BF2S Forums Fixing DAST

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Concerning the OP:

I am more than willing to meet the section halfway. The problem is I don't feel the section is willing to meet me there - or at the very least as a group you guys don't fully realize why I'm saying what I'm saying when it comes to more specific rules, codes of conduct, etc. For the most part people would like a generally more "productive" DST section, by which I mean a section where posts are at the very least on topic and extreme personal attacks are filtered out, but it's not so stringent that you can't do something so mild as call someone an idiot when they say something idiotic. I get that. The problem is I don't think you understand how fine a line that is to walk - and then you want all the mods to walk that tightrope?

The rules chuy has set down for this site are as close to perfect as I think anyone could possibly get. All of the basic principles have been laid down in excellent fashion, all seeming to derive from the same general rule - don't be a dick. I can appreciate the general simplicity of the rules, and I think they are a great introduction to the style of the forums we're aiming for here for someone new. The problem is they are not highly specific - there is a LOT of room for interpretation. In general that is fine, I don't see any problems moderating the other forums with the general rules set down. But when considering DST, things get more dicey. The line between content and flaming becomes blurred. What is considered positive content and what is intentional and/or unintentional trolling is very subjective. If you want more even moderating, the first thing we need to do is establish a more easily identified baseline, a code of conduct. Not new rules for the section, an extension of the general rules so members and moderators understand how the section wants itself to be run.

So the problem is when people say "stick to the rules and edit posts to say 'deleted for flaming' or something to that effect", the problem is twofold. First of all, delete is there for a reason. I am not entirely convinced that editing instead of deleting would not provoke further issues in the thread. At the same time I think there are other ways of addressing the core issue that sentiment is derived from, an insufficient bad posts deleted/bad posts that should be deleted ratio and I have been trying to pursue those options. The other problem is as I have alluded to, sticking to the rules is easier said than done. That is what we are trying to do as it is. Yes all the mods are human, we make mistakes, but I don't think anyone comes on saying "I'm going to fuck with the section today, regardless of my interpretation of the rules". The issue is largely we have marginally but significantly different interpretations of the rules a lot of the time. The only way of attempting to fix that issue so far as I can see is trying to further define the rules, particularly with respect to the ongoing problems we have (flaming, zero-content OPs, etc.).

Unless some of you want to productively help me reach these goals or convince me to help you with other, more worthy endeavors I don't know how much I can do.

@ ATG you know zip about my relationship with Kmarion

My posts were deleted, including posts that were directly relevant to the OP. I did not "flame" anyone, it simply was something one or all of you mods didn't want to hear. That is censorship.

I can not think of any personality in this forum more bashed and flamed than I. Yet I have reported none of them. (Well 1, against a mod but that was to prove a point.) I do not need anyone censoring my bashers, or "flamers". Which is good since you do not censor "lowing bashing" anyway . The only time you step in is when I actually fight back. Then and only then has it gone too far, and I get thumped.  I rarely engage in that sort of behavior, so the only reason left to censor me is personal bias against my opinions or like stated, when I actually bite back on the rare occasion.. This is bias, and is the biggest part of the problem in this forum. You want a standard, yet you seem to be exempt from that standard and it pisses people off.

Did you not read what I said? Do you not understand that I recognize the problem and outlined ways of addressing it?

A big reason people get angry with you lowing is because you read everything as if they are against you. I can certainly appreciate the "I don't give a fuck what they say" attitude, but it is truly infuriating when you aggressively respond to people that are on your side, not because they think you need help, not because they like you, but because they hold the same viewpoints as you do. Learn to take what people say and appreciate it for what it is, then decide if you actually have something to disagree about.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-07 17:48:18)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Did you not read what I said? Do you not understand that I recognize the problem and outlined ways of addressing it?

A big reason people get angry with you lowing is because you read everything as if they are against you. I can certainly appreciate the "I don't give a fuck what they say" attitude, but it is truly infuriating when you aggressively respond to people that are on your side, not because they think you need help, not because they like you, but because they hold the same viewpoints as you do. Learn to take what people say and appreciate it for what it is, then decide if you actually have something to disagree about.

Let me clarify, when I say "you", I mean generally speaking. Not YOU specifically.

I realize this, but I still specifically stated the problem of what you called bias. Telling me the problem exists when I have clearly stated it does and possible solutions is pointless.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-07 18:08:36)

Macbeth wrote:

lowing wrote:

people who run amuk unchecked by the mods.

Biggest problem right there.

pace51 wrote:

Mods, in my experience, don't seem to hand out privileges to people.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-07 19:22:43)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

As already mentioned, it's impossible to us to keep track of every insinuation in every thread, despite the best efforts of habitual reporters.

In my opinion, it would be far better for people to just keep a level head and maintain a bendable rule structure for BF2S than to insist that the mods adopt a rigid, by-the-book enforcement policy that will end up winging more people for sarcasm reported (usually by people who offend equally) as a personal attack than anything else.

In other words, "don't feed the troll," and it will be easier to get to the bottom of things.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-07 19:40:50)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

1. Don't insult anyone for any reason.
2. Argue against the argument not the person.
etc?

Ideally with examples, actual or fictional, to make what should be obvious explicitly clear.

More importantly show where the line is as best as possible. There are lots of examples I have seen where, taken out of context, a phrase is certainly a flame. In context, it flows with the rest of the post and doesn't "sting" so badly. People don't talk in words of candy canes and buttercups in real life, there is no reason to expect they should here. But then along with the extremely obvious examples of flaming, a lot of times there will be a perfectly good post that stands on its own, with a "retard" or "idiot" just stuck on the end. That shit is stupid and unnecessary.

The problem is it seems very obvious to everyone what the standards should be, but in reality we aren't all on the same page. The goal would be rectifying that situation.

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-07-07 20:16:40)

lowing wrote:

If you don't WANT to be biased then don't be.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Do you want to fix or bitch?