An appeal for moderation

[Hammerskjold]

I don't mean necessarily mass attention, sometimes it's enough to just get one. Even if it's from a mod who is about to ban them.

I'm not a mod so I don't know exactly how much crap they have to clean out, but it just seems to me it's an extra step to add the names of crap to a list after they've been swept out.

My personal belief is it's kind of futile to list trolls once they're in the garbage bin. Garbage is garbage.

But hey I could be wrong.

[Raven Vale]

You say "Grammer" we say "Grammar" :P

Not to confuse a lot of spelling mistakes with Americanised versions .

Edit : bah I posted this under Ghostigers reply , without seeing there was a second page . Ooopsie :blush:

[Walkiry]

And you wonder why this forum is dying!
[right][snapback]63365[/snapback][/right]

Has Netcraft confirmed it? Is Bolty hosting it in a BSD box?? That explains it!

As far as grammar nazis go, I personally love them. I started using the internet years ago, before AOL, and my English skills vastly improved thanks to them. I still make mistakes, of course, since it's not my first language, and appreciate when they correct me.

So, even if you tone down your aggressiveness in this respect, do keep correcting me ;)

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

As one who has often taken up the mantle of 'grammar nazi' in the past, this may get me accused of hypocrisy.  On the other hand, if what I am about to say came from a poster noted for sloppy posting, then it would have no weight.  So, perhaps, the only ones who can make this point would all be hypocrits.

A forum must have standards or devolve into primordial ooze.  Anyone with more than a passing experience with Internet, especially web, especially game, fora holds that as a self evident truth.  Not nearly as self evident is that if the standards are set arbitrarily high, the result is invariably stagnation and decay as the existing posters drift off and new ones are scared away before they can become regulars.

Thus, the standards must be set with some care.  Too low, and the noise overcomes the signal.  Too high, and there is no signal left.  Either way, the death knell of that forum has been struck.  Those with something worthwhile to say but without a Churchillian command of the language (and there are many such) should be welcome to post and not overly intimidated.  I fear that, in an effort to maintain high standards (a worthy goal) we at the Lounge have (or perhaps just are about to) crossed the line into stagnation.

So, if it is not too late, let me suggest that we show more moderation in the sense "to lessen the intensity or extremeness of" our grammarian criticisms and less moderation in the sense "to preside over" the means of expression of others.

Let us set the standard of acceptable communication at acceptable communication.  Instead of searching for a perfect medium, perhaps devoid of message, we could settle for a medium sufficiently clear that the message is conveyed.  Not an abadonment of standards, but a repositioning of them away from the snobbish self-congratulatory levels we seem to be approching.

--Pete
[right][snapback]63357[/snapback][/right]

In a different slant on the atmosphere in the Lounger, we probably need more joke threads. I daresay, as a culpable party, there has been a propensity toward "serious" topics that is somewhat out of character with the Lounge's founding principle of friend's, new and old, meeting in "Bolty's Living Room" or "our communal living room that Bolty Built" to talk about all and sundry.

FWIW

Occhi

PS: Harrumph, one should never kvetch about something without offering remedy:

WoW! A Christmas Poem
Sung to the tune of "Greensleeves"

What Orc is this
Who just bashed my head?
He still whacks at me, aims to make me dead.

And who's that troll
At me slinging spears
And that Shaman who summons my fears?

They, they, are the Hand of Thrall
Buncha Horde minions
And they've got some gall

Help, help, on Tichondrius
Faction warring sure stirs up a fuss


Oh see the Night Elf
That babe is hot
So why out of me, does she beat the snot?

And who's that brute
With the hammer large
Tries to send me to my fun'ral barge?

They, they are Alliance pogues
Hunters, Paladins
Warriors, and Rogues

Shield broke
In Tauren I cuss
Faction warring sure stirs up a fuss


The undead crawl
In the shadows dark
Then they mugged me last night in Druid's Park

That gnome ran off
With his weird machine
All I see is a crazed mob of green

Hearthstone!
To the tavern warm
Need some beer and rest,
'Fore I face the swarm

Beer, beer!
Ah that foamy draft
When's my next PvP day in Warcraft?

[Treesh]

I don't think it's just the grammar corrections that scare a lot of people away. It's the reputation of elitism that does it. Granted, this elitism has toned down quite a bit over the years (with minor flareups every so often), but a lot of people still expect to either be ignored completely about a point they're trying to make or bug they've found or whatever decent post they're trying to make or else are pummeled into the ground (figuratively speaking) for daring to have an opinion while not being a Good Ol' Lurker™ (GOL). It really did feel like this was a good ol' boy network. If you weren't a known code diving monkey or hadn't been an active poster since DSF, you were nothing. You could have screenshots showing your point, have a detailed explanation of how you tested whatever you were testing and it would still go unnoticed unless one of the GOLs happened to decide later on to test it. Yes, random posters who claimed to have found something out shouldn't be believed without question when they post, but a lot of things seemed to be completely dismissed and not even looked into or corrected if they were known to be wrong. For a while it seemed that GOLs would only respond to GOLs, with the exception of flames and unnecessary negativity. Those were spread around to everyone; some deserving, some not.

I'm not referring to the off-topic forums much, but that's because I tended to avoid reading it much of the time. I frequently came here strictly for good behind the scenes info and seeing how people were treated in the game forums, I didn't want to see how people were treated in the off topic forum (which are typically worse). I did poke in there now and again, but ran off without ever posting because my opinion on the OT stuff wouldn't matter anyway. Now, as I said at the beginning, this has toned down but people's perceptions can take longer to change.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't think it's just the grammar corrections that scare a lot of people away.  It's the reputation of elitism that does it.  Granted, this elitism has toned down quite a bit over the years (with minor flareups every so often), but a lot of people still expect to either be ignored completely about a point they're trying to make or bug they've found or whatever decent post they're trying to make  or else are pummeled into the ground (figuratively speaking) for daring to have an opinion while not being a Good Ol' Lurker™ (GOL).  It really did feel like this was a good ol' boy network.  If you weren't a known code diving monkey or hadn't been an active poster since DSF, you were nothing.  You could have screenshots showing your point, have a detailed explanation of how you tested whatever you were testing and it would still go unnoticed unless one of the GOLs happened to decide later on to test it.  Yes, random posters who claimed to have found something out shouldn't be believed without question when they post, but a lot of things seemed to be completely dismissed and not even looked into or corrected if they were known to be wrong.  For a while it seemed that GOLs would only respond to GOLs, with the exception of flames and unnecessary negativity.  Those were spread around to everyone; some deserving, some not.

I'm not referring to the off-topic forums much, but that's because I tended to avoid reading it much of the time.  I frequently came here strictly for good behind the scenes info and seeing how people were treated in the game forums, I didn't want to see how people were treated in the off topic forum (which are typically worse).  I did poke in there now and again, but ran off without ever posting because my opinion on the OT stuff wouldn't matter anyway.  Now, as I said at the beginning, this has toned down but people's perceptions can take longer to change.
[right][snapback]63422[/snapback][/right]

Treesh:

Filtering processes usually aim at retaining a high value material while blocking dross. You appear to be suggesting that the filter itself is down at the Angstrom level, where it should possibly be at the Micron level. :)

The OT stuff is typically, well written, even if it is all a lot of hot air.

Occhi

[LemmingofGlory]

What might help is if you make it quite public about who is being banned, and for what reason.  I've never disagreed with any of the bans here, but I usually had to dig around to find out exactly what the recipient of the ban had done wrong.

I don't even dig around to find out why somebody was banned. Griselda deals with most of the garbage that pops up on our forums, and given that she's just about one of the nicest ladies on the internet, I feel that if they were banned on her watch, they did their best to earn it.

If you keep a running tally of banned users and the reasons why they were banned, in a prominent place, people could get a better feel for what's allowed and not allowed here.

I don't think there'd be much gain from it. If Lurkers are concerned about why someone was banned, they're free to PM us and ask. I'm not the final word on this, but I do think a "wall of shame" would be tacky.

Now, what's the solution here? A wall of shame is tacky, and apparently many Lurkers don't yet know just how nice of a person Griselda is. So, let's show 'em. We'll put up a stickie where all posters are invited to glow over Gris and say wonderfully nice things about her. That way, if anyone thinks someone was banned unfairly, we'll just point them toward the Griselda Shrine and they'll say, "Oh, wow, you have a saint moderating here? I'm sorry I ever questioned her wisdom. Here, let me leave a few tokens of my appreciation via 'Donate' link on the front page." (And for a limited time only, you get your very own Paypal Indulgence with every donation!*)

That, of course, leaves incidences where users are banned by non-Griselda moderators. It certainly wouldn't settle any nerves to tell them the truth about me -- that I thought Swift's satirical "A Modest Proposal" was a splendid idea; that I sold my soul for a poptart and thought that was really good deal for it; that I make eggnog using human ovums; that Unrealshadow was actually my eviler clone grown in my underground lab and unleashed upon the world; that my goal for world domination is nearly complete -- no, no, it wouldn't do any good to tell them that.

But it would be good to tell them, "If you have questions, talk to us." That's all, really. There's no better way to get your question answered than to go straight to the source. Don't make forum threads asking Lurkers why someone was banned. It was us who banned the person, and making forum threads about it just brings a whole pile of dirty laundry out into the open. If we banned someone, we had a reason for it. We've never banned anyone here just because they annoyed us. If that were the case, a number of you would be gone a long time ago! And that might sound threatening, but the key thing to observe is those posters are still here because we're not the sort of people that get uppity and ban someone just because said poster gave us a wedgie in a heated thread.

Does anyone want a real, live example of this? Occhi!

Have any of you seen Occhi get moderated? It's not often, but it's happened a fair amount. And the reason he's still here isn't because he's a mod. It isn't because we're good friends with him. It's because we think he has something to contribute, even if he sometimes needs to reign himself in. So, why's he still here? Because he does reign himself in. When he crosses the line, Griselda gets out her big padded mallet and gives him a thump on the head.

So, when does someone get banned? Well, we don't operate on a tally system here. We don't have a "Three strikes and you're out" rule. We operate on a severity system. There are certain things that are severe enough to get you banned, and very little else will. That's why Unrealshadow stuck around here for so long. Nothing he did, taken individually, was severe enough to warrant banning him. None of us felt good about banning him for a small offense. However, given the number of warnings he had, and taking his posting habits as a whole, it was fairly obvious (to us, at least) that his presence here served only to troll the Lounge.

We're reasonable people here. If you have questions about our moderating style, we're happy to entertain them.

But if anyone disagrees with me, I'm going to BAN HAMMERSKJOLD!


--Lemmus Lemmus

* My apologies to anyone who finds that joke as funny as I do.

[Treesh]

Treesh:

Filtering processes usually aim at retaining a high value material while blocking dross.  You appear to be suggesting that the filter itself is down at the Angstrom level, where it should possibly be at the Micron level. :)

[right][snapback]63425[/snapback][/right]

No, I still want the high value material without the crap. The filter can stay at that one ten-millionth of a mm. ;) My point was not that I think the bar for what is considered valuable and what's considered junk is too high. My point is that good mats can come from others who are not GOLs.

And, of course, Occhi (thank you Occhi :) ) has demonstrated the other reason why people can be a bit intimidated by the Lounge (and it's not necessarily a bad thing that this can prevent people from posting). Most of the lurkers actually expect you to have a brain and use it when posting. *gasp* OH NOES!!!!! Scientific terms and stuff!!!111!!! In a non-scientific post!

Yes, this can be intimidating to some, but those who simply don't want to think while posting would probably just be happier somewhere else anyway. Not every forum is for everyone. You do have to decide if the ambience of the board suits your personality. This board happens to suit people who prefer to think, reason, test, explore, and basically use their minds instead of just spewing mindless drivel. They even prefer to utilize their minds when being goofy or humorous.

Ok, for those with short attention spans - quality posts are good, but quality posts can come from non-Good Ol' Lurkers too. :)

Edit: "Choose" does not mean the same as "decide". :blink: And other foolish wording errors have been corrected as well. Sheesh.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Thanks for that.

:)

(and not ;) this time)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

I I'm not the final word on this, but I do think a "wall of shame" would be tacky.

Does anyone want a real, live example of this? Occhi!

Have any of you seen Occhi get  moderated? It's not often, but it's happened a fair amount. And the reason he's still here isn't because he's a mod. It isn't because we're good friends with him. It's because we think he has something to contribute, even if he sometimes needs to reign himself in. So, why's he still here? Because he does reign himself in. When he crosses the line, Griselda gets out her big padded mallet and gives him a thump on the head.

We're reasonable people here. If you have questions about our moderating style, we're happy to entertain them.

But if anyone disagrees with me, I'm going to BAN HAMMERSKJOLD!
--Lemmus Lemmus

[right][snapback]63426[/snapback][/right]

1. Wall of shame = tacky. Add my vote to that side of the hanging chad.

2. What are friends for, real friends, when they can't now and again say 'man, that was just wrong, bubba' and have one acknowledge with at the least "oops, my bad." B)

3. PM's, not PMS, be the underused Lounge feature, methinks. As to certain rogues on PMS, see point 2. :P

Occhi

"Coffee? Never touch the stuff, 'cept when I am awake and breathing."

[Nystul]

I don't think it's just the grammar corrections that scare a lot of people away.  It's the reputation of elitism that does it.  Granted, this elitism has toned down quite a bit over the years (with minor flareups every so often), but a lot of people still expect to either be ignored completely about a point they're trying to make or bug they've found or whatever decent post they're trying to make  or else are pummeled into the ground (figuratively speaking) for daring to have an opinion while not being a Good Ol' Lurker™ (GOL).  It really did feel like this was a good ol' boy network.  If you weren't a known code diving monkey or hadn't been an active poster since DSF, you were nothing.  You could have screenshots showing your point, have a detailed explanation of how you tested whatever you were testing and it would still go unnoticed unless one of the GOLs happened to decide later on to test it.  Yes, random posters who claimed to have found something out shouldn't be believed without question when they post, but a lot of things seemed to be completely dismissed and not even looked into or corrected if they were known to be wrong.  For a while it seemed that GOLs would only respond to GOLs, with the exception of flames and unnecessary negativity.  Those were spread around to everyone; some deserving, some not.

I'm not referring to the off-topic forums much, but that's because I tended to avoid reading it much of the time.  I frequently came here strictly for good behind the scenes info and seeing how people were treated in the game forums, I didn't want to see how people were treated in the off topic forum (which are typically worse).  I did poke in there now and again, but ran off without ever posting because my opinion on the OT stuff wouldn't matter anyway.  Now, as I said at the beginning, this has toned down but people's perceptions can take longer to change.
[right][snapback]63422[/snapback][/right]

There are two separate issues. On one hand, you have the official moderation and administration of the Lurker Lounge. On the other hand, you have other standards that are set by the Indians instead of the Chiefs. Any elitist attitudes that have existed here certainly have not been started by Bolty. Along the same lines, I don't think I have ever seen Griselda correct a spelling error, or censure someone for failing to read a strategy guide before asking questions. I also don't think the staff here is as prone to show favoritism towards GOLs, as you say, as the other GOLs may be. On the other hand, the moderators take a relatively hard line (by internet standards) when it comes to other things, like obscene language, confrontational language, and hotbutton issues.

Personally, I have never had any concerns about the way the LL staff handles moderation. On the other hand, there was a time when I gave up on the LL primarily because of elitist attitudes and harsh tones towards newbies (which had nothing to do with the staff, DSF-era regs, or even major strat contributors, in my opinion). I could rant on that issue for hours, but it is mostly water under the bridge now. Now it is a different dynamic with different problems, because a lot of the DSFers are still here, and a lot of the "newer" D2 Lurkers have been here for years now, and the fresh influx from D2/LoD has been a mere trickle for quite some time. At any rate, there are plenty of people who don't have any problems with the general attitude of the lounge, but may think the moderators are bit too tight about certain things. For others, it is the opposite. You can't please everybody, all of the time. It doesn't hurt for folks to express their concerns though.

[Treesh]

There are two separate issues.  On one hand, you have the official moderation and administration of the Lurker Lounge.  On the other hand, you have other standards that are set by the Indians instead of the Chiefs.  Any elitist attitudes that have existed here certainly have not been started by Bolty. 
[right][snapback]63441[/snapback][/right]

Thank you for bringing this up, but I have never had an issue with the administration or moderation of the board. Any comments I made in my posts were made purely about the Indians running around and not the Chiefs. I honestly feel that the way things are officially run around here does not need to be changed. I took Pete's post that started the topic to be directed more towards the regular members rather than directed at the staff and continued that in my own posts.

The idea about the wall of shame doesn't sit well with me though. I just don't think it's needed here.

[Guest]

If I was a dedicated forum troll .
[right][snapback]63404[/snapback][/right]

If I was is bad english
If I were + conditional verb, is correct
Sorry for being a 'grammar nazi' on this one ;)

[Zarathustra]

Sorry for being a 'grammar nazi' on this one ;)
[right][snapback]63446[/snapback][/right]

That sentence lacks a subject.

[Yrrek]

This board happens to suit people who prefer to think, reason, test, explore, and basically use their minds instead of just spewing mindless drivel. 
[right][snapback]63428[/snapback][/right]

Deebye? :P

[Tal]

If I was is bad english
If I were + conditional verb, is correct
Sorry for being a 'grammar nazi' on this one ;)
[right][snapback]63446[/snapback][/right]

You're missing some punctuation. :)

[DeeBye]

Deebye?  :P
[right][snapback]63449[/snapback][/right]

I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!

[Occhidiangela]

That sentence lacks a subject.
[right][snapback]63447[/snapback][/right]

In modern usage, IIRC from a William Safire piece some years ago, the "I am" can be inferred contextually, although a comma would help that particulary sentence in a visual sense.

I am about 72% sure on that one. :blush:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Thank you for bringing this up, but I have never had an issue with the administration or moderation of the board.  Any comments I made in my posts were made purely about the Indians running around and not the Chiefs.  I honestly feel that the way things are officially run around here does not need to be changed.  I took Pete's post that started the topic to be directed more towards the regular members rather than directed at the staff and continued that in my own posts. 

The idea about the wall of shame doesn't sit well with me though.  I just don't think it's needed here.
[right][snapback]63442[/snapback][/right]

Treesh, a while back, when the regulars were in pitched into the battle with the hordes of invading buffoons, I am talking two to three years ago, and particularly during the Beta Test for D II XPAC, I made the comment that a community sets and demands the norms it wants. For the longest time, Elric held the FAQ and etiquette on his site, as Bolty did not want to be that stuffy. :)

The community is all of us. We realized then that the mods/admins could not do it all, and Bolty & Co expressed general appreciation for support, though the occasional overzealous defense of the Lounge would get "that hardly helps" corrections from the head shed. I was on the receiving end of a few of those myself.

The membership must to a certain extent enforce, by peer pressure, community standards. What Pete seems to be appealing for, and I hear you echoing, is a call for a somewhat less strident (anal?) approach to "form versus substance" in re posting that borders on the edges of accepted norms.

This ain't the first time the call has gone out to loosen our ties a bit. I would liken the process to flushing the car radiator now and again: a periodic maintenance activity. ;)

Occhi

[Urza-DSF]

This is all very true, no one "place" should ever become so caught up with an image that any thought of change to that order is struck right down. That just leads to stagnation. However, personally I enjoy The Lounge *because* of the standards that are held here. I prefer not having to squint while trying to decipher a string of "leet" speak, or figure out what someone means when they type "omfgwthwt" or any other AOL shortening.

So yes, it is a good thing to not take ourselves too seriously, but we still shouldn't set aside our standards either.