Regarding the Arc-V 46 Thread and the Forum's Warning System

[闇の女王ヤミ]

Well, Raku, we try our best to detemine what trolling /flamebaiting is. As I said before, each of TKs single posts - statements - if it happens once in a while, we wouldn't bother. People discuss things and get witty and snarky and make up again, sometimes discussions get heated and so on, no problem, as people talk to each other, can come to one or the other conclusion or at least respect each others point. It is the tone, the attitude, these statements give off that I think are harassing. Especially to people who dont share the opinion, not because of the opinion itself, but of the way it is put.
Did I manage to explain...?

[NeoArkadia]

So a moderator could just walk into this thread and ban Ragna for no reason other than "I think he's trying to get a rise out of everyone by not agreeing" and then there's nothing he can do about it.

No. A moderator could give you a warning, no for not agreeing, but based on the concept you're intentionally trying to repeat behaviors meant to lower the enjoyment of the forum for everyone else involved. We do not ban for one post. We ultimately ban for repeat behaviors. You and Ragna seem to be ignoring this: Negative repetitive behaviors as determined by the staff is why we ban.

Haven't you read through this thread? What we do on pojo is of great import, apparently. That's why I got my ban, isn't it? Because of how I am on pojo?

Incorrect. "The public persona you generate and cultivate ultimately affects how you end up being treated if you repeat the behavior here." It's not Pojo, but the public persona you cultivate can and will come back to bite you if you continue to repeat that public persona and the negative behaviors associated with it.

How does this logic even work?

It doesn't.

[TerrorKingA]

Who can tell that post you made on Ark's thread is strictly meant to be a joke?

Does it matter? I'm sure

"Thoughts on 50 shades of grey?"

is somehow a more deserving question than mine?

As well as people answering questions in a thread where only one person is supposed to be answering questions?

Anyway, all of that is irrelevant since I didn't break any rules by asking that. Please, don't pm me anymore. You're not a friend. I won't entertain your posts any further, lest the point of this thread be lost.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And, you know, I want my apology, or at the very least GoldenUmi stepping down, or all three mods taking accountability for their obvious lapse in judgment in how that situation was handled.

No. A moderator could give you a warning, no for not agreeing, but based on the concept you're intentionally trying to repeat behaviors meant to lower the enjoyment of the forum for everyone else involved. We do not ban for one post. We ultimately ban for repeat behaviors. You and Ragna seem to be ignoring this: Negative repetitive behaviors as determined by the staff is why we ban.

So disagreeing is a "behavior meant to lower the enjoyment of the forum for everyone"? It would be nice if you put that in the forum rules, so others and myself may know this and it not be some arbitrary thing that a mod can decide.

It's not Pojo, but the public persona you cultivate can and will come back to bite you if you continue to repeat that public persona and the negative behaviors associated with it.

In other words, what I say on pojo somehow matters for how I'm treated here. Which is the same thing that I said before. Maybe put that in the rules too.

Let's see: on pojo I mention how shitty Yugioh and Konami are. I mention how brain-dead the fandom of the card game is. On NAC I mention that I don't like certain things about Arc-V and that I love Bleach.

I'm not seeing the connection.

[MaKo]

Okay, I'm going to step in here because I think there's some misunderstanding about what's going on here due to egos and some less than clear explanations.

Terrorking, you weren't being "targeted." The reason mods stepped in were due to post reports that were sent and you weren't the only one who got warned. The only reason you got a day long suspension was due to the fact that it turned out to be your third and automatically did it. In terms of "history" or whatever, I know for myself I don't really care about it. That's not what I look at and I know the main thing was that due to what went down in that thread and the reports, the mods felt warnings needed to be dished out due to the complaints and it just happened. Honestly it's not that big of a deal since now your user status refreshed now.

Now here's the thing. *I* get your posting style, and those who *know* you and conversate with you get your posting style. Those who only see you when you peek into an Arc-V thread and then give your thoughts on why you have a problem with it, don't. It looks like you just came in there, lobbed a grenade, and then whoops, shit gets started. It's the joys of the internet, people read things differently and what may seem like just a statement comes across harsher than it may seem. Especially when the pattern is you mostly show up to give negative feedback and then leave unless it's to confront others and then spar with them over Arc-V and stuff. We could go round and round about people being too butthurt/fanboy/etc but I'm just stating it how it is. And clearly there are miscommunications/misinterpretations going around about how you sound and I seriously doubt it's a conspiracy or whatever.

So how about this to resolve this dispute, and move on. If you want to leave or feel the forum's not a good fit for you, I understand and that's your choice. But I'll go ahead and apologize for the hard feelings, making you feel targeted and bringing up shit from pojo. That wasn't the intention of giving you the warning and I know you feel upset over locking horns with one of the mods.

In the future then, just keep in mind that when we try to keep a thread on topic and moderate, we're not targeting you or anybody. Trolling is subjective and while I may not think so, and people who know you may not think so, it's not just based on those opinions. Since the people in the thread and moderators watching Arc-V's section are there, they know how the threads flow and how the discussion fits there, so they make those moderating decisions, try to keep it pleasant and keep the thread in check. So don't just think it's up to us or people are automatically going to just assume the best each time. They go by the posts and what they see. So you need to be aware of what your posts and actions look like and try to temper that with either context or just modify it.

[闇の女王ヤミ]

TK, you're the king, all bow to you? Humbly? Satisfaction? The glove?

I don't know, in what delusions you drift, but I rather bite my tongue to not say what I think.

[Ragna]

You and Ragna seem to be ignoring this: Negative repetitive behaviors as determined by the staff is why we ban.

Woah. Hold up. Look man, I know how the system works. I'm saying that the warnings issued in this thread were wrong and largely unwarranted. The system used to make the decisions to warn people is full of holes that I keep bringing up and only get met with "Well, Terrorking is an asshole so..." from the staff.

[闇の女王ヤミ]

Ragna, it is always easy to blame 'bullshit rules', 'unclear' and then go 'this was personal'. How would you formulate more clear rules?

[TerrorKingA]

Thanks, Mako. I'm satisfied with that.

[Ragna]

Ragna, it is always easy to blame 'bullshit rules', 'unclear' and then go 'this was personal'. How would you formulate more clear rules?

You want me to answer that on the spot and by myself?

[闇の女王ヤミ]

Ragna, it is always easy to blame 'bullshit rules', 'unclear' and then go 'this was personal'. How would you formulate more clear rules?

You want me to answer that on the spot and by myself?

Not on the spot, I know, this probably is a lot asked. But if you have ideas, how that could be handled better, in a general way, why not give them?

[NeoArkadia]

As to the rest of the thread: Master Ghost got warned. Revise got warned. Probably one or two other members got warned. Why weren't they banned? First warning. As mentioned in the first post.

So disagreeing is a "behavior meant to lower the enjoyment of the forum for everyone"? It would be nice if you put that in the forum rules, so others and myself may know this and it not be some arbitrary thing that a mod can decide.

Except, it will always be for a mod to decide. Trolling is inherently a subjective issue based on inductive reasoning. i.e. "A Duck Test". There can't be a hard metric on this.

The system used to make the decisions to warn people is full of holes that I keep bringing up and only get met with "Well, Terrorking is an asshole so..." from the staff.

"If it looks like a troll, swims like a troll and quacks like a troll, then it's probably a troll.". I'm not sure what you want. We cannot provide a hard metric for trolling. Trolling is a subjective determination. I apologize if that bothers both you and TerrorKing but trolling is going to remain a loose metric.

As Mako said, the determination of behavior via the mods is going to be subjective based on our rules. Do we need to update rules? Probably, but we are waiting to do that on a larger scale (i.e. we have a certain event we've been waiting for to let us overhaul them, but certain things in the background has been holding that back), but at the same time, the lack of certain items is not going to be allowed to paralyze the ability of a moderator or administrator to dispense warnings and bans.

If and when we do update the rules, not every little item of minutia is going to be clarified. Are there parts of the rules that could use fleshing out? Yes. But there also needs to be some level of flexibility in the rules in case of situations.

[Arynis]

Considering the affected party in question (Terrorking) is satisfied with the answer he got, I'm going to close this thread. If there are any other matters anyone wants to ask, we're open to PM discussions.