Moderators locks any thread discussing moderator actions.

[dizekat]

Is that then an official policy that moderator actions cannot be questioned?
Discuss.

[aegis]

it's official policy to discuss them in private, yes.

[tombom]

it's official policy to discuss them in private, yes.

no. this is dumb.

the other thread was started as pretty general and not naming names, it's pretty silly to lock it imo

[aegis]

the "feature" is being removed, and the thread was being derailed anyway.

[dizekat]

the "feature" is being removed, and the thread was being derailed anyway.

And when would we switch to uberserver?

[Gota]

Is that then an official policy that moderator actions cannot be questioned?
Discuss.

Why would moderators allow you to publicly discuss matters concerning them?It might cause some of them to stop being moderators.

[aegis]

if we find good lasting reason to remove a moderator, we won't ignore it.
take up complaints with swiftspear, tobi, and aegis.

[Gota]

Let's contemplate an imaginary scenario for a sec.
There was this guy,that was banned form the lobby several times(don't remember his nick).
Let's say he eventually gets unbanned and follows lobby rules.
He gets treated unfairly by a moderator.
Will that moderator be somehow "punished",or will the rest of the mods just back him up?
As much as I want to believe you are all fair and trying to be very objective,I still think such a scenario is possible.
Since he cant make his complaint public,he is basically screwed..

Moderators are generally not liked(even if they do their job well),that's true,but if someone thinks a moderators did something unfair why shouldn't it be made public?
If there are many such complaints or if others will mention his unfair behavior in the same thread he shouldn't continue being a moderator.

Based on past posts about different moderators,made by players we can see that player can and will stand on the side of moderators if they fill they were right.

Moderators are people as well and can make mistakes.
Why shouldn't they be accountable for them?and wouldn't is make more sense for the moderator duty to be rotated amongst different players?
Maybe other players should take part in such decisions as well so it is more fair.

[Peet]

Since he cant make his complaint public,he is basically screwed..

As aegis stated...if you want to appeal and the moderator who banned you in the first place is not being cooperative (usually with reason), appeal to swift, aegis or tobi. They, not the community in general, are the ones in charge of moderation (particularly swift). Public discussion of that sort of thing *always* gets out of hand within a few posts.

Oh, and on a side note...repeatedly posting "lol mods r fags" in multiple places, like three or four individuals who fit the description of the situation you have described did, is an excellent way to decimate your chances of getting unbanned.

[Teutooni]

it's official policy to discuss them in private, yes.

You agree that ├óÔé¼┼ôThe Spring Project├óÔé¼┬Ø have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit.

As you can see, spring is not a damn democracy. Nor should it.

[SwiftSpear]

Policy is up for public discussion, specific events are generally not. 99% of the threads or discussions I've seen attempting to discuss a specific incident are patently and transparently attempts to smear the reputation of the acting moderator, and the majority of those situations the moderator was in the right as soon as I examined the issue.

I wouldn't allow "Hey everybody, look how much of a dick X player is!" threads, so why should I allow them for Neddie, Peet or any moderator?

If you need to refer to a specific action in order to make your point of why we should consider a certain policy change, than just don't name names.

If the issue is that a moderator is in breach of our policies, that's not a public issue, that's something that the rest of the moderation team needs to discuss and decide what needs to be done. So in those cases we ask you to PM me, or Tobi, or really any other moderator that you trust. Any spring moderator has the ability to bring an issue to the attention of the rest of the group.

[Gota]

Well.
An honest question:
Why not?
Maybe the lobby moderators should only mute/ban spammers or players who use bad language?
You can define the 2 very accurately.
Why should there be any moderation beyond that?
Anything beyond the 2 concept above,cannot be strictly defined and thus any ruling on it will cause tensions(not to mention the fact that any such ruling will be completely subjective and might under the same circumstances be different cause of the specific moderator making it).
Players have the ability to ignore users so why moderation can not be limited to strictly stopping spamming and bad language?

[SwiftSpear]

Well.
An honest question:
Why not?
Maybe the lobby moderators should only mute/ban spammers or players who use bad language?
You can define the 2 very accurately.
Why should there be any moderation beyond that?
Anything beyond the 2 concept above,cannot be strictly defined and thus any ruling on it will cause tensions(not to mention the fact that any such ruling will be completely subjective and might under the same circumstances be different cause of the specific moderator making it).
Players have the ability to ignore users so why moderation can not be limited to strictly stopping spamming and bad language?

Because the ignore feature doesn't work ingame, and it doesn't make you impervious to autohost functions.

We had a player logging on with multiple lobby accounts so they could votekick another specific player from autohost games. That's a clear case of harrassment, but something the automated ignore feature would be useless against.

We've several times had players target other players by starting games with them and immediately ally dgunning the specific player they were targeting. Also harassment.

There is a field of actions players can take that are clearly morally defunct and socially unacceptable, yet aren't things that are easy to suppress via server functions. That stuff is why we have moderators and why moderators have to do things aside from just watch for swearing and naughty links in #main.

[Gota]

I agree,but there is also the ban function.
Autohosts can have ban lists,and some do(all of them?).
Maybe it's best to encourage players themselves to deal with it.

Players that constantly ruin games become infamous pretty fast and get banned.
Of course,the fact anyone can create a new account in a matter of a few seconds is a major problem that unfortunately hasn't been fixed yet,but,aside from that, don't you think that Many of the roles moderators insist on taking can actually transfer to the players themselves?

On cases when a player actually pms a moderator he should step in and investigate but maybe moderators shouldn't interfere on their own(unless certain,well defined, circumstances are met,such as cursing, flooding,spamming,etc...)

[TradeMark]

lol yeah i hate that too when we need to shut up about moderators, like its some taboo to talk about :DDD so lame, like we lived in china or something xD if you talk bad about the king, you get executed etc. which means lock here =D

[aegis]

if this was like china, you wouldn't have lived through typing your post.

[dizekat]

actually, china is not this bad.... you'd just lose your internet connection at most. And mild discussion of actions of government without calling names is OK even in china I believe (they do have mildly opposite websites).

[Gota]

if this was like china, you wouldn't have lived through typing your post.

they'd execute you through the net..

[aegis]

in soviet russia, imbeciles stab other people in the face over the internet

[SwiftSpear]

actually, china is not this bad.... you'd just lose your internet connection at most. And mild discussion of actions of government without calling names is OK even in china I believe (they do have mildly opposite websites).

Hong Kong and Macau aren't behind the great firewall as well.