It wasn't the first time she was warned, and it wasn't the first time she was rude and condescending over a simple warning.
There have been other times as well.
Agreed she was rude in both threads, especially the first one.
She also appears to be in the second category I mention in this post (which is I assume what's prompting your message?).
Anyway, both of her examples (minus the rudeness) fall in the category of "the kind of setting up trades that I personally don't mind." They're fairly discreet (no caps or graphics), targeting a particular game or potential trade partner, and non-spammy. But I realize it's a slippery slope.
I agree that some have used bundle threads (or other threads) for indirect/sneaky attempts at begging, or trying to set up a specific trade. And I agree that's shitty. This is why we can't have nice things.
Both comments fall under that umbrella. Your words.
Which umbrella? I think you're referring to the "second category" of people, those who are "subtly trying to direct people to their trade page and then start rules lawyering saying there's no rule against what they've done."
In the first quote above, all I'm saying that I don't mind these things personally; I know that others do. More important, I know they're against the rules, and therefore shouldn't be done. I'm not saying these things are okay, just that I personally don't mind them.
In the second quote, what I'm calling shitty is any attempt to beg, or knowingly attempting to circumvent no-trading rules (again, under the umbrella of the second category). However, I stand by my belief that the five examples I enumerated at the bottom of my post seem perfectly innocuous to me. In other words, I don't think expressing a "willingness to trade" or acknowledging that a theoretical trade partner could exist is a Bad Thing. But others may disagree...I acknowledge I'm little more tolerant of these things than others.
The problem is, as cg suggests, that it's hard to determine people's intentions, especially from just an isolated comment or two...hence his proposal to take into consideration how often these posts are occurring. I thought it was a good solution.
I guess I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. :) I think maybe you're trying to point out some inconsistency or hypocrisy on my part? Is this about eeev specifically? Or the tweaking of the guidelines? Or my post from last March? I'm a little confused.
Nice bundle...I'll probably buy it and keep some while trading away others."
"Hmm, not good enough to buy, but I'll probably end up trading for some of those."
"I guess I'll check out Steamtrades."
"Will probably buy...good gifting and trading fodder."
"I think that HumbleBundle has really decreased in quality since the acquisition by IGN. I used to buy their bundles all the time, but these days, I prefer just trading for the one or two I want."
Eeev's comment falls under none of those "allowable" examples. She mentioned a desire for a specific game, and the desire to trade for it.
That defines a trade post on Steamtrades,. She could have posted her exact comment as a trade post on Steamtrades.
I agree that Eeev's comment was farther down the spectrum of "organizing trades on the site" than the above examples. In my opinion, it didn't strike me as crossing some line requiring mod intervention, but I know that to others it did (including mods, which is the bottom line). It's a shame she took to being rude and disrespectful with the mods-- there's never a place for that. Incidentally, I also don't think her trade comment would have been a problem 3-4 years ago, before the explosion of bundles, bundle threads, and comments like those in bundle threads. I think that's part of why she was so surprised by being admonished by the mods.
In any event, those five examples were to illustrate that the "mentioning a willingness to trade" clause makes it against the rules to do some pretty innocuous-seeming things. Therefore, I was pretty happy with cg's solution to add the "with an unusually high frequency" modifier to the "attempt to indirectly trade or express a willingness to trade" clause. If you do it once or very sporadically, you're probably not trying to circumvent rules. If you are frequently making "innocent" comments about wanting to trade for the latest bundle game, then you are probably trying to steer people to your trade page.
I'm curious why she was surprised at all, given she's been warned before. I was surprised to see you choosing that comment to take a stand against moderation of trade-related comments on the forums, when it wasn't at all like the examples you listed. I do agree that your list of comments (those I quoted) are innocuous, but in all my time on SG, I've yet to see moderators warn or suspend for anything like them.
And now Eeev feels justified bullying the moderators, knowing the community will back her up (would anyone have done the same for a lower level or less "popular" user?), and bundle threads will be full of trade-related comments. One step forward, two steps back.
When I cited her comment as one of two actual examples in my post, I didn't have the context of this being apparently a growing problem in SG for the mods and that she had done things like this before (and been really rude about it) and been warned for it. I don't read the forums all that often anymore, and was surprised to see these things be reprimanded. They looked similar to the kinds of things I had said before (e.g., saying I didn't want to buy the bundle but there were a couple of games I might trade for) and never thought of them as breaking the rules. That's what prompted my post-- not understanding why those two comments were infractions, and urging that if they indeed are, then at least please update the Guidelines so new users or people like me don't get reprimanded (or worse) for "expressing a willingness to trade."
I was not likening her example (or the other one I cited) as being like the five examples I enumerated at the bottom of the post. Again, those five were to show hypothetical comments that are against the rules if the "expressing a willingness to trade" is part of the Guidelines. However, I'm satisfied that with cg's new wording, they have language in the Guidelines to use against people who are probably using SG to set up trades, without making an occasional innocent comment a reason for mods (or users) to treat them like rule-breakers and respond with links to the Guidelines and Steamtrades.
Either way, nobody should ever feel justified to bully moderators. I also never thought of what I was doing as "backing her up", and certainly not because she's a "popular user." I have next to zero interaction with her. I also have no interaction with Celtic7Guardian, the author of the other comment I cited. I also don't think I backed him up via my post-- I've never heard of him. My motivation, as I said, was to ask them to update the Guidelines if "expressing a willingness to trade" is really breaking the rules-- because I had done it before, and I don't ever wish to break a rule.
The point of all of this was to point out that the moderators often have information we don't when we do things like defend other users, and to give you that information so that perhaps you could see that the moderators were in fact acting (or reacting) properly.
It's certainly true that I saw their posts in isolation, without the full context of what had apparently been going on regarding this topic. Maybe they'd been making "subtle" or borderline comments like that in almost every bundle thread. At a certain point, they should indeed be warned.
But again, I don't see my post as "defending" Eeev or Celtic7Guardian (and certainly not because they're "popular"), although I guess I understand why it might have come off that way, since their comments ultimately prompted me to write. My post was saying that the whole "expressing a willingness to trade will result in a warning" was, well, news to me, and not in the Guidelines...so I suggest they update the Guidelines to reflect it. And they are-- with cg's new "unusually high frequency" modifier, which I think is a great edit.
But again, I don't see my post as "defending" Eeev or Celtic7Guardian
Taken independently of the circumstances, neither would I. But ... circumstances do add context, and if they add context for me, you can imagine they do for others as well.
At any rate, this discussion went on far longer than I expected for wanting only to make a single point. Since we're already past that point, though, I actually disagree with CG's updated guideline there. "Unusually high frequency" is undetermined and will simply lead to the same issues we already have - inconsistency in moderation.
Not sure if you've been following my stance on the new guidelines, including toward advertising and all, but I'm a firm believer that every user on this site should be treated equally, in every aspect. "Unusually high frequency" is too open and will lead to warnings/suspensions for some users, while others might get away with it indefinitely. I've already seen numerous times when one user was instantly suspended for something while another user gets away multiple times with the exact same thing. I have the tickets to back it up ...
All I want is consistent moderation, so one person doesn't feel they can't post something, but then see another user post exactly that and get away with it. So far, this hasn't been my experience on Steamgifts ...
This comment was deleted 1 year ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
One of the nicer comments for a public GA I've seen in a long time! =)
Comment has been collapsed.
C4sth4nks
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the Giveaway much Appreciated : )
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/tn2pRNg
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/moaZdyI
It wasn't the first time she was warned, and it wasn't the first time she was rude and condescending over a simple warning.
There have been other times as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed she was rude in both threads, especially the first one.
She also appears to be in the second category I mention in this post (which is I assume what's prompting your message?).
Anyway, both of her examples (minus the rudeness) fall in the category of "the kind of setting up trades that I personally don't mind." They're fairly discreet (no caps or graphics), targeting a particular game or potential trade partner, and non-spammy. But I realize it's a slippery slope.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamtrades.com/
Both comments fall under that umbrella. Your words.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which umbrella? I think you're referring to the "second category" of people, those who are "subtly trying to direct people to their trade page and then start rules lawyering saying there's no rule against what they've done."
In the first quote above, all I'm saying that I don't mind these things personally; I know that others do. More important, I know they're against the rules, and therefore shouldn't be done. I'm not saying these things are okay, just that I personally don't mind them.
In the second quote, what I'm calling shitty is any attempt to beg, or knowingly attempting to circumvent no-trading rules (again, under the umbrella of the second category). However, I stand by my belief that the five examples I enumerated at the bottom of my post seem perfectly innocuous to me. In other words, I don't think expressing a "willingness to trade" or acknowledging that a theoretical trade partner could exist is a Bad Thing. But others may disagree...I acknowledge I'm little more tolerant of these things than others.
The problem is, as cg suggests, that it's hard to determine people's intentions, especially from just an isolated comment or two...hence his proposal to take into consideration how often these posts are occurring. I thought it was a good solution.
I guess I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. :) I think maybe you're trying to point out some inconsistency or hypocrisy on my part? Is this about eeev specifically? Or the tweaking of the guidelines? Or my post from last March? I'm a little confused.
Comment has been collapsed.
Eeev's comment falls under none of those "allowable" examples. She mentioned a desire for a specific game, and the desire to trade for it.
That defines a trade post on Steamtrades,. She could have posted her exact comment as a trade post on Steamtrades.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that Eeev's comment was farther down the spectrum of "organizing trades on the site" than the above examples. In my opinion, it didn't strike me as crossing some line requiring mod intervention, but I know that to others it did (including mods, which is the bottom line). It's a shame she took to being rude and disrespectful with the mods-- there's never a place for that. Incidentally, I also don't think her trade comment would have been a problem 3-4 years ago, before the explosion of bundles, bundle threads, and comments like those in bundle threads. I think that's part of why she was so surprised by being admonished by the mods.
In any event, those five examples were to illustrate that the "mentioning a willingness to trade" clause makes it against the rules to do some pretty innocuous-seeming things. Therefore, I was pretty happy with cg's solution to add the "with an unusually high frequency" modifier to the "attempt to indirectly trade or express a willingness to trade" clause. If you do it once or very sporadically, you're probably not trying to circumvent rules. If you are frequently making "innocent" comments about wanting to trade for the latest bundle game, then you are probably trying to steer people to your trade page.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm curious why she was surprised at all, given she's been warned before. I was surprised to see you choosing that comment to take a stand against moderation of trade-related comments on the forums, when it wasn't at all like the examples you listed. I do agree that your list of comments (those I quoted) are innocuous, but in all my time on SG, I've yet to see moderators warn or suspend for anything like them.
And now Eeev feels justified bullying the moderators, knowing the community will back her up (would anyone have done the same for a lower level or less "popular" user?), and bundle threads will be full of trade-related comments. One step forward, two steps back.
Comment has been collapsed.
When I cited her comment as one of two actual examples in my post, I didn't have the context of this being apparently a growing problem in SG for the mods and that she had done things like this before (and been really rude about it) and been warned for it. I don't read the forums all that often anymore, and was surprised to see these things be reprimanded. They looked similar to the kinds of things I had said before (e.g., saying I didn't want to buy the bundle but there were a couple of games I might trade for) and never thought of them as breaking the rules. That's what prompted my post-- not understanding why those two comments were infractions, and urging that if they indeed are, then at least please update the Guidelines so new users or people like me don't get reprimanded (or worse) for "expressing a willingness to trade."
I was not likening her example (or the other one I cited) as being like the five examples I enumerated at the bottom of the post. Again, those five were to show hypothetical comments that are against the rules if the "expressing a willingness to trade" is part of the Guidelines. However, I'm satisfied that with cg's new wording, they have language in the Guidelines to use against people who are probably using SG to set up trades, without making an occasional innocent comment a reason for mods (or users) to treat them like rule-breakers and respond with links to the Guidelines and Steamtrades.
Either way, nobody should ever feel justified to bully moderators. I also never thought of what I was doing as "backing her up", and certainly not because she's a "popular user." I have next to zero interaction with her. I also have no interaction with Celtic7Guardian, the author of the other comment I cited. I also don't think I backed him up via my post-- I've never heard of him. My motivation, as I said, was to ask them to update the Guidelines if "expressing a willingness to trade" is really breaking the rules-- because I had done it before, and I don't ever wish to break a rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
The point of all of this was to point out that the moderators often have information we don't when we do things like defend other users, and to give you that information so that perhaps you could see that the moderators were in fact acting (or reacting) properly.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's certainly true that I saw their posts in isolation, without the full context of what had apparently been going on regarding this topic. Maybe they'd been making "subtle" or borderline comments like that in almost every bundle thread. At a certain point, they should indeed be warned.
But again, I don't see my post as "defending" Eeev or Celtic7Guardian (and certainly not because they're "popular"), although I guess I understand why it might have come off that way, since their comments ultimately prompted me to write. My post was saying that the whole "expressing a willingness to trade will result in a warning" was, well, news to me, and not in the Guidelines...so I suggest they update the Guidelines to reflect it. And they are-- with cg's new "unusually high frequency" modifier, which I think is a great edit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Taken independently of the circumstances, neither would I. But ... circumstances do add context, and if they add context for me, you can imagine they do for others as well.
At any rate, this discussion went on far longer than I expected for wanting only to make a single point. Since we're already past that point, though, I actually disagree with CG's updated guideline there. "Unusually high frequency" is undetermined and will simply lead to the same issues we already have - inconsistency in moderation.
Not sure if you've been following my stance on the new guidelines, including toward advertising and all, but I'm a firm believer that every user on this site should be treated equally, in every aspect. "Unusually high frequency" is too open and will lead to warnings/suspensions for some users, while others might get away with it indefinitely. I've already seen numerous times when one user was instantly suspended for something while another user gets away multiple times with the exact same thing. I have the tickets to back it up ...
All I want is consistent moderation, so one person doesn't feel they can't post something, but then see another user post exactly that and get away with it. So far, this hasn't been my experience on Steamgifts ...
Comment has been collapsed.