Asking clarification regarding moderation

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Ultimately it's up to them, but I genuinely hope they do. I'd rather be part of a forum filled with well intentioned folks with poor social skills than a bunch of mean people who learned to play by the rules. In the long term, it's about building a community.
One warning is not the end of the world. Even a second warning may just get one banned from posting in a particular thread. Actual site banning seems like a high bar and requires repeated and/or egregious breaking of rules (like coming back with an alt account after a perma-ban). Even for repeat offenders I don't know if the first step is a timed ban (say a week or month) or if it goes straight to permaban, so there might be another level where sanity can set in for a poster.

Frankly, if someone has received feedback that they are not being a good member of the community time and time again in short order such that banning is on the table, then they aren't being a good member of the community. That means they have been unwilling or unable to correct their behavior based on the feedback from the mods. If they are good intentioned, then it isn't unwilling.

If someone is regularly disruptive or rude and does not change their behavior when provided with evidence, can they be a good member of the community?

But that's the most extreme levels where we are talking about banning. Someone is clueless or hot under the collar or whatever the reason and escalates to the bar where moderators step in, if the poster is good intentioned it will give them a reality check or maybe just a breather to correct their behavior and then we can all have better manners and be polite to each other even when we debate. A moderator saying something should be a wake up call, but it does not eject someone from our community without giving them a chance to correct poor behavior.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
The question is if it is even in the moderator's duties to try. If someone is disruptive, argumentative and rude on the forums, the moderator should give them a warning. If the poster was unaware of their actions but acting in good faith they now have concrete feedback how to improve their interaction with the community. And if they are trolls, well that's a warning towards seeing who the repeat offenders are. In both cases the moderators are defending the community, and where someone has slipped across the line but otherwise wants to be a good forum poster, they have it in front of them.

I've been moderated, and when it happens it's because I've gotten emotional and a debate has escalated to an argument. At that point mods should step in and keep our community welcoming to all.

I’ve certainly been very rightly called to heel from time to time. And, upon reflection, I can’t say I’ve ever really disagreed. Particularly if I manage to go thread diving after a while and look at it with fresh eyes.

I only get a bit put out when a thread I’m enjoying gets shut down.

----edit to change

darn autocorrect. That's SHUT down. Not naughty word filter engaging typo.
 
Last edited:

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
So something just happened to me on another forum I frequent, and I'm really confused by it. So I need to ask exactly what counts as religious content. See, I often refer to a certain period of D&D's history, where you could be persecuted for playing the game as the "S______ Panic".

I actually had neighbors go up to my Mom trying to inform her of what I was "up to" and saying they would "pray for me".

Anyways, I got handed a serious infraction* for mentioning said "S______ Panic" for talking about real-world religion. And I was like "uh, this isn't some apocryphal event, this happened and is part of the game's history". Still no word on if I have to pretend it didn't happen there or not to avoid being banned, but I've been part of that forum since 2007 so now I'm a little worried about getting in trouble here.

I've mentioned the "S______ Panic" on these boards already, so you can see why I'm worried.

*Apparently this is my second such infraction, apparently when I mentioned a Biblical character in reference to pact magic, I got dinged for that as well.
 



BookTenTiger

He / Him
I'm just so confused right now. Has it come to this? Do we have "S______ Panic" Deniers now?
I don't think anyone here is going to be able to really comment on the moderation of another forum, but it could be that they just have their "religious vocabulary" filters turned up really high and don't want anyone to talk about anything religious adjacent.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
So something just happened to me on another forum I frequent, and I'm really confused by it. So I need to ask exactly what counts as religious content. See, I often refer to a certain period of D&D's history, where you could be persecuted for playing the game as the "S______ Panic".

I actually had neighbors go up to my Mom trying to inform her of what I was "up to" and saying they would "pray for me".

Anyways, I got handed a serious infraction* for mentioning said "S______ Panic" for talking about real-world religion. And I was like "uh, this isn't some apocryphal event, this happened and is part of the game's history". Still no word on if I have to pretend it didn't happen there or not to avoid being banned, but I've been part of that forum since 2007 so now I'm a little worried about getting in trouble here.

I've mentioned the "S______ Panic" on these boards already, so you can see why I'm worried.

*Apparently this is my second such infraction, apparently when I mentioned a Biblical character in reference to pact magic, I got dinged for that as well.
And some people think ENWorld is over-moderated! (though in a lot of cases, that seems to be because of political differences)
There is at least one board I have a login for that I don't bother with anymore because I feel the moderation truly is excessive. By comparison, ENWorld is downright easy-going.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
That is what I had gathered- I really have grown to enjoy posting here. Even when players are at loggerheads I rarely see the ever-so-useful "well I've been playing for years and I've never seen this so-called problem" posts that make me want to tear (the rest) of my hair out!
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Well I got my response from the other forum mod. They aren't taking away the infraction though.

"I lived through it too. My best friend's mother tried to organize a town-wide union of parents to ban D&D. I overheard my parents talking about it and it's the one and only time I ever heard my mother use the C-word.

No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Well I got my response from the other forum mod. They aren't taking away the infraction though.

"I lived through it too. My best friend's mother tried to organize a town-wide union of parents to ban D&D. I overheard my parents talking about it and it's the one and only time I ever heard my mother use the C-word.

No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."
That's nuts. The moral panic was rooted partly in religious beliefs, but it was a sociological phenomenon.

The idea of being forbidden, in a D&D forum, from discussing a significant sociological phenomenon that impacted the growth, reputation and design (particularly 2nd ed) of the game (and is still impacting it today to a lesser extent!) seems bizarre to me.

Still- their forum, their rules.

Sounds like the moderator has approved using a euphemism. Maybe the more general "anti-D&D moral panic" would serve best.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
That's nuts. The moral panic was rooted partly in religious beliefs, but it was a sociological phenomenon.

The idea of being forbidden, in a D&D forum, from discussing a significant sociological phenomenon that impacted the growth, reputation and design (particularly 2nd ed) of the game (and is still impacting it today to a lesser extent!) seems bizarre to me.

Still- their forum, their rules.

Sounds like the moderator has approved using a euphemism. Maybe the more general "anti-D&D moral panic" would serve best.
You're probably right, but I think I'll just stop posting there, it's not a big deal anymore. I was just worried if I'd run into that issue here and would need to modify my references to real-world religions....

Which is difficult when you're talking about a game where real-world Gods have had stat blocks in the past!
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
I would ask the moderators of that other site how you should refer to that social phenomena that happened ("the moral panic about RPGs in the 1980s"?), or do they mean that the Satanic Panic itself cannot be mentioned/discussed? I mean, the Wikipedia page about it is titled "Satanic panic." And what forum site is this? I will want to stay away, and not talk about my recipe for devil's food cake. :p
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I would ask the moderators of that other site how you should refer to that social phenomena that happened ("the moral panic about RPGs in the 1980s"?), or do they mean that the Satanic Panic itself cannot be mentioned/discussed?

He already mentioned the response he got:
"No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."
 

Hussar

Legend
He already mentioned the response he got:
"No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."
Likely it's tripping some filter - using the word Satan for example. Which means the mod gets pinged and then the mod is obliged to do something about it because the mod isn't the board owner and the board owner has set that filter in place. It's not, "You must never talk about this", it's "Please don't talk about this using terms that trip the filter which means that we have to step in".

Granted, mods can't phrase it that way, but, that's certainly the "in between the lines" that I would see.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Maybe, but when I asked to appeal and the infraction stood, I was like, you know, I don't really need to post there anymore anyways. I'm sure they have good reasons to be worried about religion, and just on the off chance anyone here would be offended by that sort of thing, I'm perfectly happy to vaguely refer to things (I have a recent post where I discuss a "widely published book of mythology that we'll call B, and how in the book, a man named A makes a pact with a deity we'll call G").

But it still hit me out of left field because in 15 years of posting there on and off, nothing like this had happened before, and their issue wasn't the topic I was talking about- it was using the same name for the event that wikipedia uses.

I mean, if you wanted to look up this topic online, would "the sociological event that plagued early Dungeons and Dragons" be what you googled?

I checked by the way. Turns out that even if you did, you'd find relevant articles. Eh, far from the first or last time I've been wrong.
 

Hussar

Legend
Heh. Yeah, I just googled using your line: the sociological event that plagued early Dungeons and Dragons - and yup, it does actually come up with the relevant articles. Interesting.
 



James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I would have been fine with that, except when I went to state my case, the mod was like "I understand, but you can't say the word, no matter the context" and let the infraction stand. Ah well. It's not a loss, I get more intelligent debate here anyways.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top