Forums - Website Topics - The Moderator Thread

Lonely_Dolphin said:
CGI-Quality said:

Making a stink won’t always result in changes. Also, being honest and objective isn’t discouraged - but it doesn’t mean you can do/say what ever you please. Without some form of balance, someone may expect to do what they want. 

Simply put, that’s not going to happen either.

That's what you'd say of course, but actions tell a different story. I didn't say anything about letting people do whatever they want, but I am of the belief that, as long as whatever it is doesn't hurt anyone, then it's fine. And I mean actually hurt, not just butt hurt over a viewpoint different from their own.

Well... literally nothing that's merely posted on the internet can "actually hurt".



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

That's what you'd say of course, but actions tell a different story. I didn't say anything about letting people do whatever they want, but I am of the belief that, as long as whatever it is doesn't hurt anyone, then it's fine. And I mean actually hurt, not just butt hurt over a viewpoint different from their own.

Actions do speak and sometimes, you have to take responsibility for them. ;)

Also, your belief is false. You'll of course see it how you want, but from experience as both a mod and a user, you're wrong.

"And from my experience, you're wrong!" I can see we're gonna have a very intelligent discussion here, but I wouldn't wanna become the "center of attention" again, so I'll cut it here.

Ka-pi96 said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

That's what you'd say of course, but actions tell a different story. I didn't say anything about letting people do whatever they want, but I am of the belief that, as long as whatever it is doesn't hurt anyone, then it's fine. And I mean actually hurt, not just butt hurt over a viewpoint different from their own.

Well... literally nothing that's merely posted on the internet can "actually hurt".

I mean with the clear intent to hurt. Saying I don't like the Star Wars sequel trilogy isn't an attack on anyone. Saying anyone who dislikes the sequel trilogy must be a racist anti-SJW troll on the other hand...



Lonely_Dolphin said:
CGI-Quality said:

Actions do speak and sometimes, you have to take responsibility for them. ;)

Also, your belief is false. You'll of course see it how you want, but from experience as both a mod and a user, you're wrong.

"And from my experience, you're wrong!" I can see we're gonna have a very intelligent discussion here, but I wouldn't wanna become the "center of attention" again, so I'll cut it here.

By replying, you're obviously seeking a discussion. And, it remains an intelligent one, I just completely disagree with your assertion. 

As for "clear intent to hurt", yes, calling people names can hurt. Something to keep in mind.



                                                                                                             

Lonely_Dolphin said:

I mean with the clear intent to hurt. Saying I don't like the Star Wars sequel trilogy isn't an attack on anyone. Saying anyone who dislikes the sequel trilogy must be a racist anti-SJW troll on the other hand...

This is why our committee based moderation approach works best. Based on your example, a single Star Wars fan moderator won't be able to independently and autarchicly ban for a user for a non-rule violation such as merely expressing an opinion antithetical top the moderator themselves.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

I mean with the clear intent to hurt. Saying I don't like the Star Wars sequel trilogy isn't an attack on anyone. Saying anyone who dislikes the sequel trilogy must be a racist anti-SJW troll on the other hand...

This is why our committee based moderation approach works best. Based on your example, a single Star Wars fan moderator won't be able to independently and autarchicly ban for a user for a non-rule violation such as merely expressing an opinion antithetical top the moderator themselves.

No, but all the mods sure can. Also, if a mod can't separate from their personal biases then they shouldn't be a mod. You wouldn't need to form a committee if the mods could be trusted to do their job competently.



Around the Network
Lonely_Dolphin said:
SpokenTruth said:

This is why our committee based moderation approach works best. Based on your example, a single Star Wars fan moderator won't be able to independently and autarchicly ban for a user for a non-rule violation such as merely expressing an opinion antithetical top the moderator themselves.

No, but all the mods sure can. Also, if a mod can't separate from their personal biases then they shouldn't be a mod. You wouldn't need to form a committee if the mods could be trusted to do their job competently.

Mods are humans, not robots.




Lonely_Dolphin said:
SpokenTruth said:

This is why our committee based moderation approach works best. Based on your example, a single Star Wars fan moderator won't be able to independently and autarchicly ban for a user for a non-rule violation such as merely expressing an opinion antithetical top the moderator themselves.

No, but all the mods sure can. Also, if a mod can't separate from their personal biases then they shouldn't be a mod. You wouldn't need to form a committee if the mods could be trusted to do their job competently.

VGC (like plenty of others) has always had a setup where mod communicate before taking action. Sure, Head Mods have a little more freedom, but even then, they are bound by this.

Disagreeing with mods taking action doesn't change any of that. Oh, and I trust the mods to do their jobs, despite the fact that they are human and, like you, sometimes make mistakes.



                                                                                                             

Hynad said:
Lonely_Dolphin said:

No, but all the mods sure can. Also, if a mod can't separate from their personal biases then they shouldn't be a mod. You wouldn't need to form a committee if the mods could be trusted to do their job competently.

Mods are humans, not robots.

I don't have a high opinion of our species either, but humans can in fact be objective and competent.



Alright, clearly this discussion is going to continue going back and forth with no resolution. Regarding Pyro, I said my piece, action was taken, and we're going to continue to do the best that we can.

So, as of now, the discussion is over. Edit: If you'd like to respond to SpokenTruth Lonely Dolphin, do so in a PM.



                                                                                                             

Lonely_Dolphin said:
SpokenTruth said:

This is why our committee based moderation approach works best. Based on your example, a single Star Wars fan moderator won't be able to independently and autarchicly ban for a user for a non-rule violation such as merely expressing an opinion antithetical top the moderator themselves.

1). No, but all the mods sure can. 2). Also, if a mod can't separate from their personal biases then they shouldn't be a mod. 3). You wouldn't need to form a committee if the mods could be trusted to do their job competently.

1). Only if all mods had the same opinion.  Which we don't.  We are intentionally selected to address representation of the community - mostly factored upon video games and then followed by sub-communities within the forum.

2). Of which they usually do.  If mods handed out bans in sole discrimination against members in contrast to their own allegiances, we wouldn't have any members save for mods within a month. But again, that's irrelevant.  For major decisions, it's a committee. And that ignoring the fact that they do set aside their bias for duty. It's part of why we get selected in the first place.  Because we've shown a historical record of professionalism, honesty and integrity against our own cognitive biases in the pursuit of truth and honesty.

3). We use a committee method for multiple reasons. We have records of opinion. Records of action.  It functions when our console biases are irrelevant (political, socioeconomical, etc...).

Now may we presume that these adequately address your concerns or no? 

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 20 May 2020

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."