In the regular forums, you can certainly discuss 'the implied homophobia and bigotry within the gamer culture as expressed through the lack of respect showed by what terms are contained within popular slang'. I'd be surprised if we haven't already had several of those over the years, in one form or the other.
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I've always thought "adult language" was a misnomer. In most cases where I've seen it used, it comes off as pretty juvenile. I'll admit I drop more than a few F-bombs in conversation, both on and off the internet, but when you're writing out a post you have time to think about what you're saying and where you're saying it, and use different language. And if you can't, maybe this isn't the right venue for that topic. Not every venue is appropriate for every discussion.
As for linking off-site stuff, I really don't think it should be against the rules to link to NSFW material, as long as there's a clear warning about NSFW content and it's not just plain completely offensive. At some point, it's your responsibility to just not click the link when you know you won't like what you see on the other side.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retrodrome!
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Linking to NSFW content is something that I've personally been torn on. I oversee the NSFW forums, and it's always a bit of leap of faith when I check links in there, because you never really know what type of NSFW you're gonna get. It's not a discussion that I find myself on a clear side for, I understand the arguments for each.
As for discussion of social phenomena such as the colloquial use of slurs, it's been a common thing for us to grant evasion exceptions for. There should be a handful of threads here in CI as examples. The key to them is that in such threads the censored aren't being used as expletives, but as the topic of conversation. That drastically changes what it means both to people looking over your shoulder and your conversational partners. For example, if I were to go into work swearing profusely and overburdened with racial slurs, I'd not be long of that job. If I'm having a conversation about the social implications of those same words with a coworker, nobody gives a damn. One has me fired. One might have the boss join in.
We tend to interpret the rules fairly strictly here, but it's not hard to shoot any of our mods a PM asking if something is ok or if it would be possible to get a special dispensation for a specific thread. They'll either say yes, forward it up the chain, or have a discussion with you as to why they think it's not a good idea. A good example would be the Off-Topic Community threads in many of the forums. These threads technically have nothing relevant to the respective subforums, but they serve a purpose for the community, so we allow and facilitate them.
Just got to say, you've definitely earned distinction as an MTGS hero
Quote from Stardust »
Because he's the hero MTGS deserves, and the one it needs right now. So we'll global him. Because he can take it. Because he's not just our hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. An expired rascal.
Quote from LuckNorris »
ExpiredRascals you sir are a god-like hero.
Quote from Lanxal »
ER is a masterful god who cannot be beaten in any endeavour.
If you're discussion would not be viewable at work or school it is inappropriate for the forum. If you post a link like the one prior it is against the rules. If you post a YouTube link to a song with profanity it is against the rules.
Is discussing Georgia o'keeffe's paintings against the rules? No, but but talking about what some of those flowers look like should be considered not appropriate for work or school.
The problem with this view is that talking about what the implied symbolism, or even the overt symbolism, within a work of art is can veer very quickly into NSFW areas but the discussion of the art is meaningless if you do not delve into those areas. I have taken plenty of classes at school that covered some very risque stuff.
So with regards to that thread specifically about using "gay" as a pejorative, when it devolved very rapidly into a debate thread...why wasn't it locked like it should have been instead of a moderator egging on the debate?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
So with regards to that thread specifically about using "gay" as a pejorative, when it devolved very rapidly into a debate thread...why wasn't it locked like it should have been instead of a moderator egging on the debate?
It's a trap, you see. There are several steps that should've been taken and were not because the moderation in here is suspect to say the least. It should've been moved to debate once it turned in a different direction, and it should've been locked.
Instead it was left to it's devices and it gave the moderation a chance to power trip their way through with infractions and warnings. You see....moderators like Teia like to be heard. When it falls on a subject they are familiar with in real life, it touches a nerve and they feel compelled to keep it in the public eye...even though it has strayed from its original intent.
It's a shame that the thread is still active right now....and still not in the right part of the forums.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Talkin outta turn....That's a paddlin'. Starin' at my sandals....That's a paddlin'. Paddlin' the school canoe....You better believe that's a paddlin'!" --Jasper
Or. Maybe we can stick to the original point of this thread, report problems to staff, and not use this as an opportunity to bash the Moderators needlessly.
Harkius
But this is part of the discussion. There is so much moderation on this site...much of it needless. I mean...let's look at it really....
The Rumor Mill really needs it. There are some really bad posts in that part of the forum. And it isn't just during rumor season, it's all year long now. With speculation going in the wrong place and constant spam in a place that is seen by all viewers of the site....it needs strict moderation.
The Rulings section needs it, but not nearly as picky as they've been in recent years. Card tags are good for the relevant cards in the posts, but they aren't necessary for every card mentioned.
Debate needs moderation to keep the post on track with the OP. Slow the derivations of thought.
CI needs it to keep trolls from going nuts....but it should allow for posters to speak their minds where necessary.
But when the moderators get involved in a conversations, take it off track themselves, and then begin to moderate others who do the same....that's just not fair...and that happens ALL THE TIME!!
The adult discussion can be had with 13+ year old kids. PG-13 is a very subjective group of people. If the moderators of this site were to actually stick with that mindset, there wouldn't be so much dissent over the amount of moderation on these boards.
Maybe CI and Debate need a warning in their forums rules, or a sticky stating that this is an area where serious discussion may take place and the verbiage used may fall into some rather risky dialog. Users are warned that there may be some light profanity or the conversation may trickle outside of the PG-13 boundaries. Users of this forum are warned of the adult nature of some of the posts in here.
That wouldn't be a horrible thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Talkin outta turn....That's a paddlin'. Starin' at my sandals....That's a paddlin'. Paddlin' the school canoe....You better believe that's a paddlin'!" --Jasper
Personally, I don't understand what's so adult about profanity. It might be a cultural thing, I suppose, but I'm associating profanity & vulgarity with teenagers with an improperly developed vocabulary, rather than adults (no offense intended to anyone!).
That said, I think we can afford to be lenient with off-site links to profanity as long as it's properly labeled, mild, and/or educational (such as the Pat Chapin article linked in the OP). Disgusting/hateful/pornographic/and so on links should, however, never be allowed regardless of labeling.
The Rulings section needs it, but not nearly as picky as they've been in recent years. Card tags are good for the relevant cards in the posts, but they aren't necessary for every card mentioned.
The thing is when asking a rules question you should only be mentioning the cards that are central to your problem, and especially for some of the older cards which have undergone a couple of rewrites in their history we need the absolutely upto date wording which we can only get from oracle and it is a lot easier on us if the OP has been kind enough to provide us with the direct link through to gatherer up front, especially if they are asking questions which include more than a couple of cards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Or. Maybe we can stick to the original point of this thread, report problems to staff, and not use this as an opportunity to bash the Moderators needlessly.
Harkius
In my case, I was trying to make the point that people are looking for clarification with regards to the rules already mentioned, specifically the "NSFW" rules right now. I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that more rules than just those in that thread in particular were being willingly ignored.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
So with regards to that thread specifically about using "gay" as a pejorative, when it devolved very rapidly into a debate thread...why wasn't it locked like it should have been instead of a moderator egging on the debate?
Do you really care?
It wasn't moved because it became a debate slowly enough that it was big before it was clearly a debate, and I for one think it's pretty stupid to close thriving discussions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
It wasn't moved because it became a debate slowly enough that it was big before it was clearly a debate, and I for one think it's pretty stupid to close thriving discussions.
So once again, is this going to be a "the rules are at the discretion of the moderators" situation?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
So once again, is this going to be a "the rules are at the discretion of the moderators" situation?
Would you rather we enforced every rule always on the letter of the law no exceptions no matter what?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Would you rather we enforced every rule always on the letter of the law no exceptions no matter what?
What I would like to see is consistency. You guys were all big over changing the rules, and that's what precipitated this whole thing in the first place. Now, we are literally watching a moderator willingly break the rules when that moderator has been astaunch supporter of following the rules to begin with (To quote: "Accidentally breaking the rules is still breaking the rules." [Emphasis mine.])
This literally leads to people wondering if there will be consistency. Why, now, should people post in CI if we have no idea what is going to be infracted and what isn't? How long before Teia gets to grab you by the balls and say, "Infract this post for disagreeing with me on LGBT issues"?
Stop making new rules if you can't even consistently enforce old ones.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Why do these conversations even exist anymore. We are encouraged to speak our minds about things and when the moderation is questioned or brought up, the answers from them are, "No we don't!" "No we aren't!" and "If you don't like it, that's too bad because I'm in charge here."
It is almost not worth coming here to have an adult conversation because it always degrades into a teenage point-fest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Talkin outta turn....That's a paddlin'. Starin' at my sandals....That's a paddlin'. Paddlin' the school canoe....You better believe that's a paddlin'!" --Jasper
When the moderation is questioned or brought up, the answers from them are, "No we don't!" "No we aren't!" and "If you don't like it, that's too bad because I'm in charge here."
Sometimes, yes. But a lot of changes have happened on the staff level of the site directly because of the people coming here to discuss stuff. Just because not everyone gets their way all the time doesn't mean that it's a busted process.
It is almost not worth coming here to have an adult conversation because it always degrades into a teenage point-fest.
I agree to some extent. Having actual discussion is really tough sometimes simply because of insane amounts of bias and baggage and a varying degree of maturity amongst the participants. But, it's better than the hole-up/shut-up option.
Why do these conversations even exist anymore. We are encouraged to speak our minds about things and when the moderation is questioned or brought up, the answers from them are, "No we don't!" "No we aren't!" and "If you don't like it, that's too bad because I'm in charge here."
It is almost not worth coming here to have an adult conversation because it always degrades into a teenage point-fest.
Now I cannot speak for how things were before I got here, or even neccessarily earlier than a couple years ago when I began to branch out into the other areas of the forums. But I have to be honest here. At least for recent times, the moderators have done an excellent job doing their best to listen to the userbase and try to implement change where possible and within the rules and vision of the owner/admins/globals/etc for the site. The mods DO listen, and the mods dont (at least not often) go the "no we dont" or "no we arent" and especially the "if you dont like it, that's too bad because im in charge here" route when dealing with the other users, especially when the other users are being respectful about pointing out something they view as an issue. If a user goes all "attack mode" towards the mods or a mod in particular... then OF COURSE that mod or potentially group of mods are going to get a little defensive, any normal human being is going to do that at least to some extent until the whole thing can get fleshed out and a real conversation about the issue can be had. The mods are not these evil overlords that are out to ruin everyone's fun or ability to speak their mind. They are simply trying to do their best to make sure the userbase follows the rules as written, while also trying to give some amount of leeway where possible depending upon the situation.
And, gee, I seem to recall earlier this year, we had several issues that got brought up, and after some time and some "adult conversation" after people calmed down some thanks to several people trying to help in that regard (I tried to help where I could in that regard), the issues were able to get hammered out to the relative agreement of everyone involved. I would ask that everyone here step back for a moment, and leave your moderator attacks at the door. If we can simply focus solely on the particular issues presented in this thread, thusly the "work safe" issue and the belief that adult conversation should be allowed in greater parts of the forums (the counterconcern being that rightly so, many of the people who post on here arent adults (at least not yet), many are of course, but many also arent), then I think we might be able to get better clarity and focus on the particular issues and topic of the thread.
If there is a concern over special treatment of mods or anyone else, then that can always be discussed, but perhaps in a different CI thread or in an admins helpdesk or whever such things would be the most appropriate. By keeping the focuses on each particular issue within their respective threads, it makes it easier to be able to make progress on the discussion. Where the issues tend to arise, is when the threads tend to branch out into other topics and the original message ends up getting lost and the progress overall gets lost as a result.
I honestly, personally, dont have an issue with the mods. I dont always agree on everything they do, or their viewpoints on things, but for the most part I believe they do a good job on keeping this place up and running smoothly with the least amount of issues, even when some do inevitably pop up, because, its simply impossible to make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time. However, everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion, and Im certain as with past issues, that the ones brought up by the OP will be discussed, including possible adjustments over the course of conversation in this thread.
What I would like to see is consistency. You guys were all big over changing the rules, and that's what precipitated this whole thing in the first place. Now, we are literally watching a moderator willingly break the rules when that moderator has been astaunch supporter of following the rules to begin with (To quote: "Accidentally breaking the rules is still breaking the rules." [Emphasis mine.])
This literally leads to people wondering if there will be consistency. Why, now, should people post in CI if we have no idea what is going to be infracted and what isn't? How long before Teia gets to grab you by the balls and say, "Infract this post for disagreeing with me on LGBT issues"?
Stop making new rules if you can't even consistently enforce old ones.
I think you're just trolling at this point, and I really should be writing this grad school app, but--
I try to be as consistent as I can be while still making this place a better place. I think it's pretty dumb to close a thriving conversation, and I can't just move it to Debate because the Debate guys don't like established threads moved in. So I'm weighing the choice between enforcing the letter of the law and enforcing the spirit, which is making this a cool place to shoot the ****, and I'm choosing the latter. I'd rather be occasionally lenient than sometimes too harsh.
Also, Teia ain't gonna force me to infract nothing, and I doubt she'd ever try.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
the mods dont (at least not often) go the "no we dont" or "no we arent" and especially the "if you dont like it, that's too bad because im in charge here" route when dealing with the other users.
That would be one of the exceptions rather than being the rule as I mentioned in my post. Also, a great deal of real progress on other issues were made after that point this year as I also mentioned in my post.
I agree to some extent. Having actual discussion is really tough sometimes simply because of insane amounts of bias and baggage and a varying degree of maturity amongst the participants. But, it's better than the hole-up/shut-up option.
I would argue that that isn't completely true. There has been a lot of "adult talk" lately concerning the issues, but there is also people on both sides of the issue that have fallen back to "nuh uh" when pressed. I'll segue into the next portion...
Quote from jeffbcrandall »
The mods DO listen, and the mods dont (at least not often) go the "no we dont" or "no we arent" and especially the "if you dont like it, that's too bad because im in charge here" route when dealing with the other users, especially when the other users are being respectful about pointing out something they view as an issue.
To an extent, this is not true. Case in point was the original bruhaha over the WCT rules changes. We were quite literally told, "We're in charge, so there! If you don't like it, take it up to the higher ups, but they got our back." And for a while, it seemed like that was the case until it started to boil over far beyond what I believe they anticipated. Then the "summit" happened.
I think you're just trolling at this point, and I really should be writing this grad school app, but--
I try to be as consistent as I can be while still making this place a better place. I think it's pretty dumb to close a thriving conversation, and I can't just move it to Debate because the Debate guys don't like established threads moved in. So I'm weighing the choice between enforcing the letter of the law and enforcing the spirit, which is making this a cool place to shoot the ****, and I'm choosing the latter. I'd rather be occasionally lenient than sometimes too harsh.
Then remove the rule stating that debate should not be happening in WCT. As we have seen time and again, certain threads are going to naturally devolve into debate, and it always involves at least one moderator egging on the debate.
There either needs to be a foot put down to enforce the rule, or there needs to be no rule at all. Right now, the threads that have been devolving like this have been foreseeable. We knew they would turn into debate. If it comes to LGBT topics, it's guaranteed to turn into one. Point me towards a few that haven't...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
To an extent, this is not true. Case in point was the original bruhaha over the WCT rules changes. We were quite literally told, "We're in charge, so there! If you don't like it, take it up to the higher ups, but they got our back." And for a while, it seemed like that was the case until it started to boil over far beyond what I believe they anticipated. Then the "summit" happened.
When you say "literally" I want citation. Where are you quoting "We were quite literally told, "We're in charge, so there! If you don't like it, take it up to the higher ups, but they got our back." from?
There either needs to be a foot put down to enforce the rule, or there needs to be no rule at all.
Or the moderators can have some control over their sections instead of being slaves to their rules? In more subjective subforums isn't a bit of discretion a good thing?
Anyway, this rule is extremely antiquated.
The internet is now a much more free and open thing than it was when such a rule made sense.
Swearing in text does not constitute NSFW material anywhere, unless it is in HUGE FONT.
If you are working, and your boss sees you reading something not work related, it makes 0% difference if there are bad words in it or not.
People read 50 shades at work after all.
Audio-visual content is what is most often cited when discussing the concept of NSFW material, not plain text.
This forum can stay within the same rules, but could stand to be more lenient on what is linked to. Linking to other websites has always been one of the most objected to rules here, whether it be ebay, magictraders, or direct linking to something (Outside of the rumor mill, this is fine, webhosts are much different IRT images then they were when this rule made sense)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
News and spoiler contributor for GatheringMagic.com
We have one right now, as it happens: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=466907
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
As for linking off-site stuff, I really don't think it should be against the rules to link to NSFW material, as long as there's a clear warning about NSFW content and it's not just plain completely offensive. At some point, it's your responsibility to just not click the link when you know you won't like what you see on the other side.
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
As for discussion of social phenomena such as the colloquial use of slurs, it's been a common thing for us to grant evasion exceptions for. There should be a handful of threads here in CI as examples. The key to them is that in such threads the censored aren't being used as expletives, but as the topic of conversation. That drastically changes what it means both to people looking over your shoulder and your conversational partners. For example, if I were to go into work swearing profusely and overburdened with racial slurs, I'd not be long of that job. If I'm having a conversation about the social implications of those same words with a coworker, nobody gives a damn. One has me fired. One might have the boss join in.
We tend to interpret the rules fairly strictly here, but it's not hard to shoot any of our mods a PM asking if something is ok or if it would be possible to get a special dispensation for a specific thread. They'll either say yes, forward it up the chain, or have a discussion with you as to why they think it's not a good idea. A good example would be the Off-Topic Community threads in many of the forums. These threads technically have nothing relevant to the respective subforums, but they serve a purpose for the community, so we allow and facilitate them.
Body Count: GRRRUUUUUUUUUUU
إن سرقت إسرق جمل
Level 1 Judge
My Cube for use with 6th ed. Rules
The problem with this view is that talking about what the implied symbolism, or even the overt symbolism, within a work of art is can veer very quickly into NSFW areas but the discussion of the art is meaningless if you do not delve into those areas. I have taken plenty of classes at school that covered some very risque stuff.
Legacy-U Faerie Ninja Still, WDeath and Taxes
Casual-WB Bleed, WGUBRCascade
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
It's a trap, you see. There are several steps that should've been taken and were not because the moderation in here is suspect to say the least. It should've been moved to debate once it turned in a different direction, and it should've been locked.
Instead it was left to it's devices and it gave the moderation a chance to power trip their way through with infractions and warnings. You see....moderators like Teia like to be heard. When it falls on a subject they are familiar with in real life, it touches a nerve and they feel compelled to keep it in the public eye...even though it has strayed from its original intent.
It's a shame that the thread is still active right now....and still not in the right part of the forums.
But this is part of the discussion. There is so much moderation on this site...much of it needless. I mean...let's look at it really....
The Rumor Mill really needs it. There are some really bad posts in that part of the forum. And it isn't just during rumor season, it's all year long now. With speculation going in the wrong place and constant spam in a place that is seen by all viewers of the site....it needs strict moderation.
The Rulings section needs it, but not nearly as picky as they've been in recent years. Card tags are good for the relevant cards in the posts, but they aren't necessary for every card mentioned.
Debate needs moderation to keep the post on track with the OP. Slow the derivations of thought.
CI needs it to keep trolls from going nuts....but it should allow for posters to speak their minds where necessary.
But when the moderators get involved in a conversations, take it off track themselves, and then begin to moderate others who do the same....that's just not fair...and that happens ALL THE TIME!!
The adult discussion can be had with 13+ year old kids. PG-13 is a very subjective group of people. If the moderators of this site were to actually stick with that mindset, there wouldn't be so much dissent over the amount of moderation on these boards.
Maybe CI and Debate need a warning in their forums rules, or a sticky stating that this is an area where serious discussion may take place and the verbiage used may fall into some rather risky dialog. Users are warned that there may be some light profanity or the conversation may trickle outside of the PG-13 boundaries. Users of this forum are warned of the adult nature of some of the posts in here.
That wouldn't be a horrible thing.
That said, I think we can afford to be lenient with off-site links to profanity as long as it's properly labeled, mild, and/or educational (such as the Pat Chapin article linked in the OP). Disgusting/hateful/pornographic/and so on links should, however, never be allowed regardless of labeling.
My $0.02 etc
The thing is when asking a rules question you should only be mentioning the cards that are central to your problem, and especially for some of the older cards which have undergone a couple of rewrites in their history we need the absolutely upto date wording which we can only get from oracle and it is a lot easier on us if the OP has been kind enough to provide us with the direct link through to gatherer up front, especially if they are asking questions which include more than a couple of cards.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
In my case, I was trying to make the point that people are looking for clarification with regards to the rules already mentioned, specifically the "NSFW" rules right now. I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that more rules than just those in that thread in particular were being willingly ignored.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Do you really care?
It wasn't moved because it became a debate slowly enough that it was big before it was clearly a debate, and I for one think it's pretty stupid to close thriving discussions.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
So once again, is this going to be a "the rules are at the discretion of the moderators" situation?
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Has been for years. Just been getting more visual lately.
Would you rather we enforced every rule always on the letter of the law no exceptions no matter what?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What I would like to see is consistency. You guys were all big over changing the rules, and that's what precipitated this whole thing in the first place. Now, we are literally watching a moderator willingly break the rules when that moderator has been astaunch supporter of following the rules to begin with (To quote: "Accidentally breaking the rules is still breaking the rules." [Emphasis mine.])
This literally leads to people wondering if there will be consistency. Why, now, should people post in CI if we have no idea what is going to be infracted and what isn't? How long before Teia gets to grab you by the balls and say, "Infract this post for disagreeing with me on LGBT issues"?
Stop making new rules if you can't even consistently enforce old ones.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
It is almost not worth coming here to have an adult conversation because it always degrades into a teenage point-fest.
I agree to some extent. Having actual discussion is really tough sometimes simply because of insane amounts of bias and baggage and a varying degree of maturity amongst the participants. But, it's better than the hole-up/shut-up option.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Now I cannot speak for how things were before I got here, or even neccessarily earlier than a couple years ago when I began to branch out into the other areas of the forums. But I have to be honest here. At least for recent times, the moderators have done an excellent job doing their best to listen to the userbase and try to implement change where possible and within the rules and vision of the owner/admins/globals/etc for the site. The mods DO listen, and the mods dont (at least not often) go the "no we dont" or "no we arent" and especially the "if you dont like it, that's too bad because im in charge here" route when dealing with the other users, especially when the other users are being respectful about pointing out something they view as an issue. If a user goes all "attack mode" towards the mods or a mod in particular... then OF COURSE that mod or potentially group of mods are going to get a little defensive, any normal human being is going to do that at least to some extent until the whole thing can get fleshed out and a real conversation about the issue can be had. The mods are not these evil overlords that are out to ruin everyone's fun or ability to speak their mind. They are simply trying to do their best to make sure the userbase follows the rules as written, while also trying to give some amount of leeway where possible depending upon the situation.
And, gee, I seem to recall earlier this year, we had several issues that got brought up, and after some time and some "adult conversation" after people calmed down some thanks to several people trying to help in that regard (I tried to help where I could in that regard), the issues were able to get hammered out to the relative agreement of everyone involved. I would ask that everyone here step back for a moment, and leave your moderator attacks at the door. If we can simply focus solely on the particular issues presented in this thread, thusly the "work safe" issue and the belief that adult conversation should be allowed in greater parts of the forums (the counterconcern being that rightly so, many of the people who post on here arent adults (at least not yet), many are of course, but many also arent), then I think we might be able to get better clarity and focus on the particular issues and topic of the thread.
If there is a concern over special treatment of mods or anyone else, then that can always be discussed, but perhaps in a different CI thread or in an admins helpdesk or whever such things would be the most appropriate. By keeping the focuses on each particular issue within their respective threads, it makes it easier to be able to make progress on the discussion. Where the issues tend to arise, is when the threads tend to branch out into other topics and the original message ends up getting lost and the progress overall gets lost as a result.
I honestly, personally, dont have an issue with the mods. I dont always agree on everything they do, or their viewpoints on things, but for the most part I believe they do a good job on keeping this place up and running smoothly with the least amount of issues, even when some do inevitably pop up, because, its simply impossible to make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time. However, everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion, and Im certain as with past issues, that the ones brought up by the OP will be discussed, including possible adjustments over the course of conversation in this thread.
I think you're just trolling at this point, and I really should be writing this grad school app, but--
I try to be as consistent as I can be while still making this place a better place. I think it's pretty dumb to close a thriving conversation, and I can't just move it to Debate because the Debate guys don't like established threads moved in. So I'm weighing the choice between enforcing the letter of the law and enforcing the spirit, which is making this a cool place to shoot the ****, and I'm choosing the latter. I'd rather be occasionally lenient than sometimes too harsh.
Also, Teia ain't gonna force me to infract nothing, and I doubt she'd ever try.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Gutter
June.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
That would be one of the exceptions rather than being the rule as I mentioned in my post. Also, a great deal of real progress on other issues were made after that point this year as I also mentioned in my post.
I would argue that that isn't completely true. There has been a lot of "adult talk" lately concerning the issues, but there is also people on both sides of the issue that have fallen back to "nuh uh" when pressed. I'll segue into the next portion...
To an extent, this is not true. Case in point was the original bruhaha over the WCT rules changes. We were quite literally told, "We're in charge, so there! If you don't like it, take it up to the higher ups, but they got our back." And for a while, it seemed like that was the case until it started to boil over far beyond what I believe they anticipated. Then the "summit" happened.
Then remove the rule stating that debate should not be happening in WCT. As we have seen time and again, certain threads are going to naturally devolve into debate, and it always involves at least one moderator egging on the debate.
There either needs to be a foot put down to enforce the rule, or there needs to be no rule at all. Right now, the threads that have been devolving like this have been foreseeable. We knew they would turn into debate. If it comes to LGBT topics, it's guaranteed to turn into one. Point me towards a few that haven't...
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
When you say "literally" I want citation. Where are you quoting "We were quite literally told, "We're in charge, so there! If you don't like it, take it up to the higher ups, but they got our back." from?
Or the moderators can have some control over their sections instead of being slaves to their rules? In more subjective subforums isn't a bit of discretion a good thing?
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
Cool.
Anyway, this rule is extremely antiquated.
The internet is now a much more free and open thing than it was when such a rule made sense.
Swearing in text does not constitute NSFW material anywhere, unless it is in HUGE FONT.
If you are working, and your boss sees you reading something not work related, it makes 0% difference if there are bad words in it or not.
People read 50 shades at work after all.
Audio-visual content is what is most often cited when discussing the concept of NSFW material, not plain text.
This forum can stay within the same rules, but could stand to be more lenient on what is linked to. Linking to other websites has always been one of the most objected to rules here, whether it be ebay, magictraders, or direct linking to something (Outside of the rumor mill, this is fine, webhosts are much different IRT images then they were when this rule made sense)
Twitter