# Asking clarification regarding moderation



## Crimson Longinus

This is about the recent Bible setting thread.

I have great respect of the moderation team here. The moderation tends to be fair and not too heavy handed. And moderators generally patiently advice posters to cease unwanted behaviour before starting to hand out infractions. However, I feel that in thread in question the excellent standard of moderation I've come to expect weren't met. And I don't want to call out any specific moderators, here, but I want to ask for clarification. And as this really is not just about the specific moderation I received, but about the overall policy in in general, I decided to post it here, rather than use private messages. I hope that that is acceptable.

I have to say that I don't think the logic of handing infractions in that thread is clear to me. I don't think Christians were mocked or insulted in the thread. Factuality of bible was questioned and atrocities that happen in the Bible were (AFAIK, accurately) pointed out. Whilst perhaps there was some levity in manner it was expressed, I have hard time seeing how this would warrant infractions. Honestly consider had saying the same about some other mythology adapted for a setting warranted a similar action? Would questioning the factuality of the Eddas or implying that Xenu might be made up result an infraction? Would pointing out atrocities and other problematic content in the Greek myths, and asking how adaptation handles them warrant an infraction? I seriously doubt it. Yet those are religions of some real people too.

Now I fully understand that making such comments in unrelated tread would be inappropriate. But the thread is literally about setting developed based on the Bible. I really do not think it is appropriate to demand particular defence for a dominant major religions, that would not be afforded to other mythologies. And if the material is adapted into the game, people should be allowed to freely discuss it, without having to treat mythological source material as factual truth or beyond criticism.

I was quite hesitant to post this. As I said earlier, I respect moderation team greatly, and I don't want to start any trouble, but I truly feel the logic of the moderation is unclear, and it would set an uncomfortable precedent, so I would greatly appreciate if the matter of how real world mythologies can be discussed could be clarified.


----------



## Cadence

Way to ask the big questions!

In the US, anyway, I'm waiting to see how issues about how different religions are treated play through the federal courts in several contexts.  As with many things in life, it feels like a lot of people have trouble putting themselves in other peoples' shoes.  And, whatever the decisions, someone is going to be really ticked off. 

I'm guessing part of it is just balancing collegiality.  Joking at the usually accepted level about other things, dissecting, critiquing, making modifications to, basing things off of etc.. vs.  "this/all religions are just fantasy" or "this/all religion is a joke".


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

I understand your point completely.

Give you two examples. We have a commenter here who frequently discussed issues related to the Norse pantheon* / belief system because, IIRC, he is an active believer. Yet people are comfortable talking about (and/or rubbishing) the game elements of that belief system.

Or the controversial Deities and Demigods (or even the recent thread about Genies, aka Djinn ... which are not just folklore, but are also part of Islamic belief). Active religions were statted up.

And yet we have an active thread, about an entire 5e game based on a specific religious conception, and I'm not going to post in it because asking a question ("Will they stat up the Trinity?") might get me a warning.**

All that said, as a general matter, it is best to treat the beliefs of other with the respect that you wish to have accorded to your own.


*I know there's a better name, and it escapes me right now.

**I don't want to get my first actual point. Yeah, you read that correctly. I can read the room, and I see the lines. Usually.


----------



## the Jester

I'm curious about this too. The moderation in that thread seemed a bit oversensitive to me, especially compared to how pagan faiths are treated.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I don’t remember the particular mod actions in question.

_Speaking for myself_, AFAIK, there’s is no hard & fast rule about what will draw attention.  Like anything else, we consider the nature of the post within the context of how it was received in the thread,  IOW, everything will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

So, if someone asks if the Trinity will be statted up, that’s probably a valid question.  

If, OTOH, someone asks about the “big sky daddy”- a phrase that is used in non-gaming discussions to denigrate the Abrahamic faiths- that’s going to get noticed and probably draw a warning,

And of course, not being theologian, we’re probably going to miss stuff, so if a believer points out dog-whistle terminology or severe intentional distortions of the faith, we have to consider that, too.


----------



## FrogReaver

Crimson Longinus said:


> I have to say that I don't think the logic of handing infractions in that thread is clear to me. I don't think Christians were mocked or insulted in the thread.



Obviously I'm not a mod and also  just read the thread.  IMO.  Most slights weren't modded at all (no issue for me as some things can be a bit disrespectful without crossing the line).  Most of the mod action I saw there was about fairly significant insults.

I think the topic was treated more sensitively than a typical topic which I think is what you are noticing, but not really any more sensitively than certain other topics get treated.  I agree in principle that some topics need treated more respectfully than the typical topic - even if I sometimes disagree on where the lines get drawn or what should specifically count as respectful.

A few comments in that thread said things like "...because of the documented "relationships" the adult soldier had with his underage trainee/squire/name I can't remember. Not to make light of it, but it would be a class that fits some Catholic priests or the members of NAMBLA."  and "It's based on a well known fictional franchise?" - Fictional Franchise here being a reference to peoples sincerely held religious beliefs in the church/bible.  It was primarily these kinds of comments that were modded.  (Not actually quoted as intention is to provide examples while minimizing calling out the individuals).


----------



## Crimson Longinus

FrogReaver said:


> Obviously I'm not a mod and also  just read the thread.  IMO.  Most slights weren't modded at all (no issue for me as some things can be a bit disrespectful without crossing the line).  Most of the mod action I saw there was about fairly significant insults.
> 
> I think the topic was treated more sensitively than a typical topic which I think is what you are noticing, but not really any more sensitively than certain other topics get treated.  I agree in principle that some topics need treated more respectfully than the typical topic - even if I sometimes disagree on where the lines get drawn or what should specifically count as respectful.
> 
> A few comments in that thread said things like "...because of the documented "relationships" the adult soldier had with his underage trainee/squire/name I can't remember. Not to make light of it, but it would be a class that fits some Catholic priests or the members of NAMBLA."  and "It's based on a well known fictional franchise?" - Fictional Franchise here being a reference to peoples sincerely held religious beliefs in the church/bible.  It was primarily these kinds of comments that were modded.  (Not actually quoted as intention is to provide examples while minimizing calling out the individuals).



That some myth is 'someone's sincerely held belief' cannot mean that other people are required to treat it as fact. And that absolutely is not expected in the case of other myths. We are not expected to treat Viking or Greek myths as facts even though there are some people whose religion they are.

The other modded thing was mentioning the atrocities in the Bible, which again would be perfectly fair topic of discussion in the context of adapting some other myth.

I really don't think a very privileged major religion should enjoy some extra protection and deference over marginalised ones.


----------



## Marc Radle

Crimson Longinus said:


> That some myth is 'someone's sincerely held belief' cannot mean that other people are required to treat it as fact. And that absolutely is not expected in the case of other myths. We are not expected to treat Viking or Greek myths as facts even though there are some people whose religion they are.
> 
> The other modded thing was mentioning the atrocities in the Bible, which again would be perfectly fair topic of discussion in the context of adapting some other myth.
> 
> I really don't think a very privileged major religion should enjoy some extra protection and deference over marginalised ones.



You’ve used phrases like “That some myth is 'someone's sincerely held belief' cannot mean that other people are required to treat it as fact …” a number of times now. it seems clear that you have a pretty strong belief system / agenda here …

Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world, so calling (or strongly implying that) Christianity is a myth is certainly going to anger or offend a great many people.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Marc Radle said:


> You’ve used phrases like “That some myth is 'someone's sincerely held belief' cannot mean that other people are required to treat it as fact …” a number of times now. it seems clear that you have a pretty strong belief system / agenda here …
> 
> Christianity is one of the largest religions in the world, so calling (or strongly implying that) Christianity is a myth is certainly going to anger or offend a great many people.



Myth, as in meaning _"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." _

That's what religions are, and it is completely unreasonable to demand that people treat metaphysical of historical aspects of other people's religions as factual. That goes completely beyond normal respect or politeness.

I'm merely asking that we could discuss all mythologies in a neutral manner, especially as it comes to their use in the gaming context. Whether some mythology is or isn't part of someone's religion is their personal matter, and shouldn't really enter the discussion or warrant any special deference or judgement.


----------



## Morrus

Folks, we’re not going to actually discuss the nature or validity of religion here. This thread is about moderation. Stay on topic please, and as always avoid politics and religion.


----------



## LongTimeLurker

Huh, that's intetesting, cause i WAS totally mocking the buy bull and the atrocities/silliness therein in my commentary (adventure ideas #1 through #7) and i don't think i got modded at all. I'll have to goback and check.


----------



## Irlo

Crimson Longinus said:


> I'm merely asking that we could discuss all mythologies in a neutral manner, especially as it comes to their use in the gaming context. Whether some mythology is or isn't part of someone's religion is their personal matter, and shouldn't really enter the discussion or warrant any special deference or judgement.



Honestly, was your moderated comment _neutral_?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Crimson Longinus said:


> Myth, as in meaning _"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." _
> 
> That's what religions are, and it is completely unreasonable to demand that people treat metaphysical of historical aspects of other people's religions as factual. That goes completely beyond normal respect or politeness.



“Myth” in the context of discussion of major religions also has accreted the additional colloquial connotation of dismissing the faith as false.  So it’s a little loaded.

Better practice: call it a “tradition” if you’re talking about a religion with active memberships in the 50M+ range.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Irlo said:


> Honestly, was your moderated comment _neutral_?



It was a joke, that relied on comparing the Bible to fantasy epics like Lord of the Rings. Something a fantasy forum like this might appreciate. And yes, it implied that Bible might not be factual, which, as a prevailing consensus among historians, is hopefully an opinion that is allowed to be expressed.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> “Myth” in the context of discussion of major religions also has accreted the additional colloquial connotation of dismissing the faith as false.  So it’s a little loaded.
> 
> Better practice: call it a “tradition” if you’re talking about a religion with active memberships in the 50M+ range.



It might indeed have such connotation. Yet we talk about Greek or Norse myths etc all the time. Are you saying that it is not allowed to express an opinion, that you do not personally believe that things that might be subject of someone's religious belief might not be factually true? That effectively forces people who do not believe in certain religion to pretend that they do. That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me. Also, I'm not sure what size of the religion has to do with anything. If anything, one would expect that marginalised religions might need more protection that dominant and privileged ones.


----------



## Irlo

Crimson Longinus said:


> It was a joke, that relied on comparing the Bible to fantasy epics like Lord of the Rings. Something a fantasy forum like this might appreciate. And yes, it implied that Bible might not be factual, which, as a prevailing consensus among historians, is hopefully an opinion that is allowed to be expressed.



For what it’s worth, I thought it was funny.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Crimson Longinus said:


> Are you saying that it is not allowed to express an opinion, that you do not personally believe that things that might be subject of someone's religious belief might not be factually true?



Don’t twist my words- I meant _precisely _what I said.

There are many religious beliefs that are commonly called myths.  While they may have living adherents, they are few in number.  If a practitioner were to ask me to not call their belief a “myth”, I would honor that request and use other, less loaded terminology.

For example, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I accept that my religious beliefs may not be provable as fact, and I do not insist that they be considered so to be.*. They are accepted by me on the basis of faith. But someone using rhetorical language that essentially implies that Christianity is *a lie* is going to get on my bad side.

Knowing this about ME, I’m not going to turn around and call Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, or any other major world belief system about the nature and existence of the divine a “myth”.  That includes atheism.

It’s just basic respectfulness.




* For the record, in ANY context.


----------



## AnotherGuy

Crimson Longinus said:


> ...it is completely unreasonable to demand that people treat metaphysical of historical aspects of other people's religions as factual. That goes completely beyond normal respect or politeness.




AND



Crimson Longinus said:


> That effectively forces people who do not believe in certain religion to pretend that they do. That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me.




I'm gonna replace a few words here from these quotes

_...it is completely unreasonable to demand that people treat aspects of other people's concept of xyz. That goes completely beyond normal respect or politeness.

That effectively forces people who do not believe in certain concepts to pretend that they do. That doesn't seem at all reasonable to me._

Moderation comes down heavy on the xyz all the time. I do not see why you believe moderation on religion should be any different.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Don’t twist my words- I meant _precisely _what I said.
> 
> There are many religious beliefs that are commonly called myths.  While they may have living adherents, they are few in number.  If a practitioner were to ask me to not call their belief a “myth”, I would honor that request and use other, less loaded terminology.
> 
> For example, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. I accept that my religious beliefs may not be probable as fact, and I do not insist that they be considered so to be.*. They are accepted by me on the basis of faith. But someone using rhetorical language that essentially implies that Christianity is *a lie* is going to get on my bad side.
> 
> Knowing this about ME, I’m not going to turn around and call Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, or any other major world belief system about the nature and existence of the divine a “myth”.  That includes atheism.
> 
> It’s just basic respectfulness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * For the record, in ANY context.



"Lie" carries an added connotation of deceptions, that myths' "might not necessarily be true" really doesn't. The latter is pretty much your "may not be probable as fact" and is pretty normal language in anthropological context. For example "flood myths" refers to various stories around the world relating to giant deluges, and that obviously includes the one in the Bible.


----------



## Cadence

While one of the top definitions of myth is "traditional story", another is "a widely held but false belief or idea".  Describing something as myth feels different to me than, say, either "folktale" or "belief" or "traditional belief".


----------



## Irlo

Crimson Longinus said:


> "Lie" carries an added connotation of deceptions, that myths' "might not necessarily be true" really doesn't. The latter is pretty much your "may not be probable as fact" and is pretty normal language in anthropological context. For example "flood myths" refers to various stories around the world relating to giant deluges, and that obviously includes the one in the Bible.



Whatever the analysis, the moderated comment didn't imply "not necessarily true." The word used was "fictional." Not a neutral comment. It was clearly a dig at a few major religions, and as such probably didn't belong in a thread. You're not required to pretend anything is true that you don't believe is true. But why discuss the merits of the religions on that particular thread on a site that has rules about that?

I can understand why a moderator stepped in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Crimson Longinus said:


> "Lie" carries an added connotation of deceptions, that myths' "might not necessarily be true" really doesn't. The latter is pretty much your "may not be probable as fact" and is pretty normal language in anthropological context. For example "flood myths" refers to various stories around the world relating to giant deluges, and that obviously includes the one in the Bible.



I’ve said what I have said.  If you wish to refer to beliefs of major religions as “myths”, feel free.  

But don’t cry if people complain and you start racking up warnings and threadbans.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I’ve said what I have said.  If you wish to refer to beliefs of major religions as “myths”, feel free.
> 
> But don’t cry if people complain and you start racking up warnings and threadbans.



I don't feel particularly feel free to do so if you threaten to infract me for it. But I guess the forum's official moderation stance has now been clarified, so thank you.


----------



## Umbran

Crimson Longinus said:


> It was a joke...




That turns out to not be a particularly effective defense for hurtful words.   If someone is hurt by what you say, and this is your defense, that means that _you find their pain funny_, and you are willing to risk their pain for a laugh. 

Not to mention that archetypically, that defense is applied after the fact, held up as a shield only after finding out the audience isn't having any of it.

All in all, what is needed isn't a "neutral" conversation - too many deeply held beliefs, things people us eot build their personal identity are involved.  What's needed is a sensitive and respectful discussion.

But you want to make jokes.  So, that's not in the offing, now is it?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Umbran said:


> That turns out to not be a particularly effective defense for hurtful words.   If someone is hurt by what you say, and this is your defense, that means that _you find their pain funny_, and you are willing to risk their pain for a laugh.
> 
> Not to mention that archetypically, that defense is applied after the fact, held up as a shield only after finding out the audience isn't having any of it.
> 
> All in all, what is needed isn't a "neutral" conversation - too many deeply held beliefs, things people us eot build their personal identity are involved.  What's needed is a sensitive and respectful discussion.
> 
> But you want to make jokes.  So, that's not in the offing, now is it?




Let's get this straight. The joke did no rely on anyone's pain, it was humorously comparing a book of fantastic stories into other similar books on this forum of fantasy enthusiasts and was a serious answer to another poster's question of why this particular Kickstarter was featured and receive attention: the subject matter is very widely known.

And yes, it contained an implication that I personally might not consider the book in question to be factual. And I claim that people censured for expressing such an opinion is a far greater harm, than the potential hurt experienced by some members of privileged hegemonic religion by hearing that not everyone shares their faith.

Another poster was infracted for bringing up various atrocities in the source material and asking how the adaptation would handle it. I think that is an important topic, and there was discussion about similar matter regarding one of the Greek inspired setting... Odyssey of the Dragonlords, I think. I think it is rather unreasonable that the source material being part of major religion would make it except of such examination and critique.

What you demand here is not politeness, it is deference. And one that absolutely is not afforded to marginalised religions here. I strongly feel that we should be able to freely talk about any mythology when it is used as source material of a game, without the fear of being infracted for blasphemy.


----------



## reelo

Dannyalcatraz said:


> “Myth” in the context of discussion of major religions also has accreted the additional colloquial connotation of dismissing the faith as false. So it’s a little loaded.
> 
> Better practice: call it a “tradition” if you’re talking about a religion with active memberships in the 50M+ range.




But that's an "argumentum ad populum", an argument from popularity, which is a logical fallacy. Something isn't inherently more true, or valid, or valuable, just because it is popular.


----------



## Cadence

reelo said:


> But that's an "argumentum ad populum", an argument from popularity, which is a logical fallacy. Something isn't inherently more true, or valid, or valuable, just because it is popular.




It feels like it's a matter of  practicalities.  It probably isn't practical on a hobby board to let folks go willy-nilly offend large numbers of members about their religious beliefs or non-beliefs when the insult isn't needed if you want the conversation to flow without a flood of reports.  And it also is probably impossible to have many conversations at all that aren't oddly constrained if one has to imagine any possible religious belief anyone might have before posting.

And it feels like the terms viewed as insulting aren't needed to make many of the desired points.  You don't need to call the bible a myth and compare it to works of fiction, for example, when you want to ask how a good character would deal with the command to kill all the men, women, and children, when there are historical incidents you could compare it to (which would presumably have more bite, anyway).

And if someone is continually offended about how their own non-mega religion is described as myth on here - ask that it not be described that way when it is, and report the folks who keep doing it after being asked to stop.


----------



## reelo

Cadence said:


> It probably isn't practical on a hobby board to let folks go willy-nilly offend large numbers of members about their religious beliefs or non-beliefs when the insult isn't needed if you want the conversation to flow without a flood of reports.




I don't see anybody actively offending any members of the board. In civil discourse, there is a clear difference between attacking/insulting a person (an action which should rightly bear consequences), and criticizing/dismissing, or even just trivializing, an idea or a concept.
Ideas, concepts, thoughts, and beliefs do not enjoy the same level of protection that actual people (rightfully) do.
Re-evaluating long-held notions and ideas is how societal progress is made. 

That said, on these boards I'm fine with not discussing any real-world religions since it is against the rules, but then said rules should apply to ALL real-world religions, and at all times, campaign-setting or no, because otherwise it's unequal treatment and sets up a double-standard.


----------



## AnotherGuy

reelo said:


> That said, on these boards I'm fine with not discussing any real-world religions since it is against the rules, but then said rules should apply to ALL real-world religions, and at all times, campaign-setting or no, because otherwise it's unequal treatment and sets up a double-standard.



One is able to identify as an atheist, agnostic or other without utilising a word to denounce another's belief. A lot has been said about how certain lesser followed beliefs have been denigrated. Can anyone reflect an example (with a link) where such occurred?


----------



## Cadence

AnotherGuy said:


> One is able to identify as an atheist, agnostic or other without utilising a word to denounce another's belief. A lot has been said about how certain lesser followed beliefs have been denigrated. Can anyone reflect an example (with a link) where such occurred?




I believe there are some on this board with beliefs related to ancient Norse faith, and the deities associated with that are commonly treated as mythical and statted up in ways Christian saints and the like wouldn't be.  I don't have a particular link.


----------



## Cadence

reelo said:


> I don't see anybody actively offending any members of the board. In civil discourse, there is a clear difference between attacking/insulting a person (an action which should rightly bear consequences), and criticizing/dismissing, or even just trivializing, an idea or a concept.
> Ideas, concepts, thoughts, and beliefs do not enjoy the same level of protection that actual people (rightfully) do.
> Re-evaluating long-held notions and ideas is how societal progress is made.




Has casually dismissing the religious beliefs others hold commonly "proven not to be helpful in a dialogue which requires more than one person talking"?


----------



## AnotherGuy

Cadence said:


> I believe there are some on this board with beliefs related to ancient Norse faith, and the deities associated with that are commonly treated as mythical and statted up in ways Christian saints and the like wouldn't be.  I don't have a particular link.



That's fair, link not needed for that, since deities of many ancient faiths were published by TSR back in the 80's/90's.

I'm wondering now if Mike Myler who regularly uploads stats of mythological and historical persons and beasts has ever done anyone from the Old Testament such as David, Goliath, Moses, Saul, Abraham, Adam, Lilith...etc, or from any other faith.


----------



## FrogReaver

Crimson Longinus said:


> Let's get this straight. The joke did no rely on anyone's pain, it was humorously comparing a book of fantastic stories into other similar books on this forum of fantasy enthusiasts and was a serious answer to another poster's question of why this particular Kickstarter was featured and receive attention: the subject matter is very widely known.
> 
> And yes, it contained an implication that I personally might not consider the book in question to be factual. And I claim that people censured for expressing such an opinion is a far greater harm, than the potential hurt experienced by some members of privileged hegemonic religion by hearing that not everyone shares their faith.
> 
> Another poster was infracted for bringing up various atrocities in the source material and asking how the adaptation would handle it. I think that is an important topic, and there was discussion about similar matter regarding one of the Greek inspired setting... Odyssey of the Dragonlords, I think. I think it is rather unreasonable that the source material being part of major religion would make it except of such examination and critique.
> 
> What you demand here is not politeness, it is deference. And one that absolutely is not afforded to marginalised religions here. I strongly feel that we should be able to freely talk about any mythology when it is used as source material of a game, without the fear of being infracted for blasphemy.



From my perspective it doesn’t matter whether it’s a joke or not.  We aren’t permitted to talk religion on here. Period. As a hypothetical- If I had posted on the thread something like, its great to see the one true religion finally getting some love in d&d.  Or even made a joke including that phrase, I fully expect that comment would have been modded. It’s just not a topic anyone here can freely talk about.


----------



## Umbran

Crimson Longinus said:


> What you demand here is not politeness, it is deference.




We ask that you defer a bit, not to the religion, but to the feelings of others.  It is called "empathy".   When people stop caring who they might hurt, they stop getting along, and conflict escalates.  

If you don't want to practice empathy, then there's some topics you really shouldn't discuss here.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

FrogReaver said:


> From my perspective it doesn’t matter whether it’s a joke or not.  We aren’t permitted to talk religion on here. Period. As a hypothetical- If I had posted on the thread something like, its great to see the one true religion finally getting some love in d&d.  Or even made a joke including that phrase, I fully expect that comment would have been modded. It’s just not a topic anyone here can freely talk about.



You're correct that it being a joke is besides the point. The real question is whether the factuality of a mythological narrative that may be part of someone's religion (and that's effectively all of them) can be questioned. If you talk about a global flood referenced in a mythological narrative, am I allowed to point out that according to archaeologists and geologists, that didn't actually happen? I think it is rather untenable idea that this couldn't be done. And this really isn't usually an issue, we don't need to play coy about whether we think Thor is real.


----------



## FrogReaver

Crimson Longinus said:


> You're correct that it being a joke is besides the point. The real question is whether the factuality of a mythological narrative that may be part of someone's religion (and that's effectively all of them) can be questioned. If you talk about a global flood referenced in a mythological narrative, am I allowed to point out that according to archaeologists and geologists, that didn't actually happen?



IMO based on the rules that cannot be questioned here. On the other hand It also cannot be advocated for as being real here either.  

But more importantly - how the heck is that topic of conversation ever going to come up unless you decide to bring it up.  I mean there was not some conversation about the factuality of a global flood that you chimed in on and got modded for while no one else did. If I recall, I think you were you the only one commenting about the factuality or non-factuality of the source material?



Crimson Longinus said:


> I think it is rather untenable idea that this couldn't be done. And this really isn't usually an issue, we don't need to play coy about whether we think Thor is real.



There are ways to respectfully say I am X or I believe X - typically it’s done by not explicitly or implicitly demanding others agree with your belief.  

Typically one might do that where that fact about you helps provide additional context to help others understand you or your point of view about a tangential discussion. 

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a use get modded.


----------



## Maggan

Crimson Longinus said:


> If you talk about a global flood referenced in a mythological narrative, am I allowed to point out that according to archaeologists and geologists, that didn't actually happen?




What's stumping me here is why would you want to point that out? What does the discussion gain from it? I surmise that a global flood brought up on a gaming forum like EN World would be in the context of "how could this be handled in RPG X?" and not in the context of "this is a factual description of Earth history".

But if I want to spin an adventure in a Biblical setting based on the notion of a global flood, what's to be gained from adding "that didn't really happen, you know" to the discussion?

/M


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Umbran said:


> We ask that you defer a bit, not to the religion, but to the feelings of others.  It is called "empathy".   When people stop caring who they might hurt, they stop getting along, and conflict escalates.
> 
> If you don't want to practice empathy, then there's some topics you really shouldn't discuss here.



Sure. And I truly am not thinking that people should be free insult each other. But implying that you do not believe that a certain mythological narrative is real is not an insult. And perhaps you could also try to practice empathy in understanding that in a world where certain major religions have very privileged position, where in in many cultures there is a great societal pressure for the non-religious and the practitioners marginalised religions to conform and kowtow to the majority, it actually doesn't feel super inclusive to interpret expressing such an opinion as an actionable insult.


----------



## FrogReaver

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. And I truly am not thinking that people should be free insult each other. But implying that you do not believe that a certain mythological narrative is real is not an insult. And perhaps you could also try to practice empathy in understanding that in a world where certain major religions have very privileged position, where in in many cultures there is a great societal pressure for non-religious and practitioners marginalised religions to conform and kowtow to the majority, it actually doesn't feel super inclusive to interpret expressing such an opinion as an actionable insult.



IMO what you said went quite a bit beyond just implying you didn’t believe.

For what it’s worth I fully agree with you being able to make a respectful post about what you personally believe.  I think the pushback you are seeing is more about the perceived lack of respectfulness in your post rather than   what you believe.


----------



## Umbran

Crimson Longinus said:


> The real question is whether the factuality of a mythological narrative that may be part of someone's religion (and that's effectively all of them) can be questioned.




For our purposes, the real question is whether EN World is the proper forum for such questioning.


----------



## Umbran

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. And I truly am not thinking that people should be free insult each other. But implying that you do not believe that a certain mythological narrative is real is not an insult.




There are many ways to be hurtful with words other than simple "insult".


----------



## eyeheartawk

FrogReaver said:


> I think the pushback you are seeing is more about the perceived lack of respectfulness in your post rather than what you believe.



The problem is this doesn't apply equally to all mythologies that could have followers. For example, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the point was made about Pagan traditions or about Zoroastrianism, say, since those followers don't hold primacy in the culture.

Looking at the moderated post, I very much doubt action would have been taken if the subject was a very minor religion. 

Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms. It's subject to the same discourse, ribbing etc that all other settings are. The OP here is not the one who decided to make a for-profit D&D setting based on a religious text (nor would he be far from the first to do so). You can't open the door, and then complain when people walk through it.


----------



## FrogReaver

Anyways I feel like this is starting to feel like gang up on @Crimson Longinus which isn’t my intent. I think I’ve said enough to provide some additional perspective and that saying more will detract rather than help my point.


@Umbran for what it’s worth, I’ve gained some respect and understanding for your moderation style.


----------



## Maggan

eyeheartawk said:


> Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms.




If I made an adventure and said "I wan't to have the PCs travel on the Bifrost bridge to Valhalla", what would it add to the discussion to chime in "the Bifrost bridge isn't real, you know?". And I've never seen anyone express a desire to add that when it comes to for example Norse mythology.

So why does that need arise when we're talking about Christianity?


----------



## eyeheartawk

Maggan said:


> If I made an adventure and said "I wan't to have the PCs travel on the Bifrost bridge to Valhalla", what would it add to the discussion to chime in "the Bifrost bridge isn't real, you know?". And I've never seen anyone express a desire to add that when it comes to for example Norse mythology.
> 
> So why does that need arise when we're talking about Christianity?



Sure, that exact same joke doesn't work when talking about Norse mythology, I agree.

Would that comment be constructive? Yeah, probably not, but then, that's not the threshold for moderation, is it? In your hypothetical, would that comment about the Bifrost being real get moderated? That's the issue.


----------



## FrogReaver

eyeheartawk said:


> The problem is this doesn't apply equally to all mythologies that could have followers. For example, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the point was made about Pagan traditions or about Zoroastrianism, say, since those followers don't hold primacy in the culture.



I think we would. Provided there was a setting book for those traditions and a few people reported the post of course.

But honestly I don’t think that point would ever be brought up about them by anyone. 



eyeheartawk said:


> Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms. It's subject to the same discourse, ribbing etc that all other settings are. The OP here is not the one who decided to make a for-profit D&D setting based on a religious text (nor would he be far from the first to do so). You can't open the door, and then complain when people walk through it.



I’m sorry, but making a religion focused RPG doesn’t open the door to anything like that.  ‘You did this so you invited bad stuff to happen you’ has never been a winning argument.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Umbran said:


> There are many ways to be hurtful with words other than simple "insult".



Sure. You may feel that me saying "I don't believe that your religion is true" is hurtful. Personally I'd argue that you chastising and punishing me for saying it is significantly more hurtful and rather noninclusive.


----------



## eyeheartawk

FrogReaver said:


> Provided there was a setting book for those traditions and a few people reported the post of course.



Please show me a post about Norse or any other non-dominant mythology getting moderated for being disrespectful. I think you'll find that there aren't any.


FrogReaver said:


> I’m sorry, but making a religion focused RPG doesn’t open the door to anything like that. ‘You did this so you invited bad stuff to happen you has never been a winning argument.’



No, I guess not. But if you happen to make a setting based on the Bible you are afforded special protection from banter not extended to others is a valid argument? So it goes one way but not the other. That's the point I was trying to make. Perhaps it wasn't totally clear there.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

eyeheartawk said:


> The problem is this doesn't apply equally to all mythologies that could have followers. For example, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the point was made about Pagan traditions or about Zoroastrianism, say, since those followers don't hold primacy in the culture.
> 
> Looking at the moderated post, I very much doubt action would have been taken if the subject was a very minor religion.
> 
> Also, if somebody makes a Christian based RPG setting, that's what opened the can of worms. It's subject to the same discourse, ribbing etc that all other settings are. The OP here is not the one who decided to make a for-profit D&D setting based on a religious text (nor would he be far from the first to do so). You can't open the door, and then complain when people walk through it.



Indeed. There actually is a context. This is not about bringing up religion is some random unconnected thread. And the other moderated matter was another poster bringing up the atrocities and other problematic content in the source material. This is the sort of thing we talk here about a lot: how to deal with potentially problematic content. It is rather bizarre that the subject matter being connected to a religion would somehow make such an examination inappropriate.


----------



## FrogReaver

eyeheartawk said:


> Please show me a post about Norse or any other non-dominant mythology getting moderated for being disrespectful. I think you'll find you can't find any.



There would need to be actual disrespectfulness in those conversations to show you that. Please show me disrespectfulness about Norse mythology or other non-dominant religions occurring here.  I don’t believe it’s ever happened here. 



eyeheartawk said:


> No, I guess not. But if you happen to make a setting based on the Bible you are afforded special protection from banter not extended to others is a valid argument? So it goes one way but not the other. That's the point I was trying to make. Perhaps it wasn't totally clear there.



There’s no special protection here.  The principal that’s being invoked is pretty clear - ‘be respectful’.


----------



## eyeheartawk

FrogReaver said:


> There’s no special protection here.



No?

Show me the moderated comments about people talking about Zeus' problematic behavior towards mortal women and wondering how that will be/will not be addressed in a given work vs the moderated comment in the source thread wondering about the infanticide, rape, slavery etc that's present in the Bible. How are they different? I can't think of any reasons other than the fact that within the culture this board's users exist in believing this particular thing?



> I think we would. Provided there was a setting book for those traditions and a few people reported the post of course.




We don't know for a fact, at this point, that either of the two moderated posts we're talking about here were reported, as a matter of procedure. That aside, I have a hard time believing that if somebody actually _did_ report a post where somebody said that Thor isn't real it would get the red text.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Crimson Longinus said:


> Indeed. There actually is a context. This is not about bringing up religion is some random unconnected thread. And the other moderated matter was another poster bringing up the atrocities and other problematic content in the source material. This is the sort of thing we talk here about a lot: how to deal with potentially problematic content. It is rather bizarre that the subject matter being connected to a religion would somehow make such an examination inappropriate.




I think the honest answer is ... it's difficult. There is a very good reason that this board has a no religion rule- from the T&C:

And in this category I should mention the _"no religion, no politics"_ rule -- please refrain from discussion of a religious or political nature. This last may seem a rather draconic rule, but it has helped keep the peace around here for a long time. There are plenty of places on the internet where one could have those sorts of discussion.

Which is a great thing! Because ... yeah those don't tend to go well. 

But then we get into issues when we do have the intersection of valid forum topics (in this case, a 5e setting based on Biblical themes) with a desire to not have the thread go off course. I don't think that there's an easy answer.

I would agree that it's further complicated because, in this case, people are more familiar with this specific issue. In the past, we've had a specific poster who adheres to less mainstream beliefs (Neo-Norse? I'm not sure how s/he prefers to describe it) that felt marginalized in conversations. 

I don't think there is a single correct answer to this. In the end, the unsatisfying, but correct, answer is that this is similar to a dinner party at someone else's house, and in the end you have to pay attention to rules of the host of the party.


----------



## Cadence

eyeheartawk said:


> Please show me a post about Norse or any other non-dominant mythology getting moderated for being disrespectful. I think you'll find you can't find any.
> 
> No, I guess not. But if you happen to make a setting based on the Bible you are afforded special protection from banter not extended to others is a valid argument? So it goes one way but not the other. That's the point I was trying to make. Perhaps it wasn't totally clear there.



I'm guessing the mods often take a close look when something is reported.  I'm assuming if something was posted trying to make a joke of any religion (say if in the bible thread someone said "well Jesus sure needs more HP than any of those mythological ones like Krishna/Ahura Mazda/Allah/Odin"  - or shuffle all five of them up and change the thread name) and someone said they found it offensive to have their religious figure called fake and reported it, that the mods would step in.


----------



## Umbran

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. You may feel that me saying "I don't believe that your religion is true" is hurtful. Personally I'd argue that you chastising and punishing me for saying it is significantly more hurtful and rather noninclusive.




The person who throws the first punch doesn't get to complain about the bruises they take in the scuffle. 

To quote Will Smith in MiB, "Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'."



Spoiler: okay, this is flip, but still...


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Umbran said:


> The person who throws the first punch doesn't get to complain about the bruises they take in the scuffle.
> 
> To quote Will Smith in MiB, "Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'."
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: okay, this is flip, but still...



I have been not throwing any punches, and this is not a fight. And if it was, it obvious that you as a moderator would "win." 

I've been trying to engage with you respectfully, and asked you to consider what sort of opinions about religion tends to get suppressed in the society at large, and whether forcing people with marginalised opinions to show deference to privileged hegemon religion is actually religiously inclusive.


----------



## FrogReaver

eyeheartawk said:


> No?
> 
> Show me the moderated comments about people talking about Zeus' problematic behavior towards mortal women and wondering how that will be/will not be addressed in a given work



1. Does anyone still believe in Zeus? 
2. Were his actions condoned or justified in that religion?  Or did they find them problematic as well?
3. Has this topic about Zeus and women actually came up on this forum?



eyeheartawk said:


> vs the moderated comment in the source thread wondering about the infanticide, rape, slavery etc that's present in the Bible. How are they different? I can't think of any reasons other than the fact that within the culture this board's users exist in believing this particular thing?




I think there was a respectful way to bring up that point. 


eyeheartawk said:


> We don't know for a fact, at this point, that either of the two moderated posts we're talking about here were reported, as a matter of procedure. That aside, I have a hard time believing that if somebody actually _did_ report a post where somebody said that Thor isn't real it would get the red text.



I don’t think we can have a productive discussion based on that kind of speculation.


----------



## eyeheartawk

FrogReaver said:


> 1. Does anyone still believe in Zeus?



Yes.


FrogReaver said:


> 2. Were his actions condoned or justified in that religion? Or did they find them problematic as well?



Not sure. It probably runs the gamut of opinions the way the other stuff that I mentioned does in Christianity, I suspect.



FrogReaver said:


> 3. Has this topic about Zeus and women actually came up on this forum?



Yes. First one I easily found, I wont' bother to look for more, not a particularly salient point when discussing equal treatment in any event.



FrogReaver said:


> I think there was a respectful way to bring up that point.



What is disrespectful about this post?



FrogReaver said:


> I don’t think we can have a productive discussion based on that kind of speculation.



Sure, nothing concrete, but as a means for comparison it's illustrative.


----------



## Irlo

Crimson Longinus said:


> Personally I'd argue that you chastising and punishing me for saying it is significantly more hurtful and rather noninclusive.



@Umbran, is moderation punishment? I’m not familiar with your system, but are there consequences to moderation beyond simply being moderated?


----------



## reelo

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I think the honest answer is ... it's difficult. There is a very good reason that this board has a no religion rule- from the T&C:
> 
> And in this category I should mention the _"no religion, no politics"_ rule -- please refrain from discussion of a religious or political nature. This last may seem a rather draconic rule, but it has helped keep the peace around here for a long time. There are plenty of places on the internet where one could have those sorts of discussion.
> 
> Which is a great thing! Because ... yeah those don't tend to go well.




As far as I'm concerned, the solution would have been very simple: the thread about the biblical setting (explicitly biblical,too!) should not have been created in the first place, or should have been locked immediately, because it falls under the above-mentioned ban. Problem solved. 

Would a theorectical "modern D&D" setting of present day USA with a civil war between Dem and GOP as a central theme be allowed to be discussed in a thread, if there was a KS for such one? I think not (and I think that's a very good thing!)


----------



## Cadence

eyeheartawk said:


> What is disrespectful about this post?




I know that in threads where race/ethnicity/LQBTQ+ status/gender come up, for example, I usually  edit myself a few times before posting (until someone really cheeses me off and then it's a debate about hitting report or hitting post).

I wonder if removing the emoji at the end and rephrasing it a little would have slid by.  "Given the various alignment threads that come up on here, I wonder how it will be approached in regards to some of the incidents in the bible (slavery, destruction of cities/opposing citizenry, etc...)."

I also wonder if the follow-up below on continuity errors was viewed as snark and factored in to how the first post one was viewed, and would have slid with.  "I wonder how they will select between different translations and differences between various books/denominational defaults."

I think if I were modding (which I'm thankfully for _everyone _not), how much was passable as snark vs. serious question would help break ties.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Irlo said:


> @Umbran, is moderation punishment? I’m not familiar with your system, but are there consequences to moderation beyond simply being moderated?




Not to kink shame anyone, but some people seem to enjoy the punishment moderation.

Masochistic Commenter: Moderate me, moderate me!

Sadistic Mod: ....ha. No.


----------



## FrogReaver

Irlo said:


> @Umbran, is moderation punishment? I’m not familiar with your system, but are there consequences to moderation beyond simply being moderated?



Not Umbran but - you can be thread banned, temporarily banned, permanently banned. You accumulate warning points that typically don’t go away that are reviewed by mods when it comes to moderating you in the future. I don’t know if that counts as punishment in your book - but it does in mine.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Irlo said:


> @Umbran, is moderation punishment? I’m not familiar with your system, but are there consequences to moderation beyond simply being moderated?



There are points that go on your permanent record and you can be thread banned or otherwise banned. And of course it sends a pretty strong message to everyone seeing it that expressing such an opinion (or anything vaguely similar to be on the safe side) is highly unwise.


----------



## FrogReaver

Cadence said:


> I know that in threads where race/ethnicity/LQBTQ+ status/gender come up, for example, I usually  edit myself a few times before posting (until someone really cheeses me off and then it's a debate about hitting report or hitting post).
> 
> I wonder if removing the emoji at the end and rephrasing it a little would have slid by.  "Given the various alignment threads that come up on here, I wonder how it will be approached in regards to some of the incidents in the bible (slavery, destruction of cities/opposing citizenry, etc...)."
> 
> I also wonder if the follow-up below on continuity errors was viewed as snark and factored in to how the first post one was viewed, and would have slid with.  "I wonder how they will select between different translations and differences between various books/denominational defaults."
> 
> I think if I were modding (which I'm thankfully for _everyone _not), how much was passable as snark vs. serious question would help break ties.



To me the …  really pushed it over the edge.


----------



## Morrus

Irlo said:


> @Umbran, is moderation punishment? I’m not familiar with your system, but are there consequences to moderation beyond simply being moderated?



We have no ability to punish anybody, nor would we want it. If we're pushed to the point that we have to ask somebody to leave, it's not punitive; at that point we're done - we don't care what happens other than that the person leave us all alone.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Cadence said:


> I know that in threads where race/ethnicity/LQBTQ+ status/gender come up, for example, I usually  edit myself a few times before posting (until someone really cheeses me off and then it's a debate about hitting report or hitting post).
> 
> I wonder if removing the emoji at the end and rephrasing it a little would have slid by.  "Given the various alignment threads that come up on here, I wonder how it will be approached in regards to some of the incidents in the bible (slavery, destruction of cities/opposing citizenry, etc...)."
> 
> I also wonder if the follow-up below on continuity errors was viewed as snark and factored in to how the first post one was viewed, and would have slid with.  "I wonder how they will select between different translations and differences between various books/denominational defaults."
> 
> I think if I were modding (which I'm thankfully for _everyone _not), how much was passable as snark vs. serious question would help break ties.



I generally feel that moderation should mostly be concerned with content rather than the tone. Different people express themselves differently, and the tone is notoriously hard to read on the internet anyway. Besides, some of us simply can't help being witty and funny.


----------



## Gradine

I would need more than my fingers to count the number of legit Wiccans I know... does this mean any RPG conversation about Witches must be shut down as disrespectful?

I can understand a heavy hand would be required when the conversation shifts to historically (and persistantly) marginalized religious groups, but in re: a Bible RPG, one would think that discussion of the Bible would be acceptable. One of the moderated posts was proceeded by a "Jesus saves, and takes half damage!" joke. 

Considering different sects of Christianity differ on how to construe the Bible (biblical literalists vs contextualists, f'rex) I would think that pointing out facts about the foundational document the RPG is based on ought to be fair game. 

That said, the posts that appear to have received moderation do appear to have been pot-stirring, rather than legitimate discussion.


----------



## Umbran

Irlo said:


> @Umbran, is moderation punishment?




Moderation is usually in the form of some red text saying some form of "stop it".
Occasionally is includes a Warning Point, that we use to keep track of problems long term.
There are times when someone is removed from a discussion, because their approach to it was causing problems.
And, finally, there's temporary or permanent bans from the site.

Most of these are not about inflicting a consequence on someone because they were bad.  They are about putting some control on discussions to keep them civil and flowing.


----------



## FrogReaver

Crimson Longinus said:


> I generally feel that moderation should mostly be concerned with content rather than the tone. Different people express themselves differently, and the tone is notoriously hard to read on the internet anyway. Besides, some of us simply can't help being witty and funny.



i agree about tone being hard to read. Though I think most of my extremely heated arguments here have steemed from tone over content.

It’s also probably true that in every one of those heated arguments the other person didn’t think their tone was an issue and definitely didn’t intend for it to be.


----------



## Umbran

Crimson Longinus said:


> I generally feel that moderation should mostly be concerned with content rather than the tone.




EN World's Rule #1 (which predates my turn as a moderator) is, "Keep it civil," for good reason.  

It has been my observation that content and tone are not easily separable, and when they are, you come to the issue that there are a million ways to say, "I disagree," and some of them will be fine, and others will cause a fight and lifelong animosity.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Crimson Longinus said:


> The real question is whether the factuality of a mythological narrative that may be part of someone's religion (and that's effectively all of them) can be questioned. If you talk about a global flood referenced in a mythological narrative, am I allowed to point out that according to archaeologists and geologists, that didn't actually happen?



Depends on how you say it.

As noted, I’m a practicing Roman Catholic.  Generally, my brand of christianity doesn’t advocate biblical literalism.  So I have no problem discussing parts of the Bible as being mere fables, told to make a theological or ethical point.

Heck, I even took classes in my college’s Religion department that treated all faith traditions as equal, and a course in the English department that taught the Bible as a literary work, and how authors have used its themes in their own work.

But, it should be noted, that some people _do._

So, pointing out that flood narratives are common to a number of faith traditions is cool.  Mentioning that there’s no scientific evidence to support any of them is OK.  If someone posts a link that purports to show evidence of an antediluvian flood, you’re on safe ground if you can refute it without getting personal or otherwise uncivil.

But if you start spinning off with insults to the poster or adherents of the faith, calling a faith tradition “fraudulent”, using popular internet put-downs for the faith being discussed?  THAT will get you unwanted attention.

However, as Umbran noted, before doing ANY of that, ask yourself why you’d need to.  If we’re talking about. RPG settings, what the point of noting the absence of evidence for an antediluvian flood?  If someone posts a link claiming proof, what’s safer- refuting it or reporting it for drifting into the religious weeds?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

eyeheartawk said:


> Show me the moderated comments about people talking about Zeus' problematic behavior towards mortal women and wondering how that will be/will not be addressed in a given work vs the moderated comment in the source thread wondering about the infanticide, rape, slavery etc that's present in the Bible.



I think talking about those topics in the Bible is perfectly fine in the context of discussing similar events in other religions’ texts. 

In discussing RPGsettings, it’s a bit more problematic.  Most- but not all- of the game supplements I’ve read dealing with Greek, Norse, and other ancient faiths tend NOT to include the grittier stuff, mentioning it only when it can’t be glossed over, such as when a particular major entity was the product of some illicit union or some such.  Remember, the minotaur of D&D resembles the classic greek one only in appearance and some abilities- the former is a race, the latter is a unique being born of a rather NSFW story,

So it would be a bit of a surprise if those passages of the Bible got statted out or made into an adventure path.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think talking about those topics in the Bible is perfectly fine in the context of discussing similar events in other religions’ texts.
> 
> In discussing RPGsettings, it’s a bit more problematic.  Most- but not all- of the game supplements I’ve read dealing with Greek, Norse, and other ancient faiths tend NOT to include the grittier stuff, mentioning it only when it can’t be glossed over, such as when a particular major entity was the product of some illicit union or some such.  Remember, the minotaur of D&D resembles the classic greek one only in appearance and some abilities- the former is a race, the latter is a unique being born of a rather NSFW story,
> 
> So it would be a bit of a surprise if those passages of the Bible got statted out or made into an adventure path.



IIRC Odyssey of Dragonlords actually had some a bit nasty stuff that was in line with the source material but necessarily not with the modern sensibilities. I think there was discussion about that. And of course even old novels from the last century will have stuff we might now find questionable, and we constantly talk about how to deal with adapting concepts from them (Lovecraft, Howard, Tolkien etc.) And yeah, perhaps they handle it perfectly, perhaps they omit all the problematic stuff; we don't know yet. But the question really is why a poster was infracted for bringing the topic up in this case? To me it sends a pretty strong message that in this instance we cannot discuss that and that means that there is a clear double standard.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Crimson Longinus said:


> But the question really is why a poster was infracted for bringing the topic up in this case? To me it sends a pretty strong message that in this instance we cannot discuss that and that means that there is a clear double standard.



That's the issue that isn't really being meaningfully engaged with. Likely because the answer isn't a good one. The loud silence on this point reads to me as "Yes, it's a double standard, we can't say that it's not, but for the sake of not dealing with hurt feelings and reports and generating a bunch of kerfuffle it will stand". Which, is a position I could at least accept, I just wish somebody would actually say that.


----------



## Cadence

Crimson Longinus said:


> But the question really is why a poster was infracted for bringing the topic up in this case? To me it sends a pretty strong message that in this instance we cannot discuss that and that means that there is a clear double standard.






eyeheartawk said:


> That's the issue that isn't really being meaningfully engaged with. Likely because the answer isn't a good one. The loud silence on this point reads to me as "Yes, it's a double standard, we can't say that it's not, but for the sake of not dealing with hurt feelings and reports and generating a bunch of kerfuffle it will stand". Which, is a position I could at least accept, I just wish somebody would actually say that.




In #71 a mod says "depends on how you say it" and the mod in #70 talks about tone and keeping it civil.

I think #45 (the one flagged) and #47 in the original thread came off as being at least there for as much anti-religious snark as for being a serious question about RPGing.  And the forum rules seem to make it clear that religious and political snark in the game threads are subject to getting modded.  Alternate ways to have them seem less snarky and still bring it up have been mentioned upthread. 

That everything that might be moddable isn't always called out seems to happen sometimes because the mods often pick one thing to call out in a thread as representative.   That some things are modded and others aren't seems to happen sometimes because one is reported and another isn't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bingo.


----------



## p_johnston

So I lurk on these forums more than I post but I will say the moderation is typically on point. Sometimes it's a little more heavy handed then I would personally like, sometimes things that I would expect to get moderated pass without comment. Overall though it's usually pretty good. For the purposes of this discussion I do think it really comes down to the Mods are humans. They are people taking time out of their day to try and keep this forums pleasant using their best judgment at the time.

That being said I do think that the people saying there is a double standard between posts moderated because they are talking about Christianity and similar posts about norse/greek religions remaining on moderated have a point. I highly doubt either of the posts mentioned would have been touched by a mod if they were talking about a very minor religion.

In the case of the thread being mentioned I suspect the moderated post's were moderated because it is very easy to see how such posts could cause offense and derail the discussion into a toxic place for many of the people who are participating. Because of Christianity dominate place in society it's very easy for even non religious people to see that. In the case of less popular religions it can be easier to overlook how similar posts could be hurtful/problematic.  I would also like to believe that if a forum goer who sincerely believed in a less popular religion were to make it known that similar posts were hurtful to them in the same way that the Mod team would then step in after being made aware of the issue.


----------



## FrogReaver

p_johnston said:


> So I lurk on these forums more than I post but I will say the moderation is typically on point. Sometimes it's a little more heavy handed then I would personally like, sometimes things that I would expect to get moderated pass without comment. Overall though it's usually pretty good. For the purposes of this discussion I do think it really comes down to the Mods are humans. They are people taking time out of their day to try and keep this forums pleasant using their best judgment at the time.
> 
> That being said I do think that the people saying there is a double standard between posts moderated because they are talking about Christianity and similar posts about norse/greek religions remaining on moderated have a point. I highly doubt either of the posts mentioned would have been touched by a mod if they were talking about a very minor religion.
> 
> In the case of the thread being mentioned I suspect the moderated post's were moderated because it is very easy to see how such posts could cause offense and derail the discussion into a toxic place for many of the people who are participating. Because of Christianity dominate place in society it's very easy for even non religious people to see that. In the case of less popular religions it can be easier to overlook how similar posts could be hurtful/problematic.  I would also like to believe that if a forum goer who sincerely believed in a less popular religion were to make it known that similar posts were hurtful to them in the same way that the Mod team would then step in after being made aware of the issue.



I’m also fairly certain the frequency something is being reported can sway mods to take action. Which in the case of something perceived as snarky toward a religion could tend to lead to mods taking more action for snarky posts toward a major religion than toward a lesser one.  But the practical nature of taking into consideration the number of reports when making a decision is an important consideration as it can help a mod eliminate their personal biases even if it doesn’t lead to perfectly fair outcomes in all situations.  

Otherwise I 100% agree.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Depends on how you say it.
> 
> As noted, I’m a practicing Roman Catholic.  Generally, my brand of christianity doesn’t advocate biblical literalism.  So I have no problem discussing parts of the Bible as being mere fables, told to make a theological or ethical point.
> 
> Heck, I even took classes in my college’s Religion department that treated all faith traditions as equal, and a course in the English department that taught the Bible as a literary work, and how authors have used its themes in their own work.
> 
> But, it should be noted, that some people _do._
> 
> So, pointing out that flood narratives are common to a number of faith traditions is cool.  Mentioning that there’s no scientific evidence to support any of them is OK.  If someone posts a link that purports to show evidence of an antediluvian flood, you’re on safe ground if you can refute it without getting personal or otherwise uncivil.
> 
> But if you start spinning off with insults to the poster or adherents of the faith, calling a faith tradition “fraudulent”, using popular internet put-downs for the faith being discussed?  THAT will get you unwanted attention.
> 
> However, as Umbran noted, before doing ANY of that, ask yourself why you’d need to.  If we’re talking about. RPG settings, what the point of noting the absence of evidence for an antediluvian flood?  If someone posts a link claiming proof, what’s safer- refuting it or reporting it for drifting into the religious weeds?




I haven't followed the part of the conversation there where it veered into this territory. My view on this is, so long as people aren't being insulting, if we are permitted to say something like we believe Jesus is God, then people who don't believe that should also be able to express their view that they regard him as a myth or a historical figure. It feels uneven for me to be able to talk about my religious beliefs, but for people who don't believe to have to bite their tongue if I say something they think isn't real or true. 

I am a little unclear on the forum policy regarding discussion about religion. I did like seeing a thread on a religiously themed game, and I saw a lot of great posts adding knowledge to the discussion (often from a variety of religious and non-religious viewpoints which I saw as a positive). I think that can be done without people insulting one another. If someone says they think the resurrection is a myth for instance, I am fine with that. I've had a number of beliefs on this over the course of my life (ranging from a very literal view, to a skeptical view, and back into a view of belief). I don't think a poster has to share that view. But if people want to debate the point, and other issues associated with it, there is probably a better platform or venue for that.  Even the insulting stuff doesn't really bother me personally (I can even find it amusing if the humor behind it is inventive). But I think on a forum like this one, that kind of fiery exchange is something that is pretty discouraged. So keeping the thread on the topic, allowing for people to express their real views, without getting into that territory, seems the best way to go about it (so that no one is posting with a hand tied behind their back, but we are still able to have this interesting RPG topic)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bedrockgames said:


> My view on this is, so long as people aren't being insulting, if we are permitted to say something like we believe Jesus is God, then people who don't believe that should also be able to express their view that they regard him as a myth or a historical figure. It feels uneven for me to be able to talk about my religious beliefs, but for people who don't believe to have to bite their tongue if I say something they think isn't real or true.



Again, it depends on context.

If you just started a thread claiming ”Jesus is God!” unrelated to an RPG product or similar topic that typically appears on this site*, it would get closed ASAP and might earn you a warning point.

Likewise, someone could see that claim in a thread and say, “I (respectfully/absolutely) disagree.” without getting personal or insulting.  If they couldn’t keep it civil, _they’d_ risk getting modded.

But situations like that are why there’s a general ban on religion as a topic.  Unless it related to gaming, it’s generally prohibited.  (Or at least, closely monitored.)





* a thread in the off topic forum about your love of the band Jesus Jones or an elite athlete whose name is Jesus would be permitted, for instance.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, it depends on context.
> 
> If you just started a thread claiming ”Jesus is God!” unrelated to an RPG product or similar topic that typically appears on this site*, it would get closed ASAP and might earn you a warning point.


----------



## Maggan

My views are:

1. To me, moderation is guidance. I am being guided in how I can contribute to the forum being a better place, according to the philosophy of Morrus.
2. Moderation has to be somewhat fuzzy. There is not a chance on this green earth that a set of rules can be 100 % comprehensive and cover all bases*.
3. Given this, there will be some difficult calls to be made by the moderators.
4. I expect those calls to be made in a way that benefits the forum first and foremost. That means that there will be moderating that I disagree with, but accept. I am not the center of this forum.
5. I also expect those calls to be made based first on context, then on tone, and lastly on content. There are ways a talented writer can twist words to get away with murder, so putting content first will inevitable result in someone managing to be hurtful while technically staying within the rules.
6. Thus the cardinal rule of "keep it civil". A catch-all that allows the moderators some space to act without getting drawn into lengthy debates as to whether or not one rule will allow this or that.

So sometimes a joke gets moderated because the context makes it explosive. And sometimes the context makes the same joke fine or at least not target for moderation. So sometimes the moderators step in and try to guide the thread in the direction of not exploding, which is what I believe is what happened in the bible thread.

_*Not even actual laws reach that standard._


----------



## Hussar

A few things to keep in mind about moderation and being on the receiving end of red ink.  

1.  It's very, very rarely personal.  As in almost never.  
2.  It isn't about making a statement.  It's about keeping the conversation going and not spiraling endlessly downward.  
3.  It is not about who's right or wrong.  That's never the point.  It's about keeping the peace.  Which means that yes, it might look like a double standard.  But, that's probably because no complaints were lodged regarding one point and were lodged regarding another.  So, comments about Zeus (to use an earlier example) probably pass under the radar because no one reports it.  Whereas comments about Christianity likely draw more complaints.  Is it right or wrong?  That's not the point of moderation.  It's about keeping the peace.

That's where a lot of people get it wrong.  They think that moderation is the site taking a stand on an issue.  It's not.  It's that whatever just got said drew reports and the mods are then somewhat obligated to step in.  Not because the comment was wrong, bad or right and justified.  But, to keep the peace.


----------



## Eltab

Bedrockgames said:


> But if people want to debate the point, and other issues associated with it, there is probably a better platform or venue for that.



I've found one good way to avoid launching into a long dissertation that is off-EnWorld-topic is to say instead,
"Here's a book about the subject.  Read through and decide what you think."
-insert title or link-
This naturally draws people into a platform / venue that is conducive to the subject at hand.


----------



## Lanefan

Hussar said:


> 3.  It is not about who's right or wrong.  That's never the point.  It's about keeping the peace.  Which means that yes, it might look like a double standard.  But, that's probably because no complaints were lodged regarding one point and were lodged regarding another.  So, comments about Zeus (to use an earlier example) probably pass under the radar because no one reports it.  Whereas comments about Christianity likely draw more complaints.  Is it right or wrong?  That's not the point of moderation.  It's about keeping the peace.



Which brings up another issue that us non-mod plebes don't have the answer to unless a mod tells us: how much of the modding is complaint-driven and how much is proactive?

I ask because if it's mostly complaint-driven then all that happens is - much like with local bylaw enforcement - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and those of us whose first recourse on seeing something annoying is not the "report" button* end up on the short end.  Proactive - i.e. modding not based on complaints - is much fairer.

* - I grew up in a culture that very much frowned on tattletales and try my best not to be one myself, it's just not how I roll.  I can't remember the last time I reported a post (other than spam) if ever, though I might have at some point.


----------



## Sepulchrave II

I think that - while there can be some hiccups - moderation here is pretty good. I don't always agree with Mod choices, but I wouldn't want that job for all the tea in China. When I've been at the sharp end, it's usually because I've been snarky or rude, and invariably justified.

I tend to be circumspect about even engaging in threads which touch on religion or politics, as I tend to get pretty fired up. Especially when they touch on archaic religion, or Eastern Mediterranean religion from the centuries around the turn of the Common Era - these are my areas of particular interest, and I have pretty strong opinions about their religious historiography (especially of the latter).

If I want to wrestle in the mud, I'll go to academic forums dedicated to religious debate - which tend to be far ruder and inhabited by people who are even more obnoxious and opinionated than me.

Lastly, with regard to the use of the word "myth" wrt contemporary beliefs: I agree that, from a phenomenology-of-religion perspective, it doesn't really mean anything more than "a significant story." But it's probably best to avoid it, as it inevitably has negative connotations for some people, and it's not a good use of energy to have to define the meaning every time you use a word.


----------



## Maggan

Lanefan said:


> how much of the modding is complaint-driven and how much is proactive?




I don't think the mods have the time to read the amount of messages needed to stay on front of people reporting problem messages.

I don't know the split of course, but given the size of the forum and the number of posts generated I would guess that moderation is mostly a mix of proactive general monitoring of threads with subjects that commonly devolve into shouting matches and reactive moderation based on reports from users.


----------



## Hussar

Lanefan said:


> Which brings up another issue that us non-mod plebes don't have the answer to unless a mod tells us: how much of the modding is complaint-driven and how much is proactive?
> 
> I ask because if it's mostly complaint-driven then all that happens is - much like with local bylaw enforcement - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and those of us whose first recourse on seeing something annoying is not the "report" button* end up on the short end.  Proactive - i.e. modding not based on complaints - is much fairer.
> 
> * - I grew up in a culture that very much frowned on tattletales and try my best not to be one myself, it's just not how I roll.  I can't remember the last time I reported a post (other than spam) if ever, though I might have at some point.



The question of "fair" doesn't really enter into it though.  Again, the point isn't to say who's right or wrong, nor is it to punish or change behavior particularly.  

The whole point of moderation is to keep people talking and keep the peace.  So, yes, "the squeaky wheel" most definitely gets the grease.  Of course it does.  If a post gathers fifteen reports, (picking a random number), I'd suspect that that poster is going to run foul of Red Text far faster than a post that gets no reports.  Note, the whole point of the "squeaky wheel" thing is that it would be one (or a small number of) people making noise.  

However, since reporting isn't anonymous, it would become very clear, very quickly if someone (or a group of someones) was trying to game the system in order to shut down conversation.  We've both on the boards long enough to know that that doesn't happen.  And, frankly, we've both been on the boards long enough to know when someone is trying to commit suicide by moderation.  It's usually pretty clear (even when I'm on the receiving end).  

Do I always agree with the mods?  Of course not.  But, overall?  Yeah, not going to get too bent out of shape about it.  The trolls eventually get smacked down and sent back under their bridges, inevitably.  

I have to admit though, I'm much faster now than I used to be to hit that report button.  It's just good sense.  That and hitting that ignore button helps too.  And, probably the biggest thing that I should do more often, is hitting that unsubscribe button to threads.  I'm soooo guilty of not doing that.


----------



## LongTimeLurker

Crimson Longinus said:


> I have to say that I don't think the logic of handing infractions in that thread is clear to me.



It's not just you and not just the buy bull thread. A few weeks ago I got red texted for some mild commentary calling Jim Ward a hack. Now there's a thread full of "Jim's a hack!" posts and not a single bit of red text to be seen. The moderation on this forum is inconsistent at best.


----------



## Maggan

LongTimeLurker said:


> some mild commentary calling Jim Ward a hack




Mild commentary? I'd hate to see your harsh commentary.


----------



## eyeheartawk

I don't think saying that Jim Ward's post Gamma World 1E content has been...lacking is a particularly hot take. Nor is taking a dim view of removing demons and devils from the game (only to be added back in later under word-salad names) an especially uncommon one.

Nobody was personally attacked (a forum member or Jim Ward himself). His work was brought into question, as were his managerial decisions, but not his character.

It does seem that being "negative" makes it far more likely to be actionable rather than an equably vociferous defense of a positive interpretation of a given topic of discussion. It's just something I've noticed.

Speaking broadly of course, I don't intend to go bring up specific instances, but that's just how it reads to me. But yeah, being negative does seem to make it more likely that you get visited upon for tone or snark or whatever.


----------



## Maggan

eyeheartawk said:


> I don't think saying that Jim Ward's post Gamma World 1E content has been...lacking is a particularly hot take.




You're right. I've been on that bandwagon for years. And I've never been moderated for it.

Tone matters. And describing his work as "lacking" is not the tone that was moderated. At least that how it reads to me. And to other participants in that thread, as expressed in their replies.

EDIT: I will self-moderate and admonish myself for off topic posts. So no more OT from me! ... in this thread ...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

eyeheartawk said:


> I don't think saying that Jim Ward's post Gamma World 1E content has been...lacking is a particularly hot take.




I think that his contributions up to '96, at least, are some of the most important in the history of this hobby. Seriously, there's a reason he's in the Hall of Fame. It's like saying, "Yeah, Gygax didn't do anything after 1985." Pretty accurate ... so what? 

I think the tragedy is that times change. And that people ... well, very few people can be vital to any creative endeavor over the entirety of their life. 

The tragedy of living a long life is that for most people, they live long enough that people forget why they used to matter.


----------



## Mannahnin

Lots of good comments in here.

I think there's a little bit of a double standard in regard to how pagan religions can be discussed vs. how Christianity can be, but that it's an unavoidable one given their relative cultural status and influence.

Those of us who are followers of neopagan or reconstructionist pagan religions tend to be perfectly comfortable with and accustomed to seeing our religions (or more usually, those of our pagan forebears, which have no connection of contiguous tradition to modern practice) spoken of lightly, and are usually not sensitive to such comments.

Since, as has been noted, the objective of moderation is to keep the peace, rather than to aspire to some perfect principle of fairness, this means that it's rarely going to be needed in regards to discussions of paganism.  And I think that's ok. 

That being said, from everything I've seen of moderation here, if someone were being directly or deliberately hurtful in regard to my religion, I have confidence that the moderation would step in appropriately.  Either if they happened to see it, or if I were to report it.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I would agree that it's further complicated because, in this case, people are more familiar with this specific issue. In the past, we've had a specific poster who adheres to less mainstream beliefs (Neo-Norse? I'm not sure how s/he prefers to describe it) that felt marginalized in conversations.



I don't know what that particular poster uses, but Heathenry or Asatru (Heathen or Asatruar for the adherent) are the most common terms for the Norse-derived faiths, and for "Norse Pantheon" the terms you were probably looking for in your first post are Aesir and Vanir.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lanefan said:


> how much of the modding is complaint-driven and how much is proactive?



It’s purely situational.

Sometimes, I log in and there’s 10 reports.  I look for the low-hanging fruit first- the easy calls- and knock those out.  Some take longer.  Some I avoid until I can _really_ get up to speed on what’s going on because it’s a complex issue or one I’m not familiar with.

OTOH, if it happens right in front of me while I’m reading the thread?  I check to see if its already been modded/reported, and if not, I take care of it.

Then there’s topics- and yes, some posters- that have a tendency to generate lots of posts.  In those cases, there’s going to be heightened scrutiny,

And yes- because we’re not perfect, the moderators do check each other’s gaffes.  I can recall at least 3 times when I legitimately posted something outside of the rules, and Umbran & Morrus pointed it out.


----------



## LongTimeLurker

Maggan said:


> Mild commentary? I'd hate to see your harsh commentary.



Serious? I didn't swear, or disparage his character or launch any personal attacks. I was, however, mildly sarcastic. Tongue-in-cheek even. I think that it's more of a case of me being sarcastic at the WRONG person. And that, quite frankly, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But oh well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

LongTimeLurker said:


> Serious? I didn't swear, or disparage his character or launch any personal attacks. I was, however, mildly sarcastic. Tongue-in-cheek even. I think that it's more of a case of me being sarcastic at the WRONG person. And that, quite frankly, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But oh well.



If that was your response, perhaps you should have PMed a mod.


----------



## AnotherGuy

reelo said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the solution would have been very simple: the thread about the biblical setting (explicitly biblical,too!) should not have been created in the first place, or should have been locked immediately, because it falls under the above-mentioned ban. Problem solved.



It does not need to be.

Topics that could have been discussed - types of races or classes, specific tool proficiencies, magic or miracles, real world political turmoil of the time, weapons and armour, faith as an ability, monsters - demons/devils/fiends...etc
It is a new setting after all.

The need to reduce another's belief to a myth was unnecessary and certainly not constructive to the topic of a new setting.


----------



## LongTimeLurker

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If that was your response, perhaps you should have PMed a mod.



The hypocrisy wasn't obvious until the second thread manifested itself and by then it was too much trouble. And, let's face it,  never in the history of message boards has PMing a mod ever proved fruitful.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

LongTimeLurker said:


> The hypocrisy wasn't obvious until the second thread manifested itself and by then it was too much trouble. And, let's face it,  never in the history of message boards has PMing a mod ever proved fruitful.



Sorry you feel that way.

I can tell you that at least one of the times Morrus dinged my modding, it was because of a report (not a PM), and I did go back and edit the reported post.  I’d like to think that if the communication had been via PM, the results would have been the same.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sorry you feel that way.
> 
> I can tell you that at least one of the times Morrus dinged my modding, it was because of a report (not a PM), and I did go back and edit the reported post.  I’d like to think that if the communication had been via PM, the results would have been the same.



In my own experience, PMing mods with questions or clarifications has been very helpful as well.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sorry you feel that way.




Yeah.  I've had PM discussions that have ended up with a correction on my part as well.

But we can look at _why_ it isn't often fruitful.  The times when a poster has changed my mind, it hasn't been by coming at me angry, insulting, and entitled - and alas, this is the most common.  I am much more likely to change my mind when the person comes to me trying to clear up a misunderstanding.

That, of course, requires there to have been an actual misunderstanding.  

Nobody _likes_ being moderated.   But we are not going to change a ruling because you vent your annoyance at us.


----------



## FrogReaver

Mannahnin said:


> Lots of good comments in here.
> 
> I think there's a little bit of a double standard in regard to how pagan religions can be discussed vs. how Christianity can be, but that it's an unavoidable one given their relative cultural status and influence.
> 
> Those of us who are followers of neopagan or reconstructionist pagan religions tend to be perfectly comfortable with and accustomed to seeing our religions (or more usually, those of our pagan forebears, which have no connection of contiguous tradition to modern practice) spoken of lightly, and are usually not sensitive to such comments.
> 
> Since, as has been noted, the objective of moderation is to keep the peace, rather than to aspire to some perfect principle of fairness, this means that it's rarely going to be needed in regards to discussions of paganism.  And I think that's ok.
> 
> That being said, from everything I've seen of moderation here, if someone were being directly or deliberately hurtful in regard to my religion, I have confidence that the moderation would step in appropriately.  Either if they happened to see it, or if I were to report it.



I think it's a hard concept to learn that sometimes the same exact words (or very similar ones) may be offensive to one group and not to another (or at least not nearly as much).  It tends to rub our sense of 'fairness' the wrong way and some people like myself are pretty sensitive toward what seems like hypocrisy. 

So I personally take claims like that really seriously no matter which side they arise from - but now I try to check and see if maybe there's another perspective where such behavior could be seen as fair - such as hurt of the offense instead of simply whether the same or similar words were said in the interaction because IMO there's more than one scale to measure fairness on.


----------



## FrogReaver

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And yes- because we’re not perfect, the moderators do check each other’s gaffes.  I can recall at least 3 times when I legitimately posted something outside of the rules, and Umbran & Morrus pointed it out.



To me having this knowledge helps build my confidence in moderation.  I think it will for others as well. 

It's pretty easy to perceive it as the @Umbran show.  And knowing you keep each other in check helps.  IMO.


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> And knowing you keep each other in check helps.  IMO.




Yep.  We discuss stuff pretty frequently.  And while we do, "keep each other in check," even more frequently it is, "we seek each other's advice or perspective".


----------



## FrogReaver

Umbran said:


> Yeah.  I've had PM discussions that have ended up with a correction on my part as well.
> 
> But we can look at _why_ it isn't often fruitful.  The times when a poster has changed my mind, it hasn't been by coming at me angry, insulting, and entitled - and alas, this is the most common.  I am much more likely to change my mind when the person comes to me trying to clear up a misunderstanding.
> 
> That, of course, requires there to have been an actual misunderstanding.



Coming from the experience of someone that's gotten themselves modded way to many times, I think underlying most frustration with modding is a lack of understanding around the process and philosophy going into it, around why certain posts are modded and others that seem similar enough aren't, etc.  When I personally responded angerly, insultingly and entitled these were personally some of the underlying reasons.  I was generally an ahole poster at the time so I deserved the modding and probably would not have listened anyways, but I think it could go a long way in deescalation to explain these kinds of things clearly when people act in such ways *and want to talk about it in PM.



Umbran said:


> Nobody _likes_ being moderated.   But we are not going to change a ruling because you vent your annoyance at us.



Agreed here.  Though I think sometimes the comment made in red text can come across a bit snarky even if it's not intended to be and that can lend toward escalating the situation.  IMO.  There's a big difference in how a person will react to 'you did X' and 'it really comes across that you were doing X.'  Though you may very well have already tried that approach early on in your mod career and found from experience it doesn't work well at all.

I guess the best way to say this is to just ask if you've ever considered anything like that before?


----------



## Umbran

FrogReaver said:


> Agreed here.  Though I think sometimes the comment made in red text can come across a bit snarky even if it's not intended to be and that can lend toward escalating the situation.  IMO.  There's a big difference in how a person will react to 'you did X' and 'it really comes across that you were doing X.'




There _can_ be a big difference, sometimes.  Others, not so much.  

Indeed, you'll note that the two constructions are relying on different things:  One relies on The Rules (you did X, and X is not allowed).  The other really relies on the person caring how they come across to others.  

Folks in the middle of an argument often _do not care_ in that moment how they come across.  Indeed, if that was a primary concern, the problem usually wouldn't have happened!



FrogReaver said:


> I guess the best way to say this is to just ask if you've ever considered anything like that before?




Of course.  And, indeed, we don't word things in the same way all the time.  What I have found is... there's no perfect wording.  Indeed, a wording that was successful with one person once may fail with that same person at a later time, in a different situation.  We pick approaches as best we can.

There are also some practical limitations here.  We are working asynchronously.  We are going to leave a note, and the person to whom it is directed may not see it for a half hour, and we might not be back on the boards for hours after that.  If we are too direct, it may cheese off a poster at us.  If we are insufficiently imperative, the poster may not alter course sufficiently to avoid further issues, and things will escalate while we are not around.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Moderation would be a lot more tolerable if the "company line", as it were, was a lot more obvious. It would also prevent a lot of moderation events from happening if people just knew a head of time which opinions aren't allowed to be expressed here. The forum rules are not nearly obvious enough. Right now, just casually looking through the community drop down, forum rules are no where (obvious) to be found.

Adding "Forum Rules" in bold above "Forums & Topics" would be helpful for new people and even just as a visual reminder for regular folks, just to remind which ideas/opinions are axiomatic at enworld.


----------



## Umbran

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> Right now, just casually looking through the community drop down, forum rules are no where (obvious) to be found.




There is a "Terms and rules" link at the bottom of every single forum page.

That we should select a list of specific words, opinions, and topics has been suggested before.  But, with respect, this is a forum filled with _rules lawyers_.  Making a specific list just leads to people trying to find ways to talk around the specific list, and it leads to issues when a _new_ topic of contention comes up, and hasn't been put on a list.

Ultimately, we are talking about human behavior, which is very flexible.  Inflexible fixed lists don't work well in managing the behavior.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Umbran said:


> There is a "Terms and rules" link at the bottom of every single forum page.



I didn't say the rules were impossible to find, I said they were not in a glaringly obvious location. It is much more likely people would view them if they were immediately adjacent to the other forum links, rather than being at the bottom of a page where you typically find the sorts of ToS that people never read.


Umbran said:


> That we should select a list of specific words, opinions, and topics has been suggested before.  But, with respect, this is a forum filled with _rules lawyers_.



The point of rules, and laws, is that they are predictable and solid so that people actually know when they have or haven't violated a rule. If you cannot explicate the forum rules in absolutely concrete terms, what that really just means is that moderation is truly and completely subjective - which is exactly my criticism.

How can someone follow the rules if they don't actually know what the rules are? Or, how can you censure someone for violating the rules if it's not possible in principle for a person to know what counts as a violation.


Umbran said:


> Inflexible fixed lists don't work well in managing the behavior.



If I created a thread titled "Inclusivity is not a virtue in TTRPGs" would it not instantly locked/deleted? This would seem like a prime example of a position that is axiomatically disallowed from discussion.

It could be that I simply have a very different view of forums and rules. I do not see "managing behavior" as "directing behavior" so much as having a set of codes/rules/laws that are explicit enough for people to know when they have or haven't violated them.

That moderators see their role as being one of "directing" behavior is, itself, problematic to me.


----------



## Umbran

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> I didn't say the rules were impossible to find, I said they were not in a glaringly obvious location.




And I didn't say you did say that.  When someone notes a thing is difficult to find, it is reasonable to say where it _can_ be found, you know?



Mythos Enthusiast said:


> The point of rules, and laws, is that they are predictable and solid so that people actually know when they have or haven't violated a rule. If you cannot explicate the forum rules in absolutely concrete terms, what that really just means is that moderation is truly and completely subjective - which is exactly my criticism.




And I understand your position, and I can understand the frustration.  However, my point is that static fixed rules without human review don't produce better results in the long run.  

That said, if you make your case to Morrus, more power to you.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Umbran said:


> And I understand your position, and I can understand the frustration.  However, my point is that static fixed rules without human review don't produce better results in the long run.
> 
> That said, if you make your case to Morrus, more power to you.



I really just want the moderation team and morrus to be honest and explicitly say that the rules are whatever they feel like at any given moment - which is absolutely my impression seeing how people's posts have been flagged/moderated/etc.

That there are acceptable and unacceptable views is definitely up to Morrus - it's his website after all - I just want that to be made obvious.


----------



## CleverNickName

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> I really just want the moderation team and morrus to be honest and explicitly say that the rules are whatever they feel like at any given moment - which is absolutely my impression seeing how people's posts have been flagged/moderated/etc.
> 
> That there are acceptable and unacceptable views is definitely up to Morrus - it's his website after all - I just want that to be made obvious.



But...that would be a lie, because that is not what the rules say.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

CleverNickName said:


> But...that would be a lie, because that is not what the rules say.



The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.

So, I would agree with you. The rules DON'T make that claim - I'm saying that they SHOULD make that claim because that is what is done in practice.


----------



## CleverNickName

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.
> 
> So, I would agree with you. The rules DON'T make that claim - I'm saying that they SHOULD make that claim because that is what is done in practice.




I'm not sure where you are going with this, but here's as far as I will follow:

Usually, when people ask for an explicit list of DO's and DON'Ts, it isn't for the purpose of clarity or understanding: it's for circumvention.  They want to see exactly where the line in the sand is drawn, so that they can _get as close to it as they possibly can _without fear of consequence.  And that is something that the moderators want to avoid, which I appreciate.

That is why these rules do not contain a list of dozens of topics that are off-limits, and a list of ten thousand phrases that will get you in trouble.  Instead, the rules assume that people know the difference between being polite and being rude, and expect us all to act accordingly.  Nobody accidentally challenges moderation, for example.

Anyway.  I'll butt out of the conversation.


----------



## Morrus

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> I really just want the moderation team and morrus to be honest and explicitly say that the rules are whatever they feel like at any given moment



We reject the premise that we are dishonest.


----------



## Fifth Element

Morrus said:


> We reject the premise that we are dishonest.



I don't think this a very charitable interpretation of the post. Read it as "be open and up-front", since that seems to be the intent.


----------



## Irlo

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.



Many years ago,  I worked in a large warehouse-style retail facility. We had rules posted, which included “No Spitting.” I dealt with a customer who argued that since the rules did not explicitly prohibit blowing snot out of his nose onto the floor that I couldn’t require him to stop leaving slippery gobs on the floor.

There’s no need for pages and pages of explicit rules (IMO). I don’t see a problem with moderators communicating with posters as things come up.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

CleverNickName said:


> Usually, when people ask for an explicit list of DO's and DON'Ts, it isn't for the purpose of clarity or understanding: it's for circumvention.  They want to see exactly where the line in the sand is drawn, so that they can _*get as close to it as they possibly can *_*without fear of consequence*.  And that is something that the moderators want to avoid, and something that I appreciate.



That is absolutely true - and it's the 'unfortunate' double edge of having clear and precise rules. I don't believe in the 'spirit' of laws, just the letter. So, if I'm not breaking an explicit rule that is literally all that matters, regardless of my intention or how hard I'm pressing against it. That is just the very nature of 'technicalities' and it's not something I believe you can stop without making the rules so subjective as to make them pointless.


----------



## Fifth Element

CleverNickName said:


> I'm not sure where you are going with this



I read it as "there are house rules to the modding, it would be great if we were told what the house rules are."


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Morrus said:


> We reject the premise that we are dishonest.



So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Fifth Element said:


> I don't think this a very charitable interpretation of the post. Read it as "be open and up-front", since that seems to be the intent.



This response is, IMO, the exact sort of thing that is so eye-roll enducing. A complete lack of engagement with criticism. I'm not even saying that Enworld CAN'T or SHOULDN'T have really hard line, ideological rules regarding what opinions can be expressed - I'm just saying I want it to be very clear that it is in fact the case.

So, is Morrus saying that it is NOT the case? Because we can test that pretty easily.


----------



## Irlo

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> This response is, IMO, the exact sort of thing that is so eye-roll enducing. A complete lack of engagement with criticism. I'm not even saying that Enworld CAN'T or SHOULDN'T have really hard line, ideological rules regarding what opinions can be expressed - I'm just saying I want it to be very clear that it is in fact the case.
> 
> So, is Morrus saying that it is NOT the case? Because we can test that pretty easily.



I’ve read the rules. I understand them. They are clear. It’s not difficult to understand them and apply them broadly. If a poster crosses a line they didn’t know was there, or one that they interpreted differently,  they get a message letting them know. That’s a problem?


----------



## billd91

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> If I created a thread titled "Inclusivity is not a virtue in TTRPGs" would it not instantly locked/deleted? This would seem like a prime example of a position that is axiomatically disallowed from discussion.



Considering one of the rules is "Keep it Inclusive", do you really need to explicitly be told exactly how a thread like that will be handled? You can't make the assumption that it would be problematic?


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

billd91 said:


> Considering one of the rules is "Keep it Inclusive", do you really need to explicitly be told exactly how a thread like that will be handled? You can't make the assumption that it would be problematic?



I could _definitely _create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.

For example, I would not exclude anyone or dismiss anyone from replying or participating based on any of the below criteria. Nor would I even advocate for a specific policy in any shape or form - just engage in a meta-ethically discussion about whether inclusivity/diversity as such/in a vacuum is valuable.



> *Keep it inclusive:* EN World is an inclusive community, and we encourage and welcome all people here. To that end, we strive to make it a welcoming place where nobody feels alienated because of who they are. You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media, use pejorative terms and buzzwords or dogwhistles including but not limited to "social justice warrior", "political correctness", "wokeism", "virtue signalling", and "cancel culture" to dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with, or post any message which is discriminatory towards those who differ to you in terms of skin colour, gender, gender identification, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, or any other personal attribute. We do not subscribe to the argument that tolerance means that we need to tolerate intolerance or that inclusivity means that we need to include non-inclusiveness.


----------



## Morrus

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?



This does not feel like a good-faith conversation. It feels like an attempt to trap me.


----------



## billd91

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> I could _definitely _create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.
> 
> For example, I would not exclude anyone or dismiss anyone from replying or participating based on any of the below criteria.



I think you are deluding yourself on that count. But what exactly would be the point of doing so even if you could considering the board's Keep it Inclusive rule? Lobbying to change the rule? Pissing people off? Trolling the mods?


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Morrus said:


> This does not feel like a good-faith conversation. It feels like an attempt to trap me.



I don't think that 'good faith' and 'bad faith' are useful terms because neither of them actually bare on whether or not a position is valid or sound.

If you CAN be trapped, wouldn't that just mean you have a poor/weak position? if what you said is true, then does what I said follow from that? Or does it not? If it doesn't, why doesn't it?

There is nothing "trapping" about taking a statement/premise/fact and then deriving what facts can or must follow from that fact.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

billd91 said:


> I think you are deluding yourself on that count. But what exactly would be the point of doing so even if you could considering the board's Keep it Inclusive rule? Lobbying to change the rule? Pissing people off? Trolling the mods?



What does my intention matter? As long as I am not breaking the rules as enumerated/outlined?


----------



## J.Quondam

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> I could _definitely _create a post questioning whether or not inclusivity is in-and-of-itself a virtue without violating any of the below.



But why would you do that? There's only really one reason to willfully abuse the "letter of the law" like that in social media: to troll members of that community. Intention matters.

The rules are fine as is, and have been for a very long time.


_** Also, the word is "jibe", not "jive"._


----------



## BookTenTiger

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> What does my intention matter? As long as I am not breaking the rules as enumerated/outlined?



Intention is usually important when interacting with other human beings.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

J.Quondam said:


> But why would you do that? There's only really one reason to willfully abuse the "letter of the law" like that in social media: to troll members of that community. Intention matters.
> 
> 
> _** Also, the word is "jibe", not "jive"._



I do not believe that intentions matter where enforcement of rules is concerned, so we just disagree here. Earlier I stated that I am explicitly a "letter of the law" guy, not a "spirit of the law" guy.

You can never* know* what my intentions are one way or the other, however you CAN know whether or not I've broken an explicitly stated rule.


----------



## Morrus

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> I don't think that 'good faith' and 'bad faith' are useful terms because neither of them actually bare on whether or not a position is valid or sound.



I find it an excellent way to help me decide which conversations I wish to engage in. YMMV, but there it is. I won't be engaging any further in this exchange, for example.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> I do not believe that intentions matter where enforcement of rules is concerned, so we just disagree here. Earlier I stated that I am explicitly a "letter of the law" guy, not a "spirit of the law" guy.




Well, when you break the letter or the spirit of ACTUAL LAW, you will be shocked to find out that ... yes, intent does matter.

Which means that for someone claiming to be a "letter of the law" guy, I'm guessing you're not familiar with ... you know, how actual law works? 

Regardless, if you want to debate rules v. standards, I am sure that there are some accounting boards that will be excited to discuss the differences. Otherwise, people might be inferring what your intent is based on the totality of your posts.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, when you break the letter or the spirit of ACTUAL LAW, you will be shocked to find out that ... yes, intent does matter.
> 
> Which means that for someone claiming to be a "letter of the law" guy, I'm guessing you're not familiar with ... you know, how actual law works?
> 
> Regardless, if you want to debate rules v. standards, I am sure that there are some accounting boards that will be excited to discuss the differences. Otherwise, people might be inferring what your intent is based on the totality of your posts.



I'm actually very familiar with US  federal law conceptually and case law specificly in certain subject matters - but as people on these boards are very quick to point our the standards the board embraces do not have to reflect or *jibe *with the laws of the UK or any other government.


----------



## the Jester

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s purely situational.
> 
> Sometimes, I log in and there’s 10 reports.  I look for the low-hanging fruit first- the easy calls- and knock those out,  Some take longer.  Some I avoid until I can _really_ get up to speed on what’s going on because it’s a complex issue or one I’m not familiar with.
> 
> OTOH, if it happens right in front of me while I’m reading the thread?  I check to see if its already been modded/reported, and if not, I take care of it.
> 
> Then there’s topics- and yes, some posters- that have a tendency to generate lots of posts.  In those cases, there’s going to be heightened scrutiny,
> 
> And yes- because we’re not perfect, the moderators do check each other’s gaffes.  I can recall at least 3 times when I legitimately posted something outside of the rules, and Umbran & Morrus pointed it out.



Thank you very much for this insight into how you guys work.


----------



## the Jester

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> The entire point of what I'm saying is that what the rules say explicitly, and how they are enforced, don't always jive with each other.



Back in the day, when Eric Noah's 3rd Edition Website was the thing, the rule was, "Don't do anything that would offend Eric's grandmother." The way the rules have evolved since on ENWorld is basically due to the fact that somehow, people needed it to be clearer than that.


----------



## the Jester

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> So then, I should have card-blanche to ply every single conceivable edge-case that the rules technically allow, no?




Until someone gets annoyed and reports you. The rules boil down to "don't be a jerk", and skirting the edge intentionally and, presumably, trying to provoke a response... will eventually provoke a response. Your behavior will be looked at and possibly ruled jerkish, and in that case, you will be moderated. 

This is why explicit rules you can dance on the edge of in order to provoke people probably is a bad approach for moderation whose goal is to keep the conversation going. You're kind of proving the mod team's point here.


----------



## Umbran

the Jester said:


> Back in the day, when Eric Noah's 3rd Edition Website was the thing, the rule was, "Don't do anything that would offend Eric's grandmother." The way the rules have evolved since on ENWorld is basically due to the fact that somehow, people needed it to be clearer than that.




Well, the Grandma Rule has always been about how coarse you are supposed to be - use of foul language, sexual innuendo, and such.  But, yeah, you'd think that between the Grandma Rule and Wheaton's Law, it'd be covered, but... no.


----------



## the Jester

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> What does my intention matter? As long as I am not breaking the rules as enumerated/outlined?



If your intention is to be a jerk to the other forum members, you're detracting from the conversation, not adding to it.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Umbran said:


> Well, the Grandma Rule has always been about how coarse you are supposed to be - use of foul language, sexual innuendo, and such.  But, yeah, you'd think that between the Grandma Rule and Wheaton's Law, it'd be covered, but... no.



It's one I adopted into my 3rd Grade classroom to help my students self-moderate. When they ask me questions about what they're allowed to write about or draw (especially in regards to violence), I just say, "Would you show it to my sweet old granny?" It works a lot better than having a bunch of explicit rules about what they can or cannot draw.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

the Jester said:


> "don't be a jerk"



Please define what that means, because I have found that there are wildly different positions on what qualifies someone as a "jerk". Whose definition are we using? How will I be be able to know ahead of time if my understanding of what constitutes being a jerk is the official understanding it it's not explained to me?

I think that the snark that some moderators use when responding to people is ultimately 'jerky' and yet, obviously, they don't seem to agree. Thus demonstrating that appealing to "don't be a jerk" is a pretty empty maxim unless you can literally read someones mind. Which I cannot.


----------



## Waller

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> Please define what that means, because I have found that there are wildly different positions on what qualifies someone as a "jerk". Whose definition are we using? How will I be be able to know ahead of time if my understanding of what constitutes being a jerk is the official understanding it it's not explained to me?
> 
> I think that the snark that some moderators use when responding to people is ultimately 'jerky' and yet, obviously, they don't seem to agree. Thus demonstrating that appealing to "don't be a jerk" is a pretty empty maxim unless you can literally read someones mind. Which I cannot.



Been here a week, and came in swinging, eh? I’ll get my popcorn.


----------



## Umbran

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> Earlier I stated that I am explicitly a "letter of the law" guy, not a "spirit of the law" guy.




Well, yes, if the central point was to "obey the law" it is much easier if the laws are super-clear and straightforward.

But, that's not the point.  The point of the rules is to put a lid, an upper limit, on how much people can cheese each other off.  The rules are the last resort, not the first - your first concern should be for the other people in the place.  No set of rules can absolve you of the responsibility to be considerate of others, so we won't try to provide one.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

Bunker said:


> Been here a week, and came in swinging, eh? I’ll get my popcorn.



I take this to be a very 'jerky' thing to say as it implies my goal in this entire conversation is to be "swinging" just for the sake of swinging.

Isn't "assuming the motives of other posters" explicitly called out in the 'rules' we've been discussing?


----------



## South by Southwest

I have to agree with Morrus at the end of the day here. I do understand the importance of the desire for greater precision and clarity in rules of conduct--I absolutely do. But the problem that inevitably comes up with such an approach is that they leave no room for judgment, and the resulting system will be no less and no less maliciously gameable than a less precise one. The rules-gaming threat will be a _different_ kind ("rules lawyers"), but ultimately not helpful to reducing gaming of rules. In fact, I think it quickly becomes _more_ conducive to abuse.

In my experience, it's always a tough balance to strike: too little precision yields a kind of Wild West that even Reddit doesn't allow; too much precision yields a system in which people with grudges can gin up "infractions" by their Mortal Enemies when the posts in question really were innocent.

My own take on this (it feels _so_ weird to me to be talking about site rules in a public thread devoted to publicly discussing site rules, btw--most forums really won't do this)--my own take on this is that the rules as written are solid. They're pretty clear, anyone who is unclear on them can ask for clarifications, newbies (like me) get a bit of a grace period before the orange and/or red text start showing up, and rulings appeals are always permitted over PM. I think of it this way: _I could never reasonably ask for more than this from my DM, could I?_


----------



## J.Quondam

> *Sealioning*_ (also spelled *sea-lioning* and *sea lioning*) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki.__[6]_​



Intentions matter.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

South by Southwest said:


> ...too little precision yields a kind of Wild West that even Reddit doesn't allow...



There is a crystalline clarity/precision to there simply being no rules.


----------



## Mythos Enthusiast

J.Quondam said:


> Intentions matter.



The accusation of sealioning has always seemed to me to be a way to dismiss people out of hand, as you can call any request for evidence/questioning as an instance of sealioning.

Again, this is another instance of someone assuming motives, a violation of the forum rules.


----------



## South by Southwest

Mythos Enthusiast said:


> There is a crystalline clarity/precision to there simply being no rules.



Sure, because the Wild West was wild.


----------



## Umbran

*Mod Note:*
So, if we have permabanned your account, you aren't allowed back on the site.  Trying to sneak back using an alternate account doesn't fly.

Please find some place that better suits your needs and desires.


----------



## J.Quondam

deleted, didn't notice mod action.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Oh! Well that makes sense; I thought that they seemed rather opinionated regarding moderation for newbie who presumably hadn't had much chance to experience it...


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Crimson Longinus said:


> Oh! Well that makes sense; I thought that they seemed rather opinionated regarding moderation for newbie who presumably hadn't had much chance to experience it...




I mean ... I do like Cthulhu myself, but I don't think I'd have H.P. as my avatar. Seemed like a pretty deliberate choice. Anyway, I was getting some serious Kenny Loggins vibes....


----------



## billd91

Crimson Longinus said:


> Oh! Well that makes sense; I thought that they seemed rather opinionated regarding moderation for newbie who presumably hadn't had much chance to experience it...



They laid low for about a couple weeks before picking a fight with moderation. Kind of makes you wonder what the point was.


----------



## Maggan

I guess ”bad faith” was an accurate call then.


----------



## Morrus

One would think the point of sneaking back in with an alt account would be to _not_ call attention to yourself. But they usually can't help themselves.


----------



## CleverNickName

Morrus said:


> One would think the point of sneaking back in with an alt account would be to _not_ call attention to yourself. But they usually can't help themselves.



That might be the whole point of creating an alt account, for some folks anyway.


----------



## Haiku Elvis

Umbran said:


> The person who throws the first punch doesn't get to complain about the bruises they take in the scuffle.
> 
> To quote Will Smith in MiB, "Don't start nothin', won't BE nothin'."



Anyone volunteer to ask Will how he feels about this these days? 

You may need to duck.


----------



## BookTenTiger

CleverNickName said:


> That might be the whole point of creating an alt account, for some folks anyway.



I only created an alt to post long, thoughtful essays about gaming theory and short quips about why I dislike bards.


----------



## Jer

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I mean ... I do like Cthulhu myself, but I don't think I'd have H.P. as my avatar. Seemed like a pretty deliberate choice.



Yeah - they were definitely doing the dance in the Radiant Citadel threads they were in before I checked myself out of those threads.


----------



## LongTimeLurker

Irlo said:


> I’ve read the rules. I understand them. They are clear. It’s not difficult to understand them and apply them broadly. If a poster crosses a line they didn’t know was there, or one that they interpreted differently,  they get a message letting them know. That’s a problem?



It becomes a problem when I get red texted for saying things that no one else does.


----------



## Nikosandros

Morrus said:


> One would think the point of sneaking back in with an alt account would be to _not_ call attention to yourself. But they usually can't help themselves.



There are clearly people who like to be moderated and banned. Maybe they can then complain about censorship or something?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

LongTimeLurker said:


> It becomes a problem when I get red texted for saying things that no one else does.




If you have an issue with a particular moderation, I suggest pm'ing the moderator.

I wouldn't do it in an angry way, and it would have to be a _good-faith question or issue_, but in my brief experience, I don't think that they are unreasonable. 

Finally, I would note that the signal-to-noise ratio here is excellent, and I think that the main reason for that is the excellent work of the moderators. I would rather they moderate a little too quickly in order to keep the peace, than let it go and have it devolve. YMMV, but that's a feature, not a bug.


----------



## FrogReaver

Snarf Zagyg said:


> If you have an issue with a particular moderation, I suggest pm'ing the moderator.
> 
> I wouldn't do it in an angry way, and it would have to be a _good-faith question or issue_, but in my brief experience, I don't think that they are unreasonable.
> 
> Finally, I would note that the signal-to-noise ratio here is excellent, and I think that the main reason for that is the excellent work of the moderators. I would rather they moderate a little too quickly in order to keep the peace, than let it go and have it devolve. YMMV, but that's a feature, not a bug.




I think it’s worth noting that their mod philosophy doesn’t seem to revolve around fairness as much as other sites.  Their priority is in keeping the discussion from getting too personal and nasty. Fairness is then secondary to that. 

I think that’s one of the harder things to learn here.


----------



## Fifth Element

Haiku Elvis said:


> Anyone volunteer to ask Will how he feels about this these days?
> 
> You may need to duck.



Presumably as long as you don't joke about a medical condition of one of his loved ones, you'll be okay.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

FrogReaver said:


> I think it’s worth noting that their mod philosophy doesn’t seem to revolve around fairness as much as other sites.  Their priority is in keeping the discussion from getting too personal and nasty. Fairness is then secondary to that.
> 
> I think that’s one of the harder things to learn here.




I think that's accurate, but some people might not fully understand what you mean. It's not that they don't care about fairness, IMO, it's more that they aren't particularly interested in parsing out the finer details of "Who started it," or "Who said the worse insult about someone's else's mom." 

But yeah, it's about keeping the peace, not about judging who is right and wrong (or righter and wronger). IMO.


----------



## beancounter

I think one thing people forget is that forums like this are privately owned. The owner (and by extension, the moderators) have the right to allow or disallow any content the choose.

And since owners and moderators are human (and thus bias), some people are going to view their decisions as unfair.


----------



## Umbran

beancounter said:


> And since owners and moderators are human (and thus bias), some people are going to view their decisions as unfair.




Not to mention that the people in whatever argument are themselves not likely to be neutral and fair observers.


----------



## IvyDragons

The moderators here are pretty chill compared to dndbeyonds, where some often tell people to go play another game lol.


----------



## Morrus

Nikosandros said:


> There are clearly people who like to be moderated and banned. Maybe they can then complain about censorship or something?



That's the playbook, yeah. It has been for the 20 years I've been doing this.


----------



## Morrus

Snarf Zagyg said:


> But yeah, it's about keeping the peace, not about judging who is right and wrong (or righter and wronger). IMO.



This. We aren't a court of justice and have no power to punish people.


----------



## CleverNickName

beancounter said:


> I think one thing people forget is that forums like this are privately owned. The owner (and by extension, the moderators) have the right to allow or disallow any content the choose.
> 
> And since owners and moderators are human (and thus bias), some people are going to view their decisions as unfair.




They _have _to know how silly they look, right?

I mean, imagine you are hosting a street party and everyone in your neighborhood is invited.  A guy shows up and quickly starts making a nuisance of himself, insulting the other guests, blabbering about how everyone is too sensitive these days, and generally just making everyone else angry and uncomfortable.  So, as the host, you tell him to tone it down or you'll ask him to leave.  Of course he decides to call your bluff, maybe to save face, or maybe he's hoping that others at the party will take his side.  So he ignores your warnings, and you show him the door.  He bellows "Help help, I'm being repressed! Censorship!!! I didn't say "Cancel Culture," I said "Mothballed Society" and that's _technically _not against the rules so you can't make me leave!!! What's the matter can't you 'ice crystals' take a joke?!?!" and so forth, as you drag him to his car.

I'm sure they see themselves differently, but the lasting impression they've made to everyone at the party isn't a good one.  Everyone at the party is going to go home and tell everyone else about That Guy who made a fool of himself, and That Guy won't be invited to the next block party.  Somehow, That Guy is always shocked and hurt by this.  How does he not know how foolish he looks?


----------



## beancounter

deleted


----------



## Hussar

CleverNickName said:


> They _have _to know how silly they look, right?
> 
> I mean, imagine you are hosting a street party and everyone in your neighborhood is invited. A guy shows up and quickly starts making a nuisance of himself, insulting the other guests, blabbering about how everyone is too sensitive these days, and generally just making everyone else angry and uncomfortable. So, as the host, you tell him to tone it down or you'll ask him to leave. Of course he decides to call your bluff, maybe to save face, or maybe he's hoping that others at the party will take his side. So he ignores your warnings, and you show him the door. He bellows "Help help, I'm being repressed! Censorship!!! I didn't say "Cancel Culture," I said "Mothballed Society" and that's _technically _not against the rules so you can't make me leave!!! What's the matter can't you 'ice crystals' take a joke?!?!" and so forth, as you drag him to his car.
> 
> I'm sure they see themselves differently, but the lasting impression they've made to everyone at the party isn't a good one. Everyone at the party is going to go home and tell everyone else about That Guy who made a fool of himself, and That Guy won't be invited to the next block party. Somehow, That Guy is always shocked and hurt by this. How does he not know how foolish he looks?




I believe it’s covered in Trolling 101. 

Never apologize. 
Never answer questions. 
Insist on specific definitions regardless of context. 
Create multiple sock puppet accounts to stir both sides. 

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Deset Gled

Hussar said:


> I believe it’s covered in Trolling 101.
> 
> Never apologize.
> Never answer questions.
> Insist on specific definitions regardless of context.
> Create multiple sock puppet accounts to stir both sides.
> 
> Did I miss anything?




One of the difficulties, though, is that they're not all trolls*.  Some people just aren't socially skilled, whether it be on the internet or IRL.  Discerning a bad actor from a bad socializer can be tough.

*Well, the ones creating sock puppet accounts are trolls.  The other things are problems even the best of us can fall victim to occasionally.


----------



## Maggan

As a longtime admin for another RPG forum (in Swedish) I have also noticed that some people are simply offended by rules and moderation on a very personal level. Something about having someone else tell you how to behave boils their minds and they start pushing the limits just to break the rules or get obsessive over how the rules are applied in regards to the other members, always finding inconsistencies in moderation ... because moderation is by its own nature inconsistent to a degree. At least in my experience.


----------



## Blue

Deset Gled said:


> One of the difficulties, though, is that they're not all trolls*.  Some people just aren't socially skilled, whether it be on the internet or IRL.  Discerning a bad actor from a bad socializer can be tough.



The question is if it is even in the moderator's duties to try.  If someone is disruptive, argumentative and rude on the forums, the moderator should give them a warning.  If the poster was unaware of their actions but acting in good faith they now have concrete feedback how to improve their interaction with the community.  And if they are trolls, well that's a warning towards seeing who the repeat offenders are.  In both cases the moderators are defending the community, and where someone has slipped across the line but otherwise wants to be a good forum poster, they have it in front of them.

I've been moderated, and when it happens it's because I've gotten emotional and a debate has escalated to an argument.  At that point mods should step in and keep our community welcoming to all.


----------



## beancounter

This thread wouldn't be complete without a list of troll types. Its's easy to find a bunch of list. None of which are complete. 









						The 10 types of trolls you'll spot in the wild
					

A wild wet blanket appeared.




					mashable.com
				





			https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/urlarchive/a160133-5.pdf


----------



## Deset Gled

Blue said:


> The question is if it is even in the moderator's duties to try.




Ultimately it's up to them, but I genuinely hope they do. I'd rather be part of a forum filled with well intentioned folks with poor social skills than a bunch of mean people who learned to play by the rules. In the long term, it's about building a community.


----------



## Blue

Deset Gled said:


> Ultimately it's up to them, but I genuinely hope they do. I'd rather be part of a forum filled with well intentioned folks with poor social skills than a bunch of mean people who learned to play by the rules. In the long term, it's about building a community.



One warning is not the end of the world.  Even a second warning may just get one banned from posting in a particular thread.  Actual site banning seems like a high bar and requires repeated and/or egregious breaking of rules (like coming back with an alt account after a perma-ban).  Even for repeat offenders I don't know if the first step is a timed ban (say a week or month) or if it goes straight to permaban, so there might be another level where sanity can set in for a poster.

Frankly, if someone has received feedback that they are not being a good member of the community time and time again in short order such that banning is on the table, then they _aren't being a good member of the community_. That means they have been unwilling or unable to correct their behavior based on the feedback from the mods. If they are good intentioned, then it isn't unwilling.

If someone is regularly disruptive or rude and does not change their behavior when provided with evidence, can they be a good member of the community?

But that's the most extreme levels where we are talking about banning.  Someone is clueless or hot under the collar or whatever the reason and escalates to the bar where moderators step in, if the poster is good intentioned it will give them a reality check or maybe just a breather to correct their behavior and then we can all have better manners and be polite to each other even when we debate.  A moderator saying something should be a wake up call, but it does not eject someone from our community without giving them a chance to correct poor behavior.


----------



## Hussar

Blue said:


> The question is if it is even in the moderator's duties to try. If someone is disruptive, argumentative and rude on the forums, the moderator should give them a warning. If the poster was unaware of their actions but acting in good faith they now have concrete feedback how to improve their interaction with the community. And if they are trolls, well that's a warning towards seeing who the repeat offenders are. In both cases the moderators are defending the community, and where someone has slipped across the line but otherwise wants to be a good forum poster, they have it in front of them.
> 
> I've been moderated, and when it happens it's because I've gotten emotional and a debate has escalated to an argument. At that point mods should step in and keep our community welcoming to all.




I’ve certainly been very rightly called to heel from time to time. And, upon reflection, I can’t say I’ve ever really disagreed. Particularly if I manage to go thread diving after a while and look at it with fresh eyes.

I only get a bit put out when a thread I’m enjoying gets shut down.

----edit to change

darn autocorrect.  That's SHUT down.  Not naughty word filter engaging typo.


----------



## James Gasik

So something just happened to me on another forum I frequent, and I'm really confused by it.  So I need to ask exactly what counts as religious content.  See, I often refer to a certain period of D&D's history, where you could be persecuted for playing the game as the "S______ Panic".

I actually had neighbors go up to my Mom trying to inform her of what I was "up to" and saying they would "pray for me".

Anyways, I got handed a serious infraction* for mentioning said "S______ Panic" for talking about real-world religion.  And I was like "uh, this isn't some apocryphal event, this happened and is part of the game's history".  Still no word on if I have to pretend it didn't happen there or not to avoid being banned, but I've been part of that forum since 2007 so now I'm a little worried about getting in trouble here.

I've mentioned the "S______ Panic" on these boards already, so you can see why I'm worried.

*Apparently this is my second such infraction, apparently when I mentioned a Biblical character in reference to pact magic, I got dinged for that as well.


----------



## eyeheartawk

I say satanic panic ten times in the mirror every morning, keeps my teeth white.


----------



## James Gasik

I'm just so confused right now.  Has it come to this?  Do we have "S______ Panic" Deniers now?


----------



## BookTenTiger

James Gasik said:


> I'm just so confused right now.  Has it come to this?  Do we have "S______ Panic" Deniers now?



I don't think anyone here is going to be able to really comment on the moderation of another forum, but it could be that they just have their "religious vocabulary" filters turned up really high and don't want anyone to talk about anything religious adjacent.


----------



## billd91

James Gasik said:


> So something just happened to me on another forum I frequent, and I'm really confused by it.  So I need to ask exactly what counts as religious content.  See, I often refer to a certain period of D&D's history, where you could be persecuted for playing the game as the "S______ Panic".
> 
> I actually had neighbors go up to my Mom trying to inform her of what I was "up to" and saying they would "pray for me".
> 
> Anyways, I got handed a serious infraction* for mentioning said "S______ Panic" for talking about real-world religion.  And I was like "uh, this isn't some apocryphal event, this happened and is part of the game's history".  Still no word on if I have to pretend it didn't happen there or not to avoid being banned, but I've been part of that forum since 2007 so now I'm a little worried about getting in trouble here.
> 
> I've mentioned the "S______ Panic" on these boards already, so you can see why I'm worried.
> 
> *Apparently this is my second such infraction, apparently when I mentioned a Biblical character in reference to pact magic, I got dinged for that as well.



And some people think ENWorld is over-moderated! (though in a lot of cases, that seems to be because of political differences)
There is at least one board I have a login for that I don't bother with anymore because I feel the moderation truly is excessive. By comparison, ENWorld is downright easy-going.


----------



## James Gasik

That is what I had gathered- I really have grown to enjoy posting here.  Even when players are at loggerheads I rarely see the ever-so-useful "well I've been playing for years and I've *never* seen this so-called problem" posts that make me want to tear (the rest) of my hair out!


----------



## James Gasik

Well I got my response from the other forum mod.  They aren't taking away the infraction though.

"I lived through it too. My best friend's mother tried to organize a town-wide union of parents to ban D&D. I overheard my parents talking about it and it's the one and only time I ever heard my mother use the C-word.

No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."


----------



## Mannahnin

James Gasik said:


> Well I got my response from the other forum mod.  They aren't taking away the infraction though.
> 
> "I lived through it too. My best friend's mother tried to organize a town-wide union of parents to ban D&D. I overheard my parents talking about it and it's the one and only time I ever heard my mother use the C-word.
> 
> No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."



That's nuts.  The moral panic was rooted partly in religious beliefs, but it was a sociological phenomenon.  

The idea of being forbidden, in a D&D forum, from discussing a significant sociological phenomenon that impacted the growth, reputation and design (particularly 2nd ed) of the game (and is still impacting it today to a lesser extent!) seems bizarre to me.

Still- their forum, their rules.  

Sounds like the moderator has approved using a euphemism.  Maybe the more general "anti-D&D moral panic" would serve best.  








						Moral panic - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## James Gasik

Mannahnin said:


> That's nuts.  The moral panic was rooted partly in religious beliefs, but it was a sociological phenomenon.
> 
> The idea of being forbidden, in a D&D forum, from discussing a significant sociological phenomenon that impacted the growth, reputation and design (particularly 2nd ed) of the game (and is still impacting it today to a lesser extent!) seems bizarre to me.
> 
> Still- their forum, their rules.
> 
> Sounds like the moderator has approved using a euphemism.  Maybe the more general "anti-D&D moral panic" would serve best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral panic - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



You're probably right, but I think I'll just stop posting there, it's not a big deal anymore.  I was just worried if I'd run into that issue here and would need to modify my references to real-world religions....

Which is difficult when you're talking about a game where real-world Gods have had stat blocks in the past!


----------



## Rabulias

I would ask the moderators of that other site how you should refer to that social phenomena that happened ("the moral panic about RPGs in the 1980s"?), or do they mean that the Satanic Panic itself cannot be mentioned/discussed? I mean, the Wikipedia page about it is titled "Satanic panic." And what forum site is this? I will want to stay away, and not talk about my recipe for devil's food cake.


----------



## Umbran

Rabulias said:


> I would ask the moderators of that other site how you should refer to that social phenomena that happened ("the moral panic about RPGs in the 1980s"?), or do they mean that the Satanic Panic itself cannot be mentioned/discussed?




He already mentioned the response he got:
_"No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."_


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> He already mentioned the response he got:
> _"No one's asking you pretend it didn't happen. That's not the thing. The rules say you can't discuss religion, and mentioning counts as discussion, and S_____ counts as religion. So if you need to refer to that time period, just find another way to do it."_



Likely it's tripping some filter - using the word Satan for example.  Which means the mod gets pinged and then the mod is obliged to do something about it because the mod isn't the board owner and the board owner has set that filter in place.  It's not, "You must never talk about this", it's "Please don't talk about this using terms that trip the filter which means that we have to step in".  

Granted, mods can't phrase it that way, but, that's certainly the "in between the lines" that I would see.


----------



## James Gasik

Maybe, but when I asked to appeal and the infraction stood, I was like, you know, I don't really need to post there anymore anyways.  I'm sure they have good reasons to be worried about religion, and just on the off chance anyone here would be offended by that sort of thing, I'm perfectly happy to vaguely refer to things (I have a recent post where I discuss a "widely published book of mythology that we'll call B, and how in the book, a man named A makes a pact with a deity we'll call G").

But it still hit me out of left field because in 15 years of posting there on and off, nothing like this had happened before, and their issue wasn't the topic I was talking about- it was using the same name for the event that wikipedia uses.

I mean, if you wanted to look up this topic online, would "the sociological event that plagued early Dungeons and Dragons" be what you googled?

I checked by the way.  Turns out that even if you did, you'd find relevant articles.  Eh, far from the first or last time I've been wrong.


----------



## Hussar

Heh.  Yeah, I just googled using your line:  the sociological event that plagued early Dungeons and Dragons - and yup, it does actually come up with the relevant articles.  Interesting.


----------



## Umbran

Hussar said:


> Likely it's tripping some filter - using the word Satan for example.  Which means the mod gets pinged and then the mod is obliged to do something about it ....




I can't speak for them, but our language filter doesn't alert moderators.


----------



## Hussar

Umbran said:


> I can't speak for them, but our language filter doesn't alert moderators.



That's true.  Could just be someone seeing the word Satan and reporting it too.  That's plausible.


----------



## James Gasik

I would have been fine with that, except when I went to state my case, the mod was like "I understand, but you can't say the word, no matter the context" and let the infraction stand.  Ah well.  It's not a loss, I get more intelligent debate here anyways.


----------

