Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
216 Posts
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Complaint Department

Subject: Thread locking in a community forum rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dylan Thurston
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The thing I understand much less is why BGG has this policy against deleting posts. Like, I agree with the admins that certain posts really have no place. Why are they left up unless the user decides to delete it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
piman wrote:

You do realize the extent to which BGG is viewed as a toxic pit of racism and sexism by much of the broader gaming community, right? You know that the reason there's not been a right-wing spinoff as there have been for so many other hobbyist sites is that BGG is its own right-wing spinoff?

That's all on you and your idiosyncratic "moderation." And you still show no interest in fixing it, nor even real awareness that this is the state of things.


I don't know how to even begin when you set up disagreeing with the premise as being proof of the premise.
12 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dylan Thurston
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Octavian wrote:
piman wrote:

You do realize the extent to which BGG is viewed as a toxic pit of racism and sexism by much of the broader gaming community, right? You know that the reason there's not been a right-wing spinoff as there have been for so many other hobbyist sites is that BGG is its own right-wing spinoff?

That's all on you and your idiosyncratic "moderation." And you still show no interest in fixing it, nor even real awareness that this is the state of things.


I don't know how to even begin when you set up disagreeing with the premise as being proof of the premise.
I don't understand what you're getting at, Octavian, can you expand?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
piman wrote:
motoyugota wrote:
I'm not sure which "someone" you are referring to, but Jorune sure appears to be 100% on your side

This is 100% gaslighting.


Perhaps I don't understand what gaslighting is then, could you please explain how this is gaslighting?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dthurston wrote:
The thing I understand much less is why BGG has this policy against deleting posts. Like, I agree with the admins that certain posts really have no place. Why are they left up unless the user decides to delete it?


This stems from wanting moderation to be handled privately. We moderate privately to protect someone who has an uncharacteristic slip or has a bad day and lashes out from being stigmatized for it. Moderators deleting posts would be a public indicator.

It also happens that some deplorables "benefit" from private moderation practices in the short term by not being publicly called out by moderators for their posts. But it has been my experience that they tend to be repeat offenders who quickly find themselves suspended for long lengths of time to the point that they may as well not be on the site any longer.

There are pros and cons with any moderation system, and that's certainly true for moderating privately and with the decision to generally not delete users posts that violate the rules.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
nah, it's not worth going up this bullshit metadiscussion tower.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Szymas
United States
Edmonsds
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
piman wrote:
Yeah, that's exactly the problem.

You do realize the extent to which BGG is viewed as a toxic pit of racism and sexism by much of the broader gaming community, right? You know that the reason there's not been a right-wing spinoff as there have been for so many other hobbyist sites is that BGG is its own right-wing spinoff?

That's all on you and your idiosyncratic "moderation." And you still show no interest in fixing it, nor even real awareness that this is the state of things.


Today I learned that BGG is a right wing spin off of itself, and is also viewed "as a toxic pit of racism and sexism by the broader gaming community."

This post is such nonsense I'm starting to wonder if you really mean anything you say.
30 
 Thumb up
6.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
piman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
motoyugota wrote:
I'm not sure which "someone" you are referring to, but Jorune sure appears to be 100% on your side

This is 100% gaslighting.


Perhaps I don't understand what gaslighting is then, could you please explain how this is gaslighting?

It's assumed I'm not smart or lucid enough to realize what "side" someone is on (as if there are only two or only distinct ones?), and that if I really knew "what was good for me" I'd agree with something I don't, or tolerate something that's actually bad for me.


From what I understand it means to manipulate someone to question their own sanity. I'm not seeing that here.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
reaching out from the in-between spaces...
United States
Baldwin
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
piman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
motoyugota wrote:
I'm not sure which "someone" you are referring to, but Jorune sure appears to be 100% on your side

This is 100% gaslighting.


Perhaps I don't understand what gaslighting is then, could you please explain how this is gaslighting?

It's assumed I'm not smart or lucid enough to realize what "side" someone is on (as if there are only two or only distinct ones?), and that if I really knew "what was good for me" I'd agree with something I don't, or tolerate something that's actually bad for me.


From what I understand it means to manipulate someone to question their own sanity. I'm not seeing that here.

You don't see how insisting "this person agrees with you 100%, don't disparage them" of someone who doesn't agree with you and is in fact trying to undermine you is trying to manipulate you, or you don't see manipulating someone in that way can make them question their sanity?

Do you at least see how it's tremendously paternalistic? Maybe you can make the jump from that to realizing how fucked up it is to treat another adult that way.


I'm not sure how you read my posts and felt that I don't agree with you (you actually convinced me that you had a valid point) or that I am 'in fact trying to undermine you'.

And no, I am not attempting to gaslight you.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T S

Chicago
Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Octavian wrote:

There are pros and cons with any moderation system, and that's certainly true for moderating privately and with the decision to generally not delete users posts that violate the rules.


Cons: Private moderation makes vulnerable and discriminated-against populations feel more alone and attacked.

"Deplorables" (already a dogwhistle) are encouraged to derail and lock threads they don't like.

Pros: Intolerant people get to feel warm and fuzzy.

I love it when my feelings are less important than other peoples.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jerbear
United States
Loveland
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
1 Million Shogoths Killed and Counting.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a long time user of the site I have seen fairly even handed moderation of the entire site.

Pimans insinuation that the site is "right biased" goes against all evidence I have seen. In fact if I was to say which way the site moderated I would have said it has a liberal bias.
Of course I don;t regulate the entire site. Now I have seen a different perspective it seems that at least some people see it the other way.

BUT it comes down to this. You aren't going to get what you want throwing a fit and going contrary to admins at every turn. Peacefully explain what you are trying to accomplish and gain support where you can.

I find most people on this site to be very supportive of everyone, surprisingly more supportive of different view points that I have seen in other forums.

I don't spend much time in the Rainbow forum, but it is likely that people that have a problem with LBGT folks would go there looking for trouble. Hopefully, you can use things in place such at the red x and reporting problems to make the forum what you want it to be.

You have my support.
16 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
reaching out from the in-between spaces...
United States
Baldwin
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
motoyugota wrote:
I'm not sure which "someone" you are referring to, but Jorune sure appears to be 100% on your side

This is 100% gaslighting.


Perhaps I don't understand what gaslighting is then, could you please explain how this is gaslighting?

It's assumed I'm not smart or lucid enough to realize what "side" someone is on (as if there are only two or only distinct ones?), and that if I really knew "what was good for me" I'd agree with something I don't, or tolerate something that's actually bad for me.


From what I understand it means to manipulate someone to question their own sanity. I'm not seeing that here.


After a little research I think I understand what's happened here.

There is a push to get moderation handled differently here on BGG since in it's current form it tends to disparage certain groups and empower others. My second post here was defending the Mods and how they handled moderation, asking that we not curse them out but engage in discussion. It sounds like there was plenty of discussion already, elsewhere, I'm late to the party, I'm not adding anything useful.

By defedning the mods, I am undermining the efforts of others to change moderation. I have changed my stance thanks to Piman clarifying his reasons, but it may be too little too late.

I see where I was being naive.

I still stand by civil discourse with the mods, but do agree we should change how moderation is handled.

18 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
reaching out from the in-between spaces...
United States
Baldwin
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Syvanis wrote:

Pimans insinuation that the site is "right biased" goes against all evidence I have seen. In fact if I was to say which way the site moderated I would have said it has a liberal bias.
Of course I don;t regulate the entire site. Now I have seen a different perspective it seems that at least some people see it the other way.


In RSP forums, plenty have accused Mods of being too liberal.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Germany
flag msg tools
Jorune wrote:
Syvanis wrote:

Pimans insinuation that the site is "right biased" goes against all evidence I have seen. In fact if I was to say which way the site moderated I would have said it has a liberal bias.
Of course I don;t regulate the entire site. Now I have seen a different perspective it seems that at least some people see it the other way.


In RSP forums, plenty have accused Mods of being too liberal.

In the RSP forums a BGG admin posts white nationalist propaganda.

Can you point me to the equivalent, say I dunno, the admin that's a tankie? How about more than one active admin that's a woman?

People can accuse whoever of whatever, but the actual admin ratios and posts don't lie.
10 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julian Wasson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
DAD JOKES
badge
Never trot when you can prance.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jorune wrote:
Syvanis wrote:

Pimans insinuation that the site is "right biased" goes against all evidence I have seen. In fact if I was to say which way the site moderated I would have said it has a liberal bias.
Of course I don;t regulate the entire site. Now I have seen a different perspective it seems that at least some people see it the other way.


In RSP forums, plenty have accused Mods of being too liberal.


LOL in RSP forums, people have accused FOX News of being too liberal. So IDK what that's supposed to prove.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Northampton
MA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
piman wrote:
In the RSP forums a BGG admin posts white nationalist propaganda.
yuk
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jorune wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
motoyugota wrote:
I'm not sure which "someone" you are referring to, but Jorune sure appears to be 100% on your side

This is 100% gaslighting.


Perhaps I don't understand what gaslighting is then, could you please explain how this is gaslighting?

It's assumed I'm not smart or lucid enough to realize what "side" someone is on (as if there are only two or only distinct ones?), and that if I really knew "what was good for me" I'd agree with something I don't, or tolerate something that's actually bad for me.


From what I understand it means to manipulate someone to question their own sanity. I'm not seeing that here.


After a little research I think I understand what's happened here.

There is a push to get moderation handled differently here on BGG since in it's current form it tends to disparage certain groups and empower others. My second post here was defending the Mods and how they handled moderation, asking that we not curse them out but engage in discussion. It sounds like there was plenty of discussion already, elsewhere, I'm late to the party, I'm not adding anything useful.

By defedning the mods, I am undermining the efforts of others to change moderation. I have changed my stance thanks to Piman clarifying his reasons, but it may be too little too late.

I see where I was being naive.

I still stand by civil discourse with the mods, but do agree we should change how moderation is handled.



I wasn't commenting on how wrong or right you may have been, it just didn't seem to fit the definition of gaslighting to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grasa_total wrote:
plezercruz wrote:
I have seen threads locked because community A in thread A crossed over to fight with community B in thread B and vice versa before.

Pete (doesn't think this unique)


It's not unique. The question is whether it's an appropriate style of moderation for all circumstances.

The goal (a goal?) of the Rainbow forum was to have a place where we could discuss topics without as much demand for repeating certain basic conversations over and over again from scratch.

So when the neutral application of BGG's moderation policy amounts to "we fixed that bad thread for you! all you have to do is have your conversation over again from scratch!" it makes one thing, well, that policy is a bad fit for this situation.
Once again, I'm not stating whether the moderation was appropriate or not, but I am contesting the notion that this is somehow unique or unusual.

Pete (isn't really equipped to judge the action on the merits)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jorune wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
piman wrote:
motoyugota wrote:
I'm not sure which "someone" you are referring to, but Jorune sure appears to be 100% on your side

This is 100% gaslighting.


Perhaps I don't understand what gaslighting is then, could you please explain how this is gaslighting?

It's assumed I'm not smart or lucid enough to realize what "side" someone is on (as if there are only two or only distinct ones?), and that if I really knew "what was good for me" I'd agree with something I don't, or tolerate something that's actually bad for me.


From what I understand it means to manipulate someone to question their own sanity. I'm not seeing that here.


After a little research I think I understand what's happened here.

There is a push to get moderation handled differently here on BGG since in it's current form it tends to disparage certain groups and empower others. My second post here was defending the Mods and how they handled moderation, asking that we not curse them out but engage in discussion. It sounds like there was plenty of discussion already, elsewhere, I'm late to the party, I'm not adding anything useful.

By defedning the mods, I am undermining the efforts of others to change moderation. I have changed my stance thanks to Piman clarifying his reasons, but it may be too little too late.

I see where I was being naive.

I still stand by civil discourse with the mods, but do agree we should change how moderation is handled.

I'm 100% certain that Octavian does a better job of moderating than I could do.

Pete (thinks the players never really understand the referee)
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julian Wasson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
DAD JOKES
badge
Never trot when you can prance.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
natureslayer wrote:
Octavian wrote:

There are pros and cons with any moderation system, and that's certainly true for moderating privately and with the decision to generally not delete users posts that violate the rules.


Cons: Private moderation makes vulnerable and discriminated-against populations feel more alone and attacked.

"Deplorables" (already a dogwhistle) are encouraged to derail and lock threads they don't like.

Pros: Intolerant people get to feel warm and fuzzy.

I love it when my feelings are less important than other peoples.


Exactly.

When the privacy of those being moderated is more important than justice, it's not hard to see how those priorities will be reflected in the community. It has the effect of providing shelter for malicious-but-clever offenders and broken stairs, while making people who feel powerless feel like they have nobody to defend them. This is true even if you are in fact defending them.

The thing is that the other effect of those priorities is to make moderators wholly unaccountable. I can see how that might be appealing, but there's a flipside, which is that it ensures nobody trusts you. We have no evidence that the process is fair, and when action is taken against individuals we do not see or feel that. All we see is people piling into our threads and then they get locked and it feels like a loss, and it feels like there's nobody going to bat for us.

I will say that every single community that I have ever been a part of that had similar procedures designed to protect offenders from the social fallout of their actions has had similar problems with lack of trust, corruption (seriously, there's a self-avowed white nationalist on admin staff), and repeat offenders that might see some private censure but have no difficulty maintaining their place in the community.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cosmonaut Zero wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
Octavian wrote:

There are pros and cons with any moderation system, and that's certainly true for moderating privately and with the decision to generally not delete users posts that violate the rules.


Cons: Private moderation makes vulnerable and discriminated-against populations feel more alone and attacked.

"Deplorables" (already a dogwhistle) are encouraged to derail and lock threads they don't like.

Pros: Intolerant people get to feel warm and fuzzy.

I love it when my feelings are less important than other peoples.


Exactly.

When the privacy of those being moderated is more important than justice, it's not hard to see how those priorities will be reflected in the community. It has the effect of providing shelter for malicious-but-clever offenders and broken stairs, while making people who feel powerless feel like they have nobody to defend them. This is true even if you are in fact defending them.

The thing is that the other effect of those priorities is to make moderators wholly unaccountable. I can see how that might be appealing, but there's a flipside, which is that it ensures nobody trusts you. We have no evidence that the process is fair, and when action is taken against individuals we do not see or feel that. All we see is people piling into our threads and then they get locked and it feels like a loss, and it feels like there's nobody going to bat for us.

I will say that every single community that I have ever been a part of that had similar procedures designed to protect offenders from the social fallout of their actions has had similar problems with lack of trust, corruption (seriously, there's a self-avowed white nationalist on admin staff), and repeat offenders that might see some private censure but have no difficulty maintaining their place in the community.
Wait...you guys are in favor of public shaming?

Pete (finds that somewhat contradictory)
20 
 Thumb up
0.31
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T S

Chicago
Illinois
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
plezercruz wrote:
Cosmonaut Zero wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
Octavian wrote:

There are pros and cons with any moderation system, and that's certainly true for moderating privately and with the decision to generally not delete users posts that violate the rules.


Cons: Private moderation makes vulnerable and discriminated-against populations feel more alone and attacked.

"Deplorables" (already a dogwhistle) are encouraged to derail and lock threads they don't like.

Pros: Intolerant people get to feel warm and fuzzy.

I love it when my feelings are less important than other peoples.


Exactly.

When the privacy of those being moderated is more important than justice, it's not hard to see how those priorities will be reflected in the community. It has the effect of providing shelter for malicious-but-clever offenders and broken stairs, while making people who feel powerless feel like they have nobody to defend them. This is true even if you are in fact defending them.

The thing is that the other effect of those priorities is to make moderators wholly unaccountable. I can see how that might be appealing, but there's a flipside, which is that it ensures nobody trusts you. We have no evidence that the process is fair, and when action is taken against individuals we do not see or feel that. All we see is people piling into our threads and then they get locked and it feels like a loss, and it feels like there's nobody going to bat for us.

I will say that every single community that I have ever been a part of that had similar procedures designed to protect offenders from the social fallout of their actions has had similar problems with lack of trust, corruption (seriously, there's a self-avowed white nationalist on admin staff), and repeat offenders that might see some private censure but have no difficulty maintaining their place in the community.
Wait...you guys are in favor of public shaming?

Pete (finds that somewhat contradictory)


Intolerance of intolerance is not hypocrisy.
10 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pete
United States
Northbrook
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have been moderated a few times. I far prefer that it be handled privately.

Pete (can't speak for everyone else)
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adverb
United States
Yankeedom
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can someone post for me or point me toward an idealized forum moderation policy? I know that BGG's is far from ideal, but I have no idea what kind of moderation people think works best. Thanks for the direction.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Julian Wasson
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
DAD JOKES
badge
Never trot when you can prance.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
plezercruz wrote:
Cosmonaut Zero wrote:
natureslayer wrote:
Octavian wrote:

There are pros and cons with any moderation system, and that's certainly true for moderating privately and with the decision to generally not delete users posts that violate the rules.


Cons: Private moderation makes vulnerable and discriminated-against populations feel more alone and attacked.

"Deplorables" (already a dogwhistle) are encouraged to derail and lock threads they don't like.

Pros: Intolerant people get to feel warm and fuzzy.

I love it when my feelings are less important than other peoples.


Exactly.

When the privacy of those being moderated is more important than justice, it's not hard to see how those priorities will be reflected in the community. It has the effect of providing shelter for malicious-but-clever offenders and broken stairs, while making people who feel powerless feel like they have nobody to defend them. This is true even if you are in fact defending them.

The thing is that the other effect of those priorities is to make moderators wholly unaccountable. I can see how that might be appealing, but there's a flipside, which is that it ensures nobody trusts you. We have no evidence that the process is fair, and when action is taken against individuals we do not see or feel that. All we see is people piling into our threads and then they get locked and it feels like a loss, and it feels like there's nobody going to bat for us.

I will say that every single community that I have ever been a part of that had similar procedures designed to protect offenders from the social fallout of their actions has had similar problems with lack of trust, corruption (seriously, there's a self-avowed white nationalist on admin staff), and repeat offenders that might see some private censure but have no difficulty maintaining their place in the community.
Wait...you guys are in favor of public shaming?

Pete (finds that somewhat contradictory)


There's a difference between public shaming and transparency.

I'm talking about my experiences both here and elsewhere where intentionally obfuscated moderation have produced the same effect: lack of trust, corruption, and shelter for repeat offenders. I'd much rather be put in a position where I need to apologize or lose face than a position where I just take my 24 hours in silence. One of those things builds the bonds of community and the other destroys them.

I've been moderated, and aside from a few thread locks/moves that appeared to me to be unwarranted, I felt like the actions taken against me were fair. The thing is without transparency, the people I wronged have no way of knowing that. In a situation where there is a concerted effort to wrong an underprivileged group of people, that lack of information is actively harmful.
13 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
[1]  Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [9] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.