Talk:Roleplay Online/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
General revision information: General punctuation and grammar cleanup, did some clarification of pronouns, and added some adverbs to help descriptify things a little better. Also fixed a couple sentences to make their structure parallel. Attempted to integrate some of the issues with moderation and the CoLS, but removed discussion about how effective age verification is or is not; this isn't the place to argue about online age verification. Also, issues of whether email from jase is derogatory or not is not appropriate to an encyclopedia entry. That has been removed.
Added a few links; fixed some spelling.
Question: Is the Live time in GMT or something else? It'd be worth noting. cruinne 19:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Edited to include concerns about minors accessing adult materials, which is not an argument, it is simply a factual comment on RPoL's ability to keep minors out of adult area's, in which RPoL's ability to control this was overstated in the first paragraph.
- Also some more editing of comments about moderation, to reflect the reality of the site. Also, issues of whether email from jase is derogatory or not is appropriate to an encyclopedia entry that does discuss the kind of moderation that users receive at RPoL, given that Jase is part of the entry as well as the ultimate source of the kind of moderation one will expect at RPoL.Karzak 20:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that the timestamp says UTC at the end of it, this generally denotes UTC -0 or Zulu time.Karzak 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Edited BBR's comment which was an assumption instead of fact.Karzak 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Karzak, would it then be fair to include mention that "abusive, insulting, and derrogatory" messages from users are those which result in bans from the site? I think you're missing a large point here -- those terms are subjective and should not be used. You need to start trying to reach consensus here before simply repeatedly editing in your own ideas. cruinne 21:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, I assure you I have recieved considerable "abusive, insulting, and derrogatory" comments from Jase including in the PM in heaven, but this is a specific that doesn't apply to the generality of the RPoL moderation method. I was moderated for a post in "wanted - players", I never argued against that punishment, but I did want to discuss the event with Jase because I felt there was room for site improvement in respect to the way "wanted - players" posts are left open when the DM should close them out of respect for fellow players.
As you know, a moderator jumped into the PM I addressed to Jase and continued an argument that was done, I stopped posting in that PM and posted a new PM for Jase, and another modorator jumped into that one, continuing the argument, I stopped in that one and tried again to leave a PM for Jase, and yet another moderator jumped into that one and yet again continued the argument, and then misquoted me. I said the misquote was a lie, maybe that was too strong but then I'm not thin skinned or easly hurt by heated discussions, besides I've been called a liar, and stupid, and a dozen other things by Jase, and to me being banned for my opinion in a PM that was private to me and Jase and the moderators seems like overkill kind of moderation.
My concern, in general, is that the RPoL moderation style is too much the "I got a ban button therefore I'm right and you're wrong" style, rather than the "I'm a moderator and that means I act to moderate" style. I think my personal experiece with the RPoL mods and with Jase in general show that anyone joining RPoL with an eye toward the long term should be warned that moderation is overly harsh and that mods are often instigators more than moderators. I think this entry, rather than be a cheerleading post written by the moderators should reflect the reality of RPoL.
And that's more specific than I wanted to get, I have been attempting to post in generalities, and will continue to do what I can to see that this entry reflects the reality of RPoL moderation rather that just the moderators (like you happen to be) side of it.Karzak 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Karzak, i have edited your clearly biased comments. Please refrain from entering them again.
We are nothing to do with your dispute with the mods, and find your claims outright abserd. As to the only contact with the mods being heaven, you clearly never went into the chat channel, did you?
The moderators are people, just like you and I. They do what they think is right for the good of the site. Errors in judgement can be corrected, but not if the issue is raised in an argumentative manner.... which is what all your edits appear to portray. This would apply to any site, not just RPoL.
Yes, i have been on the receiving end of RPoL moderation myself, though for minor matters i do admit, and i find it was fair on every occasion.Confused.brit 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Confused, since you have no actual insight into what happened between the mods and me, your take is only speculation. If the Mods themselves start with an argumentive manner, then that is the direction a discussion will likely take, as was the case with me. This certainly does not apply to any site, RPoL clearly has a harsh, one-sided method of moderation. This was my only experience with RPoL moderation, and I found it very unfair and the mods themselves to be instigators of problems rather than solutions to problems. I've edited out most of your misstatements and non facts. Also. if you want abusive emails and PM's from Jase to me, why ask for them in the RPoL entry? That isn't the place for specifics, it's an entry that should basically contain generalized information on the site (including IMHO the kind of moderation you are likely to find there).Karzak 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you approached the discussion there the same way you are here, then it is clear WHY the argument turned abusive.
And the reason i am asking for proof is simple - Facts should be varifiable - it says so in the Wiki TOC.
"Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable. Your contributions will be licensed under the GFDL.Confused.brit 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
___________________________
Karzak, we are supposed to be discussing the article, and removing bias, not adding more. I'm resetting the wiki to before the debate and keeping it there. Propose the additions you wish to make and PROVE YOUE ALLEGATIONS RE: EMAIL BEFORE INCLUDING THEM.Confused.brit 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ___________________________
Email them to whom?
Here is an email to me from Jase:
From: <admin@rpol.net> To: edit Subject: RE: now that i'm banned 2... Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 00:13:48 +0800
> > I'm 33 (34 in march) you stupid, evasive, immature, liar. > > Bye bye.
If you want full proof of everything it can only be partially proven with email, it will also require full access to RPoL PM's, and these are completely under the control of RPoL moderators who can edit them all they want to before they release them. But this proves that I have recieved abusive emails from Jase.Karzak 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Karzak, I do have some insight into what happened that night because I was in the chat room trying to carry on a conversation with the moderators who had to keep leaving to deal with your posts, even before you took your rants to Heaven. And you were the one instigating the problem; I saw a few of the posts before they were deleted.
1: GMs are not required to close a Wanted Players thread at all, and certainly are not expected to do so within minutes of filling the game.
2: Any site owner has moderators to help him handle problems so that it can be done promptly, and so that he does not log on and have to spend all his time moderating.
3: I do not believe jase sent you anything abusive. He has a dry sense of humour, but he has always seemed more than fair to me.
4: You seem to think the Chamber of Lost Souls is not sufficiently informative. Are you suggesting that the entire logs of any problems should be included? For some that would be HUGE, and for many repeating the content could be against the rules in itself.
An RPoL user, Brianna512
Brianna, a reply to your concerns, one by one:
1. this wasn't minutes, it was 9 hours after filling the game, and in any event this wasn't what I was banned for. Also I think it should be required that a GM edit his post when the game is full, especially when there is a 17 question RTJ that has to include three paragraphs of background like this one had.
And like I said, this wasn't what the ban was for.
2. What is the point in this statement? I think we all know what role moderators play.
3. See my post directly above yours.
4. I'm saying chamber of lost souls should not be written to ridicule someone as it is now, and I also think it needs more info in certain cases, especially if it is to be used for people to judge what is and is not acceptable. Karzak 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Back to the article: If you are so interested in making it fair and unbiased, as you claim, why did you delete any reference that was made to the fact that your additions were the work of a single, disgruntled RPoL user, even after I stopped deleting your additions, and merely started adding that qualifier?
Oh, just FYI. PM's can not be edited. Even mods complain about that.
Please put a sig at the end of your post to make reading easier. To your point, in the first place anyone can look and see who edited what, also to follow your point you would have to note each edit and the relationship of everone making them to RPoL. By pointing out one persons input as "disgruntled" without labling the others as "moderators", "fanboi's", etc... is not a neutral stance in the article.
Also anything in a database can be edited, maybe it's not easy, but it is possible.Karzak 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
---
Okay, Karzak, so, as has been repeatedly requested in this situation. Why not show your evidence for this heavy-handed, abusive moderation style?
From the Chamber of Lost Souls:
"Site ban through 14 January due to inability to let sleeping dogs lie and accusations of bias and lying by a moderator.
Inability to follow simple rules and instructions."
- This to me seems pretty far from abusive, or ridiculing. It's a simple, concise statement as to the reason behind the ban. It doesn't say to me that you were banned for whatever the initial issue was, it says to me, that you were banned because of this repeated spamming of the heaven forum, as though hoping that smothering jase and the moderators with repeated comments, you might get a different outcome. As has been said, jase can't be online 24/7 to deal with your complaints, and therefore he appoints moderators to be his representation when he isn't available for whatever reason. It's a pretty common thing to see - even outside the internet, and in normal business.
I don't see you being ridiculed, I don't see you being abused, so unless you're able to provide evidence to the contrary, I think you should give up now, and - as it says in the Chamber of Lost Souls - let the sleeping dogs lie.
(Edit to repunctuate)
~Jaguar
---
No comment on Jase's email?
Many of the chamber of lost souls posts do ridicule people, with out of context quotes, even the names of the sub-boards go beyond the stated purpose of informing the reasons and existance of a ban and in my opinion constitute ridicule. That being said I never said mine ridiculed me, but I did say it should have more information. If I feel a mod is biased, then saying so in a PM between me and the mod shouldn't lead to a ban IMHO, the fact that it did is what I would lable heavy handed moderation. Also the statement "Inability to follow simple rules and instructions." implies I have a disability, I am able to follow simple rules and instructions obviously, as virtually every human who operates in society day to day can, if the post is going to make such a claim it should have more specifics. The claim is that this is so people will know what is acceptable or not, it should therefore be pointed out that this was in a PM in heaven in an attempt by me to contact Jase that was continually circumvented by three mods. It should point out why the mods felt the need to continue posting in my PM to Jase when the inital infraction was over and moderated. It should point out just what the instructions I failed to follow were, and why this deserved a two week ban as opposed to a two day ban or permaban. Also remember every argument has two sides, this only shows one.Karzak 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
How about you give us the whole conversation. That means the email before that reply, and every email in that conversation.
And well immature, that is certainly not slander. The way you trashed the content of this page merely a few days before your TEMPORARY site ban ended proves that.
Mature people would have waited until their ban was up, then asked for a fair hearing. Confused.brit 00:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I never used the word "disgruntled" in the article, simply pointed out that your comments were the views of a single individual (editing this page) as opposed to being the views of the majority of the people editing the article.
Also, as cb asked, can we see the message you sent to jase to get that response? --Bigbadron 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
--- ---
Regarding Jase's email: You've quite clearly edited the context (something you claim will happen if the RPoL moderators get involved for any purpose). Unless jase just decided to open an email with "I'm 33" for no reason, then there was obviously something previous, in an email from you, no?
That, and the fact that the subject line is "Re:..." again, implying that jase is replying to something you said (which you conveniently didn't include in your own declaration that jase was being 'abusive'.
Second, and on the same point, by the looks of it, this was the final straw. I'm sure that in the first instance, jase, and the RPoL moderators would have been quite patient and calm in dealing with your grievance. As I saida moment ago, part of the reason for your ban was 'inability to let sleeping dogs lie'. Which basically says "We dealt with your complaint, and you couldn't let it go because you didn't get the answer you wanted." What, are they expected to just continue telling you the same thing over and over and over again?
Finally, please tell me you're joking about this 'disability' comment. If you were given simple rules and instructions to follow, and you did NOT follow them, then you demonstrated an inability to follow them. Pretty plainly obvious to me, and nothing abusive or ridiculing there, either, simply a statement of the fact that you did not follow them.
~Jaguar
---
Karzak: You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to include your opinions and/or speculations on the administration of RPOL, I think that's fine and dandy. Wikipedia is for displaying multiple viewpoints.
That said, you should qualify that such statements are only your opinion when you jot them down - or, at the very least, allow another user to qualify them as your opinion for you. Sources to back your opinions are also a good idea (links to what you feel are strictly defaming comments made in the Chamber of Lost Souls, for example, and excerpts from the emails that you recieved).
BBR, Brit, Jag and Brianna: This isn't a platform for debating, and is not the place to lord your opinions over anyone elses (even if you feel that person lacks integrity). Assuming that he qualifies his opinions as opinions, let him state them. Let readers decide for themselves what the administative climate is over at RPOL, rather than forcing negative input off of the page. - Ross Midnight
Karzak: 1: But GMs are *not* required to close a thread, and it's unlikely that will ever be so, however convenient that might be for you. Neither are they required to take done the flag that shows an open game, though most do once they are sure the game is full. Nine hours isn't very long to be sure all accepted applicants will actually work out. And some games require you to apply with a complete history and/or character sheet, without any guarantee you will get in. Also, most GMs, at least experienced ones, don't do first come/first served, so there is never a guarantee you will be accepted into a game even if you are the first applicant. If you think that is too much work on spec, perhaps you should just look for another game. 2: Well, some of us know, but you don't seem to. You appear to think you have the right to deal with jase directly, instead of with his choosed helpers. 3: You keep saying jase was abusive, but I still don't believe it, nor have I seen any evidence of that, in your case or any other. 4. Your Chamber entry does tell why you were banned. Saying a mod is telling lies, and repeatedly trying to go over their heads, is never conducive to a mature dialogue, and the 'simple instructions' were just that. Why should a mod who already has a headache from dealing with someone have to compose a post detailing every bit of what went on? And the only place I see that might be considered 'ridicule' is quotes for the people concerned, none of which would make any more sense 'in context'.
And Ross, he isn't saying that it's his opinion, and edits out anything that is added to say that.
Brianna512
==
Ross, BBR didnt delete his content, he labelled it as being from a singly user who's views did not match the majority.
When these kept being deleted, i stepped in to reword the article to tone down his views to something more in keeping with all sides - which he then deleted.
This gave me no choice then to protect the article at it's least biased state, in an attempt to discuss changes in a rational, adult manner.
Though it would appear that Karzak would prefer to flog this dead horse some more.
One can see why he got banned.Confused.brit 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The email is one source, it isn't edited, it is a reply and if needed I will post the entire email exchange, but it does prove that Jase does send insulting emails, so that isn't opinion.
Being banned for something said on PM in heavan is also not opinion, that is fact. Some may agree that a PM should be a banning ground, I happen to think that a PM between a mod and a member should be a place where both sides can speak their mind honestly without fear of a ban.
If one of the mods at RPoL wants to make the PM's from heaven available to me I'll post them as well, and explain them from my point of view, and use them as proof to back up all my claims.
Some of what I post may be opinion, and I'll happily denote it as such. I would like to have a debate as to what a good moderator should do in any situation in order to moderate it and compare that to how the RPoL moderators acted.
Clearly I have a temper, I also don't believe in a class system, so I don't treat moderators as elite people who are by their very nature better than me. I am pretty sure if given full access to the PM's and chain of events I can make a case that some will still say is entirely my fault, just as some say Jase's email is excused because of whatever came prior (even though they don't know what that was) but I also think my case will give others pause as to just what kind of moderators exist at RPoL, especially neutral people (Of which few exist here).
So how about it Cruinne? Access to the PM's?Karzak 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
---
Actually, Ross, from what my understanding is - Wikipedia states an attempt at NPOV - Neutral Point of View - now I would assume that means that there is an attempt to keep the articles unbiased.
You seem extremely dedicated to ensuring that this single person is heard, and ensuring that a majority group (four to one counts as majority in my books ;)) is unheard! If the talk option here is not for debating the differences of opinion in order to keep the article at a Neutral Point of View, then where is the appropriate platform?
And Karzak - I believe that is what has already been asked for several times - clarification as to what you said in the first instance, to denote that response from jase?
Secondly, a good moderator? This discussion pops up every time someone doesn't get their own way through the moderators of RPoL. The moderators are there as jase's representatives. If he disagreed with them, then I'm sure he would have reinstated you - as it seems, he agrees with their actions, and to me, that's a good moderator - a representative for the administration whose actions are verified by the administrator as being legitimate.
So, I guess, they are good moderators.
~Jaguar
---
Dead horse....
I think we may need to request mediation. Or does this consitute vandalism, by sabotaging the npov? Confused.brit 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Brianna:
1. That game had been closed for 9 hours, it was first come first serve. It should have been edited to say "game closed" simply out of respect and courtesy.
2. I think I have a right to PM Jase without Moderators jumping in to instigate things further.
3. I posted Jase's email. Why do you think it wasn't abusive?
4. At least you can see that there is some basis for ridicule claims, the quotes serve no purpose except to ridicule. If I am accused of telling lies, what lies did I tell? Shouldn't the context be there? And shouldn't it include that this was on PM to add more context? Also, there is nothing in the rules forbidding a PM directly to Jase, is there? What moderation reason is there for mods to interject into a PM to Jase? Why not leave it to see if he chooses to answer or not, instead of using it as an opportunity to instigate?
Should a moderate try to dufuse a situation, or add to it in your opinion?Karzak 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
1. That game had been closed for 9 hours, it was first come first serve. It should have been edited to say "game closed" simply out of respect and courtesy. On this point, you are right. However you had no right to break the rules of players:wanted to abuse the GM for doing so.
2. I think I have a right to PM Jase without Moderators jumping in to instigate things further. Wrong. The Mods are there to answer in Jase's stead when he is not there. And Jase is not online every day - few people who work full time jobs are.
3. I posted Jase's email. Why do you think it wasn't abusive? We reserve judgement until we know the full email conversation. Having spoken to Jase in chat, i know that sort of comment is usually provoked by extreme idiocy.
4. At least you can see that there is some basis for ridicule claims, the quotes serve no purpose except to ridicule. If I am accused of telling lies, what lies did I tell? What lies are you hiding in the first half of that email conversation? Shouldn't the context be there? Same applies. And shouldn't it include that this was on PM to add more context? Also, there is nothing in the rules forbidding a PM directly to Jase, is there? What moderation reason is there for mods to interject into a PM to Jase? Why not leave it to see if he chooses to answer or not, instead of using it as an opportunity to instigate? See point 2.
Confused.brit 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Jag: I am not defending this individual. I'm not familiar with him, or the circumstances surrounding his ban from RPOL.
I am also not saying that you guys shouldn't get to say your piece. You already have - several paragraphs of it thus far, from the looks of the article. Wikipedia isn't about 'majority rule', however, and a NPOV means that every perspective is explored - not simply the positive ones. All that I'm saying is that this user should have the opportunity to speak his mind.
That said, I didn't realize what was actually going-on here. The History makes it quite clear that the gentleman's arguments were never actually outright deleted until he became beligerent.
Apologies. I think this will be the last time I go to bat for someone within the Chamber of Lost Souls.
