Thread:U N Ovvrn/@comment-3308937-20141227054923/@comment-9705522-20141227225439

NeonSpotlight wrote:

U N Ovvrn wrote: Very well then, lets follow standard procedure. What standard procedure? What are you basing all of this off of? I hope you realize that, as per this wiki's "standard procedures", that I could have just blocked you for a week and have been done with it, especially with the amount of users that have had an issue with you.

We've already had this kind of discussion earlier on this message wall and I'm sure it'll pan out the same way, I give you an example of what I, as an admin and community leader, find as uncivil behavior and you'll just reply by saying 'I don't think that's uncivil,' as if that's a valid counterargument or you'll try and tell me that you disagree with what I think comments are for on a fundamental level, which, again, isn't a valid counterargument.

You want a post or two as proof but unfortunately it's not simple, it's more than just the content of one or two posts, it's almost every thread that you're a part of that you have this problem of a condescending attitude, of jerkishness, of antagonizing other members, of derailing a discussion, of making disparaging remarks and of just not contributing to a healthy discussion environment.

As I said in the Katarina comment thread: "I never insulted your intelligence or made you out to be some sort of fool, and yet you treat me like you're talking to a child who doesn't know anything about the real world."

Just in that thread alone we can see: Typical moderation. I know there isnt a unified standard, but this is one that a lot of forums follow, including the one I worked for a moderator for. Apologies if it sounded confusing.
 * Disparaging remarks: "That alone tells that you clearly are not experienced with statistics of any kind. Or at least not enough to see why that doesnt work at all."
 * Condescending attitude: "Ah, how misleading. Lets correct what is wrong, shall we?"
 * Antagonizing remarks: "You know, her ult only hits 3 targets at best ... So that actually backfired." and "But thats the problem with anecdotal evidence being valued far too highly, I guess."
 * Derailing a discussion: The last 2 paragraphs of your first comment, bringing up Wukong in a Katarina discussion.
 * Jerkish behavior/not contributing to a healthy discussion environment: The entirety of your comments in that thread could be seen as written in a jerkish tone, especially seeing how the other members of the discussion, including me, responded to you.

Wait, so being reported by people alone is enough? There is no need for objective evaluation? Well, thats great. Means you cant criticize something else people will hate you and report you. Oh well, Ill note it down.

Did we? I dont remember. But yes, thats of course tricky. Which is why objective standards should exist. However, they dont, its a matter of interpretation, yadda yadda. Which is why you got a second moderator to judge, which is in fact according to standard procedure. The problem is, there is one who has strong negative bias towards me. Given the not too high amount of moderators here, the chance that you got him is quite high. Although, I dont know where to go from there. Unless you have logs that reach far back, and a way to access those logs to check if he is the one who went on a mass-delete spree, there is no way to tell.

I pointed out that you misused statistics in a disastrous way. If that made you feel like a child who doesnt understand anything of the real world, i apologize, as that was not my intent. I admit that one part was slightly out of line, for which I apologize. Its getting rather annoying seeing people use win rates as an argument, not realizing why it doesnt work. As I said, pet peeve of mine.

"Ah, how misleading. Lets correct what is wrong, shall we?" Thats actualy not condescending. As per the definition of misleading, its not "you are too stupid to realize", but rather "you presented the facts in a way to push your side, by leaving out half the truth". Which could be considered under "antagonizing", not condescending. But even for that its too weak. Not to mention it wasnt quite incorrect, was it?

I fail to see how either are antagonizing. In the first I point out that your argument backfired. That is not antagonizing, nor is it anything else. Perhaps not the perfect choice of words, but also too weak.

The second part is pointing out an underlying problem within, well, all human societies. Or humanity as a whole. You could see that as antagonizing societies, but as far as I can tell they arent involved here. I mean, the sentence before that is far better as an example. But even that is rather weak.

Its not derailing when it fits the subject matter. As I used Wukong as a comparision to Katarina, it was part of the subject matter. After all, there is no numerical value to power, so we have to compare, otherwise it doesnt work.

Objective judgement, not subjective judgement. What people think has no relevance. You have to judge detached from the discussion at hand. Which is why you consult another moderator which wasnt involved. Which you did, and kudos for that. Whether or not its jerkish, i cannot judge. I have bias, and im not zen enough to detach myself. Neither can you, I assume. Hence the other admin. But the question is, does that admin also not have bias? After all, we know one does, the question is, is it the same one? But thats a different story, I suppose.

Now all-together, is it enough for a warning? Up for debate, but I would say, yeah. Its enough. So, with everything cleared, only one thing remains. The template. Please, do put the correct one. Im sure you must have a template for the comment section, not just for edits.