In the words of the great Scandinavian philosopher, Elsa, "Let it go".
I'm enjoying this thread being back to tin foil and crackpot theories. With the odd one that even makes sense...
To be brutally honest, I think the name and shame thing is total rubbish. Just a perfect example of people in the modern world not willing to accept responsibility for their own actions. But I digress.
So the run-down on the censorship is basically "We can trash talk Harry Potter, because he isn't going to cry and report posts for hurting his fee-fees, but if we talk about CoR then we better be praising them to high heavens."
Got it.
Edit:
Or rather, We can't "name-and-shame" anyone from CoR. But HP and other posts on previous pages where there's been direct "naming and shaming" is fine.
Could the Volunteer Mods at least provide a post that explains reasoning behind why posts were removed, and why some that were unrelated or not in violation of any forum rules were removed also? I'd feel that would be much more wise than to just censor the forum without explanation. Given your voluntary position, I can understand that you're not really "working" so you don't need to do a complete "job", but it's pretty much common decency to explain what's going on before it's been noted as blatant censorship. Shouldn't this of been explained to you Volunteer Mods when you asked for the role? In the chapter titled "How to conduct official business without causing confusion or disarray within the community"?
The few communities I have seen, or heard of, where silent censorship has been a tool of Moderators, Voluntary or not, those communities either did not last very long or did not retain a good reputation towards the staff for very long.
Basically, because of the silent censorship, you're immediately raising red flags and giving the impression that you're willing to white-knight for priveleged members of the forum whilst allowing slander of other members to continue. I've seen a lot of negativity towards Harry Potter. Do you allow this simply because you share a common view-point and allow that Bias to overrule your acting judgement?
You're wasting your time expecting consistency, rational decisions or explanations. Everyone knows what happens when humans are shielded from criticism or acountability. And its exactly like that.
So the run-down on the censorship is basically "We can trash talk Harry Potter, because he isn't going to cry and report posts for hurting his fee-fees, but if we talk about CoR then we better be praising them to high heavens."
Got it.
Edit:
Or rather, We can't "name-and-shame" anyone from CoR. But HP and other posts on previous pages where there's been direct "naming and shaming" is fine.
Could the Volunteer Mods at least provide a post that explains reasoning behind why posts were removed, and why some that were unrelated or not in violation of any forum rules were removed also? I'd feel that would be much more wise than to just censor the forum without explanation. Given your voluntary position, I can understand that you're not really "working" so you don't need to do a complete "job", but it's pretty much common decency to explain what's going on before it's been noted as blatant censorship. Shouldn't this of been explained to you Volunteer Mods when you asked for the role? In the chapter titled "How to conduct official business without causing confusion or disarray within the community"?
The few communities I have seen, or heard of, where silent censorship has been a tool of Moderators, Voluntary or not, those communities either did not last very long or did not retain a good reputation towards the staff for very long.
Further Edit because this issue annoys me to hell:
Basically, because of the silent censorship, you're immediately raising red flags and giving the impression that you're willing to white-knight for priveleged members of the forum whilst allowing slander of other members to continue. I've seen a lot of negativity towards Harry Potter. Do you allow this simply because you share a common view-point and allow that Bias to overrule your acting judgement?
Final point:
I haven't recieved any warnings for posts that I made that were deleted, so I believe I didn't do anything wrong. However, I won't use this "I did nothing wrong" excuse to just turn a blind eye to indecent Volunteer moderation. Please explain yourselves.
My initial post on the subject contained text against forum rules, so was removed. A lot of subesquent posts included this, or talked about this, so I assume were removed too because of this.
Not allowed to question mod actions in the forums, only by private messages with them directly.
Children of Raxxla have removed my membership status due to inactivity and I am now an "ambassador" with virtually no access anymore to their Discord channels.
Well ... welcome to the Ambassador's channel, I guess. You can hang out with low-life scum like myself.
I stepped down from CoR to found the Earth Expeditionary Fleet as I wanted to start a group that focused on the Lore like CoR does but with the Federal flair.
In the words of the great Scandinavian philosopher, Else, "Let it go".
I'm enjoying this thread being back to tin foil and crackpot theories. With the odd one that even makes sense...
To be brutally honest, I think the name and shame thing is total rubbish. Just a perfect example of people in the modern world not willing to accept responsibility for their own actions. But I digress.
My initial post on the subject contained text against forum rules, so was removed. A lot of subesquent posts included this, or talked about this, so I assume were removed too because of this.
Not allowed to question mod actions in the forums, only by private messages with them directly.
I'm sure my opinion means very little, but this is such a backwards rule. In an open community, I think the actions of moderators or volunteer moderators should be very closely observed and freely discussed to promote the open form of communication. Rather than take issues "behind the scenes", as it were.
I understand why your posts and my post and other posts related to your post were removed and that in itself is fair given the content, but it's the process of their removal and (what I'd call) ignorance -- to other similar issues regarding attitudes towards other persons -- that really doesn't sit right with me.
Really wanted to hear Salome's speech to see if it followed through with the Kahina theme.
If it did we'd know which way to bounce when the "twist" appears.
The author has mentioned there is still the twist to come. [2.4 surprise?]
There's some irony in a story so steeped in myth C.o.R not recognizing they're trapped in it.
Godhead is always by self-anointment which is bound to lead to a little blindness.
Did make me realize though Greek, Egyptian, Vedic, et al myth are all son chips overthrowing dad chimps to get the babes.
That's the main story, details vary.
... Or rather, We can't "name-and-shame" anyone from CoR. But HP and other posts on previous pages where there's been direct "naming and shaming" is fine.
That isn't "exactly" true. I've seen posts where certain members of SDC have been mentioned by name and the post was moderated under the naming and shaming rule. The reality is that you can usually get away with naming and shaming anyone on the forums up until the moment someone reports it.
Once reported the Mods strike hard and fast.
The moderators simply can't read every post of every thread. If you see a case of naming and shaming on the forums and don't report it then you're part of the reason why some instances of naming and shaving slide by and others don't. I think that one of the reasons why we see more instances of N&S regarding SDC slip by is because members of the community are simply less likely to report them ... and, lets face it, after the April 29th event the moderators would have had to deleted 75% of the forum posts for days in order to curb naming and shaming of one particular member of SDC.
Talking about moderation though ... when are they going to take down that nasty "Spoiler" warning on our thread? Wasn't that applied just for the discussion of the listening posts in Teorge? That's now public and on GalNet, right? If we ARE going to have a perpetual warning on this thread I suggest a minor edit:
"NOTICE: This thread may contain tinfoil. The tinfoil may not be properly tagged in this thread. If you do not like tinfoil, it is advised to not view this thread."
That isn't "exactly" true. I've seen posts where certain members of SDC have been mentioned by name and the post was moderated under the naming and shaming rule. The reality is that you can usually get away with naming and shaming anyone on the forums up until the moment someone reports it.
Once reported the Mods strike hard and fast.
The moderators simply can't read every post of every thread. If you see a case of naming and shaming on the forums and don't report it then you're part of the reason why some instances of naming and shaving slide by and others don't. I think that one of the reasons why we see more instances of N&S regarding SDC slip by is because members of the community are simply less likely to report them ... and, lets face it, after the April 29th event the moderators would have had to deleted 75% of the forum posts for days in order to curb naming and shaming of one particular member of SDC.
Talking about moderation though ... when are they going to take down that nasty "Spoiler" warning on our thread? Wasn't that applied just for the discussion of the listening posts in Teorge? That's now public and on GalNet, right? If we ARE going to have a perpetual warning on this thread I suggest a minor edit:
"NOTICE: This thread may contain tinfoil. The tinfoil may not be properly tagged in this thread. If you do not like tinfoil, it is advised to not view this thread."
Talking about moderation though ... when are they going to take down that nasty "Spoiler" warning on our thread? Wasn't that applied just for the discussion of the listening posts in Teorge? That's now public and on GalNet, right? If we ARE going to have a perpetual warning on this thread I suggest a minor edit:
"NOTICE: This thread may contain tinfoil. The tinfoil may not be properly tagged in this thread. If you do not like tinfoil, it is advised to not view this thread."
I asked the mods to remove this last week, and again earlier today. Apparently they can't frontier need to step in and do it. Request has been passed up.
I asked the mods to remove this last week, and again earlier today. Apparently they can't frontier need to step in and do it. Request has been passed up.
As my previous post and it's replies were removed for reported violation, here is a sanitised version for those interested.
Children of Raxxla have removed my membership status due to inactivity and I am now an "ambassador" with virtually no access anymore to their Discord channels.
I thought that keeping in touch with members of their Concul, informing them of things from this thread, and defending them when they were getting a lot of hate would have meant something, but apparently I don't talk to them or play with them enough.
I'm pretty hurt at this, so I'm venting it here, one of the last two homes I have in this game.
Details
When I connected to CoR discord, I saw that almost every single channel I had access to yesterday have disappeared. After I questioned what had happened on the only channels I had access to, an UN-NAMED member of the CoR Concul PM'd me where we had a discussion over what happened.
Without publishing private messages or player names, I was basically told:
CoR are changing members status's based on activity and membership of other groups. As I'm quite active in several other groups but not as active in CoR I'd been demoted to Ambassador with no access rights anymore.
CoR don't read or value the rift thread anymore as it's full of hate towards them.
CoR don't want members who lurk and don't interact much.
a PUBLIC message told me:
"Yes. As you were not actively involved in CoR's activities, but is the person updating the Rifters thread, we think that the Ambassadors role is more suitable for you. However, if you want to become a full CoR member, you can consider to reapply again. But be warned that you have to contribute to CoR related discussions to stay a member."
So because of my level of activity on the Rift and Canonn threads, and membership of the Canonn PG - and that I've barely played Elite in the last couple of months, haven't spent my time discussing precious inside secrets on the CoR Discord or joined in with their activities, my presence in the group isn't valued.
I hardly think I'm a lurker. As soon as the Zurara idea was hatched, I was PM'ing members of the CoR Concul I know to get their thoughts on whether CoR are behind the idea, or it was contrary to any of CoR current plans. I watched the Live Stream of Salome's funeral. I've replied to questions where I've known the answer due to my knowledge of the Rift thread. I've linked CoR documents on the front page of the Rift thread. I defended CoR and dug out the truth when all the accusations started flying after the 29th event. All this while I'm taking a break from playing Elite!
But it seems that being a Rifter curator has made me persona non grata to CoR now.
I think that they are going through a restructuring. I know Erimus deleted me from his Friends List (that was just before April 29th though and was probably just for OPSEC purposes) which made me kind of sad I'll have to get him to add me back for the next Distant Worlds.
RP aside, never had a problem with CoR or what they did, except for a few occasions where it basically came down to "we can RP our game but you are not allowed to RP yours if not nice about us", but they have been digging themselves a hole recently which seems to be going beyond circling the wagons. Can understand that with a lot of the non RP attacks and personal insults, but a bit counter productive
Recent role and membership changes aren't anything so dramatic as a circling of wagons unfortunately nor necessarily related to some of the saltier moments in recent Rifters thread history. Rather, the changes were made as part of an overall general effort, desired by our own active members and not solely CoR leadership, to pare down an increasing unwieldy membership roster that exploded leading up to the 29th. This was accomplished by dropping inactive members and attempting to identify where infrequently active members with high level status in other groups might be better classified as ambassadors. No offense was intended and the changes weren't personal.
Also, it should be noted that our ambassadors are among our most valued colleagues on whom we rely heavily to build interactions and initiatives among other CMDRs and groups with shared interests in doing what it is we are all here to do - solve the mysteries of Elite while doing a bit of role play and lore scholarship for good measure.
Recent role and membership changes aren't anything so dramatic as a circling of wagons unfortunately nor necessarily related to some of the saltier moments in recent Rifters thread history. Rather, the changes were made as part of an overall general effort, desired by our own active members and not solely CoR leadership, to pare down an increasing unwieldy membership roster that exploded leading up to the 29th. This was accomplished by dropping inactive members and attempting to identify where infrequently active members with high level status in other groups might be better classified as ambassadors. No offense was intended and the changes weren't personal.
Also, it should be noted that our ambassadors are among our most valued colleagues on whom we rely heavily to build interactions and initiatives among other CMDRs and groups with shared interests in doing what it is we are all here to do - solve the mysteries of Elite while doing a bit of role play and lore scholarship for good measure.
All sounds very reasonable but, and it is a very big but and a few of them, when you find out that Ambassadors have very limited access to what's going on, it doesn't seem particularly valued. When people aren't informed of intents but rather just find out of changes when they see the change it is rather dictatorial. When long term loyal members are treated this way it seems unfair. When the ruling doesn't seem to remember that it's just a game, people have real life which comes first and you can get burnt out it seems wrong.
I can't comment on the personal circumstances I know to give details, but when it also appears that somebody is being punished for the actions of others and not censoring free belief it just stinks.
It may just be what was a reasonable idea mishandled, but if so that mishandling makes the organisation look bad, is a PR disaster and appears to justify many of the accusations made against CoR.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
