Moderator talk & recent thread-lock

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

This thread refers to my closing of [Amber] Playing with strict Karma, and subsequent locking.

Michael, that was a sarcastic and vicious reply to my Actual Play thread-closure. It is among the worst possible behavior here and I consider it an open flame. I'm replying here against my better judgment (which is to ignore childishness) in order to help newcomers to the Forge understand my moderating.

That thread is full of personal attacks and tangents. I closed it so that any real topics could be brought up separately and with any luck fairly.

Your post was completely fine and nothing was wrong with it. Closing the thread had nothing to do with your post. If you felt victimized by me closing the thread, then I strongly suggest reviewing why you're here at the Forge. "I'm a victim, Ron's picking on me, it must be about my post," etc, makes this whole place turn ugly, like most of the rest of the internet. I cannot moderate and the Forge cannot function if people bring that attitude here.

You also subvert the overall social contract here by posting to a closed thread. I know the logic: "But it's OK for me to post, because I was wronged." That's the logic of a twelve-year-old. I don't come here to babysit. Correct your behavior, as an adult should. Otherwise I have no choice but to consider any post of yours to be a potential flame, and to shift it to the Inactive forum.

Consider that curious sense of self-justification that gripped you when you typed that post and hit "submit." That exact sensation should be a warning, that says Do Not Post.

And bear in mind, people, that Michael's post is only one of a set of inexcusable emotional posts on the Forge lately. I'm getting a lot of PM's asking me why I didn't moderate this or that post, even by the person who posted! That means people are looking to me to be their conscience without any attempt at internally-judging their own behaviors. My "babysit" comment above applies to everyone here.

When you disagree with my moderating, PM me. That's the way it works.

This thread is not intended for critiquing my moderating. Everything I've posted here is non-negotiable. I'm making sure everyone knows where I'm coming from.

Best,
Ron

[RaconteurX]

I apologize for causing you excessive consternation, Ron, but talk about inexusably emotional responses! While I certainly shan't claim that my intent was other than sarcastic, I think you ascribe far too much vitriol to my comments. I think you do a superb job moderating but tend to jump the gun when it comes to dealing with any threats of disharmony, real or imagined.

Perhaps you need to figure out a way to display the status of threads in something other than the forums, as I (and a great many other people, I would think) simply click the "View Posts Since Last Visit" link upon login and do not recall ever seeing a Closed Thread symbol on the threads which come up. My posting had nothing to do with a sense of perceived privilege; simply put, there was no indicator that the thread has closed.

Again, apologies. I think, however, that you over-reacted... and badly at that.

[ErrathofKosh]

When you disagree with my moderating, PM me. That's the way it works.

I think that anymore discussion on this should be via PM...  Just my opinion though.

Jonathan

[ethan_greer]

As far as having some sort of visible indicator of closed threads, that's come up before and there are some decent reasons not to have something in place.  Check out the thread link below if you're curious.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2344

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

What matters is that people understand how they're supposed to act.

1. No one is exempt, ever, from the basic Forge expectation that when you post to a thread, you are entering into dialogue with everyone on it. Maybe your specific points are confined to a single poster's comments, and that's OK - but only in the context of having read and understood everyone's posts so far.

Clinton and I are discussing whether to disable to "view last posts since" function, because it leads to unacceptable behavior. Your convenience runs a very distant second to the etiquette issue.

2. The sort of geeky-cheeky humor that's deliberately "wrong" behavior doesn't work on-line. I'd argue that it rarely works ever, in the sense of a positive social interaction, but that's not the point. The point is that it can't happen here.

When I close a thread, and you post to it even if you think it's funny, you're doing the exact same thing as someone who's literally breaking Forge rules. Wow - concept: "I didn't mean to be a dick, I was just being funny" - is actually being a dick. Saying "I didn't see the post" digs you deeper.

If you don't get that, you're doomed to endless instances of being smacked, as you see it, "for no reason." It won't stop.

3. Apologizing is very, very dicey behavior. The only valid apology consists of two things:

a) An actual intellectual or emotional infraction against another person. Screwing up Forge netiquette in terms of thread-policy is not such an instance. Therefore apologizing to me-as-moderator is a little like apologizing to a cop - he's really not interested and you're adding kind of a vapor around the real interaction that needs to take place.

b) Taking full responsibility for it, and saying so to that person. "I'm sorry you were offended" is not an apology - it's just a cunning dodge that saddles the other person with the responsibility for your dickheadedness. "I'm sorry but" when opening a counter-argument isn't an apology either, it's merely a subtle way of saying "fuck you."

I strongly recommend that people not apologize when they shouldn't. I also strongly recommend that valid apologies be forthright.

The rules aren't changing, folks. The way I moderate is the way it's done here.

Best,
Ron

[Ben Lehman]

I'd just like to take a moment to assure people that when Ron says "contact me by PM" he does not mean "...so I can blow you off."

I have asked Ron about thread closures via PM before, and he has given me very good, particular answers as to why the threads were closed.  Try it sometime.

yrs--
--Ben

[RaconteurX]

Ron, that you need to resort to juvenile name-calling shows me exactly where you are coming from. It's a piss-ant power issue, and strangely you only tend to enforce it with folks who are not Forge poster-children.

Would that I had a dime for every time various regulars have gone off on tirades against people who do not "play the way they do" and you have failed to step in. Had I, I would be very wealthy indeed.

I have been steadily losing interest in The Forge, as it has nothing new to offer. The theories are poorly written, poorly conceived and have become just another excuse for elitist behavior. They address nothing that has not been said before, and better, by others.

I shan't be coming back again.

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

As a long term Forge member, I can attest to how the Forge discussion community works.  Everyone's free to disagree, provided that:

-You read and acknowledge other folks' posts
-You do not make personal attacks

The point of thread closing happens either when discussion has splintered, died off, people repeat points without further information, or gone into personal attacks.  Understand that thread closing has nothing to do with what you have to say regarding roleplaying games, and everything to do with focused, civil discussion.

It's not some "secret" protocol, or hidden by-law.  It's posted at the top of the forums.  If you happen to miss it, folks will generally gently let you know how the Forge works, and refer you to the sticky if necessary.  If you continue to fail to "get" this basic community standard, social reinforcement will get progressively tougher.

Civil discussion has very little to do with simply nice and pretty words.  It deals with listening, digesting, and responding to what folks are saying.  It also includes respecting the rules of the community.  And if you don't agree, you are also free to leave, and that's a decision I support as well.
Despite what anyone might say, I'd hardly consider the two prerequisites I've listed above as "elitism", though they certainly draw a line of expectation to meet.

Chris