Mongoose Traveller Moderation

[tbeard1999]

I think it should be fairly simple.

Criticism that is offered in a balanced, non-arrogant, non-emotional manner is fine.
(e.g. "I am not fond of the decision to declare Aslan non-psionic and here's why")

Criticism that is posted in nasty, strident, eogtistical manners with phrases that can only be interpreted as attacks is not. (e.g. "The decision to make Aslan non-psionic only proves my point that Mongoose knows nothing about Traveller and if Marc approved this change, he doesn't either.")

Terms like "balanced", "non-arrogant", "non-emotional", "nasty", "strident", "egotistical" are highly subjective. I am concerned that a fan of MGT and someone unimpressed with MGT might seriously differ on the definition of such terms.

And while many statements are *clearly* nasty or whatever, many more are questionable. Given that, I'd prefer a very light moderating hand. Especially where the moderator has a clear conflict of interest -- which he himself has admitted.

And I assume you'd agree that Colin should reprimand someone who attacks a poster's motives -- "you just hate anything that isn't classic Traveller" or "you just hate Mongoose" or "you're too hidebound to accept that things change".

Statements like these would be disallowed, yes?

 

[tbeard1999]

Remember how I mentioned that someone earned themselves a ban? It wasn't a Mongoose hater... And that's all I'll say on that subject.

If we are talking about drh, he *asked* to be banned.

 

[Allensh]

Terms like "balanced", "non-arrogant", "non-emotional", "nasty", "strident", "egotistical" are highly subjective. I am concerned that a fan of MGT and someone unimpressed with MGT might seriously differ on the definition of such terms.

And while many statements are *clearly* nasty or whatever, many more are questionable. Given that, I'd prefer a very light moderating hand. Especially where the moderator has a clear conflict of interest -- which he himself has admitted.

And I assume you'd agree that Colin should reprimand someone who attacks a poster's motives -- "you just hate anything that isn't classic Traveller" or "you just hate Mongoose" or "you're too hidebound to accept that things change".

Statements like these would be disallowed, yes?

Not if they've been demonstrated repeatedly as being true.

I really don't see those as attacks. If they were coupled with a personal insult, yes. Telling someone you think their judgement is clouded by an unreasoning prejudice is not neccesarily a personal attack.

But that's really for the moderator to decide.

Allen

 

[rancke]

If we are talking about drh, he *asked* to be banned.

In both senses of the term.


Hans

 

[tbeard1999]

Not if they've been demonstrated repeatedly as being true.

I really don't see those as attacks. If they were coupled with a personal insult, yes. Telling someone you think their judgement is clouded by an unreasoning prejudice is not neccesarily a personal attack.

So...would you think it an insult if someone was accused of being a MGT fanboy (even if it could be "demonstrated repeatedly as being true")?

 

[tbeard1999]

In both senses of the term.


Hans

Yup.....

 

[Allensh]

So...would you think it an insult if someone was accused of being a MGT fanboy (even if it could be "demonstrated repeatedly as being true")?

I realize what you are doing here, you know.

Nevertheless...it depends on how that term is used. As it has been applied to me in the past, it has been used to belittle my opinions by saying "well, you're just an MGT fanboy", as if to imply that my views are not valid because I supposedly rubber-stamp everything Mongoose does. That sort of use of the term "fanboy" is derogatory and commonly used on the Internet to derail a debate by dismissing the other person's opinion. That is what I object to.

And as I said elsewhere....I am an MGT fanboy. And a CT, MT, TNE, T4 fanboy as well (maybe even T5 one of these days). I am a TRAVELLER fanboy. (actually at my age I wouldn't qualify as any kind of "boy" but oh well...)

You see, the so-called personal attacks you quoted above were statements: "you hate anything that isn't Classic Traveller", etc. "You're a fanboy" is a LABEL.

Allen

 

[Colin]

I'm going to take as light a hand as I possibly can. That being said, I won't allow any more flame-fests, nor will I permit personal attacks on any board member. No matter which side of the MGT fence they stand on.

 

[travlar]

So, "you just love Mongoose and can't stand to hear anything bad about it" would be fine? How much of a difference is there between that and calling someone an MGT fanboy? "You're too hidebound to accept that things change" is a label. "You just hate Mongoose" is a label. Even "you just hate anything that isn't classic Traveller" is something of a label. For those first two, any difference is just superficial.

(This is in reference to Allenesh's post.)

 

[hunter]

Especially where the moderator has a clear conflict of interest -- which he himself has admitted.

And every one of his moderation decisions are seen by myself and the other moderators. So it's unlikely that even if Colin was acting in the interest of Mongoose over criticism (doubtful), it wouldn't stand long.

You see, the so-called personal attacks you quoted above were statements: "you hate anything that isn't Classic Traveller", etc. "You're a fanboy" is a LABEL.

It's semantics. Dismissing someone by telling them "you hate anything that isn't Classic Traveller" isn't much different than calling someone a "fanboy". Both are a dismissal of their opinions. Something I've seen from both sides of this argument.

 

[aramis]

The moment you get into the public dismissal of others' input on the simple grounds that they are inclined to dislike/like something, you're into the gray area, and it's usually going to get a warning. If you do so by use of labels, that's too far. If you're using those labels in order to seek to include certain opinions, however, it may be useful. For example, Asking, "Hey, I'd like a few CT fans' opinions on the MGT bay change" is fine.

Pointing out that someone's expressed opinion seems out of character, far less so, provided it's polite.

 

[Allensh]

So, "you just love Mongoose and can't stand to hear anything bad about it" would be fine? How much of a difference is there between that and calling someone an MGT fanboy? "You're too hidebound to accept that things change" is a label. "You just hate Mongoose" is a label. Even "you just hate anything that isn't classic Traveller" is something of a label. For those first two, any difference is just superficial.

(This is in reference to Allenesh's post.)

First of all that is not accurate. I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with criticism of Mongoose Traveller except in the case of a very few people who acted as though they were on a personal crusade to drive people away from it and who engaged in REPEATED criticisms about the same thing over and over again in every thread that came up on this section whether it was appropriate to that thread or not, i.e. "threadcrapping". And they often did so in very insulting belittling ways.

If you don't know the difference between making a statement and calling someone a name, I can't help you.

Allen

 

[travlar]

First of all that is not accurate. I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with criticism of Mongoose Traveller except in the case of a very few people who acted as though they were on a personal crusade to drive people away from it and who engaged in REPEATED criticisms about the same thing over and over again in every thread that came up on this section whether it was appropriate to that thread or not, i.e. "threadcrapping". And they often did so in very insulting belittling ways.

If you don't know the difference between making a statement and calling someone a name, I can't help you.

Allen

You'll notice Hunter appears to at least mostly agree with me. I know the difference between making a statement and calling someone a name. I also know that they can be the same thing. Saying "you just hate Mongoose" is about the same as calling someone a "hateboy" or whatever term you'd use for someone who terminally hates something.

 

[tbeard1999]

I realize what you are doing here, you know.

<Looks around all wide-eyed and innocent>

What am I doing?

You see, the so-called personal attacks you quoted above were statements: "you hate anything that isn't Classic Traveller", etc. "You're a fanboy" is a LABEL.

Allen, my problem is that *I* don't see any difference between them. Both statements attempt to dismiss someone's argument by making accusations about their motives. And both, in my opinion, are equally offensive and should draw moderator action. (Both statements are also mind-numbingly lame, if offered in lieu of responding to someone's arguments).

At the end of the day, an assertion stands on its own. IMHO, the motives of the person making the assertion are irrelevant to the issue of whether the assertion is accurate or reasonable.

But you *have* illustrated my main point very well -- that whether something is "offensive" is often very subjective.

And very dependent on which side of the argument you're on.

Hence my contention that moderation should be done lightly -- especially where the judge admits that he is biased.

Note that I am *not* saying this disqualifies Colin; I'm merely noting that it's a legitimate issue he should be mindful of.

 

[hunter]

Note that I am *not* saying this disqualifies Colin; I'm merely noting that it's a legitimate issue he should be mindful of.

I think he's made it quite clear he is mindful of it. And lets be honest, moderation here is quite light handed. Despite the claims of a few (now gone by their own request), few have ever been perma-banned from CotI and some of those few who were, were banned by request.

 

[Allensh]

You'll notice Hunter appears to at least mostly agree with me. I know the difference between making a statement and calling someone a name. I also know that they can be the same thing. Saying "you just hate Mongoose" is about the same as calling someone a "hateboy" or whatever term you'd use for someone who terminally hates something.

and that means what?


Ok, in moments of frustration I have done this. It was wrong and I have tried not to do it again.

Happy now?

Allen

 

[travlar]

and that means what?


Ok, in moments of frustration I have done this. It was wrong and I have tried not to do it again.

Happy now?

Allen

Um, I'm not sure what exactly you think I'm doing. I was arguing my opinion, and it had nothing to do with what you may or may not have done in the past. I am sorry if that was how it appeared.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ok, in moments of frustration I have done this. It was wrong and I have tried not to do it again.

Happy now?

Allen

Allen, nobody's trying to break your balls here. We're just making a point -- that either *both* statements are offensive or neither is. The only substantive difference between them is who is being insulted. And that is not a valid reason to classify one statement as okay and the other as an insult.

 

[Allensh]

Um, I'm not sure what exactly you think I'm doing. I was arguing my opinion, and it had nothing to do with what you may or may not have done in the past. I am sorry if that was how it appeared.

My apologies to you, then.

Allen

 

[travlar]

My apologies to you, then.

Allen

It's fine. I know it can be easy to read motives into what other people are doing.