Public apology to Xavier

[carrie]

Lathan is still banned from the forums. No apology from Xavier nor offer to reinstate access to the forums has been offered at this time. Unless of course you consider him saying he was sorry for not putting more detail into his notification to ban Lath from the forums as an apology.

[Xavier Antoviaque]

I can appreciate that anyone can make a mistake. What I'd like to see is an apology to the community for what happened

You have my apologizes for not being clear enough, for having publicly announced Grimjim's ban, and for the bit of haste which made me consider the "Trolls and flames" as a warning in itself for those answering in it.

some move to remedy the situation by better clarification on the actions taken and revisiting the actions that were taken

I planned to revisit the "Trolls and flames" thread on Monday and convert the bans which aren't justified by the users's post history into warnings. I'll thus apply the process I previously described in that thread too:

- When a new flaming/trolling post appears, I look at the history of the account, to see if this is a reccurrent behavior or not;
- If it isn't, I just issue a warning by email;
- If it is, or if a warning has been ignored, the forum access is suspended.

However, be aware that it won't apply to everyone - those with an history of flames will stay banned.

"I won't intervene at all in the community-specific forums." Now I realize roles and responsibilities between Nevrax and Jolt may have changed since that post, however, it'd be nice if we understood who was in charge of what.

Yes, since the day I started to post in community-specific forums, I've become more involved in them. I usually act behind the scene by discussing the moderation issues the CMs have; for an action like this one though, I would let none else than me taking the flames.

--
Xavier.

[aaack]

However, be aware that it won't apply to everyone - those with an history of flames will stay banned.

Fair play, that would be in accordance to your stated policy. Assuming that your interpretation of a flaming history matches roughly the community's, let's hope we can put this whole sorry affair far behind us.

[aylwyne]

You have my apologizes for not being clear enough, for having publicly announced Grimjim's ban, and for the bit of haste which made me consider the "Trolls and flames" as a warning in itself for those answering in it.

Thank you for that. Apology accepted (on my part, anyway)

I planned to revisit the "Trolls and flames" thread on Monday and convert the bans which aren't justified by the users's post history into warnings.

I'm very happy to hear that you will be doing this. I would also suggest getting some input from the rest of the moderator team to avoid the feeling of a unilateral decision on behalf of one person. It's very easy for two people to see the exact same post in entirely different ways based on many things (mood, culture, how much coffee you've had that day, etc). We've seen this in practice with the various interpretations of the posts that were targets for suspensions.

I'll thus apply the process I previously described in that thread too:

- When a new flaming/trolling post appears, I look at the history of the account, to see if this is a reccurrent behavior or not;
- If it isn't, I just issue a warning by email;
- If it is, or if a warning has been ignored, the forum access is suspended.

However, be aware that it won't apply to everyone - those with an history of flames will stay banned.

I would strongly encourage you to reconsider using a person's entire post history prior to yesterday's announcement as evidence for deciding whether to ban or not. In the context of the forums as they were at the time (very loosely moderated), someone's posts may have been fine and in line with the norm at the time. If you try to retroactively apply a stricter criteria, then many people could be candidates for suspension, even if they more closely adhere to the new rules going forward.

Now that everyone knows that things are stricter, I feel you should basically make a clean break and only consider posts since the announcement when passing judgement.

Yes, since the day I started to post in community-specific forums, I've become more involved in them. I usually act behind the scene by discussing the moderation issues the CMs have; for an action like this one though, I would let none else than me taking the flames.

My main point here is that someone that was perhaps less passionately and directly involved with the game development might not have made the initial mistake, thus not resulting in all the flaming. Yes, the mistake was made, yes, you've apologized for it and that's very apprecited. I just bring this point up to perhaps avoid something similar in the future.

[alyssah]

Thx Xavier. I, personally would correct my 'hasty' response with a similarly 'hasty' solution and stop dragging out your 'hasty' injustice.

As to clarity - I would appreciate your exact definitions of 'trolling' and 'flaming' that would constitute the necessity for a warning or lifetime ban.

I do appreciate discourtesy as you aptly demonstrated that with your public banning of Grimjim and your subsequent apology. Perhaps requesting an apology from offenders could be a precursor to any 'permanent' ban since you have already set the precedent and this post is contained in one.

Just a thought.

Ps. You have not responded to my queries in the other relevant post yet.

[Xavier Antoviaque]

As to clarity - I would appreciate your exact definitions of 'trolling' and 'flaming' that would constitute the necessity for a warning or lifetime ban.

Wow, that would be good subjects for books. But I gave a link to explore that topic in my first post :

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

That's for trolls. You have other links at the end of the page for related subjects, such as flaming.

--
Xavier.

[alyssah]

Wow, that would be good subjects for books. But I gave a link to explore that topic in my first post :

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

That's for trolls. You have other links at the end of the page for related subjects, such as flaming.

--
Xavier.

Thx again Xavier.

Could you relate to me how the following applies to Lathan plz?

"Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words." Copied from Xavier's link.

Could you clarify that you 'negotiated', 'reasoned' or even tried shame in Lathan's case. Was he utterly impervious to criticism? Xavier - I don't feel that you have improved your case any. I also don't think that someone who averages one post a week could be seen as much of a nuisance.

However, thanks for giving me your understanding of Troll.

[Xavier Antoviaque]

Could you relate to me how the following applies to Lathan plz?
"Trolls are utterly (...)

It was trolling; it doesn't mean he is a troll, but his action was. Here, it was ranting and personal attack, as described in this post:
http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=10

--
Xavier.

[aylwyne]

It was trolling; it doesn't mean he is a troll, but his action was. Here, it was ranting and personal attack, as described in this post:
http://www.ryzom.com/forum/showpost.php ... stcount=10

--
Xavier.

This is a perfect example of you taking something one way where someone else could take it a very different way. The other way to take Lathan's statement is described here. Unfortunately, you chose to take his statement in the worst possible way and, thus, considered it trolling.

To me, it feels like when there's two ways to look at something, yesterday you chose to look at it in the worse of the two ways (which is part of the 'haste' you mentioned).

I generally prefer to fall on the other side of things. If reading a post in one frame of mind makes it a personal attack but reading the exact same words in another frame of mind doesn't, I prefer to choose the first. Just keeps me happier that way

Edit: as sprite pointed out, I meant to say "I prefer to choose the second"

[sprite]

If reading a post in one frame of mind makes it a personal attack but reading the exact same words in another frame of mind doesn't, I prefer to choose the first. Just keeps me happier that way

Don't you mean "the second"?