Ok...Sculli wtf? - take 2 (was: This wasn't addressed right)

[isajeep]

Once I said, "thats funny" about someones post and Sculli said something about that breaking a rule and said STFU, blah blah I'm a mod.

I've never met a mod who doesn't act like a dick now and then.

 

[Legomyeggo]

This thread will end up the same way all of the other "I don't believe in the action (Insert mod's name here) took" threads ended. They'll tell us it's what they thought was best and that they don't want to see crap on their board and that we can always go to another Quetzalcoatl board(Knowing that isn't a viable option). Whether we like it or not, this is the only quetzalcoatl board and it's got us by the balls.

12345

 

[isajeep]

Seriously, its all about what Neo said.

You can argue with a mod and no matter how right you are, in the end they will just say "STFU I'm the mod". They are always right because they are mods, not because they are actually right. Unless you are somehow helping host the site or contribute to the site itself, you are just in a tardboat with the rest of us and mods can do WTF they want.

 

[Sculli]

As a final note to that, the flame in which these complaints were brought up was locked at three pages; now, I'm sure that's just a sort of triumphant flourish that Sculli executed, feeling like he'd won the day when nobody disagreed strongly with his response on page 1. But that's just the thing.

Actually, the reason the Ok...Sculli wtf? thread was locked is because it seemed to go off-topic with the whole "so no one likes Rhine" comment. That particular issue was a done deal.

You are free to post about me whatever you like. You will be hard pressed to find any thread on QCDN that bashes me that's locked unless there is rampant thread crapping in it. As long as posts stay on topic you are free to have at it.

The first bit is not useful

Perhaps you should re-read it, because it seems to me that you missed the joke. I just demonstrated some classic Flameboard post while mentioning that it was just for kicks and not really my argument.

asks that nobody comment on what he's written, only think about it. This seems like we're being asked to reflect on how true what Sculli is saying must be; it seems to say that if we just think about it long enough, we'll come around

You were being asked to reflect on what I wrote and make a decision for yourself whether it is true or not. The answer to the question asked isn't up for discussion, thus there is no need to post it. Posting it would just result in endless posts like "You are wrong!" "No, you are" "No, you!" etc. etc.

Everyone needs to make their own choices, and it's not my place to tell people what those choices ought to be. The answer to the question asked would come from what I would consider one of the fundemental values one has. Elsewhere on this board it was established that those values vary from people to people. Arguing those values is largely wasted time, as this is something that will not easily change just because someone on a message board out there on the Internet doesn't like one's values.

One's values is an extremely personal thing, I really couldn't think of anything more personal that the things that govern the way we live our lives. I wouldn't expect a discussion of those on here, or anywhere really. You are of course free to make a new thread (I would put it in General) and either copy and paste my question, or use your own words to start a discussion about a hypothetical situation similar to the one that was at hand.

did he know what Tyrath was thinking?

I am not sure what it is you are asking. I read what Tyrath wrote. I understood what he meant, he did articulate himself clearly. He saw no justification in locking the threads, an action which he preceived as punishing everyone who made plans for that event. So, does that qualify me to answer your question with "Yes"?

 

[Sculli]

I have just re-opened the original thread.
I have merged the original thread with the new thread made by Valoran.
I have removed a post by Fitzgerald attempting to derail this into a 'no one like rhine'-thread, and I have removed a post by passions pointing to a previous rhine thread.
I think we are back on Sculli-flame track and no content relevant to that was lost.

 

[Valoran]

Actually, the reason the Ok...Sculli wtf? thread was locked is because it seemed to go off-topic with the whole "so no one likes Rhine" comment. That particular issue was a done deal.

You are free to post about me whatever you like. You will be hard pressed to find any thread on QCDN that bashes me that's locked unless there is rampant thread crapping in it. As long as posts stay on topic you are free to have at it.

Perhaps you should re-read it, because it seems to me that you missed the joke. I just demonstrated some classic Flameboard post while mentioning that it was just for kicks and not really my argument.

You were being asked to reflect on what I wrote and make a decision for yourself whether it is true or not. The answer to the question asked isn't up for discussion, thus there is no need to post it. Posting it would just result in endless posts like "You are wrong!" "No, you are" "No, you!" etc. etc.

Everyone needs to make their own choices, and it's not my place to tell people what those choices ought to be. The answer to the question asked would come from what I would consider one of the fundemental values one has. Elsewhere on this board it was established that those values vary from people to people. Arguing those values is largely wasted time, as this is something that will not easily change just because someone on a message board out there on the Internet doesn't like one's values.

One's values is an extremely personal thing, I really couldn't think of anything more personal that the things that govern the way we live our lives. I wouldn't expect a discussion of those on here, or anywhere really. You are of course free to make a new thread (I would put it in General) and either copy and paste my question, or use your own words to start a discussion about a hypothetical situation similar to the one that was at hand.

I am not sure what it is you are asking. I read what Tyrath wrote. I understood what he meant, he did articulate himself clearly. He saw no justification in locking the threads, an action which he preceived as punishing everyone who made plans for that event. So, does that qualify me to answer your question with "Yes"?

/shrug

I'm content to see the thread reopened. I do think that a number of those actions were a bit of a departure from a fairly professional board; I think the solution of reopening the thread is fine.

I still think the original point holds clear that the mod did act on his own beliefs and values, rather than some value stated in the goals of the board. This is the only really worthwhile complaint; the odd attempt to mix humor and serious discussion in a flameboard response doesn't bother me as much.

 

[Sculli]

I still think the original point holds clear that the mod did act on his own beliefs and values, rather than some value stated in the goals of the board.

Now there is something worth discussing.

You bring up a good point, which is that QCDN doesn't have a mission statement per se. I have been meaning to add one for some time, but yeah, it's on the long list of things to do.

You can probably find a thread somewhere that says something along the lines of "QCDN's purpose is to provide a venue for FFXI Quetzalcoatal players to interact outside of the game", or some such. That's pretty vague.

I did take specific action based on my belief.
At seems to me that your problem is with me doing that without to have the backing of a previously published rule that I would have written for such situations. Would establishing such rules remedy the problem? If not, what other remedies would you suggest?

We can probably agree on that it is difficult to establish policy for every possible scenario. Our daily lives are covered by so many rules that have been in place for decades or centuries, yet still people manage to find ways to slip through a loophole in those rules.

I have always tried to run QCDN with as few rules as possible, and I am not really willing to change that on a whim unless there are very serious matters to consider. The more rules there are, the less people read them, and thus everyone and their child ends up in violation of some sort of rule paragraph C section 3(a), which makes enforecement a nightmare to a degree that it isn't done. Then people start complaining when something actually gets enforced, along the lines of "Well if XYZ can do this and that which is against the rules, why did I get the shaft when doing something similar?". It just slips from there.

I did see merit in locking the threads instead of just referencing that there is an issue with one of the members. Such reference without a lock may have lead to replys that would have been Flameboard material. I didn't want the Event Scheduling threads to end up on the FB since the event was still on, while I did want to inform people who were planing to attend the event of the possibility of having a problematic player among them.

 

[Valoran]

I did take specific action based on my belief.
At seems to me that your problem is with me doing that without to have the backing of a previously published rule that I would have written for such situations. Would establishing such rules remedy the problem? If not, what other remedies would you suggest?
. . .
I have always tried to run QCDN with as few rules as possible, and I am not really willing to change that on a whim unless there are very serious matters to consider. The more rules there are, the less people read them, and thus everyone and their child ends up in violation of some sort of rule paragraph C section 3(a), which makes enforecement a nightmare to a degree that it isn't done. Then people start complaining when something actually gets enforced, along the lines of "Well if XYZ can do this and that which is against the rules, why did I get the shaft when doing something similar?". It just slips from there.

I think you've got the crux of it above. What seemed unusual about the whole thing was that the board generally operates based on players sorting things out for themselves. It seemed like in this case, the moderator stepped in and adjudicated before any discussion took place. That happens frequently when someone flames a linkshell recruiting thread or something, but to stop someone from scheduling an event because of your view of them is on a different scale.

Anyone other than a mod might have written, "Word of warning; this person has a reputation for not running events well." or something to that effect.

I guess I feel this way: if the moderation of qcdn feels that its place is to "protect" people by keeping qcdn members away from people who will "screw them over," why let those people post at all? If qcdn is saying "let the players judge," on the other hand, I think Sculli et al should make an effort to treat those situations like any other player would have to.

To disclaim this, I obviously wasn't able to read the original conflict, as it was gone, and I don't feel particularly strongly that things were too far out of bounds; I'm mostly dealing with the abstracts. Sculli's always been up for a discussion of those, though, and may as well keep it public. Seems like nobody else is particularly interested, so this probably isn't too big of an issue.