the font color the user selected fine on the default skin but hard to read on an obscure skin that the user may not know about? etc
Is everything open to interpretation? No, of course not. But a significant portion of the posts moderated on this site required one man's opinion to some degree at some point in the process. What rule was broken, how severe was the offense, how harsh ought the punishment be, what (if any) follow up should be pursued, etc. And given that the two rules you admit to needing a mod's interpretation of the rules (flaming and spamming) are amongst the most common things dealt with here, I think you can begin to see why I said what I said.
Now, I've indulged your need to be contrary and misinterpret the statements of others, this is the last time I'll speak of this tangent in this thread. I'm not about to argue with you over nothing in SYM.
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
So let's say we had a debate where the topic is if it is okay to smoke marijuana medicinally. We, as debaters, decide it is okay to smoke marijuana medicinally, as long as the user doesn't have a history of drug abuse. It was a tough decision for everyone, but we still decided it is okay.
Does that mean it is not okay for us debaters to use medicinally because we know it might have gone the other way? That hardly makes sense. If they debated on similar situations in the past, then the only expectation you can have is for them to uphold their previous decisions as best as possible. To expect or assume otherwise wouldn't make sense.
Perhaps this wouldn't be his sentiment if you hadn't ignored his questions the first time. I mean, had you addressed his questions he may be more interested in your opinion. Maybe not. Maybe he just doesn't like you. :itsamystery:
Sure, whatever. Backpedal away, go go! There is really a huge difference between the "opinion" required in determining if a double post really is a double post (hint: there isn't any opinion involved at all) and the opinion involved in determining if a post such as the one starting this thread crosses the line or not (hint: the opinion in that case depends solely on whether the person being asked is a moderator or moderator sympathizer).
Your OPINION that "But by and large, it is one staff member's opinion of a post that leads to punishment." is simply wrong, in my opinion. In my opinion, by and large it is the rules post that leads to infraction (not punishment, because an infraction is a joke), as most infractions do cite a specific rule and very few seem to be disputed in here, on the whole.
It is also my opinion that since you think one persons opinion should be enough to get someone else an infraction or suspension, you should be subject to those same rules. As one moderator's opinion was that your post was infractionable, it's pretty obvious what should have happened, but didn't because of your title.
Even though you quoted it yourself in your previous post, it seems you have totally forgotten what you are talking about. Since you seem to have missed it, let me repeat the part of the post you were writing in response to.
Originally Posted by Drakantus
This has never been about that. This has been about the catch-all rule that moderators can use to punish you for any reason they deem fit, without reason.
What part of that makes you think I'm talking about trolling and flaming, not hacking or crashing? The part where I said "This has been about the catch-all rule", means that I am talking about the catch-all rule. Not the trolling rule. Not the flaming rule. Thanks for trying.
He is NOT back pedaling, that's EXACTLY what he said before:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=5407320#post5407320
Well, ok, I did not realize you had gone so far off the original topic of the thread.
So, what's your problem with that rule again?
Do you want that clause in the Rules removed so that you can hack the site without fear of repercussion? I'm assuming not....
You seem to be saying you don't can about it for trolling, I guess? So why then? Why do you want that protective clause removed?
How does the good outweigh the bad?
I honestly don't know which questions he is referring to. I pride myself on being thorough when I debate on the internet. I always try to go through a person's complete post (or the part directed at me at least). But, it was possible I missed a question directed at me, however unlikely. Since I don't know, I decided to not address that statement. However, if he wants to restate the question that triggered this problem, I will be more than happy to answer it.
But, as you say, it IS a mystery.