Change in moderator policies

Originally Posted by Eye
As far as I was concerned the remarks made by Ripper in his last post were general and not quotes.
If it were quotes it was wrong to do so. Personal attacks should be part of the past, as far as I'm concerned.

Again: all could benefit from a change in mod policy. Including lackblogger, including HHR, including you.

I dislike getting the important topic being hacked for personal issues, no matter by who.

What the…????????????

The topic is about what is moderatable, to which many people, including Ripper, and particularly Ripper, are talking about off-topic personal attacks being the main culprit, so I have no idea how me talking about Ripper making off-topic personal attacks is any way off-topic - you have me utterly bewildered.

Perhaps you could explain exactly what the topic is, in clinical detail, so that I could understand what you are on about. Perhaps I've misunderstood.

How exactly could I benefit from a change of moderator policies, why on God's green earth have you included me in a sentence with HHR? That's possibly the most insulting thing I've read in months. To me, that's the equivalent of just calling me an ignorable twat. Just… what… the… F…. ???????????????????

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
You and people like you. Including Ripper, who's demonstrated time and again that his desire for "moderation" never seems to relate to his own insults.

Define personal.

I'm talking about the line of thinking you clearly represent - as in a delusional one of understanding the true benefit or intention of a hurtful statement. If you want to make how you think into your person - so be it.

You and people like me - like Myrthos you mean?

I think clear mod policies won't ask for my 'delusions' or 'understanding' of statements - modrators will do that.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Thank you

I meant to stay away - but this thread caught my eye, sadly.

I like the Watch overall, and I'd be unhappy if these delusional creatures assumed control without having a say.

Wow, I think that is the longest you've stayed away so far, been awfully silent in some threads…. one would think the System Shock threads would have lured you back.

Anyhow good to see you drop by, and have some input for this as well. It would be sad if the watch became a totally political correct place, where people are afraid to post things because they might get warned / banned. Sure there are other forums to discuss politics, technology or a lot of other things. But it is also a very interesting mix of people here, if you go to a politics forum to discuss for example, it'll mostly consist of just a certain group of people who are very interested in politics.

Originally Posted by Eye
You and people like me - like Myrthos you mean?

I think clear mod policies won't ask for my 'delusions' or 'understanding' of statements - modrators will do that.

No, not at all. Myrthos has simply been forced into action against his natural position.

There's no such thing as clear mod policies that will allow for the level of free speech the Watch now enjoys if those policies bring restrictions.

That much is logically inevitable.

As soon as you give power to people who don't genuinely support free speech, you're going to reduce it.

That said, I don't equate you and people like Ripper at all - though you seem to want the same thing. It's clear to me that you want "more" moderation for very different reasons.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Wow, I think that is the longest you've stayed away so far, been awfully silent in some threads…. one would think the System Shock threads would have lured you back.

Anyhow good to see you drop by, and have some input for this as well. It would be sad if the watch became a totally political correct place, where people are afraid to post things because they might get warned / banned. Sure there are other forums to discuss politics, technology or a lot of other things. But it is also a very interesting mix of people here, if you go to a politicians forum to discuss for example, it'll mostly consist of just a certain group of people who are very interested in politics.

I've missed the exchange and residents of the Watch - but it simply takes too much of my time that should be spent on more productive things.

But thank you for your kind words

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I've missed the exchange and residents of the Watch - but it simply takes too much of my time that should be spent on more productive things.

But thank you for your kind words

Welcome back dude I thought you were too busy playing some game and got addicted and forgot about the watch rather than just staying away!

Originally Posted by lostforever
Welcome back dude I thought you were too busy playing some game and got addicted and forgot about the watch rather than just staying away!

Thanks!

If only that was so.

That said, I have played and enjoyed quite a few games of late

Originally Posted by Myrthos

Alternatively, suppose you are in a bar with your wife and some random guy starts telling all women, including your wife, the negative stuff about women that you can read amongst others in the P&R forum. Would you say to your wife that she should not make a problem of that, the guy is entitled to his opinion and that she should grow a thicker skin. You also would stand up for his right to say that stuff, when the owner of the bar wants to throw him out?
Would you not expect a certain level of respect?

A person go to the bar and saying bad things about women etc. The bar owner asks that person to go outside to the back yard and do whatever you want there. However if the person still stays in the main bar and says crap, then he should be kicked out.

I view the main forums as the bar and P&R section as the back yard….

Now are you saying that, you don't want a back yard?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Thanks!

If only that was so.

That said, I have played and enjoyed quite a few games of late

You looked into Black Desert on line? I was hoping to read your take on it since I know you were heavily into ArcheAge but didn't like it in the end. Sandbox MMO and all that.

Originally Posted by lostforever
You looked into Black Desert on line? I was hoping to read your take on it since I know you were heavily into ArcheAge but didn't like it in the end. Sandbox MMO and all that.

We should probably not talk about that in this thread.

But, yes, and you're not going to like my take on it

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
We should probably not talk about that in this thread.

But, yes, and you're not going to like my take on it

Hehe yes. No more on that subject here. See my questions on the other thread

Originally Posted by lackblogger
What the…????????????

The topic is about what is moderatable, to which many people, including Ripper, and particularly Ripper, are talking about off-topic personal attacks being the main culprit, so I have no idea how me talking about Ripper making off-topic personal attacks is any way off-topic - you have me utterly bewildered.

Perhaps you could explain exactly what the topic is, in clinical detail, so that I could understand what you are on about. Perhaps I've misunderstood.

Thanks for the pleasant outreach.

If personal attacks are not accepted and deleted based on the upcoming mod policies, you would not be personally attacked either, by Ripper, by me, by anyone. That would be good, I presume?

What my intention is I have tried to explain in several postings. If there still are some questions about that, the thing I consider to be the most important topic, than I sadly seem to be incapable of making my self clear. Alas, I can't do any better than I have done. I am sorry.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
How exactly could I benefit from a change of moderator policies, why on God's green earth have you included me in a sentence with HHR? That's possibly the most insulting thing I've read in months. To me, that's the equivalent of just calling me an ignorable twat. Just… what… the… F…. ???????????????????

The most insulting thing you've read in months. Well, it's ironic that it seems to be me doing it. I can't explain myself other than I have already done. My genuine apologies will have to do, I have nothing else to offer you I'm afraid.

Yes, isn't it funny how one person's personal insult is another person's calm attempt at explaining his or her position.

Definitely, being able to stop this clear-cut concept of a "personal attack" will ensure a just course of action in all cases.

AFAIK, personal attacks were never ok on this forum.

What has changed?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
No, not at all. Myrthos has simply been forced into action against his natural position.

O dear. Poor Myrthos. Would he need to be rescued?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
There's no such thing as clear mod policies that will allow for the level of free speech the Watch now enjoys if those policies bring restrictions.

That much is logically inevitable.

As soon as you give power to people who don't genuinely support free speech, you're going to reduce it.

Agreed.
Site owner does not approve anymore that all may be said.
No insults, discrimination, etc.
So reduction, yes.

Originally Posted by Eye
O dear. Poor Myrthos. Would he need to be rescued?

He has all the power to rescue himself in this case.

Agreed.
Site owner does not approve anymore that all may be said.
No insults, discrimination, etc.
So reduction, yes.

Again, you seem to suffer from the delusion that insults or discrimination are - or ever could be - objectively established.

You see, I've heard these arguments for "more" moderation before.

They always seem to originate from one of two places:

1. A place of great ego, arrogance and intolerance
2. A place where being hurt is the same as being insulted or discriminated against

Now, that's not to say there's no line to cross.

I just don't see how new moderation policies will make it better.

If a line has been crossed today, then there's nothing in current policies that prevents deletion or outright banning.

Originally Posted by lostforever
A person go to the bar and saying bad things about women etc. The bar owner asks that person to go outside to the back yard and do whatever you want there. However if the person still stays in the main bar and says crap, then he should be kicked out.

I view the main forums as the bar and P&R section as the back yard….

Now are you saying that, you don't want a back yard?

That back yard scares off others. People wonder why the bar owner allows these people in his back yard.

Example just to make it clear:
If you're visiting a bar and every evening you can see a bunch of pointy white heads in the back yard, you and the bar owner should not be surprised, other guests will leave.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
He has all the power to rescue himself in this case.




Again, you seem to suffer from the delusion that insults or discrimination are - or ever could be - objectively established.

You see, I've heard these arguments for "more" moderation before.

They always seem to originate from one of two places:

1. A place of great ego, arrogance and intolerance
2. A place where being hurt is the same as being insulted or discriminated against

Now, that's not to say there's no line to cross.

I just don't see how new moderation policies will make it better.

If a line has been crossed today, then there's nothing in current policies that prevents deletion or outright banning.

I think you should just wait and give Myrthos a chance before burning the whole idea down.

How does the current system prevent any action being taken against someone who is obviously completely out of touch with reality?

Originally Posted by Eye
I think you should just wait and give Myrthos a chance before burning the whole idea down.

I don't know why arguing against something based on my own personal experience is burning the idea down.

I simply don't agree with the notion based on what I've heard.

That said, I'm fully prepared to change my mind and admit I'm wrong if the "new policy" represents an improvement.

However, you seem convinced that it'll be better with a similar lack of tangible evidence - so maybe you shouldn't simply assume it's great before seeing it?

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't know why arguing against something based on my own personal experience is burning the idea down.

I simply don't agree with the notion based on what I've heard.

That said, I'm fully prepared to change my mind and admit I'm wrong if the "new policy" represents an improvement.

However, you seem convinced that it'll be better with a similar lack of tangible evidence - so maybe you shouldn't simply assume it's great before seeing it?

People have left. People are considering leaving.
Yes, I think something needs to be done if you don't want to end up with a bunch of people who are not willing to play the ball and are using all means, without any hesitation, just to end on top.
Rules are just there to protect the weak, to ensure all feel welcome. More sounds, more different sounds, instead of (monotonous) noise.