[Akalabeth Angel]

What is a personal attack and what isn't?

If you're going to react like a petulant child

Under any reasonable circumstances this would be considered a personal attack.

Yet when confronted on the issue, it was characterized as essentially deserved. Specifically

An accurate description of your behavior is not a personal attack.

So if I believe someone is an asshole, and I call them an asshole? Then it's not a personal attack? It's an accurate description from my point of view.
What if someone deliberately addresses only portions of my post to suit their argument? Are they then a manipulative liar? Would such a statement be justified?

See the problem is that the moderation staff chooses to wantonly ignore the rules whenever they chose, particularly the "respect principle" then they undermine the value of those rules and they undermine their own credibility as impartial observers.


Also on the subject of:

HLP's moderators will strive to intervene early to correct unacceptable behaviour instead of resorting to immediate formal actions; if you are the subject of a warning, this is an opportunity to change your behaviour and learn from it.

If there is an actual difference between the types of warning, then this information should be conveyed to the member in their PM.
Having two emails say

You have received a warning

Suggests the logical, that a person has received two warnings. Not one "friendly reminder" and one actual "warning" which is how it has been presented in recent events.
In fact in recent events I apparently received not one, not two, but three levels of warning and yet only two emails were rendered.

Isn't clarity important when issuing moderation actions? Because as it stands, it's not clear.

[Luis Dias]

Just a tiny detail that might not be strong enough to render your assessment null, but still is worth saying.

Telling someone is behaving like a petulant child is not the same as saying someone is a petulant child.

There is a difference there, at least a technical one, although I agree it's not that large a difference. But it's there, for what is worth.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Just a tiny detail that might not be strong enough to render your assessment null, but still is worth saying.

Telling someone is behaving like a petulant child is not the same as saying someone is a petulant child.

There is a difference there, at least a technical one, although I agree it's not that large a difference. But it's there, for what is worth.

In that same argument, comments regarding a person's argument or actions were construed as personal attacks on those individuals, a viewpoint which the moderation staff fully supported.
The knife cuts both ways.

Similarly, a post which had no bearing on the discussion except to comment on an individual

He's just got this belligerent condescending facade

Was likewise not considered a personal attack by moderation staff despite directly commenting on a person's character, even though it had no bearing on the actual discussion.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah I apologize for that, and incredibly, it was even built as a defense of you. As in, "he's difficult, but he's a good debater", IIRC.

I also wonder if the attributes "belligerent" and "condescending" are insults in the first place, but I totally get your point.

[AdmiralRalwood]

In that same argument, comments regarding a person's argument or actions were construed as personal ttacks on those individuals, a viewpoint which the moderation staff fully supported.

Do you have a specific example of that happening? Because I don't remember that.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Yeah I apologize for that, and incredibly, it was even built as a defense of you. As in, "he's difficult, but he's a good debater", IIRC.

I also wonder if the attributes "belligerent" and "condescending" are insults in the first place, but I totally get your point.

It's not my intent to bring specific individuals to bear, hence why links to said thread and quotes on individual comments have no author cited.
Either way apology accepted.

Whether or not something can be construed as insulting or not does not change the fact it's a personal comment and doesn't have a place in the discussion.
And the nuance of your first post doesn't mean that the quoted material would pass the "respect principle" test.


Point is the HLP has made steps recently to make moderation more public by having all actions in the forum. Which is good.
However there is still room for improvement.

If the three stages of warning are for example:
Friendly warning
Formal Warning
Monkeying

Then why isn't this outlined in the conduct guidelines? And why isn't this made more clear in the PM system.


Also on other forums, a warning would typically with specific references to the rule being violated. In recent examples, no such action was taken. An individual was given a warning not for anything in the rules themselves but for vague misconduct outside of the rules.

If the reasons why a violation is in contravention of the rules is not or cannot be made clear, then the rules themselves are incomplete and are likewise under minded.


If action is taken for reasons not in the rules, and if action is not taken in contravention to the rules, then what value does those rules have? Zero.
Forum conduct then becomes not an exercise in good behaviour, but an exercise in not pissing off the wrong the people (ie cronyism).

In that same argument, comments regarding a person's argument or actions were construed as personal ttacks on those individuals, a viewpoint which the moderation staff fully supported.

Do you have a specific example of that happening? Because I don't remember that.

In two cases I summed two posts as victim blaming.
I was then said to have mischaracterizing those individuals.

You're also misrepresenting the positions of those you're arguing against . . .

To make things even clearer, I will make a list of things that are not the same:

1. Criticizing someone's argument
2. Criticizing the way someone makes that argument
3. Criticizing the person

Thus an interpretation of their argument, of the end result of their argument was not considered "my opinion" but rather what amounts to a personal attack. Or a deliberate attack on the position of someone.

Interesting my own posts were mischaracterized by one or more of these same individuals and yet no action was taken.

[Flipside]

I kept trying to tell you that you by implying that a member was victim blaming was only part of the problem, the problem was the mentality that anybody who disagreed with you must, by definition, be attacking the anything and everything to do with the subject.

To quote Jim Sterling, "No-one can have a discussion about Feminism, because everyone is too busy having an argument about it."

The thread was confrontational, and the posters were working to keep it so. I'm not even a Moderator and I posted several times trying to point out that just because you are defending something, it doesn't mean that everything coming your way is 'offensive'.

See, and that was the problem with that entire thread, no-one was looking to discuss the issue, that wasn't even an option because it was lost under all the drama of people trying to take maximum offense at every comment.

[Goober5000]

Akalabeth Angel, you were specifically told what you were doing wrong by multiple people.  You were issued two preliminary warnings, one by myself and another more severe one by Scotty.  You persisted in your behavior, and consequently were monkeyed for a few days.  The entire incident was as clear cut as any moderation could be.

At the present time, your warning level has decayed back to permissible levels and your monkeying has been removed.  You've served your time, as it were.

So what exactly do you hope to accomplish in this thread other than venting?  Can you summarize your point in ten words or less?

[AdmiralRalwood]

In that same argument, comments regarding a person's argument or actions were construed as personal ttacks on those individuals, a viewpoint which the moderation staff fully supported.

Do you have a specific example of that happening? Because I don't remember that.

In two cases I summed two posts as victim blaming.
I was then said to have mischaracterizing those individuals.

You're also misrepresenting the positions of those you're arguing against . . .

To make things even clearer, I will make a list of things that are not the same:

1. Criticizing someone's argument
2. Criticizing the way someone makes that argument
3. Criticizing the person

Thus an interpretation of their argument, of the end result of their argument was not considered "my opinion" but rather what amounts to a personal attack. Or a deliberate attack on the position of someone.

Interesting my own posts were mischaracterized by one or more of these same individuals and yet no action was taken.

Telling you that you mischaracterized someone's position is not the same thing as telling you that you made a personal attack against someone.

[Mobius]

Telling someone is behaving like a petulant child is not the same as saying someone is a petulant child.

I never got the difference between the two. I get the logic and the meaning behind the point you - and many other members - are trying to make, but when it comes to offenses, IMO they're on the exact same level. Offending somebody else and pretend it didn't happen thanks to a trick is weird.

[Akalabeth Angel]

So what exactly do you hope to accomplish in this thread other than venting?  Can you summarize your point in ten words or less?

1. Accountable, citable rules
2. Communication of warning nature/implications
3. Member equality

Akalabeth Angel, you were specifically told what you were doing wrong by multiple people. 

Respectfully,

If by multiple people you mean "karajorma" and "MP Ryan", then I would ask why are people who are not acting as moderators but rather participating in a discussion be awarded the same authority that your own words carry? That is the implication of your statement. Shouldn't the determination that an individual or individuals is acting inappropriately be solely determined by the moderator?

When you characterize the words of one side of a discussion as legitimate warnings which should be followed, you award to them special significance above and beyond that of a normal forum member.
And if the moderation of this forums is meant to judge all participants equally, then this statement is in opposition to that ideal.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

We should change the name from "Site Support" to "Show A Girl How To Make A Scene".   

This crap doesn't belong in here.   The very name tells you what belongs in here.  These threads have nothing to do with Site Support and everything to do with grandstanding in order to make a scene and hopefully gain some lost respect by showing some appearance of impropriety on the part of the mods and the admins. 

In the end, just like the rest of us, you volunteer to come here, which means that you volunteer to adhere to the conduct code as set forth.  If you blow it, you blow it, face the music, serve the time, whatever.  If you don't like the way the site is moderated, talk to them.  See if that gets you somewhere.  Notice I said "to", not "at".  If things were truly intolerable, you wouldn't bother coming here. 

Compared to the number of people who actually frequent this site, the number of people who want to argue about disciplinary action is actually pretty low.  Unfortunately, those few really do know how to make a scene.  My 15 year old daughter would proud of some of these scenes.  Actually she would be embarrassed to have stooped to the level of drama queen.

You will notice that this post is not directed at any one person, but, if someone does happen to be offended by this post, they are probably a member of the subset in question.

[Scotty]

As the moderator that made the fateful description, I'm going to weigh in on this.  I was careful in my phrasing, but apparently not careful enough to avoid criticism (shocker, that one).

The stages of the incident were as follows:
1) Heated debate involving yourself.
2) Goober issues a warning to you, asking that you take it down a notch.  This was the 'friendly reminder'.
3) Your response to Goober was petty, spiteful, and altogether unreasonable.
4) I called you out on it, and gave you a more severe, 'official warning'
5) You continued to dig a hole, got monkeyed, and here we are.

There is a very important principle that I want everyone on this forum to realize and understand.

HLP moderators are not here to keep you from getting your feelings hurt.  We are here to moderate discussion, and keep it from degenerating into vitriolic, spiteful flamewars and ****fests and keep discussion going in a reasonable direction.  We are not here to keep you from making a fool of yourself, and we are not here to keep others from pointing out that you're making a fool of yourself.

There is another very important principle that I want everyone on this forum to realize and understand.

Criticism of your behavior is not a personal attack.  If you lack the maturity to take that criticism without being offended, I suggest not engaging in such behavior in the first place.  Realize that there is a clear difference between someone saying "Wow, you're a ****head" (hint: that's a personal attack) and "Calm down, don't be a ****head" (note: examples included for demonstration; not indicative of past or present behavior) or "Stop acting like a ****head".  The former is a direct attribution of the quality of being a ****head to the poster in question.  The latter two are criticisms of that poster's behavior.

There is a third very important principle that I want everyone on this forum to realize and understand.

There is no appeals process on HLP.   Seriously, stop coming down to Site Support to ***** about moderator action.  If you disagree with moderation action, PM someone, don't turn it into a public ****fest.  Doing so does not help your case.

There is a fourth very important principle that I want everyone on this forum to realize and understand.

HLP moderation is not done by public committee.  While I'd like to say that community feedback is encouraged with regards to moderation policies, I can't.  Do you know why?  Because every time someone posts such a thread, the majority of it consists of people who are not moderators arguing with each other over what moderators are supposed to do.  Do you know how many posts there are by moderators/admins in this thread right now?  Counting this one, there are two, and the other was the seventh reply out of ten.  And yet we already have an argument going.

This leads to a final very important principle that I want everyone on this forum to realize and understand.

HLP moderation will never be able to please everyone all the time.  On a forum as diverse and opinionated as this one, it's totally ****ing impossible.  So, while I encourage everyone to take this as nicely as they possibly can (but know they won't, because it's borne of frustration): Shut the **** up and let us do our jobs without *****ing at every single decision.

[Akalabeth Angel]

My post is intended to improve moderation for all forum members, not change history.

At one point in the past few weeks I was tempted to ask for my account to be deleted, instead I've come here to try and improve the experience for all members. I've avoided mention authors by name except where necessary for the sake of clarity and then only in support of a statement for which I'd be concerned not in condemnation of their actions.

Thus, my post is here because:
1. It's a public issue that affects all members
2. There's no other appropriate place for this post

[Goober5000]

Don't try to sanctimoniously claim you're acting on behalf of all members when you're just creating additional drama over your own posts.  And don't try to obfuscate the moderation action by trying to shoehorn it into some sort of moderators-must-adhere-to-a-checklist process.

I would encourage you to read, and then re-read, Scotty's and ShadowWolf's very pertinent posts.  (And if you report Scotty's post just like you reported ShadowWolf's, I'm just going to laugh at you.)

This thread is now closed.  And if you want to avoid moderation actions being taken against you in the future, I suggest you examine your behavior and refrain from causing drama.

[Zacam]

(And if you report Scotty's post just like you reported ShadowWolf's, I'm just going to laugh at you.)

This part was completely unnecessary, unwarranted and a breach of process. Otherwise, w/e.