Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: Spoon on February 07, 2014, 06:59:54 am
-
Just becasue someone is an admin doesn't mean they can fix/change things in the code of the forum, which is what the quoted post was implying as I read it.
Any other obvious things you would like to share? :p
-
Just becasue someone is an admin doesn't mean they can fix/change things in the code of the forum, which is what the quoted post was implying as I read it.
Any other obvious things you would like to share? :p
I've got one. Stop being a dick.
-
wow rude
-
Yes, you were.
-
I really wasn't?
-
I disagree. I suggest not arguing.
-
I will argue that you are wrong.
Please do point out where exactly I was 'being a dick'.
-
Per a (relatively) unrelated report, this part of the discussion has been split.
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thank you for providing further evidence of being a dick in one handy quote-capable post. Locking.
-
I really wasn't?
I keep assuming I must have misread your post somehow, but I really can't see how your reply to Rev was anything other than rude.
-
We all filter based solely on our experience and perceptions as well as assumptions. That being said, while Spoon has had no small number of reasons to be upset about things and has put that out on display, assuming that he'll always be angry shapes the context to seeing anger in every post.
And while context matters, that is so much more difficult to accomplish in this medium than in any other when we are left with a lack of tone of voice or mannerisms by which to work with.
That being said, there is indeed a smiley involved. Whether or not one could perceive its usage to indicate that the post is "tongue in cheek" or as a "I jest, good sir" or as additive salt to the wound will largely revolve around an already defined presupposition or predisposition towards viewing it within that context.
Completely aside from Spoon as an individual and to a larger issue address, we have any number of (shall we say) "personalities" in this community.
Some of them are hand-wavium'd as "oh, that so-n-so is just *insert whatever*" and little is thought of it. Brusque people (when they're right) may not have that brusqueness called into question despite being right even if it is borderline scathing. Jovial attempts at "humor" gone wrong or unchecked lead to indefensible positions of assuming trollishness, or worse, actual trollishness is regarded or defended as being misunderstood humor or as a tongue-in-cheek "just makin a point, boss".
This is where discussion, or a request for discussion or review, needs to take place rather than just de-facto assuming a judgement. I can say that personally I don't see Spoon as having done anything wrong (which should not be confused with any sort of assumption that he can do no wrong or that he's got any sort of a "free pass" due to prior circumstances), but I do think that this went so far left field and it really shouldn't have. Privatizing it or actually raising/asking a question within the conversation first as to intent and establishing that first before having allowed things to go the way they did probably would have worked out better for everyone.
And on a final note, I believe that if rev_posix believed himself to be under some sort of assault or insult, he has the capability of raising that concern himself, recusing himself from any interaction on a disciplinary sense if one was warranted. Which isn't to say that you can't find something offensive about offensive content even if it's not directed to you, but at least check with whomever it WAS directed at to see if they feel the same and actually establish that there IS a problem first otherwise we end up with one.
So, I'm going to take a chance of unlocking this. Here is what I don't want to see happen when I do:
1: No blame game. Be sincere, but civil.
2: I don't care if anybody apologizes, but I do care that we don't start another spiral.
3: If I have to re-lock this or see that it got re-locked because points 1 and 2 were ignored, everybody gets to take a (Moderated Posts or what have you) Vacation, consider this the warning.
4: If anybody thinks it would be fun to wade in when they were not already involved? Moderated Posts vacation.
5: Any "all aboard" the dog-pile train? You get to ride the Vacation Train.
I realize that unlocking this -could- lead to a can of worms and it may be foolish to hope that said worms won't happen anyway. But I do feel it is slightly unjust not being able to have a contextual conversation regarding this without it causing a spill over (as has already partially happened in other topics) and would much prefer that it gets addressed WHERE IT STARTED so that maybe, just maybe, we can get better as a community at keeping it from happening in the first place.
-
Zacam, this thread is a split from the actual content-filled thread. If you look at this one, it is filled with nothing whatsoever of interest...
Or perhaps you are under the impression that "on being a dick" was an actual thoughtful theme for a conversation? :D
User was Monkied for this post as per the very clear warning delivered (See Point #4). The parties involved know what this is all about.
Said Monkey status was then removed after ensuring that the point has been made and will be discussed via PM.
-
The voice of reason has arrived, thanks Zacam.
So okay, I'll give my story, now that it seems im finally allowed to.
I was not intentionally being a dick or trolling, I was wondering where rev_posix was going with his line of thought. But since he didn't replied, I shrugged and let it be. Then a couple of days later, comes Scotty out of the left field accusing me of being a dick. Which made me go "man lol wut? whats your issue all of the sudden? What did I do this time."
As seen above, it didn't seem Scotty was at all interested in clarifying his position or explaining at all where I was preceived being a dick. Just that it seemed like he really was intend on calling me names. Naturally I didn't take this at all serious, because it just seemed so completely random to me. If rev_posix felt offended by anything I said, he could have let me know himself? Not that I feel I actually said anything to get offended over...
Like wise karajorma in this thread just drops in a message after the thread gets locked that he too assumes I'm being supposedly rude without at all being interested in hearing me out about it. Clearly it is just A-okay to just assume everything I post is meant in malice.
Again I just shrugged this off as "random bad 'moderating'" (Mind you, I wouldn't exactly go so far as to call this moderating). And I wasn't really interested in bringing it up again because of the needless drama. But what pissed me off was Karajorma's typical attitude of writing me off as some kind of rebel without a cause. By saying **** like
Then we have Spoon once again refusing to accept any and all moderation whenever he is in the wrong.
in that other thread.
-
This was a case of misunderstanding. I didn't reply as I didn't see a point in it at the time (and I saw my nick tagged in IRC with a link to the thread). :)
Spoon, the original post was missing things like sarcasm 'tags' or simileys (sp?), so I parsed it as a 'statement of fact', as it were, not tongue in cheek.
I've run into enough humans with the opinion that just because someone knows a specific computer-related discipline, that means that they, by all the gods that humans follow, should and will fix any all all things unless they are just lazy, and will 'go after' anyone that falls within that point of view.
That being said, I felt that my reply was warranted as a correction/counter-point to the view presented, as I parsed it.
At the time, I'm sorry to say, your reply did come across as flippant to me and (obviously ;)) a few others as well. That is where I dropped it as I didn't see a point in continuing and possibly starting an argument.
Now that we all know it was not meant as such, meh, it's in the past and I hold no grudge or ill will toward anyone over it. I'll just mark it up in my mental log book as a misunderstanding and probably forget about it shortly. :P
Sound like a plan?
-
Works for me.
-
Okay, let me post my point of view of this issue. I might get the chronology slightly wrong as the moderation log cuts out on Feb 11th and this all happened on the 10th :rolleyes: Yeah, if someone had bumped this a day earlier I would have had access to it. :D The reports themselves have also gone so I have no record of the moderator discussion but I do have the emails that were sent, so I know what the reporters said.
1) I arrive on HLP to find 3 reports stemming from the same same thread. This is always a bad sign. two of the reports are from Spoon and one is a request to split out the nonsense, whatever that may be.
2) I look at the thread. On first reading I see what looks like
Response from Rev Posix saying that all the admins aren't coders
Request from Spoon for more information on this
Response from Rev Posix saying that some admins can't understand the forum code
Then I see what looks like a sarcastic comment from Spoon saying that Rev Posix is stating the obvious. Spoon says that this was a joke and I'm perfectly willing to accept that he might have intended it as such, but I still can't see how it isn't rude. If you ask for a question and then reply to it with something along the lines of "Thanks for the answer Captain Obvious" I can't see how that isn't rude. But okay, maybe I simply don't appreciate Spoon's sense of humour or it's an in-joke I still don't get. It's enough for me that Spoon says that he wasn't intentionally being rude. But at the time, I've only got what I can see in front of me.
Scotty apparently has apparently read the response in the same way I have and has told Spoon not to be a dick. Not the choice of words I would have used when talking directly to a user and telling them off (I use the phrase when talking about bad behaviour in general but it's not a good idea to use it directly to a user). That said, it's a fairly succinct way of saying "Don't be rude to other forum members" and I suspect that's exactly what Scotty intended to impart. Still, it's a bad way to do it.
Spoon's response to this is to say "wow rude" and then to then report Scotty's post with text that says that since he got a warning for insults, calling someone a dick should also be unacceptable.
Scotty responds reiterating that he thinks Spoon was rude, Spoon denies this, and the thread descends into a childish argument followed by a lock and Spoon reporting a different post and asking if he can call people a dick too.
3) So at this point it's quite clear that the thread needs some attention. We have a request for a split (I honestly can't remember if I split the thread or someone else did, but the On Being a Dick title does sound like something I'd give it). More importantly we have two moderator posts being reported, as far as I'm concerned that means this requires admin level attention.
4) I reread the thread a further two times. I have history with Spoon, so I want to make sure I'm giving him a fair chance. But no, I still can't see how his original post was not him being rude to Rev Posix. More importantly though, I see no attempt to explain how he wasn't being rude. If someone calls me a dick, I'll explain why I wasn't being one - That's partly why I've spent so much time typing this response out. I consider that to be one of the more common methods of human interaction, if someone says you did something you didn't do, the first thing you say is "I didn't do it." if someone reiterates that you did, you explain why you couldn't have done it.
Now I'll admit there is a point where Spoon asks for Scotty to point out where he was rude, but I can easily see why Scotty ignored it. This is now Spoon's third post after being told to stop being rude, and he hasn't yet tried to give any explanation of what happened, instead asking Scotty to spend his time explaining why the post is rude.
5) I reread the reports. I can't remember if anyone else had commented but I post, telling the other mods and admins that I can't see how this wasn't an unprovoked attack on Rev Posix.
6) I post to the effect that I literally can't see any way of reading Spoon's post as not being an unprovoked, unnecessarily rude answer to response Spoon himself solicited. But since I have history with Spoon, I point out that maybe I'm reading the thread wrong. As far as I'm concerned, that's my official response to Spoon's reports, Scotty is not going to be censured over for bad moderation because as far as I can see, Spoon was being unnecessarily rude to Rev Posix. Even if I don't like the way Scotty may have initially replied at that point I 100% back his decision to do so and I don't see anything in Spoon's later responses that make me reconsider that.
I'll freely admit I probably should have written out a longer explanation stating that was what it was and how I'd arrived at that conclusion but I had already spent quite a bit of time on the thread and I had other things to do.
So okay, I'll give my story, now that it seems im finally allowed to.
Let me start here, you were allowed to give your story before. After the issue kicked off, you posted a further four times and reported two posts. At no point did you attempt to give your story then. The only reason this thread was reopened is because I sent a PM to Axem and Zacam basically saying "Spoon seems to have an issue with this thread, I want you two to read it and try to tell me his side of the story since he made no attempt to." Hell, probably the only reason I'm so calm to see this thread reopened is precisely because Axem did do that.
In the end, I think this is why you have such a problem with moderation on this forum, you make no attempt to avoid problems, in fact you make them worse and then don't take responsibility for doing that.
In the case of the WoD forum issues, we've repeatedly stated that you made that problem worse by not using the report button. I've never seen any indication you accept that either. I've never seen any sign that you don't believe the problem was 100% the moderators fault (and I'm not saying the moderators weren't at fault, just that you made the issue worse).
In this issue, you may have been making a simple joke which was misinterpreted, but I still see no sign that you accept that your joke was poorly worded even though Rev Posix just flat out stated he also took it that way. Your post in response to Rev Posix shows no sign you accept your mistake and can just as easily be read as you accepting his.
I see no sign at all that you realise Scotty didn't randomly decide to call you a dick. I see no sign you realise you escalated the issue by not explaining that it was a joke that was misunderstood. And I see no sign you realise you escalated the situation by continually giving out sarcastic responses and reporting the thread but not explaining yourself.
Now it maybe that you've always realised that but simply give no indications in your posts, but I hope to **** that whether you did or didn't before, you do realise that now.
I hope to **** you don't still believe this was 100% the moderators fault.
I hope to **** that my explanation of where I was coming from has sunk in and made you reconsider that maybe you had a part to play in this little drama and that maybe your actions also should have been different.
And I hope to **** that you finally get that I don't have any particular grudge against you and realise that if you're willing to forget about any previous issues you've had with me, I'm happy to do likewise.
-
Minor clarification (since Kara covered most everything more thoroughly than I would have - or did), I'm the one who split out the nonsense, following the report. Then, perhaps against my better judgment, I left the thread open hoping that nothing else bad would come of it. Whoops.
-
Yeah, I couldn't remember if it was all one thread or if I simply read this one and the one it was split from separately.
-
I'm hesitant to dive further in, but I'm concerned that above post doesn't achieve its objectives. You spent a lot of time telling Spoon that he's doing stuff wrong and failing to check boxes, and you close by swearing at him a lot (well, in his direction). I just can't imagine having a positive response to it if I were in Spoon's position.
When moderation finally got involved in Spoon's forum problems it made the situation much worse. It's hard to condemn him for not mashing report in retrospect.
-
I'm hesitant to dive further in, but I'm concerned that above post doesn't achieve its objectives. You spent a lot of time telling Spoon that he's doing stuff wrong and failing to check boxes, and you close by swearing at him a lot (well, in his direction). I just can't imagine having a positive response to it if I were in Spoon's position.
Spoon's told it from his point of view, I've told it from the point of view of both myself and apparently Scotty. I spent a lot of time on what I felt Spoon did wrong cause I honestly felt it contributed to this issue and if it's not addressed it will continue to be an issue.
I swore a lot cause I want to show how emphatically I want the issue to be laid to rest and in the end, how ridiculously little effort is required from Spoon for the entire issue to be dealt with. Is it really that hard for him to say "Perhaps I should have said to Scotty that I was just making a joke and if I unintentionally came off as insulting to Rev Posix, I'm sorry"? Hell, I don't care if he says it or not, just so long as he doesn't believe he was 100% in the right over the whole issue and he takes that into any future issues that crop up.
When moderation finally got involved in Spoon's forum problems it made the situation much worse. It's hard to condemn him for not mashing report in retrospect.
I was condemning him for allowing the situation to get that bad in the first place without asking for help and then complaining that help never came. By doing that he made things worse. I've never heard him accept any responsibility for allowing things to get that bad. Even though I formally apologised for my part in allowing it to get that bad.
Again, I really don't give a damn if he does or not, just as long as he doesn't keep a festering resentment about it.
Anyway, all the major players have sounded off, let's just wait for Spoon's response and hopefully the whole issue can be resolved.
-
I've mostly been the one complaining that help never reached Spoon. I think it's very problematic to blame him for 'allowing things to get bad'. People came into his forum and attacked him. He was a solo project lead fairly new to the forums. HLP policy at the time more or less minimized the role of the report function and people got yelled at for using it. When other projects faced directed hostility they often had admins directly attached to deal with the problems right away, so there was really no example case for Spoon to follow. The institutional resources required for him to know what to do were pretty much absent.
I think the responsibility needs to remain firmly on the attackers here.
-
Well, let's give it some time to see how things develop. In the end, as myself and Axem were reached out to in terms of double-checking and over-seeing this, we'll ultimately be the two decision makers here just to keep it as balanced and non-judgmental as possible.
Though kara, I do second the point that, while I can appreciate the emphasis of your colorful use of a versatile word (and it really is a very versatile one at that), let's take care that we don't lead the impression of backing somebody into a defensive corner. As you've stated (or at least, how I'm reading your statements regarding it), you are not intending to be as such, but that didn't come about until somebody else poked you over it and that it can be just as volatile a provocation as what you are holding up against Spoon. Given that this is a safeties context by which to let this all air out rather than fester as a later erupting abscess, I'm all for us getting this sorted sooner rather than later so I can empathize and understand the emphasis, but maybe make a mental note of how it can come about and maybe more directly intone your intention (as a disclaimer or something) in a more initial manner.
Other than that, I do see where you are coming from, but that awareness does extend both ways. For now, lets see what Spoon comes back with.
-
I guess I'm more used to hearing the phrase "I hope to ****...." then.
@Battuta, I'm simply making the point that if you are capable of asking for help and you don't, you can't then complain that help isn't given.
-
I find this thread disturbing.
Like Karajorma, I might be biased or reading things wrong, but from my point of view I see Spoon making a humurous almost "captain obvious" reference, and immediately being thrown **** at him for doing so, being called a "dick" in a response and in the very title of the split thread. Kara realises this is not "the best way to handle things"... well talk about euphemisms. If you are playing moderator and trying to make someone else behave in a less "dickish" manner, why not do so without infringing the very same rules you are tasked to uphold? Or is throwing insults kosher?
I also see Kara making a defense of Scotty on this issue by mostly arguing in a Tu Quoque manner, but I'm sorry to say that moderators *do* have more responsibilities to maintain a dignified presence on the board, if not always (we are all human beings!) at least in the very moments they are moderating... I also see an emotional rant against Spoon's unwillingness to admit his partial blame or whatever. His inquiries for understanding why was he "being a dick" (contrary to what Karajorma claimed, without scent or hint of any sarcastic tone), were not answered other than having the thread split. I see then Spoon handwaving it bemused, confused, followed by Scotty's sarcastic and insulting remark "Thank you for providing further evidence of being a dick in one handy quote-capable post. Locking." Is this really the way HLP polices its members now, by repeatedly calling them dicks, interpret any demand for explanation as "sarcasm" followed by obviously the lack of any explanation, and then later demand them they confess their sins or whatever?
IMHO I did see Spoon's "captain obvious" reference as an inoffensive joke, bordering on unwarranted provocative. But I regard the whole reaction to it a lot worse. If this is how you convince Spoon to defer to moderators when he gets trouble in the WoD forums, well!
-
As I've pointed out, I'm not defending Scotty calling him a dick. But if you really can't see that actions on Spoon's part could have prevented an escalation, then you're definitely reading the thread wrong.
-
I'm not arguing against that. I'm not even saying Scotty is "the bad guy" here. Of course if we were all someone like Ghandi or Bhuda, these problems would never happen in the first place. People are people, and we are not perfect by any means whatsoever. For instance I was slightly dickish in this very page above and I recognize it. So shouldn't we, and especially moderators, be a little more tolerant of each other and not assume the worst in others? I mean, at least when moderating? If someone asks a mod why was what that person did "dickish" shouldn't such person get a response rather than a "your post shows you're a dick" reply? And when things escalate, should the long comment by the moderators basically demand of Spoon a confession for his dickishness?
IDK, just my two cents. Last thing I want is another escalation.
-
Well that actually does bring up another point though. There are quite a few people who believe that "Stop acting like a dick" isn't an insult in the same way that "You are a dick" is. The argument goes that unlike a direct insult the former is simply a rather pithy method of saying that someone's behaviour is poor but the use of the word "acting" means that the person isn't displaying their actual personality and therefore isn't actually being called a dick.
I remember Goober defending the use of the phrase after NGTM-1R told someone to "Stop acting like an asshole." I happen to disagree and think that it's still rather insulting but I can easily see it being the case that Scotty is in the other camp.
If someone asks a mod why was what that person did "dickish" shouldn't such person get a response rather than a "your post shows you're a dick" reply?
While he didn't get one from Scotty, I will point that a response was the sum total of my contribution to the thread.
-
I find this thread disturbing.
Like Karajorma, I might be biased or reading things wrong, but from my point of view I see Spoon making a humurous almost "captain obvious" reference, and immediately being thrown **** at him for doing so, being called a "dick" in a response and in the very title of the split thread. Kara realises this is not "the best way to handle things"... well talk about euphemisms. If you are playing moderator and trying to make someone else behave in a less "dickish" manner, why not do so without infringing the very same rules you are tasked to uphold? Or is throwing insults kosher?
I also see Kara making a defense of Scotty on this issue by mostly arguing in a Tu Quoque manner, but I'm sorry to say that moderators *do* have more responsibilities to maintain a dignified presence on the board, if not always (we are all human beings!) at least in the very moments they are moderating... I also see an emotional rant against Spoon's unwillingness to admit his partial blame or whatever. His inquiries for understanding why was he "being a dick" (contrary to what Karajorma claimed, without scent or hint of any sarcastic tone), were not answered other than having the thread split. I see then Spoon handwaving it bemused, confused, followed by Scotty's sarcastic and insulting remark "Thank you for providing further evidence of being a dick in one handy quote-capable post. Locking." Is this really the way HLP polices its members now, by repeatedly calling them dicks, interpret any demand for explanation as "sarcasm" followed by obviously the lack of any explanation, and then later demand them they confess their sins or whatever?
IMHO I did see Spoon's "captain obvious" reference as an inoffensive joke, bordering on unwarranted provocative. But I regard the whole reaction to it a lot worse. If this is how you convince Spoon to defer to moderators when he gets trouble in the WoD forums, well!
Yeah this sums up my view pretty nicely too.
In the case of the WoD forum issues, we've repeatedly stated that you made that problem worse by not using the report button. I've never seen any indication you accept that either. I've never seen any sign that you don't believe the problem was 100% the moderators fault (and I'm not saying the moderators weren't at fault, just that you made the issue worse).
I've mostly been the one complaining that help never reached Spoon. I think it's very problematic to blame him for 'allowing things to get bad'. People came into his forum and attacked him. He was a solo project lead fairly new to the forums. HLP policy at the time more or less minimized the role of the report function and people got yelled at for using it. When other projects faced directed hostility they often had admins directly attached to deal with the problems right away, so there was really no example case for Spoon to follow. The institutional resources required for him to know what to do were pretty much absent.
I think the responsibility needs to remain firmly on the attackers here.
I wasn't really planning on hooking in on the old WoD forum moderating thing since as far as I'm concerned its water under the bridge with a formal apology and what not. But since Karajorma wants me to ACCEPT BLAME FOR EVERYTHING... :blah:
What Battuta says is pretty much true, add to that that back in the day I was honestly convinced the admins and moderator staff was involved and was aware of things going on. It took me a long while to come to terms that the admins and moderators were not involved and that most of them weren't going to play my release or check the board at all. Hindsight 20/20 etc and yes, looking back I should have hit that report button on occasions. But that simply never occured to me at the time, after all I was talking on irc with people about what was happening and what not, then surely the staff must be aware as well.... right? Or so I thought back then.
What I will take responsbility for on this subject that I was pretty new to how HLP worked/works and my ignorance sure bit me in the ass back then. :sigh:
And I hope to **** that you finally get that I don't have any particular grudge against you and realise that if you're willing to forget about any previous issues you've had with me, I'm happy to do likewise.
Uuugh
You don't ****ING realize that you've said this previously and that I already told you back then that I don't believe you because you always act like a big jerk when it comes to me. I never see anything reasonable coming from you when you are engaged with me. Again and again and again its incidents like this that cement that you always make sure to read every post I make in the worse possible way, assume the worse possible intentions and you always try to push most of the blame on me.
I don't even feel like making an attempt at replying to your other posts because it will just make me expend a lot of unnecessary energy and emotional energy that I want to spend otherwise. Glancing over them, it seems to be a lot of ACCEPT THAT YOUR AT FAULT type of posts I've grown so acustomed to seeing from you. Not worth it.
-
Well that actually does bring up another point though. There are quite a few people who believe that "Stop acting like a dick" isn't an insult in the same way that "You are a dick" is. The argument goes that unlike a direct insult the former is simply a rather pithy method of saying that someone's behaviour is poor but the use of the word "acting" means that the person isn't displaying their actual personality and therefore isn't actually being called a dick.
I remember Goober defending the use of the phrase after NGTM-1R told someone to "Stop acting like an asshole." I happen to disagree and think that it's still rather insulting but I can easily see it being the case that Scotty is in the other camp.
This is just getting weird... Look, yes, one could make a lawyerish defense of Scotty's first post (which is something you yourself state you don't believe in), but just to confirm that your reading is (IMO) wrong here, let me just quote something from this very page of the thread (my emphasis):
Thank you for providing further evidence of being a dick in one handy quote-capable post. Locking.
I fail to see how that defense can work there. I'm sorry to say but I have to agree with Spoon here. You seem to assume the worst of him, and proceed to make the whole discussion about how he's not apologizing to the moderators or the board ...
I don't see how this approach is anything useful, but then again who am I? I'll stop commenting here, I think I've trespassed the good will of the thread a bit anyway. I observe how amazing contributors to HLP you both are and I hope you get along better.
While he didn't get one from Scotty, I will point that a response was the sum total of my contribution to the thread.
I'll defer to your judgement.
-
Is it really that hard for him to say "Perhaps I should have said to Scotty that I was just making a joke and if I unintentionally came off as insulting to Rev Posix, I'm sorry"?
I think I'll leave that as my last post on the issue. I very much doubt that this is going anywhere.
-
But it did just go somewhere. Spoon made it clear he'd been satisfied with the way the mods/admins concluded the whole problem with moderation on Wings of Dawn. It doesn't read to me like that information was clear on both sides before.
-
So now we have to wait years for this one to be resolved too?
Like I said, I'm not the only person to have read Spoon's post as being unnecessarily hostile to Rev. Even Rev himself read it that way. And I flat out said I might be reading it the wrong way but I couldn't (and still can't) see any other way to read it. Unless he's somehow claiming that his original question was stupidly obvious and didn't require a reply from Rev.
-
Those are two separate issues. I don't think it's fair to imply that these things take years to sort out. In the case of the forum moderation problem all it apparently took was one apology from both sides - precisely the opposite of years.
-
Unfortunately, Battuta, I don't particularly see it necessary to apologize for this one. Unless my understanding of this most particular conversation is entirely off, we're no longer discussing the moderation action in this particular thread, but rather the sum behavior of both sides when it comes to moderation. More specifically and importantly, it has once again transformed into "Spoon vs. Karajorma Redux". The significance of pointing that particular subtle change of topic is that it has nothing to do with the initial issue. Kara was never involved in the initial moderation actions, and when he did arrive to put his two cents in, it was hardly a unilateral condemnation of Spoon.
I wasn't even a mod when the whole WoD thing exploded, nor do I have a significant history with Spoon (positive or negative). The moderation response was to Spoon acting rudely to another member of HLP in a thread that did not warrant such response, and otherwise contributed nothing to the discussion at hand. While worded perhaps a bit harshly, no official warning was given, and there was effectively zero formal moderation applied to the situation. I stepped in and tried to address the issue succinctly. It failed. It did not, however, fail because of any inherent moderation problems toward Spoon as a member.
As far as I'm concerned, Spoon was at fault for the issue. His past troubles with moderation do not excuse that. Nor do I think this should be a particularly big deal at all, considering that the primary antagonism displayed in this thread stems from the aforementioned "Spoon vs. Kara" in which Kara is taking significant flak for doing nothing but supporting the actions of a separate moderator fully two weeks after the fact.
-
I didn't ask for an apology. I'm pointing out that these issues can be resolved pretty rapidly when the involved parties are willing to offer an olive branch without two grenades and a page of fine print attached.
-
Is it really that hard for him to say "Perhaps I should have said to Scotty that I was just making a joke and if I unintentionally came off as insulting to Rev Posix, I'm sorry"?
I think I'll leave that as my last post on the issue. I very much doubt that this is going anywhere.
It's not going anywhere because you just wanna 'win' this argument. I don't see you or Scotty apologizing for calling me a dick and refusing to explain when asked to, where I was being 'a dick'. And maybe admitting that this is not the way you should go about moderating. Yet you want me to do a one sided apology!
I wasn't the one that escalated it, Rev_posix decided not to reply and it would have been over with just that. Yet Scotty felt it neccesary to jump to his defend in a completely overdone and unnecessary way. You continue to defend this and just want me to accept the blame. In the other thread you complain how people are so hostile to the moderator team and how its 'us vs them'. Well, if you look at threads like these, is it really so hard to imagine why there might be a 'us vs them' mentallity when you are activately creating it?
Unfortunately, Battuta, I don't particularly see it necessary to apologize for this one.
Well neither do I.
As far as I'm concerned, Spoon was at fault for the issue.
As far as I am concerned, you were.
-
But Spoon, I never called you a dick. And I flat out said that your comment to Rev appeared rude to me.
You say I read your posts in the worst way but you've just now shown you do exactly the same thing to me. Accusing me of saying things I definitely didn't say.
Oh and before you say I said it in the other thread, this post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86869.msg1737505#msg1737505) is the one that kicked off the trouble. And I 100% wasn't talking about you in it. I was actually referring to an issue from over a year ago involving someone else. you read it, assume it must be about you and launch into a tirade about this thread despite it not being what I was talking about. I give you a sarcastic answer (mainly because I'm posting from my phone and don't have time for a longer one) when I probably should have explained more clearly that I wasn't talking about you. You then launch into an insult filled rant basically saying that I'm lying and must be talking about you.
In many ways that thread is a mirror image of this one. There is an initial misunderstanding of a user's post and a not clear enough explanation of why it's a misunderstanding in the immediate reply to that misunderstanding. Cause although I did make it clear I wasn't talking about you, I could have done more to make it clear. A fact I rectified in the next post I made.
So I have just as much justification to say you read my posts in the worst way possible too. Because you've quite clearly leapt to an assumption which simply isn't true. I wasn't talking about you at all.
-
If we're discussing this particular incident, then I have to admit that my feeling here is that stepping into an ambiguous and possibly short-tempered situation to say 'You are a dick.' and locking the thread is not constructive moderation that shows members how they could've done better.
No ordinary member could make a post like that and have it be considered a useful contribution. Moderators are inherently expected to keep high standards.
e:
But Spoon, I never called you a dick. And I flat out said that your comment to Rev appeared rude to me.
This post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=86869.msg1737505#msg1737505) is the one that kicked off the trouble. And I 100% wasn't talking about you in it. I was actually referring to an issue from over a year ago involving someone else. you read it, assumes it must be about you and launches into a tirade about this thread despite it not being what I was talking about. I give you a sarcastic answer (mainly because I'm posting from my phone and don't have time for a longer one) when I probably should have explained more clearly that I wasn't talking about you. You then launch into an insult filled rant basically saying that I'm lying and must be talking about you.
In many ways that thread is a mirror image of this one. There is an initial misunderstanding of a user's post and a not clear enough explanation of why it's a misunderstanding in the immediate reply to that misunderstanding. Cause although I did make it clear I wasn't talking about you, I could have done more to make it clear. A fact I rectified in the next post I made.
So I have just as much justification to say you read my posts in the worst way possible too. Because you've quite clearly leapt to an assumption which simply isn't true. I wasn't talking about you at all.
Far be it from me to play United Nations, I know how annoying it can be. But this is a super reasonable post and really good to see, and I hope it's taken in good faith.
-
So I have just as much justification to say you read my posts in the worst way possible too. Because you've quite clearly leapt to an assumption which simply isn't true.
I will fully admit to that and you would be justified in saying that.
While I don't feel I have to apologize for the stuff in this thread, I will apologize for some of my posts in that other thread:
I apparantly assumed incorrectly that you were referring directly to me in that post and my resulting rant was... unwarranted and driven by my personal dislike of you. While it did look like in that post that you could have been talking about me, I shouldn't have called you a liar over it when you tried to make it clear that you weren't talking about me.
That was kind of ugly of me and for that I will say, Sorry Karajorma.
If we're discussing this particular incident, then I have to admit that my feeling here is that stepping into an ambiguous and possibly short-tempered situation to say 'You are a dick.' and locking the thread is not constructive moderation that shows members how they could've done better.
No ordinary member could make a post like that and have it be considered a useful contribution. Moderators are inherently expected to keep high standards.
Yeah exactly.
-
Thanks Spoon, hopefully we can try to read less into each others posts from now on.
-
This has nothing to do with the heated part of the discussion, though it's somehow related to it.
In the past years, I noticed a number of abuses with regards to split threads. A great many thread titles were intentionally changed to sound offensive and look like some sort of "divine punishment" for community members who were supposedly doing something wrong. Just like in this case, with the results you can see. The difference here is that Spoon made it clear while many others accepted this abuse and pretended it was normal.
Non to mention the fact that sometimes it was nearly impossible to determine which thread led to which split, thus causing confusion.
I wonder... since the need of offending a member when splitting a thread is questionable, why can't split threads just maintain the standard "Split from <topic>" title? A split thread getting locked should be the end of an argument, not the start of a second one.
(I'm sorry for the odd phrasing of this post, it's hard to write coherently using a phone.)
-
That's a fair enough point in some respects. I think "Split from <topic>" should always be in the title, however I don't think it should BE the title, especially if the split isn't locked and the discussion continues on its tangential topic, it makes more sense to give people an idea what the topic might be.
But yeah, there's no need to add insult to injury if the poster is likely to feel aggrieved by the split.