Can someone explain to me how "So you want me to explain the benefits of dupe closure now?" is a bannable offence? I can't see it myself and thought my "tone" was fine in the discussion but obviously not...

@TheLethalCarrot See this message:

Right and as I said I thought my tone was fine

It was not.

So explain please

It was condescending to your fellow member trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.

And this is not condescending Haven't you heard of "argument by analogy"?

Correct

I don't see the difference

The other member was not engaging in a pattern of ongoing condescension and was putting in their best effort to make a reasonable good-faith discussion. The same effort was not being extended on your end.

I believe U was making a reasonable god-faith discussion

If you could point out where I was not that would be helpful but continually saying "you were bad" isn't helpful to me

Then I hope you will be more considerate in your communication next time.

And I will hope I will be able to learn from this by being told what I can learn from

You've been given your explanation, go contemplate it.

Kicking me isn't helpful and if there is a pattern you should be able to show the pattern, otherwise I can't see why to be able to learn

I am leaving it to you as a reasonable adult to figure out why I might have been thinking you were not putting in a good-faith effort in that conversation around which I felt it necessary to say this.

The argumentative tactics you were using were not about establishing truth and understanding on the matter with your fellow user, but merely dismissing everything they were saying as invalid and irrelevant followed by outright condescending that they might even for a moment need or want dupes explained to them.

That is not how to treat your fellow members with respect in a discussion like this; it's how to derail it and disrupt it and squash them out of having input.

I hope you can figure it out from there.

... g'nite :(

@JalapenoNachos o/

Except that was not what I was trying to do, maybe I'm annoyed that I have to explain myself 500 times in various areas because others haven't read what I've said (shouldn't word it poorly I agree but it probably boiled up subconsciously), maybe I can't express myself as eloquently as you....

maybe those traits were showed by other users but you're blinded to that, maybe I never tried to be condescending and you should look for best intentions rather than assuming worse, maybe I feel bullied when whenever I have a chat with a moderator 3 others appear to argue against me...

maybe sigh is poor tone too, maybe banning users in the middle of a conversation is derailing and squashing them from input, maybe they too were dismissing what I was saying... you seem to have approached this one sided in my opinion but I will have to leave it there...

Also removing all stars from one half of the discussion and leaving the rest isn't helpful and if anything is pushing you're own agenda and pushing down the other users point of view

You asked for an explanation of why I removed that message, I gave you it—I'm not giving my diagnosis of the entire conversation plus starboard.

So then I can't learn from it... okay then stay with your point of view which, to me, seems incredible one sided

Note you were not the only user removed from the conversation, I haven't done anything with the starboard myself.

@doppelgreener Alsi I can't tell if that is in response to this message Okay then too broad isn't a thing anymore because of PPCG or this one Yes but using a site with different policies and cultures isn't analogous but I don't see how either are bad

@doppelgreener I know you haven't and I also know at least one other was removed who was also from my point of view

And they were not removed for their point of view.

I don't think anyone else was removed personally but they may have been

@doppelgreener Of course not

@TheLethalCarrot Yes, those.

@doppelgreener Both of them... okay then, I don't see what's wrong but whatever

You don't seem willing to offer much in the way of helpful advice so I'll leave the discussion there

→ 39 messages moved to Discussion about message removal

← 39 messages moved from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

I don't really want to carry this on now (I assume you just moved them for the sake of clutter) but you accidentally moved a different comment

You're right, thanks.

> It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, talking about stars,” he used to say. “You step into the chatroom, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

→ 1 message moved to The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

← 1 message moved from Discussion about message removal

I can provide advice on what to do differently that I felt was not being done (and which made me feel a good-faith effort was not being made) if that's what you're after.

But I have tried to explain why I took action on that message, so I am not sure how I can explain that further.

A patronising tone is often the hardest to spot, yet surprisingly prevalent in many places where people of varying power meet, especially when the sides are split by those who believe themselves to be raised against those that haven't been.

Well that is what I was after... I explained most of my reasoning for why i felt this was a one sided affair above in the long messages and I do know I'm not the best with communicational skills (half the reason I joined tbh) so I could have worded somethign poorly by accident

I'm aware of what I did, I pointed out a flaw and got told off for it.

Watching the conversation unfold I was seeing a lot of nonsequiturs being made. I would avoid those. If you're trying to discuss and work something out with your fellow member, it works well to ask why they're taking a stance or other probing questions to better understand it. Explaining that "too broad doesn't exist" is a nonstarter because it obviously does—all analogies break down at some point; analogies are only analogous to some extents.

So rather than probe at the areas the analogy breaks down, discuss with your fellow member why the analogy is being made to begin with.

Assume that a seasoned member actually understands how the mechanic works and don't offer to explain something they obviously understand, but are in fact trying to discuss with you, as though they have no idea about the subject matter at hand.

@TheLethalCarrot I removed all messages from the starboard, with the exception of one from me and one from you. It looks like more were starred after I did that.

If you feel they do not understand part of the subject matter, you can instead ask: "My understanding of this part of the policy was that it meant _____. Right?" Or "I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't seem to align with _____ which I understand to mean _____. What's your reasoning there?"

(There's some various other ways to approach it too.)

← 6 messages moved from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

:45790156 None of that. :l

A topic that came up in chat was discussed in chat. Up to y'all how you want to behave around that. Accusations of impropriety for (shock!) discussing something in chat—which is not where policy gets made anyway—isn't appropriate.

@Edlothiad I just moved your messages in here, so that we don't clutter up the Restaurant too much.

To you and @TheLethalCarrot, I'd like to emphasise again that the short ban was not about specific messages but rather about a more general style of debate. The flagged messages weren't especially rude when taken in isolation, but the overall impression was one of disrespect and unwelcomingness.

Several users (and not only chat blues, before you ask) have noticed this pattern.

@Mithrandir Ah fair enough, I wasn't watching the starboard so didn't see that...

I was making a cuppa give me a minute to read these through :)

@doppelgreener Well the too broad thing I was stating it does exist in this case, the PPCG point was me being a bit of a [redacted] I'll be honest but it felt like my points were being shot down by irrelevant examples so I went to an extreme that I probably shouldn't have to prove a point

@doppelgreener Well that is sort of what I tried to say about the too broad thing but again it may not have been worded well, see above

@TheLethalCarrot In isolation it's ... not good but not a problem I need to step in on. It was the message I removed combined with the two previous ones that had me feel it was too much. Like Rand said: this wasn't about any one individual message.

@doppelgreener Again though apart from that message I don't really see a pattern. The comment that was removed wasn't great but I don't see it as problematic myself

@Randal'Thor Well this general style is what I'm trying to work out why it's wrong. I don't see it myself at the moment

(I'd also like to say that a 30- or 60-minute chat ban isn't a huge deal. There are some useful points to be made and learned about how to engage in constructive debate, but it'd also be easy to spend longer discussing the suspension than the suspension actually lasted :-) )

I know it's not a big deal but any chance to improve is worth taking

Especially when there are 4 or 5 mods present

All of which obviously see something I don't

@TheLethalCarrot Indeed. So I'd suggest you take a minute longer before sending your messages to reflect on the tone and to make sure that you're actually saying what you mean. It can't hurt. :)

I once received some advice about moderating which I often come back to think about: "Believing you are right should be a prerequisite for acting... But so should being able to accept that you may turn out to be wrong."

@Randal'Thor This is very true, and I even put something with that sentiment it my chat profile ;)

@Randal'Thor that sounds very Shog

@Mithrandir To be fair I took longer than minute when I wrote my "controversial" meta post a while ago and it still turned out the way it did

I think there's a similar point to be made here. Believing you're right is good - otherwise you're debating in bad faith - but it's possible to go too far with that, and sound as though you're obviously right and everyone else is just too slow to see it.

When I engage in debates like this, I always try to see the other side's point of view.

I am trying to see the other sides point of view of course, though it may not seem like it to you though

@TheLethalCarrot That... was going to be contentious no matter what, just because of the topic (although it still could have been worded better).

Exactly I meant the wording of it... which I got into a long discussion over, which of course you know

For instance, I can see why you might think you were suspended wrongly because the flagged messages weren't all that offensive. So I made the point about general patterns vs specific messages almost as soon as the suspensions were applied.

Well not necessarily wrongly but more unfairly when I compared my messages to some others of users, who I believe, were not suspended

I'm open to the possibility I misjudged you in this instance.

But working on hindsight, that discussion got really bad, and I have to work with what I've got: it went really badly and there are specific patterns I cannot not read into it.

Well I'm not saying it was a misjudgement, it may be perfectly fair seeing as at least 3 people seem to think that. But my wording isn't always great and it seems to me some other messages weren't great either but they were left alone. Though I will try and take your points on board I believe I did try to do that initially

In general avoid wild extremes and seek to understand what's going on for your discussion partner before you feel they're necessary, and avoid suggesting your discussion partner is an imbecile.

On hindsight I see at least one of my messages that was poor and some other users messages that were too but I personally don't see it being too bad (though that's probably just me)

even if you think they are

Well I don't think I suggested anyone was an imbecile

@TheLethalCarrot The message I removed was suggesting that.

@TheLethalCarrot I'm sorry, maybe that message was a bit too far. I thought about it a bit before posting, but some people in the recent meta discussion have shown a startlingly poor grasp of logic and rhetoric. For example, you can't shoot down an argument by analogy just because it's not identical (though you could shoot it down by arguing that the situation isn't really analogous).

@doppelgreener I actually asked that honestly

Because I thought the current discussion was talking in the general not the specific

Then that was really, really, really not tactful.

Well it was straight to the point

@Randal'Thor Well that's what my points have been... (though you could shoot it down by arguing that the situation isn't really analogous)

Talking about this discussion and from the meta

I just want to say that I think that @TheLethalCarrot is actually trying to have a real discussion here. It's not entirely TLC's fault that this got derailed.

TBF I seem to get caught in the middle of things a few times

@TheLethalCarrot Maybe you hang out with the wrong people :-P

Lol, maybe

Though can't fault me no other bugger is as active and interested in similar things

@TheLethalCarrot depends on what you mean by "similar things" ;)

Well not being a [redacted] if that's what you mean

I'll leave it up to you to insert what word you want there

...oookkaayy?

Being a highly active user doesn't mean you're always right :-) Some people (not necessarily you, TLC) cite "active user" like it's an academic qualification. Nobody should need that in order to support their arguments.

Oh sure but that's not what I meant with that message

Just that they're always around to talk to haha

I mean... if you're looking for someone who's pretty much always around to chat, I'm in chat more often than I'm not.

And I consider myself pretty well versed in SFF and SE policy ;P

Oh sure but we have similar interests too, outside of SFF stuff, similar age, jobs etc. And I quite like the guy even if he is a bit of an idiot sometimes haha

@Mithrandir I'm sure he'd challenge you on that haha

So, in light of all this discussion: @TheLethalCarrot I'm thinking that I was prompted by the conversation as a whole to see your message less charitably than otherwise, and if I hadn't been seeing it that way I might have seen it as borderline or concerning but not outright worth nuking. I might have had other things to say about the conversation or what was going on in it otherwise.

And guidance to provide better than what I was giving you initially in this conversation.

Fair enough, thanks for revisiting and taking your time with explaining it to me

👍

Thanks for hearing me out on that, and sorry I couldn't have given you better advice or explanation or given it sooner.

Well I'd probably be a bit hesitant to go deeper into things if I thought you was trolling me or something. Though I wouldn't do that, especially considering the amount of time I spend on here

@Randal'Thor To be fair (on revisiting) I don't think that's the most constructive thing to say and is probably borderline on the be nice policy

Anyway... I hope that in future all sides will be able to have an actual constructive conversation. (I actually wanted to have a discussion to understand why people were so for closing the question in question, but...)

Just to point out, as far as I know, I haven't participated in closing the question at all

But from reading it they look like duplicates to me

@TheLethalCarrot Only six people have ever VTCed that question. But you wrote the meta answer justifying its closure.

@Randal'Thor Sure that's all I'm saying though because some comments, not necessarily anyone's in here, have acted like I'm personally responsible for the closure when I'm merely defending it

Things do sometimes get too personal in these discussions. Sorry about that :-/

Well that's inevitable

You can try your hardest to not let it happen but it usually always does in the end, especially in longer discussions

@Randal'Thor I "usually always'd" here too

That's it I'm coining it as an official phrase now

^_-

pedant mind explodes