So, is decent and appropriate defined by the wits of one mod in his moment of judgement? We as a whole, in Off-Topic General post a lot of "not our own work" all the time, including conversations on cars, animes, games, insects, all kinds of things really.
#I think we should respectfully debate the subject of the moment i left in 28.10.2022.
valid topaz
To finish my argument, is the enforcing of rules being done in that space by the criteria and judgement of a few administrative characters, mainly one, under his personal criteria? Otherwise, we would have warnings and rebuking all the time, since we are always posting "not our own work" all the time.
Just a disclaimer: Keep in mind i don't have any bad feelings for anyone involved.
valid topaz
I was joking, urgh
God
its not a revolution
Focus on the conversation points i brought up here. Please.
ur doing exactly what you didn't wanted to happen
Another thing, QB, im referencing that specific moment because im using it as an exemple.
A case to analyse.
But i agree on valuable discussion on moderators habit of bloviating and threatening to ban people who reply.
valid topaz
Now i'm going to sleep, please everyone don't make futile statements such as imputing and accusing me of undermining professionalism and causing distraction based on a off topic joke, when actually i am building up a case point to express the argument which is very well expressed in my text and also very valid. While i'm gone sleeping and cannot quickly disarm such low hanging fruits of nitpicking. Meaning be direct to the point everyone, no nitpicking. Let us not turn this into a toxic thread.
west furnace
QB has very good points, and is only trying to show you how to bring up what you want to talk about in a way people can follow. If you "didn't want this to happen" ("this" being "a discussion of something you mentioned") you need to be clear and concise with what you want to discuss.
Most of your discussion points reference something that happened in what I can only assume was in #general, that almost everyone reading this will not have seen.
Give examples of what happened, what you think should happen instead. People don't have the context you do to focus on the conversation points you want them to.
In an attempt to do that for you:
1. You got called childish for posting images you feel to be on topic You say this isn't the subject of this post so we'll ignore that one.
2. You want to discuss what falls under "decency" in off topic, meaning what is off limits to discuss and who decides that.
3. You want to discuss that you should be able to post images that are relevant to the conversation.
4. You mention that 3 already happens, but is enforced arbitrarily, and would like to know clearly the criteria that is allowed.
5. People should get warnings for going over the criteria and not have their pass revoked.
Did I miss any points or are there parts of that you don't want to talk about?
Be clearer here with what you actually want to discuss if you're going to tell people to focus and not be nitpicky, as I needed to nitpick through a lot of stuff in that post to get to what you actually want to talk about.
As for actually putting my opinion in, I think I know what event you're talking about and people did just get warnings, no one was banned or kicked and some have the multipass thing given back already.
Honestly I think what QB brings up is likely more relevant than you're giving credit for. Reading the start of your post it sounds like the "name-called and bloviating" is the reason you feel the need to post this in the first place, so it's worth discussing.
ashen marlin
I think name-calling can be a good thing to stop, though I do it purposefully and with specific intent.
However, I will not stop threatening to ban if someone answers, because my job is not to argue with people, it's to stop something happening. Telling someone to stop doing X, and then discussing with them if they should stop is disruptive for everyone who's just waiting for a discussion to be over, so I will never stop saying "if you answer this it's an instaban, don't even say ok"
Note that I do not do this for any random reason, but specifically in cases where I'm telling people to stop a behavior that is against the rules, and where the subsequent discussion itself is against the rules (because it's not on topic). Discussing things here is totally fine, for example.
So, I would be glad if this was not a point of discussion, because I will absolutely never agree to stop doing it. It would be therefore a waste of everyone's time.
However, name-calling can be a valid topic of discussion.
I'd like to differentiate name-calling, which is when you tell someone "you're stupid", and qualifying a decision, such as "this isn't kindergarten".
The latter is a hypothetical.
The context is:
- Me (or another mod, I don't remember) gave you a permission to do post more images than other people, with a specific, very simple, attached rule: only post your own creations (not AI art)
- you agreed to the rules. You could've disagreed, discussed them, or done any other thing. But you did agree
- you proceeded to break the rules you had agreed to.
- as a result of you breaking the rules you had explicitly agreed to, your right was revoked.
I expect honest adults to be able to respect simple rules they have agreed to. If you cannot, and you force me, a mod, to intervene, then you waste my time and disrespect yourself.
(side note: The responsible thing to do, if you disagree with rules, is to bring that up prior to accepting them, not after breaking them. The latter is either an honest mistake, or malicious. Honest mistakes are fine, but losing your right is then also warranted)
When, following the removal, I was asked why I removed it, I said "this isn't kindergarten, I have a job and a life".
The meaning, therefore, is:
if this was kindergarten, and I didn't have a job other than to manage kids, then I would have the time and patience to deal with this with more granularity, but because it isn't, and I deem it a reasonable expectation that I am dealing with responsible adults, then, I simply remove the right from people who don't act like responsible adults.
This was said in response to another user questioning my decision, and not as part of revoking your right.
So I don't see how this concerns you in any way, nor how it qualifies as name calling. If anything, it's the opposite, I'm saying you're not a naive kid who doesn't know what they're doing, which is why I am not treating you like one.
To summarize, if this is about:
- the rule in #general to only post 2 images per day, and the additional rule to allow more, but only if it's your own work: that is definitely worth discussing. But seeing as how your qualms with it comes after breaking the rules, and not before, I consider them dishonest and maliciously motivated. I will not stop you from discussing them though, just saying I will struggle to find you credible (but willing to be proven wrong).
- saying "this isn't kindergarten": this is not name-calling by any definition, it also does not specifically target you (there were other users present and discussing too), I was not talking to you (you had literally left), it was qualifying a decision and why I wouldn't act with more granularity, so I don't see it as a valid topic
- name-calling is a valid topic, but there was none here, except potentially me telling you, after you complain, that if you don't act like an adult, you shouldn't expect to be treated like one. I don't see this as name-calling, and I maintain my position and judgement, but I could've refrained from saying it harshly like that. Sorry for that.
If this is about yet another point that I'm missing, then please state it, because as far as I am able to understand, these are the topics mentioned until now.
Last point: the title of the thread is unclear and contributes further to the feeling that this is not a focused complaint. It'd be good if you clarified exactly what you want changed.
ashen marlin
(or rather, not "exactly", just more precisely; I am not asking you to be exhaustive, merely to give us something constructive to work with)
("I would like..." type of thing)
valid topaz
Ok here we go.
I want to thanks the mods for creating this forum and allowing the conversation to take place.
Since there are two long entries, be patient in my answer because its going to be also lengthened, for it to be fair. But at first i do want to disarm certain statements from Xan which i don't have any bad intentions or feelings towards. Quite the contrary, i had some noice exchanges and conversations with in the past. Which i hope to continue having.
Take this as a side entry.
@ashen marlin
"1. the rule in general to only post 2 images per day, and the additional rule to allow more, but only if it's your own work: that is definitely worth discussing. But seeing as how your qualms with it comes after breaking the rules, and not before, I consider them dishonest and maliciously motivated."
Which i firstly explained in:
"I'm the kind of person that's too busy and too low energy to care and try to solve disagreements with people."
Its almost the same, if not the same, line of reasoning i often see you using with "i'm an adult, i have a job. I cannot have this happening"
From now on, i will systematically address each of the conversation topics brought up in order.
@west furnace
1.
"QB has very good points, and is only trying to show you how to bring up what you want to talk about in a way people can follow. If you "didn't want this to happen" ("this" being "a discussion of something you mentioned") you need to be clear and concise with what you want to discuss."
Well i was very clear, it saddens me someone might have refused to undertake what i have said. Here:
"I want to discuss the context into which something can be considered inappropriate in Off-Topic General. More specifically, how can we define decent in.. : "- discuss other subjects, but keep it decent"
Also discuss the context in which the multi-pass can be given to a user, and what actually and organically ends up happening."
@west furnace
2.
"Most of your discussion points reference something that happened in what I can only assume was in general, that almost everyone reading this will not have seen."
I did explain what happened, also talked about how conversations end up taking place there, to the contrary of rules, which are selectively enforced and under personal criteria in inconsistent periods of time. For me to actually go about, to show and prove with well, proof, i would need a multi-pass to print specific situations and post here.
@west furnace
3.
“Give examples of what happened, what you think should happen instead. People don't have the context you do to focus on the conversation points you want them to.“
To answer this i would like to take back at my second addressing above.
@west furnace
4.
“In an attempt to do that for you: 1. You got called childish for posting images you feel to be on topic You say this isn't the subject of this post so we'll ignore that one.”
Ok, ummmm, the thing is i don’t “feel” them to be on topic, as the name goes, thats a “off-topic general chat” into which i respect people’s levels of interactivity with my conversation entries, meaning i don’t flood, i only continue a topic if the genuine objective of having conversation there is taking place, which is people participating and having what i assume is a decent good time, or isn’t it a decent good time? For who it isn’t? Thats one of the points i originally brought up. Which seem to be also undertaken.
@west furnace
5.
“2. You want to discuss what falls under "decency" in off topic, meaning what is off limits to discuss and who decides that.”
To improve on this since it seemed at least for me, you guys choices were to discuss how to discuss instead of debating the subjects.:
Not only >who decides, but >what is deciding, meaning:
Maybe we should test new rules and practices, bringing more detail and definition to what would be decent and appropriate behaviour.
I will start:
A approach or rule in which new comers in the server will pass through a test of time where they naturally interact and are naturally observed, before being able to be trusted a multi-pass. Like with the 2 attachment limit, the multi-pass then would be used to post things not only “own work” but also completely off-topic, with the exclusion of image >memes< .
@west furnace
6.
“3. You want to discuss that you should be able to post images that are relevant to the conversation.”
Well, why not?
Posting images relevant to a conversation or being them a possible starter for a conversation is what happens all the time there, its what people want and do. The server is meant to be used by the people.
@west furnace
7.
“4. You mention that 3 already happens, but is enforced arbitrarily, and would like to know clearly the criteria that is allowed.”
Yes, we need more detailed, user friendly rules.
@west furnace
8.
“5. People should get warnings for going over the criteria and not have their pass revoked.
Yes, here we reach the part where i got really motivated to express my points through the example of what happened. Here:
“In my particular case, in that moment, i was taking the care of posting images in intervals, waiting for any possible other comment or new subject entry from another users. Its also funny one of the mods were interacting with me and not warning.”
The mod in question is @mossy turret , a character i consider to be also a solid person that i don’t have anything against or bad feelings. I equally had noice chat exchanges and conversations with in the past and pretend to do so.
The inconsistency of one admnistrative figure participating and not warning VS another admnistrative figure suddenly appearing and shutting everything down is a contradiction or contrast too aggressive to be seeing taking place, which made me feel bad.
Now, but i can understand it, quite too the contrary stated, this difference between people, the unique traits we all ended up adquiring through out life, and being able to share the same space, its one of the things that end up making someone being mature or “adult” in the first place. I would never call kindergarten and kids on you for inconsistency, we all are flawed people.
@west furnace
9.
“Did I miss any points or are there parts of that you don't want to talk about? Be clearer here with what you actually want to discuss if you're going to tell people to focus and not be nitpicky, as I needed to nitpick through a lot of stuff in that post to get to what you actually want to talk about.
As for actually putting my opinion in, I think I know what event you're talking about and people did just get warnings, no one was banned or kicked and some have the multipass thing given back already.”
Oh, i get thats not a big of a deal for someone outside the situation, but i was the one who got addressed the fault of having everyones multi-passes taken away. Now for a humurous analogy: Like when a soldier “misbehave” in the eyes of a high pattern military figure and every soldier sleeping in the same barrack suffer the same penalty.
And now, to Xan.
@spooky xananax
10.
“However, I will not stop threatening to ban if someone answers, because my job is not to argue with people, it's to stop something happening. “
I think depending on tone, threatening to ban is valid. But to actually enforce rules in a productive way we need them to be more defined.
Xan:
“.. , so I will never stop saying "if you answer this it's an instaban, don't even say ok” "
This is not ok from a mod. And i will explain.
I remember watching this film, the plot is a experiment where random guys are given badges and police-like outfits, and other buch of guys are fake prisoners.
To cut straight to what matters, the fake police guys go from friendly normal people who treated their fake prisoners fine and fair, to power triped douchbags and authority abusers.
Not saying Xan is a douchbag, im talking about the film and what can start happening with given authority through out time.
@spooky xananax
11.
“I'd like to differentiate name-calling, which is when you tell someone "you're stupid", and qualifying a decision, such as "this isn't kindergarten". The latter is a hypothetical.”
Well undermining someones faculty of thought is always bad. Its like saying “your opinion does not have value, cause it resembles, to me, that you are like a X or Y thing.” its just another way of saying “you’re stupid” and that is breaking the rule:
(- insult other user's quality in discussions ("lol", "you people are all like that", "you're dumb", and so on)
@spooky xananax
12.
“The context is: 1. Me (or another mod, I don't remember) gave you a permission to do post more images than other people, with a specific, very simple, attached rule: only post your own creations (not AI art) 2. you agreed to the rules. You could've disagreed, discussed them, or done any other thing. But you did agree 3. you proceeded to break the rules you had agreed to. 4. as a result of you breaking the rules you had explicitly agreed to, your right was revoked.”
If i would be to follow the same line of reasoning, as a hypothetical administrative figure, i would have your mod rights revoked due to yourself breaking the rule mentioned in entry 11 above.
And about “only post your own creations (not AI art)” im reiterating again: people there post “not their own creation” all the time with multi-passes. I find it biased to target specificaly, amongst other specifics, the use of AI art images while discussing AI art.
@spooky xananax
13.
“I expect honest adults to be able to respect simple rules they have agreed to. If you cannot, and you force me, a mod, to intervene, then you waste my time and disrespect yourself.”
This one makes it hard for me to not join the offensive debate strat. I also expect consistency and respect from administrative figures and don’t like its forcing me to create a debate to say obvioussness.
@spooky xananax
14.
“(side note: The responsible thing to do, if you disagree with rules, is to bring that up prior to accepting them, not after breaking them. The latter is either an honest mistake, or malicious. Honest mistakes are fine, but losing your right is then also warranted)”
I already answered this at first and touched on everything about from that point.
There are many factors at play here.
A) What rules mean.
B) How they are being enforced. (which can only be observed with time and experience.)
C) How rules are working in favor of users?
@spooky xananax
Now to address the kindergarten/kid calling in specific.
15.
“if this was kindergarten, and I didn't have a job other than to manage kids, then I would have the time and patience to deal with this with more granularity, but because it isn't, and I deem it a reasonable expectation that I am dealing with responsible adults, then, I simply remove the right from people who don't act like responsible adults.”
“2. saying "this isn't kindergarten": this is not name-calling by any definition, it also does not specifically target you (there were other users present and discussing too), I was not talking to you (you had literally left), it was qualifying a decision and why I wouldn't act with more granularity, so I don't see it as a valid topic”
You don’t need to evade this. Its fine. I’m not cancelling you for it. Its just a bad thing to say about people who are just chilling and having fun on a Off-Topic General chat.
Sorry for the amount of text.
valid topaz
.
.
.
Ok fairplay to everyone, i've spent too much time on the subject today, i need to do some things. I will be answering anything needed tomorrow. 