re sensibilities and sharing space in a pluralistic society (w/ poll)

Sharing space in a pluralistic society can be a real toss up... where does one draw the line and begin to censor one party for the benefit of another parties sensibilities? It is an age old question, asked and answered many times.

Under the guise of safeguarding sensibilities, censorship can run amuck. The first critical area of difficulty arises when diametric opposites are offended by one another: who gets to ban who? Being so deficient in impartiality, at this crossroads where the arbitrary nature of censorship shows itself the only constant, it is fair to ask: is censorship the proper path?

Caring to continue in a spirit of pluralism means that general liberty and its free expression is afforded the right of way before the defense of any (other) sensibilities: violence itself (and not its arousal; the civilized expect one another to practice self control) being the point where toleration ceases.

Kin to the above train of thought has been many a wise society: the ability to share knowledge and thrive into posterity is predicated by a defense of liberty of expression and tolerance; without these, our best is a stunted effort, our golden ages the shadows in Plato's allegory of the cave.

Incidentally, the above sage advice is not only good policy for societies, it is also good policy in general. Persons who value fairness cannot help but to be impressed by moderation that values and allows for plurality of expression: the respect of your audience is yours to win over or lose.

 

I would make an honest post about moderation, but it would be moderated anyway. So I suppose my "Yes" vote will have to speak for itself. As will when this becomes locked or hidden.

 

ibtl !

It always makes me laugh when people say thanks moderators for keeping the forum tidy :

"yeah, nothing worse than waking up with a coffee and untidy forum, lol, first world problem!"

Should major threads be tidied up and organised for better access by devs ? Sure.

Should we actively filter unconstructive and unproductive feedback ? No.

I think bad feedback strenghtens good feedback, and builds a community immune system, so that those posts slip like water off a duck's back.

In every professional or scientific forum there is a powerful ethic that isn't present here, at one point it almost becomes automatic, you can diagonally read certain posts and your brain knows its nor formulated properly, unconstructive and you just automatically ignore it.

By ignoring it you get two birds with one stone, you force the other person to reformulate or seek recognition otherwise without having to oppose them and the people who might agree with them.

That works only when your community knows NOT TO FEED THE TROLLS... which is lost upon us here

 

I don't know that 'lighten' is the word I would use... I would like it to be less capricious and arbitrary, and either enforce the rules as written or just admit that the moderation is at the whim of the moderator and leave it at that.

 

No... There's no such thing as "Freedom of speech" on a Private forum... Only members can post here, and I for one don't want to hear (read) some of the "Trash" that's posted... In the name of "one's opinion"...

 

So only your "trash opinion" can stay?

 

Yeah thats a good excuse for moderation as any...

 

Everyone feels their thread should remain unmoderated. Totally understandable. But it's possible the actions of others rendered your thread locked or deleted. I get email alerts about threads and I play the "is this thread deleted" game when I see certain posts.

In my opinion only, I appreciate the attempt to keep the threads free of purely complaint driven posts because complaints <> feedback. But my two cents worth.

 

I think there are situations where the moderators can use a lighter hand... which also isn't to say there aren't problem threads, but sometimes either they resolve themselves, or the way the moderator chooses to intervene is worse than the problem.

There are some definite rules that need to exist and be enforced strictly -- ie. personal attacks -- which is often the reason threads get out of hand in the first place.

In other areas that are not as definite, I can see reasons for Port to carry some concern and use some discretion, but in those, both the rules should say its a matter of discretion rather than a firm thing, and there should be as light as hand as possible, and they should be as neutral as possible. So, for instance, I don't see it as a healthy thing for the community when certain political topics are allowed and others aren't, and then if on top of that the mods appear to be weighing in. I've seen mods make mistakes in this regard which I viewed as totally unnecessary, unforced errors.

As far as weighing in on the state of the game goes, if the problem is tone, then it should be made clear, and applied equally to all parties (you don't want critics of the game being made to feel they're treated badly anymore than supporters); but again, this often can work itself out in discussion, it can get subjective, and positive minded partipation in those threads (including by the mods themselves) can often outweigh negativity.

Enforce the definite rules strictly and evenly, and use cases of moderator discretion in ways that give more credit to the community.

 

Hi all,

Responding quick here to the concerns brought up again about moderation. We get these concerns come up occasionally, usually from the same individuals that know why we moderate, so we'll do better here to ensure we can repeat our reasons here when needed for those that are new to the community.

The moderation teams intention is always to keep the forums a sane place, allowing constructive criticism as long as it stays constructive and doesn't go against the policies of the Community. In some cases the line between moderating a post and leaving it unmoderated is very thin, and in such specific cases, every member is free to approach the Mod/CM privately and discuss if they do not agree with an action.

Note that the vast majority of our moderation is due to personal arguments or attacks, derailing of threads, or general attacks on the game without an actionable discussion. These will be moderated. It may be as simple as a post locked to prevent it from growing toxic, or moderation against individuals for overtly breaking the Rules & Guidelines. We also occasionally get those who don't care about the game and just wish to troll the forums. They will be moderated as well. Constructive debates and criticism of the game will likely not be moderated, unless they grow toxic.

As you all know, you can contact us with concerns about moderation, but please do it privately. Please note though that our policies and procedures are going to continue to protect the health of the community and is not open for a democratic debate at the end of the day. We will take your suggestions into account of course, but if they are simply to "remove moderation entirely" or "lighten moderation because I was moderated and feel this is a police state", they may not be actionable.

Before you contact us, please read the forum Rules & Guidelines on what and why we moderate: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/community-rules-guidelines.54804/

Thanks for understanding!