Forum Rules Revision - Warning System & Mandatory Bans

[Neddie]

About now I'd start looking for positive reinforcement...

And you'd be about two years late. Also, what specifically do you mean by "functional solutions" - you do realize that the term is generally tossed around like "innovation" or "synergistic strategy" as filler, I believe.

[KaiserJ]

the one thing i really can't stand on here is people ripping on others work. theres no good reason for it.

spam/idiocy/political rage i can handle, but protection for people making content, especially people just starting out, needs to be stepped up IMO. nothing wrong with saying "doing it wrong" but it needs to be coupled with "how 2 do it rite" in order for anything good to come of it.

that been said, i feel over the last year i've been here, this has improved significantly, as has the general friendliness and attitude of forumgoers. "you want it? make it yourself" has been presented in a much nicer fashion.

[MidKnight]

the one thing i really can't stand on here is people ripping on others work. theres no good reason for it.

spam/idiocy/political rage i can handle, but protection for people making content, especially people just starting out, needs to be stepped up IMO. nothing wrong with saying "doing it wrong" but it needs to be coupled with "how 2 do it rite" in order for anything good to come of it.

that been said, i feel over the last year i've been here, this has improved significantly, as has the general friendliness and attitude of forumgoers. "you want it? make it yourself" has been presented in a much nicer fashion.

I agree with everything you said here. I'd like to add one thing, though:
While people making content should be protected from non-constructive criticism, they should not, imo, be protected in any way from punishment for breaking the rules. This may seem obvious, but we've had problems in the past where people who should have received a ban did not because they were producing content.

[lurker]

Not because of a long history of being on the forums and possibly helpful, but directly from producing content? Do tell.

[Forboding Angel]

the one thing i really can't stand on here is people ripping on others work. theres no good reason for it.

spam/idiocy/political rage i can handle, but protection for people making content, especially people just starting out, needs to be stepped up IMO. nothing wrong with saying "doing it wrong" but it needs to be coupled with "how 2 do it rite" in order for anything good to come of it.

that been said, i feel over the last year i've been here, this has improved significantly, as has the general friendliness and attitude of forumgoers. "you want it? make it yourself" has been presented in a much nicer fashion.

I agree with everything you said here. I'd like to add one thing, though:
While people making content should be protected from non-constructive criticism, they should not, imo, be protected in any way from punishment for breaking the rules. This may seem obvious, but we've had problems in the past where people who should have received a ban did not because they were producing content.

I agree with this, but I'm interested to know who you are thinking of in this context. (one person comes to mind in my case, Rattle, but he doesn't even produce content. For that matter, other than being bitchy 95% of the time I really don't know what he does around here)

*****

Also, may I call as a perfect example of what kaiser was talking about: Smoth.

Continually produces amazing content for the entire community, but when he posts something he gets undulated by the members of this forum and it pisses me off beyond words.

Smoth is quite trollable, so am I and many of the other content producing members of this place, and it would be nice if the mods would shield us from the idiots so that instead of posting epic flamewars, we could actually work on stuff.

Personally, I just started being a complete and utter asshole to people who start off being pricks. It works well enough, and for the most part I get left alone. But I shouldn't have to resort to being a complete dickhead just to ward off the trolls.

Edit: The totally fucked up thing is, the vast majority of us content devs are really nice guys, but we end up being pricks just so we don't have to deal with all the stupid shit that gets flung around here.

[AF]

Lobby and forum moderation has always followed this route:

• New Rules
• More moderators

When this fails or is inadequate the answer is:

• New Rules
• More moderators

Sometimes this works, but as we can see people are still unhappy after 5 years of this system.

Examples of functional changes:

• Banning in private channels
• Emails on lobby accounts
• No swearing in public channels, or just certain words
• Reputation systems
• Rewards and functionality/services that have to be earned rather than having full access as soon as you register.

So far the only functional changes that have been attempted, are not by moderation at all, but by lobby developers, namely ranked leagues, as they provide an incentive to sticking to an account, server restrictions intended not to moderate at all but rather to prevent exploits and traffic flooding, and bots in private channels.

In the past I and others have proposed changes, and generally these systems are initially met with interest, followed by apathy, resulting in them never being implemented. Months later they're scorned s 'technical fixes' that never worked and that technical fixes never will work.

As a result, the people most capable of helping, most capable of implementing these things, who have the most ideas, are also the people who learned first to keep their mouths shut and not waste their time and effort helping spring moderation on the forums and lobby.

[Caydr]

In regards to Forboding's suggestion that moderators should be there to tenderly wipe away content creators' tears, I'd like to reaffirm my position that I view destroying those foolish enough to troll me as the best part of my day.

To those advocating the ability to log in to the forums when banned:
When and how would this be useful? Do you expect to be banned in the future? If so, do you also expect to only wish to contest your ban subsequent to receiving 2 warnings, and choose not to contest said warnings?

Edit: Thanks, Lurker.

I don't anticipate being banned for a justifiable reason in the future, but this doesn't preclude me being banned. I mean, for instance, in the case of situations like this:

The pedo pope image was found offensive by me and other members of the forum.

The pope is under ongoing investigation into allegations of tolerance for pedophelia. The Church itself has been caught covering up or attempting to cover up these kinds of stories countless times.

Be offended by actions with victims, not ones without any.

Now, besides this, you cited numerous past violations, can you be more specific about these?

(More recently he's been accused not of participating in covering it up, but of masterminding the coverup)

I just noticed that you already received a warning for the posts I found in violation, from Neddie a few days earlier.

So I was apparently warned twice for the same posts, which under other circumstances would've lead to an instant ban without me having an opportunity to clarify things. The mentioned "pedopope" image I still have, if anyone would like to see it for informational purposes, however for fear of offending "several people on the internet", I'll refrain from posting it again. It's inoffensive and far less questionable than many of the things I've seen posted here on a regular basis. I thought Islam was the one everyone was calling ridiculous for shitting bricks when someone made a satirical drawing of their holy man. For a little context of how ridiculous and hypocritical this is, refer to your own discussion here: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... t=muhammad

Regarding the other posts which I had been warned about, I think me and Neddie came to an understanding about at least a few of the items and he understood that they were only offensive when taken out of context, like so:

"Dumb people think we should just nuke Iran and get it over with" - This just in, here is a direct quote from Caydr: "... We should just nuke Iran and get it over with." More at 11.

Or for another example, that time Beherith banned me for a month on suspicion I was a Russian spy or something. Whatever it was, the forum itself provided the proof that nothing had taken place. And then someone hit the douche button and took away my ability to edit posts, because this, again, seemed like a logical first step in curbing... oh wait, once again nothing had actually taken place. I wonder if Beherith instigated that one too?

It's the INTERNET, people. Try and make a law for every possible infraction and all you will do is confuse the matter. Take a look at the rule thread on some popular forums and use them as a guideline. We should need at most two or three rules, it's not like we're negotiating in a hostage situation or something. Understand that Off-Topic is, and always has been, a free-for-all where bullshit goes. General is for stuff related to the engine that doesn't belong anywhere else, and the other forums are self-explanatory. No racial slurs, no excessive swearing, try not to derail topics unless they've already served their purpose. Do we actually need a rule against sexism?! Who is sexist these days? If someone's dumb enough to be sexist, then the person who takes them seriously enough to be offended by them is the one who should be banned. It's not a treehouse, it's the internet, shit happens, and the people who get offended probably have a very strong overlap with people whose homepage is msn.com.

[Caydr]

In summary, go watch/buy/rent Blazing Saddles. If you feel righteously indignant and/or morally outraged while watching it, you can just piss right off. You don't belong on the internet.

[Tribulex]

This is part of a WARCRIM campaign to ban me from the internet, 1 website at a time.

Oh well at least Neddie is behind it and we have super secret AWESOME FRIENDS RULES right?

[Neddie]

I'd like to reaffirm my position that I view destroying those foolish enough to troll me as the best part of my day.

And doing so is not conducive to a smooth, productive community... and against policy, under which you will thus be moderated.

I don't anticipate being banned for a justifiable reason in the future, but this doesn't preclude me being banned.

There is a difference between justification and acceptance. You may refuse to accept it as legitimate if you were banned, but nonetheless you would not be banned unjustly. To clarify, Beherith's warning is considered an extension of the one I applied earlier, rather than a separate warning, because we covered the same content. If it were considered independent you would have been banned upon issuance.

Regarding the other posts which I had been warned about, I think me and Neddie came to an understanding about at least a few of the items and he understood that they were only offensive when taken out of context.

Yes and no. The warning was still substantive and I dismissed some of your rationalizations/explanations because they were invalid. For us to come to an understanding you would have had to accept those points I did not validate your counter arguments on, and then to modify your behaviour to act accordingly. That element remains to be seen.

Or for another example, that time Beherith banned me for a month on suspicion I was a Russian spy or something. Whatever it was, the forum itself provided the proof that nothing had taken place. And then someone hit the douche button and took away my ability to edit posts, because this, again, seemed like a logical first step in curbing... oh wait, once again nothing had actually taken place. I wonder if Beherith instigated that one too?

You were banned by agreement among the moderation and administration team for consistently abusive behaviour. Your edit button was taken away because when you edit a post the prior revision is gone forever, and multiple times you edited your own posts to substantively change offensive or manipulative elements, sometimes removing them entirely and thus visibly (Though not actually) invalidating responses and/or moderation activity.

[Caydr]

multiple times you edited your own posts to substantively change offensive or manipulative elements, sometimes removing them entirely and thus visibly (Though not actually) invalidating responses and/or moderation activity.

So let's say I post something, re-read it, realize it crosses the line, and then remove the offending bit before you've struck upon an opportunity to warn me about it. One of the following will be true:

1) I've corrected the situation myself so quickly that there is no "post edited by caydr at xx:xx", which probably implies I didn't mean it the way it sounded.
2) I've voluntarily corrected the situation myself but not quickly enough, which means that I should now have a publicly-visible user note in my profile which states what horrible thing I said.
3) Someone (not mentioning any names) is making shit up, because somehow neither of the above happened.

But in any case, there's an edit log, is there not?

[Neddie]

Not for individual posts, no.

[Caydr]

There I go again, totally changing the meaning of my post and bringing about the apocalypse.

Oh shit! "Last edited by Caydr on Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total." That's funny, this line never appears in the posts that I maliciously doctored previously.

multiple times you edited your own posts to substantively change offensive or manipulative elements, sometimes removing them entirely and thus visibly (Though not actually) invalidating responses and/or moderation activity.

So let's say I post something, re-read it, realize it crosses the line, and then remove the offending bit before you've struck upon an opportunity to warn me about it. One of the following will be true:

1) I've corrected the situation myself so quickly that there is no "post edited by caydr at xx:xx", which probably implies I didn't mean it the way it sounded.
2) I've voluntarily corrected the situation myself but not quickly enough, which means that I should now have a publicly-visible user note in my profile which states what horrible thing I said.
3) Someone (not mentioning any names) is making shit up, because somehow neither of the above happened.

But in any case, there's an edit log, is there not?

Addendum:

2) I've voluntarily corrected the situation myself but not quickly enough, which means that I should now have a publicly-visible user note in my profile which states what horrible thing I said.

should read

2) I've voluntarily corrected the situation myself but not quickly enough, which means that I should now have a publicly-visible user note in my profile which states what horrible thing I said, AND a note below my post because the edit-without-a-note delay has passed and/or someone else has already posted after me.

[Caydr]

Try an experiment, delete all the rule threads and replace them with:

Grow the hell up, you're on the internet. Repeat offenses will be met with a week ban.

If you feel offended by something, ask yourself, "Am I being an over-sensitive douche?" If so, contact the moderating team so you can be banned.

Do you feel you're being stifled by unconstructive people? Then go to one of those forums where everybody's nice and never come back. If possible, sterilize yourself.

Constructive criticism is always appreciated, but don't lie just to be nice. Shit is shit is shit.

Oh yeah, no slurs or depictions of the prophet/spiritual whose name begins with the letter preceding N in the English alphabet. Also don't mention the Pope, this offends Beherith, and don't mention the Jews or Israel, as this offends Gota. No mention of Hitler, Nazis, or the Holocaust, this may offend Germans, Jews, or much of modern-day Europe. No mention of the Civil War, slavery, or racism, since this will offend white supremacists who are sure we'll all understand when the new world order is here; also, blacks. No mention of Japanese internment camps, this will offend the Japanese, embarass Americans and Canadians. The Jews aren't responsible for anything, ever, and more seriously, neither are Canadians, we just don't do a whole hell of a lot in general. Don't use the word "Kiwi", it's like the "N" word, only they're allowed to use it. Nothing involving sand, turbans, or towels. No mention of the Armenian genocide please. Do not bring up the phrase "comfort women", there might be Japanese browsing this forum. No imagery depicting terrorist acts, this will embolden the terrorists. Do not mention Tianamen Square or the ensuing massacre. And absolutely do not mention censorship.

Actually that last paragraph is a complete crock of shit, accept that there are dumb people in the world who think and do dumb things and stop trying to proactively police people's thoughts.

[Neddie]

An edit message is, if I recall correctly, not displayed if no posts have been made after your post in the thread.

So let's say I post something, re-read it, realize it crosses the line, and then remove the offending bit before you've struck upon an opportunity to warn me about it. One of the following will be true:

1) I've corrected the situation myself so quickly that there is no "post edited by caydr at xx:xx", which probably implies I didn't mean it the way it sounded.
2) I've voluntarily corrected the situation myself but not quickly enough, which means that I should now have a publicly-visible user note in my profile which states what horrible thing I said.

One of those will be true if we assume you're posting in good faith. Given your history of sticking barbs in, skirting policy, raging at the actions of moderators and refusing to accept responsibility for your actions we clearly and reasonably no longer assume you're posting in good faith.

That's funny, this line never appears in the posts that I maliciously doctored.

3) Someone (not mentioning any names) is making shit up, because somehow neither of the above happened.

Do you not understand that this is precisely the sort of manipulative whining which people don't want to put up with every time they deal with one of your posts? Implying that people are lying is one of the easiest, most aggravating baits anybody can put out, and because there is no way to prove you definitively right or wrong there is no effective counter. All you do is create the suggestion and defame whoever works with your posts or answers the reports made on your posts.

I assure you, we have much better things to do with our time than lie or pursue vendettas on the internet. I know you have abundant free time and are here for literally two to five hours a day - we don't have the luxury or interest to do the same. I'm only on the forums to moderate most of the time, and I fit this in between the requirements and pleasure of life. Personally, I get to pick who I speak to here, except in the case of moderation, and even then I can simply choose not to discuss things with you if I wish. If communicating with or about you required me to lie, I would save myself effort and simply not communicate.

Stop acting like a persecuted child and people will eventually believe you're posting in good faith. Your troubles with moderation will fade if you change your behaviour, and once we believe you've changed, the scrutiny applied to your actions will fade as well. You are the source of your problems, and only you can change that.

[Caydr]

I'm not implying anyone's lying, I'm saying that the forum itself is proof that someone is lying and that the "someone" can't possibly be me.

Also, I'm not on here 2-5 hours a day, I keep a window open on my laptop with other forums, news sites, etc.

[Neddie]

You're implying that we would bother. You could have left out #3 because it doesn't happen but you chose to toss it in there.

[Caydr]

Understand this: More than once I've been told that I'm doing something I'm not and been punished for it. I've then provided absolute proof that the supposed actions did not and could not occur. And then all of the sudden I had an edit button again, or my warning level dropped. Maybe it's a coincidence but I like to think that you have some amount of humility to realize that yes, maybe, just maybe, you misunderstood a situation or doled out an inappropriate punishment.

At varying times, I've backed down, you've backed down, I've backed down, you've backed down. Then some spectacular clusterfail happens again and someone cites me for a message that was actually ON the forum for all of 20 seconds, or comes into a thread without reading any of the context and says I'm out of line, or gives me "special treatment" despite other people posting far worse things in the very same thread, and it pisses me off.

Maybe it's just a personality defect, but when I have proof positive that I'm not in the wrong, I don't like people shitting on me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want me to play by all your rules, I will expect the SAME rules enforced upon EVERYONE. I have no problem following rules as long as I'm not the only one being held to the standard.

And for **** sake, how about you try for some standards on transparency, like who modified a post, what the reason was, and only removing the offending portion instead of the whole thing.

Some guy posts a thread asking why he can't make stickies in his own forum. Nothing happens. I bump the thread, reporting that I too can't make stickies in my own forum. Nothing happens. I spam the hell out of the thread, get warned, get told I should've brought it up with the moderators (I did, on two occasions, one with you personally and another with the moderator group as a whole). Now he can make stickies and I still can't. WTF. Can you understand why I begin to feel singled out?

blah.jpg (148.66 KiB) Viewed 1458 times

Heck if I did a forum search I've probably started threads on this subject in the past as well.

[Caydr]

And just for good measure, how did Smoth end up with a -1 warning level anyway?

[Neddie]

Understand this: More than once I've been told that I'm doing something I'm not and been punished for it. I've then provided absolute proof that the supposed actions did not and could not occur. And then all of the sudden I had an edit button again, or my warning level dropped. Maybe it's a coincidence but I like to think that you have some amount of humility to realize that yes, maybe, just maybe, you misunderstood a situation or doled out an inappropriate punishment.

Your warning level drops with time. Your edit button was returned because we decided it had been long enough and perhaps you had learned not to mess around with your posts. When I misunderstand or make a mistake I talk with somebody about it and explicitly state that I'm correcting it.

Then some spectacular clusterfail happens again and someone cites me for a message that was actually ON the forum for all of 20 seconds, or comes into a thread without reading any of the context and says I'm out of line, or gives me "special treatment" despite other people posting far worse things in the very same thread, and it pisses me off...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want me to play by all your rules, I will expect the SAME rules enforced upon EVERYONE. I have no problem following rules as long as I'm not the only one being held to the standard.

Scrutiny is based on what you've done and what you do. This is structurally intended to be flexible and cannot be effectively standardized. Moderation actions, for the most part, are discretionary. This is also intended to be flexible and will not be standardized - inflexible rules have inflexible loopholes, and not every time somebody spouts something obscene or drops a few more Celsius of fire on a poster is serious enough to be warned for in the thread or in the user profile. For significant infractions we are struggling for consistent enforcement and while we continue to make progress, I know as well as you that we are not there.

I spam the hell out of the thread, get warned, get told I should've brought it up with the moderators (I did, on two occasions, one with you personally and another with the moderator group as a whole). Now he can make stickies and I still can't. WTF. Can you understand why I begin to feel singled out?

I don't have any record of you bringing it up with me personally. As for the functionality, I remember changing your rights in the ACP, but I might not have verified the changes and I can rectify that now. On a side note, I need a project name so I can rename your forum. I also need one from Argh so I can rename his. If I don't get actual project titles and some kind of evidence that there is a project coming then I'm going to remove the sub-forums when I reorganize the forums in a week or two.

EDIT: I can't remember, but Smoth's warning level is irrelevant as he is indefinitely banned pending an appeal.