Forum

I suspect you are more than merely at peace with it... I suspect that is your raison d'etre for posting here at all considering how little anime you actually follow. You can't control the fact that the anime industry isn't producing the kind of titles you would like, but you can at least attempt to make miserable some of those who feel otherwise.

Nah, I just like to talk about anime. It's a medium that invites discussion. Sometimes I learn useful things through talking about anime here. I do enjoy debate too, it's my job. But learning about and talking about anime is really the only reason. I suppose that's up to each individual to decide if that's good enough for them. Anyway, we have diverged from the topic a little and I definitely want to keep this one focused on the issue.

I'm sure you feel that our digression isn't relevant, but, with respect to you gaining any sort of support from The Powers That Be at ANN vis-a-vis your beef with Psycho 101 (or getting any kind of response from him that you'd find satisfying), I doubt very much that your honest admission that you are aware some posters have a problem with your posting style and your further honest admission that you don't care and therefore (presumably) have no intention of altering or mitigating it, are going to be helpful to your cause, but hey, what do I know?

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

Blood- wrote:

I think it is more of a "results" thing than an "intent" thing. I have no doubt that the mods receive complaints about your posts. I'm not sure how aware you are of the extent of negative feeling towards your posting style... it's broad and deep. I know this both from past observation as well as access to the Community Forum where some of your, *cough* fans congregate. It's almost kind of impressive how much dislike you engender considering you actually stay within legal posting requirements (imo). You would certainly make the mods lives easier if your crimes where more obvious, like mine. Wink

Lol. No, trust me, I am definitely aware that some forum members have less than generous feelings towards me. At this point in my life, I've decided to be at peace with it ;0

Blood- wrote:

I think she has a corrosive influence here at ANN but her crimes are stylistic more than anything else, at least until such time that ANN decides to officially outlaw "pedantic bullheadness" and "cheap, dishonest rhetorical argumentation*."

I thought we'd made it clear in the past, but I guess not.

ANN's forum rules are guidelines, not a legal framework. We will censure, and possibly remove any user who, despite staying within the rules, contributes towards a toxic environment within ANN's forums.

We don't care what your opinions are, but be nice, especially when disagreeing with other users.

Imagine that we are all guests at a dinner party. The host of the party is very open to any opinion on any subject, but cares most about making sure that as many people are enjoying the evening as possible. If there are a few guests who are making the evening less enjoyable for others, the host will ask them to leave.

I truly would like to make ANN a happy place for everyone here, but I know that's not possible. I will sacrifice a person, regardless of their intent, if it's for the greater good (never because of their opinion, but because of their behaviour and attitude towards others).

-t

Last edited by Galap on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:52 am; edited 1 time in total

Blood- wrote:

I don't think ChibiKangeroo should be moderated, either. Don't get me wrong, I think she has a corrosive influence here at ANN but her crimes are stylistic more than anything else, at least until such time that ANN decides to officially outlaw "pedantic bullheadness" and "cheap, dishonest rhetorical argumentation*." I think the best option is for those who don't want to read her posts to simply not read her posts, which I am doing with the slight exception of this thread. I say "slight" because even here I'm not doing much more than skimming her stuff.

* I realize that something like "cheap, dishonest rhetorical argumentation" is a de facto violation of the "be polite and respectful" rule; the problem is that while it is easy to recognize when it is being done, it is difficult to "prove" in a legalistic, moderator-actionable sense.

If I may step in here there is an important point to make about this.

Not all transgressions fall under what the moderators can or should be expected to act against. "pedantic bullheadedness" in isolation is not outawed. However, intelellectual disonesty definitely is. This is a forum that's meant for meaningful and legitimate discussion, and if your postings are deliberately destroying that exact aspect of it, there's a problem.

The other point is that we are not going to go through the motions to 'prove' things in a legalistic fashion. I understand that this will raise concerns about moderator accountability but this isn't a court of law and thus we don't have to pantomime legal proceedings since many aspects of that would be a detriment to us (for example, why should we not act on something if it is easy to recognize when it is being done). Additionally, all the worst users will cry foul over everything and waste everyone's time about it. The other reason is that these issues are often very complicated and patterns of behavior are established over long periods of time. And often bans and moderations happen due to a combination of factors, so while it may seem that someone is being moderated for a minor offense, there's usually a much deeper history to it. See here.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

As I noted previously, the underlying issue here seems to be whether people who don't like one's opinion, no matter how politely it is stated, can successfully report that as some kind of vague offense if it is stated x number of times, because all of the other explanations about rule violations and not giving consideration to others that were put forth by Psycho 101 have been thoroughly debunked, not just by me. (And yet he still refuses to admit that!). If that were some new offense, then does it apply equally to praising opinions? Do reviewers now have a hard cap on how many times they can raise a particular critique of a show, lest some forum members think they are being a "pain" and wish to report that? Should there be a big report button next to reviews where people can report the reviewer for being too critical too many times? The slippery slope could go pretty far down.

There's also a lot that you're not going to see. For example there are a lot of reports we get that we do not act on, many are bogus and many are borderline. Only those reports that we act on are those that you will perceive. So I'm very confident that users can not be attacked successfully by making unfair reports against them. Our initial response to any report is and has to be skepticism. If we act on a report, rest assured that we've made a judgment call on it.

Also there's a big difference in being put on moderation or banned and just being told not to push it.

Mod accountability is important to me and no one will ever get in trouble from me for merely complaining about the moderation on this site, whether or not i agree with it.

@ Galap / Tempest - to be honest, I had completely forgotten the "personality" ban/moderation rule. Incredibly valid reference in this situation. I rescind my opinion that CK has not officially broken any rules.

Thank you everyone for responding. I certainly get the concept of whether someone creates a negative environment. I think that is a separate issue from the primary subject of this thread however, but I have tried to address both issues simultaneously.

The first issue is, are mods accountable for not telling the truth and otherwise engaging in hypocritical or unsavory behavior while moderating. I don't think you can intertwine that with the other issue because what that results in is a rationalization. I.e., the argument becomes "it's okay for the mid to behave badly because someone thinks x person deserves mistreatment." I don't think that is intended, but that is the result of intertwining the issues. So I think the first question should be answered. Can a mod lie and act in a hypocritical manner toward members and get away with it with no accountability?

The second question is about whether a member, although acting politely and not braking a single rule, can still become a negative simply due to the fact that they take unpopular opinions on some popular shows and stick to those opinions? Because if everyone is looking at this in a completely straightforward manner, none of the people who have issue with me would complain if I went around praising everything they like. This is something else that could probably be proven too if I REALLY wanted to do some work here, because I can guarantee that if I went back enough through the forum I could find many instances of some of those same people praising my opinion when it was in agreement with theirs.

Something else to keep in mind - a lot if the time, mods or others in positions of authority set the tone. If a mod is engaging in bullying, other forum members may take that as a cue to also be bullies. If the fact that a bunch of people are then bullying someone else because they don't like their opinions, I think there is a bit of a vicious cycle occurring there to then blame the person being bullied for the outcome. Just something to consider.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

The second question is about whether a member, although acting politely and not braking a single rule, can still become a negative simply due to the fact that they take unpopular opinions on some popular shows and stick to those opinions?

This is pretty classic CK and a great example of why she is teetering on the brink of personality moderation action. No, CK, you are not a negative "simply" due to the fact that you take an unpopular opinion on some popular shows and stick to them. I think you know very well why you have drawn the ire of many posters and mods over a number of different years and a number of different threads but you are - once again - pretending you don't and characterizing the issue in a very intellectually dishonest way which, sadly, is one of your hallmarks.

Interestingly Blood, you were the one I was thinking about first when I said I could go back and find instances of praise when I gave opinions you agreed with. I can do that now, but I would like to get an answer to question one first.

So the fact that I've praised instances where you advanced opinions that meshed with my own is proof that you don't engage in bouts of intellectual dishonesty? Laughing

Hey, I'm sure you've advanced agruments I haven't agreed with but didn't raise my hackles because you weren't creating absurd strawmen or mangling another poster's point beyond all recognition in a strained attempt to "win" a rhetorical point. I've never said that 100% of your posts were objectionable, CK. Just enough of them to establish a pattern of behaviour that is actionable under the personality ban/moderation rule that I had forgotten about.

The point was, you only make that claim when you disagree with my opinion. If I was doing that just as my natural modus operandi, you would make that claim when you agreed with me as well. I am fairly confident that the same truth will hold for anyone else. Thus my assertion that this is really an issue of divergent opinions.

But again, I really want to focus on question one before going to the second since that is what this thread is about.

I assure you, if I thought you were creating absurd strawman arguments or mangling another poster's views purposely just to score a cheap rhetorical point, I'd say that even if it was in service of an argument I agreed with. Feel free to cite any example you feel is contrary to that claim.

Keep in mind, CK, that I tried very hard to like you. Ultimately, you kind of made it impossible for me and you can go back to the post in TAMB where I indicated I would stop reading your posts for insight into the straw that broke the camel's back. And it wasn't just because of that one instance. It was simply the final one where I realized, "you know what? Whatever benefit I occasionally derive from reading her posts is more than outweighed by the not-so-occasional irritation I feel from reading them." I would never report you or waste time trying to convince you to change your style so I simply decided to skip reading your stuff with the obvious exception of this thread. I feel it's too bad because I do consider you an intelligent person who does bring up good points and is willing to engage but like I say the negative just outweighs the positive in my case.

Sorry about that. I will still feel friendly toward you whenever possible Smile

like I said, at this point in my life, no need for me to hold unecessary ill will over arguments about anime.

That being said though, I do think people in positions of authority on the site need to be held to a fair standard of behavior that specifically prevents telling obvious falsehoods about the members. That is Ultimately the purpose of this thread, so I am hoping to see some response on that question from the admin. That was the reason I laid out the 17 instances where I explicitly did the very thing that Psycho 101 falsely claimed I didn't do. That was also why I laid out exactly how he calls for others to not be rude or condescending and yet makes rude and condescending comments of his own. That is what I am looking for input on.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

So you haven't disputed that you lied about me in the way that I documented above. You just think you are above any accountability for telling lies, perhaps because you "don't care about me" or apparently anyone else on these forums. Not a very good mentality for a mod. Caring seems to be the bare minimum qualification since it allows one to have perspective.

For starters I didn't lie about you as your behavior is well documented here. You can disagree all you like but the facts are the facts. So there is nothing to dispute there and disputing each of your multitude of ridiculous quotes above is just that, ridiculous and a waste of time. Especially since it;'s not as if you'd listen anyways so why would I waste my time? If it will make you feel better though, yes I dispute that I lied about you. I stated your behavior and how you act here. Which btw is not the same as insulting you as a person nor lying about you as a person. It's simply stating your behavior here.

Second, why should I care personally about users here? I don't expect any user here who does not know me personally to give a rat's ass about me. Trying to criticize me for not caring deeply and personally for every user here is ridiculous as well. Do you care about every user here? Do you sit up at night and wodner how every user here is doing? I didn't think so. I care about doing the job I am supposed to as a mod. Not holding hands, not making friends, and not being best buddies with every user here who I will never meet and wouldn't know them if I ran into them in public. Users who feel the same about me and I would not expect them to think differently as beyond my handle here I am a nobody to them. Just some random person on an online forum.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

Whether I was reported by users is irrelevant if the reports are false. As I said, there are members who abuse the reporting system.

I agree with that. Both sentiments actually. The thing is most of the reports regarding you are more often than not on point and not false. Plus as other mods have said we don't respond to every report and take direct action. You're just trying to twist things around to fit your ideas and assumptions and cast off any blame or responsibility for your words and actions. Just as countless other users have done the same thing over the many years here when reprimanded by a mod. You're hardly the first and won't be the last.

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

So yes, I will pm Zac and Tempest. You have to have some accountability Psycho 101. You have to have some kind of standard and not just keep putting forth false narratives when overwhelming evidence to the contrary is put right in front of your face.

I already have accountability. Just as all the other mods do as well, past and present. The mods discuss all users who are warned and/or put on moderation. We have threads dedicated to both. Zac monitors us and the moment he feels we step over the line he says something and tells us to stop and says what he does or does not want. Tempest as well. But you go right ahead and message them about all these" false narratives" about you. Give them all the dozens upon dozens of misquoted examples as you like.

I for one am done with his topic as it is quite obvious you will simply continue to twist facts and posts around and never actually admit to any fault of your own. You can either follow the letter of the rules AND the spirit of them, or you can choose not to. I honestly don't care either way personally. If you do then I don't have to deal with reports about you and go deal with arguments and other disruptive behavior involving you. If you don't, well then you wind up on moderation and the problem is again taken care of. Just like with every other problematic poster. Either way the problem will eventually be sorted out. Merry Christmas.

Psycho 101 wrote:

For starters I didn't lie about you as your behavior is well documented here. You can disagree all you like but the facts are the facts.

Yes, you did. I presented the facts. You presented no facts. 17 different quotes were provided by me where i very specifically "acknowledged and considered others opinions." You claimed that I did not acknowledge or consider anyone else's opinions. Thus, what you said was a lie. That is simple.

Quote:

Second, why should I care personally about users here? I don't expect any user here who does not know me personally to give a rat's ass about me.

Caring about people is required for empathy. Empathy is what allows one to put themselves in someone else's shoes and see things from their perspective. I do care about everyone that I interact with at least to the extent that I don't wish harm upon them and would keep their perspective in mind even as I go about my business. It's not about being "buddy buddy" with anyone, it is about being self aware enough to restrain yourself from acting in a cruel manner which is often what happens when people stop caring.

Quote:

I agree with that. Both sentiments actually. The thing is most of the reports regarding you are more often than not on point and not false.

Then why have I never been on moderation before in the 7 years that I have been participating in this forum? If I was routinely and constantly being reported for all kinds of rule breaking activity, one would expect that I would be on the 10 most wanted list of forum members and have numerous moderation notches under my belt. I think I can answer that question. The reports regarding me likely tend to be individuals who are simply annoyed by me, for whatever reason (as I said, I think it is people who don't like my opinion on a certain show, or believe that I am too persistent in my opinion), and that is not exactly actionable under any realistic moderating standard. Thus, whether you think they are on point or not, such claims (which I equate to plain and simple bullying) are not acted upon with some manner of punishment because I don't think that's what ANN is about. I don't think ANN is one of those sites where bullying is supposed to be promoted.

Quote:

I already have accountability....

I for one am done with his topic as it is quite obvious you will simply continue to twist facts and posts around and never actually admit to any fault of your own.

You have not taken responsibility for your own actions. I proved with 17 quotes that I "acknowledged and considered others opinions," whereas you falsely claimed that I don't do that for anyone. Why is it so hard to admit that you were wrong there? Instead, you've just added another final false statement to the one that I spoke of in my initial post. I underlined it above for your reference.

Chibikangaroo wrote:

You want to know what accountability is? Earlier I said he was being stubborn because I had assumed he deleted my response on this from the AMB thread. He informed me someone else did (and also threatened to put me on moderation for saying he was being "stubborn," I mean really?). But you know what? I was wrong about that. Sorry, Psycho 101, for wrongly thinking it was you.

See, this is exactly what this thread was about. You make completely false statements about me without any care for whether they are false, and not even caring about the fact that I can go back one page in this thread to show what you said was totally fabricated. That is not accountability. That is what it means to "not care."

Forum - View topic
Complaint about moderator hypocrisy

Madoka Magica: Magia Exedra Smartphone Game Announced for 2024

Failure Frame Anime's 1st Video Unveils Cast, July Debut, Opening Song

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

The ANN Aftershow - What Anime Should You Watch Part 2 (Spring 2024)

Classroom of the Elite Season 3 Anime Series Review

This Week in Games - Nintendo Indies Showcase 2024

The Best Weapons in BLUELOCK to Build The Perfect Team

INTERVIEW: Small-Town Horror Comes to Life in Masaaki Ninomiya's GANNIBAL Manga

Forum - View topicComplaint about moderator hypocrisy

Forum

Forum - View topic
Complaint about moderator hypocrisy