# (Merged) Are the moderators getting ... & Censorship



## Bagpuss (Sep 13, 2002)

Anyone else believe the moderators (excellent job that they normally do) seem to have been a little to hot to close some topics recently. 

Seems that you can't have any sort of debate on some issues.

I refer to the Dragon 300 threads that seem to be closed before any real heat has got into it let alone a flame.

Obviously they are free to censor as they see fit. Whoops I mentioned the word censor, probably have this topic closed now.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 13, 2002)

I agree. I thought it was a little hasty. For the most part, there was good exchange. 

Lets not be oversensitive that someone might somehow be offended. Conflict free boards = boring boards. Encourage civil disagreement. That was happening in those threads.


----------



## omokage (Sep 13, 2002)

:::sigh::: I have nothing against the moderators exercising their powers as they see fit, but I am a little annoyed that the Comics Code discussion got closed before I was able to suggest that people actually read the code before making any judgment of it. It does make for a very interesting read.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 13, 2002)

*Censoring a topic about Censorship*

Today Ashtal shut down a thread about censorship in the RPG industry, and I think this is a disgrace.

The claimed reason for the shut down were twofold.  1) It was a topic somehow related to another thread that had been since shut down (though the censorship thread was started prior to that shut down, was not started to go around the other shut down, and was not directly related to the other thread); and 2) "censorship issues are very political", according to an email from Ashtal.

I think the first issue is a starwman. The thread really didn't have anything to do with any other threads today.  Sure, family value issues were mentioned in other threads, as was the Comics Code Authority. But this thread was strictly about that Code, and people were not referencing anything else other than that code. Perhaps Ashtal was already having a bad day with other threads, and I can understand that. But that is no reason to shut down legitimate threads.

The second issue is more important, I think.  I agree with Ashtal that, if we were discussing censorship just as an off-Topic discussion, then it would be a political discussion that should be shut down. If this had been about censorship in the recording industry, I too would be asking for it to be shut down.  However, that is not at all what was going on.  The subject was this: Should we bring back the Comics Code Authority to the RPG industry.  

That subject is VERY on-topic. What standards we should apply to the RPG industry are both on topic and important issues.  

If we cannot discuss this kind of topic here, where can we discuss it? This is where the people are who would be impacted by such a change in standards. This is the place where people would want to discuss that kind of issue, where those who would want to voice their opinions on the subject are to be found.  This isn't about politics in the world at large - this is about the RPG industry itself.

And it isn't like this was a subject going back and forth for hours and hours with no thought, no analysis, no resolutions, and no thought-provoking posts.  This was a topic that had gone on for about an hour, with a LOT of interesting comments and analysis.

It is wrong to shut down that kind of thread.  It wasn't politics. And it's shameful that the weapon of censorship was used to shut down a discussion of censorship in this industry.


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 13, 2002)

That would have been me.

I stand by the two Vile threads I closed.  As I've responded to another poster who has emailed me, if another mod wishes to open the Comics Code one, that doesn't bother me at all, but I won't be the one to do it.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 13, 2002)

*Actually, I am REALLY disappointed*

It is sad that a thread encouraging (note  - not forcing) people act with a higher standard of behavior is closed because it is too controversial. 

When moral behavior becomes offensive we have lost our way.


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 13, 2002)

I closed it because the topic was a heated, quasi-political one that was spawned by a very dicey thread.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 13, 2002)

I would like to call for someone to PLEASE re-open the comic code thread.

The other two, yes. They went the way of Dante's Inferno, and for good reason.

I can't find a single thing in the comic code one that's against the rules here, and it was a good discussion of facts, not mudslinging. It shouldn't really have been closed.


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 13, 2002)

As I have said to the gentleman who has emailed me, and in the other thread on this topic (which I will merge so people can complain about my draconic standards in one neat little thread), if another mod wishes to reopen the topic, they do so with my blessing.

IMHO, the thread was going to lead down the same road as the others, with two camps of very opposed opinions after discussions on the related topic had already been heated, and required both editing and closing.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 13, 2002)

Look, guys. I don't know why it is, but everyone is sniping at everyone else today.

I agree that the concept of censorship in comics and games is an important one. I also agree with Ashtal that it was in a downwards spiral. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.  The thread wasn't closed because of the topic... but that's already been made clear.

I'd like to invite you folks to reopen another thread on the same topic *in a day or two*, once people cool off. For tonight and maybe tomorrow, though, please let the subject lie. It can wait a few days.

Thanks.


----------



## Buttercup (Sep 13, 2002)

IMO Ashtal was right to close it.  The whole subject needed to cool down a bit.  Not that any of you care what my opinion is, but I enjoy giving it anyway.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 13, 2002)

I have posted a link in the closed thread, pointing people here for explanation.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 13, 2002)

After some thought, and emails with Ashtal, I've changed my mind.   While I still think the Comics Code Authority should be discussed, it can wait for another day.  Apparently this had been a rough day on the mods, and a lot of heated topics were raging.  This one is important enough to wait.  It's been a topic for 50 years.  It can wait for a few days.  And maybe once the heat dies down the discussion will be more civil.

And if anything I said offended Ashtal, or made her job more difficult today, I want to publicly apologize.  That was never my intent, nor was I aware of what was going on in other threads.


----------



## Tsyr (Sep 13, 2002)

Pcat, can YOU reopen the existing thread in a couple days, so that we don't have to go down some of the same roads again?


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 13, 2002)

Thanks, Mistwell. I truly respect you for that, and for being willing to give it a few days.  It's rare to see an apology on the internet; that's one of the reasons I love this place.

Tsyr, we'll take a look at it.

 - PCat


----------



## Airwolf (Sep 13, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Look, guys. I don't know why it is, but everyone is sniping at everyone else today.
> 
> *



It's Friday the 13th.  Some people might confuse Friday with FRYday. 



Oh, since Ashtal has been closing so many threads today maybe we can start calling her the ENBoard Closer!   j/k

Its too bad we don't have a baseball team because everyone knows that a good baseball team needs a good closer.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 14, 2002)

Those three threads were great! They had plenty of participation and overall were respectful. That is the best kind of debate. 

A board where participants are not allowed to disagree is worthless.  There really is nothing to discuss in that case. Disagree but keep it civil. I believe I did that and so did most everyone else. Those who did not were quickly rebuffed. A self policing community is the best. 

At the same time, people will have to learn not to be offended. If that is what you want, you need to lock yourself in your house and throw away your computer and TV. 

Engage people in opposing points of view not only helps you learn more about the world, you even getting a better understanding of your own opinion.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 14, 2002)

Not that P-cat's position really needs outside support, but I happen to think he's got the right of it.

Occasionally, when fighting fires, one must dig a firebreak.  There's nohing wrong with that, if you later allow replanting of the trees


----------



## EricNoah (Sep 14, 2002)

If it hadn't been Ashtal it would definitely have been me for sure.  There were points where people were just purely calling each other names.  That doesn't go over well here as I'm sure you all know.  Think of this as a little time out, and I'm sure we'll all be debating it again in a few days.  Well, except me, I couldn't give a rip either way.


----------



## Darkness (Sep 14, 2002)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> *If it hadn't been Ashtal it would definitely have been me for sure. *



*cue typical spaghetti western music*

Or me, depending on who would have been faster on the draw, pardner. 

That is, I, too, agree with Ashtal's decisions 100%.


----------



## Darkness (Sep 14, 2002)

BTW, if anyone wants to continue the debate about Tracy & Dragon #300 _right now_:

There's a thread about that in RPG.net (which uses the same software as EN World, BTW).

Also, there's another such thread in Nutkinland.

Neither of these boards are much moderated, BTW (whether that's good or bad depends on your perspective, of course ).


----------



## dpdx (Sep 14, 2002)

*No, gracias*

I've had my fill of the Dragon #300 discussion for LIFE, thank you very much.

I'm glad Ashtal closed the thread.

Had it gone on, I know for a fact that I would have gone postal on a few people. Name-calling wouldn't even begin to describe it.


----------



## Grazzt (Sep 14, 2002)

Well- I'll chime in and say I support Ash's decision as well to kill the threads in question. Some had degenerated to the point where they probably should have been closed sooner than they were.


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 14, 2002)

Thanks for the support, and thank you Mistwell.  We've had a nice chat via email over the last few hours (though I ducked out for some Japanese take out!).


----------



## Morrus (Sep 14, 2002)

Not much left for me to say - but, as PC said, this isn't an issue that must be resolved _right now_.  It can wait a couple of days, a couple of weeks - whatever.  

Just so you know, the mods have had a rough day.  I missed it all, but they've been under fire for a good few hours.  Adding to that is the fact that it was Dinkeldog's first day and he was somewhat under fire himself after a decision he made here.  Give 'em a break - this can wait.


----------



## Dragongirl (Sep 14, 2002)

I just think it is ironic that Morrus posted the initial thread that started the avalanche!!!  Bad Morrus Bad!!!!  Go to your room and no looking at gaming materials for 1 week.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 14, 2002)

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *I just think it is ironic that Morrus posted the initial thread that started the avalanche!!!  Bad Morrus Bad!!!!  Go to your room and no looking at gaming materials for 1 week.    *




Ooops....!

I did tell people to keep it civil.  But does anyone ever listen to me?  Noooooo!   

Seriously though - yeah, fair cop.  It was my fault.


----------



## Darkness (Sep 14, 2002)

Dragongirl said:
			
		

> *I just think it is ironic that Morrus posted the initial thread that started the avalanche!!!  Bad Morrus Bad!!!!  Go to your room and no looking at gaming materials for 1 week.    *



But if Morrus doesn't look at gaming materials for a week, who will take care of EN World?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 14, 2002)

Darkness said:
			
		

> *But if Morrus doesn't look at gaming materials for a week, who will take care of EN World?  *




Eh? Gaming materials?  I just make all those products and publishers up.  You did realise that this site was a fiction resource, didn't you?


----------



## Dragongirl (Sep 14, 2002)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *Eh? Gaming materials?  I just make all those products and publishers up.  You did realise that this site was a fiction resource, didn't you? *




DAMN!!!!!!!  No wonder I can't find most of this stuff at my local bookstore.     ::stares at Morrus and taps her foot::


----------



## Darkness (Sep 14, 2002)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Eh? Gaming materials?  I just make all those products and publishers up.  You did realise that this site was a fiction resource, didn't you? *



 What's next - telling me that Santa Claus and his elves aren't real, either?!


----------



## HellHound (Sep 14, 2002)

SemperJase, check out the FAQ.

If you don't like the way the boards here are moderated, there are a few thousand OTHER boards with different rules of moderation. Maybe you'll find one out there more to your taste instead of taking up arms with the ESTABLISHED rules of moderation on here. (The rules being that the moderators have absolute privilege to shut down threads they deem as being trouble...)


hang on... I'll get the exact quote



> *
> 7.  These boards are too heavily moderated. They should be like [insert board here].
> I'd suggest you hang out at [insert board here]. Sounds like its more to your taste. *




There we go.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Sep 14, 2002)

Hello MODs all of you.


Most of you got an e-mail from me today. Thank you for doing your jobs well. Some of the threads should have been closed earlier, if anything.

Feel free to close my POLL (below). It was actually more of an attempt to get people to stop and think. 

'Why are all of these threads being closed? Oh, maybe I should not post anything else on the topic'

It was not meant to offend or make your life harder.


Closing a thread started by Col Pladoh ---- eeck.


----------



## angramainyu (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Censoring a topic about Censorship*

A couple of my thoughts about censorship and freedom and closed threads on the boards.

First of all, don't get me wrong.  I'm as liberal-minded and free-speech-loving as they come.  That said, this is not a public (in the political sense) arena for discussion.

I see two analogies when a thread is closed: 

1) it's like the govenment is throwing someone in jail because wrote something bad about the government.

2) it's like you being over at a friend's house and him or her asking you to watch your language around his or her little kids.

Although the analogies are contrived, I think it's pretty clear that these message boards are the second case.

And while there may be an inherit irony is censoring a discussion on censorship, that irony is not in-and-of-itself a valid argument against said censorship.  The fact that such discussions can get heated, however, is something to consider.


----------



## NeghVar (Sep 14, 2002)

Hey Mods,

Thanks for doing a great job over the last couple of days!

Again thanks!


----------



## the Jester (Sep 14, 2002)

Well, the first thread I've ever reported to a mod was the one I started last night when I realized people wouldn't let it die.  So I posted a "Leave it alone, folks!" thread and promptly reported it.  

I notice it's still open, just moved to the meta board.  I'd anticipated that it would simply be closed as I requested but that it might help make people cool off.  It ain't my job to do that; I am not a moderator.  But one of the things I really value about this community is the generally nice tone of things.

One of the closed threads- well, I almost reported it.  There was an amazingly bigoted comment about "sandmonkeys" and turning Mecca to glass.  Come on now!  Anyone who doesn't know that's going too far really does need to go off to Nutkinland, and I realized through the day as more threads kept popping up on the subject (and being closed almost instantly) that, yes, the community needed time to COOL DOWN.

CHILL, folks.

In a couple of days we can all try again.  I was involved in the discussion, and I enjoyed it.  I enjoy debate.  I enjoy hearing the opinions of others who disagree with me.

Nobody is saying this can't happen; but we all need to keep it cool.  While I wish the Comics Code thread was still open, I understand and support the actions of the moderators to close it.  And I hope it gets re-opened on Monday or Tuesday, once we've all had some time to reflect and stop hyperventilating about Tracy's message and the BoVD and the sealed section and...

I would like to thank the mods again for doing a bang-up job on keeping things civil here.  I don't really want to see comments as offensive as the sandmonkey post, and though I support everyone's right to have an opinion- even a bigoted one, hell even one that's bigoted against ME if you want- I also treasure the fact that the tone stays generally cool here.

That's why I like this place.

So, again: thanks, mods.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 14, 2002)

*wanders back to the boards the next day*

This thread is still open? Am I dreaming...

Or perhaps we get a different type of poster down here in the Meta forum, after all you do have to 'scroll the browser window' to get down here. That's probably more effort than some posters can be bothered with.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 16, 2002)

HellHound said:
			
		

> *If you don't like the way the boards here are moderated, there are a few thousand OTHER boards with different rules of moderation.*




For the record, overall I think they do a great job. That does not mean I have to agree with everything they do. 



> * Maybe you'll find one out there more to your taste instead of taking up arms with the ESTABLISHED rules of moderation on here.(The rules being that the moderators have absolute privilege to shut down threads they deem as being trouble...)
> *




The thing that attracts me to this board is its overall civility.  However, if you kill a thread because someone may step over the line, you may as will close the boards. But since this has been a self policing community, I do not think that is necessary.  

As a moderator of a politcal discussion group I know you can have disagreement AND civil discussion. 

I am not disputing anyone's rights about moderating. I am suggesting (as have others) that disagreement on the boards is not a bad thing. 

You also infer that I do not like the moderators or these boards. The 'like it or lump it' argument isn't valid. The purpose of this specific board is to discuss where to draw the line.  Again, you should ask to close this specific board if people are not allowed to voice a differing opinion of where to draw that line. 

Now, I would appreciate feedback if I  was out of line. I treated other members with respect and civility even when I disagreed with them. If you demonstrate that I did not, I will work to adjust my behavior. However, you will not find any name calling in my posts. 

BTW, I purposely do not visit Nutkinland because of its lack of respect among members.

My suggestion is to deal with violators individually rather than closing entire posts. I have found that to be effective.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 16, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *I am suggesting (as have others) that disagreement on the boards is not a bad thing.  *




I think that this statement is a little silly.  I can't believe that you are under the impression that the moderators enforce continual agreement between all members. 



> However, if you kill a thread because someone may step over the line, you may as will close the boards.




I disagree with that conclusion, too.  That's just melodrama.  It's not a binary issue.

The following is all mainly meant in a global sense, especially where I use the word "you".  It's not addressed at anyone in particular (and not at Semperjase, despite the fact that it follows on after a quote of his).

One thing you should bear in mind is that the moderators don't close threads because they think they may get out of control; they close them because their experience tells them that the thread _will_ get out of control.  Usually, the thread has already started to do so.  Maybe they make mistakes occasionally - but so what?

Every so often, something will direct the boards "off the rails".  At those times, trigger fingers may be a little more itchy - especially if you're a moderator who has been under fire, been receiving emails of complaint etc. all day.  At these times, the best thing people can do is have a little empathy for the position the moderators are in instead of dredging up this old, tired "You don't allow anyone to disagree with anyone!" thing.  It's so ridiculous, so patently and demonstrably untrue that making the statement, drawing imaginary lines based on that principle, making drand sweeping indictments of the boards based on such ridiculousness or anything else is just plain silly.  Sometimes poeple whould just try and understand the dynamics of what's going on instead of seeking the most melodramatic interpretation possible - and i can assure you you'd be only one in a long, long boring line of  people to do so.  You won't be saying anything clever or paving the way for change or forming a revolution or anything.

If the mods close down a thread, respect their wishes, and give the subject a break for the moment. Try and trust them to do their job and to do what they think is best.  If you think they're wrong, respect them for the call they made and understand that they did what they did because they thought it best for the boards as a whole, not because they're after you.  Perhaps bring it up civilly and privately with the moderator at some point, once things have calmed down.



> My suggestion is to deal with violators individually rather than closing entire posts. I have found that to be effective.




That is the ideal solution; unfortunately, it is not one that can be implemented in a practical manner.  I find it interesting that you say that you have found it effective - I can assure you that, here at least, that is not an effective, efficient or practical way to handle things.   Perhaps the moderators in your situation have more time, or perhaps the group as a whole is smaller?

Secondly, once a thread gets out of control, dealing with the individuals will not work.  They will have already angered others, who will respond.  Often the "individuals" you are referring to are a large number of defensive people.  

I'm sure that you can see that, often, a time-out or coolling off period is by far the best action, rather than havng moderators get into silly little pissing matches (both on the boards and via email) with various individuals?  Even when we do that, as you can see, you'll always get people trying to "challenge" a moderator (as happened to Dinkeldog); imagine what that would be like if we were picking on specific people?

Thjis, as a whole, is a very unique community, I feel.  And I believe that the mderators have a very good handle on the ebb and flow of things around here; good enough that they can be trusted to do what's best.  And, as I said earlier, if they make the occasional mistake - don't challenge them on it.  Don't try and square off against them.  Understand that they're under pressure and doing the best they can in the situation and that they aren't carrying out a personal vendetta against you (again, this is "you" in a global sense!) - they don't have the _time_ to carry out a vendetta against you, for goodness sake!  Things can always be worked out, but if you draw a line in the sand, you'll lose - and that'll be completely your own doing, not the moderators, because they don't want that to happen.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 16, 2002)

<radio edit>


----------



## Morrus (Sep 16, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, I stand corrected. Apparently one should not question a moderator here.  And I disagree with this stance.  *




I obviously wasn't clear enough.  That is not what I said at all.  "Challenging" and "squaring off against" refers to a confrontational, combative stance.  It is entirely different to the concept of questioning.  

Sure, you can raise the issue politely.  But I said that  in my post, so I'm getting the feeling you're pulling out bits of the post and making something of those bits that isn't there.  But if I wasn't clear enough, there's the explanation.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 16, 2002)




----------



## SemperJase (Sep 16, 2002)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I obviously wasn't clear enough.  That is not what I said at all.  "Challenging" and "squaring off against" refers to a confrontational, combative stance.  It is entirely different to the concept of questioning.
> *




Thank you for the clarification. Apparently I misinterpreted the word question as synonomous with the word challenge.

*



			Sure, you can raise the issue politely.  But I said that  in my post, so I'm getting the feeling you're pulling out bits of the post and making something of those bits that isn't there.  But if I wasn't clear enough, there's the explanation.
		
Click to expand...


*
I appreciate rational discussion. It is not my intent to misrepresent your words (i.e be irrational). My response was a reflection of  my interpretation of your message. I responded to what I saw as an inconsistency in your policy. Now I understand better. Thank you.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 16, 2002)

Semperjase, thanks for being reasonable - and for caring enough to want to stay involved.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 16, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Semperjase, thanks for being reasonable - and for caring enough to want to stay involved.   *




Those 20 ranks of Diplomacy in action again.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 16, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *Those three threads were great! They had plenty of participation and overall were respectful.  *




 i would strongly disagree. i saw little respect in many ways.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 16, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> * i would strongly disagree. i saw little respect in many ways. *




Some people were disrespectful. But others were quick to call those few on it and correct them. 

There was quite a bit of disagreement. That is not the same is disrespect though. Unfortunately too many people make the mistake of connecting the two concepts. 

Disagreement is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary for a board. If everyone agrees with you, then what is the purpose of discussion? 

But perhaps the disrespect that was shown had more of an effect on other people. I generally have a very thick skin on message boards and tend to easily overlook these comments.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 16, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Disagreement is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary for a board. *




 this is not true. there are riddle boards, humor boards, instructional boards, barter boards and many others that get along just fine without any disagreement whatsoever.

  i am not saying disagreement is bad, just that it is far from necessary.


----------



## SemperJase (Sep 17, 2002)

alsih2o said:
			
		

> *
> there are riddle boards, humor boards, instructional boards, barter boards and many others that get along just fine without any disagreement whatsoever.
> *




True, and they all have one thing in common, they are all BORING  

But then again, that is just my opinion, you may disagree.


----------



## alsih2o (Sep 17, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> Disagreement is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary for a board. If everyone agrees with you, then what is the purpose of discussion?
> 
> *




 but boredom was not your point, at least not how i read it. your point seemed to be that disagrement was "neccesary". 

 this leaves out the possibility of mutual celebration, instruction, exploration, and trade as valid exchanges.

 you seem to express the same notion with this quote "A board where participants are not allowed to disagree is worthless. There really is nothing to discuss in that case."

 again leaving out spaces intended for mutual celebration, instruction and in many cases (but not all) exploration and trade.

 it seems that the disagreement is the core point here, not just an allowable discourse.

 (edited for civility)


----------



## Ashtal (Sep 17, 2002)

SemperJase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Some people were disrespectful. But others were quick to call those few on it and correct them.
> 
> There was quite a bit of disagreement. That is not the same is disrespect though. Unfortunately too many people make the mistake of connecting the two concepts. *




But see, this is where it can get tricky.

Sometimes, the calling out works and the poster who is acting uppity cools down on his own.

Other times, this is where the problem starts.  Disrespect is the first thick layer, and then it delves into nasty as people trade harsh posts back and forth with each other.  And we did have disrespect & nasty on the threads - even a racial epitaph we had to remove!  And with the quoting feature, things get even more difficult, especially if an overline post is quoted, then reacted to.  You have to search the entire thread, make sure it's not continuing.  

And once you have a match lit, and the flame starting, then it tends to catch fire in related topics.  People, angry that the flame thread is closed, sometimes hop threads ... I've seen related threads grow even worse as people moved from the closed thread to the related topic.  

But anywho, it's done and done.  In a couple of days, it's free game as long as cooler heads prevail.  In fact, I believe the current BoVD thread is still open for a second day now.


----------

