Can someone clear this up for me?

wilykcat

I read the code of conduct on the forums. I sometimes get confused on what posts are considered a code of conduct violation or not which can lead to account actions. I'm sorry for this.

Elsonso

Share with the rest of the class?

TechMaybeHic

Not a fight you can win, really. Id be willing to bet you said something as matter of fact as possible but it still hurt someone's feelings, so you get a warning.

SilverBride

The biggest mistake I see posters make is to personally criticize other posters.

We may disagree with someone else's view, and it's perfectly fine to state that and give reasons why we disagree. But it is not ok to criticize the poster themselves and make personal accusations against them.

tincanman

SilverBride wrote: »

The biggest mistake I see posters make is to personally criticize other posters.

We may disagree with someone else's view, and it's perfectly fine to state that and give reasons why we disagree. But it is not ok to criticize the poster themselves and make personal accusations against them.

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

SilverBride

tincanman wrote: »

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

That first example IS personal. It is directed at the poster and accusing them of making stupid mistakes.

tincanman

SilverBride wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

That first example IS personal. It is directed at the poster and accusing them of making stupid mistakes.

No, It's refering to the MISTAKE.

The second example refers to the person.

Thanks, though, your comment was a perfect illustration of the difficulty some have with the qualitative distinction.

SilverBride

tincanman wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

That first example IS personal. It is directed at the poster and accusing them of making stupid mistakes.

No, It's refering to the MISTAKE.

The second example refers to the person.

Thanks, though, your comment was a perfect illustration of the difficulty some have with the qualitative distinction.

I disagree. The poster is the subject of that first statement and it is clearly accusing them of doing something stupid. Saying something like "This is a mistake that is commonly made." puts the focus on the mistake and is non accusatory.

@ZOS_Kevin may we please get some official clarification on this?

VaranisArano

I think I remember that you had some questions about how moderation was handled during the ban wave discussion, which was technically "discussing disciplinary action"?

Here's how I handle threads like that:

• the rules exist for the benefit of ZOS, not the other way around. So if it benefits ZOS to leave a thread alone for a while (examples: the ban wave, the Leona Faren thread), then it'll stay up until ZOS directs moderators to close it.
• Once something becomes "news" or impacts a notable amount of the playerbase, the moderators generally seem to prefer to keep it contained in one easier-to-moderate thread than playing whack-a-mole with new posts. Even though its still up, it does mean its still important to stay polite, on topic, treat everyone with the presumption of good faith, report baiting rather than arguing back, etc.
• if there's a lot of drama in the thread, I stay very polite and very on topic

I've personally never had an issue posting on threads like that.

Now, I also have the benefit of having seen a lot more threads like this. For example, I was here for Update 17 Imperial City exp glitch, so I remember what sort of discussions were permitted back then.

tincanman

SilverBride wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

That first example IS personal. It is directed at the poster and accusing them of making stupid mistakes.

No, It's refering to the MISTAKE.

The second example refers to the person.

Thanks, though, your comment was a perfect illustration of the difficulty some have with the qualitative distinction.

I disagree. The poster is the subject of that first statement and it is clearly accusing them of doing something stupid. Saying something like "This is a mistake that is commonly made." puts the focus on the mistake and is non accusatory.

@ZOS_Kevin may we please get some official clarification on this?

perhaps a little exposition may help.

The first statement is an OBSERVATION "you made a stupid mistake". Your inference from that statement was "you are accusing them of making stupid mistakes". An observation is not an accusation - that is entirely your inference. Also, only a single mistake is referred to and yet you infer, falsely, the plural: mistakes. You are reading WAY more into the observation than is STATED and that inference is entirely on you: it's not implicit in the statement at all.

But, ok, let's give it some context, for example: thread title "help I made a stupid mistake", later someone replies with "when you made a stupid mistake, which is easily done...." Can you see how unreasonable your inference is, within this context? But you didn't have that context, just the statement which is, as described, is no more than an observation referring to a single mistake without any judgement on the person at all. The only thing which is actually referred to as stupid is the mistake.

Given another context, perhaps negative, your inference may have been validated. But, again, NO CONTEXT was given therefore the statements could only be read and interpreted for the information given: and the only information given was the exact words used. Any inference you make or made beyond their precise and exact meaning is entirely on you.

The semantic meaning of the first statement is only that a mistake was made by someone 'you', who ever that may be. And that the mistake was stupid. There is zero judgement on that person whatsoever: it's simply not in the statement nor can it reasonably be inferred from it.

The semantic meaning of the second statement is that a mistake was made by someone and that someone is stupid. There is no ambiguity here: the statement is explicitly and unambiguously stating both the mistake was made AND describing the individual making it as stupid.

Clearly the second statement ("you made a mistake, stupid") is personal. Clearly the first ("you made a stupid mistake") is most definitely not.

VaranisArano

tincanman wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

That first example IS personal. It is directed at the poster and accusing them of making stupid mistakes.

No, It's refering to the MISTAKE.

The second example refers to the person.

Thanks, though, your comment was a perfect illustration of the difficulty some have with the qualitative distinction.

Context matters. Tone is really hard to read on the internet.

In the context of a factual rundown where two players are working through how to solve a problem with a build "You made a stupid mistake" might not raise hackles or moderator eyebrows.

In the context of a back-and-forth argument, "You made a stupid mistake" sounds a lot more like baiting or like a personal insult.

(And the whole problem could be avoided with politer wording.)

There's a bit of an art to arguing on the forum I've had to learn by trial and error. Generally, using "I" or impersonal "we" statements gets me moderated less than "you" statements directed at the person I'm arguing with. Because even if I think my tone is acceptable and non-insulting, the context makes "you" seem that much more confrontational.

SilverBride

tincanman wrote: »

The first statement is an OBSERVATION "you made a stupid mistake".

Telling someone they did anything stupid is accusatory and calls their intelligence into question. That can be seen as baiting in my opinon.

We really need someone to clarify this.

tincanman

VaranisArano wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

That first example IS personal. It is directed at the poster and accusing them of making stupid mistakes.

No, It's refering to the MISTAKE.

The second example refers to the person.

Thanks, though, your comment was a perfect illustration of the difficulty some have with the qualitative distinction.

Context matters. Tone is really hard to read on the internet.

In the context of a factual rundown where two players are working through how to solve a problem with a build "You made a stupid mistake" might not raise hackles or moderator eyebrows.

In the context of a back-and-forth argument, "You made a stupid mistake" sounds a lot more like baiting or like a personal insult.

(And the whole problem could be avoided with politer wording.)

There's a bit of an art to arguing on the forum I've had to learn by trial and error. Generally, using "I" or impersonal "we" statements gets me moderated less than "you" statements directed at the person I'm arguing with. Because even if I think my tone is acceptable and non-insulting, the context makes "you" seem that much more confrontational.

I agree that context matters.

The example I gave was minimalist and intended to illustrate that it is very easy for someone to misunderstand or misinterpet intent or meaning where such a qualitative distinction exists as described and, perhaps, take offence, where none is actually intended nor described nor alluded to.

Often people personalise things where no such personalisation exists in the language used. I don't think the semantic difference offered in the example I gave is too subtle or difficult to recognise nor understand.

Thanks for discussion, though.

Elsonso

tincanman wrote: »

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

Actually, they are both personal. The phrase "stupid mistake" refers to a decision was made by the subject that is considered to be an unintelligent choice. It calls out the subject and questions how smart they are.

tincanman

Elsonso wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

Actually, they are both personal. The phrase "stupid mistake" refers to a decision was made by the subject that is considered to be an unintelligent choice. It calls out the subject and questions how smart they are.

I refer you to my previous posts.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks.

VaranisArano

tincanman wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

tincanman wrote: »

Often the critique is personalised when neither the intent nor the language indicates so.

More often the qualitative distinction is simply not recognised:

eg.
"you made a stupid mistake" [non-personal]
"you made a mistake, stupid" [personal]

That first example IS personal. It is directed at the poster and accusing them of making stupid mistakes.

No, It's refering to the MISTAKE.

The second example refers to the person.

Thanks, though, your comment was a perfect illustration of the difficulty some have with the qualitative distinction.

Context matters. Tone is really hard to read on the internet.

In the context of a factual rundown where two players are working through how to solve a problem with a build "You made a stupid mistake" might not raise hackles or moderator eyebrows.

In the context of a back-and-forth argument, "You made a stupid mistake" sounds a lot more like baiting or like a personal insult.

(And the whole problem could be avoided with politer wording.)

There's a bit of an art to arguing on the forum I've had to learn by trial and error. Generally, using "I" or impersonal "we" statements gets me moderated less than "you" statements directed at the person I'm arguing with. Because even if I think my tone is acceptable and non-insulting, the context makes "you" seem that much more confrontational.

I agree that context matters.

The example I gave was minimalist and intended to illustrate that it is very easy for someone to misunderstand or misinterpet intent or meaning where such a qualitative distinction exists as described and, perhaps, take offence, where none is actually intended nor described nor alluded to.

Often people personalise things where no such personalisation exists in the language used. I don't think the semantic difference offered in the example I gave is too subtle or difficult to recognise nor understand.

Thanks for discussion, though.

I don't want to beat a dead horse about the semantics of an example, so I'll try to broaden my thoughts out to the moderation conversation.

In my experience of having some of my comments edited for baiting, moderation actions are basically "Does a reasonable person (the moderator) consider this baiting?" The mods obviously took the exact wording, the context, and their reading of the tone into account. The vast majority of my "snips" happened during back-and-forth arguments and the mods are honestly pretty good at leaving the more substantive parts of my critiques intact.

Usually, in hindsight, I find it's more helpful for me to focus on the higher-order solution. Rather than arguing over the semantics of what I said, I consider: "Was there a politer way to say it?"

Yeah, there was.

So for anyone who's confused or struggling with how to be critical to another poster without crossing the line into being moderated for baiting, here's my advice (from someone who doesn't do it perfectly): whenever you're addressing the other person directly, always consider if there's a politer way to say it.

Aislinna

The Code of Conduct is written vague enough to cover many situations as needed. There will never be a black and white set of rules that can be disputed because it is subjective and up to the moderator as to how they interpret a post. A single post can be seen differently by each moderators because they are human and bring their own bias and interpretation to each post.