When I started posting here I got a lot of dumb infractions. After my first suspension I decided to clean up my record. Fast forward almost a year and I have have no infractions for that period of time. Then one day, I log on to find that I got three in a row, in water cooler chat/real life advice. When I contact the mod, he says that the infraction stands. So I go up a level. The next mod tells me that in borderline cases, since I have a history of infractions the moderation will stand (in regards to this post: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6886781#post6886781).
I was kind of baffled. I hadn't had a moderation in a year, but I still get this label of a troublesome user? And now because of that I have fresh moderations on my record. Which apparently even a year later will be fresh enough to take into account when looking at my posts. Am I just screwed forever?
Which I guess I can agree with, although the thread was in water cooler talk at the time.
So then I start looking for other posts like mine, that could be considered spammy based on what mood the moderator is in at the time. I came up with this:
All of these were made either in debate threads or real-life advice. Why is it that some users can accuse someone of "making **** up" but when I say "talking out of your ass" it is an infraction? Why is talking about shrimp on treadmills in a debate thread ok, but posting an unhelpful (but true) little quip in an advice thread is not? I reported all of these posts and no infractions were given. However, lets say that I had been infracted for any one of the above posts. To any mod reading this thread; can't you just predict your response to me going to you and appealing the other mods decision? Would you really overturn it? No way. It's not that I'm saying none of my moderations were deserved, it's just that they seem to be given out on whims. I can apply any of my responses from mods from my cases as to why the moderation was upheld to the above list, and it would seem like a perfectly reasonable argument. Hell, it's easy to take many questionable posts and make a reasonable argument for why they are spam, yet most would never be infracted. In many cases it's not a double standard (although I think the ease with which I acquired three moderations in one day is no coincidence. After one, it is much easier to give out another in the same thread), it's just inconsistent.
And before this is closed and I am told to contact a moderator, I have tried. I contacted two moderators about this issue lately and I have received no response. So this is the last place to inquire about this issue. Also, I believe that this is a larger issue than just complaining about what I think should not have been a moderation. Plus, any response I have received in the past has been... unsatisfying (one sentence repeating what the offense was and that the moderation stands before you are left on your one month suspension can be kind of frustrating). Like I said, it is easy to lay out what seems to be a reasonable argument for why a moderation was made, but a reasonable person would probably not bother in the first place. I don't expect anything to come of this thread, but I feel the need to voice my frustration.
Those 3 posts you cited (of yours) were generally not that bad, so I can see where they would be warned- but not infracted. I guess it's a "repeat offender" issue? Not sure how mods handle year-long gaps in that though. The other 4 posts you linked to were not bad, I can see where a couple were warnable.
Generally though, my only infractions have been for "Inappropriate Language," so I'm not sure how contention works. (It's kind of hard to argue with about 18 *'s)
When I started posting here I got a lot of dumb infractions. After my first suspension I decided to clean up my record. Fast forward almost a year and I have have no infractions for that period of time. Then one day, I log on to find that I got three in a row, in water cooler chat/real life advice. When I contact the mod, he says that the infraction stands. So I go up a level. The next mod tells me that in borderline cases, since I have a history of infractions the moderation will stand (in regards to this post: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6886781#post6886781).
I was kind of baffled. I hadn't had a moderation in a year, but I still get this label of a troublesome user? And now because of that I have fresh moderations on my record. Which apparently even a year later will be fresh enough to take into account when looking at my posts. Am I just screwed forever?
Which I guess I can agree with, although the thread was in water cooler talk at the time.
So then I start looking for other posts like mine, that could be considered spammy based on what mood the moderator is in at the time. I came up with this:
All of these were made either in debate threads or real-life advice. Why is it that some users can accuse someone of "making **** up" but when I say "talking out of your ass" it is an infraction? Why is talking about shrimp on treadmills in a debate thread ok, but posting an unhelpful (but true) little quip in an advice thread is not? I reported all of these posts and no infractions were given. However, lets say that I had been infracted for any one of the above posts. To any mod reading this thread; can't you just predict your response to me going to you and appealing the other mods decision? Would you really overturn it? No way. It's not that I'm saying none of my moderations were deserved, it's just that they seem to be given out on whims. I can apply any of my responses from mods from my cases as to why the moderation was upheld to the above list, and it would seem like a perfectly reasonable argument. Hell, it's easy to take many questionable posts and make a reasonable argument for why they are spam, yet most would never be infracted. In many cases it's not a double standard (although I think the ease with which I acquired three moderations in one day is no coincidence. After one, it is much easier to give out another in the same thread), it's just inconsistent.
And before this is closed and I am told to contact a moderator, I have tried. I contacted two moderators about this issue lately and I have received no response. So this is the last place to inquire about this issue. Also, I believe that this is a larger issue than just complaining about what I think should not have been a moderation. Plus, any response I have received in the past has been... unsatisfying (one sentence repeating what the offense was and that the moderation stands before you are left on your one month suspension can be kind of frustrating). Like I said, it is easy to lay out what seems to be a reasonable argument for why a moderation was made, but a reasonable person would probably not bother in the first place. I don't expect anything to come of this thread, but I feel the need to voice my frustration.
Thank you
I concur that a few of the posts you linked to (besides your own) required moderator attention of some kind (particularly something about shrimp on treadmills?). I also agree that there is still something of a consistency problem in moderator action on these boards. Sure, discretion is useful, but precedents have likely been set by previous action which can be used as guard-rails to prevent over-doing things (ie, the posts LogicX mentioned were not given any moderator action, thus, he probably does not deserve the treatment he received).
I'm beginning to give up hope that some of these repeatedly mentioned problems (which new threads have cropped up for, and reminders have been given) will receive attention.
Perhaps the greatest lesson to learn, though, is that, if you think that you might get warned/infracted for a post, you should carefully consider whether it's worth it. I think that I have received one Spam warning, ever, that I didn't expect. Every other moderator action that I received, I saw coming, and considered it worthwhile.
Harkius
I didn't expect a moderation for any of my three posts. Though looking back I maybe should have for the "talking out of your ass" post. The other two I was pretty baffled about, especially because three in one day meant a months suspension. And ESPECIALLY about the last one, because it was after I had gotten two already and I just happened to log on after that and make a quick post in real-life advice. Then all the sudden it got moderated and I was out.
First, you KNOW this is the wrong place to argue your case. Because you actually said it was the wrong place. If several people tell you that the infraction stands, that probably means the infraction stands.
The first one? You gave a quick answer that had no backup to it at all. And just a cursory glance at that thread shows that it's more than just a minor thing. It deserved more explanation. Instead of saying "You have no chance because..." you simply popped off a comment with no backing. That's spam in that kind of thread.
The second? Your post not only insulted the other member, it was written to get them to respond angrily, and also contributed absolutely nothing to the topic whatsoever. It did not address the topic in any way. That infraction is completely justified for all reasons that Harkius posted.
The last one just continued that trend. You insulted another poster and simultaneously said that their post was worthless. When asked, courteously, to expand on this, you insulted their writing a second time. To me, this read as you attempting to bait them into responding angrily. Which is the very definition of trolling.
I can't see how there's any kind of miscommunication here. What you posted in the Gender Roles thread was the very definition of trolling and, in the first case, fits spam to a T and is at the border for flaming. The advice thread was complete spam.
"When you've had a suspension or two, the mods give you infractions on borderline infractions. How do I stop from getting suspended?"
Just stop doing borderline infractable things.
Chances are, if you troll someone in debate, and it's "close" to where a new member wouldn't get infracted for it but you would... you probably hurt somebody's feelings.
I see you post on magic stuff once in a while. It's always good, solid, honest posts with very little attitude. Just make your debate posts like your magic posts.
One thing that works is to imagine that whatever you're writing in debate is the answer to an essay question on a college exam. You wouldn't get all bitter and personal writing a test answer, you'd just write something intelligent and logical and move on. Doing that will make you sound stoic and thoughtful like an antihero from an Anime, and will get you all the ladies. (And it will keep you from getting infracted.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
First, you KNOW this is the wrong place to argue your case. Because you actually said it was the wrong place. If several people tell you that the infraction stands, that probably means the infraction stands.
The first one? You gave a quick answer that had no backup to it at all. And just a cursory glance at that thread shows that it's more than just a minor thing. It deserved more explanation. Instead of saying "You have no chance because..." you simply popped off a comment with no backing. That's spam in that kind of thread.
The second? Your post not only insulted the other member, it was written to get them to respond angrily, and also contributed absolutely nothing to the topic whatsoever. It did not address the topic in any way. That infraction is completely justified for all reasons that Harkius posted.
The last one just continued that trend. You insulted another poster and simultaneously said that their post was worthless. When asked, courteously, to expand on this, you insulted their writing a second time. To me, this read as you attempting to bait them into responding angrily. Which is the very definition of trolling.
I can't see how there's any kind of miscommunication here. What you posted in the Gender Roles thread was the very definition of trolling and, in the first case, fits spam to a T and is at the border for flaming. The advice thread was complete spam.
Again, this thread is not to complain that i shouldn't have been moderated, it was to question the consistency of moderations by showing my moderations and other similar posts that were not infracted.
"When you've had a suspension or two, the mods give you infractions on borderline infractions. How do I stop from getting suspended?"
Just stop doing borderline infractable things.
Chances are, if you troll someone in debate, and it's "close" to where a new member wouldn't get infracted for it but you would... you probably hurt somebody's feelings.
I see you post on magic stuff once in a while. It's always good, solid, honest posts with very little attitude. Just make your debate posts like your magic posts.
One thing that works is to imagine that whatever you're writing in debate is the answer to an essay question on a college exam. You wouldn't get all bitter and personal writing a test answer, you'd just write something intelligent and logical and move on. Doing that will make you sound stoic and thoughtful like an antihero from an Anime, and will get you all the ladies. (And it will keep you from getting infracted.)
Like I said, it has been a year since my last moderation before this. I really did clean up my act. Then I slipped up a couple times one day and all that effort is gone.
Unfortunately I don't get to play magic much anymore. despite wanting to. I don't think I've ever had a reason to argue about magic in a vitriolic manner.
The first post is borderline spam but, at the least, gave a full answer to the question at hand. I'd likely have carded it.
The shrimp on treadmills thing? Someone asked what the shrimp on treadmills research was for, and he answered it. So that's not spam.
Saying someone is making stuff up is very different from saying someone else is dropping pseudo-intellectualism. The first is calling out someone's argument, the second one is insulting the argument and the poster. Therefore, different. The first is good debate etiquette, the latter is flaming/trolling.
Ljoss' didn't appear to have that much content. I'd likely have done something in that regard.
The last is talking about a news report and saying that Fox News is biased. I can't see how that's spam or flaming.
So... 2/5 of your examples probably should have been moderated. But pointing out that someone else is cheating on their taxes doesn't absolve you of doing the same.
The first post is borderline spam but, at the least, gave a full answer to the question at hand. I'd likely have carded it.
[quote]Saying someone is making stuff up is very different from saying someone else is dropping pseudo-intellectualism. The first is calling out someone's argument, the second one is insulting the argument and the poster. Therefore, different. The first is good debate etiquette, the latter is flaming/trolling.
So the accusation of pseudo-intellectualism can never be made? Some arguments are just inherently off limits even if they are valid? And I really don't see your point at all. Saying some is "making **** up" is flaming/trolling just as much as calling someone a pseudo-intellectual.
The last is talking about a news report and saying that Fox News is biased. I can't see how that's spam or flaming.
It really didn't have much to do with the thread at hand, and contained little content other than little quips of rage against fox news.
So... 2/5 of your examples probably should have been moderated. But pointing out that someone else is cheating on their taxes doesn't absolve you of doing the same.
But I'd still like those 2 people to pay their taxes if I have to.
No, they can't. Because 'pseudo-intellectualism' is an insult. There's nothing helpful or useful about that. If the actual argument is invalid, argue against it. Show why it's wrong. But the phrase 'pseudo-intellectual' is nothing but an insult. It's saying someone is faking being intellectual. It's essentially calling them stupid.
Saying someone is making up evidence is nowhere near calling them stupid. Sorry.
As for the fox news post? Maybe you should actually read the surrounding posts and get the context. That post is completely responding to the posts at hand. Not the thread, but the flow of conversation was talking about how Fox News is biased. So he was agreeing with that. I do agree there should have been more content, but it was entirely on topic.
As for the 'two people paying their taxes', while I believe those posts are actionable, such action is entirely up to the moderators of those individual forums. It's their ball.
You started this thread asking if you can 'break this cycle' of being infracted. You asked if your past history had anything to do with being infracted. Looking at those posts without looking at your history, I'd have infracted those if I saw them. They completely deserve the action taken. So it's less that you have a history and more that you make posts that need action taken. You can 'break this cycle' by following the rules, not insulting other posters, and making sure the posts you make actually address the thread AND add content. The guy with the Fox News post was borderline, but at least he gave his opinion, gave the position he was saying such opinion from, and tied it into the discussion at hand.
Further, your infractions have nothing at all to do with the infractions of others. If you believe they are breaking the rules and think we've missed them (and we do miss rules-breakers sometimes, we can't read EVERY post), report them. That's what the report function is for. Upon using it, your role in the event is over. It's not your call, and you are not involved.
I'm sorry that you're dissatisfied, but this seems less like you trying to point out an injustice and more like you trying to take others down with you.
No, they can't. Because 'pseudo-intellectualism' is an insult. There's nothing helpful or useful about that. If the actual argument is invalid, argue against it. Show why it's wrong. But the phrase 'pseudo-intellectual' is nothing but an insult. It's saying someone is faking being intellectual. It's essentially calling them stupid.
Saying someone is making up evidence is nowhere near calling them stupid. Sorry.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6885388#post6885388
I was calling the argument pseudo-intellectual, which many gender issues are. Plus, the infraction was given for the part where I accused someone of talking out of their ass (by the placement of the mod text). Which means the same thing as accusing someone of "making **** up." Trust me, BlinkingSpirit pull out the pseudo-intellectualism card way too much for it to be infractable.
Which was my first in the thread, I started on this line of calling out pseudointellectualism and linking to BlinkingSpirit simply because he so often brings it up when debating Teia.
This is what I mean about mods being great at rationalizing their actions, but being wholly inconsistent in doing so.
As for the fox news post? Maybe you should actually read the surrounding posts and get the context. That post is completely responding to the posts at hand. Not the thread, but the flow of conversation was talking about how Fox News is biased. So he was agreeing with that. I do agree there should have been more content, but it was entirely on topic.
Posting a "haters gonna hate" picture with little content in your post isn't spammy? Funny how if say Harkius had modded it and I posted here complaining about it, I can just picture your little paragraph of reasoned justification.
As for the 'two people paying their taxes', while I believe those posts are actionable, such action is entirely up to the moderators of those individual forums. It's their ball.
And I'm complaining that some people seem to play by different rules.
You started this thread asking if you can 'break this cycle' of being infracted. You asked if your past history had anything to do with being infracted. Looking at those posts without looking at your history, I'd have infracted those if I saw them. They completely deserve the action taken. So it's less that you have a history and more that you make posts that need action taken. You can 'break this cycle' by following the rules, not insulting other posters, and making sure the posts you make actually address the thread AND add content. The guy with the Fox News post was borderline, but at least he gave his opinion, gave the position he was saying such opinion from, and tied it into the discussion at hand.
Yeah one borderline slip up in a year (which I don't even consider to have been worthy of moderations), I don't think I'm doing too badly.
Further, your infractions have nothing at all to do with the infractions of others. If you believe they are breaking the rules and think we've missed them (and we do miss rules-breakers sometimes, we can't read EVERY post), report them. That's what the report function is for. Upon using it, your role in the event is over. It's not your call, and you are not involved.
No need to get all snippy. Yeah it's not my call but I guess that's what community issues is for. But you almost seem affronted by me even bringing the subject up.
I'm sorry that you're dissatisfied, but this seems less like you trying to point out an injustice and more like you trying to take others down with you.
I think the two goals are tied together in this case.
LogicX, the best thing you could do to improve your posting habits is; Think, type, think again, post.
Most of the time I end up not posting something I thought was worth adding because after I thought about it wasn't contributing to the thread. (This could also be applied to posts that spam/flame/etc)
LogicX, the best thing you could do to improve your posting habits is; Think, type, think again, post.
Most of the time I end up not posting something I thought was worth adding because after I thought about it wasn't contributing to the thread. (This could also be applied to posts that spam/flame/etc)
I've been trying to do this, and I lasted a year before slipping up. I'm really not that bad of a poster anymore. But I know I'm still on some **** lists. Which I believe had a hand in leading to more moderations, which will then lead to more...
I've been trying to do this, and I lasted a year before slipping up. I'm really not that bad of a poster anymore. But I know I'm still on some **** lists. Which I believe had a hand in leading to more moderations, which will then lead to more...
Even so, if you don't give them the chance to do that **** to you how can they infract you?
I know that sounds unfair(as you already addressed) but if keeping your posts 100% clean keeps you from being suspended I'd say its worth it.
Even so, if you don't give them the chance to do that **** to you how can they infract you?
I know that sounds unfair(as you already addressed) but if keeping your posts 100% clean keeps you from being suspended I'd say its worth it.
I know, I just wanted to point out that I have been trying.
Ultimately, you are vastly more likely to be infracted if you post stuff other people are going to report. Mods may infract you for borderline posts that they just come across, but they very often will not. But when you start hurting people's feelings, ALL your posts start coming under scrutiny.
No one ever said the moderation on this forum was consistent. It isn't, it isn't going to be, and it shouldn't have to be. I'd wager pretty safe money that none of the people who made the questionable posts you're referring have recently ticked people off to the point where their posts are likely to be reported. As a result, their borderline posts don't really get looked at.
You, on the other hand, posted in the debate section with a hostile attitude. I don't agree with Nai that pseudo-intellectualism is inherently insulting, but you said it without justification, without addressing any actual points relating to the topic, and with a clear intent to just shut the poster down without giving the content of his post the slightest amount of attention.
But the important thing to remember here isn't that the post's infraction is absolutely justifiable (it is). The important thing is that it got infracted because it was the kind of post that gets reported, or in other words, it was the kind of post that non-moderators want to see get an infraction. You will get an infraction 1000% more often when you're creating bad blood than otherwise, even if it is inconsistent.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
You're taking my posts out of order. The 'inb4' post was infracted because it was spam and trolling. The other one was infracted because it was trolling. The first one was justified, because your post had NOTHING in it. It was simply an 'inb4'. It had no content, it provided no point, nothing. It could also easily have been infracted for trolling or otherwise, but I believe it was specifically infracted because of spam. The second was specifically because of trolling. When you tell someone that you JUST said was being 'pseudo-intellectual' that they are 'talking out of your ass', you are specifically attacking THEM. Not their arguments. In the other post you linked, they were simply accused of making things up. Big difference.
And it's well known that different parts of the forum play by different rules. Certain sections are more strict than others. That I recall, for certain offenses, Debate is one of them. So is Real Life Advice.
Lastly, this is exactly what community issues is NOT for. It's in a big post at the top of the forum. "If you have a problem with a moderator, do not post it here. Take it to their help desk, or take it higher up." You did both.
You're taking my posts out of order. The 'inb4' post was infracted because it was spam and trolling. The other one was infracted because it was trolling. The first one was justified, because your post had NOTHING in it. It was simply an 'inb4'. It had no content, it provided no point, nothing. It could also easily have been infracted for trolling or otherwise, but I believe it was specifically infracted because of spam. The second was specifically because of trolling. When you tell someone that you JUST said was being 'pseudo-intellectual' that they are 'talking out of your ass', you are specifically attacking THEM. Not their arguments. In the other post you linked, they were simply accused of making things up. Big difference.
Ok whatever, like I said I'm not here to get my moderations overturned. Just to point out inconsistency.
This moderation is justified. The debate forum is for constructive posts that contribute to the topic. Your post added nothing to the discussion, and furthermore telling other users they are "blatantly making **** up" is inflammatory and unnecessary. Next time, actually post an argument rather than just raging against a news organization.
See how easy that was? I can easily picture that sitting my inbox. Now pretend you are me and attempt to respond to that, to get it overturned. Keep in mind that in my experience you only get one good response back when talking to a mod. Past that they are going to send you one sentence basically amounting to telling you the case is closed.
Kind of frustrating isn't it? You obviously think this post was not deserving of a moderation, but look at how reasonable that italicized response is! And you are just a lowly user in this scenario, so if the mod decides not to budge you are just out of luck, even though you have put forward your own reasonable argument as to why it was not deserving of a moderation.
I could make up similar responses for the other posts as well.
Does this help you to understand why I am so frustrated?
Lastly, this is exactly what community issues is NOT for. It's in a big post at the top of the forum. "If you have a problem with a moderator, do not post it here. Take it to their help desk, or take it higher up." You did both.
I tried that. I messages two moderators with my list of posts that I thought demonstrated inconsistency and I received no response. I'm tired of running around in circles so I came here.
As for the 'two people paying their taxes', while I believe those posts are actionable, such action is entirely up to the moderators of those individual forums. It's their ball.
And there is the flaw with the discretion some mods have been given.
[I]This moderation is justified. The debate forum is for constructive posts that contribute to the topic. Your post added nothing to the discussion, and furthermore telling other users they are "blatantly making **** up[/I]" [I]is inflammatory and unnecessary. Next time, actually post an argument rather than just raging against a news organization.
What you aren't understanding is that even though you're completely right, this isn't a problem. A moderator [I]could[/I] have infracted that post, and if a moderator had infracted it, then every single mod would defend that decision, because it isn't unreasonable.
There's a big difference between a post that might be worthy of an infraction and a post that's been infracted that might be worthy of being overturned.
always infracted sometimes infracted never infracted
<----------------|----------------------|---------------------->
never overturned never overturned probably overturned
This is the way it works, and this is the right way for it to work. You will never get an infraction overturned if there is any justification whatsoever for the infraction to have been handed out in the first place, even if you could find a worse post that wasn't originally infracted. And that's simply because overturns undermine authority and increase the drama over [I]every[/I] moderation a millionfold.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
This is the kind of opening that sets you up for more critical examination. Overt hostility will never improve a situation.
The mods have a no win scenario for their duties but we as a community owe it to ourselves and fellow posters to be civil even in disagreement.
This is the kind of opening that sets you up for more critical examination. Overt hostility will never improve a situation.
The mods have a no win scenario for their duties but we as a community owe it to ourselves and fellow posters to be civil even in disagreement.
I don't think I've been hostile at all in this topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was kind of baffled. I hadn't had a moderation in a year, but I still get this label of a troublesome user? And now because of that I have fresh moderations on my record. Which apparently even a year later will be fresh enough to take into account when looking at my posts. Am I just screwed forever?
Here are the other two:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6885297#post6885297
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6885388#post6885388
Which I guess I can agree with, although the thread was in water cooler talk at the time.
So then I start looking for other posts like mine, that could be considered spammy based on what mood the moderator is in at the time. I came up with this:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6922333&postcount=60
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7029474&postcount=146
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7029378&postcount=144
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=6988850&postcount=44
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7042155&postcount=55
All of these were made either in debate threads or real-life advice. Why is it that some users can accuse someone of "making **** up" but when I say "talking out of your ass" it is an infraction? Why is talking about shrimp on treadmills in a debate thread ok, but posting an unhelpful (but true) little quip in an advice thread is not? I reported all of these posts and no infractions were given. However, lets say that I had been infracted for any one of the above posts. To any mod reading this thread; can't you just predict your response to me going to you and appealing the other mods decision? Would you really overturn it? No way. It's not that I'm saying none of my moderations were deserved, it's just that they seem to be given out on whims. I can apply any of my responses from mods from my cases as to why the moderation was upheld to the above list, and it would seem like a perfectly reasonable argument. Hell, it's easy to take many questionable posts and make a reasonable argument for why they are spam, yet most would never be infracted. In many cases it's not a double standard (although I think the ease with which I acquired three moderations in one day is no coincidence. After one, it is much easier to give out another in the same thread), it's just inconsistent.
And before this is closed and I am told to contact a moderator, I have tried. I contacted two moderators about this issue lately and I have received no response. So this is the last place to inquire about this issue. Also, I believe that this is a larger issue than just complaining about what I think should not have been a moderation. Plus, any response I have received in the past has been... unsatisfying (one sentence repeating what the offense was and that the moderation stands before you are left on your one month suspension can be kind of frustrating). Like I said, it is easy to lay out what seems to be a reasonable argument for why a moderation was made, but a reasonable person would probably not bother in the first place. I don't expect anything to come of this thread, but I feel the need to voice my frustration.
Thank you
Generally though, my only infractions have been for "Inappropriate Language," so I'm not sure how contention works. (It's kind of hard to argue with about 18 *'s)
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
I'm beginning to give up hope that some of these repeatedly mentioned problems (which new threads have cropped up for, and reminders have been given) will receive attention.
I didn't expect a moderation for any of my three posts. Though looking back I maybe should have for the "talking out of your ass" post. The other two I was pretty baffled about, especially because three in one day meant a months suspension. And ESPECIALLY about the last one, because it was after I had gotten two already and I just happened to log on after that and make a quick post in real-life advice. Then all the sudden it got moderated and I was out.
I posted in your helpdesk.
That being said, from thier prespective i can see how its better to be safe then sorry.
But from users prospective its unfair.
Neither will ever win or ever be 100% happy.
In this case, give the guy a break, and if your gonna nab one person, you'd better get the rest.
THAT is unfair, do your jobs ALL THE WAY, or not at all.
The first one? You gave a quick answer that had no backup to it at all. And just a cursory glance at that thread shows that it's more than just a minor thing. It deserved more explanation. Instead of saying "You have no chance because..." you simply popped off a comment with no backing. That's spam in that kind of thread.
The second? Your post not only insulted the other member, it was written to get them to respond angrily, and also contributed absolutely nothing to the topic whatsoever. It did not address the topic in any way. That infraction is completely justified for all reasons that Harkius posted.
The last one just continued that trend. You insulted another poster and simultaneously said that their post was worthless. When asked, courteously, to expand on this, you insulted their writing a second time. To me, this read as you attempting to bait them into responding angrily. Which is the very definition of trolling.
I can't see how there's any kind of miscommunication here. What you posted in the Gender Roles thread was the very definition of trolling and, in the first case, fits spam to a T and is at the border for flaming. The advice thread was complete spam.
My helpdesk should you need me.
"When you've had a suspension or two, the mods give you infractions on borderline infractions. How do I stop from getting suspended?"
Just stop doing borderline infractable things.
Chances are, if you troll someone in debate, and it's "close" to where a new member wouldn't get infracted for it but you would... you probably hurt somebody's feelings.
I see you post on magic stuff once in a while. It's always good, solid, honest posts with very little attitude. Just make your debate posts like your magic posts.
One thing that works is to imagine that whatever you're writing in debate is the answer to an essay question on a college exam. You wouldn't get all bitter and personal writing a test answer, you'd just write something intelligent and logical and move on. Doing that will make you sound stoic and thoughtful like an antihero from an Anime, and will get you all the ladies. (And it will keep you from getting infracted.)
Again, this thread is not to complain that i shouldn't have been moderated, it was to question the consistency of moderations by showing my moderations and other similar posts that were not infracted.
Like I said, it has been a year since my last moderation before this. I really did clean up my act. Then I slipped up a couple times one day and all that effort is gone.
Unfortunately I don't get to play magic much anymore. despite wanting to. I don't think I've ever had a reason to argue about magic in a vitriolic manner.
The shrimp on treadmills thing? Someone asked what the shrimp on treadmills research was for, and he answered it. So that's not spam.
Saying someone is making stuff up is very different from saying someone else is dropping pseudo-intellectualism. The first is calling out someone's argument, the second one is insulting the argument and the poster. Therefore, different. The first is good debate etiquette, the latter is flaming/trolling.
Ljoss' didn't appear to have that much content. I'd likely have done something in that regard.
The last is talking about a news report and saying that Fox News is biased. I can't see how that's spam or flaming.
So... 2/5 of your examples probably should have been moderated. But pointing out that someone else is cheating on their taxes doesn't absolve you of doing the same.
My helpdesk should you need me.
So the accusation of pseudo-intellectualism can never be made? Some arguments are just inherently off limits even if they are valid? And I really don't see your point at all. Saying some is "making **** up" is flaming/trolling just as much as calling someone a pseudo-intellectual.
It really didn't have much to do with the thread at hand, and contained little content other than little quips of rage against fox news.
But I'd still like those 2 people to pay their taxes if I have to.
Saying someone is making up evidence is nowhere near calling them stupid. Sorry.
As for the fox news post? Maybe you should actually read the surrounding posts and get the context. That post is completely responding to the posts at hand. Not the thread, but the flow of conversation was talking about how Fox News is biased. So he was agreeing with that. I do agree there should have been more content, but it was entirely on topic.
As for the 'two people paying their taxes', while I believe those posts are actionable, such action is entirely up to the moderators of those individual forums. It's their ball.
You started this thread asking if you can 'break this cycle' of being infracted. You asked if your past history had anything to do with being infracted. Looking at those posts without looking at your history, I'd have infracted those if I saw them. They completely deserve the action taken. So it's less that you have a history and more that you make posts that need action taken. You can 'break this cycle' by following the rules, not insulting other posters, and making sure the posts you make actually address the thread AND add content. The guy with the Fox News post was borderline, but at least he gave his opinion, gave the position he was saying such opinion from, and tied it into the discussion at hand.
Further, your infractions have nothing at all to do with the infractions of others. If you believe they are breaking the rules and think we've missed them (and we do miss rules-breakers sometimes, we can't read EVERY post), report them. That's what the report function is for. Upon using it, your role in the event is over. It's not your call, and you are not involved.
I'm sorry that you're dissatisfied, but this seems less like you trying to point out an injustice and more like you trying to take others down with you.
My helpdesk should you need me.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6885388#post6885388
I was calling the argument pseudo-intellectual, which many gender issues are. Plus, the infraction was given for the part where I accused someone of talking out of their ass (by the placement of the mod text). Which means the same thing as accusing someone of "making **** up." Trust me, BlinkingSpirit pull out the pseudo-intellectualism card way too much for it to be infractable.
In fact, in the other post:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=6885297#post6885297
Which was my first in the thread, I started on this line of calling out pseudointellectualism and linking to BlinkingSpirit simply because he so often brings it up when debating Teia.
This is what I mean about mods being great at rationalizing their actions, but being wholly inconsistent in doing so.
Posting a "haters gonna hate" picture with little content in your post isn't spammy? Funny how if say Harkius had modded it and I posted here complaining about it, I can just picture your little paragraph of reasoned justification.
And I'm complaining that some people seem to play by different rules.
Yeah one borderline slip up in a year (which I don't even consider to have been worthy of moderations), I don't think I'm doing too badly.
No need to get all snippy. Yeah it's not my call but I guess that's what community issues is for. But you almost seem affronted by me even bringing the subject up.
I think the two goals are tied together in this case.
Most of the time I end up not posting something I thought was worth adding because after I thought about it wasn't contributing to the thread. (This could also be applied to posts that spam/flame/etc)
WUBEsper MillWUB
I've been trying to do this, and I lasted a year before slipping up. I'm really not that bad of a poster anymore. But I know I'm still on some **** lists. Which I believe had a hand in leading to more moderations, which will then lead to more...
Even so, if you don't give them the chance to do that **** to you how can they infract you?
I know that sounds unfair(as you already addressed) but if keeping your posts 100% clean keeps you from being suspended I'd say its worth it.
WUBEsper MillWUB
I know, I just wanted to point out that I have been trying.
No one ever said the moderation on this forum was consistent. It isn't, it isn't going to be, and it shouldn't have to be. I'd wager pretty safe money that none of the people who made the questionable posts you're referring have recently ticked people off to the point where their posts are likely to be reported. As a result, their borderline posts don't really get looked at.
You, on the other hand, posted in the debate section with a hostile attitude. I don't agree with Nai that pseudo-intellectualism is inherently insulting, but you said it without justification, without addressing any actual points relating to the topic, and with a clear intent to just shut the poster down without giving the content of his post the slightest amount of attention.
But the important thing to remember here isn't that the post's infraction is absolutely justifiable (it is). The important thing is that it got infracted because it was the kind of post that gets reported, or in other words, it was the kind of post that non-moderators want to see get an infraction. You will get an infraction 1000% more often when you're creating bad blood than otherwise, even if it is inconsistent.
And it's well known that different parts of the forum play by different rules. Certain sections are more strict than others. That I recall, for certain offenses, Debate is one of them. So is Real Life Advice.
Lastly, this is exactly what community issues is NOT for. It's in a big post at the top of the forum. "If you have a problem with a moderator, do not post it here. Take it to their help desk, or take it higher up." You did both.
My helpdesk should you need me.
Ok whatever, like I said I'm not here to get my moderations overturned. Just to point out inconsistency.
I'm going to pretend I'm Nai moderating this post, and then responding to my appeal (pretend I had used the logic that Nai has used as to why this particular post was not deserving of a moderation): http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=7029378&postcount=144
This moderation is justified. The debate forum is for constructive posts that contribute to the topic. Your post added nothing to the discussion, and furthermore telling other users they are "blatantly making **** up" is inflammatory and unnecessary. Next time, actually post an argument rather than just raging against a news organization.
See how easy that was? I can easily picture that sitting my inbox. Now pretend you are me and attempt to respond to that, to get it overturned. Keep in mind that in my experience you only get one good response back when talking to a mod. Past that they are going to send you one sentence basically amounting to telling you the case is closed.
Kind of frustrating isn't it? You obviously think this post was not deserving of a moderation, but look at how reasonable that italicized response is! And you are just a lowly user in this scenario, so if the mod decides not to budge you are just out of luck, even though you have put forward your own reasonable argument as to why it was not deserving of a moderation.
I could make up similar responses for the other posts as well.
Does this help you to understand why I am so frustrated?
I tried that. I messages two moderators with my list of posts that I thought demonstrated inconsistency and I received no response. I'm tired of running around in circles so I came here.
What you aren't understanding is that even though you're completely right, this isn't a problem. A moderator [I]could[/I] have infracted that post, and if a moderator had infracted it, then every single mod would defend that decision, because it isn't unreasonable.
There's a big difference between a post that might be worthy of an infraction and a post that's been infracted that might be worthy of being overturned.
always infracted sometimes infracted never infracted
<----------------|----------------------|---------------------->
never overturned never overturned probably overturned
This is the way it works, and this is the right way for it to work. You will never get an infraction overturned if there is any justification whatsoever for the infraction to have been handed out in the first place, even if you could find a worse post that wasn't originally infracted. And that's simply because overturns undermine authority and increase the drama over [I]every[/I] moderation a millionfold.
This is the kind of opening that sets you up for more critical examination. Overt hostility will never improve a situation.
The mods have a no win scenario for their duties but we as a community owe it to ourselves and fellow posters to be civil even in disagreement.
I don't think I've been hostile at all in this topic.