Appropriate disapproval and troll-fu

[Bankuei]

Hi,

What are some good guidelines for us non-moderator Forgies to express diapproval regarding politeness?

Chris

[Mark Johnson]

Silence is golden.

[pete_darby]

PM a mod.

Violence against a plush toy also helps, but isn't entirely helpful.

[Jack Aidley]

What are we talking here? Minor disapproval or full out toys-out-the-pram tantrum?

For minor infractions I believe it is the responsibility of a community to maintain it's own high standards - we should not leave this all to Ron. For full on toy-flinging, yup, leave it to the mods.

[Bankuei]

Hi Jack,

I think there are several levels to it.  Obviously, we have the really nice, "Hey, we don't do that here, but here's what we DO instead" that usually gets applied to newbies to the out and out, "Ok, you've been told, and you know better" sort of situations.

I'm with you on not leaving it all to Ron, first because he's just one person, but two, because he catches a lot of flak for being an active defender of our community standards, when we all need to make it clear that some behavior isn't welcome, although all forms of disagreement are.

I'm asking the question for my clarification, but also to allow Ron and Clinton to lay down some guidelines for everyone overall.

Chris

[Walt Freitag]

I thought the policy was pretty clear:

B. Reporting a belligerent poster

If you have a problem with someone that is posting here because of issues on The Forge, please let Ron or Clinton know privately. Do not engage the poster yourself, and do not reprimand him, no matter how long you have been on The Forge.

I suppose we could inquire whether Ron might wish to change this policy to reduce his workload or his flak absorption rate, but as it stands, publically addressing unwelcome behavior (with the possible exception of simple newbie mistakes like thread resurrection) is the moderators' job by the moderators' own preference.

- Walt

PS [in edit]: Whenever I'm tempted to think, "I've been around here long enough and absorbed enough mod-fu and forge-essence to be able to step in and tell this or that rude person just why he's out of line," I remember the last clause in the above quote, "no matter how long...," and think, Ron and Clinton must have used a crystal ball to foresee this exact occurrence and then must have written that policy clause specifically for me.

[joshua neff]

That's my stance, too, Walt. No matter how annoyed I get at a temper-tantrum post, I leave it to Ron & Clinton to deal with as they see fit.

I think it's also good to remember that Forge threads are never deleted, Forge threads are rarely locked, & Forge posters are not banned. Calling for Ron or Clinton to delete or lock a thread are, at best, pointless. Calling for Ron or Clinton to "go ahead & ban me" is juvenile & equally pointless.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi all,

I think the issue then becomes this.... If you're a new guy or gal, and it's Ron, say, you're frustrated with, letting Ron know might feel like appealing to Castro when you've been accused of trying to flee the country.  I know Clinton is there, too, but a) Clinton has less visibility here, so it's not clear to newer folks what his role/stand is in relation to, say, Ron and b) it's still PMing one of two people who are, at one level or not, joined at the hip -- or can assumed to be.

I think this might be where the appeal to the "public" comes in.

Now, my guess is, anyone PMailing Ron for a while under such circumstances will probably work it out.  Therefore, it might be simply a matter of having the phrase in the guidelines re-written "...even if its Ron or Clinton. or somesuch.  After all, this is implied, but its not clear if you suddenly find yourself feeling threatened by Ron or Clinton and getting ready to go into fight or flight mode.

I have no idea if this is a valid solution.  But I do see this issue as being a true bump in the road of the Pax Forge ideal -- no matter how infrequently the matter comes up.

Christopher

[Ron Edwards]

Good call, Christopher.

It all comes down to whether people can trust me & Clinton to wear different hats.

Hat 1: fellow Forge member, in which the discourse is the top priority.

Hat 2: Forge content moderator, in which enforcing Hat #1 for everyone is the top priority.

Hat 3: publisher representing and promoting the interests of Adept Press.

Is it possible always to keep these separate? 'Course not. But the question is not whether I (for instance) can be perfect, but whether Clinton and I can be trusted within the bounds of accident, integrity, and provocation to keep them from actually unfairly backing up one another.

If we can't, then there's nothing to be done. The Forge would in that case be flawed from the ground up, and any justifications or explanations on my or Clinton's part are deceptive and toxic. No one with any sense should post here. It would indeed be a totalitarian and exploitative exercise.

If we can, then everyone works with the limitations imposed by reality, and use the various phrases and behaviors that have evolved here (or were brought by many) to get through the tough parts. Disagreements can still serve the common agenda.

Everyone has to choose for himself or herself which of those two paragraphs is real.

Best,
Ron

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Ron,

Good answer.  And because I think its so good, I think you and Clinton should think about putting those words, or something very much like them, in the Forge Site Guidelines -- as a little sidebar, or adendenum -- or something.  Because its up front, direct, and clears up a sticky-looking issue -- that to me, really isn't very sticky at all, but can look that way.

I know such things explinations may seem obvious, but this site simply is run differently than most others.  And saying all of it up front, would, I think, be a good move for the long run.

Christopher

[DevP]

On the issue of Hats, I was tempted to write a "Ron Edwards *could* fuck off!" (clever title?), in which I do NOT malign Ron, but instead point out that as Forge member I can vehemently, brutally, strong-armedly contest any and all of Ron's beliefs (if I wanted) so long as I didn't breach Ettiquette; in short, a reality check, that I can go full-force against Ron-qua-Forgite without worrying about Ron-qua-Moderator.

(And lo, I've sort of written it.)

[Clinton R. Nixon]

I wanted to chime in here with Ron, primarily because I've been quiet through this whole bit of melodrama. He's on the mark: if we can't be trusted to moderate and criticize each other (albeit privately), then the forum would not stand.

[John Kim]

But the question is not whether I (for instance) can be perfect, but whether Clinton and I can be trusted within the bounds of accident, integrity, and provocation to keep them from actually unfairly backing up one another.

If we can't, then there's nothing to be done. The Forge would in that case be flawed from the ground up, and any justifications or explanations on my or Clinton's part are deceptive and toxic. No one with any sense should post here. It would indeed be a totalitarian and exploitative exercise.

If we can, then everyone works with the limitations imposed by reality, and use the various phrases and behaviors that have evolved here (or were brought by many) to get through the tough parts. Disagreements can still serve the common agenda.  

This is a casting it as a binary situation -- i.e. either the system works fine, or it is a complete waste.  I don't think this is true.  That is, I think that we could have a system which works well for the most part, but a few people are unfairly treated by the system.  There can be a broad spectrum from perfectly unbiased moderation, through varying degrees of bias.  

For the most part, Ron, I think you are a good moderator -- but you can make bad calls at times.  In particular, I think it's pretty clear that this topic is over the recent exchange with Chris Pramas on the Publishing.  In that thread, you accused him of being sarcastic and patronizing and ordered him to stop.  While there is some truth to your accusation, I don't think his behavior was any different than the attitude which you regularly adopt about, say, the "industry" or "ouija board players".  There is nothing wrong with this, IMO -- sarcasm is allowed on these boards, and I do not think your points or his constituted flaming.  

In short, I think you were wrong to give him orders as moderator in this case.  Now, that's your mistake to make, and it won't stop me from participating here, but that's my opinion.  Now, everyone is biased to some degree, and everyone has their bad days, so I don't consider it a capital crime or anything.  But that is my feedback.

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

So far, I haven't seen anything to break my trust of Ron or Clinton's ability to moderate.  I do, however, feel that just as a community that we welcome new folks, help folks understand some of the common ideas or terminology here, that also, as a community, we have the ability to express disapproval.  

I understand that PM is a clear message to the person, and perhaps that might just be the way to go.  But the thing to also be aware of is that when other folks come along later, all they see is some heat build up and the thread get shut down.  They don't necessarily see that perhaps several people, even folks who may be in agreement with the offending party, are not pleased with the means of communication used.

Chris

[Matt Snyder]

John, Ron's not saying that either paragraph 1 is true or paragraph 2 is true.

He's saying either paragraph 1 or paragraph 2 is true for you, the individual human being here on the Forge. You (that is, all of us) must figure out where you (we) stand in regards to that issue, and participate in this community or not accordlingly.

Which one is real for you? In that case, on an individual basis, it really is a binary case. Why? Because the community will not put up with anyone's bullshit if they think the second paragraph is real. They exhibit behaviors that are not acceptable here. So you can't have it both ways, and the moderators will let you know it. I find that entirely appropriate.

For me, I'm very glad Ron posted that message above. I tried to make exactly the same point in the recent thread in Publishing -- that we've got to use our brains and be able to parse out Ron the Moderator from Ron the Contributor, or we're screwed (and, boy, so is Ron).

In other words, we have to grant him enough trust, which he's by God earned in spades from where I'm sitting. Ron has proven again and again and again that he's a very sharp thinker, considerate, and exceptionally skilled at assessing social situations, whether they're in games or here on the Forge. On the rare occasions he's made mistakes, he makes good publicly and privately as well as he can. I have witnessed this in my own discourse with Ron and dozens of times as an observer on these discussion groups.