Quantcast
The Moderator Thread

Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
CGI-Quality said:

Nah, we can discuss this in here since it has already began. Just for the future, use the email.

I simply don't see what is backseat moderating about it. My point was not whether or not the thread was "legal" on VGChartz, but rather why it was needed. I don't think that's a criminal offense. I don't think I should have reported the thread either, in fact I think that would be much worse than actually discussing the thread with the topic creator. Discussion is what this site is for and it's much better to dissect an OP than just report it, especially because he didn't do anything wrong by creating the thread. 

Most arguments come from a similar mindset anyways and have the same end result. When you argue with someone you're doing it because you believe your position more than theirs. The end goal of arguing is to have the other party come to the conclusion that they can agree with your position. That's most discussion on this site. And the final result of that agreement is that they don't repeatedly say/post similar comments in the future. So in the end the result is the exact same, they don't post comments that they now view as unnecessary or wrong. What I wrote wasn't that different from any other discussion, it just started with the necessity of the thread as a starting point. 

My posts wouldn't have changed that drastically either had I just not questioned how much the thread was needed. It's not like I just kept repeating that and left it at that. I provided a counter-point for the OP which was the backbone of my argument.  Had i just kept repeating it nonstop - yes, maybe it would have been a bit douchey. But I basically just repeated it as much as GoOnKid replied, because that was the point we were discussing. I only repeated it because we were discussing the comment, the moment that he stopped replying I didn't interfere with the thread further.

In hindsight it simply would have been better to just cut to the chase and explain why the argument wasn't well thought out, but I just don't think it's harmful enough for a moderation (Not that I'd care about a warning but, the progressive ban system and all). 

Yor words in the posts don't reflect that he didn't do anything wrong by creating the thread (in fact, your first line says: "Do we really need a thread on every possible misconception that people may or may not have about Nintendo fans"). The rest of the post implies that it was an unnecessary topic, which is indeed Backseat Moderating (though some refining will be done in the future). However, the post, on its own, wouldn't have warranted a Warning. It was all three of them (including the mention of 'sensitive Nintendo fans') that lead to it.

If you don't feel it was worth a report, that's fine too, but complaining about a thread in a topic has always been frowned upon (whether justified or not). I actually am against that anyway, because if it is bad enough to state that it shouldn't exist (essentially derailing the thread), then it is bad enough to report. If there was nothing wrong with its existence, then it is confusing to see why a discussion about it happened at all.

Hopefully, that makes a little more sense.



                                                                                                                                            

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I simply don't see what is backseat moderating about it. My point was not whether or not the thread was "legal" on VGChartz, but rather why it was needed. I don't think that's a criminal offense. I don't think I should have reported the thread either, in fact I think that would be much worse than actually discussing the thread with the topic creator. Discussion is what this site is for and it's much better to dissect an OP than just report it, especially because he didn't do anything wrong by creating the thread. 

Most arguments come from a similar mindset anyways and have the same end result. When you argue with someone you're doing it because you believe your position more than theirs. The end goal of arguing is to have the other party come to the conclusion that they can agree with your position. That's most discussion on this site. And the final result of that agreement is that they don't repeatedly say/post similar comments in the future. So in the end the result is the exact same, they don't post comments that they now view as unnecessary or wrong. What I wrote wasn't that different from any other discussion, it just started with the necessity of the thread as a starting point. 

My posts wouldn't have changed that drastically either had I just not questioned how much the thread was needed. It's not like I just kept repeating that and left it at that. I provided a counter-point for the OP which was the backbone of my argument.  Had i just kept repeating it nonstop - yes, maybe it would have been a bit douchey. But I basically just repeated it as much as GoOnKid replied, because that was the point we were discussing. I only repeated it because we were discussing the comment, the moment that he stopped replying I didn't interfere with the thread further.

In hindsight it simply would have been better to just cut to the chase and explain why the argument wasn't well thought out, but I just don't think it's harmful enough for a moderation (Not that I'd care about a warning but, the progressive ban system and all). 

Yor words in the posts don't reflect that he didn't do anything wrong by creating the thread (in fact, your first line says: "Do we really need a thread on every possible misconception that people may or may not have about Nintendo fans"). The rest of the post implies that it was an unnecessary topic, which is indeed Backseat Moderating (though some refining will be done in the future). However, the post, on its own, wouldn't have warranted a Warning. It was all three of them (including the mention of 'sensitive Nintendo fans') that lead to it.

If you don't feel it was worth a report, that's fine too, but complaining about a thread in a topic has always been frowned upon (whether justified or not). I actually am against that anyway, because if it is bad enough to state that it shouldn't exist (essentially derailing the thread), then it is bad enough to report. If there was nothing wrong with its existence, then it is confusing to see why a discussion about it happened at all.

Hopefully, that makes a little more sense.

I understand, I just don't agree. But eh, don't feel like discussing it any longer, so I'll just take the moderation. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
CGI-Quality said:

~snip

I understand, I just don't agree. But eh, don't feel like discussing it any longer, so I'll just take the moderation. 

Sorry it didn't work out the way you would have liked, but if there's anymore issue with this, feel free to PM me or send an email.



                                                                                                                                            

CGI-Quality said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I understand, I just don't agree. But eh, don't feel like discussing it any longer, so I'll just take the moderation. 

Sorry it didn't work out the way you would have liked, but if there's anymore issue with this, feel free to PM me or send an email.

No problem, things can't always go my way and I get that :P 



CGI-Quality said:

Yor words in the posts don't reflect that he didn't do anything wrong by creating the thread (in fact, your first line says: "Do we really need a thread on every possible misconception that people may or may not have about Nintendo fans"). The rest of the post implies that it was an unnecessary topic, which is indeed Backseat Moderating (though some refining will be done in the future). However, the post, on its own, wouldn't have warranted a Warning. It was all three of them (including the mention of 'sensitive Nintendo fans') that lead to it.

If you don't feel it was worth a report, that's fine too, but complaining about a thread in a topic has always been frowned upon (whether justified or not). I actually am against that anyway, because if it is bad enough to state that it shouldn't exist (essentially derailing the thread), then it is bad enough to report. If there was nothing wrong with its existence, then it is confusing to see why a discussion about it happened at all.

Hopefully, that makes a little more sense.

I think there's a general problem with moderation when an interconnected mess leads to a moderation for someone who is reasonable; GoOnKid's thread was a response/addition to a thread that was already a response itself, so it's fine to ask how much farther that will go. It would be much more appropriate to identify the root cause(s) in a chain of events and take action against said root cause(s) (direct in-thread responses, moderations), because in the broadest sense human behavior falls into two groups:

1. People who act, initiate conflict.
2. People who react to the first group.

Group 2 is significantly bigger than group 1, but group 2 is actually easier to deal with. Because if group 1 is appropriately dealt with, group 2 does not act. Now the reason why group 1 is not appropriately addressed ties into another general problem with moderation:

People are allowed to be stupid and wrong, but the same leeway isn't given to people who are right. For example, people are free to make up their own facts and reality, but when someone calls them out for it and uses descriptive words that can be deemed offensive (such as sensitive, delusional, ignorant), the context gets commonly brushed aside and a moderation gets issued. Moderation is more dependent on the use or lack thereof of specific words than it is on context. That's why the advice to report doesn't mean much, because when stupid/wrong posts don't feature certain words, nothing will be done about them; not even an in-thread post from a moderator or a PM to the person who reported in order to explain why nothing is being done.

Back to this specific case, context-sensitive moderation would mean two things:

1. The word 'sensitive' isn't a big deal because it's used in the context of a thread that is overly sensitive.
2. Questioning the original poster isn't a big deal when the original poster isn't offended. See below:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

(...)

I'm in a VGChartz Nintendo discord and four people commented on the thread. Not one of them could understand the reason for the moderation. One of those people was GoOnKid, the OP. So if no one was offended or felt that my comments were malicious, why should I be moderated? 

So why should it be moderated? Because someone reported it? Considering who reports what and in which way on this site, reports aren't a particularly reliable factor when it comes to more demanding situations. Productive discussion calls for naming things by their name, so it's not always sunshine and rainbows; that's just how it is. Fact is that not all threads are good. Another fact is that not every thread that isn't good is moderable (this specific case being an example). So how do you gain something positive from a questionable basis (i.e. the original post)? By being allowed to tell it how it is. It's not like every thread creator is convinced that they have the only correct answer and every differing view must be wrong. It's also not like every discussion has to be strictly about what is in the original post if the OP is only a portion of a much bigger whole.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
CGI-Quality said:

Yor words in the posts don't reflect that he didn't do anything wrong by creating the thread (in fact, your first line says: "Do we really need a thread on every possible misconception that people may or may not have about Nintendo fans"). The rest of the post implies that it was an unnecessary topic, which is indeed Backseat Moderating (though some refining will be done in the future). However, the post, on its own, wouldn't have warranted a Warning. It was all three of them (including the mention of 'sensitive Nintendo fans') that lead to it.

If you don't feel it was worth a report, that's fine too, but complaining about a thread in a topic has always been frowned upon (whether justified or not). I actually am against that anyway, because if it is bad enough to state that it shouldn't exist (essentially derailing the thread), then it is bad enough to report. If there was nothing wrong with its existence, then it is confusing to see why a discussion about it happened at all.

Hopefully, that makes a little more sense.

I think there's a general problem with moderation when an interconnected mess leads to a moderation for someone who is reasonable; GoOnKid's thread was a response/addition to a thread that was already a response itself, so it's fine to ask how much farther that will go. It would be much more appropriate to identify the root cause(s) in a chain of events and take action against said root cause(s) (direct in-thread responses, moderations), because in the broadest sense human behavior falls into two groups:

1. People who act, initiate conflict.
2. People who react to the first group.

Group 2 is significantly bigger than group 1, but group 2 is actually easier to deal with. Because if group 1 is appropriately dealt with, group 2 does not act. Now the reason why group 1 is not appropriately addressed ties into another general problem with moderation:

People are allowed to be stupid and wrong, but the same leeway isn't given to people who are right. For example, people are free to make up their own facts and reality, but when someone calls them out for it and uses descriptive words that can be deemed offensive (such as sensitive, delusional, ignorant), the context gets commonly brushed aside and a moderation gets issued. Moderation is more dependent on the use or lack thereof of specific words than it is on context. That's why the advice to report doesn't mean much, because when stupid/wrong posts don't feature certain words, nothing will be done about them; not even an in-thread post from a moderator or a PM to the person who reported in order to explain why nothing is being done.

Back to this specific case, context-sensitive moderation would mean two things:

1. The word 'sensitive' isn't a big deal because it's used in the context of a thread that is overly sensitive.
2. Questioning the original poster isn't a big deal when the original poster isn't offended. See below:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

(...)

I'm in a VGChartz Nintendo discord and four people commented on the thread. Not one of them could understand the reason for the moderation. One of those people was GoOnKid, the OP. So if no one was offended or felt that my comments were malicious, why should I be moderated? 

So why should it be moderated? Because someone reported it? Considering who reports what and in which way on this site, reports aren't a particularly reliable factor when it comes to more demanding situations. Productive discussion calls for naming things by their name, so it's not always sunshine and rainbows; that's just how it is. Fact is that not all threads are good. Another fact is that not every thread that isn't good is moderable (this specific case being an example). So how do you gain something positive from a questionable basis (i.e. the original post)? By being allowed to tell it how it is. It's not like every thread creator is convinced that they have the only correct answer and every differing view must be wrong. It's also not like every discussion has to be strictly about what is in the original post if the OP is only a portion of a much bigger whole.

GoOnKid actually was, in his words, "a little offended". I didn't see him write that in the Discord. He made a comment earlier in the channel that made it sound like he didn't agree with, or at least didn't understand the moderation. But he indeed took it a little personally, and we ended up talking it out. I assume he didn't report me though, because one of his comments was something along the lines of "It's my own thread and I can't even see why he was moderated". I still don't think that's worth a moderation, some people simply get offended more or less easily, but eh, maybe GoOn and the mods see something I don't. It's ok either way.



ALA was banned for that? Hmmm. Seemed fairly innocuous. These things happen though. I assume it was overturned. Did you take his money too? Did you give it back? I could have used the $60 from my overturned ban. It's Christmas for Christ's sake!

 

 



Chinese food for breakfast

 

COKTOE said:

ALA was banned for that? Hmmm. Seemed fairly innocuous. These things happen though. I assume it was overturned. Did you take his money too? Did you give it back? I could have used the $60 from my overturned ban. It's Christmas for Christ's sake!

 

 

Seeing as the only way to spend them is the PL and you didnt participate in the LTD round ... id like to say how would you like to get another fine



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

kirby007 said:
COKTOE said:

ALA was banned for that? Hmmm. Seemed fairly innocuous. These things happen though. I assume it was overturned. Did you take his money too? Did you give it back? I could have used the $60 from my overturned ban. It's Christmas for Christ's sake!

 

 

Seeing as the only way to spend them is the PL and you didnt participate in the LTD round ... id like to say how would you like to get another fine

I'll spend my VGC $$$ however I want to. Pizza. Scotch. EB store credit. Whatever. I lost it on a ban that was overturned, hence, I should be reimbursed. You wanna fuck on me?



Chinese food for breakfast

 

COKTOE said:

ALA was banned for that?

Warned.