harsh discipline

[S'mon]

Originally Posted by Felon
>> Comparing their raw damage output with that of a fighter against a single target is just indicative of someone who hasn't really given the matter much thought at all. <<

Plane Sailing:
>>Blanket generalisations like this (highlighted above) are offensive and against the ENworld rules. Please desist.<<

I think this is a completely ridiculous complaint. I'm all for harsh discipline and a firm hand in moderating, but this is just totally OTT... :\

 

[Dinkeldog]

Remember, if you have a specific issue, you can email the mod directly.

In this case, Plane Sailing is making the following point: There is a running problem with certain users delivering generalized insults. In short, it is quite possible for someone to give the matter thought and consider single target output compared to a fighter. Belittling people that don't ascribe to your point of view is not a good method for discussion on the boards.

 

[Pielorinho]

(Posting as a poster, not a mod)

In general, I think some of the biggest flamewars develop because one poster describes the thought processes of another poster: "You're just ignoring any argument you don't like," "You clearly didn't read the thread," "Maybe you should actually think before you post?" "It's becoming obvious that you don't understand anything about the rules," and so forth.

It's a good idea, even when arguing with someone who is (you think) a total dweeberiffic imbecile, to refrain from describing the other person's thought processes. If you have strong arguments to support your view, give those arguments, and don't evaluate the other person's intelligence, motives, or rules-knowledge.

And if you don't have strong arguments to support your view, delay posting while you think about your view, either changing it, or mustering the arguments you need in order to support it.

In this case, saying that someone hasn't given much thought to an issue is a description of their thought process, and risks starting a round of insults, denials, recriminations, and happy fun. Scratch the happy fun.

Daniel

 

[msd]

In general, I think some of the biggest flamewars develop because one poster describes the thought processes of another poster

That is one of the more insightful comments I've seen posted on the intarweb about the intarweb...

Truth.

 

[S'mon]

OK, I think I understand better where this approach is coming from, although it still seems incredibly harsh to me.

Re contacting mods via email, that would be via the list of emails maintained on this Meta forum?

 

[S'mon]

If I have a query re a particular mod's implementation of forum policies, can I contact someone else in addition to the moderator? eg Plane Sailing once closed a thread re in-game cultures because I posted the historian John Keegan's theory of warlike & non-warlike cultures, and I mentioned America as an example of an (in Keegan's terms) warlike culture. I disagreed with this decision but I wasn't sure what to do - and I understand this is not a democracy. Apart from emailing Plane Sailing (in this instance) am I allowed to contact another moderator, if so who (Morrus? Piratecat?) And if I do, do you consider the 'justness' of moderator decisions or is there an unrebuttable presumption of general discretion, ie super-mods will support all moderator decisions?

 

[reveal]

I think another issue is that I've seen a lot more of this happening lately. I can name three posters off the top of my head who seem to consistently make sweeping generalizations (spell it right Brits! ) about people who don't agree with them, calling them ignorant or just plain stupid. 2 of them are on my ignore list, which, until recently, I'd never had anyone on in the 3.5 years I've been on this board.

It could be that Plane Sailing decided to nip it in the bud before it got too bad. Or it could be that he was having a bad day and didn't feel like putting up with it.

 

[reveal]

If I have a query re a particular mod's implementation of forum policies, can I contact someone else in addition to the moderator? eg Plane Sailing once closed a thread re in-game cultures because I posted the historian John Keegan's theory of warlike & non-warlike cultures, and I mentioned America as an example of an (in Keegan's terms) warlike culture. I disagreed with this decision but I wasn't sure what to do - and I understand this is not a democracy. Apart from emailing Plane Sailing (in this instance) am I allowed to contact another moderator, if so who (Morrus? Piratecat?) And if I do, do you consider the 'justness' of moderator decisions or is there an unrebuttable presumption of general discretion, ie super-mods will support all moderator decisions?

I would start by e-mailing the mod you disagree with to discuss it. If you don't get a satisfactory answer, then either ask the mod whom you should contact to get a better answer or just e-mail Morrus; he's in charge.

 

[DaveMage]

Or start with a moderator, then progress to an administrator (Henry or PC), and then progress to Morrus.

However, the moderators all have a forum where they discuss these types of things, so once you get to admin level, they all might know about any issue.

 

[Belen]

I think another issue is that I've seen a lot more of this happening lately. I can name three posters off the top of my head who seem to consistently make sweeping generalizations (spell it right Brits! ) about people who don't agree with them, calling them ignorant or just plain stupid. 2 of them are on my ignore list, which, until recently, I'd never had anyone on in the 3.5 years I've been on this board.

It could be that Plane Sailing decided to nip it in the bud before it got too bad. Or it could be that he was having a bad day and didn't feel like putting up with it.

Hopefully, I am not on reveal's ignore list. I like reveal.