Guild of Writers

I think you've misunderstood me J'kla: The problem isn't that it took 2.5 days for it to happen. (Indeed, I assumed that it took so long because she was away.) The problem is that changing a post after 2.5 days won't be noticed (normally) by the people following the thread. They don't normally re-read a thread and look for changes. So, if her motivation was to let people know that she changed her mind, she should have made a new post saying so (and possibly also add a note at the end of the original post saying so). The only way most of us know that she changed her mind, was because Kaelis was watching for changes. She tried to make it look like she hadn't said that, and she did. That's the problem; I hate revisionism.

ddb174 wrote:That's the problem; I hate revisionism.

I along with many others hate it too.

Like this prime example.

Chogon wrote:Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 9:13 am — Post subject: Give Mods some space!

Hi Everyone,

We are _very_ short handed here at Cyan. And we rely on the Mods (moderators) a lot! for keeping the forums in order, keeping the peace and protecting Cyan's interest. That last item can be a very tricky thing to administer, especially without someone from Cyan being constantly available. So, the forums mods need to act quickly and then try to get a decision out of Cyan (i.e. hunt me down). This may result in threads being locked or removed temporarily until a decision can be made.

So please, give the Mods some space!
If there is an issue, please write a PM (private message) to me or the mods AND please leave the pitch forks at home.

Also, if you are about to post something that seems to be in the gray area, PM the mods before posting. In other words, work with them.


Thanks,
Chogon



Last edited by Chogon on Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:04 pm; edited 2 times in total

If things change, which they will/have, post saying things have changed seven months later.

Then again when the Community Manager does it too, the pace has been set and history is re-written.

There has bee an on going practice for some folks to post some really nasty stuff when a mod is not around, flaming the other posters and then remove said flame before a mod sees it. With the only mod that mods in a different time zone, a poster can have a field day in stirring up the forum and then sit back all innocent like and go “What me?” Nice way to set other posters up for failure.

BS…

ddb174 wrote:That's the problem; I hate revisionism.

I guess you love wikis then?

I have to perfectly agree here, out of personal experience. I have and had to deal with "someone" who loves to edit or remove posts and whole threads at will if the content no longer fits his purposes - causing an ever-changing "history" (1984 anyone? ). It's for precisely that reason that I usually set up boards I administrate to allow post edits only for, say, 60 minutes, and completely disallow post removals. This way, quick fixes or typo corrections can be done... but if the author changes his/her mind later on, he has no choice but append that new position, leaving the old documented. Of course that doesn't help if it's the admin himself behaving that way...

Ddb174’s characterization of my motives for posting and debating has been discussed but never debated or substantiated. It’s a fact that he and several of his friends see it as they do. But their consensus is not evidence. I know several that disagree and those people show there is more than one possible perception. I also know he is not psychic because he has repeatedly misunderstood my motives and even while being told otherwise. That he never follows up says something.

DNFTT is a good way to stifle opposing opinion.

veralun comes in and posts what happened. Dot pops in and confirms what she did and that the thread was gone. So when I doubted the thread had been deleted and Dot’s post was not I was correct and when people said the thread was gone they were right... for a couple of hours. Since the discussion was about the moderation on MOUL the subtle difference is relevant.

There are constructive ways to handle disagreement, as Dot points out. Stepping up to using good etiquette for forum debate seems to be an offensive concept on GoW. For those that think otherwise checkout the debate rules most people use. It’s a simple matter to check. Google: debate tactics. It will show I don’t make up rubbish rules.

One can also go through the policies for editors debating/discussing the content of articles on the Wikipedia. In our fan forums we are passionate about a game. In the Wikipedia they are passionate about historic figures, history, political concepts and many things people feel will shape the world. They get passionate. Still, they manage to have a healthy editing community.

Rawa has added a post about Playing Nice. I have hopes that may change the style of moderating on MOUL. I would like to see some rule changes, but that may be too much to hope for. But, I haven’t seen any move to adopt those concepts here either.

===Edit=== 11/19 ===

Stepping up to using good etiquette for forum debate seems to be an offensive concept on GoW.

In the next post J'Kla is correct. That is a poorly worded sentence and is unfair. Apologies. Whether GoW members will stand up for better etiquette and how many is subjective. Using a an 'all inclusive' was wrong.

Nalates wrote:Stepping up to using good etiquette for forum debate seems to be an offensive concept on GoW.

I would like to post a point of order that blanket statements about forum members on a forum include those making the statement on the forum. To that end good etiquette may be an offensive concept for some but surely not for all on GoW.

Apology accepted.

Dot wrote:'Ragequit'? No, just weariness with the sarcasm, unpleasantness and 'cleverness' -- and the unfair treatment being meted out to others in a very public forum.

In fact, immediately after posting the 'goodbye' I had second thoughts, but when trying to delete it the thread was taken away for consultation. When it returned I edited the post to reflect my thoughts and feelings.

I also stand by my comments in that thread: the unpleasant tone of posts here and in that thread do discourage others (including newcomers) from taking part.

There are constructive ways of expressing disagreement, as well as the destructive ones.

Yes your right it's all the GOW's fault.

Here's a fun fact. Dot here, is one of the reasons I quit the GOW and most of the Uru community. She in this post is complaining about people being negative. She has consistently been one of the most passive aggressive people in this community, and yet she has gained nothing but respect for it.

I know I am NOT a nice person. I say plenty of things mean about and to people. Read almost any of my posts and you will find sarcasm and sometimes direct aggression. However, I am honest. I don't try to make others change who they are and blame them for the shrinking of this community.

You know what shrank this community? A lack of a game to play! We have next to nothing to do here and some people think that it's this persons fault or this groups attitude. Grow up, if your not happy in the community in this state, take a break and come back when we have a game to play or something akin. Don't bother us with this silly blame game.

Thanks for clarifying dot this whole situation Dot.

There are constructive ways of expressing disagreement, as well as the destructive ones.

I do have to agree with that much though, I've been skimming through the posts and found alot of negativity. And she's at least right in saying that this negative talk could definetly discourage some people. I'm not saying that deleting the thread without notice is right, but I do think we should conduct ourselves a little more respectively. The insults and sarcasm are getting us no where guys, haha, seriously. When reading through these responses, I think we should take a breath before we post because some of these looked pretty nasty.

Like BAD said put respect in get respect out, right? (I'm paraphrasing of course )

Before we go around insulting each others or their work, I think some of ya'll (and I won't name any names here) just need to conduct themselves a little more respectively. Because I'm sure the debate going on in that particular thread will go alot better if you do.

You know what shrank this community? A lack of a game to play!

So, what are you doing about that? being sarcastic? I mean, I know, you dislike Cyan Worlds. You dislike Uru. You dislike the MOUL forums, and you dislike the Uru community. I don't really care about that, dislike whoever you want. The good thing you do to this community is building ages. You give more things to do. Thank you, thank you very much. But you also got to see the bad side of things: you complain a lot. A LOT. You are over sarcastic and many of you, like BAD, are "not nice". So next time you see people going against you, know that being "not nice" has a big part in things (there are other reasons which personally I don't agree with but here I'm just talking about not being nice). It keeps people away. Am I telling you to not criticize things? no, criticize. It's good. I do that myself. But I hope you stop being so over-sarcastic and arrogant, because it's only bad for the guild.

She in this post is complaining about people being negative.

It's quite obvious she didn't. Read her post again:

just weariness with the sarcasm, unpleasantness and 'cleverness'

Seems reasonable. Already stated my opinion above.

J'Kla wrote:

Nalates wrote:Stepping up to using good etiquette for forum debate seems to be an offensive concept on GoW.

I would like to post a point of order that blanket statements about forum members on a forum include those making the statement on the forum. To that end good etiquette may be an offensive concept for some but surely not for all on GoW.

J'Kla, your right. I added an edit note to the bottom of that post.

Dot wrote:There are constructive ways of expressing disagreement, as well as the destructive ones.

I doubt anyone disagrees with the premise. The challenge is what does one do about it?

Consider. The Still Hope post goes down. Two hours, or so, later it is back as is this thread Community Manager - changing of the guard (repost) appears.

This thread has been spit off the Rawa thread. So, I don’t see that what happened to the Still Hope thread as any different. That people assumed the Still Hope had been deleted and that it was a moderation issue is reasonable given history. But when someone comes in and challenges the criticism of the moderation by asking questions and provides new evidence, what happened?

Now that the new information is out and several, including veralun, step up and provide information on what they were doing and what actually happened, what do those that jumped to conclusions do? Any apologies? Any correction of posts? Or for those opposed to revisions, any follow on retractions or corrections like people think Dot should have made?

And those posts and behavior labeled Passive Aggressive (PA) … I think PA means something other than many think and usage of the term suggests. PA behavior has a component of resistance to follow through/up which is strongly disavowed. The more active part of it is in blocking progress down a path they resist. Therefore, for one to claim a person is being PA and not be PA their self, wouldn’t they have to show how someone was blocking and denying it?

So, is claiming MOUL moderation deleted a thread, that is not deleted, and using that to criticize MOUL and remaining silent when what actually happened comes out, not PA behavior?

I've added a line to the post that follows your correction. I was out in real life for a while and there's a lot been posted here in the interim.