Complaint

This is where we'll store the "best" topics that have ever existed on the forums, as well as community events that are no longer relevant. Read at your own risk.
Forum rules
Read at your own risk.
User avatar
michel
Banned
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:54 pm

Complaint

Postby michel » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:46 pm

Hello! Insert a potentially controversial topic subject here.

I'm sorry, but since there is the possibility that this topic might result in a furious argument, we should better take a precaution against this possibility and punish the topic by locking it, instead of punishing the users that break the forum guidelines.

Let us disregard the fact that even something as innocent as a baby discussion topic has the potential to cause an uproar, because the possibility of that happening is not as big as of a religious debate. Let us disregard that interpersonal issues between members are not our problem, and use our moderator powers to censor them from arguing publicly. That is not necessary. Let us make use of a slippery slope fallacy: where A has happened, Z happened. Therefore, all future occurrences of A will result in Z. Although if Z does indeed happen, let us ignore the previous paragraph and punish the topic where the argument took place, not who caused it.

Let us create a mindset where an argument is never necessary. It can be done via a PM, as well as everything posted in this forum, as it is not necessary and it could all have been sent in a PM.

Let us forget that there is a punishment for misbehaving, one that is not originated from a moderator's action, called aversion. Let us forget that if an user says something that is completely controversial, they will pay for that without any moderator interference, through the aversion.

We shall lock every forum support topic after responding to it, under the assumption that what I've said in response to the author is the answer they expected to their question and that they will have nothing else to add; not even a simple 'thank you'.

Let us lock any topic that does not seem interesting enough to make a debate out of, which we assume will obviously not get any responses and therefore is not worthy of its own topic and should be locked, even though someone is actually willing to debate said subject we deem unworthy.

Image
Ignoritus wrote:I'm going to say that this is one of the biggest issues SMBX forums have had in general. A topic should never never NEVER be locked because of arguments, and very rarely is one "not needed".

For one, if there are arguments then punish the individual users, not the topic itself.

For two, arguments are NOT by nature a bad thing. Some moderators don't seem to realize this. Arguments are a medium through which new viewpoints are formed and problems are solved. Unless an argument has degraded into aggressiveness and/or flaming, it is often a productive thing and should not be stopped just because "arguments are bad!".

For three, who are the moderators to decide that a discussion isn't necessary to be had? If someone posted it than at the very least one person decided they wanted to have that discussion. How is it hurting anyone to hold that discussion?
8bitmushroom wrote:In my opinion, and to be quite honest with you, most, if not all of the staff that have been promoted across Knux's, NSMBX, and Joey's forums have been incompetent in one way or another. I could only pick out a few good staff members, but I'm not naming names. Sometimes there are staff members that don't do anything at all, and I question why they still have their positions. See: Quill, Kley, FallingSnow, and Uncle Sam.
A lot of the times the staff here are very quick to react to things that deal with arguments/debates/whatever they feel they want to lock, and most of the time they don't have a very good reason as to why something should get locked.
GhostHawk wrote:No, since not all threads would have the basis to start arguments. I think a thread dedicated to criticizing users or complimenting them would lead to more controversy more often than a graphic thread for example. This is also based on the community's history with arguments, hell the word "bias" has lost its meaning from opinions on other users, so what value would there be in that thread?
GhostHawk wrote:3. Take "The Compliment and Criticism Thread," threads like that wouldn't be needed because the reputation mod can be used for that for starters, and as Valterri said would lead to furious arguments which would stem from the point of the thread in the first place.
>Not all threads would have the basis to start arguments.
>Locks "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" because Valtteri assumed it would lead to furious arguments.

Nice contradiction.
8bitmushroom wrote:
GhostHawk wrote: I don't understand how that's a contradiction. I said "Not all threads," which you pointed out, so that would mean that some threads such as "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" would fall into the other category of having a basis to start arguments.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were suggesting that there are some threads that would fall into the category of having a basis to start arguments. Last I checked though, that's called assuming, and the definition of making an assumption is suppose to be the case without proof, which is what you pretty much what you did just now. You have no proof that the thread in question would have caused a furious argument, because nothing actually happened in that thread, it just didn't survive long enough for you to point any fingers.

Besides, the point of this thread is to complain about the threads that have arguments in them getting locked if there were no real problems. The only time you should lock an argument thread is if it turns into a flamewar, which means users are calling other users names and whatnot. "The Compliment and Criticism Thread" had nothing like that happen because you didn't let it survive long enough. Valtteri locked it through assumptions, and that's a very stupid reason to have a thread locked.
Q.A
GhostHawk wrote: Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?
No. There is no need for staff intervention in order to stop an argument.
You abuse your moderator powers to lock topics where arguments occur, usually with a last statement followed by a lock; a true display of cowardice and lack of consideration, which automatically conveys the message that you already know whatever someone else has to say is not worth looking at and therefore pitying their intelligence; which I find insulting, specially for someone who is a global moderator, who's supposed to know better than this.
GhostHawk wrote:The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.
The only job of any good forum's staff is to keep spammers away and making sure the forums are up and running. Guaranteeing the users are in good terms with each other is not your job and you shouldn't be doing it. In any good forum, that's everyone else's problems, not yours as a staffer.
Last edited by michel on Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:48 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Image
Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Escape Chat: http://23.239.11.184/

User avatar
Pixels
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby Pixels » Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:48 pm

I'm sorry, but your post offends me.
LCKD

User avatar
michel
Banned
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby michel » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:00 pm

I feel like I need to bring this into attention here, because it seems like GhostHawk did not like the way I put my post.
GhostHawk wrote:User GhostHawk has decreased your reputation
GhostHawk left comment:

Being sarcastic for the sake of being sarcastic, when you could have just been mature and complain about topics being locked in a sentence or two.

Comment was left for this post: http://www.supermariobrosx.org/forums/v ... 926#p44926
Image
Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Escape Chat: http://23.239.11.184/

User avatar
Danny
Mario
Mario
Posts: 4038
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:12 pm
Chat Username: Syndrilevosse#3884

Re: Complaint

Postby Danny » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:01 pm

I saw no sarcasm here, in all honesty, so I don't see why he downrepped you.

I'm almost certain he's going to lock this now because he misunderstood it.
I used to be 8bitmushroom but not anymore.
If you need to get in contact with me, message me on Discord.

User avatar
Pixels
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby Pixels » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:02 pm

michel wrote:I feel like I need to bring this into attention here, because it seems like GhostHawk did not like the way I put my post.
GhostHawk wrote:User GhostHawk has decreased your reputation
GhostHawk left comment:

Being sarcastic for the sake of being sarcastic, when you could have just been mature and complain about topics being locked in a sentence or two.

Comment was left for this post: http://www.supermariobrosx.org/forums/v ... 926#p44926
I don't see why the way the post was put was a problem. I felt it was more clear and concise as to the problem michel was having instead of just stating it normally.

User avatar
Aero
Palom
Palom
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:51 pm
Flair: Pirate economy
Chat Username: aero

Re: Complaint

Postby Aero » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:04 pm

8bitmushroom wrote:I saw no sarcasm here, in all honesty, so I don't see why he downrepped you.

I'm almost certain he's going to lock this now because he misunderstood it.
It's not like I can because it would prove his point, and also if he's not being sarcastic then that's a really dumb idea to propose that moderator powers be used to censor arguments as just one example from his post.
As long as one man goes hungry nobody should eat until everyone is full.

User avatar
Pixels
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby Pixels » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:07 pm

GhostHawk wrote:
8bitmushroom wrote:I saw no sarcasm here, in all honesty, so I don't see why he downrepped you.

I'm almost certain he's going to lock this now because he misunderstood it.
It's not like I can because it would prove his point, and also if he's not being sarcastic then that's a really dumb idea to propose that moderator powers be used to censor arguments as just one example from his post.
http://www.supermariobrosx.org/forums/v ... =48&t=3299
http://www.supermariobrosx.org/forums/v ... =48&t=3276

User avatar
Aero
Palom
Palom
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:51 pm
Flair: Pirate economy
Chat Username: aero

Re: Complaint

Postby Aero » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:12 pm

That wasn't to censor an argument, backseat moderating is not up for debate since it's just annoying and does more harm than good.
Again, not to censor an argument. The topic is locked because it is no longer relevant.
As long as one man goes hungry nobody should eat until everyone is full.

User avatar
Pixels
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby Pixels » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:17 pm

GhostHawk wrote: That wasn't to censor an argument
GhostHawk wrote: not up for debate
At least be consistent. A debate is an argument, just not a heated one.

User avatar
michel
Banned
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby michel » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:19 pm

GhostHawk wrote:
That wasn't to censor an argument, backseat moderating is not up for debate since it's just annoying and does more harm than good.
Again, not to censor an argument. The topic is locked because it is no longer relevant.
I think you might want to refer to the 6th paragraph in my first post.
Image
Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Escape Chat: http://23.239.11.184/

User avatar
Aero
Palom
Palom
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:51 pm
Flair: Pirate economy
Chat Username: aero

Re: Complaint

Postby Aero » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:25 pm

Pixels wrote:
GhostHawk wrote: That wasn't to censor an argument
GhostHawk wrote: not up for debate
At least be consistent. A debate is an argument, just not a heated one.
Thanks for pointing out the difference...? Anyway, I have not once locked a topic because of debate, it's only when arguments start popping up and needless posts are made (or if the topic itself is unnecessary) when I lock topics.
As long as one man goes hungry nobody should eat until everyone is full.

User avatar
michel
Banned
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby michel » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:27 pm

GhostHawk wrote:
Pixels wrote:
GhostHawk wrote: That wasn't to censor an argument
GhostHawk wrote: not up for debate
At least be consistent. A debate is an argument, just not a heated one.
Thanks for pointing out the difference...? Anyway, I have not once locked a topic because of debate, it's only when arguments start popping up and needless posts are made (or if the topic itself is unnecessary) when I lock topics.
Refer to paragraph 2.
Image
Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Escape Chat: http://23.239.11.184/

User avatar
Aero
Palom
Palom
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:51 pm
Flair: Pirate economy
Chat Username: aero

Re: Complaint

Postby Aero » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:32 pm

michel wrote:Refer to paragraph 2.
Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?

The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.
As long as one man goes hungry nobody should eat until everyone is full.

sleepy
Koopa Shell
Koopa Shell
Posts: 665
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 4:33 pm
Current Project: absolutely nothing

Re: Complaint

Postby sleepy » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:34 pm

I've seen so much of this in this forum that it's gotten to the point that it's frankly pissed me off.

For example, I saw a thread that was closed because it might cause arguments. Since when is that a valid reason? IMO, topics shouldn't be closed for such a reason. "This isn't needed" shouldn't be a reason, either.
Why on earth should the thread be closed for something like that? Every thread has potential discussion, unless it's obviously spam. In this case, said threads I saw closed for such reasons were not spam threads.
The only reason threads should ever be closed IMO is if the discussion is circling or the discussion has just gotten out of hand (ie. bashing a user).
Regards,
sleepy



IRC Quotes
Spoiler: show
<pixels> this forum has enough keys to solve SMW twenty times over

<Legend-tony980> GhostHawk, what is a bot?
<GhostBot> a user without a soul
contact info
Spoiler: show
Image

User avatar
Pixels
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby Pixels » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:35 pm

GhostHawk wrote:
michel wrote:Refer to paragraph 2.
Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?

The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.
You're ushering an entire discussion out because someone raised their voice slightly is the problem. We need them stopped when they actually are happening and show no signs of stopping, then you can stop the users from arguing, and let discussion on the topic continue.

User avatar
michel
Banned
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby michel » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:42 pm

GhostHawk wrote: Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?
No. There is no need for staff intervention in order to stop an argument.
You abuse your moderator powers to lock topics where arguments occur, usually with a last statement followed by a lock; a true display of cowardice and lack of consideration, which automatically conveys the message that you already know whatever someone else has to say is not worth looking at and therefore pitying their intelligence; which I find insulting, specially for someone who is a global moderator, who's supposed to know better than this.
GhostHawk wrote:The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.
The only job of any good forum's staff is to keep spammers away and making sure the forums are up and running. Guaranteeing the users are in good terms with each other is not your job and you shouldn't be doing it; that's everyone else's problems, not yours as a staffer.
Image
Spoiler: show
Image
Image
Escape Chat: http://23.239.11.184/

User avatar
Aero
Palom
Palom
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:51 pm
Flair: Pirate economy
Chat Username: aero

Re: Complaint

Postby Aero » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:43 pm

Pixels wrote:
GhostHawk wrote:
michel wrote:Refer to paragraph 2.
Would you rather just have arguments run rampant instead of staff stepping in? Are you really proposing that?

The whole pint of administration is to keep the forums orderly, and constructive, not to entertain some notion that not letting people argue is a slippery slope fallacy.
You're ushering an entire discussion out because someone raised their voice slightly is the problem. We need them stopped when they actually are happening and show no signs of stopping, then you can stop the users from arguing, and let discussion on the topic continue.
That's what I've been doing. It's not like I lock topics because two or more users go over the line when having an argument, or start breaking the rules for that matter. You can take the evolution topic as an example, since I unlocked it for this very reason.
As long as one man goes hungry nobody should eat until everyone is full.

User avatar
Pixels
Banned
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:29 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby Pixels » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:45 pm

Frankly, either way, as michel said, having your word be the end all statement all the time in threads that just want to discuss certain subjects like is annoying and it reflects poorly on you.

User avatar
Aero
Palom
Palom
Posts: 4490
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:51 pm
Flair: Pirate economy
Chat Username: aero

Re: Complaint

Postby Aero » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:48 pm

Pixels wrote:Frankly, either way, as michel said, having your word be the end all statement all the time in threads that just want to discuss certain subjects like is annoying and it reflects poorly on you.
It wouldn't make sense not to do that sometimes. I believe users have a right to know why exactly a thread is locked. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that just because a staff member was the last to post in a thread, doesn't mean they locked it.
As long as one man goes hungry nobody should eat until everyone is full.

Ignoritus
Lakitu
Lakitu
Posts: 482
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Complaint

Postby Ignoritus » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:49 pm

I'm going to say that this is one of the biggest issues SMBX forums have had in general. A topic should never never NEVER be locked because of arguments, and very rarely is one "not needed".

For one, if there are arguments then punish the individual users, not the topic itself.

For two, arguments are NOT by nature a bad thing. Some moderators don't seem to realize this. Arguments are a medium through which new viewpoints are formed and problems are solved. Unless an argument has degraded into aggressiveness and/or flaming, it is often a productive thing and should not be stopped just because "arguments are bad!".

For three, who are the moderators to decide that a discussion isn't necessary to be had? If someone posted it than at the very least one person decided they wanted to have that discussion. How is it hurting anyone to hold that discussion?
"Like i cna barley even read half.of what is going on"


Return to “Archives”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest