|
|
Post by Red Hairdo on Jun 24, 2012 0:26:36 GMT -5
Ys ETERNAL.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Jul 17, 2012 13:26:01 GMT -5
Expect major changes (such as a thorough elaboration of "Be excellent to each other") to the rules when we have the time. In addition, we will write out guidelines for our moderators, to be organized, just, and fair to our members. The first offense gets a warning. The second offense gets a suspension. The third offense gets a permanent ban. Since I am just now introducing this system, all of our presently active members receive a one-time amnesty; a clean slate. Your next offense will be treated as your first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zeithri on Jul 17, 2012 15:33:00 GMT -5
Expect major changes (such as a thorough elaboration of "Be excellent to each other") to the rules when we have the time. In addition, we will write out guidelines for our moderators, to be organized, just, and fair to our members. The first offense gets a warning. The second offense gets a suspension. The third offense gets a permanent ban. Since I am just now introducing this system, all of our presently active members receive a one-time amnesty; a clean slate. Your next offense will be treated as your first. This is the only rule that needs to be understood. Be kind to each other, don't be an ass and don't create a public flame war. Take your differences if they cannot be solved in a non-flamic way to the private sector. Differences is fine to have of course but don't insult others about it. I am very, VERY against a three-hit system. It promotes missuse of moderator powers, I have seen that happen countless times. Everytime " Three strikes, you're out" or similiar comes into play, shit will go down. Biggest example would be a very well-known forum whose name shalt not be spoken because they're a bunch of pretentious twats, they added such a system and immidiately people started getting the slap left and right simply through disagreements. tl;dr This system is flawed and will not work. |
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Jul 17, 2012 16:16:46 GMT -5
Very well said.
I agree that it could be misused, but I believe also that it can work as long as moderators meet the following criteria:
* Moderators will make decisions as a team, to avoid unfair, hasty, and biased treatment of any member.
* These rules will be applied with a *very* thick helping of common sense.
* Disagreeing with your point of view, even if you really like your point of view, does not make someone a troll.
In other words, we won't wave any hammer around without serious consideration first. I don't know if this helps, but I hope it alleviates some concern. I definitely don't want anything to do with any abuse of power, nor do I want anything to do with any abuse of the forum itself; our objective is to create a stable, solid system, while maintaining a friendly and fun community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zeithri on Jul 17, 2012 16:33:00 GMT -5
The exact same thing were claimed to be under affect on the previous mentioned unnamed forum as well and it certainly were not. Doesn't mean that'll happen here but to demonstrate a point.
This is a hairthin line, all it takes is just to slide slightly and you'll cross it.
Power is corrupting unless kept in check.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Jul 17, 2012 16:46:58 GMT -5
Very true. You do have a point there, but we do need all the help we can get, and are open to suggestions. We can't simply continue with the old system (which was similar, but more wishy-washy and less guided) because that wasn't working either.
We could try a 3-4 week grace period. A grace period is definitely necessary in system like this; those who come here just to cause trouble are dealt with, while those who come here and are otherwise generally well-mannered are safe, yes? I mean it's a theory, and we can play around with the variables -- but I think we have the potential to do it right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zeithri on Jul 17, 2012 17:01:33 GMT -5
Those who come just to cause trouble should always be dealt with regardless of the rules because they are by per default; trolls.
One thing that is very important is that the moderators will be able to take heat and not try and defend each other for one or anothers flaw. As in what I mean that moderators will not gang up and try and defend someone for clearly having done wrong.
I am still very much against a three-hit system then banned. Give a temporary ban instead and make it longer between the warnings. With this said, if you gain strike 1 say tomorrow, strike 2 should not be strike 2 if it happens in 2-3 months after that date, it should be strike 1. You should not accumulate strikes if you do well inbetween.
If you are still decisive about having a three-strike rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xalphenos on Jul 17, 2012 17:49:59 GMT -5
With this said, if you gain strike 1 say tomorrow, strike 2 should not be strike 2 if it happens in 2-3 months after that date, it should be strike 1. You should not accumulate strikes if you do well in between. *Agrees 100% Though I'm sure that would have been covered in your "thick helping of common sense." |
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Jul 17, 2012 17:58:56 GMT -5
...and they are dealt with, as per default.
That's what I meant when I said grace period, though I'm pretty sure 2-3 months is a lot harsher than 3-4 weeks.
A moderation error is not a free pass to break the forum rules or disregard requests made by other moderators. We can not and will not accept such vindictive behavior here -- if an argument must persist, then it must be resolved peaceably within PMs. It is requested in such cases, and cooperation is crucial. As for whether or not a person should be defended, that is a double-standard. By that token it should stand that no one has the right to defend others, neither user nor moderator, as it should be handled privately to begin with, not publicly. Yes, people make mistakes, they apologize, and everyone moves on. A dead horse shouldn't be beaten, people shouldn't rally for others to take their side in a personal issue while being belligerent, defaming, condescending, etc.; attempting to get a rise out of someone, regardless of whether or not a mistake was made, is trolling. As for whether or not a person should be able to take the heat -- sure, but keep it to PMs. It was never before acceptable to do that sort of thing publicly on the forums and it isn't acceptable now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zeithri on Jul 17, 2012 18:06:18 GMT -5
You missunderstand me.
It is very common that Moderators will gang up on forums and claim that their cause is just despite that they have obviously made an error in their judgement but they simply refuse to see it. Much as some people simply cannot take criticism.
If someone clearly does something wrong, they did wrong and will be punished.
But if a moderator does wrong and goes unpunished - That's what I am saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Jul 17, 2012 18:54:09 GMT -5
Ahhh, I did misunderstand you, I'm sorry! Yes, that is retained (as well as pretty much all of the old rules) -- "Rules apply to all members equally - including staff." Wrongdoing is wrongdoing, no matter who does it. It took me a while to accept the criticism of others for my errors. I disagreed strongly -- in spite of the majority criticism, recalled my belief regarding majority votes from a personal situation, accepted their criticism, suspended myself, came back in a month, and apologized sincerely for my errors. I took a long time since then to accept the responsibility, in fear of slipping, in fear of making another error. I'm very dedicated to doing things right. Though it was self-punishment, I do believe that I came around and did the right thing, in spite of taking a painfully long time to do so. The one thing I hate about this responsibility, however, is that I feel conflicted often; like I have to stand against my friends when they do make mistakes, and I don't like to do that or want to do that to them; it doesn't make me feel like a very good friend. If anything, it makes me feel very judgmental, and that what they've seen (myself as a moderator) is superficial. Anyway, here are the new rules. I hope that this will be a big step in the right direction for ALoY users and moderators. |
|
|
|
Post by Aa Wat Kay on Jul 18, 2012 0:56:54 GMT -5
Hey are we going to codify any sort of protections from mods deciding they don't need to be impartial when it comes to their own non-moderative actions? Kind of wondering when I can safely argue against someone and when they'll basically decide that "No, I'm a Mod, I'm Right, No Argument" and literally delete the entire conversation and tell people to never talk about it, despite the mod themselves being the one to bring it all up in the first place.
It sort of makes the idea of posting here at all completely abhorrent, and I'm saying this on behalf of myself and others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ascended Mermaid on Jul 18, 2012 4:31:30 GMT -5
If a mod has an argument with a user, their rights are as limited as the user's; that is, someone (be it user or moderator) files a complaint (Report to Mod link) and then the moderators vote on the appropriate action as a team. I understand your concern, and will not actively support the deletion of posts or threads without the proper procedures; I.E. do the posts or threads violate the rules? If so, posts or threads are to be moved to The Dump, not deleted. If not, but the argument is recycling assets and going nowhere, or if it is becoming more of a heated argument, a request will be made to cease or take it to PMs. If the argument is otherwise just a casual debate and/or has not been reported, no action will be taken. If this is to your liking, I will add this to the rules. If not, we can openly discuss this to find a solution. As stated prior, we are open to suggestions, and wish to improve the general experience for all users. We've had requests to lock or delete threads in more recent times, but have casually refused in respect of our members. // I just woke up so if I have overlooked anything (which is likely), don't be afraid to let me know. |
|
