That’s called misdirection, basically attempting to redirect attention from the main point onto a different unrelated topic… Usually done with selective quoting which is then presented out of context or just plain make up something that’s completely untrue.
A perfect example of that is the very first sentence in his post:
Yet, people like DMC (you didn’t want “some people” so I’ll focus his wrath on me) wants these forums to adhere to very strict modding.
My statements in this thread have been about enforcing the rules equally among all posters which he purposely presents as wanting the forums to adhere to very strict moderation.
The only ones taking quotes out of context here are you and Foggy. I also only mentioned you, cause Nevyn didn’t like using “some people”, so I had to present an example of someone I had in mind.
You know that all it takes is for someone to simply scroll up to see that you have that completely backwards, right? We pull quotes for focus. You pull quotes to change their meaning.
My statements in this thread have been about enforcing the rules equally among all posters, not making the forums adhere to very strict moderation.
You purposely twisted my statement around and then presented it as something else completely different from what I actually stated. That’s misdirection…
However, the rules seem to be enforced equally though.
The reason for why I say you want more strict modding is cause posts like the above.
In this thread, I have received what one could argue equally severe attacks from people like Foggy. His posts are also left up. Seems to be in line with what Nevyn wrote, that the posts are left as long as someone is not “pushing the line”.
You seem to want just a removal of these posts cause they violate a rule, not a judgement on each individual post. So that is indeed more strict, than what seems to be in place today.
This is the mode of operation of many of these posters. They come up with ridiculous statements based on what you say and then make out as if you said them and then tell everyone how bad you are for saying that. Skilled moderation would note someone doing that and give them a warning to desist. When I moderated a forum in the past, Destiny Corrupted was the sort of person I removed because everything they say when discussing with people with different views is in bad faith.
I used the term ‘Edge Cases’ to mimic what the ISD called them.
You didn’t even read the whole statement, they weren’t ‘Edge Cases’ anyway. I’ve had enough of you constantly trying to initiate conflict with me here, stop twisting my statements around and presenting them out of context.
Dude, that post isn’t ‘Edge Case’, it was flagged for containing a statement that violated the Profanity rule, ISD did nothing about it. And don’t bother trying to say it’s just little white boxes either. When quoting that entire post the profanity is clearly visible and shows what you wrote.
ISD did nothing, cause it was an edge case. They didn’t see the violation grave enough to warrent a removal.
You want the post removed just because it contained profanity, which is indeed stricter than what we have today.
But yes, let’s shelve this discussion. Honestly, we will never agree on this, cause we can’t even agree on the foundation alone of what is a clear violation and what is not.
Also, why you use BS instead of ■■■■■■■■? Trying to avoid that profanity filter?
The naming of it sas “smack talk” occured in a support ticket. If you want specific examples of the offenses, chuck me a private message and I’ll link you some back (as us mortals seem to have no way to sent private messages and I’d rather not link them here). Support tickets themselves are necessitated because some ISDs seem to decide they are going to allow insults and attacks from particular people to stand and set them is such a way that they can no longer be flagged as inappropriate even when they clearly are.
This is not the same thing as individual-targeted invitations, which is what I was referring to, I apologize if I was unclear on that
I’m not referencing the prehistoric age in which perhaps at some point in ancient history CCP issued targeted invites, I’m referencing the here and now in which I’m inclined to believe this is not a current practice. I may very well be wrong, sure, but I’m not making an assertion of truth, I’m only stating that this is what I suspect to be true.
I do think forum mods should enforce, to at least some extent, player-specified thread rules if the rules are not unreasonable, and that discussions breaking the rules should fork into a different discussion or be removed by mods who assert that the rules need to be followed. That thread is a good example, and I’ve seen a few others. Once I started a thread in Assembly Hall asking the CSMs and only the CSMs their position on AFK cloaking - I only asked because I was very, very, very, very, VERY surprised to see that Brisc had a point on it on his CSM platform, and I figured Mike would also have a (yet unspecified) position on it, so I wanted to know what everyone else thought. (It’s possible they all pitched into the main AFK cloaky thread at some point in time but who has time to read that ■■■■?) In my opening post I included the following:
The thread was immediately derailed by “you can’t tell me what to do you’re not a forum moderator” posters, and even though I repeatedly pinged forum moderators, they refused to enforce the not-unreasonable rules of the thread and it ultimately got shut down as being another AFK cloaky thread (only Mike and Brisc got to say anything). The thread would have been fine if the mods had deleted violating posts and posted saying “please abide by the indicated rules”, thereby giving the floor to CSM. (I am at fault for not pinging all the CSMers up front - I incorrectly assumed the other eight actually check Assembly Hall.) I think this was the one and only time I felt let down by @ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode.
Most of the time when players complain about reporting ISDs I them as being whiney babies, but this is one of the few incidents that might merit an email indicating that the moderator needs to be moderated. The offense wasn’t that great, but it’s the principle of the thing.
CCP AURORA IS PERFECT IN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE WAY BACK OFF MANNNNN.
Okay, so I’m actually curious as to what examples you have of this such that the bias has been unhealthy for the forums.
It’s been raised, escalated and shut down. Dorrim has examples but I still imagine the end result will be that the same people get to freely launch tirades of attacks at people with no repercussions.
There have been examples of moderation where the same bias seems to be presented. But the big one for me was when she broke the long standing rule where CCP does not support or condone third party software by effectively banning me from stating any negative opinions about a piece of third party software developed by and for a null group right after she declared using it offically within the EULA.
