Moderation issue today

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Some people are questioning my moderation in the RPGmall at GAMA? thread in the Publishing forum.

I have a few things to say about that which are not subject to debate. Bluntly, if you can't abide by the following three points, feel free to cease posting at the Forge.

1. Thread topic drift isn't tolerated. You cannot turn a thread about X into a discussion about how thread X is being moderated. Take it to this forum to ask what it's all about, or inquire/protest in private messages. Period.

2. The Forge isn't a democracy. Personal "two cents" about moderation are taken under advisement by me and Clinton. No thread, ever, is a "Hey, whaddaya think" "Well, I think" free-for-all regarding moderation.

3. When moderated, you abide by it. You can protest it, inquire about it, get mad about it, or whatever, either in a thread here or in private message, but in the thread in question, you abide by it. Doesn't matter if you think it was mean. Doesn't matter if you think it shouldn't have to happen to you. Your first task, if you're looking for me to reconsider, is to abide by it, and then to address the issue in the right way.

Think of it as a traffic cop situation. You won't get anywhere by protesting your ticket to the cop. You have to take it to traffic court and plead your case to the judge. When a person protests right there in the thread, and if the thread starts to turn into a free-for-all about it, it's very much like a guy getting a ticket, and then, immediately, breaking every traffic law he can think of as a form of protest. The judge ain't gonna like that.

The judge-Ron is pretty reasonable, frankly, more than the cop-Ron. I strongly recommend not arguing with the cop.

I will clarify my problem with James' posting in the thread in question. Here at the Forge, ignoring the information proffered by others or referring to it disaparagingly is considered to be a flame. This is different from other sites, or perhaps from any other site.

James has explained that he didn't "mean" his post to be referring to other publishers' posts, but to retailers. I can never, and no one can ever, know what anyone "means." I go with what's printed. I'm willing to be corrected, but not to be challenged or confronted.

Best,
Ron

[ethan_greer]

Fair enough.  I don't have many (if any) objections to how the moderation goes around these parts.  It works.  However, I do have an observation for cop-Ron (which is not intended as a challenge or confrontation):

In the linked thread above, cop-Ron told James was he was "skating on thin ice with me today."  The remark wasn't necessary to the moderation, nor was it necessary to advise against responding in a flip or defensive manner.  The forum conduct threads are explicit in that regard.  Shoulda closed the message a paragraph early there, I think.  Probably would have prevented the feather-ruffling.  Yes, it's not a moderator's job to worry about feather-ruffling, simply to moderate and keep threads and discourse on-target.  But feather-ruffling never helps that.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the moderation in question.  As for moderation in general on the Forge, I have no complaints.

I do have a question though:  When you say the poster should abide by the moderation, does that mean not to respond to the moderation in the thread in question at all?  Or is it okay to respond in-thread to explain, clarify, or appologize for the moderated post?

[xiombarg]

Good questions, I'd like to know the answers as well.

I agree with Ethan's comments about how the "cop Ron" handled things. On the other hand, I know that no one's temper is perfect, and I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, so they'll do the same for me -- no blood, no foul. But I have to admit I was as surprised as GMS was by the whole thing.

[iago]

The problem I had with the moderation was pretty simple -- it came off like the cop was having a bad day, not like the cop was making a decision based (solely) on the traffic code.  The "thin ice" comment is, definitely, the back-breaker here.  Prior to that it was just a bit of a case of head-scratching.

Apologies for having made my opinions known in-thread, rather than here.

[permacultureguerilla]

I like this analogy.

I'm not particularly pro-authoritarian (read the handle, lol) but I don't think anything was such a serious issue here. Overall, it seems too basic for me to say: we're talking about roleplaying games. The only mistake (that's not an "arrogance" I'd call that a "mistake") was saying that threatening not to post is childish, because you can't be sure it was a threat. And it sprung from another mistake of "geez" > translation> "screw you." I'm not a juror, so I've already butted too far. I'm out of it. Here's my thing.

I like cops. Some have the most ridiculous penalties imaginable (You'll agree if I tell you) but honesty does indeed get you a clean slate. Here's my honesty . . .

I am, honestly, a little scared of what I say in here, and that's probably because there are giants with more experience than me, and I have been known to push for what I want. But think about this: It's the perfect opportunity to test all that experience dealing with a dictatorship like the Camarilla! If role playing is worth any skill, I'd say it's dealing with confrontations (excluding the enormous ratio of violence in them).

I try to call my own mistakes before others can, without over-apologizing. I keep an "account" of them, and I do this with jobs, too. I basically treat it exactly like another role playing game.

WARNING: Sometimes I take a great deal of time on internet, and I will post like a maniac. I disperse between sites, and personal files, so that I don't clog a place. If that's happening, you can let me know immediately.

I also never threaten to leave, but I may suggest it, eg: I think I should get a TASTE of other games, and THEN work hard on my own before coming back for more (I said something along those lines in the Indie sticky for guidelines on posting).

I've already done a bit of braindumping, and I've asked questions without fully reading. Every question we know is answered, as far as I'm concerned, they just have to evolve into their categories.

I would suggest a "PLEASE READ THIS FIRST" sticky. When someone breaks a rule, paste a line from the sticky addressing it, and do not address it with your own comments. If you have to use comments, that means you need to edit the sticky.

Use rules from the sticky for "conflict resolution," essentially we want the most GAMIST perspective. (oh come now, this analogy is fun).

This is also why I write some letters to moderators, some would see it like "sucking up to GM" but I do a similar thing in Vampire. I go: "Before I do this, I want to milk all the advice from you personally that you'll allow. Maybe my character should know something I don't yet. If you didn't want me to ask, you'd put a warning on game entry."

[ethan_greer]

Well, there's a sticky topic in this forum, Etiquette at the Forge (policy).  But it couldn't hurt to spruce up the title with some all-caps action, i.e. READ THIS FIRST:  Forge Etiquette policy.

Also, Ron, I wanted to bump this thread to make sure you didn't miss it, 'cause I had that question above...

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ethan,

Missed that one in the pre-GenCon rush.

When you say the poster should abide by the moderation, does that mean not to respond to the moderation in the thread in question at all? Or is it okay to respond in-thread to explain, clarify, or appologize for the moderated post?

That means, don't respond to the moderation in that thread except to acknowledge it. Apologizing and explaining tend to create a thread-within-a-thread effect.

The most I'd suggest is - if it applies - something like, "I was unclear. I'll rephrase my point to mean ..."

However, people have been known to do that even when their original point was patently unacceptable, in a kind of revisionist way. So the ideal thing is to acknowledge the moderation and simply move on with the point.

Best,
Ron