Dumpshock Moderator Neutrality, Point brought up in another thread Options

[Bob Lord of Evil]

This is just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

It was brought up in another thread (that I have removed myself from contributing to) that moderators here should remain above the fray. For myself, I don't think that moderators need to stop posting their opinions by virtue of their position.

The only time that I would envision a problem is if the moderator posted an opinion, somebody else disagreed and then the moderator bans that individual or uses their position to squelch opposition to their opinion. I have yet to see anything remotely approaching that here, far from it. It may mean that those people who disagree may very well choose their words far more carefully in replying (something that would probably be a good idea for all...myself included).

That isn't censorship, rather polite conversation.

There are times that we all feel like shouting at somebody else "are you f*&^!#* kidding me"...two mitigating factors should interject themselves in such situations. Would you say it to that persons face? The general public sees us as nerds/geeks that live in our parent's basement that don't have a life...shouting at the few people with whom we share something in common with is pretty self defeating.

For the record...
I don't live in my mom's basement. Unlike Marilyn Manson...roleplaying didn't stave off me having sex by 6 weeks for each game that I played. Marilyn...come on...truthfully I think that there were far more pressing reasons why you remained a virgin than playing D&D. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

To paraphrase from the comedian Johnny Biscuit, "I am not just posting this to suck up to you (Admins)." (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Critias]

Uhh, okay. *shrugs*

[Grinder]

Ever wonder why a mod needs a different color when posting?

The moderators are specifically screened and chosen for their ability to perform their moderation duties yet still participate meaningfully on the boards.

If you have a problem with any single moderator you can report them to the moderation team. We're human, we make mistakes, and are subject to Warnings and bans just like everyone else.

If you have a problem with the post, you can report that to the moderating team and it will be reviewed by the entire moderating team.

If you have a problem with the board moderation in general you can start a thread in the appropriate forum.

If you have a problem with a moderator because they have an opinion different then yours, and thus you think they shouldn't be a moderator, then you're going to end up having problems with all the moderators. Not because they all disagree with you, but because they'll have a different opinion then yours at some point.

"So and So has opinion X which is clearly wrong so they are not fit for duty Y" is an argument many people should be all too familiar with, especially when "opinion X" might have no relation whatsoever to what is required to perform "duty Y"

[Stahlseele]

Wonder what people would say if a mod were arguing for x and because another poster also arguing for the very same x overstepped the line the moderator had to reign that other poster in a bit . .

[toturi]

Wonder what people would say if a mod were arguing for x and because another poster also arguing for the very same x overstepped the line the moderator had to reign that other poster in a bit . .

They would keep vewy vewy quiet about it until they can figure out a way to turn it to their advantage. It's politics and even Dumpshock has got its own brand of it.

[fistandantilus4....]

It's happened. We issued a warning.

[Cardul]

I am on three different game forums(Here, batteltech, and the Alderac forums, primarily focusing on L5R), and used to be on the White-Wolf Forums before their change over.
Here is what I have seen:

On the Battletech Forums, the mods are all well known, friendly, and get into discussions, and you can easily forget sometimes that they are Mods, except for
the Red 'Mechs under their names. We all know, though, that the Mods are(relatively) neutral. There are a couple people we sometimes wonder why they don't get
warnings/bans...but, then again, I am sure people think the same thing here. However, that is a smaller, close knit forum.

On the Alderac Forums, well...honestly, I am confused on what can be posted where most of the time(they have a an archaic set up for what can be posted where,
that pretty much works out that either, anything can be posted anywhere, or nothing can be posted anywhere...gets frustrating to try and figure out where a thread goes...)
Their Mods are all over the place, and they do not erase posts that got a warning. Instead, they edit it with the mods name who warned them, stating why that post was
warned. It is scary to post a question, wake up, look up at the thread, and see it locked, with tons of red Mod Type on half the posts..It is a place that, while I like knowing
why a warning was delivered, the fact that posting in the wrong forum gets you a warning, thread drift gets you a warning, thread necromancy gets you a warning, double
posting gets you a warning...

On the White-Wolf Forums....I am not sure if they even HAD mods. Things there were viscious, and, honestly, I only ever saw ONE person get a ban in my time there,
and he was someone who took the worst of all the worst posters here, merged it all together, and then amplified it. The guy made Frank Trollman at his worst seem
as friendly as Ned Flanders. And it took them 3 or 4 years to decide to ban the guy. The White-Wolf Forums are just not a place I like to hang around.

What do I see here? 1) The mods contribute to the community like we see on the battletech forums. Here is not that small, though, so to some people, the Mods seem distant.
2) The rules are well defined like we see on the Alderac, but the Mods allow alot more lattitude then is seen over there. 3) The Mods are actually PRESENT and visible. We know
who they are.

Honestly, I think that one of the big issues with the seeming belief in lack of Mod Neutrality is, in fact, that we know who the Mods are. Would people think the mods were more
neutral if it was not, say, Grinder making a Mod Post, but "PurpleModerator" and you did not know that Grinder was a moderator? Would people think there was more Mod Neutrality if
the warnings were put up in the person's posts(in Mod Text) with a rule that editing out a Mod Edit was a warnable offense?

[Stahlseele]

They would keep vewy vewy quiet about it until they can figure out a way to turn it to their advantage. It's politics and even Dumpshock has got its own brand of it.

baaah, baaah! i say . . politics suck <.<

[Method]

First, I have to object to the term "neutral"- that implies the absence of an opinion or vested interest. If thats the goal, nobody here would be qualified for a moderator position. Sure, we could all pretend not to have opinions on anything, but that would be a bunch of bullshit. We are SR fans first, and we have as much right as any other fan (for what thats worth) to be pissed off or concerned about these events. The fact that we aren't actively arguing along with everyone else should be evidence enough of our efforts to remain *objective* (which is a much more reasonable goal, IMHO). I would also note that numerous admin's with obvious conflicts of interest (Adam, John Dunn, Bull) have voluntarily stepped down from active moderation- not all recently, but if that doesn't speak to their integrity I don't know what would.

Second, I would point out that any moderator action is the result of an ongoing discussion open to all the moderators. While we don't always agree 100%, almost nothing is done unilaterally and true abuse of power is pretty much a non-option. And as has been mentioned, none of us are protected from warnings or bans if we are being asshats.

But the reality is that under the current circumstances we are in a no-win situation- if we say anything one side or the other cries foul and says we're biased. If we don't say anything we are still accused of "towing the CGL party line" because we let Jason post or continue the long LONG standing practice of sticking announcements about new SR releases (which we should all be excited about- remember most of what we are seeing is work that Adam, Synner, AH, DE and other did months ago). I made an attempt to defend a moderate position in one of the CGL speculation threads (contrary to my actual opinions on the matter), and I was essentially accused of being as morally corrupt as Loren L Colemann because I appeared to be defending CGL. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I just wish we could all get back to talking about the game we all love. Can't we all just get a long? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/frown.gif) (yeah I went there)

[Fuchs]

Ever since the co-mingling has come to light people have taken sides. Some may not have meant to, but many if not most knew what they were doing.

The difference between earlier disagremenets is that this time we're not arguing about game rules or game fluff, but morals, money and ethics and especially people. A number of posters are directly affected by whatever end this situation will have.

No, we all can't get along since "we all" includes people who hurt each other, and I do not mean by disagreeing on the forum. We're talking people (possibly) losing their job, their money, their reputation. You cannot expect we'd all get along when it's clear someone is acting in a completely abhorrent manner (even though it may not be clear to everyone who exactly is that someone).

As it is bridges have been burned and are still being burned, and most here learned far more about other posters than they would have liked to.

[Method]

Ever since the co-mingling has come to light people have taken sides.

Really? And what would those "sides" be? Sounds awefully adversarial.

No, we all can't get along since "we all" includes people who hurt each other, and I do not mean by disagreeing on the forum. We're talking people (possibly) losing their job, their money, their reputation. You cannot expect we'd all get along when it's clear someone is acting in a completely abhorrent manner (even though it may not be clear to everyone who exactly is that someone).

I would note that the people responsible for these things are not active members of this community (active accounts maybe, but not active posters), tho we certainly have people who have been harmed. So I fail to see the reason for this fundimental differing you are describing. Unless you implying something else?

And by the way, that was a joke.

[Fuchs]

Really? And what would those "sides" be? Sounds awefully adversarial.

One side is "I hope Catalyst retains its license" and the other side is "I hope Catalyst loses the license".

I would note that the people responsible for these things are not active members of this community (active accounts maybe, but not active posters), tho we certainly have people who have been harmed. So I fail to see the reason for this fundimental differing you are describing. Unless you implying something else?

I count among active posters both former freelancers and employees of CGL as well as current employees of CGL and freelancers. Given what kind of accusations were and are levelled against each other, directly or indirectly, I don't understand how you fail to see the reason for the differing.

We're not talking about who was right or wrong about a rules call. We're talking about who was right about CGL's Books, mode of business, recordings, ethics, and finances.

[General Pax]

How about the people who dont really care who gets the license but are still disgusted with how people are acting? Not just those that actually matter, but the nobodies in threads like this one who think they are lawyers and insiders who demand to know what is going on in business that is absolutely none of their concirns.

[Fuchs]

How about the people who dont really care who gets the license but are still disgusted with how people are acting? Not just those that actually matter, but the nobodies in threads like this one who think they are lawyers and insiders who demand to know what is going on in business that is absolutely none of their concirns.

You're firmly in the CGL camp.

[Method]

You're firmly in the CGL camp.

See. It's just that simple. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[Method]

I count among active posters both former freelancers and employees of CGL as well as current employees of CGL and freelancers. Given what kind of accusations were and are levelled against each other, directly or indirectly, I don't understand how you fail to see the reason for the differing.

Right and none of them are responsible for the current situation so I'm not sure who your opposition is directed at. Presumably it is Loren Coleman +/- Randal Bills, neither of whom are active members of this community. Your moral crusading here seems to me to be misdirected.

But this is off topic...

[General Pax]

You're firmly in the CGL camp.

Just wow

[Fuchs]

Right and none of them are responsible for the current situation so I'm not sure who your opposition is directed at. Presumably it is Loren Coleman +/- Randal Bills, neither of whom are active members of this community. Your moral crusading here seems to me to be misdirected.

But this is off topic...

My point is that things were said and people hurt on a personal level, which makes this different from arguing over rules and playstyles.

Did you read the threads where Jennifer Harding had to clarify what she said? Where people accuse each other of being stooges or spies? Freelancers on both sides.

I am morally crusading in the speculation thread, here I am just trying to show why things are as the yare - both sides crossed lines, and the more statements and information we get, the less I can see a possible explanation that makes "all a big misunderstanding", or something similar.

[Fuchs]

See. It's just that simple. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

Yeah. Sometimes it is that simple. The way he attacks AH and Frank Trollman, and blames them for revealing the dirty laundry of CGL, makes him a firm supporter of CGL. He clearly does not think one should blow the whistle on such practises as co-mingling money and not paying freelancers.

[DireRadiant]

Yeah. Sometimes it is that simple. The way he attacks AH and Frank Trollman, and blames them for revealing the dirty laundry of CGL, makes him a firm supporter of CGL. He clearly does not think one should blow the whistle on such practises as co-mingling money and not paying freelancers.

It is possible for all sides to have done something wrong. Doing a single wrong doesn't preclude someone else from doing something wrong as well. There's really no relation from one to the other. One wrong doesn't make two wrongs a right. They are both wrongs.

It's not wrong for me to point that out either.

And before you go off and stuff me in some camp, which you've already done anyway in your boolean world, you may want to consider that I am referring to a general principle when speaking of wrongs, and not necessarily the one you are obsessed with. Some people may also note it's possible for my reply to be on a multi contextual level as well.

[Fuchs]

It is possible for all sides to have done something wrong. Doing a single wrong doesn't preclude someone else from doing something wrong as well. There's really no relation from one to the other. One wrong doesn't make two wrongs a right. They are both wrongs.

It's not wrong for me to point that out either.

And before you go off and stuff me in some camp, which you've already done anyway in your boolean world, you may want to consider that I am referring to a general principle when speaking of wrongs, and not necessarily the one you are obsessed with. Some people may also note it's possible for my reply to be on a multi contextual level as well.

Of couse two sides can be wrong - but if one side is the one co-mingling money to the tune of over 500K, and not paying freelancers for months to years... and that leaves the even more serious accusations out of it... and the other side is blowing the whistle... I think everyone can see that judging both to be equally wrong is kind of biased.

A thief, for example, has done something worse than someone parking in a no parking zone for 5 minutes. To treat both the same is favoring the thief - or treating the other far worse than he deserves.

And that is why a few here are picking sides despite claiming not to: By failing to consider the vast difference between the "whistleblowers'" possible wrong, and the kind of wrong CGL did over years.

[DireRadiant]

Those weren't the wrongs I was referring to. But I already said that.

Being "less" wrong then some other wrong doesn't make what you do not a wrong.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

Fuchs, it sound like this.

You post something, Admins don't agree with you and say so.

So they are out to get you.

Now...play it out like this.

You post something, Admins don't agree with you but don't say anything.

Does that mean that they are out to get you?


I started this thread because it vexed me that the Admins who voiced an opinion were being told to shut up because others didn't agree with their posts (and that is really how it came off). I didn't want to derail the other thread but wanted to say my piece.

As a current SR freelancer I know how I am viewed by some (hack, gaps in my knowledge...yawn). At the end of the day, I can look myself in the mirror and be satisfied that I am supporting Shadowrun, some very decent people, and acknowledge that mistakes have been made by some. Since I don't walk on water or part the seas on my days off I figure that is about par for the course.

[fistandantilus4....]

baaah, baaah! i say . . politics suck <.<

The ironic thing about this, besides ignoring my post in response to your 'what if', is that the closest thing we have to politics among the mods is avoiding going off on someone when we get frustrated. Because we do. Mostly when we see the same arguement pressed again and again from the same angle, much like someone slamming their head into a wall (not directed at you Stahl, general statement). All of us on the mod side are just here to have a good time, and the thing that gets the most frustrating is logging in and seeing three different reports about the same people and the same threads. So we check it out and see waht the problem is rather than spending out time dorking around on the boards, and seeing what people have to say.

The new mods seriously considered the questino as to whether to 'sign up' for this job or not, and I hope that they're not regretting it yet, because they came in at a rough time, and now they have sentiments saying that they cannot expres their own opinion.

I get that Knasser is talking more about a divide between mod actions and personal, and that makes sense. What frustrates me is people pressing the point of their opinion on others.

There are people that simply don't care about the Catalyst situation. They think it sucks most likely, but they'd like to see the company keep going. Some people are just here to play a game, and don't care about where it all comes from and the drama behind it. A lot of people play this game to take a break from life's every day drama with something more amusing, and don't want to hear more of the same when they log in. You can say that they don't have to log into those particular discussino threads, but this thread in particular is a perfect example of the bleed over.

Fuchs opinion for example may be a just one, but the bottom line is that it is an opinon. There are other opinions, such as that the freelancers wo withheld copyright are hurting themselves and others. It's not my place to make such calls, nor do I intend to share my opinion. That's my choice. It's every other User and mods choice to share their opinion. Nothing gets to me quicker than someone with the 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude when it's a matter of opinion. That keeps people from wanting to post, because they don't want to set themselves up for a fight.

So drop the 'sides' and the 'battle lines'. It's a message board. People are going to post. If you're going to get advesarial about it, go yell somewhere else. And this 'if you're not for us you're against us' BS has got to stop.

[Fuchs]

The whole thing is limited to a few clearly named threads. Those who do not care about the situation one way or the other can simply avoid those threads. If there was a discussion about whether or not the Tir situation was handled well people who don't care either way would not post there, and avoid it too.