Forum - View topic
Mods Attacking People's Character While "Moderating"




Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> ANN Feedback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ChibiKangaroo



Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 2873
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 2:40 am Reply with quote
This is something that I have noticed in the past but have only brought up one time before in PMs. When I did have a discussion about it with the admin, I feel like it was at least acknowledged that it is not proper practice for mods to be lobbing personal character attacks at members while engaging in moderation. However, that is something that still occurs, and it is something that I think it not at all in keeping with the spirit of the rules of the site and the forums. It also sets a terrible example for other members because it indicates that personal attacks are "OK" as long as it is against someone that that particular mod doesn't like.

There is a post at the top of the "Talkback" forum titled "A Request For Politeness And Respect."

Therein, among other things, it is written:
"When responding to what another person has written, please focus on what they wrote, and respond to that. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with a person, however you should base your disagreement on facts related to the issue, not insults, accusations or other attacks on the writer's character. "

So how is it that mods are able to get away with attacking people's character rather than simply stating that a certain argument should no longer continue or that a specific post needs to be modified, have spoilers removed/properly tagged, or have other action taken in order to conform to the rules?

I believe that these types of attacks have been leveled at other members as well, but as far as my own experience, I am referring to two recent incidents with the moderator "Psycho 101."

In both instances, I was in an argument with someone, and in both cases myself and the other party had disengaged. The first time, I was arguing with Blood-, and Jose Cruz was also in the discussion, and at some point we stopped arguing. The end of the argument was me saying that Blood- and I were not going to agree on one point, but perhaps could have some agreement on a secondary point. Blood- responded with a joke, and we left it at that. Then, a day later, Psycho 101 responds and says we need to "chill," says we are "narrow minded," and that we don't listen to any other opinions that conflict with our own.

animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4891567#4891567

First of all, the argument had been over for well over 12 hours. It was clear that we had ended the argument, as Blood- later said, "on a jocular note." So the need for moderation at that point was almost certainly minimal if not totally unnecessary. That's without even getting to the fact that Psycho 101 decided to go beyond simply saying that the argument needed to end, and instead decided it was a good idea to personally insult us and attack our character. Now, my question is, what is the purpose of such character attacks when an argument was over more than 12 hours ago? My conclusion at this point is that Psycho 101 holds personal bias against either myself, or all of the individuals in that discussion, and felt a desire to "take us down a notch" with those insults.

Aside from the fact that being insulted by a mod is annoying, in instances like this (particularly when it comes at the back end of an argument), it is usually unsupported by any particular evidence. It would be one thing if a mod responded to a specific post that someone made where that person was being narrow minded and said "hey, this is a narrow minded post. You are doing X, which is not proper." At least in that instance, the person receiving that response could either say "Ok, good point" or "Wait a minute, that's not fair, because of Y." It at least allows for such a personal attack to either be supported or refuted, and it also gives some indication as to what the mod believes needs to be fixed or changed. However, when a mod instead comes in at the end of an argument, does not cite to any particular post or specific incident, and says that a member is just generally "narrow minded" and "won't listen to other opinions that conflict with their own," it is instead pure ad hominem. It is a generic attack on that person as a human being, totally impossible of being refuted, and is basically a kind of label that that mod has decided to assign to that person without any recourse. When that mod then repeats that label or other similar labels in later instances, again without citing to any evidence or specifying the exact things that they are saying should not continue, they are simply continuing to impugn that person's character in a personal way, again, building up the perception that perhaps it is okay for others to personally attack as well. I cannot see how this is at all in keeping with the rules of the forum.

Since mods are unaccountable in the normal sense, and can only be "dealt with" by the site admin, who I am sure does not have the time to be reviewing every single dispute or instance where a mod might be taking these kinds of actions, there really has to be some overarching standard to prevent that kind of abuse from occurring as a matter of course. (Just as an example, my last post in the most recent thread where I pointed out that Psycho 101 was engaging in personal attacks and where I said that it was the second time he did it, and that I would be lodging a complaint here in the Feedback forum, was deleted by him. Mods have a kind of absolute power to shape things as they see fit, and so when they are engaging in personal attacks, the person being attacked is at a disadvantage to prevent that from happening in the future.)

In regard to the second instance, here is the link to that:

animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4916905#4916905

In that instance, I had been arguing with people about the merits of the show SukaSuka. At some point, a couple members who really like the show lobbed personal attacks against me and the reviewers. At least one person was throwing around curse words and clearly being very personal in their responses. I responded by arguing the points/substance, and also saying that it wasn't right to attack people personally for their opinions of the show. When someone said that my opinion on the show was in the minority, I usually responded by saying "Ok, but it's still legit enough of an opinion that some of the reviewers share it" and then in one instance posted the language from a reviewer section discussing the show. Not everyone was engaging in personal attacks, but there were at least a few who were. I did my best not to respond with personal attacks of my own, and did NOT curse anyone out, despite others who were cursing.

Toward the end of the argument, zrnzle500 says he is not going to respond to my arguments except in a brief manner, and I say fine. Then later, I attempted to extend an olive branch by noting that I don't actually hate the show, and that my criticism of the show should be taken in the context that I often am highly critical of shows, and the fact that I am still watching probably indicates that there is something about the show that is engaging me.

At that point, it seems like the argument is over. A few other people respond. Then Psycho 101 comes in again (although at least this time not a day later) with the same, "argument is over, and also here's a few personal attacks at Chibikangaroo." Same as before, no evidence is supplied, no particular statement or argument is referred to, instead he says that I have a habit of "baiting" "strawman" arguments and "misrepresentations." So he's calling me a liar and cheat, basically.

Again, it would seem to me that if Psycho 101 was that concerned with particular arguments that I made, he would have responded to those specific arguments and said "don't do this." Instead, he comes in after the discussion ended and takes cheap shots with broad statements about me as a person. Also, does he go and actually moderate the instances where people were cursing or for example implying that Paul Jensen is a terrible reviewer or calling Micchy and Nick D's commentary "stupid," "childish," and "immature [swear word omitted]"? Nope. Psycho 101 has no commentary on that, other than perhaps by implication indicating that all of that bad behavior was me just forcing those people to be rude and uncouth through my "baiting." Yes, responding to people attacking me personally with evidence about why I think my position is correct is "baiting" them to curse me out or call the reviewers names.

I'll conclude. Again, Psycho 101 is certainly entitled to and I understand expected to moderate threads and tell people to end arguments that seem to be going nowhere or edit posts that are breaking the rules. The problem is that he tends to come in at the end of an argument, NOT enforce rules against people who are cursing or calling others names, and then throw in his own personal attacks at the conclusion. There is no way that this can be considered good moderating practice. At a minimum, moderators should be able to engage in moderating procedures without personal attacks, because by breaching the politeness rules they are encouraging others to do so as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Psycho 101
Moderator


Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 12974
Location: Chora's Den
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 11:59 am Reply with quote
So a moderator going into a thread to tell people exactly what behavior they need to stop because it is violating the rules, especially when it's not the first time the user has shown this particular behavior, is now "attacking" their character? Gotcha.

You claim the argument was over but yet in that particular thread you had repeatedly left bait style posts that egged others on into continuing the line of argument. That way of course it's them continuing it, not you. As for when I came into the thread I came in as a moderator once the thread had been reported. Believe it or not we are not all seeing nor all knowing which is why we tell users to report threads/posts so we can get to them as quickly as possible. Furthermore your claims of simply stating your own opinions is a bit disingenuous considering you were twisting other people's views and words around. You had clearly driven the thread off topic with your pedantic arguing over what is an opinion and accusing others of arguing semantics when you yourself were doing just that. In short your behavior was clearly disrupting the thread, violating the spirit and letter of the rules, and driving the thread completely off topic. Which is again behavior you have shown before, and have been warned about before as well.

A moderator coming into the thread, due to someone finally reporting the behavior, and telling you to stop that behavior, and being specific which behavior to stop, is not attacking your character, That's simply stating what you were doing that violated the rules and telling you to stop it and follow the rules. If moderators simply told a user "stop that now" without explaining what to actually stop that wouldn't be very effective now would it? That has nothing to do with your character. Two completely different things. I also told others to not rise to any bait posts and simply report them, and for everyone to be civil, so you can't even claim I was simply focusing on you. Given the length of the thread no I did not go back and edit nor remove the swath of posts that were over the line or disruptive, including your own posts, because quite honestly that would have taken far too long compared to posting a warning. Which I did. In the past you have also responded similarly as you are now when told to be civil and stop whatever disruptive behavior you were displaying at the time.

I have nothing more to say on the matter. Now, if you feel that slighted personally by all means please PM Zac and lodge a complaint and ask him to investigate. He can review the thread himself and your grievances and give his opinions.


Last edited by Psycho 101 on Thu May 18, 2017 12:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
ChibiKangaroo



Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 2873
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 12:12 pm Reply with quote
You were not specifying particular posts or statements and commenting on them. You were making broad judgements about the character of individuals. That is a character attack. If any forum member did the same thing you did, it would be rightfully moderated. Being a mod does not put one above the rules of the forum. That is my point.

That is what you are refusing to see. There is a distinction between specifying something that someone did and saying it is wrong, and instead making a broad statement about that individual as having certain deficient characteristics or being the "type of person" who lies cheats, etc. I know you understand the distinction. In the first instance, there can at least be some objectivity to it because everyone can look at whatever evidence you were referring to and a judgment can fairly be made about THAT particular incident. When you instead supply no evidence and simply attack the individual, that is nothing but a characer attack, which is expressly against the rules. The reason I think that distinction is important here is because you have indicated that you have a personal gripe with me, and thus you may engage in these attacks whether there was evidence to support it or not. At that point, you aren't even fairly moderating, you are just using your position to bully someone you don't like. That is a problem.

Quote:


You claim the argument was over but yet in that particular thread you had repeatedly left bait style posts that egged others on into continuing the line of argument.


Yes, that argument was over. People had moved on by the time you came in. Now as far as you saying I left "bait" that is a highly subjective opinion. Any time I posted commentary on a new aspect of the show or new episode I hadn't discussed before, if it was critical of the show, it is likely a fan might respond and dispute my opinion. I guess you see that as "bait" huh? Because that's what I was doing. And if someone responded to my opinions with a personal attack on me, and I said hold on, here is stuff to support what I said. Well again, it is likely someone might respond to that. Again, bait??? That concept is pretty easily thrown around and to me it seems you are likely to perceive any comment that I make as "bait" for someone to respond. I mean, we are in a discussion forum.

It would be different if I was sauntering over into the series discussion thread, which is NOT feedback on a reviewer who is critical of the show, and started dropping bombs to get a reaction out of the fans who are congregating there. But you will notice I have not set foot in there. I have limited my critical commentary on the show to the feedback thread for a critic who IS ALSO CRITICIZING THE SHOW. Is that "bait" to you?

Quote:
That way of course it's them continuing it, not you.


Continuing what? A debate about criticism of the show, in a feedback thread to reviews that are critical of the show? Is that what you are upset about?

Or, are you referring to the personal attacks, insults and curse language that was thrown around by others, and not me? Well if others are responding to arguments about criticism in a critic feedback thread with vulgarity, why is it that you are not moderating them? Oh yea, because you have a personal beef with me and feel more fulfilled by attacking me personally. That is the whole point of this thread.

Quote:
Furthermore your claims of simply stating your own opinions is a bit disingenuous considering you were also twisting other people's views and words around.


Again, wholly subjective. Notice how I tend to quote other people's exact words a lot? I would hardly call that twisting things. But again, that is just an argument tactic. Instead of addressing the substance, claim that someone is "twisting things." That's nothing but empty rhetoric, unless you specify the exact thing that was somehow misstated. But again, you didn't do any of that. You just lobbed generic attacks.

Quote:
You had clearly driven the thread off topic with your pedantic arguing over what is an opinion and accusing others of arguing semantics when you yourself were doing just that.


I drove the thread, about a critical review of the show, off topic with my "opinions" on the criticism? Don't you see how twisted that sounds? Again, I wasn't in the series discussion thread trolling people. I was responding to an article critical of the show, with my own criticisms, and arguing with people about those criticisms. If that is driving things "off topic" then I think we are in some alternate universe here. Now if you want to say that people making personal attacks was driving things off topic, then sure! Then go moderate the people making personal attacks, rather than contributing your own attacks into the fray and then saying "now everyone be civil!" Civility starts with you. You're the mod.

Quote:
In short your behavior was disrupting the thread, violating the spirit and letter of the rules by being rude towards other users and twisting their words around. Which is again behavior you have shown before, and been warned about before as well.


Again, you haven't pointed to a single thing I did that violated anything. Instead you are relying solely on your personal views of me and your personal attacks. And on top of that, you seemed perfectly okay with the people in there who actually were throwing around insults and cursing.

Quote:
A moderator coming into the thread, due to someone finally reporting the behavior, and telling you to stop that behavior, and being specific which behavior to stop, is not attacking your character,


Again, you didn't refer to any particular posts or statements by me. You simply came in and made broad, unsupported character attacks and then said "be civil." That is complete hypocrisy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blood-
It...it's not like I post for you or anything!It...it's not like I post for you or anything!


Joined: 07 Mar 2009
Posts: 19371
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Thu May 18, 2017 11:20 pm Reply with quote
I debated whether to comment on this thread or not. My hesitation comes in with the fact that I happen to like both participants. ChibiKangaroo can be a gianormous pain in the ass, but I've come to appreciate her input even as her tonal style sometimes makes me want to tear what little hair I have left out. I like Psycho101, too. However, in the two instances that ChibiKangaroo cites here, I have to back up her basic arguments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Yttrbio
SubscriberSubscriber


Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 2958
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:49 am Reply with quote
Which doesn't change how having a ginormous pain in the ass with a tonal style that makes you want to tear your hair out can be an incredibly negative influence on a discussion.

In the SukaSuka case, for instance, a person can write that what they want from a review is another perspective on the show, or a deeper analysis of what is portrayed, referencing Jacob's Scum's Wish and Utena reviews and Paul's Bakemonogatari reviews, which went into enormous detail about the symbolism and framing and how that communicated complex issues about sexuality or personal value or whatnot.

The ChibiKangaroo response? "That means you're saying you just want a recap, not a review." That's not something that's meant to drive a discussion, that's deliberate mischaracterization meant to start a fight.

Or when folks seem to think that Paul is spending his reviews complaining about the show he wants to be watching, rather than engaging with the show that is there, ChibiKangaroo summarizes that as "oh, these fanboys only want people who like a show to review it." Again, that's not driving a discussion. That's not her saying "Actually, I disagree, Paul's take on this show is exactly what I'm looking for in a review." That's saying "you're all wrong for complaining." No discussion, just a fight.

Finally, the so-called "olive branch" is ChibiKangaroo saying "actually, I don't hate the show or anything." That's not meant to end a discussion. That's just another way of mischaracterizing the complaints by saying "the only reason anyone is frustrated by my comments in this thread is that they think I don't like the show, and want only people who like the show in this thread." Which could conceivably start a fight, but at this point, everyone in the thread had bailed on engaging ChibiKangaroo.

And the fact that no one else wants to continue derailing the thread by going through the effort of iterating every single criticism of her comments that are themselves primarily focused on criticizing other comments is taken as proof that she's done nothing wrong, and is really only being harassed by the mean moderator who hates her.

Back up the basic arguments if you want, but that thread is a complete mess, and it's centered around ChibiKangaroo. I don't particularly care if a moderator does or does not point to a specific comment violating a specific rule, the thread needed to be saved from a negative influence that was consuming the entire discussion, the cause of which was painfully clear to everyone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Errinundra
Moderator


Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 4512
Location: Melbourne, Oz
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 3:47 am Reply with quote
When a thread devolves into discussion about a contributor to the thread then things have gone off-track. I'd like to see people disagree on a show without self-justification or personal criticisms.

Some of the posts in that thread were borderline belligerent. I don't want to see that sort of irritable carping on and on to spoil threads.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
Cam0



Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 3024
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:51 am Reply with quote
In the SukaSuka thread, I personally found the commenters that were seemingly trying to invalidate Paul's views on the show by saying that Paul was "missing the point" to be more problematic. It's quite self-centered to say to someone that their opinion isn't valid because they view the show very differently than you, well in my opinion anyways.

Not that I'm siding with ChibiKangaroo here. That thread had turned into ChibiKangaroo vs. everyone which is kinda problematic but watching people tear their hair out while arguing against ChibiKangaroo was slightly amusing (even though I was getting a bit annoyed too).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
ChibiKangaroo



Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 2873
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 5:28 am Reply with quote
Yttrbio wrote:
Which doesn't change how having a ginormous pain in the ass with a tonal style that makes you want to tear your hair out can be an incredibly negative influence on a discussion.


Again, your opinion. I actually went back and read through that entire thread myself, and looked at every single post that I made in the thread, just to be certain that I wasn't off base here. I am not certain how many posts I made, but there are a lot. And the VAST majority of what I posted in that thread was directly on the topic of discussion. I was very careful to keep myself focused on discussing the show DESPITE the repeated personal attacks lobbed my way. The few instances where what I posted was not directly on the topic of discussion were responses to people such as yourself attacking either myself or a reviewer, and again, there were very few.

For example, how about this gem?

Yttrbio wrote:
I think people are also tired of having their argument so aggressively misrepresented every single time by kissass defenders of the reviewer. (Don't like that unfairly dismissive characterization of your attitude? Join the club)

A review that says a TV show fails to fix me dinner, or repair my house, or prove a mathmatical theorem, is clearly a review that's missing the point, and no one would put up with such a review. There's some level at which the reviewer can be expected to engage the show that is, rather than the one in the reviewer's head.


Again, no attempt to actually address the arguments being made, instead you curse me out/call me names for defending Paul's review, and then put forth what can only be considered as a straw man (interesting how Psycho 101 claimed I was the one putting forth straw man arguments) to compare to Paul's review style, and back up the earlier claims that he was somehow poorly doing his job.

So you can go ahead and cherry pick as much as you want, but again, you were one of the people actually breaking the rules. Your quoted response above is a clear violation. I did not curse you or anyone else out, and I did not call people names.

Quote:
In the SukaSuka case, for instance, a person can write that what they want from a review is another perspective on the show, or a deeper analysis of what is portrayed, referencing Jacob's Scum's Wish and Utena reviews and Paul's Bakemonogatari reviews, which went into enormous detail about the symbolism and framing and how that communicated complex issues about sexuality or personal value or whatnot.

The ChibiKangaroo response? "That means you're saying you just want a recap, not a review." That's not something that's meant to drive a discussion, that's deliberate mischaracterization meant to start a fight.


Now who is mischaracterizing things? You are so clever with how you are trying to cherry pick things, but your summary of the conversation is very inadequate. The people in question were specifically saying that Paul should NOT offer his opinions on what should happen in a show. That is a necessary aspect of a review. For example:

TasteyCookie wrote:
[i]f a reviewer is basing their judgement on what they expect from a series, that would be unprofessional reviewing... The whole point of a review on anything is to provide insight and thought process that the normal audience member would maybe have missed or not thought about... [Paul} should be criticized for trying to force his own viewpoint on what the show should be.

I have absolutely no clue whether Paul was forced to review this series or whether he was genuinely interested, but so far it just feels like someone who didn't like the series the whole time, for reasons that the viewers aren't connecting with. Heck he hasn't given a single episode an A- score even, which on a show that's scoring much higher than average shows on here, is pretty rare.


Again, you can give that a much more charitable interpretation if you want. However, this individual was clearly saying that Paul's attempts to perform normal reviewing actions (such as giving their opinion on what they think should or should not have happened) is somehow "unprofessional." Again, the person is stating that they only want a reviewer to "provide insight and thought process that the normal audience member would maybe have missed or not thought about." This is essentially a recap that they are looking for. It might be a particularly detailed recap or a thoughtful one, but the person is saying they do not want the reviewer's own opinions on what should/should not occur in a show, which is the basis of ANY critique. If you criticize something without saying how you think it could be better, that is going to come across as cheap and unconvincing. Every good critic will let the readers know such particulars

Then this individual complained about how he hadn't given the show an A- yet. So again, I don't think it was out of bounds for me to say that it seems like some people would get off his back more if he just gave the show As, because as is made clear in the above quote, they are not interested in his opinions on how the show could be better or whether certain aspects are good or bad, they are looking for him to give insights about the show and give it better grades.

Quote:
Or when folks seem to think that Paul is spending his reviews complaining about the show he wants to be watching, rather than engaging with the show that is there, ChibiKangaroo summarizes that as "oh, these fanboys only want people who like a show to review it." Again, that's not driving a discussion. That's not her saying "Actually, I disagree, Paul's take on this show is exactly what I'm looking for in a review." That's saying "you're all wrong for complaining." No discussion, just a fight.


Again, I find it funny how you accuse me of misrepresenting things, and then you cherry pick from what I said, ignore the context and the breadth of my arguments, and try to summarize it all down to such a terse statement. I was responding to comments like this:

AsuraTheDestructor wrote:
There's such a thing as a terrible critic. Honestly, Paul really isn't doing it well with this series.


and this:

TasteyCookie wrote:

Either A: Amazon paid ANN to purposefully boost the hype around ReCreators (very unlikely)
Or B: ANN chose a reviewer who has very little interest reviewing a series and them being forced to watch is the reasoning behind scores that are vastly different from the average viewers (much more likely).


Again, people implying that Paul is a terrible critic, complaining about him not giving the show better grades, and tossing out the idea that (even if "very unlikely"), perhaps ANN has been corrupted by Amazon due to ReCreators receiving A- grades while SukaSuka is receiving a B- average. (I guess it couldn't just be that ReCreators is a better show? Which I believe was Theron's response about the comparison between the two shows).

If I was throwing out half of such hyperbole, people's heads would explode. But instead, I gave very restrained responses and tried to focus on the topic. Yes, I did argue that people's attacks on Paul and other ANN reviewers were not meritorious. You seem to believe that that justifies me receiving abuse. Again, that is the entire point of this thread. You are taking your cues from Psycho 101. If you don't like what ChibiKangaroo is arguing, lob personal insults and attacks, and the mod might allow it.

Quote:
Finally, the so-called "olive branch" is ChibiKangaroo saying "actually, I don't hate the show or anything." That's not meant to end a discussion. That's just another way of mischaracterizing the complaints by saying "the only reason anyone is frustrated by my comments in this thread is that they think I don't like the show, and want only people who like the show in this thread." Which could conceivably start a fight, but at this point, everyone in the thread had bailed on engaging ChibiKangaroo.


Lol. I think it was pretty obvious what I was doing, but anyone who wants to see for themselves can go in the thread and read what I said and the context around it rather than your very negative commentary on it. I was clearly stating that my negative criticism of the show should be seen in a larger context of me being highly critical of many shows, and that the fact that I am continuing to watch indicates there is something good about it for me to keep watching. It was an attempt by me to de-escalate and say that I don't hate the show. But of course, attempts to offer olive branches are usually spat upon by people on the internet.

Quote:

Back up the basic arguments if you want, but that thread is a complete mess,


Actually, again I went through the entire thread last night and the vast majority of it is on topic commentary on the show and back and forth about that. The instances where things were derailed were comments from you and a few others that attacked me, attacked the reviewers, or otherwise lobbed insults and curse words. So the few parts that were a "complete mess" in your words were caused by you and others feeling the need to denigrate people who were offering valid critique of the show. And yes, I'm sure you were very happy to see Psycho 101 personally attack me. You seem to believe personal attacks and insults somehow "save" a thread. Well I'm sorry to disappoint you, I'm still going to comment on that show in that thread. The purpose of this thread is simply to state that moderators should not be engaging in personal attacks, because it very clearly causes people like you to believe that such personal attacks and insults are a good thing in the forum.

P.S.

Thanks Blood-. I pull out my hair like you too Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Blood-
It...it's not like I post for you or anything!It...it's not like I post for you or anything!


Joined: 07 Mar 2009
Posts: 19371
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:41 am Reply with quote
The thing is that ChibiKangaroo doesn't violate any posting rules. Look, I know how frustrating some of her rhetorical techniques can be but there is no rule against "framing an argument in a way that makes me want to kick a puppy." Nor do I believe that there is anything calculating about how she posts. Meaning I don't believe she sits back and goes, "I don't really believe what I've posted; I'm just here to stir up stuff, heh-heh-heh." Whining about how CK "derailed" a thread is nonsense. Every poster has a built in "ignore" feature in their brains that they are free to use at any time. If CK inspired a bunch of posters to engage with her non-rule breaking comments, that's on them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
Violynne



Joined: 09 May 2014
Posts: 76
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:53 am Reply with quote
ChibiKangaroo wrote:
Again, your opinion.


Quote:
Now who is mischaracterizing things? You are so clever with how you are trying to cherry pick things, but your summary of the conversation is very inadequate.


Quote:
Again, you can give that a much more charitable interpretation if you want.


Quote:
Again, I find it funny how you accuse me of misrepresenting things, and then you cherry pick from what I said, ignore the context and the breadth of my arguments, and try to summarize it all down to such a terse statement.


Your reading comprehension and attitude insults the rest of us who've moved beyond the 3rd grade.

The one feature this website has long needed is an ignore option, which I believe you would quickly become target #1 within a day.

Instead, the rest of us have to deal with your ridiculous rhetoric you falsely believe is conversation.

Since we do not have an ignore feature, it would be my honor to request a ban of your attitude for at least 30 days, though 6 months would be far more appreciated.

Hopefully, you'll take this time to learn how to engage in a civilized manner which somehow escapes you while you defend your garbage incessantly.

I don't visit this site often, yet there's always a user like you who seems to be completely oblivious to the majority of users ignoring them.

I also find it comical the one who took this position a few years ago is now defending you.

Enough already. Either post with respect or take your garbage elsewhere. I'm sick of having to skip it in near every topic in Talkback.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChibiKangaroo



Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 2873
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:55 am Reply with quote
Violynne wrote:


Your reading comprehension and attitude insults the rest of us who've moved beyond the 3rd grade.


You see what I am talking about? (Admins) When people don't believe that the rules about personal attacks have to be respected, it begets more personal attacks. This person obviously believes that as well.

Quote:
The one feature this website has long needed is an ignore option, which I believe you would quickly become target #1 within a day.


As Blood mentioned, if you wish to ignore me you can do so. No one is forcing you to chime in, and the fact that you would only chime in to lob insults I think speaks more than anything about how much weight would go to your commentary.

Quote:
Since we do not have an ignore feature, it would be my honor to request a ban of your attitude for at least 30 days, though 6 months would be far more appreciated.


Rolf, your honor? After only chiming in to throw personal attacks, you want to talk about honor?


Quote:
I don't visit this site often, yet there's always a user like you who seems to be completely oblivious to the majority of users ignoring them.

I also find it comical the one who took this position a few years ago is now defending you.


And now you're just highlighting even further my point. Blood- decides to defend me with simple argument, no vitriol whatsoever, and you personally attack him! This is exactly my point! People respond to reasoned arguments with vitriolic attacks. And if it's not addressed by the mods, it only begets more such vitriol.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Psycho 101
Moderator


Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 12974
Location: Chora's Den
PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 11:43 am Reply with quote
Blood- wrote:
The thing is that ChibiKangaroo doesn't violate any posting rules. Look, I know how frustrating some of her rhetorical techniques can be but there is no rule against "framing an argument in a way that makes me want to kick a puppy." Nor do I believe that there is anything calculating about how she posts. Meaning I don't believe she sits back and goes, "I don't really believe what I've posted; I'm just here to stir up stuff, heh-heh-heh." Whining about how CK "derailed" a thread is nonsense. Every poster has a built in "ignore" feature in their brains that they are free to use at any time. If CK inspired a bunch of posters to engage with her non-rule breaking comments, that's on them.


There's the letter of the rules and the spirit. Moderators enforce both. Right there in the rules. You also personally know this Blood. For those who have issue with the "spirit of the rules" aspect I direct you to this from Tempest himself in the updated rules thread.

Tempest wrote:

Our moderators are already aware of the fact that they can moderate or ban a user who has not broken a single rule. We've also allowed people to stay who have regularly broken the rules without actually harming the forum in any way.

It's not a matter of us "doing things at our whim," but rather a matter of discretion. If someone makes the forum better, they stay. If they hurt the forum, they leave.


Whether or not a user violates the letter or the spirit of the rules is honestly moot if they are deemed to be a detriment to the discussion and/or the forum. If a user violates either and/or baits users into responses that is indeed on them as well Blood. That is disruptive behavior that negatively affects the discussion at end and possibly the general atmosphere of that thread. Which is why the mods tell users don't respond to bait or trollish posts and to simply report them. If they pick up that bait and run with it and make the situation worse then they are at fault as well and we tell them to stop just as we tell the person who left the bait to stop.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

You see what I am talking about? (Admins) When people don't believe that the rules about personal attacks have to be respected, it begets more personal attacks. This person obviously believes that as well.

When users bait and antagonize others, while refusing to admit they are being disruptive and rude or doing anything wrong, it also begets more problems and personal attacks. Whether it's the letter of the rules or the spirit disruptive behavior is simply disruptive behavior.

Now, since this thread has run off the rails and devolved into arguing and insults it is time to lock it down before people continue. Or since it's been "X" amount of time since the last post is the argument "over"? CK made her point and Zac can review it if he so chooses and respond how he sees fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
Tempest
ANN Publisher & CEO


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 9183
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2017 3:24 pm Reply with quote
My two cents....

First of all, telling a person to "calm down" (to chill) is not a personal attack, nor is it an attack on their personality. If a moderator feels that individuals are being aggressive in some way, it is perfectly reasonable for the moderator to say "calm down," or something along those lines. In a perfect world, it might be nice if the moderator explained every single comment of the sort, but in the real world I simply can't ask our volunteer moderators to do this. I'm pretty certain that when they say "calm down," an explanation isn't necessary, the problem is evident.

I can see how "being narrow minded," might be insulting, but Psycho was specifically criticizing your behavior on this forum. I can't say whether or not I agree with his opinion (I haven't read any of your posts), but I can say that is most definitely not a personal attack.

While Psycho was blunt, I don't feel that he was rude or insulting. There is a subtle, but very important difference between an insult and a criticisms. Psycho 101 was criticizing your behavior, not insulting you.

If you do not agree with his assessment of your behavior, or if you would like to understand why he feels that way, you're more than welcome to discuss it with him in PM. He will likely discuss your query with the other moderators, and what you will receive as an answer will likely be the "team consensus."

However since he did not hand out any punishment, I see no need for any admin to get involved and "review" this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> ANN Feedback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group