Forum Moderation

[Wolfswetpaws]

As for the "naughty words", this should be <bleep>ing interesting.  🙂

There are some auto-correct issues, that @Ensign Cthulhu pointed-out, above.

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

4 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

there should be a way to allow people to show their "rough edges" while still maintaining some general order here.

I agree with you as long as the "rough edges" aren't directed at other users. Conflicts will be unavoidable however they can be prevented from being escalated. We should all aim to not unnecessarily escalate for the sake of ones "rough edge".

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

3 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I generally don't like hard and fast rules.  One of the great things about how the old WG forum was run back in the day was the selective enforcement of many rules.  This place is a very small forum, and most likely will remain that way for the foreseeable future, if not it's entire life span.  As a small community it's possible to be more loose with the rules.  A community being able to sort of police itself can be a good thing.  Mods should (gently) steer, not dictate, the direction of the forums.  If the community as a whole shows they can't moderate themselves, them more aggressive work from the mods is in order.  Unfortunately, the norm is for mods to take the easy way out and crack down on the whole community because there is some individual, or small group of people that can't behave.  Seems like there should be a way to allow people to show their "rough edges" while still maintaining some general order here.

 

I could not disagree more.  The divisive nature of politics and religion is absolutely the wrong way to go.  They should be off-limits!   

[Asym]

44 minutes ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

I'll speak as a regular user, not moderator.

NO profanity, period.  There are plenty of creative ways to get a point across and while I personally talk like a sailor IRL, I'm sure there are plenty that don't like it.  I love swear words, but don't think this is the place.

No Politics or Religion, ever!  You want to have problems, allow that.

It's a community and we should always foster good intentions and make it a wholesome place to bit@$  

Politics is one of those topics that simply is so expansive it could cover almost anything.  Take for example a discussion about where WoWs originated or where game profits go today.....  Or, discussions about videogame legal status or prohibitions by Country or State....  We can have very valid discussions that includes political realities that affect gaming.....  And, who determines what is "political..."

Just a thought.

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

Very few of us here go to Sunday school, so my preference is avoiding hostility and abusive attacks on other forumites. Not that I'm suggested peppering your posts with expletives, mind you. So if we have fiddlesticks so be it, there's a little difficulty sometimes figuring out if some people find slang expressions or very colloquial expressions upsetting or not. what the doodle and FFS I think have sometimes popped up... in my posts as well.

EDIT I see what you did there....

[Verblonde]

2 minutes ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

The divisive nature of politics and religion is absolutely the wrong way to go.  They should be off-limits!

This! In spades (or f**king shovels, if you prefer). Peering over the border (I live near Toronto), I'd suggest that either of these general subject areas should be absolutely verboten on here, assuming you want to maintain an element of semi-civil discourse.

[Admiral_Karasu]

What about history? Does history fall under politics and religion too? What about naval history? Historical battles? We get into political territory there unless we strictly limit the discussion to technicalities of naval warfare.

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

3 minutes ago, Asym said:

Politics is one of those topics that simply is so expansive it could cover almost anything.  Take for example a discussion about where WoWs originated or where game profits go today.....  Or, discussions about videogame legal status or prohibitions by Country or State....  We can have very valid discussions that includes political realities that affect gaming.....  And, who determines what is "political..."

Just a thought.

 

Now you're splitting hairs.  Lets not let the discussion about a general topic evolve ffs.  I think you know what I meant.  This isn't a supreme court argument.

[SureBridge]

@Slimeball91 this is exactly why we should have this discussion. Credit where credit is due, Ahskance did an excellent job getting the forums into decent shape in large part with the mod team looking at what “enforcement” mattered and what didn’t. 

“be nice to each other” became the guiding motto. Aggressive policing of ad hominem attacks, “name and shame” etc brought us from a Reddit-like wasteland to a good community. 
 

I’m pretty sure that most of the mods are proud of making that a “good” community and we plan to continue fostering that ideal. But roads need side rails next to the cliffs, and so do we. 
 

thanks for the constructive feedback (and pointers) - we remain a work in progress. 

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

What about history? Does history fall under politics and religion too? What about naval history? Historical battles? We get into political territory there unless we strictly limit the discussion to technicalities of naval warfare.

Of course not, but it depends on how it is said.  Come on, this is common sense.  Lets not turn this into a constitutional debate.

If I said, "the US Navy really rose to the occasion at Midway," is not the same as, "The US Navy really stomped those Nips at Midway."

Common sense, common decency.

[Admiral_Karasu]

7 minutes ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

Of course not, but it depends on how it is said.  Come on, this is common sense.  Lets not turn this into a constitutional debate.

If I said, "the US Navy really rose to the occasion at Midway," is not the same as, "The US Navy really stomped those Imperialists Nips at Midway."

Common sense, common decency.

 

Yes yes fine fine... but I cannot resist making a minor correction to your 'bad example'. It was the Americans who were the imperialists there. But perhaps we better stick to your 'good example' and say "the US Navy really rose to the occasion at Midway", and leave the other stuff out. Including the apparently terrible movie too.

[Slimeball91]

2 minutes ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

I could not disagree more.  The divisive nature of politics and religion is absolutely the wrong way to go.  They should be off-limits!   

I bet there are a million ways I could sensibly discuss politics and religion that wouldn't offend in the least.  Why not allow the people that can exercise good judgement to have some leeway?  Again, this is the point about allowing the community police itself.  When someone is out of line let the community as a whole decide.  I'm just throwing out another option.

9 minutes ago, EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico said:

I agree with you as long as the "rough edges" aren't directed at other users. Conflicts will be unavoidable however they can be prevented from being escalated. We should all aim to not unnecessarily escalate for the sake of ones "rough edge".

Personally, I don't mind people expressing their true feelings towards me.  If someone blasts me, maybe I deserve it, or maybe they were just venting.  I'm okay with that.  Not everyone is good with that live and let live attitude.  The easy way to go is to error on the side of caution.  My issue with that is it's also the road to mediocrity.  Maybe the forum could be more if allowed to find it's own way forward.

6 minutes ago, SureBridge said:

Credit where credit is due, Ahskance did an excellent job getting the forums into decent shape in large part with the mod team looking at what “enforcement” mattered and what didn’t. 

Most of the problems with the old NA WG forum were because of lazy moderation.  The mods would let things go too far, or let trouble makers cause too many problems, then things would blow up and get things shutdown.  You can moderate everything here until people learn to self-censor and sort of tiptoe around things they might like to discuss.  Or, you can let people have more freedom in their expression, and only moderate when it becomes necessary. 

Honestly, I much preferred the way things were in the old WG forum, pre-Ahskance.  I didn't think the toxic behavior was productive, but the greater freedom of discussion was much better.  It's seems to me there is no reason we can't have both freedom of discussion, and cracking down on truly toxic behavior, or at least try to see if it works for this small community. 

I'll part with this.  What is the goal of this forum?  Is it a place for the community, or a place for the visions of the owner/creator/moderators to come true?  Often the creators get lost in making their visions for the community come true that they lose sight of what a community really is about.  If the creators are set in their visions, fair enough.  I'm just a guest here and I will live by the rules you guys set.

[Verblonde]

16 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I bet there are a million ways I could sensibly discuss politics and religion that wouldn't offend in the least.

There almost certainly are (I'm pretty confident I could as well, come to that); trouble is - and this goes double in NA - those people that can are apparently a minority, and the forum rules (whatever they end up being) need to be able to work with whoever pitches up here. IMO, of course.

[SureBridge]

32 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Most of the problems with the old NA WG forum were because of lazy moderation.  The mods would let things go too far, or let trouble makers cause too many problems, then things would blow up and get things shutdown.  You can moderate everything here until people learn to self-censor and sort of tiptoe around things they might like to discuss.  Or, you can let people have more freedom in their expression, and only moderate when it becomes necessary. 

My preference is always less rules rather than more. Less "auto censoring" rather than more. Perhaps we set an alert for the word "Nazi" since you cannot discuss the history of the German Navy without the things that happened from the 1930's through the 1940's, and a similar alert for "Dick" (the proper, versus the improper noun). Given the number of volunteers currently posting on this thread, I don't think that "Lazy moderation" is currently a risk. That said it gets to be more of an issue when you are at hundreds of posts a day.

39 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Honestly, I much preferred the way things were in the old WG forum, pre-Ahskance.  I didn't think the toxic behavior was productive, but the greater freedom of discussion was much better.  It's seems to me there is no reason we can't have both freedom of discussion, and cracking down on truly toxic behavior, or at least try to see if it works for this small community. 

I'm not a shirking violet, but I dropped into the forums when I started the game, took a quick look around and then "noped" out of there. back to the bar analogy, I don't think that the vision here is for a biker bar where anything goes. More of a dignified pub with old wood paneling and really good food, along with a wide beverage selection so that the scotch snobs can genially socialize with the beer drinking postman.

42 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I'll part with this.  What is the goal of this forum? 

I think that this is the heart of the question. Based on the (many) discussions that I have had with the team, it's a place for folks to hang their hat, talk about the stuff that mutually interests us, and be confident that everyone will be heard and respected. A place for new players to learn how to play, meet some of the folks who have been around forever and help them see the wonder of the game (or at least the art department) with new eyes. Somewhere to talk about how to "Git Gud" by other people who have been the Newb, and can help them with some of the more esoteric game mechanics. That's my vision, and I'll be working with a couple of other players to set up an intro (inter clan / everyone welcome) training program (once we have time again) because it's something that WoWS needs, and that I wish had existed when I started. 

And my read on the "core team" is that we need to build the pub. The character will be determined by the folks who show up to chat, and obnoxious, abusive jerks will have the rules explained, and then be shown the door. We all have bad days, but the rules are there to make sure that your bad day isn't inflicted on your friends.

14 minutes ago, Verblonde said:

There almost certainly are (I'm pretty confident I could as well, come to that); trouble is - and this goes double in NA - those people that can are apparently a minority, and the forum rules (whatever they end up being) need to be able to work with whoever pitches up here. IMO, of course.

This is why we need rules. It's also why we need to be consistent in applying those rules, so that Newb1234 isn't moderated differently than Mouse, or Lert (or another Moderator!). 

[Guest Capt_of_Satisfaction]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

 

Yes yes fine fine... but I cannot resist making a minor correction to your 'bad example'. It was the Americans who were the imperialists there. But perhaps we better stick to your 'good example' and say "the US Navy really rose to the occasion at Midway", and leave the other stuff out. Including the apparently terrible movie too.

I know, not the greatest example but you catch my drift.  And not everyone shares your opinion of movie reviews :-)  Subjectivity is the entire thrust of what I'm illustrating.  Especially when we have EU and Asian members aboard.  Even true facts can be perceived much differently.

Common sense and common decency is the prime descriptor.

[Justin_Simpleton]

2 hours ago, EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico said:

Let's get back on topic for now in discussing moderation in general and how you would and I quote:

4 hours ago, SureBridge said:

So let's see if we can have a civil discussion around how you want the bartender to run the joint 😀

I will still answer you though Verblonde (even if it was sarcastic it might be fair to answer for those who wonder regardless).

Blasphemous remarks usually happen in the context of religion or when religion is implied by using such words so just try staying clear of religion overall and you should be alright.

 

What if we allow any language/dialect or topic in one location, say the Salty Sailor Saloon, and the rest of the forum maintains proper decorum?  I'll pour the drinks.

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

I don't think this to be a good idea. If you want to create such an environment you can invite the members who share your vision onto a platform you created to have a free flowing conversation without restrictions. Remember that this after all is supposed to be used as a forum with constructive discussions in mind.

[SunkCostFallacy]

3 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

We certainly don't want to descend to the level of the WG forums, where the whale Moby Dick, the detective Dick Tracy and the actor Dick van Dyke could not be named in full, nor could you write the official Royal Navy acronym for Battle Squadron (i.e. BS), and I'm almost certain that a certain four-letter synonym for a rooster was also not permitted. 

The flipside is the Australian vernacular, where statements like "How ya goin' you old c**t, I haven't seen you in years!" would be interpreted as a gesture of affection and delight at stumbling across a long-lost friend. Clearly the more rough-as-guts Aussies won't mind, but the rest of the world might raise an eyebrow or two! 😂

I'm going to agree 100% with EC here.

As former Australian Army of several years ... I can, and do, swear a lot when I consider it appropriate. However ... in all my posts on the NA forums I swore very little and I was always annoyed when the forum software edited my post ...

I'll just see how devstrike handles it, and adjust if necessary.

[Asym]

2 hours ago, Capt_of_Satisfaction said:

Now you're splitting hairs.  Lets not let the discussion about a general topic evolve ffs.  I think you know what I meant.  This isn't a supreme court argument.

All Stop. 

No, I don't know what you mean,,,  I'm just a simple old retired Horse Soldier that lived his entire first career with "absolute barriers" that everyone fully understood"....   "we will not lie, cheat or steal; or, tolerate anyone that does..."  Any questions?  And, there were dozens of other "thou shall not's".......we really adhered to.

Are these your words ?:

• "NO profanity, period. 
• No Politics or Religion, ever! 

A Binary condition.   That's "real risk" for an old horse soldier's point of view;" and now, I want to know "exactly and with great specificity" what can or can not be discussed or what specific words can or can not be used....  (Carlin's seven dirty words as an example?  Oh, you might be old enough to understand the cultural impact of that time that drove him to create that routine...)

Otherwise, let's act as if we are educated and deal with both topics as they come up.  Trust me, as someone whom got a warning in the old Forum for being political, which no one could explain how, what I said was political, it ended up a staff member simply didn't like me and........power is absolute.

Is that what you want???  If so, as much as I like this concept, I'd prefer a complete conversation with as much passion necessary to make a point.

What say you?

 

 

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

6 minutes ago, Asym said:

What say you?

While I can't speak for him I can say that we as moderators are working on gathering feedback in this topic and across the forum to yet decide how to precisely handle vulgar speech. So please bear with a few inconsistencies that will inevitably pop up due to this. Thank you for challenging us on these positions as this will help us to take many different viewpoints into consideration.

[Justin_Simpleton]

10 minutes ago, EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico said:

I don't think this to be a good idea. If you want to create such an environment you can invite the members who share your vision onto a platform you created to have a free flowing conversation without restrictions. Remember that this after all is supposed to be used as a forum with constructive discussions in mind.

I was hoping this forum would be a place to vent after a dozen defeats and maybe get some sage advice.  I think many here use this forum as their entertainment.  

I was thinking if there is one place that is non-regulated by moderators or with very lacks rules.  I invite you to take this discussion the The Salty Sailor Saloon.

 

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

9 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

I was hoping this forum would be a place to vent after a dozen defeats and maybe get some sage advice.

Oh I think you are definitely allowed to vent a little as long as you:

 

• Don't vent your frustration at another user, against another user or include other users in your vents
• It is directed at a game result and not at "specified" battle participant as they could potentially become a user of our platform
• Don't vent in topics that have nothing or little to do with the subject you want to vent about

9 minutes ago, Justin_Simpleton said:

I think many here use this forum as their entertainment.

While this is true the main purpose of the Forum isn't solely to entertain. It's main purpose is to collect insightful discussions and information about the game World of Warships. For other things there is the offtopic section. Many users are upset about the loss of the official forums and we are trying our best to give them the feelings of those back in a well regulated environment.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

I would say that SOME politics does need to be allowed, but only remote politics in the context of history and only as it pertains to the construction of (or decisions not to construct) the ships featured in this game. 

That would impose a limit of about 1960, which I think is more than remote enough to avoid the most contentious events in the lifetimes of us forumites. Does this sound fair, @EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico?

[EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico]

3 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I would say that SOME politics does need to be allowed, but only remote politics in the context of history and only as it pertains to the construction of (or decisions not to construct) the ships featured in this game. 

That would impose a limit of about 1960, which I think is more than remote enough to avoid the most contentious events in the lifetimes of us forumites. Does this sound fair, @EXEC_HYMNE_Ar_tonelico?

I will put your suggestion up to be discussed between us, thank you! Please understand that I alone am not sufficient to make decisions on these matters.

[Justin_Simpleton]

I read many posts in the past that start off constructive but gets sidetracked by two or more posters who aren't interpreting each other correctly.  These kinds of discussions should be allowed to continue with comments from the peanut gallery but not in the original thread.  Moderators could move that discussion to the saloon so it doesn't pollute the original thread but allows the debate to play out.