[Akalabeth Angel]

Are moderators on this site supposed to be impartial? Yes or No?

If yes, why are moderators moderating discussions in which they are personally involved? And if a member has issue with the conduct of a moderator, should that moderator directly be permitted to take action against him? Isn't that a position of bias? Or not?

I refer you to this thread:

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=81836.0

Where I presented a view which proved unpopular, then over the course of the discussion I was subject to personal attack, specifically one member insinuating that I was a crazed conspiracy nut ( http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=81836.msg1635369#msg1635369 ).

Rather than respond to post, I reported it to a moderator.
The moderator in question had this to say:

As to the tinfoil comment... Black Mesa is releasing regardless of steam, but since it doesn't have any Steam distribution, it won't bundle with steam. In any case, it is a moot point since you need the Source SDK installed, which only comes through Steam. Calling Black Mesa a "gateway program" (if in fact that is what you did do) is ... lamentable.

In other words, he didn't even directly address the personal attack. Instead he became involved with the discussion, presented an opinion of his own and then insulted me for good measure.

In his second reply, he intentionally mimicked the content of my post as apparent form of mockery.

Then as I had not violated any rules, he advised me to be quiet because my opinion was apparently unpopular. Despite the fact that I had not directly insulted anyone, unlike the opposition.

When I brought his conduct to account, he monkeyed me with the allegation that I was "trolling".
Apparently being the only one with a certain opinion is trolling, I wonder how many people need to share that opinion and choose to respond before it's not considered trolling? Two people? Three?

-------------------------------

So my question to all involved is:
1. Are moderators supposed to be impartial? And if yes, why do they moderate their own discussions. Because moderating discussions in which you are involved is NOT impartial (the moderator in question previously posted).

2. Are moderators censors? If not, what say do they have any anyone's personal opinion? I don't see how having an unpopular opinion is contrary to the rules of this forum.

It should certainly be known, that within the context of that discussion at no point did I actually suggest that other people need share my view. I simply presented my opinion and for the most part defended my opinion and also my opinion on other things which were insinuated by other members of the discussion as again, a means of derision.

Even this allegation, concurrent with the moderator's action is unsupported:
I'm not the one that came into a conversational topic and derisively cited it as a waste of time.

At no point did I say the topic was a waste of time, nor that other participants could not enjoy it. I simply stated my reaction as was customary in the thread and from there all sorts of allegations sprung out by other members. If the topic was not about a game mod, but rather about an upcoming ban on guns and a participant stated the law was a "waste of time" and then proceeded to defend his opinion would that person be trolling? No, of course not. So why is this topic held to different standards?



All in all I find it extremely odd, that having an unpopular opinion is punished.
Meanwhile people who make personal attacks or insinuate things which are both groundless and later denied are perfectly acceptable? Not to mention moderators who use their power to silence any criticism of their conduct?

It's "lamentable" if that's the manner in which this board is meant to be run.

[Polpolion]

1) No, moderators are supposed to abuse all of their powers all the time.

2) Yes, they are supposed to censor all opinions that do not match their own.

Seriously though, for whatever my opinion is worth I think Zacam was being pretty impartial. If you read his first post addressed at you he explained why you shouldn't be having that discussion there and that you should stop having that discussion (which, in defense of my later post I did miss and I apologize for continuing the discussion). The thread's not for discussing whether remakes are worthwhile ways to spend time or not, it's to discuss Black Mesa Source. Since you had no interest in playing Black Mesa Source Zacam was at a bit of a loss as to why you were posting in the Black Mesa Source thread. And to be perfectly honest, it was you (and I suppose to a lesser extent I) that provoked any partial response out of Zacam from that context.

Actually strike that, it was because your opinion is unpopular he wanted you to stop posting. Nearly everyone else in that thread was looking forward to and discussing BMS and you essentially jumped in the middle of of everyone and shouted "I hate this game". Before you go making responses like "oh, but I wasn't forcing my opinion on anyone, they're free to disagree", just no. That's BS. At best you're just going off on an tangent and at worst you're trolling.

Also, Zacam is an admin and kind of runs the place along with the rest of the admins, as opposed to just moderating discussion. As far as I'm concerned he can do whatever the hell he wants to do though I'd be rather disappointed if he banned me and turned the place into a Halo forum.

As for the tinfoil hat remarks you're probably just going to have to deal with it. The whole steam debate has been the main seething cesspit of hatred in Gaming Discussion for the past couple years now, of course people are going to get antsy about it.

[el_magnifico]

*follows the link, reads the conversation from Akalabeth Angel's first post onwards and ignores the previous ones*

Damn! People can get touchy. He more or less just said "I won't be playing it, and I wouldn't have worked on it, but to each his own, and I hope the best for them", and then the intolerant and disrespectful mob intolerantly and disrespectfully jumped at his throat and accused him of being... intolerant and disrespectful!? It's not only ironical, but... kind of scary, too.

[Goober5000]

I really dislike the trend where people who feel they have been moderated unjustly will open a Site Support thread to complain about it.  I hate it when it happens to me and I'm sure Zacam isn't pleased when it happens to him.  It takes a tiny dispute and blows it all up out of proportion, leading to people second guessing each other, moderators implementing knee-jerk responses, and generally everybody getting angry at each other.

All this is is an attempt to get the verdict overturned by mob consensus.  It is frankly a terrible way to appeal a decision; this should be discussed through PMs.  First the original moderator should be PMmed, and then if the member isn't satisfied with the response, he should PM another admin.  If the admins think it warrants discussion, they'll raise it in the admin board or the global moderator board.  Only after PM options have been pursued is it justifiable to post a thread like this.

I am closing this thread.  Do not try to organize a mob of pitchforks and torches just because you got your wrist slapped.


P.S. In case it isn't clear, the validity or invalidity of Akalabeth Angel's complaint is irrelevant to this post.