Moderation and censorship is out of hand

spartaxoxo · January 9

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I'm still wondering what's the worst thing that could happen in a forum, to be honest. After all, physical violence is impossible here. The way I see it, in any way, the worst thing that could happen is being insulted (again). If I criticize someone and that person insults me (once more, because that's what lead to the conflict after all), I can still decide to report them. The only difference to reporting them before trying to talk is that they don't get the chance to resolve a potential misunderstanding. Other than that, it's more or less the same, nothing gets worse by trying to talk about the issue first. Maybe it's even better because, as I said, not trying to solve an issue without moderative action could, especially if it's indeed a misunderstanding, come across as being unwilling to resolve things peacefully which might only harden the fronts and increase the whole conflict.

The poster could risk their own account by getting into a discussion that could turn into an argument with someone that has already insulted them, maybe multiple times.

But all of this could be avoided if posters followed the Community Rule that says we are not to make personal comments about or take jabs at other posters. If we think a post is rude we can flag it or we can ignore it, but we can't just break the rule by telling a poster we thought their post was rude and expect them to not flag it.

Regardless of our personal expectations, what matters here are the Community Rules in the context of the forums. And calling posts rude is against these rules.

I agree that there needs to be a limit to personal comments. But, never referring to someone else at all is not really how most humans interact with one another. The rule needs to be followed well enough to avoid shaming and flaming, but not so strict that people feel they have to walk on eggshells.

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

There has to be a line between "I am calling this person out so nobody interacts with them," and "never say anything about anyone ever " imo

Oceanchanter · January 9

After thinking this overnight, I decided to withdraw myself from the conversation about both in-game and forum moderation.
That doesn't mean I withdraw the points I made so far in this discussion.
I've said what I wanted, and stand by it.

To simply put, seeing the current "vibe" I came to a conclusion it is in my best interest to not participate in the discussion any further.
I'm just, personally, tired.
Tired of mincing words, walking on eggshells.
It shouldn't be like this considering we are (or at least should be) adults on the forum dedicated to an M rated game.
And I don't want to endanger my account over something trivial.

I guess that kinda proves that moderation is out of hand indeed.

Maybe I will check on the thread from time to time to see where it is going
But I started to have personal doubts if the situation will change for the better in both departments.

Good luck to all of you.

SilverBride · January 9

Varana wrote: »

That is not what the Community Rules say.
That is your interpretation of what they say.
Saying that a post comes across as "rude" is not a "personal comment" and certainly not a "jab" at anyone, including the author of the post. So doing that is entirely within the guidelines, as I read them.
But with that, we're at the same point where we were two pages ago.

I believe it is against the rule, so we could use some clarification.

@ZOS_Kevin Could you please clarify if calling a post rude is against the Community Rules?

Franchise408 · January 9

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I'm still wondering what's the worst thing that could happen in a forum, to be honest. After all, physical violence is impossible here. The way I see it, in any way, the worst thing that could happen is being insulted (again). If I criticize someone and that person insults me (once more, because that's what lead to the conflict after all), I can still decide to report them. The only difference to reporting them before trying to talk is that they don't get the chance to resolve a potential misunderstanding. Other than that, it's more or less the same, nothing gets worse by trying to talk about the issue first. Maybe it's even better because, as I said, not trying to solve an issue without moderative action could, especially if it's indeed a misunderstanding, come across as being unwilling to resolve things peacefully which might only harden the fronts and increase the whole conflict.

The poster could risk their own account by getting into a discussion that could turn into an argument with someone that has already insulted them, maybe multiple times.

But all of this could be avoided if posters followed the Community Rule that says we are not to make personal comments about or take jabs at other posters. If we think a post is rude we can flag it or we can ignore it, but we can't just break the rule by telling a poster we thought their post was rude and expect them to not flag it.

Regardless of our personal expectations, what matters here are the Community Rules in the context of the forums. And calling posts rude is against these rules.

I agree that there needs to be a limit to personal comments. But, never referring to someone else at all is not really how most humans interact with one another. The rule needs to be followed well enough to avoid shaming and flaming, but not so strict that people feel they have to walk on eggshells.

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

There has to be a line between "I am calling this person out so nobody interacts with them," and "never say anything about anyone ever " imo

And this is unfortunately what is happening on these forums, and why I have had to block certain people because I have seen this happen to others and have had it happen to me. This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. It is impossible to just completely avoid the other person when debating with someone, and if we are allowing the weaponization of the mods to that extent, and the mods are actively moderating that level of discourse (which I can personally attest to the fact that they do), then any semblance of discussion on these forums is gone.

Warhawke_80 · January 9

It's a very American thing to "Call people out" over a perceived slight, Opinion, belief...

It's almost like if you say something out loud and no one is there to shout you down...then what you say may be true...

AND WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!!!!!

It took me awhile to get use to that...

On the other hand people will flat out impugn your character and when you give them the "Consequences" they deserve they are shocked and taken aback

But...but I was just calling you out

Like it's some Constitutional right...it's silly

spartaxoxo · January 9

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I'm still wondering what's the worst thing that could happen in a forum, to be honest. After all, physical violence is impossible here. The way I see it, in any way, the worst thing that could happen is being insulted (again). If I criticize someone and that person insults me (once more, because that's what lead to the conflict after all), I can still decide to report them. The only difference to reporting them before trying to talk is that they don't get the chance to resolve a potential misunderstanding. Other than that, it's more or less the same, nothing gets worse by trying to talk about the issue first. Maybe it's even better because, as I said, not trying to solve an issue without moderative action could, especially if it's indeed a misunderstanding, come across as being unwilling to resolve things peacefully which might only harden the fronts and increase the whole conflict.

The poster could risk their own account by getting into a discussion that could turn into an argument with someone that has already insulted them, maybe multiple times.

But all of this could be avoided if posters followed the Community Rule that says we are not to make personal comments about or take jabs at other posters. If we think a post is rude we can flag it or we can ignore it, but we can't just break the rule by telling a poster we thought their post was rude and expect them to not flag it.

Regardless of our personal expectations, what matters here are the Community Rules in the context of the forums. And calling posts rude is against these rules.

I agree that there needs to be a limit to personal comments. But, never referring to someone else at all is not really how most humans interact with one another. The rule needs to be followed well enough to avoid shaming and flaming, but not so strict that people feel they have to walk on eggshells.

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

There has to be a line between "I am calling this person out so nobody interacts with them," and "never say anything about anyone ever " imo

And this is unfortunately what is happening on these forums, and why I have had to block certain people because I have seen this happen to others and have had it happen to me. This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. It is impossible to just completely avoid the other person when debating with someone, and if we are allowing the weaponization of the mods to that extent, and the mods are actively moderating that level of discourse (which I can personally attest to the fact that they do), then any semblance of discussion on these forums is gone.

I want to add that I may not have agreed with some of your examples but I do agree with this overall point. Extremely mild things are being flagged and then that report is validated. And it creates an environment where people are afraid to speak.

I don't want us to get to a point where we're naming and shaming people to undermine their viewpoints. But, the current enforcement is way over the top. Can't ask for clarity? Can't point out a bad faith argument (not poster but argument)? Can't address how posts are being worded? A person can say they want to force everyone to play a certain way. But we can't be like "well we don't all want to play the way you do." Because we addressed the person making that argument directly? It discourages anyone from wanting to talk at all. It's way too much.

TaSheen · January 9

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I want to add that I may not have agreed with some of your examples but I do agree with this overall point. Extremely mild things are being flagged and then that report is validated. And it creates an environment where people are afraid to speak.

I don't want us to get to a point where we're naming and shaming people to undermine their viewpoints. But, the current enforcement is way over the top. Can't ask for clarity? Can't point out a bad faith argument (not poster but argument)? Can't address how posts are being worded? A person can say they want to force everyone to play a certain way. But we can't be like "well we don't all want to play the way you do." Because we addressed the person making that argument directly? It discourages anyone from wanting to talk at all. It's way too much.

QFT

Warhawke_80 · January 9

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I'm still wondering what's the worst thing that could happen in a forum, to be honest. After all, physical violence is impossible here. The way I see it, in any way, the worst thing that could happen is being insulted (again). If I criticize someone and that person insults me (once more, because that's what lead to the conflict after all), I can still decide to report them. The only difference to reporting them before trying to talk is that they don't get the chance to resolve a potential misunderstanding. Other than that, it's more or less the same, nothing gets worse by trying to talk about the issue first. Maybe it's even better because, as I said, not trying to solve an issue without moderative action could, especially if it's indeed a misunderstanding, come across as being unwilling to resolve things peacefully which might only harden the fronts and increase the whole conflict.

The poster could risk their own account by getting into a discussion that could turn into an argument with someone that has already insulted them, maybe multiple times.

But all of this could be avoided if posters followed the Community Rule that says we are not to make personal comments about or take jabs at other posters. If we think a post is rude we can flag it or we can ignore it, but we can't just break the rule by telling a poster we thought their post was rude and expect them to not flag it.

Regardless of our personal expectations, what matters here are the Community Rules in the context of the forums. And calling posts rude is against these rules.

I agree that there needs to be a limit to personal comments. But, never referring to someone else at all is not really how most humans interact with one another. The rule needs to be followed well enough to avoid shaming and flaming, but not so strict that people feel they have to walk on eggshells.

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

There has to be a line between "I am calling this person out so nobody interacts with them," and "never say anything about anyone ever " imo

And this is unfortunately what is happening on these forums, and why I have had to block certain people because I have seen this happen to others and have had it happen to me. This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. It is impossible to just completely avoid the other person when debating with someone, and if we are allowing the weaponization of the mods to that extent, and the mods are actively moderating that level of discourse (which I can personally attest to the fact that they do), then any semblance of discussion on these forums is gone.

I want to add that I may not have agreed with some of your examples but I do agree with this overall point. Extremely mild things are being flagged and then that report is validated. And it creates an environment where people are afraid to speak.

I don't want us to get to a point where we're naming and shaming people to undermine their viewpoints. But, the current enforcement is way over the top. Can't ask for clarity? Can't point out a bad faith argument (not poster but argument)? Can't address how posts are being worded? A person can say they want to force everyone to play a certain way. But we can't be like "well we don't all want to play the way you do." Because we addressed the person making that argument directly? It discourages anyone from wanting to talk at all. It's way too much.

I sorta see why they are modding in such a way...

Here is the thing..."accusing" (and that is what you're doing) someone of a Bad Faith argument is a slippery slope, you can't prove their intentions...so that leads to back and forth Bickering...the next thing you know you have a flame war.

Same with calling someone or describing something as "Toxic Positive" or "Toxic Casual" it's degrading and hostile....so I can see why they are using enforcement on such terms...

I mean anyway you can get the same point across without using any of those words, you do it in a less adversarial manner...which who knows could lead to better understanding in the conversation...

SilverBride · January 9

I hope we get some clarification on this because we do all see it differently. I just know that I avoid making any comments about anything other than the topic because of how I interpret the rule. If I find a post rude I just ignore it, unless it's directly aimed at me. But I would never post to another player that I found their post rude because I'm not taking that chance.

I want to add that I do not agree with banning players for such things and feel that a snip and gentle reminder is all that is needed.

Varana · January 10

spartaxoxo wrote: »

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

Which may be exactly what they want and why they do it.

SilverBride wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

That is not what the Community Rules say.
That is your interpretation of what they say.
Saying that a post comes across as "rude" is not a "personal comment" and certainly not a "jab" at anyone, including the author of the post. So doing that is entirely within the guidelines, as I read them.
But with that, we're at the same point where we were two pages ago.

I believe it is against the rule, so we could use some clarification.

@ZOS_Kevin Could you please clarify if calling a post rude is against the Community Rules?

And as a last comment (for now):

Please do not misrepresent my posts. I specifically did not talk about "calling a post rude", I talked about "a post comes across as rude to me", or "I find that post rude". Those are two very different things.

I ask you to edit your post accordingly.

spartaxoxo · January 10

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I'm still wondering what's the worst thing that could happen in a forum, to be honest. After all, physical violence is impossible here. The way I see it, in any way, the worst thing that could happen is being insulted (again). If I criticize someone and that person insults me (once more, because that's what lead to the conflict after all), I can still decide to report them. The only difference to reporting them before trying to talk is that they don't get the chance to resolve a potential misunderstanding. Other than that, it's more or less the same, nothing gets worse by trying to talk about the issue first. Maybe it's even better because, as I said, not trying to solve an issue without moderative action could, especially if it's indeed a misunderstanding, come across as being unwilling to resolve things peacefully which might only harden the fronts and increase the whole conflict.

The poster could risk their own account by getting into a discussion that could turn into an argument with someone that has already insulted them, maybe multiple times.

But all of this could be avoided if posters followed the Community Rule that says we are not to make personal comments about or take jabs at other posters. If we think a post is rude we can flag it or we can ignore it, but we can't just break the rule by telling a poster we thought their post was rude and expect them to not flag it.

Regardless of our personal expectations, what matters here are the Community Rules in the context of the forums. And calling posts rude is against these rules.

I agree that there needs to be a limit to personal comments. But, never referring to someone else at all is not really how most humans interact with one another. The rule needs to be followed well enough to avoid shaming and flaming, but not so strict that people feel they have to walk on eggshells.

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

There has to be a line between "I am calling this person out so nobody interacts with them," and "never say anything about anyone ever " imo

And this is unfortunately what is happening on these forums, and why I have had to block certain people because I have seen this happen to others and have had it happen to me. This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. It is impossible to just completely avoid the other person when debating with someone, and if we are allowing the weaponization of the mods to that extent, and the mods are actively moderating that level of discourse (which I can personally attest to the fact that they do), then any semblance of discussion on these forums is gone.

I want to add that I may not have agreed with some of your examples but I do agree with this overall point. Extremely mild things are being flagged and then that report is validated. And it creates an environment where people are afraid to speak.

I don't want us to get to a point where we're naming and shaming people to undermine their viewpoints. But, the current enforcement is way over the top. Can't ask for clarity? Can't point out a bad faith argument (not poster but argument)? Can't address how posts are being worded? A person can say they want to force everyone to play a certain way. But we can't be like "well we don't all want to play the way you do." Because we addressed the person making that argument directly? It discourages anyone from wanting to talk at all. It's way too much.

I sorta see why they are modding in such a way...

Here is the thing..."accusing" (and that is what you're doing) someone of a Bad Faith argument is a slippery slope, you can't prove their intentions...so that leads to back and forth Bickering...the next thing you know you have a flame war.

Same with calling someone or describing something as "Toxic Positive" or "Toxic Casual" it's degrading and hostile....so I can see why they are using enforcement on such terms...

I mean anyway you can get the same point across without using any of those words, you do it in a less adversarial manner...which who knows could lead to better understanding in the conversation...

Ofc someone could use better words. But, the thing is that there has to be some room for people to not always phrase things perfectly.

I think there's a difference between an exchange like

CoolUser789: What evidence do you have to prove that most people in Tamriel enjoy sweet rolls?
Sweetroll Lover : *gives evidence they find compelling*
CoolUser789: That's nothing.
Sweetroll Lover: well, what makes you say that?
CoolUser789: I don't need to post anything. Nobody will ever change my mind.

Sweetroll Lover: You know it's kinda a bad faith argument to ask for evidence if you're not going to share your own. I wasn't trying to change your mind. Just want to understand

Vs

Sweetroll Lover: Got it. So you're just here in bad faith. Let's all ignore CoolUser789, they're just a hater.

The former statement is against the argument. It does make reference to the other user but it's not an attack on them. It's moreso discussing with them how the argument is coming across in the hopes for a more constructive dialogue. Could it be better worded? Yes. But it's clearly not the intention to attack the other person. The latter is actively trying to get everyone to ignore the user. It's naming and shaming.

Lastly, I do think CoolUser789's final post should also be removed as it is not constructive to further dialogue. All posts should be constructive to the discussion of the topic at hand or least part of whatever small tangent the thread might be on (as long as that tangent doesn't end up derailing the thread). I don't think they should be banned though. People get frustrated. It's normal.

I think a reason a lot of people feel so upset about their bans for such things is because they felt baited into responding. Sometimes a post that doesn't break the rules is kind of difficult to respond to in a way that doesn't break forum rules when the interpretation of them is so strict.

SilverBride · January 10

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sweetroll Lover: You know it's kinda a bad faith argument to ask for evidence if you're not going to share your own.

This statement assumes that the poster has evidence of anything. They may not because they haven't made any contradictory claims.

If Sweetroll Lover claims that most people in Tamriel love sweetrolls, CoolUser789 may ask where they got that information, because things are often claimed on the forums with no evidence that they are true. Sometimes the evidence is convincing but sometimes it isn't.

The fact that CoolUser789 may not accept the evidence does not mean that they hold an opposite view or even disagree. If they don't claim that most people in Tamriel don't like sweetrolls, they have no evidence to present because they aren't trying to prove that.

In other words, asking for evidence to support a claim doesn't mean the poster has an opposite view. They just don't see evidence for the claim that convinces them.

Warhawke_80 · January 10

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Warhawke_80 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I'm still wondering what's the worst thing that could happen in a forum, to be honest. After all, physical violence is impossible here. The way I see it, in any way, the worst thing that could happen is being insulted (again). If I criticize someone and that person insults me (once more, because that's what lead to the conflict after all), I can still decide to report them. The only difference to reporting them before trying to talk is that they don't get the chance to resolve a potential misunderstanding. Other than that, it's more or less the same, nothing gets worse by trying to talk about the issue first. Maybe it's even better because, as I said, not trying to solve an issue without moderative action could, especially if it's indeed a misunderstanding, come across as being unwilling to resolve things peacefully which might only harden the fronts and increase the whole conflict.

The poster could risk their own account by getting into a discussion that could turn into an argument with someone that has already insulted them, maybe multiple times.

But all of this could be avoided if posters followed the Community Rule that says we are not to make personal comments about or take jabs at other posters. If we think a post is rude we can flag it or we can ignore it, but we can't just break the rule by telling a poster we thought their post was rude and expect them to not flag it.

Regardless of our personal expectations, what matters here are the Community Rules in the context of the forums. And calling posts rude is against these rules.

I agree that there needs to be a limit to personal comments. But, never referring to someone else at all is not really how most humans interact with one another. The rule needs to be followed well enough to avoid shaming and flaming, but not so strict that people feel they have to walk on eggshells.

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

There has to be a line between "I am calling this person out so nobody interacts with them," and "never say anything about anyone ever " imo

And this is unfortunately what is happening on these forums, and why I have had to block certain people because I have seen this happen to others and have had it happen to me. This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. It is impossible to just completely avoid the other person when debating with someone, and if we are allowing the weaponization of the mods to that extent, and the mods are actively moderating that level of discourse (which I can personally attest to the fact that they do), then any semblance of discussion on these forums is gone.

I want to add that I may not have agreed with some of your examples but I do agree with this overall point. Extremely mild things are being flagged and then that report is validated. And it creates an environment where people are afraid to speak.

I don't want us to get to a point where we're naming and shaming people to undermine their viewpoints. But, the current enforcement is way over the top. Can't ask for clarity? Can't point out a bad faith argument (not poster but argument)? Can't address how posts are being worded? A person can say they want to force everyone to play a certain way. But we can't be like "well we don't all want to play the way you do." Because we addressed the person making that argument directly? It discourages anyone from wanting to talk at all. It's way too much.

I sorta see why they are modding in such a way...

Here is the thing..."accusing" (and that is what you're doing) someone of a Bad Faith argument is a slippery slope, you can't prove their intentions...so that leads to back and forth Bickering...the next thing you know you have a flame war.

Same with calling someone or describing something as "Toxic Positive" or "Toxic Casual" it's degrading and hostile....so I can see why they are using enforcement on such terms...

I mean anyway you can get the same point across without using any of those words, you do it in a less adversarial manner...which who knows could lead to better understanding in the conversation...

Ofc someone could use better words. But, the thing is that there has to be some room for people to not always phrase things perfectly.

I think there's a difference between an exchange like

CoolUser789: What evidence do you have to prove that most people in Tamriel enjoy sweet rolls?
Sweetroll Lover : *gives evidence they find compelling*
CoolUser789: That's nothing.
Sweetroll Lover: well, what makes you say that?
CoolUser789: I don't need to post anything. Nobody will ever change my mind.

Sweetroll Lover: You know it's kinda a bad faith argument to ask for evidence if you're not going to share your own. I wasn't trying to change your mind. Just want to understand

Vs

Sweetroll Lover: Got it. So you're just here in bad faith. Let's all ignore CoolUser789, they're just a hater.

The former statement is against the argument. It does make reference to the other user but it's not an attack on them. It's moreso discussing with them how the argument is coming across in the hopes for a more constructive dialogue. Could it be better worded? Yes. But it's clearly not the intention to attack the other person. The latter is actively trying to get everyone to ignore the user. It's naming and shaming.

Lastly, I do think CoolUser789's final post should also be removed as it is not constructive to further dialogue. All posts should be constructive to the discussion of the topic at hand or least part of whatever small tangent the thread might be on (as long as that tangent doesn't end up derailing the thread). I don't think they should be banned though. People get frustrated. It's normal.

I think a reason a lot of people feel so upset about their bans for such things is because they felt baited into responding. Sometimes a post that doesn't break the rules is kind of difficult to respond to in a way that doesn't break forum rules when the interpretation of them is so strict.

/sigh

I think you're sorta getting in the weeds, you want to be able to express yourself in any way you want...I get that...but doing that currently has consequences...my advice don't insult anyone if you feel insulted report them

or you can do like I do and just ignore folks who lack civility.

Franchise408 · January 10

I still remember getting moderated because I said "We didn't refer to it. XYZ USER did." in response to who brought up a specific subject during a conversation.

Why do I remember it? Because I still have the DM in my inbox.

I was literally moderated for clarifying who brought up a specific talking point in a thread because XYZ USER felt "named and shamed"

We are far beyond whether people are adhering to forum rules or not, this is an example of blatant mod weaponization and over moderation from people who can't handle their opinions being scrutinized.

spartaxoxo · January 10

SilverBride wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Sweetroll Lover: You know it's kinda a bad faith argument to ask for evidence if you're not going to share your own.

This statement assumes that the poster has evidence of anything. They may not because they haven't made any contradictory claims.

If Sweetroll Lover claims that most people in Tamriel love sweetrolls, CoolUser789 may ask where they got that information, because things are often claimed on the forums with no evidence that they are true. Sometimes the evidence is convincing but sometimes it isn't.

The fact that CoolUser789 may not accept the evidence does not mean that they hold an opposite view or even disagree. If they don't claim that most people in Tamriel don't like sweetrolls, they have no evidence to present because they aren't trying to prove that.

In other words, asking for evidence to support a claim doesn't mean the poster has an opposite view. They just don't see evidence for the claim that convinces them.

They could comment that, which would be more constructive to dialogue, and clear up the misunderstanding. I think that's generally the best outcome in a thread when two players misunderstood one another.

Something like "I think there's a misunderstanding here. I don't mean that most people in Tamriel don't like sweets, but rather I haven't seen evidence that supports that. I think there might be more cheese lovers..." Or whatever it is they do believe. Dialogue that is constructive to the topic at hand is easier to respond to in a way that doesn't lead to rule breaks and reporting.

I think these types of misunderstanding between posters can be a source of the hard feelings in the thread. And mods should consider these contexts when deciding what, if any, actions need to be taken. Often it may be better to allow people to talk it out rather than cut or ban. As long as it doesn't cross the line to flaming, naming and shaming, etc.

Amottica · January 10

Syldras wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

3. If I know the person and we get along, sure, I would knock on their door or give them a call. I will not confront them if I do not know them in person. I will call the police or report them to the management. In a case like that, it is better to avoid confrontation. The news often tells us this is a wise route to take. Oh, when I lived in an apartment, I had an occasion where I reported a situation to management and the police. Then, there was the time I reported a situation to the FBI. That did not go well for that particular person. I chose not to confront that person.

Interesting, there might be cultural differences at play which also play a role in our moderation discussion here. Where I live, it's considered complety unacceptable to call police before trying to sort things out on one's own (except it's an emergency situation or the people involved are known to be violent). In fact if police is called, they'll ask whether one tried solving the issue oneself already, and if one hasn't, they suggest to do it and call them again if it fails (unless, as I said, the call is about a person one already knows is violent). To call police or a lawyer before trying to sort things out in a way that may solve the issue without possibly leading to legal consequences or some official punishment, is a behavior that's not only considered unfriendly (it's interpreted as aggressive, as "this person doesn't want to solve the situation peacefully by talking"), but, to put it mildly, absolutely frowned upon by most of society. So everyone here usually just talks to someone they have some minor conflict with (which is an everyday occurrance, as most people live in apartments here), and in over 99% of cases, nothing bad ever happens. This certainly influences my idea that, even if we factor online anonymity in, this principle would also work on this forum. And even if some people would not be able to respectfully talk with each other, what's the worst that might happen in an online forum? A few bad words (which the mod could delete and issue a warning to that user then), or am I missing something?

Interesting. Where I live, which is the same nation Zenimax and MS are based, if someone is in clear violation of the law it is very much acceptable to call the police. Then again, where I live, there are situations, rare as they may be, where someone tries to sort things out instead of making that call, and they end up in the hospital or, worse, dead. I can provide proof of this.

If they are just being loud, the police tend to warn them, so we are not talking about heavy-handed authoritarian actions here. More importantly, we are fortunate not to have to experience this as an everyday occurrence.

I am glad I am not expected to risk my life, just as I am pleased with the ToS Zenimax has employed and enforced.

Amottica · January 10

Varana wrote: »

That is not what the Community Rules say.
That is your interpretation of what they say.
Saying that a post comes across as "rude" is not a "personal comment" and certainly not a "jab" at anyone, including the author of the post. So doing that is entirely within the guidelines, as I read them.
But with that, we're at the same point where we were two pages ago.

Suggesting someone comes across as rude is speaking to the person's behavior, hence talking to the person and in a negative manner. It lacks relevancy to whatever the topic is. When speaking to the person negatively rather than the topic, it becomes subject to Zenimax looking at it and deciding if action is required.

While someone may interpret things differently, Zenimax has made things clear with their repeated actions concerning speaking about a person negatively.

In other words, it is ok to disagree but not ok to make it personal.

Syldras · January 10

Amottica wrote: »

I am glad I am not expected to risk my life, just as I am pleased with the ToS Zenimax has employed and enforced.

Where I live, the police also comes if one asks them to. They suggest to try to solve minor issues oneself first out of 3 reasons:

People here believe very much that things can be talked about without leading to violence, so involving officials is seen as exaggerated. Indeed, the average case of noise disturbance (and I'm quite sure it happens every day somewhere in this country of 85 million people) will end with "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't notice my music was too loud, I'll turn it down immediately!" and the issue is solved. This is the normal outcome for us, this is what we expect. Every other outcome seems unusual to us (and even then, the odd deviation from the norm would be a discussion - which would already be seen as rude - , not murder).

Self-sufficiency (as in: solving problems oneself without involving officials) is a big ideal, as well as having communities where everyone can freely and politely talk with each other (this is considered a functioning neighbourhood, an ideal people strive for, and which is encouraged officially by providing facilities to talk with each other to get to understand each other better, by having community events, etc). The idea is: If people talk with each other openly, if they know each other better, they will treat each other more respectfully. As someone who is used to that approach, of course I often wonder if this wouldn't work in this forum, too, and improve the atmosphere of this community as a whole?

And, most of all: Involving officials in a rather minor matter like noise disturbance is seen as an escalation, almost an aggression (The average person will wonder "Why did you call officials? You could have just told me my music is too loud and I would have turned it down immediately, no need for trouble!"), and there's a risk that it will not improve but worsen the relation to a neighbour, that's why it should be avoided. This also translates in a way to this forum, of course: I've often wondered if some people who get reported and have an idea who might have reported them, might just report that person back out of scorn, letting the whole thing escalate more and more?

It's clear that you are used to the way things are in your country, and I'm used to the things I grew up with. There are almost 200 countries on this planet and everyone has a different idea about how things should be sorted out and which behaviour is considered polite or impolite, in some cases what's one person's "normal" seems rude from another person's point of view. The question is what to make of that in this international forum (and this is the whole reason I'm writing all this)?

SilverBride · January 10

Syldras wrote: »

There are almost 200 countries on this planet and everyone has a different idea about how things should be sorted out and which behaviour is considered polite or impolite, in some cases what's one person's "normal" seems rude from another person's point of view. The question is what to make of that in this international forum (and this is the whole reason I'm writing all this)?

We have to think of these forums as ZoS's country where they determine what the laws are for posting. They make the rules that we need to abide by.

The problem is that the rules may be interpreted differently by posters so they need to be very clear. The rule about what is considered a personal comment or jab in the context of the forums really needs to be clarified by ZoS.

JustLovely · January 10

I see far, far too frequent favoritism and inconsistent enforcement of the rules.

For instance, the Code of conduct says:

"• Inappropriate Content and Language: Certain topics and subjects are deemed inappropriate and not permitted on the official ESO forums. Things that we consider inappropriate are usually illegal, extremely volatile or violent, obscene, vulgar, or simply inappropriate for an official game forum such as ours. Inappropriate content on the ESO forums includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Extreme violence
• Illegal substances and activities
• Pirated copyright-protected material
• Pornography and other sexually explicit topics
• Real-world religion and politics
• Tasteless, vulgar, or obscene material”

Yet there is a regular poster that is allowed to have a signature that reads:

“The Lord Jesus Christ saved me from sin and darkness. His love has transformed me so that I am a new creature in Him. May you find Him too, and experience His richness and goodness!”

If this isn't using the ESO forums to promote real world religion I don't know what is. What if we replace “Jesus Christ” with Allah, or Satan or whatever god that others would certainly find offensive?

The moderation is just too selective and favors certain views over others, regardless of what the letter of the law says in terms of conduct.

@ZOS_Kevin

Franchise408 · January 10

JustLovely wrote: »

I see far, far too frequent favoritism and inconsistent enforcement of the rules.

For instance, the Code of conduct says:

"• Inappropriate Content and Language: Certain topics and subjects are deemed inappropriate and not permitted on the official ESO forums. Things that we consider inappropriate are usually illegal, extremely volatile or violent, obscene, vulgar, or simply inappropriate for an official game forum such as ours. Inappropriate content on the ESO forums includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Extreme violence
• Illegal substances and activities
• Pirated copyright-protected material
• Pornography and other sexually explicit topics
• Real-world religion and politics
• Tasteless, vulgar, or obscene material”

Yet there is a regular poster that is allowed to have a signature that reads:

“The Lord Jesus Christ saved me from sin and darkness. His love has transformed me so that I am a new creature in Him. May you find Him too, and experience His richness and goodness!”

If this isn't using the ESO forums to promote real world religion I don't know what is. What if we replace “Jesus Christ” with Allah, or Satan or whatever god that others would certainly find offensive?

The moderation is just too selective and favors certain views over others, regardless of what the letter of the law says in terms of conduct.

@ZOS_Kevin

Agreed.

I would have far less issue with the moderation if it were at least consistent.

As it is, I have submitted numerous reports against posters for making far more personal and inflammatory comments than I ever have, with no enforcement taken on the other poster.

I have been called direct names, directly called "unreasonable" by posters who say we need to be following the letter of the law directly and not make things personal.

I have reported people for name dropping and singling me out by the same users who flagged me for saying "We didn't refer to it. XYZ USER did."

Despite numerous attacks, "name and shames", and other inappropriate behaviors that I have flagged, no moderation was ever taken. Meanwhile, I have been moderated, temp banned, and final warning'd for far more mundane posts like "We didn't refer to it. XYZ USER did." or "that's a bad faith argument".

Over moderation is never a good thing, but the inconsistency and the clear and blatant favoritism is the absolute worst part about it. At least if it was simply just over moderation, we could all be working under the same rules, but it is obvious that some posters are working under different rules than others, and some posters need to be far more cautious about their posting while others have more free reign to push the limits of the rules and weaponize the mods to their side and create a disadvantage for others.

TaSheen · January 10

@JustLovely - very well put. I've wanted to see something done about things like that (in particular) for quite some time now.... but considering my situation with regard to certain moderators, I haven't chosen to address it publicly.

Syldras · January 10

JustLovely wrote: »

If this isn't using the ESO forums to promote real world religion I don't know what is.

Well, that's interesting considering short factual and non-judgemental statements like "TES character x is based on real world religious/mythological figure y", that are made as nothing but a comparison to enhance understanding in lore threads, usually get snipped.

Which I still find strange because just saying that some idea exists somewhere on this world doesn't do any harm from my point of view. Actually banning these mentions feels (from my subjective point of view, based on my cultural background, where knowledge and learning and having a grasp of all kinds of cultures of this planet is considered an important value) like the plurality of ideas was labelled as something bad, and learning about things being different in other parts of the world was something forbidden, - and this is really hard to comprehend.

Varana · January 10

Amottica wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

That is not what the Community Rules say.
That is your interpretation of what they say.
Saying that a post comes across as "rude" is not a "personal comment" and certainly not a "jab" at anyone, including the author of the post. So doing that is entirely within the guidelines, as I read them.
But with that, we're at the same point where we were two pages ago.

Suggesting someone comes across as rude is speaking to the person's behavior, hence talking to the person and in a negative manner. It lacks relevancy to whatever the topic is. When speaking to the person negatively rather than the topic, it becomes subject to Zenimax looking at it and deciding if action is required.

Isn't that exhausting to take everything someone says about what you did as a personal jab?
How do you deal with that in school or the workplace? Or just everyday social life?
Ist that one of these cultural peculiarities where you have to coat every feedback in a dozen layers of high-fructose corn syrup?
How we conduct a discussion, is very relevant to the topic discussed - as this thread shows abundantly. If a comment seemingly disrupts that flow of discussion by its tone, it is helpful to be addressed by the other participants, so the discussion can resume. Discussions are interactions between people, and people need to negotiate their behaviour towards each other.
I'd recommend not taking feedback like that personally. Accept it and change behaviour, don't accept it and give reasons for that, but at that level, it's nothing personal.

Amottica · January 10

Syldras wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I am glad I am not expected to risk my life, just as I am pleased with the ToS Zenimax has employed and enforced.

Where I live, the police also comes if one asks them to. They suggest to try to solve minor issues oneself first out of 3 reasons:

That was already stated and addressed in the edited part of my comment. I will point out that the police force in question lacks jurisdiction here, and I doubt Zenimax cares about hwo they handle things.

Amottica · January 10

Varana wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

That is not what the Community Rules say.
That is your interpretation of what they say.
Saying that a post comes across as "rude" is not a "personal comment" and certainly not a "jab" at anyone, including the author of the post. So doing that is entirely within the guidelines, as I read them.
But with that, we're at the same point where we were two pages ago.

Suggesting someone comes across as rude is speaking to the person's behavior, hence talking to the person and in a negative manner. It lacks relevancy to whatever the topic is. When speaking to the person negatively rather than the topic, it becomes subject to Zenimax looking at it and deciding if action is required.

Isn't that exhausting to take everything someone says about what you did as a personal jab?

What? I clearly referenced talking about the person, not what they did.

Syldras · January 10

I mean, Kevin did say that the ZOS team wants to discuss the topic of moderation sometime soon, that we can give feedback of all kinds here, and that they'll even get back to some of us with questions. So I think this is the right place not only to comment on how the rules are right now, but also on ideas what might be changed, which changes might make sense and which ones not, what our experiences are on this field (forum moderation, interpersonal communication, conflict solving...); that's why we're discussing here, I think? All with the intention of improvements, and having a (more) peaceful community in mind.

This is also the reason why I stated how conflicts are usually solved where I live, my experiences with it, how it works out, and the way of thinking behind it. I think especially the strategy of "Let people talk with each other to sort things out, so they get to know each other, maybe even befriend, and will be more respectful with each other" is an interesting point to be noted. From my experience it works well, so I just suggest it, as an idea.

Amottica · January 10

Syldras wrote: »

I mean, Kevin did say that the ZOS team wants to discuss the topic of moderation sometime soon, that we can give feedback of all kinds here, and that they'll even get back to some of us with questions. So I think this is the right place not only to comment on how the rules are right now, but also on ideas what might be changed, which changes might make sense and which ones not, what our experiences are on this field (forum moderation, interpersonal communication, conflict solving...); that's why we're discussing here, I think? All with the intention of improvements, and having a (more) peaceful community in mind.

This is also the reason why I stated how conflicts are usually solved where I live, my experiences with it, how it works out, and the way of thinking behind it. I think especially the strategy of "Let people talk with each other to sort things out, so they get to know each other, maybe even befriend, and will be more respectful with each other" is an interesting point to be noted. From my experience it works well, so I just suggest it, as an idea.

and we both have. I have pointed out that I do not think they intended to significantly reduce moderation, especially if players have asked them to do so. Fortunately, the police department will not ignore my calls and requests for help when the law is clearly violated. If they want to ask me if I had tried to resolve the situation myself, I would tell them NO and let them do their job handling a law violation. Glad I live here.

SilverBride · January 10

We don't all live in the same place with the same societal rules. Therefor the Community Rules for the forum need to be neutral and we as posters need to adapt to them.

TaSheen · January 10

Actually, I WISH I lived in a more civil society such as @Syldras describes. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to emigrate....

It's really distressing to live here (tiny little town in the US desert southwest) where law enforcement is an hour plus away, and your safety options (besides padlocks etc on gates and doors) lean on keeping a loaded rifle by the door.

[No. I am NOT KIDDING.]