Spring RTS Engine

klapmongool wrote:

Kloot wrote:

klapmongool wrote:

You assume an awful lot about me. And yea, I could point at all the fallacies but I won't. And apparently you get to say things that if I say them I get warned for. Not exactly a good basis for a discussion.

User was warned for this post. Felony 4.

Why was klapmongool warned for backseat moderation for this post? I think moderators need to discuss more between themselves before dealing out random punishments like this. klapmongool wasn't backseat moderation, he replied to a post that could be termed a racist offence.

There is nothing to be won by dealing out punishments that you yourself think is fair, but that 90% of the community thinks is a farce. You just water down your own credibility. If you think this is wrong, then by all means explain why that was backseat moderation.

Before you think my post is also backseat moderation:
[quote]... relevant moderator actions or rules and policies are allowed provided they do not throw threads off topic or are done with excessive rudeness. We want to know how we can improve the way we moderate or things that we have missed, and we don't want to be flamed any more than anyone else.[/quote]

I think this thread is a relevant discussion on the importance of different aspects regarding what users want. Of course it is important to involve end-users in the design of the engine. What will you do with an engine without users? It's like the communist system where the central committee planned that 2 million left shoes should be produced but no right ones. That's pointless.

I agree Jools. In all of those posts I sat there wondering "Wtf??? He got warned for _that_?"

above posts split from http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=30192
---

As I said before:
if you moderate posts, put your name on it.

Putting "User was warned for this post." does not help to relieve tension from thread...
Its awkward to post after such edit because others will assume it was you.

I think over the past few years, the moderatods have behaved exemplarily, and I still in general think they do a great job. Just that recently there have been some lapses like these.

Maybe it was just something that happened in the heat of the moment.

I just get the feeling that there is perhaps one moderator that decided to warn klapmongol for some kind of personal reasons. I don't see any moderating intent in his post, and that's what felony 4 is supposed to mean.

I don't think I have officially warned or banned anyone yet, I'm mostly just cleaning this forum of spammers.
However while I agree with kloot 100% in that thread, I don't think it was worthy of warning klapmongool yet (although he did try to play the victim card with that "ban us if you don't like it" talk...). But come on, it's just a warning, suck it up, you can have like 5 of them until you get banned, for what, a day?

But tbh, I was tempted myself to just lock that thread at it's useless and looked like a flamewar waiting to happen from the start.

Maybe a misunderstanding then. It says felony on the post, felony 4. Maybe change that to warning then. There are separate lists in that forum etiquette section.

I think "felony 4" is there to say what forum rule the user broke, in that case, #4. It clearly says he was "warned" for the post, not "banned"

It still refers to felony 4, which is backseat moderation. Did you not mean that?

Here's the list for reference:
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6693

Yes... felony of type four, for which he received a WARNING

Felonies, unless particularly egregious, do not result in an automatic ban but they are generally supposed to result in an warning. Misdemeanors may result in changes to a post, but may not warrant an explicit warning. Warnings accumulate to meet a minimum threshold for bans, which is intended to prevent repeat low-level offense, which is generally trolling.

I am not sure I agree with the interpretation of the post as Felony 4, but I can see the logic; by asserting that there is an imbalance in moderation, one is indirectly undermining the moderator's actions.

I was considering locking the thread as well.

The other guy made a remark about mongols, which has nothing to do with the thread, or with the credibility of the authors argument. It was simply saying that one ethnic group's logic is worse that others.

Not that it serves any purpsoe, but you could almost report that to the police if you wanted to.

Again, wrong: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mongool.

Nice: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jools

that just made my day xD