Wilderock
Member
|
While I understand that tone is important and can change the overall implicit or underlying meaning of a post, from what I can tell, this entire thread is mostly:
A. Petty semantics
B. A thread telling users "the preferred way to post" (my opinion of this "side-debate" is that moderators should be hesitant to interpret or assume (especially since they could very well be wrong) the meaning of a post if it is not explicitly clear, considering that connotations, human error, context, and even bias can often get in the way of interpretation. And if they are to act on presumption, they should confirm the validity of their presumption with a colleague when considering punishment. Conversely, users should think twice before sounding disdainful and using pejorative language, especially if they are making a suggestion or request. Of course, this is mostly irrelevant).
-------
I have a position, but I am closer to neutral and am not portraying either party as grimy.
Let me make this abundantly clear: it shouldn't matter how you express your opinion, provided that it is not crossing the boundary. If it is not crossing the boundary, then it is acceptable. Because of that, it only seems logical to voice your opinion respectfully -- for both users and moderators alike, if they truly are held to the same standard. Moderators claim to be held to the same standard in that regard of politeness; leaders should lead by example; moderators who punish the impolite by being impolite, or react to the impolite by being impolite ... and then attempt to justify that must immediately concede the point that they are held to the same standard. In other words, a moderator cannot simultaneously argue that they're allowed to "show frustration" and also argue that they are held to the same behavioral standards. The two are contradictory and mutually exclusive ideas, in the basic words.
Again, if it is not crossing the boundary, then it is acceptable. This is agreed by moderators and users alike. The main disagreement lies in the fact that the moderators get to define the boundaries, and this is seen by some users as unfair (and I often find myself that moderators can be overzealous in their enforcement, or wrong in their interpretations, as any human will inevitably and eventually be).
As relativistic as "crossing the boundary" is, I believe that the argument from the moderators' perspective here is that nastiness and 'ad nauseum' are considered to be crossing that boundary, or trolling. In that case, I would argue that consistency is pivotal; while I am aware of the Tu Quoque fallacy, I am merely suggesting that moderators should "practice what they preach" and attempt to follow the same standard users are expected to, until a situation is serious enough to warrant otherwise (note that I am specifically not attempting to justify one wrongdoers actions by pointing out that a person in authority is committing the same wrongful act, even if they shamelessly deny it; I am simply criticizing any moderator who would do such a thing as blatantly disregard their own demands, or be hypocritical or inconsistent). If moderators are inconsistent, hypocritical, or use tenuous reasoning (such as a double standard, or Clause 24 of the Universal Rules) users are left no other option but to question their integrity and/or validity. This indirectly causes users to hard-press their opinions, especially if they genuinely and passionately feel they are correct. This is very often mistaken for trolling because of the ambiguity that exists when constituting each from each other, respectively. Using a double standard as a warrant to a claim is shaky at best, and is only passable because the rules aren't dictated by logic, but rather, by desire.
Surely a moderator would not be accused of trolling, much less castigated, for beating a dead horse, as it was accurately described earlier. The only reason such a perversion exists for the users is because they are not the authority; when a user "beats a dead horse", they are challenging authority. The user could be correct and the authority could very well be wrong, or they could each be correct in certain ways, but the authority could still justify any claims of harassment or trolling because of their infinite and unchecked power. The authority will always prevail in an authoritarian regime. It's that simple.
It has also been stated that moderators are subject to the same rules as users, but I do not believe they are subject to the same standards. Clause 24, I believe, of the Universal Rules provides infinite power to the moderator, and as long as the head admin agrees with the moderator, there is no check or balance (I would argue there is rarely an objective one from the start). From what I can tell, this thread is mostly a plea for democracy and/or equality (or at the very least, consistency). But the AE Forums are a totalitarian regime, and this inherently allows for human error, bias, and subjectivity, which will inevitably lead to mistakes. I can assuredly tell you that moderators can be overbearing, but likewise, users can be unreasonable (and the two very often cause each other).
quote:
The poster says 'in my opinion' the mod says 'no, you're wrong.'
I believe you're oversimplifying the situation, although I would wholeheartedly agree with you that users' opinions are too often suppressed and moderators do use their authority to subjugate a user and ultimately act oppressively. However, this is clearly not always, or even usually, the case.
An opinion cannot be wrong, every opinion is justified. I don't want to push too far into semantics, but the facts an opinion are founded on can be wrong. I would argue that "wrong" is inappropriate syntax for this instance, regardless; moderators usually reject users' ideas or opinions on the premise that they are not plausible, not practical, or not preferable, and specifically not on the notion they're "wrong", but rather, unacceptable. And that is perfectly reasonable. By substituting the word "wrong" with either of the aforementioned alternative adjectives, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.
quote:
I don't understand the desire to swoop down and feel the need to defend everything and then call them pointless rants or call the thread or the post unhelpful,unproductive, or negative or whatever. In fact, I'd argue 98% of *all* threads are unproductive. They're forums. It's essentially a type of blog. ...it's not an online support group.
I would have to agree that you are undoubtedly correct when you say that most of the threads in this forum would fall into one of the aforementioned categories: "not productive", "not helpful", "negative", or what have you. However, I would argue you are undoubtedly incorrect when you suggest that the previously mentioned thread is akin to "98% of other 'unproductive' threads". They're not comparable, and shouldn't be categorized together; you're using equivocation to associate your poor behavior with acceptable behavior, when they're - again - truly not comparable. That is fallacious.
I do understand the general points Eladar and Voivod are conveying, when I look past the denotations. Deeper down, I agree with their sentiments on a much, much lower level. I feel that some moderators (and not any specific group of them) can act unreasonably or impulsively, or make bad judgment calls; that's expected. While users should remain civil, calm, and mature in their discussions (I agree with that assessment), I disagree with the implication that that should be an excuse to prematurely end a user's discussion, repress them, punish them, etc. If a user is not acting civilly, I, personally, feel a moderator should act diplomatically. Does my opinion constitute actuality? No. Will I voice my opinion, after reading the moderators' statements earlier that they largely consider user feedback? Yes. Am I representing my opinion as the correct and supreme opinion? No. I am merely pointing it out.
I have seen moderators appeal to their position in authority to attempt to justify their actions, and while this is illogical and a formal fallacy, it is permissible under the Universal Rules. I believe this is one of the biggest problems, as many more problems stem from it (including some problems Eladar and Voivod have voiced). However, it seems like a necessary evil ... on the other hand, it seems to be abused more than it is used.
quote:
As for other assertions here, I'll repeat myself (again): You are welcome to your own opinion. You're welcome to express it. You are most certainly not welcome to express it in a nasty manner, nor are you welcome to continue to insist that staff acknowledge your opinion as the correct one and refuse to drop the subject. Doing so is trolling, plain and simple.
I disagree. You see, there is mostly an undiplomatic way of punishing trolls. A uniform, textbook way. There is mostly one accepted consequence of trolling. However, there are many different forms of trolling. Therefore, where is the equity? I would also say what you defined as trolling literally does not even sufficiently cover denotations, much less connotations, much less context. Trolling is always intentional. Unintentional trolling should be specifically regarded as unintentional, or given a new name. This is because the connotations that come along with the word "trolling" are negative, and unintentional trolling is generally not malicious or "negative".
Note: the following demonstration is not meant to sound nasty, and is completely unintentional if associated with trolling, and is not malicious, and I am not being sarcastic.
I am welcome to my opinion.
I proudly express my opinions.
I have expressed my opinions in nasty manners, and I should be welcome to. "Being nasty" is not explicitly or implicitly against the rules, and to claim as such is a gross perversion, and would be manipulative and coercive; one cannot be punished because of "social taboo" or "what mods want", in rudimentary terms. If someone is trolling and being nasty, then they ought to be punished for trolling; that is against the rules; being nasty is not. I am welcome to be nasty as long as I accept the consequence: being cast out from the "liked" circle, and you know exactly what circle I am referring to, whether you believe it exists or not. Being formally punished cannot be a direct consequence of being nasty, for being nasty is against no rule, but only expectations!
I believe you mean "continue to insist staff acknowledge their opinion as the correct one, and (you) refuse to drop the subject" or "...continue to insist staff acknowledge your opinion as the incorrect one, and (you) refuse to drop the subject". Because what you said doesn't seem to make sense to me, and if I am mistaken ... well, that only proves my above notion that interpretation is not reliable. :P
Either way, I would argue that IF the user is simply hard-pressing what they believe to be the genuine truth, THEN a moderator suppressing that supposed truth rather than debunking it is truly the person at fault ... because they're not helping the situation. And I would argue that the user, in that instance, would not be trolling. The way you represent this whole "trolling" issue seems to be illogical; it is not black or white, as you imply; it is usually not trolling, as you imply; is not 'plain and simple', as you state. To claim it is plain and simple is either a profound mistake or profoundly ignorant.
Now, I am not applying these assertions to what happened in the thread that has been alluded to; I am speaking mostly hypothetically. I did not read said thread, admittedly.
< Message edited by Wilderock -- 11/24/2009 23:26:44 >
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
