Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

RolStoppable said:
vivster said:
I remember that time when they banned that poor bloke for 5 days because he made a lighthearted joke that could've been interpreted in any way. The mod's rational was that the person obviously hated the Nintendo Switch. That bloke went on to be one of the first people on this forum to preorder a Switch.

So yeah, sometimes mods moderate too much. Though I also blame the report system which is obviously flawed.

While one can feel for this specific poor bloke and his intentions for posting, using (future) console ownership as justification for trolling is incredibly flawed. Right now I am getting flashbacks of people who seriously said that they own a Wii, so they can bash it all they want. Of course this goes for any console, so just because someone owns a PS4 and XB1, for example, but repeatedly slams the PS4 in his posts, doesn't mean that such behavior should be tolerated and exempt from moderation.

In this particular case though there was no evidence that the poor bloke made this harmless joke out of contemption. It was merely conjecture. I bet that it didn't even occur to the mod that it could've just been a harmless quip in a thread that was already overflowing with contentless hype posts anyway.

While ownership might not be a reason or justification for flaming it definitely validates criticism. Firstly because that person actually owns the thing he is criticizing and as such has first hand information and secondly that it's an actual purchased product that demands criticism by the person who actually put money for it on the table, be it positive or negative.

Ownership might also be an indication that the hate for a certain product can't be too strong, especially in case of a preorder.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
vivster said:

In this particular case though there was no evidence that the poor bloke made this harmless joke out of contemption. It was merely conjecture. I bet that it didn't even occur to the mod that it could've just been a harmless quip in a thread that was already overflowing in contentless hype posts anyway.

While ownership might not be a reason or justification for flaming it definitely validates criticism. Firstly because that person actually owns the thing he is criticizing and as such has first hand information and secondly that it's an actual purchased product that demands criticism by the person who actually put money for it on the table, be it positive or negative.

Ownership might also be an indication that the hate for a certain product can't be too strong, especially in case of a preorder.

I wasn't saying that you deserved a moderation. The argument you added after the first sentence was bad, that's all. Even some of the biggest haters can prove ownership, so ownership in and of itself really means absolutely nothing.



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

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

RolStoppable said:
vivster said:

In this particular case though there was no evidence that the poor bloke made this harmless joke out of contemption. It was merely conjecture. I bet that it didn't even occur to the mod that it could've just been a harmless quip in a thread that was already overflowing in contentless hype posts anyway.

While ownership might not be a reason or justification for flaming it definitely validates criticism. Firstly because that person actually owns the thing he is criticizing and as such has first hand information and secondly that it's an actual purchased product that demands criticism by the person who actually put money for it on the table, be it positive or negative.

Ownership might also be an indication that the hate for a certain product can't be too strong, especially in case of a preorder.

I wasn't saying that you deserved a moderation. The argument you added after the first sentence was bad, that's all. Even some of the biggest haters can prove ownership, so ownership in and of itself really means absolutely nothing.

Just because a thing means nothing in some cases doesn't mean it should be automatically assumed to mean nothing for everyone. We should assume the best case first until it becomes obvious.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
RolStoppable said:

I wasn't saying that you deserved a moderation. The argument you added after the first sentence was bad, that's all. Even some of the biggest haters can prove ownership, so ownership in and of itself really means absolutely nothing.

Just because a thing means nothing in some cases doesn't mean it should be automatically assumed to mean nothing for everyone.

The thing is that it means nothing in all cases. User personality, posting history and possible interpretations of the post in question are the things that need to be considered. Console ownership is irrelevant.



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

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

RolStoppable said:
vivster said:

Just because a thing means nothing in some cases doesn't mean it should be automatically assumed to mean nothing for everyone.

The thing is that it means nothing in all cases. User personality, posting history and possible interpretations of the post in question are the things that need to be considered. Console ownership is irrelevant.

So you're saying there is no difference in a user complaining about a console he doesn't even own and a user who actually suffers a drawback and as such is criticizing the thing he owns?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
vivster said:
RolStoppable said:

The thing is that it means nothing in all cases. User personality, posting history and possible interpretations of the post in question are the things that need to be considered. Console ownership is irrelevant.

So you're saying there is no difference in a user complaining about a console he doesn't even own and a user who actually suffers a drawback and as such is criticizing the thing he owns?

Posting history would create a substantial difference between these two hypothetical people.



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

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

Leadified said:
Hynad said:

Do mods censor wall posts now (as in: erase what they don't like)?

Unless it's spam from a bot, I haven't heard of this happening. What's the context?

 

axumblade said:
Hynad said:

Do mods censor wall posts now (as in: erase what they don't like)?

What are you referring to? The mods shouldnt be deleting anything that is moderable unless its nsfw or spam.

Since whoever did this wouldn't come forth and give an explanation, I went to Miguel in private, who assured me he would look into it. So I will leave it at that and won't mention any names, and hope for the best.



  • PSN: Hynad
  • NN: 3519-6016-4122
  • XBL: Hynad
  • Steam: Hynad81
RolStoppable said:
vivster said:

So you're saying there is no difference in a user complaining about a console he doesn't even own and a user who actually suffers a drawback and as such is criticizing the thing he owns?

Posting history would create a substantial difference between these two hypothetical people.

Good point, not to mention that because of the behavior of some users who have taken too much liberty to quip at Nintendo (something that really needs to be fixed in general), when a poor bloke who has no intention of hating on the company makes a quip, it's more difficult when the mods slice.

The best would be if some users backed off the company, just a bit. Because even if they own the console, it doesn't cover their often strong resentment of Nintendo's fans. Which in and of itself is a poisoned position.



Super_Boom said:
SkepticallyMinded said:

I've also been moderated for making a completely valid statement about the anti-science agenda from evangelical Christians.(Super_Boom culprit)

You were banned for this post. Nowhere in there are you specifying evangelical Christians, or fundamentalist, or any type of extreme. You're making a jab at an entire belief system, and that absolutely isn't okay. Heck, it's the first example listed in Rule 13.

Like it or not...this forum is welcome to users of all political and religious beliefs...and that won't change.

Still see nothing wrong with the post. It's not an extreme or minority position of Christians to deny basic scientific facts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/

How can I be banned for suspecting that Christians would be happy about an anti-scientific perspective? Seems entirely factual.

spurgeonryan said:
SkepticallyMinded said:
Let's see here, I've been moderated for not being able to read someone's mind in order to discontinue posting on their wall. (StarOcean was the mod)

I've also been moderated for making a completely valid statement about the anti-science agenda from evangelical Christians.(Super_Boom culprit)

I find it absolutely perplexing that my first ban was 7 days as well. That mod (Star Ocean) is clearly emotionally unstable to have placed such a harsh ban on me for his own blunder.

The progressive system is absolutely atrocious. It's akin to committing three counts of petty theft and receiving a life sentence. Punishment fits the crime, it doesn't scale arbitrarily.

Explain your logic please. This should be hilarious to read.

Do you have to read peoples minds to know if you are bothering them or not?

Could you post the actual reason for the moderation that can be found in your mod report on your profile so we can see what the real reason is and not just take your word for it.

A reasonable person makes it clear that they wish to discontinue the conversation. They do not simply respond to my comments and then covertly grab a moderator. That's about as juvenile as it gets.

The reason presented is a complete fabrication I'm afraid but here it is: 

Trolling (Trolling and spamming someones wall when told not to. Flaming at a mod.)

You can visit this person's wall to see my posts to them:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/22961/zkuq/

CGI-Quality said:
SkepticallyMinded said:
The progressive system is absolutely atrocious. It's akin to committing three counts of petty theft and receiving a life sentence. Punishment fits the crime, it doesn't scale arbitrarily.

Explain your logic please. This should be hilarious to read.

Can you link the posts in question? I'd like to review them. If it was unfair, though I'm not the mod in question, I apologize. If it was justified, however, then I'd advise a reconsideration of posting certain things.

But we'll take a look.

Most are contained in this post but I would like the progressive system addressed more than anything.

PS: I apologize for the verbosity of this post, but I thought if I truncated it additionally things would become unclear.



You didn't address this.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/134903/moscowpuzzles/

Now looking at the rule for the post in question below...

You should avoid:

  • Insulting a person's religion, religious beliefs, race, sex, sexuality, nationality, political beliefs, gaming preferences, etc. Debate is encouraged, as is civil disagreement, but respect the beliefs and opinions of others.

 

SkepticallyMinded said:
Super_Boom said:

You were banned for this post. Nowhere in there are you specifying evangelical Christians, or fundamentalist, or any type of extreme. You're making a jab at an entire belief system, and that absolutely isn't okay. Heck, it's the first example listed in Rule 13.

Like it or not...this forum is welcome to users of all political and religious beliefs...and that won't change.

Still see nothing wrong with the post. It's not an extreme or minority position of Christians to deny basic scientific facts.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/

How can I be banned for suspecting that Christians would be happy about an anti-scientific perspective? Seems entirely factual.


The post was about the EPA rather than evolution.  So I chose the most prominent current theme in that area and ran a quick search for "christian global warming" and chose a result from page 1.  I haven't done an exhaustive assessment of every survey out there, and I'm not going to.  But this one seems to indicate that Christians would not rejoice about an attack on the EPA.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-christian-mind/

That's also just American Christians, not Christians worldwide.  This supports the notion that your claim about Christians was not justified.