@Mr.Floppy
i'm referring to the social sciences. things that are taken for granted to be common sense often aren't, and many understandings that are regarded to be common sense are often confused and need to be re-evaluated. i'm going to go into a bit of a straw-man tangent, but its relevant if you consider the example abstractly, so just bear with me.
for instance, we have the supposedly "common sense" dictum that, if someone posts on the forum with supposedly "reasonable" intentions, if they post over a long period of time, they will be able to avoid a ban.
at an immediate glance, the evidence indicates that users, in following this dictum, have completely avoided bans by acting in a civil manner, and others have been banned for acting without reasonable intentions. however, we have the contradiction that there have been users that have been warned/banned despite having completely reasonable and honest intentions at heart. furthermore, many users who act completely out of reach of reason have not been banned.
in the face of this contradiction, we have to find a new dictate that results in warnings/bans. the actual uniting principle that results in a warning/ban is whether a moderator finds a specific action to contravene and undermine their goals in maintaining foremostly order, and consequently power, over the forum for their own specific purposes; this can take place through something as immediately threatening as posting cheats on the forum, or by something more subjective, such as an indirectly offensive statement. while this dictum is useful in maintaining order of sorts when the moderator is completely unimpeded, it results in people becoming angry at the moderator at it would seem as if they have no standards of justice, and simply ban as they feel.
so, as a solution, you need a standard of justice of sorts; you've argued the potential solution of simply along the lines of whether a user is being troublesome or not, but we've had that sort of moderation in the past before. i believe the most recent example of that was grenadier giving me a 3 month ban for proving stef wrong. you have to recognize that people are people, and power changes them, regardless of how petty you might regard that power to be.
tl;dr: we can avoid all of this theorizing (of which is legitimate, just a little bit too much for a video game forum) by simply setting down some agreeable, objective standards as to whether someone should be removed from the forum or not. isn't that the reason we have laws, at a simple glance?
i am fundamentally concerned with justice, and always have been. the reason people "act up" is because of this perceived lack of justice. there isn't any point in playing by rules as it stands.
i really do enjoy theoretical blubbering, but ok.
1cap can you please cease to intrude in this thread, much appreciated buddy.
i'm referring to the social sciences. things that are taken for granted to be common sense often aren't, and many understandings that are regarded to be common sense are often confused and need to be re-evaluated. i'm going to go into a bit of a straw-man tangent, but its relevant if you consider the example abstractly, so just bear with me.
for instance, we have the supposedly "common sense" dictum that, if someone posts on the forum with supposedly "reasonable" intentions, if they post over a long period of time, they will be able to avoid a ban.
at an immediate glance, the evidence indicates that users, in following this dictum, have completely avoided bans by acting in a civil manner, and others have been banned for acting without reasonable intentions. however, we have the contradiction that there have been users that have been warned/banned despite having completely reasonable and honest intentions at heart. furthermore, many users who act completely out of reach of reason have not been banned.
in the face of this contradiction, we have to find a new dictate that results in warnings/bans. the actual uniting principle that results in a warning/ban is whether a moderator finds a specific action to contravene and undermine their goals in maintaining foremostly order, and consequently power, over the forum for their own specific purposes; this can take place through something as immediately threatening as posting cheats on the forum, or by something more subjective, such as an indirectly offensive statement. while this dictum is useful in maintaining order of sorts when the moderator is completely unimpeded, it results in people becoming angry at the moderator at it would seem as if they have no standards of justice, and simply ban as they feel.
so, as a solution, you need a standard of justice of sorts; you've argued the potential solution of simply along the lines of whether a user is being troublesome or not, but we've had that sort of moderation in the past before. i believe the most recent example of that was grenadier giving me a 3 month ban for proving stef wrong. you have to recognize that people are people, and power changes them, regardless of how petty you might regard that power to be.
tl;dr: we can avoid all of this theorizing (of which is legitimate, just a little bit too much for a video game forum) by simply setting down some agreeable, objective standards as to whether someone should be removed from the forum or not. isn't that the reason we have laws, at a simple glance?
(28 May 15, 04:33PM)Mr.Floppy Wrote: Sorry, but I can't help the impression that your greatest concern is to be probably disadvantaged in opposition to the moderators which might get away with one or two more insults than regular users would. Instead of being concerned with the overall low level of the communication we suffer from.
i am fundamentally concerned with justice, and always have been. the reason people "act up" is because of this perceived lack of justice. there isn't any point in playing by rules as it stands.
(28 May 15, 04:33PM)Mr.Floppy Wrote: In the end, I'm not to decide anything about this and sure it would be best if you just put some concrete rules to the table so this theoretic blubbering can come to an end.
i really do enjoy theoretical blubbering, but ok.
1cap can you please cease to intrude in this thread, much appreciated buddy.