Asking clarification regarding moderation

[Mythos Enthusiast]

We reject the premise that we are dishonest.

So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

I don't think this a very charitable interpretation of the post. Read it as "be open and up-front", since that seems to be the intent.

This response is, IMO, the exact sort of thing that is so eye-roll enducing. A complete lack of engagement with criticism. I'm not even saying that Enworld CAN'T or SHOULDN'T have really hard line, ideological rules regarding what opinions can be expressed - I'm just saying I want it to be very clear that it is in fact the case.

So, is Morrus saying that it is NOT the case? Because we can test that pretty easily.

 

[Irlo]

This response is, IMO, the exact sort of thing that is so eye-roll enducing. A complete lack of engagement with criticism. I'm not even saying that Enworld CAN'T or SHOULDN'T have really hard line, ideological rules regarding what opinions can be expressed - I'm just saying I want it to be very clear that it is in fact the case.

So, is Morrus saying that it is NOT the case? Because we can test that pretty easily.

I’ve read the rules. I understand them. They are clear. It’s not difficult to understand them and apply them broadly. If a poster crosses a line they didn’t know was there, or one that they interpreted differently, they get a message letting them know. That’s a problem?

 

[billd91]

If I created a thread titled "Inclusivity is not a virtue in TTRPGs" would it not instantly locked/deleted? This would seem like a prime example of a position that is axiomatically disallowed from discussion.

Considering one of the rules is "Keep it Inclusive", do you really need to explicitly be told exactly how a thread like that will be handled? You can't make the assumption that it would be problematic?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Considering one of the rules is "Keep it Inclusive", do you really need to explicitly be told exactly how a thread like that will be handled? You can't make the assumption that it would be problematic?

I could definitely create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.

For example, I would not exclude anyone or dismiss anyone from replying or participating based on any of the below criteria. Nor would I even advocate for a specific policy in any shape or form - just engage in a meta-ethically discussion about whether inclusivity/diversity as such/in a vacuum is valuable.

Keep it inclusive: EN World is an inclusive community, and we encourage and welcome all people here. To that end, we strive to make it a welcoming place where nobody feels alienated because of who they are. You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media, use pejorative terms and buzzwords or dogwhistles including but not limited to "social justice warrior", "political correctness", "wokeism", "virtue signalling", and "cancel culture" to dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with, or post any message which is discriminatory towards those who differ to you in terms of skin colour, gender, gender identification, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, or any other personal attribute. We do not subscribe to the argument that tolerance means that we need to tolerate intolerance or that inclusivity means that we need to include non-inclusiveness.

 

[Morrus]

So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?

This does not feel like a good-faith conversation. It feels like an attempt to trap me.

 

[billd91]

I could definitely create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.

For example, I would not exclude anyone or dismiss anyone from replying or participating based on any of the below criteria.

I think you are deluding yourself on that count. But what exactly would be the point of doing so even if you could considering the board's Keep it Inclusive rule? Lobbying to change the rule? Pissing people off? Trolling the mods?

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

This does not feel like a good-faith conversation. It feels like an attempt to trap me.

I don't think that 'good faith' and 'bad faith' are useful terms because neither of them actually bare on whether or not a position is valid or sound.

If you CAN be trapped, wouldn't that just mean you have a poor/weak position? if what you said is true, then does what I said follow from that? Or does it not? If it doesn't, why doesn't it?

There is nothing "trapping" about taking a statement/premise/fact and then deriving what facts can or must follow from that fact.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

I think you are deluding yourself on that count. But what exactly would be the point of doing so even if you could considering the board's Keep it Inclusive rule? Lobbying to change the rule? Pissing people off? Trolling the mods?

What does my intention matter? As long as I am not breaking the rules as enumerated/outlined?

 

[J.Quondam]

I could definitely create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.

But why would you do that? There's only really one reason to willfully abuse the "letter of the law" like that in social media: to troll members of that community. Intention matters.

The rules are fine as is, and have been for a very long time.


** Also, the word is "jibe", not "jive".

 

[BookTenTiger]

What does my intention matter? As long as I am not breaking the rules as enumerated/outlined?

Intention is usually important when interacting with other human beings.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

But why would you do that? There's only really one reason to willfully abuse the "letter of the law" like that in social media: to troll members of that community. Intention matters.


** Also, the word is "jibe", not "jive".

I do not believe that intentions matter where enforcement of rules is concerned, so we just disagree here. Earlier I stated that I am explicitly a "letter of the law" guy, not a "spirit of the law" guy.

You can never know what my intentions are one way or the other, however you CAN know whether or not I've broken an explicitly stated rule.

 

[Morrus]

I don't think that 'good faith' and 'bad faith' are useful terms because neither of them actually bare on whether or not a position is valid or sound.

I find it an excellent way to help me decide which conversations I wish to engage in. YMMV, but there it is. I won't be engaging any further in this exchange, for example.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I do not believe that intentions matter where enforcement of rules is concerned, so we just disagree here. Earlier I stated that I am explicitly a "letter of the law" guy, not a "spirit of the law" guy.

Well, when you break the letter or the spirit of ACTUAL LAW, you will be shocked to find out that ... yes, intent does matter.

Which means that for someone claiming to be a "letter of the law" guy, I'm guessing you're not familiar with ... you know, how actual law works?

Regardless, if you want to debate rules v. standards, I am sure that there are some accounting boards that will be excited to discuss the differences. Otherwise, people might be inferring what your intent is based on the totality of your posts.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Well, when you break the letter or the spirit of ACTUAL LAW, you will be shocked to find out that ... yes, intent does matter.

Which means that for someone claiming to be a "letter of the law" guy, I'm guessing you're not familiar with ... you know, how actual law works?

Regardless, if you want to debate rules v. standards, I am sure that there are some accounting boards that will be excited to discuss the differences. Otherwise, people might be inferring what your intent is based on the totality of your posts.

I'm actually very familiar with US federal law conceptually and case law specificly in certain subject matters - but as people on these boards are very quick to point our the standards the board embraces do not have to reflect or jibe with the laws of the UK or any other government.

 

[the Jester]

It’s purely situational.

Sometimes, I log in and there’s 10 reports. I look for the low-hanging fruit first- the easy calls- and knock those out, Some take longer. Some I avoid until I can really get up to speed on what’s going on because it’s a complex issue or one I’m not familiar with.

OTOH, if it happens right in front of me while I’m reading the thread? I check to see if its already been modded/reported, and if not, I take care of it.

Then there’s topics- and yes, some posters- that have a tendency to generate lots of posts. In those cases, there’s going to be heightened scrutiny,

And yes- because we’re not perfect, the moderators do check each other’s gaffes. I can recall at least 3 times when I legitimately posted something outside of the rules, and Umbran & Morrus pointed it out.

Thank you very much for this insight into how you guys work.

 

[the Jester]

The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.

Back in the day, when Eric Noah's 3rd Edition Website was the thing, the rule was, "Don't do anything that would offend Eric's grandmother." The way the rules have evolved since on ENWorld is basically due to the fact that somehow, people needed it to be clearer than that.

 

[the Jester]

So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?

Until someone gets annoyed and reports you. The rules boil down to "don't be a jerk", and skirting the edge intentionally and, presumably, trying to provoke a response... will eventually provoke a response. Your behavior will be looked at and possibly ruled jerkish, and in that case, you will be moderated.

This is why explicit rules you can dance on the edge of in order to provoke people probably is a bad approach for moderation whose goal is to keep the conversation going. You're kind of proving the mod team's point here.

 

[Umbran]

Back in the day, when Eric Noah's 3rd Edition Website was the thing, the rule was, "Don't do anything that would offend Eric's grandmother." The way the rules have evolved since on ENWorld is basically due to the fact that somehow, people needed it to be clearer than that.

Well, the Grandma Rule has always been about how coarse you are supposed to be - use of foul language, sexual innuendo, and such. But, yeah, you'd think that between the Grandma Rule and Wheaton's Law, it'd be covered, but... no.

 

[the Jester]

What does my intention matter? As long as I am not breaking the rules as enumerated/outlined?

If your intention is to be a jerk to the other forum members, you're detracting from the conversation, not adding to it.