These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Favoritism and the IGS
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
When Fleets Collide
#41 - 2016-07-29 02:57:45 UTC
Jason Galente wrote:
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.


Which brings us back to my original point. You feel like everyone needs to be subjected to the same standard for it to be fair. They probably will, however it will be going forwards in time, not backwards. Additionally, a three posted on an open forum is it's own entity, and as such can be targeted for termination, rather than the participants in it.
Felise Selunix
Keyholder Investment Group
#42 - 2016-07-29 04:53:51 UTC
I don't have a chip in the game, but I keep wondering: 'Is there really no other way to deal with someone who's being disruptive than snarking back?' It just seems that that tactic only furthers the derail.

Some people like to say inflammatory things to see if they can get a rise out of people. Still others just have inflammatory personalities for one reason or another. I've never known any grouping of people that hasn't included at least some form of this kind of thing and after awhile, trying to respond tit for tat with it just gets old to me.

I get a lot of Matari related crap from time to time and I'm not interested in giving them any satisfaction for doing it. I swear that if I jumped out of my pants overtime someone tried to bait me with offensive language, I'd spend most of my life running around half naked (which isn't such a bad way to go under the right circumstances).

Point is that when the derailing begins, rather than striking back, or changing the channel, a third possibility is to stay and practice the kind of behavior that I want to see. It's possible to just not go there. In my experience, humor, wit, absurdity, and empathy are good countermeasures to that kind of noise. Just because someone is suggesting that we have an inflammatory conversation, doesn't mean that I have to agree. Negotiation rule #10: Make sure to have the kind of conversation that you want to have.

Unless of course, a back and forth flame war was what I was interested in from the start. If that's the case, I just own it and sell tickets to the thing. It's much less stressful than denying it.
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#43 - 2016-07-29 05:22:06 UTC
As one of the greatest IGS posters of all time, I have decided to share my wisdom on how to deal with an objectionable post.

When you read a thread, and encounter a post you do not like, then, this is one way in which to respond:

Objectionable Post wrote:
Objectionable Content

Your Response wrote:
Nothing


An alternative method, which can sometimes be employed in difficult situations is this:

Objectionable Post wrote:
Objectionable Content

Your Response wrote:
Zing !


These, and other strategies, can be successfully used to ensure a quality posting atmosphere.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Karina Ivanovich
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2016-07-29 05:42:03 UTC
Valerie Valate wrote:
As one of the greatest IGS posters of all time, I have decided to share my wisdom on how to deal with an objectionable post.

When you read a thread, and encounter a post you do not like, then, this is one way in which to respond:

Objectionable Post wrote:
Objectionable Content

Your Response wrote:
Nothing


An alternative method, which can sometimes be employed in difficult situations is this:

Objectionable Post wrote:
Objectionable Content

Your Response wrote:
Zing !


These, and other strategies, can be successfully used to ensure a quality posting atmosphere.



Nothing


/s

Some call me insane. If the universe is sane, then I embrace that label.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#45 - 2016-07-29 07:35:22 UTC
Jason Galente wrote:

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.

Quite a tantrum you are making for being fine with a fair warning.

You are right though, such discrepancy is indeed unfair. So in the name of fairness and consistency OP should get a ban or a warning and this thread should be locked.
Aux Aliette
DED
#46 - 2016-07-29 10:25:20 UTC
The warning issued by the CRC was left open to discuss its content.

Refrain from creating further threads.

IGS Communications Director  ||  Directive Enforcement Department  ||  CONCORD Assembly
Previous page123