Player-driven Moderation

[cognizantchance]

OK, this is probably going to get me in trouble here too, but I do think it's interesting enough to mention.

So there's an enormous thread over at RPG.net in Roleplaying Open entitled:

   
The Forge--Why the hate?

And, it was a back and forth about the merit of being a Forge person (I would not call myself a "Forge person"--partly because I don't know what that really means) and of course the Forge has many detractors and many supporters and many people post in the thread just to make sure everyone else knows how indifferent they are to the Forge. My favorite post was the one comparing Ron Edwards to Suge Knight. At some point it becomes a long personal fight between someone who doesn't register but posts a lot and someone else about their honesty. eventually, as far as I can tell, I really haven't read the entire thread (28 pages) somebody imitates the poster who doesn't register and so the thread goes on about that .

So I post this as Ron_Edwards:

I don't think this is going anywhere interesting at this point. This thread is closed.

Best,
Ron

Just because it was too good a joke to resist. There had been several posts about 'heavy-handed' moderating at the Forge, and I thought it was just perfect that a thread that had stretched to nearly 30 pages of name-calling had a number of people complaining about overbearing moderators--since it became a thread crying out to be moderated.

Well, some moderator over there goes nuts because I was imitating a registered user. Asked me if I knew the rules (i didn't, I confess now). Asked me if I knew how tired he was of people imitating other users (i didn't, I confess now) Asked me "Did you not see the multiple moderator posts telling people VERY DIRECTLY not to impersonate other posters, or industry folk? " (i didn't ) and asked me if I thought my post was a good idea (I have to admit that I kind of did). I apologized, then a cooler headed moderator jumped on in and closed the thread, which I thought made the whole thing sort of fall into place because essentially by imitating Ron Edwards -- I got that thread some long overdue heavy-handed moderation, but I did violate forum rules over there.

Ron Edwards, I doubt you'd get wind of this if I didn't mention it, but I hope you're not offended by me imitating you, I enjoy the Forge a great deal. It's just the Eurmal in me, I hope you would understand.

thanks,

Joe Preston
Cognizant Chance
http://www.cognizantchance.com

[MR. Analytical]

You did it and you got busted for it after there had been a whole thread about immitation started up and closed and I stepped over the line.  I would say it was bad form to drag dirty laundry from RPG.net over to another forum.

I'd suggest one of the mods disappear this thread.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

One of the principles at this forum is intellectual and emotional honesty. It often takes people a long time to get there, and I am often patient about it.

Using multiple usernames is dishonest. Posing as someone else is dishonest. Posting for attention rather than for content at this website is dishonest.

"I thought it was funny!" justifies nothing. Things are assigned funniness by others, not by the person who does them.

Joe, if there's one thing you never have to worry about, it's "offending" me. I do have a judgment about your behavior, and about that kind of behavior in general, especially on-line. You can ask me about that if you want, privately. But it's the business of the moderators at RPG.net to deal with you and whoever else.

Jonathan, you're right that draggin' the issue over here is a bad idea. Bluntly, Joe, your post isn't going to be the basis for a thread discussion here. I think a private email to me would have been fine - if your goal was actually to apologize to me, which I'm not sure it is. "I'm sorry if I offended you" is not an apology. If your goal was to get attention, well, you got a little. Be happy with it, I guess.

Jonathan, threads aren't deleted at this website. Sometimes posts/threads get shifted to the Inactive Forum, but that's reserved for the most juvenile or exploitative posts, like porn links and so on. It's far more effective to deal with posts-for-attention and similar by ignoring them.

Incidentally, Jonathan, welcome (back) - and I'm aware that you do not think that intellectual or emotional honesty is goin' on often at the Forge. We disagree about that, but with any luck, you'll spot us, or me anyway, the attempt.

Everyone else, I hope you catch my point, but I like to be unsubtle, so here goes. This thread isn't officially closed, but please don't treat it as a "my opinion about Joe's funny" survey-fest.

Best,
Ron

[cognizantchance]

The only reason I'm bringing it up over here is because what I did is often a pretty big netiquette violation. I linked to the thread and explained it, because I think in context, it's a rather obvious joke, that still struck me as funny and appropriate considering the fact that the thread had really degenerated into a bunch of name-calling. I simply thought it was very apt that my simple little joke engendered a very immoderate post from a moderator, in a thread ostensibly about Ron Edwards, who is well-known as a very active moderator.

But, analysing my joke at this point is a bit like dissecting a frog. It works, but the frog tends to die in the process. Would everybody who's offended please send me a PM or something so I can grovel on a one-to-one basis?

thanks,

Joe Preston
Cognizant Chance

[cognizantchance]

Ron,

We cross-posted so I'll try to reconcile.

I think redacting what I said there or here to "I thought it was funny!" characterizes me as shrill and whiny, and I don't think there's anything in my posts to support that statement.

I reject entirely that I was posting for attention rather than for content. I found the irony of a humongous thread that veered quickly from typical forum posts over to name-calling, etc. notable because the thread was originally about the Forge, where that sort of thing largely does not happen. But, I'd have thought it was funny and commented on it even if I hadn't become involved in it. However, at that point it would be disingenuous to not acknowlege my role in the closing of the thread. I commented here rather than at RPG.net, because I didn't want to inflame anything over there.

There is something, I obviously don't understand here, judging from the responses, and the swipes Ron just took at my honesty.  So, I'm going to back off for a while and hopefully someone can explain it to me.

Joe Preston

[Balbinus]

I can't speak for Ron, but I didn't see his post as taking swipes at your honesty.  Of necessity though, pretending to be another forum user is dishonest behaviour.  I don't see how that can meaningfully be debated.

Does that make you a dishonest person?  Not in my book, certainly not on its own.  Is it dishonest behaviour though?  IMO, yes.  As such, I think Ron was right to comment on that, if only for the benefit of others who might read the thread and might otherwise have been tempted to act similarly here.

Lastly, from me anyway on this post, I think the comment on recognition stemmed from it being unclear what you wanted from this thread.  I also thought you were just looking for recognition.  I can accept that isn't so, but it isn't an unfair inference per se and it might help if you set out what you would like to discuss in this thread, if anything further.

[cognizantchance]

Points well taken. However, I believe the swipe at my honesty is that I'm posting for attention. This is true only in the broadest interpretation, in that I wanted to draw attention to the fact that I meant no ill will.

Assume my perspective for a second, everyone has acted like I farted in church. The person who really might have the most grounds to be mad is Ron Edwards, whose forum I rather enjoy reading and participating in. I thought it was prudent to explain at the Forge what was going on. And yeah, I thought it was funny. But we already knew that:)

Joe

[Balbinus]

cognizantchance,

I thought you were posting for attention too following your first post bear in mind, chalk it up to the perils of internet communication.  I'm happy to discuss further why I personally thought the joke on rpg.net was a bad idea but I think that would probably be better suited to PM than here, it's not really a Forge site issue I think so maybe not relevant to this forum.

PM me if you want to discuss with me further, else just take your lumps at rpg.net and so it goes.  If it helps I've been reprimanded for inappropriate humour at least once here, I apologised (since on consideration I decided I had been wrong) and I still live.  It's part sometimes of posting, but it strikes me as an rpg.net issue and a Ron personal issue, not a Forge issue.

[greyorm]

There is something, I obviously don't understand here, judging from the responses, and the swipes Ron just took at my honesty.  So, I'm going to back off for a while and hopefully someone can explain it to me.

Alright, the heart of the issue I believe is that intent doesn't matter; perception matters. So it doesn't matter what your reasons for doing so were, it doesn't matter that it was funny (hey, I think it was an apt and witty commentary on the events and nature of thread in question), only that it was perceived as an action meant to draw attention.

Of course, all comedy is perceived that way, that is, actually, comedy's purpose -- to draw attention to something by way of the comic's humor -- but ultimately, this is one of those "a public explanation/examination of the event is not necessary" deals, whereas the event occurred, and bringing it up here in detail was unnecessary. It ends up looking like simply a pointer to the original issue, in a, "look how funny I was!" sense, regardless of the apology tacked on at the end, and because of the detailed analysis of and further commentary on the event (which only serves to say "this is why it was funny" even by way of "this is why I did it").

Hence Ron's statements about it being honest with yourself that it was "for attention."

Make sense? (Yes or no...please no debate/defense as to how it might be this or that instead, ok?)

[Henri]

I went back and looked at the original thread. I'm sorry to say, but cognizantchance, I really feel like you were out of line.  I'm not saying you were dishonest, since your intention was to be ironic rather than to actually deceive people.  But in a thread where emotions are already running high and people are being touchy, posting an ironic joke without being very explicit that it is a joke and should be taken as such, is just asking for trouble.  I hardly find the response of other users to be surprising.  Please don't take this as a personal attack, because it isn't.  I don't use RPGnet, so I'm just giving you my opinion as a disinterested observer.

[cognizantchance]

Henri, no question I was out of line. Imitating another poster is a violation of their forum rules.  That said, I think the only real question I posed here was whether Ron Edwards was offended or not. Ron, told me that that would have made a better email than a forum post. I don't agree with that because I don't think an email to Ron would have ended up percieved in the same context as this thread will be. Improving the contextual data about events makes for better relationships between humans involved in those events.

But as far as validation or condemnation go, Ron said it best.

please don't treat it as a "my opinion about Joe's funny" survey-fest.

Greyorm, if I understand you, you are saying that my description of the events involved, my apology "tacked on" (I consider that a hostile characterization) to the end and my further comments on the thread, were all cries for attention. Since that is the entirety of my input in this discussion, it begs the question, "Why are you feeding this troll, then?"

Joe

[Henri]

Ok, point taken.  Since you agree you were out of line, I have nothing to argue, and will stop the survey fest.  Nothing further.

[greyorm]

I don't think an email to Ron would have ended up percieved in the same context as this thread will be.

What context is that?

Improving the contextual data about events makes for better relationships between humans involved in those events.

That's the question, then: why do we need a relationship about this event? Why does it somehow make a better public display than a private note, if your intention was to apologize to Ron for impersonating him, rather than point out that you had and why you had?

Greyorm, if I understand you, you are saying that my description of the events involved, my apology "tacked on" (I consider that a hostile characterization) to the end and my further comments on the thread, were all cries for attention.

I agree it probably is a hostile characterization. Apologies. I say "tacked on" because that's what it looks and feels like to me -- it isn't just an apology to Ron, which would have only required the apology, it's a dissertation about "why you did it" with a short note at the end that says, "I hope you aren't mad at me." It looks like an afterthought, and doesn't come off as the reason for the posting at all.

Analogy time: it's like those "long apologies" a guy gives his girlfriend when she's angry at him for something, but he doesn't think he really did anything wrong. It's a whole dysfunctional way to go about getting his side in again, while covering it up as "an apology." Usually, the girlfriend ends up blowing up at the boyfriend, who acts in a sort of clueless "What did I do wrong now?" way, and procedes to further defend his original position while saying as well, "I'm just trying to apologize!"

As I said, intent doesn't matter; it is perception (or rather observable behavior) that counts. Based on your post, I would conclude that your intent was more than simply apologizing to Ron for imitating him. 95% of your post details and then provides further commentary on the actual event...all of which is irrelevant to the apology.

This isn't to say, "Oh, you're a horrible human being for behaving this way!" No one's a horrible human being for behaving that way.

Since that is the entirety of my input in this discussion, it begs the question, "Why are you feeding this troll, then?"

You asked for input because you didn't understand why your posting was percieved so badly. I attempted to provide.

[cognizantchance]

What context is that?

Exactly the context this discussion provides. Consider Ron's perspective. If I had just sent him a quick 2 sentence apology by email. It seems reasonable to believe that his reaction might have been "WTF! Who's this asshole imitating me?"--which I was trying to avoid, because I think my action was more benign than the overall reaction to it. If you are holding a hot potato, you don't open a door, shout "Grenade! and toss it in, you approach slowly and cautiously and politely inform others about your flaming tuber.  Ron has responded that email would have been a better solution, but I was most concerned with moderating the overall reaction to the imbroglio. I think this is the part that makes everyone think I'm clamoring for attention. All I was doing was apologising for something that I found innocent, ironic and funny. Frankly, I was surprised by Ron's "'I'm sorry if I offended you' is not an apology" comment, because it deepened the sense that people don't find me remorseful enough--and that lack of remorse makes me somehow insincere. But, that's the reason that I posted rather than contact by email, I thought that whatever small chance there was that Ron Edwards might go ballistic would be reduced if I put it in a public forum surrounded by the gentle voices of the Forge, as opposed to in his inbox.

Not to imitate Ron :) but I think this thread is winding down. I'm delving pretty deep into the reasoning for my apology, and the responses generally still consist of trying to figure out what was really] going on in my head when I did this. That's often considered a faux pas at the Forge even though many of the most prolific posters do it habitually. I don't think much of the habit, and I like it less when it's directed toward me.

Joe

[greyorm]

Interesting...you realize that your reasons for posting publically, then, were exactly what you're upset about now. You were trying to read what would be going on in Ron's head and responding to that, rather than just, you know, apologizing?