Just wanted to drop in and voice some thoughts

well its adding to the conversation so its not off topic

and if i just posted the image without context or reason it woulda been spam, but i did it withn context so it isnt spam

so it doent break the rules

 

lol

Basically -- they're not here with malicious intent posting pictures relevant to how they interpret my postings, so it's ok. Moderation doesn't want to be so heavy handed that people can't be playful. In that sense, these pic posts are considered toeing the line, but it's a very very very thin line. These seem to inflect more on my posting, rather than saying something about the discussion as a whole in a negative way.

Also -- if you feel these posts, or any for that matter, are indeed breaking the rules. You need to report them. We're not omnipresent. I wouldn't have even seen them had I not been curious about new replies.

 

Sorry for butting in, exactly this is a part of the problem with moderators. Some users doing it "without malicious intent", other being asked to stop several times by moderator before being hit a red raccoon, but other getting a couple of red raccoon and 3-day ban without any prior warnings or any moderator post in a thread r for "baiting" and not even getting a PM about it so they can't even make a protest.

.
A asked the same things already, but i ask it again. Is getting a "red card" is about which side of conflict collect more reports or it's about who break rules? Especially "being a jerk" rule, it's too subjective and vague. It has a lot too do with cultural difference, how well one know English and such.

 

3 day bans are used by some of us as a "slap on the wrist" for "losing your cool". We usually do this when we feel a warning will only antagonize a person more, causing them to lash out more and bring others involved down with them. So instead of 15 warnings and 3 bans across multiple users over time, we give the major antagonist 1 ban (for 3 days) that allowed everyone -- including the banned poster -- to take a step back and breathe deep before over committing themselves to infractions. We usually post a written warning asking everyone to be aware of their conduct -- but sometimes we're late to the party and a written response won't cut it. More reason to always report -- or else there's a slim chance of us being there.

All punishments can be brought up with any moderator or with Molly. You don't actually need a PM. Also; we sometimes don't send PM's because sometimes the person being warned/banned doesn't seem calm enough to have a discussion yet. I made this mistake a lot when I first began moderating. Immediate PM's usually led to a lot of colorful insults about my character.

the tldr about moderation and how it applies to users is; don't be a jerk. and "be excellent to each other" = no problems.

 

Sorry but i have two personal examples that are different from what you are saying.
This thread: http://community.playstarbound.com/index.php?threads/madness-in-chuckleland.85387/page-3 2 warning (and about trolling ) and 3 day ban without any attempts to cold down conflict. Jonesy post on second page wasn't targeted at our part of discussion because it wan't even started at that time. My PM to Finn about it was ignored.
And in this http://community.playstarbound.com/...bummed-out-lately-whats-going-on.83524/page-6
3-day-"slap on the wrist"-ban even if i said sorry to the person i had argument with, because i misunderstood him and i said that i'll stop posting further. I was to heated to give me a 0 points warning?

Sorry but it rather hard, especially for whose English isn't native. Sometimes you think post your post isn't even remotely rube but it turns otherwise. In this circumstances it's even more confusing then sometimes people are getting warnings instantly and other are asked to stop, for the same kind of posts.

It applies only if you think where is a reason to report. You have a debate with someone and 5 posts later - Wham! we both get raccoon'ed even if i have no problem with his posts. Report even slightly rude post then?

 

There was nothing in that post that added to the discussion. The best I can give you credit for is the "I agree and want to add" part followed by a random picture of a person related to steam/valve. Since "I agree" is considered spam and random pictures are considered spam the post contains spam followed by spam. Composition of spam doesn't result in non-spam. If you had a point to make, I'd be glad to read it in an accessible and spam-free form.

@Izzabelle

But that's exactly what bias is (essentially siding with either "haters" or "fanboys"). As much as negative rule-breaking offends "fanboys" (someone wants to talk bad about my teddy) positive rule-breaking offends "haters" (like rubbing salt in the wound). So it is ok to offend "haters" but it is not ok to offend "fanboys"? Isn't both being a jerk?
Both offenses disable constructive discussions. Banning only one of the offenses still leaves one side (usually the "haters") with automatic thread-derailments whenever they voice their concerns. Not to mention that "haters" are usually more emotionally involved and therefore provoked more easily (which is exploited most of the time).
As to the reporting: I don't mean to get everyone "dealt with" who breaks the rules in any shape or form. I'd much rather give people the opportunity to learn on their own (and if they don't want to/can't they usually get themselves moderated at some point anyhow).

 

Sorry, @Madzai , I almost missed your post because of the lack of leaving my name in the quotes or a tag -- wasn't trying to ignore you.

Doubly sorry that this response is a bit belated (I had it typed out, but internet went down)

Normally I'd address something like this in private. But if you insist. Jonesy's post WAS the warning. It's not a warning to selective people, it was a post addressing that the thread before and after his post maintain a proper conduct. You became a major antagonist in this thread by "starting off on the wrong foot" so to speak;

Doesn't matter what your opinion of the game was/is. This is not how you reply to someone. Consider how hostile this thread were to be if I responded to you, no7H, or anyone else -- like you did. In this example, you've participated in a heated thread -- and then created an atmosphere of escalating inappropriate conduct. Hence the baiting warning. Arguing in this manner too, is a violation of "Losing your cool", which is what Litagano got. Just because Jonesy's post came before your argument, does not exclude you from the conditions set by the forums and the thread.

Also; I highly doubt your PM was ignored by Finn. At the time, he was barely ever on the official forums (he was over on Steam) -- I wouldn't be surprised if his inbox was (and still is) flooded with messages. I wouldn't even be surprised if the message you sent him is still in his inbox. He's not on the official forums as often as say Jonesey or myself, I doubt he has the time to go through all his Steam duties and then sort through the endless reports and alerts and conversations moderation gets -- it's why we refer to him as a Steam Moderator more so than a Forum Moderator. Sorry for that hiccup -- we'll have to better categorize our moderators so the error doesn't happen again.

I could not find the post you were warned/banned for (no red panda) -- so I'll just assume it was the post with the apology in it (correct me if I'm wrong)
But again, here, you are one of the major antagonist -- you had to apologize because you were jumping to conclusions based on your bias as opposed to proper interpretation. In this scenario it looks like you were banned (by me? I don't even remember) because of the baiting/condescension/trolling and general "being a jerk" and "losing your cool" in an order to help restore the thread (which didn't work anyways as it was too heated). The post of the apology was probably used to hit the "warn" button to issue the ban based on your conduct for all your other posts leading up to that post. So instead of using 5 of your posts to issue 1 warning point each (or whatever) to give you your ban, it looks like it was just carried out through your apology post. But for the life of me, I have no idea why there wouldn't be a red panda there anymore.

We're not trying to punish you for your faults in English. But if you're continuously warned/banned for the way you're conducting yourself in this language, then you need to take more caution in how you word things and address others -- and look to others more familiar with the language to learn from. English is a tricky language, lots of double meanings, expressions, and subtext --among other nuances and subtleties.

Always report rule violations -- chances are, if you're arguing -- you're too preoccupied to be looking to report anyways (you should never be arguing, only discussing), it usually gets reported by someone else because the two of you are escalating and helping to derail the thread. At a certain point -- arguing turns into "derail" and "losing your cool". You need to be able say your piece and move on sometimes, even if someone calls you out. Additionally -- arguments make for poor threads. You want discussion, not arguing. Arguing tends to be two people trying to gain dominance of opinion over the other -- overshadowing anyone else who might have input of their own.

Here's what you're missing (and I'll use pics as an example)
These pics portray an interpretation of the emphasis on my post. And isn't negative in any serious way. Toeing a line? Sure, but still on the positive side of that line. I don't know Rainbow's or Riven's stance on... well, really anything (and I don't care tbh; doesn't affect my day). I made the call based on the context given the posts. "haters" (a term I hate almost as much as "white knight") get this same treatment too -- since I don't immediately identify people as such. Additionally, Riven and Rainbow posted pics in a cheerful (mayhaps misguided) mindset. More often, when "haters" post something like this, they're already aggravated -- so they post to be a negative, taking the little jab with malicious intent. Generally, in such a case, the picture itself would fall on the others side of the line -- being malicious or insulting in and of itself. In this scenario it's the difference between a look of astonishment followed by "daaaamn!" as opposed to someone passively aggressively bumping into you in the hallway to make sure you drop your things. They are both very very very very very low on totem of severity, but one is light gray, the other is dark gray. Dark gray would get a verbal. The opinion of the person doesn't come into it. The judgement of the "infraction" does.

You'll definitely see more "haters" with warnings -- because they generally aren't in proper control of their conduct. This is the part where I like to point out people with the Constructive Critic badge (a shame Steam doesn't have rewards as such). The CC Badge we give to people who are able to voice their criticisms (even severe ones) in proper conduct. The bias you're perceiving is actually the parallel that people who are aggravated, tend not to be able to control their conduct (regardless of their opinions). Unfortunately, the reason that we even have the term "hater" is to describe someone who is aggravated with one thing or another about the game. We've had some... *sigh* "White Knights" (if you can call them that) who lose control of their conduct when all of a sudden something in development changed that wasn't to their liking. I have several examples I could share with you, but I would prefer to do so in private if you really want to hear them so as not to call those people out. I wish this didn't look like a bias, because it would make moderation's lives easier; but you'd have to convince anyone and everyone to post in a respectful conduct WHILE they are aggravated. And while moderation does try to help occasionally with this, we're also met with the risk of escalating a situation based on misinterpretation.

If you still believe this is biased, I encourage you to contact Molly and quote me so she understands in full how moderation is conducting it's duties, so if she disagrees -- it can be changed. But I believe this sort of reasoning and general apathy towards user's opinion of the game is partially why Molly keeps me around. You'd have to inquire with each different moderators to pick up the differences between us and why we're all kept. For example, Jonesy is more lenient with infractions, often giving people the benefit of the doubt -- regardless of their opinions -- and I'd like to think his unbiased leniency is why he's still a moderator. (could be because Molly likes Kangaroos, idk)

Now -- in my eagerness to help you understand moderation, I'm afraid we have indeed derailed the thread heavily. Because the information was important for you to understand a moderation perspective -- I'm obviously not going to give out warnings. I'm sorry @Bombzero -- if you want to make another thread on the same subject, you may, since this one has been tanked. As for everyone else, if there is still confusion about moderation -- feel free to message me. If you feel more along the lines of "well this is BS!" then you need to contact Molly.