LogFAQs > #922897533

PrincessCadance posted...

TennTux posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com./user.php?user=Machete

Warned

Who tattled on him and why? He doesn't tipically lose his cool.

I didn't lose my cool. A moderator misunderstood a post. To be fair, I could have done a better job of choosing my words. If I had thought to include even a brief summary of what I ended up typing for my dispute, (as a disclaimer in my post), it would have been avoided. I didn't however because I didn't think I would be misinterpreted so I didn't have that pumping the breaks reflex that I have that gets me thinking "maybe I should include a disclaimer for the mods so they don't get the wrong idea." I stated an opinion that I knew to be biased on a quote that was said to be fake, but I also recognized that many were saying the quote was fake and wanted to imply the possibility that I was wrong without having to admit that the quote (which I had never seen before and stated that in the post) was likely fake. The moderator took it as "you knew it was fake and you said you would call it real anyway and that is blatant trolling." They were not wrong about how doing that is trolling, but they were wrong in assuming that's what I was doing. If I show bias by believing a quote is real if it is fake without launching a formal investigation into it, that means I'm wrong and I'm human. It doesn't mean I'm trolling. I also had a fake trolling moderation in my history from before they fixed the dispute system that made it a warning instead of some lower thing. It should be overturned, but even if it isn't, there will be much to learn about the new dispute system, how it works and whether or not it should be further reviewed and adjusted. The purpose of it is essentially in how a user pleas their case and idea is that a solid and strong case will earn the votes to overturn. My case is airtight and I don't see how I could have made it any stronger, as it is true and reinforced by portions of the moderated post itself (the other portions, I admit, I should have worded differently, but poor wording leading to a single moderator getting the wrong idea is not trolling, and this speaks to the nature of how trolling is even defined and how it can be proven).

It is not a black and white issue like flaming. If you name call, it's a flame. People argue over this all the time but it is clear cut and it is defined. Trolling is more nuanced and I know for a fact that the mod staff is feeling it out currently. The baseline is not established. The experiment is not one with an established control group. For a long time, trolling has gone under the radar and now it's essentially spray and pray until they can lock down a concrete system for establishing exactly what it means and how it should be approached. If I was actually saying what the moderator assumed I was saying, I would be guilty. It was not, however, what I was actually saying and prior to the dispute update, no difference would have been made because posts such as mine were always no actioned. I explained all of this in my dispute and if the dispute update is what it has been claimed to be, I will get the overturn that I deserve. It will speak to how trolling as a violation is handled in general, but that is a good thing either way. It offers valuable information, whether they acknowledge the truth or double down. I am disappointed, but I believe it to be a blessing in disguise that provides valuable insight to all and if we better understand how trolling is handled, we can cut down on it, which benefits us and also makes the job of the mods easier, so a win-win. If it is upheld, which should not be the case under any circumstancea but is a possibility, I'm taking one for the team and I will have to make peace with that. However, as already stated, the information provided is far more valuable to the user base and mod staff both than my 5 or 10 or however many karma points I would be robbed of in the process.
---

Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/