Welcome Two New Forum Moderators!

[Maecius]

Partly in light of how hostile and toxic the forums have been these past few days, I have decided to welcome two new forum moderators to the forum moderator team:

Big, warm welcomes to
- Aspect of Sorrow
And
- Akroma666

Thank you both for stepping up to the plate!

These two will join the rest of our forum moderators in neutrally enforcing the forum rules.

In a nod to neutrality, the DMs have also agreed to resist moderating forum posts except when it is an emergency intervention (e.g. someone is posting horrifying or illegal content to the forums) or the poster has directly asked them to do so (e.g. to edit a character biography).

Forum moderators have also been given the nod to moderate staff posts when staff posts violate forum rules, to include my own should it prove necessary. (After all, even I let my emotions get the best of me sometimes!)

Thanks again, Double AA, for volunteering to keep this place positive and constructive! I know you guys will be a great addition to the team!

[Nomster]

I dare say more Forum Moderators were needed...

Welcome to you both and thank you for stepping up.

[Akroma666]

Going to try my best.. just remember kids..


On a serious note, thanks and hope I dont muck it up..

[ValerieJean]

Congratulations!

[The Whistler]

I believe some timezone spacing out is needed lest you find yourselves having a moderator army that doesn't seem to be doing jack.

That of course, requires some more euros to start stepping up.

[Boddynock]

Going to try my best.. just remember kids..


On a serious note, thanks and hope I dont muck it up..

Might want to edit your signature mate, for violating forum rule #5. (http://bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10774)

On a more serious note, can we request some clarification on these forum rules, particularly #1, 2, and 5 (listed below for convenience).

1. Stay on topic. Please keep your posts relevant and do not make off-topic posts. If a subject is brought up in a thread which you believe merits a discussion, start a new topic in an appropriate forums section instead of derailing a current one.

Who is the arbiter of what is considered "on topic"? I see this often, particularly in debates over this or that, when someone brings up support that could (and has in the past) been considered to be off topic, despite the attempt to use that related information to support something being discussed, I have seen (albeit not recently) people get shut down and that line of discussion moved to another thread, resulting in anyone wanting to have all the applicable information having to look in more than one place.

2. No flaming. Personal attacks, disrespectful, derogatory, threatening, insulting or negative comments will not be tolerated. This encompasses "Trolling" which are posts that intend to do any of the above or disrupt the discussion. [Emphasis added]

I have always assumed this meant no negative comments directed at a particular person, but that doesn't seem to be the interpretation of all of the staff. Are we not allowed to express a negative opinion at all, even about things and not people? (And once again, I have seen people's post edited and removed, including mine, for holding a negative opinion about a policy, rule, or some other abstract, and not a person, so please don't imply this doesn't happen.)

5. Do not swear or use profanity. Some leeway is allowed for IC posts, within reason. Modern day racial/social/political slurs have no place in IC or OOC posts. Images that include profanity must be edited to exclude the profanity, or they will be deleted.

"Some leeway?" What does that mean, and once again who decides how much is too much? Can we define "within reason" or otherwise clarify, in black and white, what the intent of this rule is? It is a little too ambiguous as written, but clarifying the intent somehow might go a long way to defining what sort of leeway is "within reason."

[Hawke]

Congrats.

I wish we didn't need us, but better to have than to want.

[Eclypticon]

Glad to have you/s aboard.

[Akroma666]

2. No flaming. Personal attacks, disrespectful, derogatory, threatening, insulting or negative comments will not be tolerated. This encompasses "Trolling" which are posts that intend to do any of the above or disrupt the discussion. [Emphasis added]

I have always assumed this meant no negative comments directed at a particular person, but that doesn't seem to be the interpretation of all of the staff. Are we not allowed to express a negative opinion at all, even about things and not people? (And once again, I have seen people's post edited and removed, including mine, for holding a negative opinion about a policy, rule, or some other abstract, and not a person, so please don't imply this doesn't happen.

I am going to enforce the whole "calling people out" stuff that has been happening as of late. Sure you can call a player out for their RP or what they are doing.. but I think as a whole when you write something that directly insults or attacks a particular person rather than offer a constructive criticism, I'm going to try and nip that in the butt early. Then again.. its my first day on the job... what do I know..

Just play nice.. we all want the same thing.. to have fun and enjoy playing... don't take that away from anyone else.

[Boddynock]

The issue I see there is that what ends up happening in reality is this:

Anything that could be construed as even remotely insulting, by anyone, is censored. Being offended is subjective, so if I say something I consider non-offensive, something that WOULD NOT offend me, but anyone else considers it offensive, suddenly I am a trouble maker and guilty of breaking the rules.

That, by the way, is precisely why it is not illegal to offend or insult people in real life (excluding a few very specific and well defined instances), because it always ends up just being a form of censorship.

So, while I agree with most of the language of rule #2, the part about negative comments literally means I can never speak up about anything I have a less than neutral opinion about...just like rule #5 forced you to edit your signature, despite the high probability that no one was actually offended by it.

[Hawke]

Folks, let's stay on topic please.

[Boddynock]

Folks, let's stay on topic please.

Partly in light of how hostile and toxic the forums have been these past few days, I have decided to welcome two new forum moderators to the forum moderator team:

This is exactly what I mean by who is the arbiter of what is "on topic."

I am trying to make the connection between the ambiguous way the rules are worded and how they could be contributing to this "hostile and toxic" environment mentioned in the first sentence of the thread.

The authority to request a thread remain on topic should not be taken as free reign to keep the discussion from developing or shut down discussion directly related to the topic seemingly arbitrarily.

I also find it ironic that you would use the rules as written to attempt to stifle discussion about whether or not the rules should be reevaluated.

[Maecius]

[...]

http://bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=52756

[Hawke]

Folks, let's stay on topic please.

Partly in light of how hostile and toxic the forums have been these past few days, I have decided to welcome two new forum moderators to the forum moderator team:

This is exactly what I mean by who is the arbiter of what is "on topic."

I am trying to make the connection between the ambiguous way the rules are worded and how they could be contributing to this "hostile and toxic" environment mentioned in the first sentence of the thread.

The authority to request a thread remain on topic should not be taken as free reign to keep the discussion from developing or shut down discussion directly related to the topic seemingly arbitrarily.

I also find it ironic that you would use the rules as written to attempt to stifle discussion about whether or not the rules should be reevaluated.

The topic is welcoming two new volunteers from the staff. Please do not try to pull semantics.

[kellendril]

Folks, let's stay on topic please.

Partly in light of how hostile and toxic the forums have been these past few days, I have decided to welcome two new forum moderators to the forum moderator team:

This is exactly what I mean by who is the arbiter of what is "on topic."

I am trying to make the connection between the ambiguous way the rules are worded and how they could be contributing to this "hostile and toxic" environment mentioned in the first sentence of the thread.

The authority to request a thread remain on topic should not be taken as free reign to keep the discussion from developing or shut down discussion directly related to the topic seemingly arbitrarily.

I also find it ironic that you would use the rules as written to attempt to stifle discussion about whether or not the rules should be reevaluated.

Make a thread to discuss it. Nobody is stopping you from that.