Use of "Professional Language" in Moderator Actions

[Helldritch]

I prefer that my moderators speak their minds than to see them waffles? with words and nonsense. Political correctness can have its uses but If I have a warning, I want it to be crystal clear.
So far, I am entirely satisfied.

 

[FrogReaver]

Since this isn't a professional board, I don't see why moderator actions would need to be professional. I might expect a certain amount of it with respect to ENWorld's publishing elements and discussion of said products, but that's it.

I read the request to be more of “a can we get them To follow the board rules the rest of us follow even when They are moderating.” One way to accomplish that would be a professional tone. Certainly not the only way though. Consider The issue of Being told to not be snarky or rude by a snarky or rude mod text comment.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not talking about moderation on the content of the basic premise of what a person is saying. I am referring to moderating people being rude, disrespectful, or needlessly angry, or using anti-grandma language.

Side A Poster: I think cars should be blue.
Side B Poster: I think they should be green, blue is inferior.
Side A Poster: People who like green are horrible wastes of space.
Side B Poster: You're being an idiot, I can't talk to you anymore.

MOD (Who likes blue): Hey Side B Poster, this is a civil discussion.

This.

If the moderator has deemed you to be on the anti inclusive side of things and engage in a fallacy, the modern hammer comes out. If the moderator has deemed you to be on the inclusive side of things, you can engage in a dozen blatant fallacies over a dozen posts and even attack the poster and not the post, and nothing.

 

[Morrus]

If the moderator has deemed you to be on the anti inclusive side of things and engage in a fallacy, the modern hammer comes out. If the moderator has deemed you to be on the inclusive side of things, you can engage in a dozen blatant fallacies over a dozen posts and even attack the poster and not the post, and nothing.

If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.

sincere question.

If that’s your position then why not just ban all those you Deem to be too anti-inclusive. Why say you would rather have them leave? Why have mods single out for moderation those you deem too anti-inclusive? Why all that inderectness when you have the power to immediately enact your desires?

 

[Morrus]

sincere question.

If that’s your position then why not just ban all those you Deem to be too anti-inclusive. Why say you would rather have them leave? Why have mods single out for moderation those you deem too anti-inclusive? Why all that inderectness when you have the power to immediately enact your desires?

I"m busy. And I (perhaps unrealistically) hope that people will take the hint and act nicely, because at heart I'm an optimist and hate banning people. It upsets me every time I'm forced to do it.

 

[cmad1977]

I’ve never been reprimanded for anything I didn’t deserve. I have no issues with the moderation I’ve seen or experienced.

 

[Maxperson]

If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.

I'm not, though. People are often quick to label and just because I've been deemed to be on that side, doesn't make it true. Nor is that a great reason to let one side flagrantly break the rules.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If you're on the anti-inclusive side of things, we'd honestly rather you just leave. This is an inclusive community, and we're very, very publicly clear about that.

If you want to say "We don't wear the moderator hat impartially" that's fine. I don't think its a good look, but its also not my house so I can't complain about it.

I think you are incorrectly attributing the term "anti-inclusive" to the kinds of comments I am referring to. Having the opinion "All orcs being evil isn't a problem" is NOT anti-inclusive. Despite this I have seen many posters (and possibly some mods) equate having that opinion with being anti-inclusive, thus labeling the poster saying so as against something they aren't at all against. This supports what @Maxperson is saying, and its happened to me multiple times over the past few months in the heated discussions.

 

[Umbran]

I would like to suggest that more neutral language, more "professional language" be utilized when moderators issue a warning.

Yeah, so, years ago, I used to use professional language in moderation.

People hated it. They gave more resistance to moderation, tried harder to find loopholes*, were generally more argumentative.

A more conversational, informal tone just works better.



*Professional language sounds like strict rules. And among rules-lawyers, that doesn't work out well.