# [REDACTED]



## Pergentile

[REDACTED]


----------



## Dice4Hire

I want the moderation to stay exactly as it is now. I like it this way. 

Well, if I had to choose, maybe a bit harder on the foul language, but that is a minor point and probably to much work for the moderators.


----------



## renau1g

I think the mods do a great job with a fairly difficult task (namely policing/moderating the interwebs where people turn into utter jack-... you know whats). I've thought some things were further off-side than they did and they left the posts as is. 

For fun


----------



## DumbPaladin

It's odd, I would have expected this thread to be closed already.  The moderators of EN World have exacted a ban on publicly discussing what anyone's opinion of them is.

In any event, there's no reason for me to answer your questions, because my entire post would simply be deleted.


----------



## Ahnehnois

The reasons I keep coming back to ENW after having long ago abandoned many D&D forums (including WotC) is the level of discourse. Most of the posts here use sentences and real english words, most of the topics are relevant to the game and not inflammatory, most of the individuals who post here enjoy D&D and come to discuss it.

I think the no politics/religion and grandma-friendly rules are intuitive and in general are fairly enforced. I think the mods are generally part of the community and have perspective as to what's reasonable and what isn't. I think the moderators do a great job.

The worse criticisms I have are that politics/religion is sometimes extended to include social issues in general, but some of those threads that get shut down are just too divisive anyway. I also advocated for different organization of some of the forums but the way they are isn't a problem.

In general, the internet is worse than a dungeon, full of trolls and fire traps with the occasional locked treasure chest surrounded by danger. Moderation is absolutely necessary at a forum like this to prevent random spammers and malcontents from destroying any intelligent discourse.


----------



## DumbPaladin

To be fair, @Ahnehnois, there are some other specific criticisms I could make regarding moderation.  Most people have made the one you just did, but that one's not going away.  There are plenty of other legitimate complaints that can be made ... but that's not allowed.  

I also agree with you that, for the most part, despite the failings of the moderators here, the boards are way less annoying to deal with than they are most everywhere else I've been so far.

STILL confused that this topic is open.

(Oh, and [MENTION=54810]renau1g[/MENTION]: lol.)


----------



## Morrus

DumbPaladin said:


> It's odd, I would have expected this thread to be closed already. The moderators of EN World have exacted a ban on publicly discussing what anyone's opinion of them is.
> 
> In any event, there's no reason for me to answer your questions, because my entire post would simply be deleted.




The ban is on discussing specific moderation instances. You're welcome to discuss the subject in general as long as you remain polite (that also means not discussing specific moderators).


----------



## Umbran

DumbPaladin said:


> It's odd, I would have expected this thread to be closed already.  The moderators of EN World have exacted a ban on publicly discussing what anyone's opinion of them is.




That isn't exactly true.  We have threads like this occasionally.

What we don't allow is public discussion of specific moderation actions - if you have a problem with a specific case, we ask you to take it to e-mail or PM with a mod or admin.

Discussion and feedback on moderation in general is allowed, so long as it otherwise keeps to the rules.

Edit: Ah, Morrus beat me to it.


----------



## aurance

I'm perfectly happy with the way things are moderated here.

Moderation is fairly subjective anyway, and ENWorld is not some sort of free speech bastion. I consider it akin to having a conversation at a party at someone else's house. The house rules can be as logical or as arbitrary as the owners see fit and it's not my place to bitch about it.


----------



## jdrakeh

The only specific complaint that I have about moderation is that the current system sometimes seems to reward deliberate trolls and punish well-meaning community members trying to police their own backyard.


----------



## renau1g

jdrakeh said:


> The only specific complaint that I have about moderation is that the current system sometimes seems to reward deliberate trolls and punish well-meaning community members trying to police their own backyard.




I'm curious what you mean ?

If I see a post I think violates the rules I just report it and keep going.


----------



## john112364

I think the moderators do a good job in a difficult situation. Moderation can be very subjective sometimes, but the mods here (IMHO) seem pretty consistant. And while I've seen the +5 ban hammer wielded with authority on this site, it seems to be the last resort rather than the first (as I've seen in some other sites). This is one of the best moderated sites I've visited.

My 2cp.


----------



## jdrakeh

renau1g said:


> I'm curious what you mean ?
> 
> If I see a post I think violates the rules I just report it and keep going.





If I wasn't posting from my iPad, I'd search you out specific examples but, basically, the problem is this: 

Being a deliberate a-hole with regard to edition war trolling isn't explicitly against the rules, so you get a lot of people who exploit that loophole to be the biggest a-hole that they possibly can be, deliberately. 

When no moderator action is taken despite such a poster being reported multiple times, by multiple parties, a well-meaning but misguided poster (or three) inevitably steps in and calls a spade a spade, identifying the troll as such and telling them to bugger off. 

The bad news is that calling another poster out like that, no matter how deserved, pretty much *is* against the rules. This results in the person or persons who were baited by the troll being admonished while, often, the troll is left to continue indulging his offensive behavior unabated. 

Now, granted, I'm not saying that this happens *all* of the time, but it does happen a *lot* (or did, at any rate). Or it happens enough that I have heard other people frequently cite it as an issue with moderation here.


----------



## racoffin

jdrakeh said:


> Being a deliberate a-hole with regard to edition war trolling isn't explicitly against the rules, so you get a lot of people who exploit that loophole to be the biggest a-hole that they possibly can be, deliberately.
> 
> When no moderator action is taken despite such a poster being reported multiple times, by multiple parties, a well-meaning but misguided poster (or three) inevitably steps in and calls a spade a spade, identifying the troll as such and telling them to bugger off.
> 
> The bad news is that calling another poster out like that, no matter how deserved, pretty much *is* against the rules. This results in the person or persons who were baited by the troll being admonished while, often, the troll is left to continue indulging his offensive behavior unabated.
> 
> Now, granted, I'm not saying that this happens *all* of the time, but it does happen a *lot* (or did, at any rate). Or it happens enough that I have heard other people frequently cite it as an issue with moderation here.




This seems to be something you see a lot, and one of the things that drove me away from the forums for quite a bit. Looking over the last few weeks, for example, you can watch the same people having the same "discussions" and derailing conversations for tens of pages to prove their point. The thinly (and not so thinly) veiled edition wars get old. I imagine the mods get tired of repeating the same warnings to only have them ignored time and again.

As an aside, thank you for taking the time to do so regardless. It is appreciated by those of us who'd like to see conversation without attacks.


----------



## TarionzCousin

IMHO, this is the best moderated site out there. The mods here work hard and do a great job of keeping things free but under control--and the only payment they have ever received was watching Gary Gygax kill Rel's character's mule. 

However, I do miss some of the banned posters of yesteryear....


----------



## Umbran

jdrakeh said:


> If I wasn't posting from my iPad, I'd search you out specific examples




See above about specific examples.



> Being a deliberate a-hole with regard to edition war trolling isn't explicitly against the rules, so you get a lot of people who exploit that loophole to be the biggest a-hole that they possibly can be, deliberately.




You know how we always tell you folks to address the post, not the poster, and to not ascribe motives?  We try to practice what we preach as much as our jobs allow.  

So, you may see a person and think they are deliberately being a jerk.  We'd be wrong to act as quickly as you think of it.  So, we look at the post and see that they are mentioning a topic, but otherwise is within the rules (for example, they aren't insulting people).  We avoid taking the step of deciding it was deliberate jerkitude as long as we can - because we are only human, and we feel missing a few cases for a while is better than being harsh on someone who didn't mean any harm.

Ultimately, we expect all of you to have the presence of mind, wisdom, and self-control to not feed trolls, and to walk away from conversations you feel are not constructive.  

If you admit to yourself that you don't have the ability to do that, try using the Ignore list!  It is there precisely for that purpose.  We know you're human, too, so we give you some tools to help you.



> When no moderator action is taken despite such a poster being reported multiple times, by multiple parties...




This probably happens less often than you think these days.  Multiple reports by multiple people are pretty rare.


----------



## jdrakeh

Umbran said:


> See above about specific examples.




Ah, I missed that. 



> You know how we always tell you folks to address the post, not the poster, and to not ascribe motives?  We try to practice what we preach as much as our jobs allow.




Sorry, but that rings pretty hollow. In the past I have seen posters who brazenly admitted that they were trolling get a free pass (in some cases, many free passes) and those that criticized such behavior get shut own. 

I assume this occurred for the reasons I mention earlier (I.e., edition war trolling not being explicitly against the rules and attacking other posters being very much against them), but this doesn't make the pill any easier to swallow for a lot of folks. 



> Ultimately, we expect all of you to have the presence of mind, wisdom, and self-control to not feed trolls, and to walk away from conversations you feel are not constructive.




See, I read this as an admission of recognizing problem behavior but opting not to moderate it and, instead, placing the onus on other users to deal with it (or not, as the case may be). Which is, in a nutshell, the heart of the issue that I outlined. 



> This probably happens less often than you think these days.  Multiple reports by multiple people are pretty rare.




I can't speak for others, but I've been conditioned not to report things anymore, as it rarely seems to do any good.


----------



## jdrakeh

Just so I am not entirely negative, I do perceive the above as less of an issue than I did a year ago (when it was bad enough that I started posting primarily at CM and RPGnet). So, thanks for that.


----------



## the Jester

ENWorld is a huge site, and I think the moderation here generally varies from 'good' to 'great', with some exceptions. 

There are bad instances- heck, there are periods when the moderation level seems to crap up for a week or two- but generally, especially considering how big of a site this place is, I think it's pretty good.

I've taken to reporting b-holes when I notice them, and while I'm not generally aware of the moderation that takes place- I assume often via PM or whatever- I sometimes notice it get addressed. My suspicion is that it's actually addressed a good deal more than I actually notice. 

So in short, while far from perfect, I think the moderation here is probably about as good as you can get, all things considered.


----------



## Rel

TarionzCousin said:


> IMHO, this is the best moderated site out there. The mods here work hard and do a great job of keeping things free but under control--and the only payment they have ever received was watching Gary Gygax kill Rel's character's mule.
> 
> However, I do miss some of the banned posters of yesteryear....




It was Piratecat's mule, not mine.  I was smart enough to buy a dungeon cart!


----------



## Pergentile

[REDACTED]


----------



## jdrakeh

Pergentile said:


> @ Jdrakeh I have not seen this issue yet, or this "Edition War". Are these things that have died out recently? I can't imagine people would actually take it to a warlike level, when discussing editions.




It has been better recently (I think because most of the threads have recently been occurring in the seldom visited Industry forum in the form of doomsaying threads speculating about the current state of WotC), but it still rears its head on the general forums every now and again - people posting just to say that x edition of D&D is not a "real" RPG (I.e., it's a board game/video game sim/war game), that y edition is superior/inferior to all others that came before/after it, etc. At times it absolutely dominates the forums.


----------



## DumbPaladin

*He has a point.*

Well, [MENTION=13892]jdrakeh[/MENTION] has a point.  

There are a few pretty common trolls on this forum, who post on a weekly (if not daily) basis and whose posts exist solely to trounce upon the opinions of others, and to fan their own narcissism and overinflated opinions of themselves.  They are rude without reason and without remorse.

But I actually lay the blame for that at the feet of the moderators as a whole.

There's a two-tier system in place: longtime EN World users are regularly given carte blanche to troll, even to directly insult, but receive no public reprimand, or something amounting to a slap on the wrist.  EN World users who have only been here 2 years or less, or who are simply less "known", can be instantly threadbanned, or worse, for similar behavior.

It's a double standard.  I've seen it in action, and I've called a moderator on it.  The response was something akin to "You don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes."  True ... but what I do know is that the troll in question still behaves the way he has for years, and will continue to do so as long as he has the tacit approval of the moderator staff.

I also know if I behaved the way some longtime users have, I'd be gone.  Thankfully, I was raised better.  This in no way excuses the lack of policing upon these longtime EN World users, however.

The ignore list is a beautiful thing.  There are 5 or 6 people that, were every reader to place them on an ignore list, would make EN World a more enjoyable place overnight.

But I can't credit a moderator staff with a "good job" when I've seen evidence of a disparity in the treatment of posters with similar behavior violations based upon what I can only assume is a length of time on here, or a bias in favor of those users.

So ... it's more a 2.5 / 5 for me.  Most boards are something like 0.5 / 5.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Well, if I saw troll-bait form someone with less than ten posts, I'd be pretty quick to jump on them, myself.

Why shouldn't the moderators take a different stance with people who have been here a while. Maybe the person gets angry, and posts something inappropriate, but have done many other posts in many situations that are perfectly fine. Taking that into account seems common sense. 

But even if a person gets threadbanned (I have a few times) or given an involuntary vacation (not for me, yet) it is just a bump in the road. Calm down, modify your behavior a bit and move on. 

But overall, if you find an old-time poster that annoys you to no end, just ignore them. I have a dozen people on my ignore list and it makes this site a lot nicer for me.


----------



## Umbran

jdrakeh said:


> In the past I have seen posters who brazenly admitted that they were trolling get a free pass (in some cases, many free passes) and those that criticized such behavior get shut own.




If you can find specific examples of what you mean, PM them to one of the moderators, and we'll take a look at them.  



> See, I read this as an admission of recognizing problem behavior but opting not to moderate it




And I see it as an admission that we, as moderators, should jump to conclusions less readily than regular users.  Your opinions on such matters apply to you, while ours end up applying to everyone.  So, I don't see it as a bad thing that we are a bit conservative in our judgments.


----------



## Rel

Pergentile said:


> @ Rel This is some event that took place on the forums? Can you PM me a link to it? ^^




He's referring to the moderators as a group getting to play OD&D with Gary Gygax at GenCon several years ago.  There's a link in my .sig describing the game.

As for the point that Dumb Paladin is asserting, we do take into consideration a posters history when moderating them.  But, as far as I'm concerned, that works more against them than it does for them.  If they have been around a long time then they've been around long enough to know better than to break the rules.  I find myself cutting more slack to newer members who may have less of a grasp of the rules.

If you want a great example of this, perhaps you recall Shadzar.  He was, in my humble moderatorial opinion, a real dick.  And yet he posted here for quite some time, getting reported multiple times in numerous threads for generally being rude.  We didn't boot him from ENW immediately.  In fact the process was far slower than I'd have preferred precisely because we wanted to give him every opportunity to adjust his behavior before kicking him from the site.

Another member with very long standing (whose name I'll decline to mention) was recently permabanned for a single egregious infraction of the rules combined with creating an alt to circumvent the ban.

I'll say that we moderators are human _and_ there are several of us so of course we're not going to be 100% consistent every time.  But I put a great deal of stock in the good judgment of my fellow moderators and I find that we generally try to err on the side of being lenient.


----------



## jdrakeh

Umbran said:


> If you can find specific examples of what you mean, PM them to one of the moderators, and we'll take look at them.




Any examples that I am aware of at this point are outdated (as I mention, I've been primarily posting elsewhere for the last year or so), but I'll be sure to make a note of such instances going forward as I see them.


----------



## Umbran

Someone just sent me a very civil PM on this topic, and it reminded me of a point that maybe we don't mention enough.

There is an inherent tendency for persistent negative stances to see moderator action.  Here's why:  If you are devoted to being "anti-X", then you are committed to saying negative things about X.  Say negative things long enough, the chances are that you'll say something over-the-top negative, that gets you in trouble.  

Concentrate on things that make you angry, and you'll act angry.  No surprise there, right?  

Concentrate on things that make you happy, and that effect goes away.  

So, if you like a particular edition, or a particular company, _stop trying to build it up by tearing the other one down!_  It is this activity, more than anything else, that gets people into trouble.  

I will say again - I double-dog dare you to tell me what makes your game awesome, without comparing it to another system.


----------



## Lanefan

Rel said:


> He's referring to the moderators as a group getting to play OD&D with Gary Gygax at GenCon several years ago.



I'm still somewhere well beyond jealous on this, by the way...



Lanefan


----------



## wedgeski

I would like exactly zero changes in ENW's moderation. In all the years I've been here my respect for the mods has only grown.

I've had the occasional gripe, sure. I also have a few posters that I would like to see moderated more than they are, but I also realise that perception bias plays a large part in that (i.e. they just rub me up the wrong way).


----------



## DumbPaladin

Rel said:


> As for the point that Dumb Paladin is asserting, we do take into consideration a posters history when moderating them.  But, as far as I'm concerned, that works more against them than it does for them.  If they have been around a long time then they've been around long enough to know better than to break the rules.  I find myself cutting more slack to newer members who may have less of a grasp of the rules.
> 
> If you want a great example of this, perhaps you recall Shadzar.  He was, in my humble moderatorial opinion, a real dick.  And yet he posted here for quite some time, getting reported multiple times in numerous threads for generally being rude.  We didn't boot him from ENW immediately.  In fact the process was far slower than I'd have preferred precisely because we wanted to give him every opportunity to adjust his behavior before kicking him from the site.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> I'll say that we moderators are human _and_ there are several of us so of course we're not going to be 100% consistent every time.  But I put a great deal of stock in the good judgment of my fellow moderators and I find that we generally try to err on the side of being lenient.




This is my point exactly, actually, Rel.  You have at least 2 Shazdars (not that I knew this person, but based on what you describe) that I can readily name off the top of my head who post on a daily or almost-daily basis here on EN World.  They're still here, they do nothing but cause problems, and they're basically getting away with it.

I agree 100% that there is a bit too much leniency with these Shazdars.  I wrote to a moderator who publicly warned Shazdar of Today #1, but allowed the person to remain un-threadbanned with the insinuation that an apology would be highly in order.

Did the troll apologize?  No.
Did the troll, in fact, continue to be insulting?  Yes, once more.
Was the troll threadbanned at this point?  No.

Both of the people I'm speaking of have been here a very, very long time ... which is why I'm convinced there's a disparity in how older members are treated versus newer ones, even if it's subconscious.

I'd very much like to see this change.  There's nothing else on the list.

FYI, for anyone wondering: I'm not trying to be vague or oblique, but we're not supposed to be delineating anyone specific, so I've not simply said who these individuals are.  But anyone who'd like to know is more than welcome to message me privately, in case anyone thinks I'm just making this all up as I go along ...


----------



## Rel

DumbPaladin said:


> This is my point exactly, actually, Rel.  You have at least 2 Shazdars (not that I knew this person, but based on what you describe) that I can readily name off the top of my head who post on a daily or almost-daily basis here on EN World.  They're still here, they do nothing but cause problems, and they're basically getting away with it.




I didn't articulate one aspect of my point very well, which is the fact that Shadzar was a fairly new poster when he popped up on the radar as being troublesome.  Because he was new we didn't immediately come down on him but rather instead pointed him toward the rules and told him that his tone was rather too confrontational and rude for the forums.  He basically said that we'd just have to get used to it.  That turns out not to be the case.

With regards to these posters whom you believe to be problematic on a daily basis, are you reporting them?  I understand from your post that you PMed a mod about at least one instance.  We can't be everywhere (and frankly life right now mostly has me being nowhere) on the forums so we rely upon the community to police itself.  This is done the way policing is done in most civilized societies, not by vigilantism (though trust me, I understand the temptation) but by reporting what you see as problematic posts.

The rub comes where what some see as problematic, the moderators don't.  I'm not saying you fall into this category, DP.  But there are a few posters, who are good members of the forums in other respects, that we've had to ask to stop reporting stuff because their idea of problematic posting and ours are not in synch.

Anyway, if you think something is a problem then report it every time you see it.  We'll fairly quickly come to understand if somebody is a problem that has been flying under our radar.


----------



## DumbPaladin

I really should have reported a lot of the behavior I've seen when I first came here, but I was new and didn't think reporting was for anything beyond extremely blatant attacks filled with epithets and slander.  The only thing I've ever reported is spam.

Now, the people I'm referring to are on my ignore list ... so I really don't run into their nastiness anymore.


----------



## Rel

DumbPaladin said:


> I really should have reported a lot of the behavior I've seen when I first came here, but I was new and didn't think reporting was for anything beyond extremely blatant attacks filled with epithets and slander.  The only thing I've ever reported is spam.
> 
> Now, the people I'm referring to are on my ignore list ... so I really don't run into their nastiness anymore.




Well that's exactly what you should have done.  Glad it has made the site more pleasant for you.


----------



## Raven Crowking

I have had my share of discussions with moderators (usually when I am being a dick, not always when I realize it until they point it out), and I have questioned mod decisions in the past (generally through the use of PM or email).  Once or twice, a mod even reversed a decision on that basis.  Far more often, I have been forced to reconsider my own posting habits.

EN World moderation is excellent.  There are few instances I could point out that are real out-and-out fails, and certainly fewer than there would be were it me doing the job.  And, from PMs and emails I have gotten, I can assure you that, simply because an admonition doesn't show up in the thread, it doesn't mean that the mods are ignoring it.  There really are things going on behind the curtain.

My appreciation of EN World's moderation has only grown the longer I have posted here.  Really, if they were to flock en masse to Toronto, I'd have to buy them all a round.  And I would be lucky if they'd accept, sit down, and tell me the story about Piratecat's mule from the top.

I will concur that there have been cycles when EN World's moderation seemed better, and cycles when it has seemed worse, but looking back on it, I imagine there's a strategic "This is what we have to deal with; anyone have any ideas?" going on behind the curtain.  What sometimes seems like "worse moderation" may well be an attempt to deal with a problem before it arose.  I prefer, now, to give the benefit of the doubt.

One only needs to look at other popular gaming forums to see how much better the moderation is on EN World than many other sites.  There are a few I would rank as highly, mind you, but many, many more that I would rank far worse.

And no one is obligated to provide that service.  I am grateful that they choose to do so.


RC


----------



## The Shaman

I think it's hilarious when a moderator calls posters jerks in the same post the mod is telling them to be civil to one another.

Way to set the tone, kids.


----------



## DumbPaladin

Rel said:


> Well that's exactly what you should have done.  Glad it has made the site more pleasant for you.




It does nothing for everyone else who hasn't yet put these people on ignore lists, however.  The site is still being polluted by these individuals, for them.


----------



## DumbPaladin

The Shaman said:


> I think it's hilarious when a moderator calls posters jerks in the same post the mod is telling them to be civil to one another.
> 
> Way to set the tone, kids.





I saw that, too.  I was also disgusted by it.  

I called the moderator privately on it.  Did you?

If Morrus starts getting enough unique complaints about moderator behavior, he may actually DO something about it.

But I've got news for you: it's not going to change anytime soon if no one does anything about it, and even if any of us try to civilly address it, there's a HIGH degree of probability that it'll never change.  That's what happens when the regulators are self-regulating.  It's pretty much a fact of human nature.  Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There are exactly two courses of action available to us in matters such as the thread you described:
1) Protest, and push the issue forward, without letting it drop;
2) Find a wholly different message board to frequent.

Hate to say it, but that's all we can do.  We have absolutely no authority here, and I am unconvinced anyone "up there" is particularly concerned with our points, primarily because they disagree entirely.


----------



## Piratecat

The Shaman said:


> I think it's hilarious when a moderator calls posters jerks in the same post the mod is telling them to be civil to one another.
> 
> Way to set the tone, kids.



Hmm. I'm sure I've done that.

Here's the deal. We expect people to behave like adults and to get along. If they can't do that - on the rare occasion that there's infantile squabbling instead of real discourse and a genuine disagreement - I don't feel a lot of remorse about expressing my displeasure. That can either be done privately, when that's the most effective solution, or it can mean making a public example out of the people who are misbehaving. That doesn't happen too often, but when it does it's generally well deserved and highly effective at letting people know what is unacceptable behavior.

There's a big difference between people arguing and people being jerks. I'm happy to make that distinction.

One thing that has greatly helped is that we now flag the first post that starts a chain of problem, editing it with mod-text to make it clear that this isn't okay. That also helps set standards and expectations for people reading. When the post that makes you furious is already flagged, you're less likely to respond in kind.

I also make a point of not moderating in anger. There are a very few people in this world who make me see red, but one or two of them post here. I let other people moderate them when necessary, because I'm not sure I'd give them a fair shake. Similarly, if someone makes us really angry we're likely to give them a few days off and discuss it in the Moderator Forum before deciding on a final action. I have no problem apologizing or reversing a decision if we think we've made a mistake, and we always get multi-mod input on the tricky cases.

Sometimes, though, members think someone is being a troll just because they don't happen to agree with them. From a neutral third-party perspective it's often not the case. That's when ignore lists prove invaluable. If someone is smart and interesting, I would always rather rehab their posting style than boot them off the site because of temporary friction. Different opinions are _interesting_ so long as you're not coming off as a jerk when you're expressing them.


----------



## Raven Crowking

[MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION]:  I can run a game as well.

Either that is going to make Toronto look better, or it's going to save me some beer money!


----------



## pawsplay

Raven Crowking said:


> EN World moderation is excellent.




It is. I don't agree wholly with the in-house philosophy on how it is done, but I recognize it is someone else's site to run as they wish.

I've seen less-than-excellent moderation in action on other sites. Not pretty. Very demoralizing.

I esteem the ENWorld mod staff pretty highly.


----------



## Scott DeWar

i have been to quite a few different sights with a barely a modicom of moderation and an overwhelming amount of arsehattery. i get tired of having to don a fireproof suit any time i visit those sights, and if i get tired of that community, I leave it. If rude were supposed to be the internet norm, imagine what concerned parents would have done to the 'net long ago.

But, because of the constant work of the guvner and 'is leftennents (Morrus and the mods) They have about the most pleasent community on the webs, IMHO. Thank you to Eric Noah, MorRus, and all the mods-past and present. My hat is off to you all.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Rel said:


> It was Piratecat's mule, not mine.  I was smart enough to buy a dungeon cart!



It's time for me to re-read that thread again.




When is the party at [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION]'s place? He could buy a few kegs of beer, a dozen pizzas, a hundred donuts, then run his home-brewed fantasy game--and get glowing reviews here afterward. Doesn't this sound like a good plan? 




N.B. Dibs on the Sorcerer.


----------



## aurance

The Shaman said:


> I think it's hilarious when a moderator calls posters jerks in the same post the mod is telling them to be civil to one another.
> 
> Way to set the tone, kids.




I absolutely don't find this a problem. Moderators need the authority to point out bad behavior. Regular posters don't. They should just report.


----------



## Relique du Madde

One thing I appreciate about how this site is moderate is how unlike a certain tin-hat sight I lurk on, the moderation here isn't in the form of standardized IMAGES that tell you to look at the TOS and mentions the type of violation you made.  At least here you see something that explains what you did wrong:




			
				A completely made up moderation post said:
			
		

> Dude, you are insulting people.  Please step outside and relax.  No seriously put down that knife before you hurt yourself.  Oh the humanity.. oh the humanity!  Someone call 911! Call 911!




Well, not quite that, but you get the point.


----------



## wedgeski

[MENTION=90770]DumbPaladin[/MENTION]. When I read your last post in this thread, I simply cannot equate what you're saying with ENW. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"..? Eh?


----------



## DumbPaladin

wedgeski said:


> @DumbPaladin . When I read your last post in this thread, I simply cannot equate what you're saying with ENW. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"..? Eh?





[MENTION=16212]wedgeski[/MENTION] : I can appreciate that.  I'd be happy to send you a PM explaining what I mean ... but I don't really want to belabor the point in this thread any further.  

I've said my piece and expressed my major misgivings, but as I said, aside from the items I mentioned, I think the moderation is regularly above-average here -- certainly in comparison to many other message boards.  

But there's _always _room for improvement.


----------



## Raven Crowking

TarionzCousin said:


> When is the party at [MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION]'s place? He could buy a few kegs of beer, a dozen pizzas, a hundred donuts, then run his home-brewed fantasy game--and get glowing reviews here afterward. Doesn't this sound like a good plan?




Are a few kegs of beer, a dozen pizzas, and a hundred donuts enough for glowing reviews?  I didn't know you guys were that cheap!   



> N.B. Dibs on the Sorcerer.




The Sorcerer gets some love in our playtest group, but the informal consensus seems to be that fighters and rogues are where it's at.  Oh, and the psionic adept seems to have generated some interest as well. 


RC


----------



## TarionzCousin

Raven Crowking said:


> The Sorcerer gets some love in our playtest group, but the informal consensus seems to be that fighters and rogues are where it's at.  Oh, and the psionic adept seems to have generated some interest as well.



[-]N.B. Dibs on the Sorcerer.[/-]

Dibs on the Psionic Adept.


----------



## Nifft

My official opinion on moderation is: Piratecat seems dashingly handsome, and Rel better stay away from my sister.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Rel

Nifft said:


> My official opinion on moderation is: Piratecat seems dashingly handsome, and Rel better stay away from my sister.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




Is she hot?


----------



## OnlineDM

Addressing the original post, I'm personally very happy with the moderation here. The boards seem quite civil, and the mods seem to do a good job of stepping in when it looks like things are becoming uncivil.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Rel said:


> Is she hot?



A quick GIS provides this image for "Nifft's Sister." 







You be the judge.


----------



## Nifft

TarionzCousin said:


> A quick GIS provides this image for "Nifft's Sister."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You be the judge.



 "Pen-Pen" is short for "Penelope".

Also, Rel, you should win some kind of award for the quickest dash from insinuation to illustration of ill intent.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Rel

Nifft said:


> "Pen-Pen" is short for "Penelope".
> 
> Also, Rel, you should win some kind of award for the quickest dash from insinuation to illustration of ill intent.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




It's what I do.


----------



## Scott DeWar

You otta see him in circvs maximvs.


----------



## Scotley

I've been an active fan of the site since the earliest days and I've yet to run afoul of the moderators. I usually self-moderate by not bothering to visit threads that seem like edition wars or trolling in general. I haven't felt the need to put any poster on the banned list. I have reported spam a few times but only one or two posts in the dozen years or so of visiting quite regularly. 

Based on that I'm pleased with the Moderation here. I've seen them do it with some heat and with humor and either is okay by me. I've managed to miss the examples Dumb Paladin says are out there of regulars getting away with a-hole behavior. So I have to say I'm happy with the moderation here and say thank you to the mods.


----------



## stonegod

No problems w/ the moderation. They've been helpful when contacted and deal w/ spam quick. I spend most of my time in PbP fora, so less "edition wars" there.

(Disclaimer: I'm listed as a moderator, but that's just for one PbP forum. I have no insight/access to the rest of the moderation. Just the way I like it. )


----------



## DumbPaladin

*<sigh> It's a once-a-month thing, I guess?*

So, back to the actual topic of this thread: forum moderation.  

For the second time recently, a moderator has made a negative personal statement about users, who are of course NOT allowed to respond in kind back to said moderator, and as far as I understand it, are not allowed to make such statements about other users on this board.

What's the rule here, exactly -- Do as I say, not as I do, or Might Makes Right?   

It's NOT that hard to close a thread by simply saying, "This thread is closed for inappropriate behavior on the part of one or more users."  Anything beyond that makes the people in charge appear very petty.


----------



## wedgeski

Moderation may not be discussed in public, it's as simple as that. As a mod will often say, if you have a problem, PM the mod in question or Morrus himself.

And IMO closing a thread with some pointless generic comment is far more galling than calling out the reasons for doing so.


----------



## Scott DeWar

Its like spanking a child in Wal Mart, I would say.

If you spank a child anywhere else you get arrested for child abuse. I wal Mart you can publicly spank you child for the effect: to shame the child in public into acting civilized, not to harm the child phically.

I have seen conduct that led to the ban hammer that was not much different then a child in the throes of a temper tantrum. That is actually the usual reason.


----------



## GandalfMithrandir

I would just like to pipe in and say that I approve of EN World's moderating, and I haven't seen an instance of a moderator moderating something that didn't deserve to be moderated, and I think that they're some of the best ones out there 

GM


----------



## Dice4Hire

I have seen Mod postings on the level of "Some people in this thread are being jerks" but I have never seen a Mod call a specific poster a jerk or the like. 

[MENTION=90770]DumbPaladin[/MENTION], can you show some links to what you are talking about?


----------



## Rel

Dice4Hire said:


> I have seen Mod postings on the level of "Some people in this thread are being jerks" but I have never seen a Mod call a specific poster a jerk or the like.
> 
> [MENTION=90770]DumbPaladin[/MENTION], can you show some links to what you are talking about?




You should follow me around more.  I am not averse to doing stuff like that.

I'm not here in order to insult people.  If I want to insult people on the internet I have a very productive venue for doing so already.  However I'm perfectly willing to point out unacceptable behavior by using strong terms that may serve to get people's attention (and not only the person that I'm calling down in the thread).  When doing so I try and make it a point to target the behavior, not the poster.

Thus I'll say, "This post is exactly the sort of dickish thing this board needs less of.  Knock it off."  I'm well aware that Dice4Hire and DumbPaladin are not allowed to say such a thing to the same poster without reprisals.  And I'm well aware that the poster to whom I said that  cannot respond in kind without reprisals.  If they don't like it then they are completely in possession of a remedy, which is to simply not post dickish things in the first place.


----------



## Scott DeWar

If someone wants to post ish things, they can get an account over at Circvs Maximvs and get it out of thier system there.


----------



## Umbran

wedgeski said:


> And IMO closing a thread with some pointless generic comment is far more galling than calling out the reasons for doing so.




I used to moderate rather like DumbPaladin requests - very formal, proper, empty of emotional content, and all. 

And I got lots of complaints on it:  I was told I came across as cold, haughty, elitist, and a number of other things folks apparently didn't want to see in a moderator.  I specifically worked on changing the voice I used, and those complaints ceased.

Now, DumbPaladin complains the other way.

I think we may be in the realm of, "You can't please everyone all the time."


----------



## Raven Crowking

Umbran, for what little it is worth, I think your moderation has improved quite a bit over the last couple of years.


----------



## billd91

Rel said:


> You should follow me around more.  I am not averse to doing stuff like that.
> 
> I'm not here in order to insult people.  If I want to insult people on the internet I have a very productive venue for doing so already.  However I'm perfectly willing to point out unacceptable behavior by using strong terms that may serve to get people's attention (and not only the person that I'm calling down in the thread).  When doing so I try and make it a point to target the behavior, not the poster.




I'm in favor of calling out the specific behavior, tacking it right in the offending post and in a new post so that those of us following the thread from our last timestamp can see when it happened and the consequences (like "So and so will enjoying a 3 day vacation from ENWorld as a result"). I think the public shaming affords more impact on posting behavior than someone quietly disappearing. If someone is quietly banned from the thread/site, we can't tell if they were moderated or simply ended up too busy with regular life to participate for a while. Calling out the precipitating behavior removes the benefit of the doubt and lets you know exactly where that behavior leads.


----------



## Rel

billd91 said:


> I'm in favor of calling out the specific behavior, tacking it right in the offending post and in a new post so that those of us following the thread from our last timestamp can see when it happened and the consequences (like "So and so will enjoying a 3 day vacation from ENWorld as a result"). I think the public shaming affords more impact on posting behavior than someone quietly disappearing. If someone is quietly banned from the thread/site, we can't tell if they were moderated or simply ended up too busy with regular life to participate for a while. Calling out the precipitating behavior removes the benefit of the doubt and lets you know exactly where that behavior leads.




I'm right there with ya.


----------



## Scott DeWar

But of course, keep with the 'do not respond to this banning via rep point or posting. That is a good policy, IMHO.


----------



## DumbPaladin

Umbran said:


> I used to moderate rather like DumbPaladin requests - very formal, proper, empty of emotional content, and all.
> 
> And I got lots of complaints on it:  I was told I came across as cold, haughty, elitist, and a number of other things folks apparently didn't want to see in a moderator.  I specifically worked on changing the voice I used, and those complaints ceased.
> 
> Now, DumbPaladin complains the other way.
> 
> I think we may be in the realm of, "You can't please everyone all the time."





To clarify, since you're misstating what I've actually said:

I object to any moderating calling anyone "jerks" OR anything worse.  It's unnecessary.

The entirety of the REST of your statement?  No problem at all with any of it.  I also wouldn't have a problem with it if you publicly posted the names of users who had behaved inappropriately, or if you suggested that numerous people (named or unnamed) are facing some sort of disciplinary action.  Public shaming is a perfectly valid method for handling people behaving ... like how many people on EN World behave.

The namecalling is unnecessary and comes off as very petty, because it is poor behavior no matter who's doing it.  Being a moderator doesn't make poor behavior seem any less poor -- if anything, it amplifies how bad it is, because you're in a position of authority and expected to know, and do, better.

Hopefully that doesn't leave any questions as to what I'm saying.


----------



## Rel

DumbPaladin said:


> The namecalling is unnecessary and comes off as very petty, because it is poor behavior no matter who's doing it.  Being a moderator doesn't make poor behavior seem any less poor -- if anything, it amplifies how bad it is, because you're in a position of authority and expected to know, and do, better.
> 
> Hopefully that doesn't leave any questions as to what I'm saying.




How about if I said to somebody, "You're driving the wrong way down Dick Street."?

I came up with that this past weekend and I've been DYING to use it!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Rel said:


> How about if I said to somebody, "You're driving the wrong way down Dick Street."?
> 
> I came up with that this past weekend and I've been DYING to use it!




That is *so* good I almost want to start a troll thread or post something Grandma-unfriendly just so you can use it!

Almost.

(BTW- tried to XP you for your post and it wouldn't do anything, no message, nothing.  Is it telling me you've disabled XP without telling me?)

(BTW #2- Dick Street is a great name for a MIB.)


----------



## pawsplay

I've been called a jerk, and recently. I thought it was insulting and petty, and make the mod in question come across as more than a little jerk-ish to me. I know it's not a policy to revisit or discuss specific incidents in public, but I would like to say something generally about the experience. If someone seriously trolls me, and I respond with a single one-liner, that does not in any way insult their charater or worth as a human being, and that clearly indicates I am declining to respond further, and I walk away... and then I get called a "jerk" for that, yeah, that kind of upsets me. The other guy was being a jerk, I just let him know I was offended. 

I don't take it personally. Mod was having a bad day, doesn't like me, thought I was someone else, etc. Maybe they just see things differently than I do. 

The thing is, when the mod hammer comes down, there is no opportunity to have a friendly discussion about differing viewpoints. And THAT is why I think mods should refrain from name-calling, unless the forum is going to afford regular users the same discretion in calling people out. Mod authority does not legitamize name-calling; rather, as an authority figure, I would imagine mods would be held to a higher level of restraint. 

A number of years ago on RPGnet, I had a couple of mod run-ins, including one bizarre and seriously disturbing misunderstanding in which a mod claimed I was attacking Gareth Michael-Skarka when I was actually defending him, and another in which I lost my cool over being called a racist. Then a mod came back and issued me a warning for "continuing to argue" because someone else posted some trolling comments in a contentious thread I had participated in the week before (!). When I asked about the reason for my warning, I was accused of trolling the mods. So I made a short announcement I was taking a break from the boards. A breather should help everyone clear their heads, right? A couple of mods came back, locked the thread, and proceeded to viciously insult me. So in a moment of lacking in self-preservation instinct, right before beginning my vacation from the board, I reported (using the board's report feature) one of the mods in question. That resulted in my immediate perma-ban. 

I've never seen an issue of that nature come up on EnWorld. But it does raise my hackles when I see mods shooting from behind the mod shield. Dude, not cool. Seriously.

In my experience, there are very few problems that cannot be solved by:

User X, please refrain from Y as you appear to be doing in this thread.

followed by a short vacation if they in fact do Y. I've never felt the need to peramanently ban anybody, except for violating bandwidth or the terms of their bans; enough vacations and the posters in question either fly right, or they lose interest because half the time they can't post. 

Week-bans go away. Locked threads fade from the mind. But when you call someone a jerk, there's not a good way to undo that, unless you are willing to apologize.


----------



## pawsplay

And the irony, of course, is that a defense of the call in question would consist of, "Well, pawsplay, actually you are a jerk and deserved to be called that."


----------



## Morrus

pawsplay said:


> I thought it was insulting and petty, and make the mod in question come across as more than a little jerk-ish to me.




To be fair, that is the opinion of 90% of people on the wrong end of moderation, and would be even if we included a gift basket. That's just the nature of the game.


----------



## wedgeski

pawsplay said:


> I don't take it personally. Mod was having a bad day, doesn't like me, thought I was someone else, etc. Maybe they just see things differently than I do.



That last option is certainly the most likely.



> The thing is, when the mod hammer comes down, there is no opportunity to have a friendly discussion about differing viewpoints.



On the contrary, you can have a private discussion with the mod about it. Perhaps the problem is you fear that being moderated is a slight on your posting character that you can't publically redress? If so that's understandable.



> Mod authority does not legitamize name-calling; rather, as an authority figure, I would imagine mods would be held to a higher level of restraint.



I tend to see things differently. When posting as themselves, mods should absolutely obey every rule in the book. But when they post in mod colours, I think there is a certain level of operating outside the rules. I'm sure many would disagree.


----------



## Morrus

pawsplay said:


> The thing is, when the mod hammer comes down, there is no opportunity to have a friendly discussion about differing viewpoints.




Of course there is. You just do it privately.

The reason for that rules is that if every mod decision (and there are many) is subject to a peanut gallery, dissection, and endless debate there would be no modding. 

Nobody has the time or inclination to be forced to publically defend every little decision they make - and make no mistake, that's exactly what would happen (heck, enough of it goes on privately - making it public discourse subject to everyone's opinion would multiply than tenfold - and, frankly, name one person who _doesn't_ think their viewpoint is the correct one?) I've certainly no interest in running a website which involves most of my time defending every decision I make, and the rest of the mods feel the same.

But those who have made the observation that mods are not subject t the same rules as the rest of the posters - they are correct.  The mods operate under very different rules and powers to everyone else.  That doesn't mean they get to wander around being obnoxious, but it does mean the occasional strongly worded - and dare I say personal - comment is a valid and permitted tool in their modding repertoire.  That, I'm afraid is not going to change.


----------



## pawsplay

Morrus said:


> To be fair, that is the opinion of 90% of people on the wrong end of moderation, and would be even if we included a gift basket. That's just the nature of the game.




If you know moderation is not going to be well-received, throwing in a "there ya are, ye jerk" in top of it seems unhelpful. If the subject of moderation agrees the moderator action is reasonable, then the remark is needlessly disparaging; if they disagree, then the remark needlessly burns goodwill.


----------



## pawsplay

Morrus said:


> That doesn't mean they get to wander around being obnoxious, but it does mean the occasional strongly worded - and dare I say personal - comment is a valid and permitted tool in their modding repertoire.  That, I'm afraid is not going to change.




I''m sorry to hear that. However friendly and beneficent the mods may be, and they are a good bunch, certainly, it amounts to running a brute squad. Again, if the mods are held to a different standard, I would expect it to be a higher level of restraint. It also means the mods can fulfill only a limited role as model posters. Hopefully, board members will discern, by their own judgment, who is to be emulated and who is not. 

It is your board and not mine. I have offered my perspective, I hope it was helpful to you, if only as a mirror. 

Thanks for running a pretty cool board.


----------



## Morrus

pawsplay said:


> I''m sorry to hear that. However friendly and beneficent the mods may be, and they are a good bunch, certainly, it amounts to running a brute squad. Again, if the mods are held to a different standard, I would expect it to be a higher level of restraint. It also means the mods can fulfill only a limited role as model posters. Hopefully, board members will discern, by their own judgment, who is to be emulated and who is not.
> 
> It is your board and not mine. I have offered my perspective, I hope it was helpful to you, if only as a mirror.




It's obvious that there are those who will disagree - that's the nature of the internet. And that's fine; it would be a dull place if we were all the same. But we do have to go with the policy of "at times we'll listen to your opinions, and may agree with with, but we need to go with what our decade of experience doing this tells us works; and sometimes (not referring to you in particular - the general "you") we completely disagree with your community-management theories, although we recognise that you believe you're right".

And yes, hyperbole aside, it does share qualities with a "brute squad" (less the antisocial or violent implications) within a certain very limited environment. We find an element of that is necessary in this non-utopian environment. You need to remember that we're not judges, elected public servants, social engineers, or arbitrators of ideals such as fairness; nor do we have any influence on behaviour anywhere but right here - we can't affect your quality or way of life or anything in your day-to-day existence - we're people simply enforcing the behaviour we've decided we want to see on our website.

I think we do pretty OK, overall.  Sure there are those who would like to see us die in an eternal fire, but they're usually elsewhere and have very odd senses of perspective and proportion.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

IME, sometimes a person needs to be told why they're being disciplined, and sometimes those people won't hear it unless it's put in rather strong terms.  And occasionally, such moderation serves as a warning sign to others- a rhetorical reflector, if you will.

OTOH, I can also see the other side of this.

I know it would be additional work, but it might soothe a few if there was a set of simple, pre-drafted mod messages ("frownies"?) to choose from, to be coupled with a PM for the more directed stuff. (Mods would still have the option of acting as they do now if they felt an example REALLY needed to be made.)

But personally, I have no complaints.


----------



## renau1g

If one of the "frownies" is Rel's post last page then I'm all for it... I did laugh out loud at that one.


----------



## Rel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I know it would be additional work, but it might soothe a few if there was a set of simple, pre-drafted mod messages ("frownies"?) to choose from, to be coupled with a PM for the more directed stuff. (Mods would still have the option of acting as they do now if they felt an example REALLY needed to be made.)




If I'm understanding your meaning then we have precisely this tool in the form of Infractions.  Most of you fine upstanding folk have no idea what I'm talking about but we have a simple button we can click that will give an "Infraction" for a certain number of points and it tells the person getting it that they got an infraction for a certain post along with a very brief private message including any further details we mods wish to include.

The primary purpose of this is to allow us to track trends over time because the same people are not on our individual radars all the time.  We need a method for us collectively to track whether somebody is a pain in the ass on a regular basis or if this is an isolated event.

As for the contention that we can't be as good in terms of modeling the behavior we expect here on the boards if we exceed that standard when the occasional need arises to "let somebody have it", I don't view this any differently than I do "The Daddy Voice".  Here in my house we do not typically yell at each other.  We certainly don't allow our darling daughter to yell at us.  But once in a great while I will raise my voice at her to drive home a point.  It is effective at getting her attention precisely because it is outside of our usual pattern of behavior and is therefore jarring.

If that sounds as though I'm saying that some board members sometimes act like unruly children...well, I think you take my point.


----------



## Oryan77

I rarely read the Meta forum, but I came here to figure out how to turn off the blasted Quote notification and this thread turned out to be an interesting read.

The most important thing any of you can do right now is to PM me with a list of the posters you are referring to as being annoying. Also, for the mods, a list of all and any posters that have been perma-banned from ENworld would also be appreciated.

I love knowing these kinds of details and it would really perk up my day to find out who hates who and who the problem posters are! Thanks a lot guys, and I promise not to pass this information to anyone else.

Oh, and if I appear on any of these lists, I will tell my brother to beat you up. That's not a threat, that's a fact!


----------



## Dice4Hire

Oryan77 said:


> I rarely read the Meta forum, but I came here to figure out how to turn off the blasted Quote notification and this thread turned out to be an interesting read.
> 
> The most important thing any of you can do right now is to PM me with a list of the posters you are referring to as being annoying. Also, for the mods, a list of all and any posters that have been perma-banned from ENworld would also be appreciated.
> 
> I love knowing these kinds of details and it would really perk up my day to find out who hates who and who the problem posters are! Thanks a lot guys, and I promise not to pass this information to anyone else.
> 
> Oh, and if I appear on any of these lists, I will tell my brother to beat you up. That's not a threat, that's a fact!




I will quote this post for the mods as you are probably on all of their ignore lists an they would otherwise never see this post. 

Of course that is assuming I am not.


----------



## Keith Robinson

Morrus said:


> I think we do pretty OK, overall.  Sure there are those who would like to see us die in an eternal fire, but they're usually elsewhere and have very odd senses of perspective and proportion.




Yep, gonna have to agree with this.  I think the mods here do a very good job.  The only time I ever really thought otherwise was during the worst of the edition wars just after 4ed was released, but in hindsight I'm not sure anyone could have expected the vitriol and hatred shown by some posters and the mods probably did as good a job as they could at the time.

Sometimes when I visit other forums I am shocked by the level of abuse that is allowed.  Perfectly decent posters will be dismissed with a _f**k off and die_ comment, just because they don't agree with someone.  I wouldn't want to see that here.

I was once a mod at a small forum and we had a poster who kept interrupting posts about 4ed with random negative comments which had nothing to do with the thread.  I deleted them and (politely) asked him not to do it again.  So, instead, he spammed the entire forums with 4ed hatred - I mean, he not only posted new posts, but went through his old posts and edited them!  I can't imagine the time and effort he put into doing that.  I banned him of course.  The thing was, he was absolutely outraged by the banning, said that it was all just a laugh and I must be completely humourless not to be able to see it.  It shocked me just how rude and aggressive he was and his complete inability to understand that he'd done anything wrong at all, in any way.  He even started following me around to other forums and posting there, too!  It was spooky and I learnt a lot about the faceless people you meet through the internet.

So moderating is hard work and can be quite stressful sometimes.  I think the moderators here at EN World should be applauded for the job they do (unless they moderate me, of course - now that _would_ be an outrage! )


----------



## pawsplay

Rel said:


> If that sounds as though I'm saying that some board members sometimes act like unruly children...well, I think you take my point.




1. I do, indeed, take your point, if your point is that forum members are to be treated as children.
2. I cannot think of any ordinary circumstances under which I would call my child a "jerk," which largely undermines, in my mind, that rationale for the stated standard of behavior. Even, and perhaps especially, if the board were populated by 11-year-olds, I would not consider that appropriate. I would not expect a school teacher to call my child a jerk under non-extraordinary circumstances.

I don't think the intention is to treat the board as a group of abused children. Rather, I think there is a problem with, on the one hand, treating board members as adults (using strong language designed to penetrate the ego) while on the other hand, treating them as children (not allowing them the same rights of conscience afforded "grown-ups"). 

When you have one group of adults calling another group of adults names... is that a situation in need of moderation, or moderation in action? An unruly child suggests an immature response to social demands... where does name-calling fall in that spectrum?

I hope I have not courted disciplinary action by my remarks, but I am not going to ever agree it's justifiable to name-call someone who is not afforded the right to respond. It's de-humanizing, even if only in a small way.

I am now going to exercise the wisdom of dropping out of this discussion for a few days. I've said what I have to say; anything more and I'll probably just get myself in trouble. My mouth tends to be inconveniently connected to my opinions. 

Thank you all for your time and respect.


----------



## Piratecat

pawsplay said:


> My mouth tends to be inconveniently connected to my opinions.



One of the things I like about you.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Morrus said:


> To be fair, that is the opinion of 90% of people on the wrong end of moderation, and would be even if we included a gift basket. That's just the nature of the game.



I would be much more obnoxious if I knew a gift basket was attached to the banhammer.


----------



## Scott DeWar

I guess there are going to be cirtain truths:
1) Mods have bad days- they are human
2 )for the most part we as a community are a great bunch of people.
3) the mods are here to stay and the way they moderate is santioned even with thier off days and, in the case of Rel, have an inherenty low charisma/lack of diplomatic charm.
4) there will always be people that will have a differing opinion.



TarionzCousin said:


> I would be much more obnoxious if I knew a gift basket was attached to the banhammer.




a halo? on you?! PLEEASze! we all know you just stole that from some poor sap down the road! no gift basket for you and you must now buy tacos for every one!


----------



## Relique du Madde

Scott DeWar said:


> no gift basket for you




The gift basket has a fruitcake in it... and it's not the good kind, it's the kind that looks like a clown vomited into a jello mold before pouring resin into it.


----------



## wedgeski

pawsplay said:


> 2. I cannot think of any ordinary circumstances under which I would call my child a "jerk," which largely undermines, in my mind, that rationale for the stated standard of behavior. Even, and perhaps especially, if the board were populated by 11-year-olds, I would not consider that appropriate. I would not expect a school teacher to call my child a jerk under non-extraordinary circumstances.



You're probably no longer here but out of interest consider the following:

"There's been some real jerkish behaviour in this thread!"
"Stop acting like jerks!"
"You're not normally a jerk, stop acting like one."
"You're a jerk."

Which one of those would you classify as name-calling? I'm starting to think I have a different opinion on this to most people.


----------



## GandalfMithrandir

quick question about how the ban hammer works: does it just delete the account? because I could forsee a situation where a user would just go in and make a new account, which would slightly defeat the purpose, but I guess if they have to do that over and over they would probably give up anyway.

GM


----------



## Morrus

GandalfMithrandir said:


> quick question about how the ban hammer works: does it just delete the account? because I could forsee a situation where a user would just go in and make a new account, which would slightly defeat the purpose, but I guess if they have to do that over and over they would probably give up anyway.




We have numerous tools at our disposal, the details of some of which we don't share with you.


----------



## Umbran

pawsplay said:


> 1. I do, indeed, take your point, if your point is that forum members are to be treated as children.




I think you are taking him just a touch too literally.


----------



## Rel

Umbran said:


> I think you are taking him just a touch too literally.




I'm Rel.  I'm _meant _to be taken literally.

And preferably with a beer chaser.


----------



## renau1g

The Kyngdoms said:


> Yep, gonna have to agree with this.  I think the mods here do a very good job.  The only time I ever really thought otherwise was during the worst of the edition wars just after 4ed was released, but in hindsight I'm not sure anyone could have expected the vitriol and hatred shown by some posters and the mods probably did as good a job as they could at the time.
> 
> Sometimes when I visit other forums I am shocked by the level of abuse that is allowed.  Perfectly decent posters will be dismissed with a _f**k off and die_ comment, just because they don't agree with someone.  I wouldn't want to see that here.
> 
> I was once a mod at a small forum and we had a poster who kept interrupting posts about 4ed with random negative comments which had nothing to do with the thread.  I deleted them and (politely) asked him not to do it again.  So, instead, he spammed the entire forums with 4ed hatred - I mean, he not only posted new posts, but went through his old posts and edited them!  I can't imagine the time and effort he put into doing that.  I banned him of course.  The thing was, he was absolutely outraged by the banning, said that it was all just a laugh and I must be completely humourless not to be able to see it.  It shocked me just how rude and aggressive he was and his complete inability to understand that he'd done anything wrong at all, in any way.  He even started following me around to other forums and posting there, too!  It was spooky and I learnt a lot about the faceless people you meet through the internet.
> 
> So moderating is hard work and can be quite stressful sometimes.  I think the moderators here at EN World should be applauded for the job they do (unless they moderate me, of course - now that _would_ be an outrage! )




It's people like that which make me want to do this - Can't post it here as it violates the language rules (from Jay & Silent Bob Strike back)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjWFZPJZTxU[/url)


----------



## El Mahdi

TarionzCousin said:


> I would be much more obnoxious if I knew a gift basket was attached to the banhammer.




The gift basket is only attached to serve as a counterweight...it increases accuracy and the thump factor.


----------



## Relique du Madde

GandalfMithrandir said:


> quick question about how the ban hammer works: does it just delete the account? because I could forsee a situation where a user would just go in and make a new account, which would slightly defeat the purpose, but I guess if they have to do that over and over they would probably give up anyway.
> 
> GM




I'm pretty sure it includes:  Nuking the account's email addresses, various linked accounts (icq, facebooke, aim, twitter), IP address blocks, etc.  The standard tools of the trade that are available to anyone who uses a CMS and had installed various security/moderation add-ons.


----------



## aurance

I'd like to sign up for some recreational punishment!


----------



## DumbPaladin

wedgeski said:


> When posting as themselves, mods should absolutely obey every rule in the book. But when they post in mod colours, I think there is a certain level of operating outside the rules. I'm sure many would disagree.





I do disagree -- the moderators should never violate the rules they expect everyone else to follow.  Frequent violation of rules by moderators strip them of any moral credibility when attempting to enforce said rules.

But setting up a dichotomy of rules they are to follow is neither realistic nor likely to be successful.  People simply don't make decisions to behave following "rule set A" when wearing the hat of a person of authority, but "rule set B" in every other aspect of their life: you need only look to real-life authority figures to determine that.   

What, exactly, is to stop any moderator from insulting people in a thread when not using their "mod colours", as you put it? 

Morrus has already stated that he sees nothing to improve in how moderation is handled.  The moderators do not snipe at or take on each other publicly, and thus I find it extremely hard to believe that Moderator B would actually delete or redact an attack post by Moderator A in any public thread.  

It doesn't matter whether a moderator is using in "moderator mode" or not: as a group, they're already above regulation and reprisal.  The rules ONLY apply to them if they DECIDE to abide by them -- and that's all the time, not just some of the time.  It's difficult, if not impossible, for people to hold themselves to different rules at different moments ... which is why people in authority regularly find themselves upholding their 'higher standards' all the time.

[MENTION=16212]wedgeski[/MENTION], while I honestly believe that while we may ultimately strongly disagree on this topic, I get the impression that it's possible you've just not seen this issue from the angle I've presented.  If this all occurred to you and you still feel the way you do ... then we simply disagree.  But in your first post in this topic, you said that you'd like to see *zero *change in EN World's moderation, and given that no one is perfect, and certainly no group of imperfect beings can _ever _be perfect ... I can't understand how anyone can suggest that there is no room for improvement, change, or growth.  That statement is beyond my comprehension ... and I have felt that way each time someone else has made a similar statement.


----------



## Sabathius42

Relique du Madde said:


> I'm pretty sure it includes:  Nuking the account's email addresses, various linked accounts (icq, facebooke, aim, twitter), IP address blocks, etc.  The standard tools of the trade that are available to anyone who uses a CMS and had installed various security/moderation add-ons.




You forgot waterboarding and black helicopters.

I am a long-time member and non-prolific poster and have had a thread or two where I have posted something sarcastic enough that it might have gotten me a slap on the wrist.  It's never happened though, as I always avoid outright attacks or insults.

I think the mods do a great job of keeping the place on-topic as well as intelligent.  I have seen evidence of a poster or two who is adept at walking the line between "fiesty" and "jerk" in many many threads and those are probably the folks you are referring to as the people who get away with things.  Fortunately the mods have a good eye and usually only come down on those who cross the line, not just toe it.

The one criticism that I have is that sometimes threads have been closed and locked that seemed like civil and valid discussions.  I can't point to specific examples at the moment (as I am in a lull of ENworld forum reading at the moment) but I have noticed that the new mod commenting system has gone a long way to keeping these rare.

Finally it might help some who are taking offense to the actual words the mods are using to remember that they aren't authority robots, but posters like you and I who have decided to contribute time and effort to making the boards a better place.  They might have been saying things in a friendly joking manner, and that includes referring to people as jerks.

DS


----------



## Scott DeWar

Reau1g, i was going to fix it for you, but i now see what you were trying to avoid.

Rel will the items in this pic work?

Holy cow! Booiler makets can really kick your butt! I am quite comfortabbly nummb right now.


----------



## Rel

DumbPaladin said:


> But setting up a dichotomy of rules they are to follow is neither realistic nor likely to be successful.




Apart from the fact that it's worked for upwards of 8 years.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Rel said:


> Apart from the fact that it's worked for upwards of 8 years.



Clearly, its a fad.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Rel said:


> Apart from the fact that it's worked for upwards of 8 years.




That is one of the best arguments for Enworld's current moderation.


----------



## Morrus

DumbPaladin said:


> Morrus has already stated that he sees nothing to improve in how moderation is handled.




Could you provide a quote for that?  I dont' recall saying that, and it doesn't sound like something I'd say.



> Apart from the fact that it's worked for upwards of 8 years.




The proof is, as they say, in the pudding.


----------



## wedgeski

DumbPaladin said:


> [MENTION=16212]wedgeski[/MENTION], while I honestly believe that while we may ultimately strongly disagree on this topic, I get the impression that it's possible you've just not seen this issue from the angle I've presented.  If this all occurred to you and you still feel the way you do ... then we simply disagree.  But in your first post in this topic, you said that you'd like to see *zero *change in EN World's moderation, and given that no one is perfect, and certainly no group of imperfect beings can _ever _be perfect ... I can't understand how anyone can suggest that there is no room for improvement, change, or growth.  That statement is beyond my comprehension ... and I have felt that way each time someone else has made a similar statement.



I do truly believe we disagree on this, and I have no problem with that. 

I stand by that comment though. I only have my own perspective to go on, and by that measure I wouldn't want to see any changes in moderation. I think over the years Morrus and his mods have put together a message-board which is _without peer_ anywhere else on the internet that I have visited. It really is in a class of its own.

To be honest I might not even consider it "perfect", but I also know that perfection is all-but-unobtainable and in my experience small changes in the pursuit of a mythical ideal will often do more damage than good.

So in this case, zero changes required. It works. Just leave it well enough alone.


----------



## DumbPaladin

wedgeski said:


> So in this case, zero changes required. It works. Just leave it well enough alone.





Enough people have brought up valid points to prove that it does not, in fact, always work.  

Everyone's free to decide it's "good enough", but the collective sticking of peoples' heads in the sand has never been shown to lead to progress, or solve anything.


----------



## Morrus

DumbPaladin said:


> Enough people have brought up valid points to prove that it does not, in fact, always work.




A tiny number of people have offered opinions. And, in contrast, they have not offered any proof that their magical community management theories will work any better than the ones we've developed over a decade (which, looking around, are working pretty darn well - we have a lively, active community of over 100,000 members; obviously we're doing something right). It's easy to be an "armchair general", as they say. That's not to say our methods are perfect, but we have a decade of evidentiary weight saying they're pretty good, while your competing theory has no more than conjecture.

Your main difference with our belief lies in this statement:

_"Frequent violation of rules by moderators strip them of any moral credibility when attempting to enforce said rules."_


There are three problems with that statement:

Moderators are not violating rules; they simply have more powers than you do. One of those powers is to use stronger language than you are allowed to use. That's because we have observed it works.
Usage of these powers clearly does not strip them of any credibility, because they still function well. If your statement were true, the entire board would be anarchy.
Your interjection of "morality" into the equation leads me to believe that you see the moderators as something they're not. They aren't moral leaders, teachers, social engineers, judges, therapists, counsellors, or arbitrators of fairness - they are _enforcers_. Their function is simple: to keep the peace. That's it. If you require more than that, our little RPG messageboard is not the place you'll find it.



> What, exactly, is to stop any moderator from insulting people in a thread when not using their "mod colours", as you put it?




That'll be me.

It's clear you think differently to us on this issue, and that's fine. But clearly we do disagree.


----------



## Rel

Morrus said:


> The proof is, as they say, in the pudding.




See HERE is the real problem lurking beneath the friendly veneer of ENWorld.

It's this bloody British obsession with pudding!


----------



## renau1g

Scott DeWar said:


> Reau1g, i was going to fix it for you, but i now see what you were trying to avoid.




Yup. Great movie, but sadly very unfriendly for Grandma's ears...


----------



## renau1g

Rel said:


> See HERE is the real problem lurking beneath the friendly veneer of ENWorld.
> 
> It's this bloody British obsession with pudding!




Better Pudding than Grits...or fried chicken and waffles...how can you eat that?


----------



## Rel

renau1g said:


> Better Pudding than Grits...or fried chicken and waffles...how can you eat that?




The secret is to eschew the silverware.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> they are enforcers




"Ehhhh...nice thread.  Wouldn't want anything to...uhhhh..._HAPPEN_ to it!  _Capiche_?"


----------



## jonesy

Dannyalcatraz said:


> "Ehhhh...nice thread.  Wouldn't want anything to...uhhhh..._HAPPEN_ to it!  _Capiche_?"



"Danny, I do not think these people are gettin'.. _the point_. Let us break a couple of posts or whatever. See if they wisen up."


----------



## Scott DeWar

Rel said:


> See HERE is the real problem lurking beneath the friendly veneer of ENWorld.
> 
> It's this bloody British obsession with pudding!




how can you have any meat if you don't eat your pudding?!



renau1g said:


> Better Pudding than Grits...or fried chicken and waffles...how can you eat that?




grits are just plain gnasty! I agree, but is that maple syrup I smell? yummmmmmm



jonesy said:


> "Danny, I do not think these people are gettin'.. _the point_. Let us break a couple of posts or whatever. See if they wisen up."




No no! i understand! here have an amber bock with a wild turkey American honey chaser! I am so sorry for our misunderstanding!


----------



## jonesy

Hmm. Now I'm hungry for some reason. I have to check if there's still leftover pizzabread in the fridge.


----------



## Scott DeWar

I am going to cook up some swai fillets on a bed of rice with carrots and spinich as sides.


----------



## Umbran

Scott DeWar said:


> grits are just plain gnasty!




What, you want polenta instead?

Somehow, I don't expect Rel minds getting a big of the gnasty, even during mealtimes.


----------



## Scott DeWar

i looked it up on google and found this:
Polenta Recipe | Slimy Recipes


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

jonesy said:


> Dannyalcatraz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Ehhhh...nice thread.  Wouldn't want anything to...uhhhh..._HAPPEN_ to it!  _Capiche_?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Danny, I do not think these people are gettin'.. _the point_. Let us break a couple of posts or whatever. See if they wisen up."
Click to expand...



"Hey, dat's a reel nice advertisin' banner..." _*STAAAAAAB*_ "Oh my, it seems to have a...whaddayacall...HOLE in it.  Tsk, tsk."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

And in other news: grits rock!  I like mine w/_BUTTER._


----------



## Rel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And in other news: grits rock!  I like mine w/_BUTTER._




Also cheese.  Also shrimp.

Also redeye gravy.


----------



## Umbran

Redeye gravy is gnasty.  It tastes... like it was made out of eyes


----------



## Relique du Madde

Random question:  Am I the only person who get's grossed out when going to a random restaurant, ordering something with gravy, and then receiving a white goop with meat chunks??


----------



## pawsplay

Umbran said:


> I think you are taking him just a touch too literally.




On the contrary, the recapitulation of processes of the family origin is a central metaphor of systems-based approaches to relationships. Often, it is possible to gain a great deal of clarity about a situation you are in or observing by simply imagining that the authority figures involved are parents, and everyone else are children, and siblings to each other. 

It shouldn't surprise anyone that I was an oldest child, also precocious, and independent in many ways from a young age, that I was well-behaved and a good student in high school, but unconventional.


----------



## Lanefan

Morrus said:


> We have numerous tools at our disposal, the details of some of which we don't share with you.



Yep: the banhammer, the banscrewdriver, the bantablesaw, the banchisel, the bandrill, etc., ...

And, you know, I'm kinda glad you don't share the details.  Some of those sound real painful!



Lanefan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Relique du Madde said:


> Random question:  Am I the only person who get's grossed out when going to a random restaurant, ordering something with gravy, and then receiving a white goop with meat chunks??




It depends on the goop & meat.  Shrimp in an Alfredo I'm cool with, country fried steak with cream gravy I won't touch (brown is OK, though).


----------



## Rel

Relique du Madde said:


> Random question:  Am I the only person who get's grossed out when going to a random restaurant, ordering something with gravy, and then receiving a white goop with meat chunks??




You are making me hungry!

Also I never go to restaurants that are random.  My restaurants are always carefully selected.


----------



## Scott DeWar

I like going to the yacht club for breakfast and lunch


----------



## Raven Crowking

[MENTION=90770]DumbPaladin[/MENTION]:

I have, for a fact, seen moderators quietly intervene with other moderators behind the scenes when that moderation was called into question.

I have, for a fact, seen moderators swayed by private discussion of whether or not moderation was appropriate.

I have, for a fact, seen moderators supply the rationale for a decision when asked privately, and I have been personally given good enough reasons to make me change my mind about the moderation in question 9 times out of 10.

And I'm an .  Ask anybody, and they'll agree.

Nobody's perfect, but EN World's mods have a *great* track record.


RC


----------



## billd91

DumbPaladin said:


> Enough people have brought up valid points to prove that it does not, in fact, always work.
> 
> Everyone's free to decide it's "good enough", but the collective sticking of peoples' heads in the sand has never been shown to lead to progress, or solve anything.




Depends on what threshold you consider to be "enough people". As Morrus points out, there haven't really been that many people speaking up, certainly not in this thread and not as a proportion of ENWorld participants. Should we take that as evidence that nothing significant needs to be done?

I'd reject the notion that failure to speak up is equivalent to "the collective sticking of peoples' heads in the sand". Avoiding knowledge of a problem isn't in any way the same as not agreeing with you that there is a problem. The notion that it is strikes me as being a bit insulting.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

I disagree with some moderator decisions, and think some mods are better than others.

As far as I remember, I've never disagreed with a decision that kicked me from a thread or temporarily banned me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Yep: the banhammer, the banscrewdriver, the bantablesaw, the banchisel, the bandrill, etc., ...



Bandersnatch?  Banana?


----------



## Scott DeWar

Raven Crowking said:


> And I'm an .  Ask anybody, and they'll agree.
> RC




yup, absolutely an . the biggest  on en world. of course you all realize i am just copy/pasting the smilies, right?


----------



## Scott DeWar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Bandersnatch?  Banana?



Ban-dana, ban-jackhammer; ban-hammerdrill; ban-moss covered three handled family gredunza


----------



## jonesy

Bandicoot?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Banzai!

Super Ban-Ban!


----------



## Scott DeWar

ban-nevolant society of moderators


----------



## the Jester

Ban-dana.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Jean-Claude van Ban
Ban Margera
Virgina Baked Ban
Intercontinental Banistic Missile


----------



## Scott DeWar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Intercontinental Banistic Missile




ouch, that one has got to be the worst one to be on the receiving end of.


----------



## Umbran

Scott DeWar said:


> ouch, that one has got to be the worst one to be on the receiving end of.




With mods spread from England to New Zealand, development of an advanced moderation delivery system was deemed essential for the continued safety and security of the community.

Plus, it makes quite a kaboom.  We are proud of the kaboom.


----------



## Scott DeWar

Umbran said:


> Plus, it makes quite a kaboom.  We are proud of the kaboom.




I am soooo not surprised.


----------



## wedgeski

Umbran said:


> Plus, it makes quite a kaboom.  We are proud of the kaboom.



Mods love big boom.


----------



## El Mahdi

We need a Banistic Missile Shield...or a Banistic Missile Ban Treaty.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> With mods spread from England to New Zealand, development of an advanced moderation delivery system was deemed essential for the continued safety and security of the community.
> 
> Plus, it makes quite a kaboom.  We are proud of the kaboom.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkPZwhDj1Ss&feature=youtube_gdata_player]YouTube - Cars that go boom Audio[/ame]


----------



## GandalfMithrandir

El Mahdi said:


> We need a Banistic Missile Shield...or a Banistic Missile Ban Treaty.




I will go the Eisenhower route and propose bans for peace, and also I will propose open forums where we can see the secret forum and the mods can see all of the forums, in other words that will reduce tensions because the users will see what the mods are doing similar to how Ike thought that open skies would ease tensions because we wouldn't be worrying about how they were possibly building secret missile silos and vice versa

Gandalf "In a history mood right now" Mithrandir


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Comments
> 
> Scott DeWar:
> You just might catch Weem, but maybe not like this!!




_Shhhh..._ I've LOST ground on him lately.  I probably won't even get close enough to kick him in the asymptote.


----------



## Scott DeWar

asymptote? is that a word? and if it is a word, is it grand ma friendly?


. .. .. .. .. .. ..* google: asymptote *

oh.


----------



## Lanefan

Dannyalcatraz said:


> _Shhhh..._ I've LOST ground on him lately.  I probably won't even get close enough to kick him in the asymptote.



'Round here, shouldn't you be trying to kick him in the ban?

Lan-"ban, ban, you're dead"-efan


----------



## Scott DeWar

thermal nuclear ban device

on an aside:
to all the imbibers of liquid refreshment, I am trying a drink that is slightly diffferent.

Wild Turkey american honey with diet 7-up. Any suggestions?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Scott DeWar said:


> to all the imbibers of liquid refreshment, I am trying a drink that is slightly diffferent.
> 
> Wild Turkey american honey with diet 7-up. Any suggestions?




Well, I can say that normal Wild Turkey combined with drinks like 7-Up (or the Tom Thumb brand Tangerine Lime drink) tastes pretty damn good.

American Honey, OTOH, reminds me of amaretto, which I've never had with a citrus beverage.  I have, however, had amaretto mixed with Kahluha, and there is a drink called Cafe Oscar, which is coffee with amaretto & coffee liquor.  I would imagine that American Honey would be an acceptable substitute for amaretto in that or any other drink.


----------



## Scott DeWar

American Honey with Coffee? hmmmmmm .. .. .. ..


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

And if you like liquors along those lines, check out Navan vanilla cognac, from the makers of Gran Marnier.


----------



## Gulla

Scott DeWar said:


> on an aside:
> to all the imbibers of liquid refreshment, I am trying a drink that is slightly diffferent.
> 
> Wild Turkey american honey with diet 7-up. Any suggestions?



Catching up on threads...

Won't that make the screen and keyboard terribly sticky?

Water is you best friend (especially while reading EN-World  )


----------



## Scott DeWar

Well, i licked the american honey off, the 7 up never made it. Tasted a bit off at a 50% mix from a glass. Was better at 1 part american honey, 2 parts 7 up.


----------



## Rel

Scott DeWar said:


> Well, i licked the american honey off...




I've done that plenty of times.


----------



## Scott DeWar

i am refering to only grandma friendly talk here. i am sure, Mr. Moderator that you are too, right?


----------



## Rel

Scott DeWar said:


> i am refering to only grandma friendly talk here. i am sure, Mr. Moderator that you are too, right?




I plead the fifth of whiskey.


----------



## Scott DeWar

better hurry, that bottle is emptying rather quick!


----------



## Nifft

Scott DeWar said:


> i am refering to only grandma friendly talk here. i am sure, Mr. Moderator that you are too, right?



 Rel is hereby prohibited from being "friendly" with my grandma.


----------



## Scott DeWar

Rel said:


> I plead the fifth of whiskey.






Scott DeWar said:


> better hurry, that bottle is emptying rather quick!




started on plan b last night.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Given your name, why not Dewar's LDA


----------



## Scott DeWar

I usually drink that , but am out right now and that bottle was given to me by a friend, soooo, i need to drink it while I save my pennies (need about 3000 of those for the white lable)


----------



## Rel

Scott DeWar said:


> started on plan b last night.




Moderation my friend.  Moderation.


----------



## Scott DeWar

I just got moderated on moderation by a modern day moderator.


----------



## Obryn

DumbPaladin said:


> I object to any moderating calling anyone "jerks" OR anything worse.  It's unnecessary.



I'm late to this game, but not only do I think it's necessary, I think it's awesome.

and...



DumbPaladin said:


> I do disagree -- the moderators should never violate the rules they expect everyone else to follow.  Frequent violation of rules by moderators strip them of any moral credibility when attempting to enforce said rules.



They don't need moral credibility.  Just authority, which they have.

Also, and apropos of nothing?  The moderation on the WotC forum is awful.  I've had my complaints about ENWorld moderation in the past, but that place is a hell-hole.

-O


----------



## Rel

Obryn said:


> They don't need moral credibility.




This is a huge relief.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Rel said:


> This is a huge relief.




So you're saying you don't need the moral high ground in the War on Rel?


----------



## Rel

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> So you're saying you don't need the moral high ground in the War on Rel?




The War on Rel turned out to be um..."saber rattling" would be a nice way of putting it.


----------



## mudbunny

Rel said:


> The War on Rel turned out to be um..."saber rattling" would be a nice way of putting it.




In other words, your sabre was too loose in the scabbard?

I blame [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION].


----------



## Scott DeWar

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> So you're saying you don't need the moral high ground in the War on Rel?






Rel said:


> The War on Rel turned out to be um..."saber rattling" would be a nice way of putting it.






mudbunny said:


> In other words, your sabre was too loose in the scabbard?
> 
> I blame [MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION].




<facepalm>


----------



## Lanefan

Obryn said:


> They don't need moral credibility.  Just authority, which they have.



So are you suggesting each moderator's status should be changed to "Morally Incredible"?  

Lan-"a less happy Canadian than I was several hours ago"-efan


----------



## TarionzCousin

I know the mods here know they're awesome AND they have great senses of humor. That's why I feel so comfortable posting this:


----------



## Rel

BANNED!  ONE YEAR!!

[sblock]I can't find the damn banning button right now but I'll ban you later if I remember!

Also, I don't wear glasses!  Yet.[/sblock]


----------



## Scott DeWar

That is probably a picture of himself.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Rel said:


> BANNED!  ONE YEAR!!
> 
> I can't find the damn banning button right now but I'll ban you later if I remember!
> 
> Also, I don't wear glasses!  Yet.



It's the green "thumbs up" symbol on my post.


----------



## Dice4Hire

TarionzCousin said:


> It's the green "thumbs up" symbol on my post.




Well.... THAT was a blatant attempt at an xp grab.


----------



## Rel

TarionzCousin said:


> It's the green "thumbs up" symbol on my post.




I bet you're sorry now!


----------



## TarionzCousin

Dice4Hire said:


> Well.... THAT was a blatant attempt at an xp grab.



How do you think I got to Level 19? By being helpful, witty, or funny? Ha!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TarionzCousin said:


> How do you think I got to Level 19? By being helpful, witty, or funny? Ha!




YEAH!

Besides, _those_ dwarf names were already taken.


----------



## Scott DeWar

TarionzCousin said:


> How do you think I got to Level 19? By being helpful, witty, or funny? Ha!






Dannyalcatraz said:


> YEAH!
> 
> Besides, _those_ dwarf names were already taken.




Danny A, I would rep point you but that would be counter productive to the EGG project.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Sure, penalize me in favor of the dead guy...

Blatant necrofavoritism, that's what it is!


----------



## renau1g

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure, penalize me in favor of the dead guy...
> 
> Blatant necrofavoritism, that's what it is!




I'd really love to want to help you Flanders Danny, but...uh...Marge Scott DeWar was taken prisoner in the...uh...Holy Land...and....


----------



## Scott DeWar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sure, penalize me in favor of the dead guy...
> 
> Blatant necrofavoritism, that's what it is!




do not speak ill of the departed, lest I contact moderator Rel to ban hammer you.


----------



## Scott DeWar

renau1g said:


> I'd really love to want to help you Flanders Danny, but...uh...Marge Scott DeWar was taken prisoner in the...uh...Holy Land...and....




news of my untimely abduction or demise is greatly exaggerated.


----------

