These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Favoritism and the IGS

Author
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#21 - 2016-07-28 18:30:54 UTC
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Who was banned?

Also, impartial moderation never seems fair when you're on the receiving end, as everyone is biased towards themselves.


Actually, I think I've been rather fair about this. I broke the rules, I got a warning. Fine. Now give similar warnings for similar breaking of said rule.


QED
Slayer Liberator
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2016-07-28 18:35:40 UTC
Vizage wrote:
The very fact that moderators should have to step in (even though Im all for it.) Is kind of an indictment of our own failures in self moderation.

While I typically only post here on occasion and usually reserve my time here to reading interesting topics (mostly Arc these days.) I can't help but notice many of the people in here complaining about consistency in moderation are also the people who practice the least amount of self moderation themselves.

Many of you here are guilty of being the primary agitators in egging "you know who" on either through surreptitious summoning acts by sprinkling in random insult towards her which you know will only draw her in to derail an entire threat, or by actively engaging with her when she fires off in whatever toxic hate-filled diatribe she chooses.

The sad fact is that we have the tools to deal with this problem ourselves but we don't. Either because we're happy to collect free brownie points of good will standing up against the archetypal villain of this drama, or simply because our fragile ego's are too weak to withstand a moronic blow from the village idiot.

You want to clean this place up?

Stop engaging with trolls. It takes responders to derail a thread. They can't do it alone.

Regards,

K. Amsel

I admit that I have said some baiting posts toward her and I apologize to her for those posts
Jaret Victorian
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#23 - 2016-07-28 19:00:02 UTC
I can agree with what Vizage says, a very well structured statement. Also, to my shame, I admit that I sort of contributed to this problem.

However, I come here every day for two things: to bring people information or to read some dumb or good jokes. Personally, I get enough toxicity in other places, I really don't want to see someone's insecurities here for a ****ing year. Many approaches were tried (and I don't really know why I cared about it so much), but nothing changed. Just my 0.2 ISK.
Doctor Gallento
Doctor Gallento - the Rock'n'Roll Clown
#24 - 2016-07-28 19:16:12 UTC
You should donate some Crash as motivation and ISK for the costs to my organization and I'll think about making a song about this injustice. Together we can raise awareness.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#25 - 2016-07-28 20:03:37 UTC
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Who was banned?

Also, impartial moderation never seems fair when you're on the receiving end, as everyone is biased towards themselves.


Actually, I think I've been rather fair about this. I broke the rules, I got a warning. Fine. Now give similar warnings for similar breaking of said rule.

Do you expect personal report from IGS Communications Director to whom he gave out warnings, really.
Claudia Osyn
Non-Hostile Target
Wild Geese.
#26 - 2016-07-28 20:29:56 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Who was banned?

Also, impartial moderation never seems fair when you're on the receiving end, as everyone is biased towards themselves.


Actually, I think I've been rather fair about this. I broke the rules, I got a warning. Fine. Now give similar warnings for similar breaking of said rule.

Do you expect personal report from IGS Communications Director to whom he gave out warnings, really.

Only I get those. Never read them, no need to know any details beyond "problem identified and solved"

A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

Yarosara Ruil
#27 - 2016-07-28 21:22:58 UTC
Here's an idea. Just hear this out!

Stop provoking Kim, stop taking advantage of her personality and stop taking it so personal that she hates all things Gallente. You will not convince her otherwise, and making it a personal quest to "prove her misconceptions wrong" just makes everyone else facepalm. Repeatedly.

If you stop taking things so seriously, she is a treat to talk and interact with.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#28 - 2016-07-28 21:46:19 UTC
Yarosara Ruil wrote:
Here's an idea. Just hear this out!

Stop provoking Kim, stop taking advantage of her personality and stop taking it so personal that she hates all things Gallente. You will not convince her otherwise, and making it a personal quest to "prove her misconceptions wrong" just makes everyone else facepalm. Repeatedly.

If you stop taking things so seriously, she is a treat to talk and interact with.

Ma'am, I would be glad if someone actually tried to prove me something.

Unfortunately, most things I see from the trolls is their insults and lies about me (or about Caldari fallen soldiers).

And with these kind of people... I'll prefer them to not speak at all. At least until they learn how to speak politely and respectfully.


And what is more funny, some even stupid enough to blame me in turning threads into threads 'about myself', while it is them who start to speak about me, or discuss my person instead of my words.

Just look at this exact thread. First it was quite infamous gallentean, who mentioned my name, just in the first commend. Second goes a coward and liar, who is widely known for publically lying about me on multiple occasions. I am not really inclined to keep that going.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.

Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#29 - 2016-07-28 22:23:20 UTC
So-- it's all our fault, Ms. Ruil?

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?

Yarosara Ruil
#30 - 2016-07-28 22:36:03 UTC
Makoto Priano wrote:
So-- it's all our fault, Ms. Ruil?


If the cap fits, wear it.
Makoto Priano
Kirkinen-Arataka Transhuman Zenith Consulting Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#31 - 2016-07-28 22:38:02 UTC
I'd have to say this one's a bit 'one size fits all,' to be honest.

Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries: exploring the edge of the known, advancing the state of the art. Would you like to know more?

Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2016-07-28 23:54:50 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Who was banned?

Also, impartial moderation never seems fair when you're on the receiving end, as everyone is biased towards themselves.


Actually, I think I've been rather fair about this. I broke the rules, I got a warning. Fine. Now give similar warnings for similar breaking of said rule.


QED


Are you trying to imply that my response itself is proof of your argument with no further argument as to why? That would be circular logic, specifically, begging the question. Unfalsifiable, therefor unreasonable assumption to make.

I indicated I was fine with it as an application of the rules, and merely added that all similar cases should be treated similarly. That would imply that my response actually refutes your claim that "impartial moderation never seems fair when you're on the receiving end". The moderation was perfectly fair. The problem is that it was insufficient because it was targeted at only one offender where multiple offenders existed. And that discrepancy is what would be unfair. Not the application, but the inconsistent application.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost

Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2016-07-28 23:58:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jason Galente
Vizage wrote:

Many of you here are guilty of being the primary agitators in egging "you know who" on either through surreptitious summoning acts by sprinkling in random insult towards her which you know will only draw her in to derail an entire threat, or by actively engaging with her when she fires off in whatever toxic hate-filled diatribe she chooses.


This is a very odd argument for me. The language you use in referring to "her" is so kid-gloved.. it's as if you're talking to a child who has yet to reach the age of maturity. Kim is an adult who is fully responsible for her actions and the consequences of those actions. She doesn't get a pass, and the rest of us should be held to the same standard as her. The very fact that she is the single consistent thread in all of this tells you really what you need to know, full stop. This is something The Summit moderation figured out and specifically argued 2 years ago when getting rid of her.

It is a reflection of some bizarre priorities when we start pussyfooting around with someone who threatens to kill the children of those she dislikes and prays for their fetuses to be stillborn (Literia), openly admits rather coldly that she would watch while Templis Dragonaurs slaughtered Gallentean civilians (referring to it as "their job"), in defiance of a Caldari Navy standing order (the authority which she so adamantly professes to yield to), and attempts to come up with flimsy excuses for terrorist attacks that killed an entire city of innocent civilians, referring to those who did at as "cultural preservers" and saying that they should not be considered terrorists.

Aux Aliette, if you're reading the evidence in those threads and you choose to do nothing about it, shame on you, especially since it is merely a very, very tiny part of a 2 year trend of harassment, vitriol, threats, violence, and pure hatred. Especially while you warn me for daring to suggest that these sorts of statements are so distasteful that they should be voluntarily filtered out at the discretion of the fluid router channel user.

I will apologize to Diana Kim for NOTHING. And if any of you really have such priorities to suggest that I owe someone like that any such apology, I would say that you have messed up priorities. Beyond the point, I don't know why any of you are apologizing to someone like that, dignifying her ego and further feeding her delusions that it's everyone else and not her. This will only feed the fire.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost

Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#34 - 2016-07-29 00:17:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ria Nieyli
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Who was banned?

Also, impartial moderation never seems fair when you're on the receiving end, as everyone is biased towards themselves.


Actually, I think I've been rather fair about this. I broke the rules, I got a warning. Fine. Now give similar warnings for similar breaking of said rule.


QED


Are you trying to imply that my response itself is proof of your argument with no further argument as to why? That would be circular logic, specifically, begging the question. Unfalsifiable, therefor unreasonable assumption to make.

I indicated I was fine with it as an application of the rules, and merely added that all similar cases should be treated similarly. That would imply that my response actually refutes your claim that "impartial moderation never seems fair when you're on the receiving end". The moderation was perfectly fair. The problem is that it was insufficient because it was targeted at only one offender where multiple offenders existed. And that discrepancy is what would be unfair. Not the application, but the inconsistent application.


Apparently, moderation will be stricter from now on. You, however, are calling for retroactive application of said stricter control and calling the lack of it inconsistant. How am I supposed to interpret that?
Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2016-07-29 00:25:53 UTC
Yarosara Ruil wrote:
Here's an idea. Just hear this out!

Stop provoking Kim, stop taking advantage of her personality and stop taking it so personal that she hates all things Gallente.


That is terrifically easy for you to say.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost

Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2016-07-29 00:35:08 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:


Apparently, moderation will be stricter from now on. You, however, are calling for retroactive application of said stricter control and calling the lack of it inconsistant. How am I supposed to interpret that?


His shutting down of my thread was already a retroactive application of said stricter control. Check the dates.

All I am asking is for him to be consistent.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost

James Syagrius
Luminaire Sovereign Solutions
#37 - 2016-07-29 01:00:31 UTC
James Syagrius wrote:
What is of particular concern to me is ‘whose code’? Who gets to choose?].

And this... is the very thing I alluded to in a previous discussion.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#38 - 2016-07-29 01:19:42 UTC
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:


Apparently, moderation will be stricter from now on. You, however, are calling for retroactive application of said stricter control and calling the lack of it inconsistant. How am I supposed to interpret that?


His shutting down of my thread was already a retroactive application of said stricter control. Check the dates.

All I am asking is for him to be consistent.


Or maybe your thread is what prompted the warning from Mr. Auliette, and since content in it didn't improve afterwards, it was used as a warning to everyone.
Jason Galente
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2016-07-29 01:58:54 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
Jason Galente wrote:
Ria Nieyli wrote:


Apparently, moderation will be stricter from now on. You, however, are calling for retroactive application of said stricter control and calling the lack of it inconsistant. How am I supposed to interpret that?


His shutting down of my thread was already a retroactive application of said stricter control. Check the dates.

All I am asking is for him to be consistent.


Or maybe your thread is what prompted the warning from Mr. Auliette.


I very highly doubt that judging by the content/demeanor of it compared to, again, pretty much any thread of the last two years.

Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole. And this foundation must be defended.

At any cost

John Revenent
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#40 - 2016-07-29 02:23:25 UTC
Capsuleers these days..

Ishukone Loyalist - Private Contractor

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

Previous page123Next page