Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.

[Arkandel]

@bored said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@arkandel I'm really not trying to target them or be negative (like, really truly, honestly, I'm not), but pointing out they represent a pretty specific end of the of viewpoint specturm. Their argument is 'the constructive forum is already this, but people are terrible and keep it from working.'

I believe you. It just doesn't matter, and it's important that you (and all of us) understand that.

First of all we can do with less labels on people who represent some kind of point of view, be it a fringe or popular one.

But also it's a distraction. The emphasis needs to be on the arguments themselves, not other posters. It's just... aside from the negative connotations people usually end up using, it's less interesting.

[bored]

@surreality I maintain that my initial post was no way meant as hostile (the 'those plots are stupid' was in reference to a general trope of plots, not anything specific to your game) and that most of it was misinterpretation of tone and and a death spiral of hostility/defense, but it's fine, I'm no more interested in re-litigating that thread than I imagine (or hope) you would be. I'm not going to.

Regardless, your (prior) thread is still a good example not because of the fight, but because of what you wanted and didn't get: a controlled conversation based on certain positive elaboration on your initial concepts. We fought in that thread because I fundamentally didn't believe the 'Mildly Constructive' forum allowed you that restriction, but I am in favor of you having a place where you could have that. I don't know what more I can offer or say than that.

But it would probably need to be a new high-moderation zone.

@faraday I agree all those specific things are not constructive and should be subject to moderation even in Mildly Constructive (and if any of them are me, my bad). That said, I still think there's levels of skin thickness, hostility and defensiveness across the entire spectrum of forum posters where it would be beneficial to have a designated high moderation area.

This also has certain utility to the mod team themselves, because it allows them to prioritize reports.

@arkandel I think it's not irrelevant to identify that some people want something much different than other people want. I think its useful to identify it and actually see how we can make it work for everyone.

We had some kind of agreement on different levels of moderation in the older thread, but it's been tabled/forgotten, it seems. I'm not sure why that is, where it seems like such a compromise-y 'please everyone' option.

[Arkandel]

@bored said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@arkandel I think it's not irrelevant to identify that some people want something much different than other people want. I think its useful to identify it and actually see how we can make it work for everyone.

Citation needed there.

That's a true fallacy - probably unintentional in your case - to try and claim which point of view is popular or not. How do you know? How can you?

And even if one was what does it mean?

[Roz]

@bored I think you're mistaking "doesn't want any sort of criticism/only wants positive feedback" with "just looking for feedback on specific areas of development for the time being." I mean, if the thread happened again, I'd just advise @surreality to respond to any questions outside of the areas of development she wanted to address with a simple "I'm not hashing out that area yet" and ignoring anything further.

So no, I don't actually think it's accurate to say that @surreality (and @faraday) are actually asking for areas where negative feedback is entirely restricted. You're just misrepresenting what the real objections were.

[faraday]

@bored said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@faraday I agree all those specific things are not constructive and should be subject to moderation even in Mildly Constructive (and if any of them are me, my bad). That said, I still think there's levels of skin thickness, hostility and defensiveness across the entire spectrum of forum posters where it would be beneficial to have a designated high moderation area.

But just to be clear -- those are the only kinds of things I'm asking to be moderated. That's it. That's all. Stuff that even you agree doesn't belong in the constructive area.

Seriously, there were what - 10 pages of various people (including you) arguing about FS3? Only two or three of those comments went over the line for me. So for me - it's not at all about needing a "high-moderation zone" it's just about moderating the stuff that already doesn't belong in mildly constructive according to the current policies.

Now I can sympathize with @ThatGuyThere's concern that moderation will go overboard and stifle any sort of criticism, but that's not what I want either. You can't debate if you can't criticize ideas.

[Thenomain]

Ninja’d by @Roz.

(Look, I’m posting a positive me too even after up-voting.)

[surreality]

@bored said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

@surreality I maintain that my initial post was no way meant as hostile (the 'those plots are stupid' was in reference to a general trope of plots, not anything specific to your game) and that most of it was misinterpretation of tone and and a death spiral of hostility/defense, but it's fine, I'm no more interested in re-litigating that thread than I imagine (or hope) you would be. I'm not going to.

Regardless, your (prior) thread is still a good example not because of the fight, but because of what you wanted and didn't get: a controlled conversation based on certain positive elaboration on your initial concepts. We fought in that thread because I fundamentally didn't believe the 'Mildly Constructive' forum allowed you that restriction, but I am in favor of you having a place where you could have that. I don't know what more I can offer or say than that.

But it would probably need to be a new high-moderation zone.

@faraday I agree all those specific things are not constructive and should be subject to moderation even in Mildly Constructive (and if any of them are me, my bad). That said, I still think there's levels of skin thickness, hostility and defensiveness across the entire spectrum of forum posters where it would be beneficial to have a designated high moderation area.

I agree with all of this, actually -- and it is a prime example. Generally we seem to agree on most basic things more often than not and I long ago chalked most of that up to the death spiral of worst case scenarios in terms of personal whatever. Hence the 'my favorite grudgewank' being, genuinely, a joke. (Which I figured you got, but if you didn't, now at least you know the intent behind that reference.)

Where we disagree is that I'm not against 'I don't like'. I'm actually interested in that -- when that's the focus area I'm looking at, and if it's relevant. If I'm making a DC comics game and someone's only feedback is 'I hate DC comics games, I only like Marvel', well... that ship has sorta sailed and it isn't useful feedback.

If I am asking specific questions, I'm looking for answers to those specific questions. Instead, I got slammed and insulted and told I was making some formal representation and introduction advertisement for a game (which I most certainly wasn't) with a deliberately tongue-in-cheek bullet point list of some of the elements involved so people would have a very basic and general context for their answers.

[Roz]

@thenomain

[Auspice]

Update the First:

There is now a Game Dev Category. There are specific outlined Rules of Engagement.

Enjoy.

[bored]

@arkandel Uh, I'm not claiming my view is popular.

I'm claiming their point view is popular and represents a significant subset of people you should cater to (with the citation being the two of them, along with one other person, having a bunch of posts in the same general thrust in the page or two preceding mine that are all well voted).

@faraday Cool enough. I think your moderation requirements are reasonable for even the current-extant forum. I still think @surreality's desires represent something that cannot be adequately catered to right now.

That's what I'm advocating for, and I don't mean it as an insult at all. I feel like people want this and would use this, and could have this WITHOUT taking anything away from anyone else. I have no clue what it's controversial, other than perhaps a tendency to attribute the worst to one another's intentions (which may be well-earned).

[surreality]

@bored That's why I've been asking for a space like that for ages now -- I think it's something that would be a net positive without screwing anybody else or forcing any other changes on folks -- and it's something scattered right now and that makes it confusing re: what rules apply where to such threads. Thankfully... @Auspice just created a space for it. So this is a good thing all around, yeah?

[bored]

@surreality Yeah, I think this is a great solution.

Kudos to @Auspice for the prompt action, too.

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

Now I can sympathize with @ThatGuyThere's concern that moderation will go overboard and stifle any sort of criticism, but that's not what I want either. You can't debate if you can't criticize ideas.

Honestly from what I have seen actual moderation is less the issue and more how posters start to behave, it usually becomes you said something negative about something or disagreed with someone I liked so now I attack your post for being overly negative and I have seen that sort of thing be every much a dogpile as anything that has happened on here or Wora. That becomes my issue.
I have seen the rule of "Be polite." Which I think everyone thinks is a fine rule by itself become a cudgel that was used to attack any post that wasn't glowing agreement. If it was simply a matter of trusting moderation I would have a lot less issue.

[faraday]

@thatguythere said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

Honestly from what I have seen actual moderation is less the issue and more how posters start to behave, it usually becomes you said something negative about something or disagreed with someone I liked so now I attack your post for being overly negative and I have seen that sort of thing be every much a dogpile as anything that has happened on here or Wora. That becomes my issue.

If posters are misbehaving that's exactly the sort of thing more moderation would be intended to solve. I agree with you that currently the mods don't jump in usually, and that's as they intend it. I would argue that somebody overreacting to criticism and launching into personal attacks/dogpiles is just as guilty as somebody who goes around hurling insults. Moderation should go both ways.

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

If posters are misbehaving that's exactly the sort of thing more moderation would be intended to solve.

While I agree in theory, Mod on a board like staff on a game can get overwhelmed pretty easily. Nor are they on 24/7 on most boards the mods do try to keep to the intent of the rules but they can also get drowned out.

[Arkandel]

@thatguythere We don't need to (and we won't) be perfect, but we can try. Flagging and reporting posts could work, too.

Consider it an experiment - what do we have to lose by giving it a shot?

[ThatGuyThere]

@arkandel said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

Consider it an experiment - what do we have to lose by giving it a shot?

Likely my participation, no offense but i have seen the game played too many time to think it will be different. A section with stricter rules fine, the whole board; engh... It becomes like dating if I know how the script is gonna play out why bother wasting the time going through it.

[Arkandel]

@thatguythere I'm talking about @Auspice's new section, dude.

[Derp]

@thatguythere

"If I can't be negative and such wherever the hell I feel like, then I will just quit posting."

Fine? I mean, for those of us who want a more civil discourse in areas that aren't the Hog Pit, that's no great loss. Hell, that's one of the best solutions so far, honestly. If everyone who can't follow basic rules of civil discussion quits participating, then the mods don't even have to do anything.

It's because of the attitude stated above -- the willful disregard for civility in areas clearly delineated for it -- that we're asking for more moderation in the first place.

[krmbm]

@derp said in Hello MSBites! Grade your administrators.:

"If I can't be negative and such wherever the hell I feel like, then I will just quit posting."

Isn't this sort of sweeping, negative generalization of something a person didn't actually say exactly the kind of thing you're advocating against?