Moderator Pedanticalness

[System Lord Nephthys]

It has come to my attention that certain moderators choose to interpret things in whatever way they seem fit. They pluck random sentances out of posts, take them out of context and then say that is breaking a rule.

They then proceed to justify this by saying that they can only take something at 'face value' or something similar.

Well my question to both the moderator team AND the users of this forum is this:

Is it correct to be able to have such a narrow view of the rules and to penalise users for something completly inocent, because a stand alone phrase could be concieved as a rule break?

***

I would also like to apologise to any member of the forum whom I have contridicted i cases similar to this (especially RepliJake). Having never experienced such behaviour I believed it to be simply an exajeration of the truth.

[Disclaimer: this is not directed at any individual mod and this thread is not meant to be a public challenge or flaming any individual mod, but mearly a serious discussion about the topic written above.]

~Neph

[Spacey]

Interpretations of post can go many ways.

If someone says 'I wasn't telling the truth' when referring to a post, after a mod asks for confirmation in pm about something, how is that supposed to be understood?

When someone is joking about text, 'emoticons' are traditionally used to express jest or a joke.

[Acronon]

But mate, we all know that there are times when people here, mods included, will single out a part of a post as offensive to them or to just comment on the only part that they want rather than the whole post.

It has been that way since the forum started in 05.

[Spacey]

That is true Acronon, but what if the post wasn't offensive to them?

p.s.

To suggest that a moderator is being pedantic because of reading something 'as it is on paper' then suggests that the moderator should consider every single possibility that may exist in all of the meaning that exist for every culture or viewpoint (is that practical?), rather than interpret the post for what they see.

[Acronon]

Well that's the thing isn't it, what one person can claim to offensive may not be to others and then we also have the times when people just do not like each other and claim something to be offensive, wouldn't be the first time, lol.

Back when I was a mod there was another mod that I talked with on msn sometimes that did exactly that, they would claim that a person was offending them on the forum but laughing about the posts on msn.

I am not saying that anything can be done about it, just saying that it happens.

[System Lord Nephthys]

Interpretations of post can go many ways.

If someone says 'I wasn't telling the truth' when referring to a post, after a mod asks for confirmation in pm about something, how is that supposed to be understood?

When someone is joking about text, 'emoticons' are traditionally used to express jest or a joke.

Thank you for taking the time to demonstrate exactly what I am talking about.

You cannot pluck a phrase out and just treat it like an individual statement.

~Neph

[Spacey]

Acr,
Well, lets look at this from a post that is totally harmless. Not offensive at all, just something that says something totally innocuous.

What steps would you suggest the mod take for clarification? I know what I would say (and as a former mod you have some personal bias here), but what would you do?

[Acronon]

Acr,
Well, lets look at this from a post that is totally harmless. Not offensive at all, just something that says something totally innocuous.

What steps would you suggest the mod take for clarification? I know what I would say (and as a former mod you have some personal bias here), but what would you do?

Okay.

I am offended by that statment.

[System Lord Nephthys]

To suggest that a moderator is being pedantic because of reading something 'as it is on paper' then suggests that the moderator should consider every single possibility that may exist in all of the meaning that exist for every culture or viewpoint (is that practical?), rather than interpret the post for what they see.

Not at all. The moderator is being Pedantic because they are only taking PART of what is written "as it is on paper".

The moderator shoudl NOT interpret a post as they see it, they should interpret it as it is WRITTEN.

~Neph

[Spacey]

and the wink either tells me that you are joking, or this is an example of what you were talking about.

Which would lead me to clarify what I meant.

What I mean is that you have a unique perspective, and that maybe someone who was never a mod would be more suited at giving the other perspective.

[System Lord Nephthys]

and the wink either tells me that you are joking, or this is an example of what you were talking about.

Which would lead me to clarify what I meant.

What I mean is that you have a unique perspective, and that maybe someone who was never a mod would be more suited at giving the other perspective.

May I ask as to why you are ignoring my replies?

~Neph

[Acronon]

Yeah, I was giving an example mate, no worries, lol.

And I get what you're saying mate.

[Mordack]

The moderators, or at least the vast majority of them, are only human at the end of the day. And all humans are at least slightly bias, whether they care to admit it or not. Much of what they do requires them to make normative, rather than empirical, judgements. Which is why it's a good idea to have multiple moderators involved in making big decisions like suspensions/bans. Multiple points of view, and all that.

[Spacey]

To suggest that a moderator is being pedantic because of reading something 'as it is on paper' then suggests that the moderator should consider every single possibility that may exist in all of the meaning that exist for every culture or viewpoint (is that practical?), rather than interpret the post for what they see.

Not at all. The moderator is being Pedantic because they are only taking PART of what is written "as it is on paper".

The moderator shoudl NOT interpret a post as they see it, they should interpret it as it is WRITTEN.

~Neph

System Lord Nephthys, when I say as a mod sees it I mean with their eyes. I don't mean it as how they interpret it. I explained this when I said 'as it is on paper'.

[System Lord Nephthys]

The moderators, or at least the vast majority of them, are only human at the end of the day. And all humans are at least slightly bias, whether they care to admit it or not. Much of what they do requires them to make normative, rather than empirical, judgements. Which is why it's a good idea to have multiple moderators involved in making big decisions like suspensions/bans. Multiple points of view, and all that.

It really has nothing to do with bias at all.

Ignoring parts, or indeed entire portions of a post is what I am talking about.

To suggest that a moderator is being pedantic because of reading something 'as it is on paper' then suggests that the moderator should consider every single possibility that may exist in all of the meaning that exist for every culture or viewpoint (is that practical?), rather than interpret the post for what they see.

Not at all. The moderator is being Pedantic because they are only taking PART of what is written "as it is on paper".

The moderator shoudl NOT interpret a post as they see it, they should interpret it as it is WRITTEN.

~Neph

System Lord Nephthys, when I say as a mod sees it I mean with their eyes. I don't mean it as how they interpret it. I explained this when I said 'as it is on paper'.

And as I explained, SOME mods choose only to see some of what is on paper.

~Neph