I read Khamul's comments before they were removed and agreed with the valuable points he made about the need to keep a distinction between legitimate moderation (which any site needs) and moderators own opinions on the topics. I love this site but am finding it hard to continue to be interested in a community site where open sharing of opinions is at risk.
Gawain wrote:
I read Khamul's comments before they were removed and agreed with the valuable points he made about the need to keep a distinction between legitimate moderation (which any site needs) and moderators own opinions on the topics. I love this site but am finding it hard to continue to be interested in a community site where open sharing of opinions is at risk.
As stated, we are very interested in ways that people think can improve the site, but personal attacks are not tolerated as part of the forum rules.
Trotter wrote:
Gawain wrote:
I read Khamul's comments before they were removed and agreed with the valuable points he made about the need to keep a distinction between legitimate moderation (which any site needs) and moderators own opinions on the topics. I love this site but am finding it hard to continue to be interested in a community site where open sharing of opinions is at risk.
As stated, we are very interested in ways that people think can improve the site, but personal attacks are not tolerated as part of the forum rules.
Yup, all opinions on Tolkien collecting are welcome, attacks on members (however thinly veiled) are not.
I almost wish not to comment further on anything to do with the subjects we covered yesterday but feel I must given that Khamul's posts have been removed. None of which contained personal attacks. We have obviously hit a point where users and MODS views on what the site is designed for have reached an impasse but the removal of the comments Khamul made have only served to prove his point that opinions are being silenced.
There were valuable points made that the MODS should be delighted to receive, points which should be discussed rather than being silenced because they question the motives of the various commenters. Sometimes we will hear perspectives we don't like, or feel are unfair but I don't consider what Khamul said as unfair, or harmful, quite the opposite in fact.
I feel that the MODS should work like they do on Reddit, where they moderate as a MOD user, and comment with their own opinions as Trotter, Mr. Underhill, Uruloke (for example) because like us, you will all have opinions that vary from the role of a MOD. The role of MOD and user should not be one and the same thing otherwise as MODS you will all feel a need to enforce, like has happened here today.
Some of the points raised by the MODS, both publicly and privately are spot on, throwing shade on HarperCollins without offering more will not be helpful to future readers and if we are going to offer reviews and sometimes harsh words, we should try to offer them constructively rather than taking chunks out of the publisher to the point it just feels like an attack towards them. Some of us, myself included, could do better on that, and I will consider that for future comments on the quality of publications.
I don't want to say any more about todays events because frankly it leaves a bad taste when Khamul's points were offered as valuable criticism and not as is suggested, a personal attack. If the MODS want the quality of content here to improve, to aid future readers, and ourselves better, silencing the opinion of those here now will not do that. Opinions will differ, and sometimes lead to exchanges like yesterday, but the value in a community is the community itself, and forcing their silence won't aid anyone.
There were valuable points made that the MODS should be delighted to receive, points which should be discussed rather than being silenced because they question the motives of the various commenters. Sometimes we will hear perspectives we don't like, or feel are unfair but I don't consider what Khamul said as unfair, or harmful, quite the opposite in fact.
I feel that the MODS should work like they do on Reddit, where they moderate as a MOD user, and comment with their own opinions as Trotter, Mr. Underhill, Uruloke (for example) because like us, you will all have opinions that vary from the role of a MOD. The role of MOD and user should not be one and the same thing otherwise as MODS you will all feel a need to enforce, like has happened here today.
Some of the points raised by the MODS, both publicly and privately are spot on, throwing shade on HarperCollins without offering more will not be helpful to future readers and if we are going to offer reviews and sometimes harsh words, we should try to offer them constructively rather than taking chunks out of the publisher to the point it just feels like an attack towards them. Some of us, myself included, could do better on that, and I will consider that for future comments on the quality of publications.
I don't want to say any more about todays events because frankly it leaves a bad taste when Khamul's points were offered as valuable criticism and not as is suggested, a personal attack. If the MODS want the quality of content here to improve, to aid future readers, and ourselves better, silencing the opinion of those here now will not do that. Opinions will differ, and sometimes lead to exchanges like yesterday, but the value in a community is the community itself, and forcing their silence won't aid anyone.
Well good morning, everyone! Being the furthest West means that sometimes a lot happens while I am asleep. I will be spending some time catching up and composing my thoughts and replying to everything in here, but I do need some time.
Apologies up front for a post that is a bit all over the place and doesn't yet address all the points raised (that will take a lot of time).
Site terms are available and following them is a condition of using the site, so you should all review them: https://www.tolkienguide.com/terms
These have been in the footer (under the Recent Posts on the right side of the desktop site, at the bottom of all pages on the mobile site) for years. I will move them to a more visible location ASAP as well.
Khamûl, you were a moderator and involved in the process when the current set of rules were written, discussed, published and announced. (Stu was too). When you say something like
you are incorrect on both counts - it isn't invented in the sense that we are making it up as we go along, and your using quotes implies there's no actual policy behind our moderation actions. There are rules, that are published, and enforced. They are not onerous. There's nothing in there that says you cannot disagree, or critique, or have opinions differing from the moderators.
Outside of actual spam from new accounts, the term that gets violated by regular users and is what gets posts moderated is
This isn't an unmoderated social network. This is a passion project of mine, and it is more than one person can handle, so I have a team (of humans, with their own opinions) that helps keep the site running smoothly and on track. We don't always agree with each other - on collecting, or on what needs to be moderated. I have the final say on what gets moderated, but I don't think I have yet rescinded anything that the team (including you and Stu, when you were also moderators) have taken action on.
On the topic of "toilet paper", I have no problem admitting that I was pretty angry when I wrote the ban, but after a few days of letting it simmer, I still have no problem keeping the ban in place. I will work on trying to encapsulate why in a clear, concise rule to add to the site terms of use page (and will announce the update publicly so everyone is aware of any rules, as always), but briefly trying to explain my thinking - it is possible to write opinions and critiques without using language that is crass. For example I don't want cuss words used on here ("profane" is mentioned in the terms but can be better clarified). I don't want to have to write out a list of every word that is not allowed, but the team will point out when language that is not approved is being used, and it will get moderated. I am doing so with "toilet paper". It's fine if you think I am going way beyond what you consider to be inappropriate language. Please let me know and we can have a civil discussion about it. I certainly disagree that my decision here has made me and the site "lose all credibility" (that feels like a personal attack). The opinion of the quality of the paper in the books is not being banned - the use of specific language that I find inappropriate is.
On the topic of blending/melding/differentiating "guide" content and forum posts - I think you have misunderstood what I wrote in my thought above. I will try again. I am not asking for users to compose "guide quality articles" in every post, or in any posts at all. What I am hopeful for is that when opinions and critiques are made, that some helpful context or expertise or other helpful commentary is made with it. All of you have knowledge and expertise in various areas, and I would love to see some of that shared here.
As a fabricated example, if someone were to post
What I think would improve the site for others, is if the fictitious author above added some additional helpful guidance to said opinion.
I am trying to encourage posters to keep this in mind when writing here. This is a request that I think will improve the site for other readers, which is my entire goal here. I want this site to be useful - and I fall far short quite often, and it is a learning experience for me, and I am always working to improve it, and many of my ideas fall flat and don't work. I don't think this is an onerous request to make on all of you, but it isn't a rule. It is one of my many ideas as I strive to make this a better place for all.
Site stats and incoming search traffic is quite happy to disagree with you. I fully agree that the internal site search is not easy by any stretch, and that is something that I am working on as are other architectural improvements to bubble up valuable content. The post archive is already heavily used in its current state, however, and mentioned to me often as being valuable. I think it useful to point out at this juncture that while TCG might only have a few dozen active posters at any given time, it gets (valid, non-bot) traffic many orders of magnitude higher than that - in the millions per year.
There were a lot of personal/community disparagements in Khamûl's post about how mercenary and non-inclusive and non-objective TCG is - there's valid feedback in there I am sure, and I will be reading it over again as time goes on and try to find suggestions for improvement on this site. The moderation on this site is incredibly light - if you want, I can roll up some stats next week (nothing is gone, all moderated posts are still there, just flagged). All of your posts disparaging HarperCollins and the quality of their recent books are still there. The "toilet paper" posts are still there. I don't think it is onerous to ask that users on this site remain civil. I continually ask that people use language in their posts that they would feel comfortable using to the face of the person responsible for the thing they are talking about.
I'll also briefly comment that I have no desire to turn TCG into Reddit, sorry onthetrail ?.
The team has agreed to un-moderate Khamûl's posts above, for context on what I am replying to here.
I will use this as a good place to close out my current thoughts (if I didn't address a particular point, I will circle back), and say - TCG isn't the only collecting community out there. I strive to make it the best (in my own, non-objective, biased opinion), but regularly share pointers to other communities as I become aware of them. Start your own, Khamûl, and I will gladly share the news of it here as well.
Site terms are available and following them is a condition of using the site, so you should all review them: https://www.tolkienguide.com/terms
These have been in the footer (under the Recent Posts on the right side of the desktop site, at the bottom of all pages on the mobile site) for years. I will move them to a more visible location ASAP as well.
Khamûl, you were a moderator and involved in the process when the current set of rules were written, discussed, published and announced. (Stu was too). When you say something like
Khamûl wrote:
Stop quoting invented TCG "policy"
you are incorrect on both counts - it isn't invented in the sense that we are making it up as we go along, and your using quotes implies there's no actual policy behind our moderation actions. There are rules, that are published, and enforced. They are not onerous. There's nothing in there that says you cannot disagree, or critique, or have opinions differing from the moderators.
Outside of actual spam from new accounts, the term that gets violated by regular users and is what gets posts moderated is
Don't victimize anyone. Don't do anything threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, tortious, obscene, profane, or invasive of another person's privacy.
This isn't an unmoderated social network. This is a passion project of mine, and it is more than one person can handle, so I have a team (of humans, with their own opinions) that helps keep the site running smoothly and on track. We don't always agree with each other - on collecting, or on what needs to be moderated. I have the final say on what gets moderated, but I don't think I have yet rescinded anything that the team (including you and Stu, when you were also moderators) have taken action on.
On the topic of "toilet paper", I have no problem admitting that I was pretty angry when I wrote the ban, but after a few days of letting it simmer, I still have no problem keeping the ban in place. I will work on trying to encapsulate why in a clear, concise rule to add to the site terms of use page (and will announce the update publicly so everyone is aware of any rules, as always), but briefly trying to explain my thinking - it is possible to write opinions and critiques without using language that is crass. For example I don't want cuss words used on here ("profane" is mentioned in the terms but can be better clarified). I don't want to have to write out a list of every word that is not allowed, but the team will point out when language that is not approved is being used, and it will get moderated. I am doing so with "toilet paper". It's fine if you think I am going way beyond what you consider to be inappropriate language. Please let me know and we can have a civil discussion about it. I certainly disagree that my decision here has made me and the site "lose all credibility" (that feels like a personal attack). The opinion of the quality of the paper in the books is not being banned - the use of specific language that I find inappropriate is.
On the topic of blending/melding/differentiating "guide" content and forum posts - I think you have misunderstood what I wrote in my thought above. I will try again. I am not asking for users to compose "guide quality articles" in every post, or in any posts at all. What I am hopeful for is that when opinions and critiques are made, that some helpful context or expertise or other helpful commentary is made with it. All of you have knowledge and expertise in various areas, and I would love to see some of that shared here.
As a fabricated example, if someone were to post
This edition of The Silmarillion is utter crap.That's an opinion. It is valid. That post would not be moderated on this site. I will go dig up some links if you want me to, but I am sure you can find similar opinions in abundance in the recent author-illustrated edition threads with a few moments of browsing as examples.
What I think would improve the site for others, is if the fictitious author above added some additional helpful guidance to said opinion.
This edition of The Silmarillion is utter crap. The glued binding is going to fall apart after just a few readings. This other edition from 10 years ago is superior and still available for about the same price.
I am trying to encourage posters to keep this in mind when writing here. This is a request that I think will improve the site for other readers, which is my entire goal here. I want this site to be useful - and I fall far short quite often, and it is a learning experience for me, and I am always working to improve it, and many of my ideas fall flat and don't work. I don't think this is an onerous request to make on all of you, but it isn't a rule. It is one of my many ideas as I strive to make this a better place for all.
Khamûl wrote:
And probably dissuade yourself of the notion that any community forum's "post archive" is a particularly useful or easy place to search for information in the future. It's not.
Site stats and incoming search traffic is quite happy to disagree with you. I fully agree that the internal site search is not easy by any stretch, and that is something that I am working on as are other architectural improvements to bubble up valuable content. The post archive is already heavily used in its current state, however, and mentioned to me often as being valuable. I think it useful to point out at this juncture that while TCG might only have a few dozen active posters at any given time, it gets (valid, non-bot) traffic many orders of magnitude higher than that - in the millions per year.
There were a lot of personal/community disparagements in Khamûl's post about how mercenary and non-inclusive and non-objective TCG is - there's valid feedback in there I am sure, and I will be reading it over again as time goes on and try to find suggestions for improvement on this site. The moderation on this site is incredibly light - if you want, I can roll up some stats next week (nothing is gone, all moderated posts are still there, just flagged). All of your posts disparaging HarperCollins and the quality of their recent books are still there. The "toilet paper" posts are still there. I don't think it is onerous to ask that users on this site remain civil. I continually ask that people use language in their posts that they would feel comfortable using to the face of the person responsible for the thing they are talking about.
I'll also briefly comment that I have no desire to turn TCG into Reddit, sorry onthetrail ?.
The team has agreed to un-moderate Khamûl's posts above, for context on what I am replying to here.
I will use this as a good place to close out my current thoughts (if I didn't address a particular point, I will circle back), and say - TCG isn't the only collecting community out there. I strive to make it the best (in my own, non-objective, biased opinion), but regularly share pointers to other communities as I become aware of them. Start your own, Khamûl, and I will gladly share the news of it here as well.
Hi, just to be super clear about this toilet paper thing, onthetrail’s original comment contains the following, and I quote: “The process of making a fake deluxe product that is no more quality than toilet paper.” It explicitly refers to the paper’s quality being not more than that of toilet paper (i.e., a paper of low quality). It in no way “said their books are printed on toilet paper,” nor suggests using the book paper as toilet paper, as Urulókë subsequently represented it. Stu had tried to point out exactly this but was met with considerable pushback, culminating in the ban, before (evidently) departing the site once more.
If I’ve misrepresented anything, the thread is there to be read (though now locked).
If I’ve misrepresented anything, the thread is there to be read (though now locked).
19 Dec, 2022
(edited)
2022-12-19 8:36:53 AM UTC
Edited by Urulókë on 2022-12-19 8:57:57 AM UTC
Edited by Urulókë on 2022-12-19 9:03:35 AM UTC
Edited by Urulókë on 2022-12-19 9:03:35 AM UTC
2022-12-19 8:36:53 AM UTC
My problem was never with onthetrail’s specific comment, and he and I have chatted privately to hopefully be clear about that. I have no ill feelings towards him or his specific post, though it obviously did start this particular snowball.
If you use the horribly useless site search (?) looking for toilet paper, you’ll see it’s been used here in many threads going back to 2007.
If you use the horribly useless site search (?) looking for toilet paper, you’ll see it’s been used here in many threads going back to 2007.
All i have to say is "Thank You" for creating, improving, updating and maintaining this site over the goodness knows how many years at this stage. 16/17?
It has proved an invaluable source of information for me over the years - and I joined quite early in the sites previous iteration (the name of which escapes me at the moment).
I have enjoyed reading everyone's posts and getting an insight in other people's collections and interests, learning of new publications etc etc. All in all - a most enjoyable read always - and a great single source of information.
So Thank You sincerely for providing this.
It has proved an invaluable source of information for me over the years - and I joined quite early in the sites previous iteration (the name of which escapes me at the moment).
I have enjoyed reading everyone's posts and getting an insight in other people's collections and interests, learning of new publications etc etc. All in all - a most enjoyable read always - and a great single source of information.
So Thank You sincerely for providing this.
4
116