Threads now and then

[Umbran]

I think what you're describing here is that moderation on ENWorld has always been reactionary. This is not a critique; it's a logistic necessity based on the size of the community, the size of the mod team, and the reality of living in a changing society. This has a couple of important effects to consider.

First, it means that the mods are more concerned with doing the right thing than being perfectly consistent.

There was, a while back now, an instance in which someone came in with a novel approach to making people uncomfortable, one we actually hadn't seen before. The Rules didn't really preclude it. Morrus wasn't around, so I couldn't ask him how he wanted it handled.

I chose to remain consistent with the rules we had, rather than to make new precedent. The result was some folks getting away with saying a bunch of really hurtful things, and my defending their right to do so. It felt horrible, and I have no doubt that several people lost respect for me - I know a couple of users left the site over it. I am not proud of that moment, and I have been sorry for it ever since.

So, yes, sometimes consistency is in conflict with being on the right side of an issue. And these days, when they are in conflict, I try to err on the side of right action, instead of consistent action.

 

[Guest 7034872]

^^ Almost the exact reason I quit as a supermod on a site years back. You're trying to be consistent in the name of honesty and honor right on an issue where you so wish you didn't have to be consistent, but all these forum members around you interpret it as plain villainy. Not good for the blood pressure.

 

[Gradine]

Or in other words:

Someone:
this make it SOOOO very complex and case by case

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think that we often give a pass to some things (like violence) and look askance at others (like sex) not because it is some type of universal norm, but because of the way we have been indocrinated. This doesn't mean that the thread in question was a good, or bad, but given that we just had the debate about how we shouldn't demonize sex work or sex workers in a prior thread dealing with the controversy over some people's practices involving paying their contractors, perhaps we should all wonder why we can easily discuss critical hits, and severing limbs, and killing captives, but turn squeamish when basic biology is discussed.

Or not. YMMV.

Of course it's not an universal norm. I wouldn't use the term "indoctrinated" to describe a cultural heritage but it's logical that the first reflex to assess something is to refer to one's social views. Mods aren't living in a void, they are applying their society's views when there are clashes of views over what is acceptable.

In Gulliver's travel, Johnathan Swift described the bloody civil war between the one who opened their egg by the big end and those who opened their eggs starting with the narrow end. Readers certainly did'nt have a problem or a strong personal views on egg-opening... yet it was divisive for the Lilliput society. There are many kind of eggs and violence is certainly one of them. Some societies will have no problem with children exposition to violence and other will have, resulting in widely changing film rating, from "all audience" to "16+" for the same movie. Both sides will think their cultural heritage and societal choices are "just" and "right", while in fact they generally are just "theirs". Same with sex. There is a prostitute character in Oliver Twist and it's a children classic in some places...

We might have been collectively led to believe that a "global society" emerged but I think it's limited to the least important things (we can all name the main cellphone brands and know what to expect in a fast-food franchise). Cultures are still very distinctive when it comes to more serious topics.

 

[Cadence]

That thing where you realize that what you posted in this thread might look like a reaction to this thread... but you hadn't actually caught up reading enough to know that.

 

[Belen]

There was, a while back now, an instance in which someone came in with a novel approach to making people uncomfortable, one we actually hadn't seen before. The Rules didn't really preclude it. Morrus wasn't around, so I couldn't ask him how he wanted it handled.

I chose to remain consistent with the rules we had, rather than to make new precedent. The result was some folks getting away with saying a bunch of really hurtful things, and my defending their right to do so. It felt horrible, and I have no doubt that several people lost respect for me - I know a couple of users left the site over it. I am not proud of that moment, and I have been sorry for it ever since.

So, yes, sometimes consistency is in conflict with being on the right side of an issue. And these days, when they are in conflict, I try to err on the side of right action, instead of consistent action.

Umbran wrote a moderator message in the recently closed Prostitution thread: "I do not know how that thread managed to survive 20 years ago"

I want to be clear I have zero issues with the moderator action, but would like to adress the (implied) question.

First off, I don't know and don't remember if the policy has changed since then, but that could be an obvious answer.

But regardless, the more general answer, I think, is that role-playing discussions have become dramatically more judging and moralistic over time, particularly in the last five or seven years or so. The opportunity to discuss role-playing events and features that could offend someone has been severely curtailed lately.

It could be a combination of both.

I'm basically trying to say I have no problem whatsoever to understand why this thread managed to survive in 2002.

Again, I am not contesting or complaining against the thread's closure in any way. I fully understand why this topic is unacceptable in today's polarized and accusatory discussion climate. I'm not defending the fact it remained open back then. I just thought it odd someone wouldn't associate the different fate of such a thread now and then to the shift in what's considered acceptable to discuss in public.

Thank you for reading. I have no questions and need no official reply; this is intended as merely a neutral comment.

Heh, the folks that post these days could not have handled the old Eric Noah or ENWorld crowds.

 

[Umbran]

Heh, the folks that post these days could not have handled the old Eric Noah or ENWorld crowds.

Ah, yes. The old kids these days argument.

 

[darjr]

So very much has changed for my perspective to change since 2002. I’m always trying to be open minded and kind and that leads to introspection and personal growth if your honest with yourself and grew up in 80s and 90s in the middle of the corn belt.

 

[Belen]

So very much has changed for my perspective to change since 2002. I’m always trying to be open minded and kind and that leads to introspection and personal growth if your honest with yourself and grew up in 80s and 90s in the middle of the corn belt.

Sure. It is great to be both open-minded and introspective; however, I have no patience for coddling people. If you are triggered easily, then it is not my responsibility to worry about their reaction. That said, it is best to be courteous and talk as if you would to someone in person.

However, if someone is the type of person that cannot handle different opinions or needs to dictate the terms of the conversation by conforming to their personal parameters, then they should not hang out in forums.

The whole movement to "my truth" or personal truth in order to create your own narrow view of the world is troubling.

 

[glass]

I think what you're describing here is that moderation on ENWorld has always been reactionary.

I don't think the ENworld mods have ever been anywhere close to reactionary. Did you possibly mean "reactive"?

_
glass.