How would you like to see forum/IRC moderation change?

[Mousikos]

Again, serious replies only.

[Nightmare]

A full mod team like we had a few years ago with grizzled veterans.

[Vanquish]

- Nobody should be above or beneath rules, including developers, other moderators, Marti, myself and whoever else may offend.

- Moderators shouldn't let their personal feelings interfere with their duties, everyone gets moderated to the same standard.

- No permabans except in extreme cases, people change.

- If sufficient evidence has been collected to suggest that a moderator has been abusing his/her privileges multiple times, their future as a forum mod should be questioned.

[Marti]

Get at least 2/3 mods to agree with someone being warned, so no one gets warned/banned for ridiculous reasons because one dev/mod doesn't like that person.

Also, imo, devs should stick to dev-ing, and mods should do the moderating, we need some new active mods i believe.

[Waffles]

Id ban undead immediately if you elected me to this cherished position of power.

[PhaNtom]

Get at least 2/3 mods to agree with someone being warned, so no one gets warned/banned for ridiculous reasons because one dev/mod doesn't like that person.

While I do partly agree with this, I think it's kind of bs for simple things like warning someone for quoting too many posts, and such things. I think it would be better of being something like needing 2-3 mods for agreement if the warning amount exceeds 20%

[ketar]

devs should stick to dev-ing, and mods should do the moderating, we need some new active mods i believe.

this is important

ofc there are many other aspects and I'm sure you'll find them out (some have already being said) but in our particular situation the two roles have to be separated

[Cemer]

honestly if new mods were to be added

(a combination of 2 or all three)

- 2 people voted in by the community
- 2 people picked by the mods based on their application
- 1 dev or handpicked by the dev team

[Undead]

the mods we have are fine. imo they aren't the problem anymore.

what we need is some actual rules. nobody actually knows what they can say or what they can get away with. the only actual rule seems to be "don't offend the moderators". set down some rules that aren't rules, but are laws. again, when i say that, be very careful, because if you set down some unjust laws (most of the current forum rules make no sense and were probably written up in 30 minutes), then nobody is going to be orderly. then, there wouldn't be any actual debate as to whether someone deserves a ban or not.

[Orynge]

While I do think the mods need cleaning out, Undead is right. This isn't an issue with moderators, it's a problem with moderation. It's been an issue for as long as I've been here.

[Mr.Floppy]

Sorry, but some of you guys are so far off from what is taking place in reality.

Please name me one case, maybe apart from sophisticated technology, in that excessive sets of rules have successfully made things clearer or more transparent to everyone involved. A place to talk and discuss shouldn't need more than let's say 5 rules everybody has to agree on. The rest should be what I call common sense really and that point-warning-system is nothing but a gimmick with no educational effect in that respect. In fact, this particular system and those suggested group decisions for minor ongoings is only going to over complicate naturally simple things.

Take a look at the VAT act of your own country and try to figure out how it works and how you have to behave as a company in order to always obey each given rule completely. I tell you in Germany there are only few that can claim to be fully aware of all the details and all bilateral implications and so on. The point is, it is not that complicated when you look at the core ideas and structure. It has evolved to that huge monster of bureaucracy because of jerks that try to circumvent this regulation to their own profit and each edgy case that has come up had to be regarded eventually.

Now some start to ask for the exact same thing to happen here and seem to even believe that this would guarantee no more injustice is going to take place. In reality this is only going to confuse a lot of people, leave moderators with less actual power to moderate and open up playground for the smart jerks that of course will expand any given rule to their own advantage, like they are already doing btw.
Keep it simple, keep it clean and always judge difficult situations regarding it's impact on the game and its prosperity.

See, there is no rule that is going to change someone who only shows up to cause havoc. The need to put pressure on someone in order to make him behave is when things are gone wrong already. This should not be a regular case. In a mature environment you will occasionally have to call back someone who's gone a little overboard in a heated discussion and he might even apologize rather quickly. That trollfest that has been going on in here for years now is just insane. Really, this is not funny at all. The only way to counter such behaviour is getting rid of those individuals entirely and this is not a matter of freedom or democracy. Its about maintaining the purpose and use of that forum.

This forum isn't facebook or some other chatterbox meeting room. It is a place with a defined purpose. Namely to talk about a video game and therefore of course it is to be expected that at least 95% of the ongoing discussion would revolve around exactly this and not that countless flamewars and nonsense at the off-topic section.

At the moment we have more talking going on on this forum about how it should be moderated than actually making use of the forum. It's ridiculous. This forum seems only to exist to discuss itself. This is like Magnus Mills' Scheme of Full Employment.

I already can here all that yelling at me from particular people, but this what I'm always have about in here. The game. We can reasonably discuss about my wishes and positions about how the game should be develop, but I'm not going to argue my intelligence or honesty.

[Undead]

Sorry, but some of you guys are so far off from what is taking place in reality.

Please name me one case, maybe apart from sophisticated technology, in that excessive sets of rules have successfully made things clearer or more transparent to everyone involved.

the law. lol

A place to talk and discuss shouldn't need more than let's say 5 rules everybody has to agree on.

as long as those rules are to the point, i don't see the issue. as it currently stands, the rules are incredibly vague and subjective, hence why we have subjective moderation.

The rest should be what I call common sense really

common sense isn't so common, evidently.

Now some start to ask for the exact same thing to happen here and seem to even believe that this would guarantee no more injustice is going to take place. In reality this is only going to confuse a lot of people, leave moderators with less actual power to moderate and open up playground for the smart jerks that of course will expand any given rule to their own advantage, like they are already doing btw.

no.

Keep it simple, keep it clean

yes.

and always judge difficult situations regarding it's impact on the game and its prosperity.

except that is a subjective opinion, which is why we need proper rules.

See, there is no rule that is going to change someone who only shows up to cause havoc.

nobody is here purely to cause havoc, because people who only have that goal get banned rather quickly.

Its about maintaining the purpose and use of that forum.

we have different opinions on what the forum should be used for; it doesn't exist purely to be a part of development. hence why we have different sections on the forum in accordance to what needs to be discussed there.

This forum isn't facebook or some other chatterbox meeting room. It is a place with a defined purpose. Namely to talk about a video game and therefore of course it is to be expected that at least 95% of the ongoing discussion would revolve around exactly this and not that countless flamewars and nonsense at the off-topic section.

why do germans hate good banter? i don't get it.

[Orynge]

Get at least 2/3 mods to agree with someone being warned, so no one gets warned/banned for ridiculous reasons because one dev/mod doesn't like that person.

While I do partly agree with this, I think it's kind of bs for simple things like warning someone for quoting too many posts, and such things.  I think it would be better of being something like needing 2-3 mods for agreement if the warning amount exceeds 20%

I think the mods can sort it out for themselves, but there definitely needs to be a discussion rather than one person acting by themselves. There's no reason to stick to specific rules like 2/3.

I do think that devs can have their say on how the forum is run.

[Marti]

To clarify, i meant 2 or 3, not two third :)

[Mr.Floppy]

Sorry, but some of you guys are so far off from what is taking place in reality.

Please name me one case, maybe apart from sophisticated technology, in that excessive sets of rules have successfully made things clearer or more transparent to everyone involved.

the law. lol

This statement displays your lack of real experiences with actually applied laws in a day-to-day business. Not that I blame you, but therefore you necessarily will not be able to get my point, hence you completely left out the VAT example.

By the way, this has nothing to do with "Germans". Nobody cares some off-topic, private talk now and then. It is the unreasoned proportions this has grown up to and how it does spread out of its separated forum sections. This the issue here.

[ketar]

At the moment we have more talking going on on this forum about how it should be moderated than actually making use of the forum. It's ridiculous. This forum seems only to exist to discuss itself. This is like Magnus Mills' Scheme of Full Employment.
I already can here all that yelling at me from particular people, but this what I'm always have about in here. The game.

The question is. what is The Game?
Seriously.
For some people (once the vast majority) the game is just red and blue dolls dancing on a screen. For some people is competition. For some is coding and mapping. For some is chatting, for some is making friends. For some is... (fill the the empty spaces as you wish).
For others the forum is actually part of the game. So talking about it is also a sign of devotion to the game: mainly because here things aren't going in the way we all wish.
Thinking about the game only under a certain point of view (i.e. the tech side) is certainly a mistake. Underestimate the social part of the game is the other: the fact that many are trying to think about the rules of this place should be seen as a sign of affection and engagement. Whatsmore it clearly express a need, given the situation.
I say that again: people involved in development shouldn't be moderating the forum. Their (valued, fundamental) task is different. Otherwise we have a concentration of powers that brings to a kind of "technocracy" that has, as final effect, to promote only one idea of the game, depressing all the others.
This is the only structural rule I suggest. It would promote the idea that there is a whole community taking care of the game, in all his (un)explored aspects. The forum should be our ἀγορά, and participation should be welcome. As for the other rules, yes, keep'em simple.

[Undead]

This statement displays your lack of real experiences with actually applied laws in a day-to-day business. Not that I blame you, but therefore you necessarily will not be able to get my point, hence you completely left out the VAT example.

no, i wrote out a response as to why you mentioning the VAT example was irrelevant, but i left it out because it made my wall of text unnecessarily larger. your frustration with a specific part of the law doesn't make the law as a whole completely irrelevant; it still fulfills its purpose in most cases, despite its faults. its better that we have laws than not have them, and the same applies to AC.

[Mr.Floppy]

Undead, please leave out your quick assumptions and listen for once.

I never said, nor implied that laws as a whole were irrelevant. My sole point is that it is never going to make things easier, or more transparent for the average bob when things become more complex like some in here have suggested regarding a changed style of forum moderation. I thought we have already agreed on that actually.

The VAT act was added as an example that is most relevant to me personally, since I have to deal with it daily. No need to assume 'frustration', it's simply my experience and the first thing that came to mind. It's this subtle way you try to belittle your opponents at any given possibility that makes it hard for people to take your arguments seriously, by the way. Not to mention it constantly feels like you were only challenging people for the sake of discussion rather than trying to come to a conclusion. I'm not saying it was your actual intention, but that is how you are being received by a lot of people. Just to let you know.

However, there are plenty of other examples of laws that keep hordes of lawyers and consultants busy. Most likely not because it was crystal clear how those laws have to be applied. Just have a look at your local court house. I hope we can agree on that, especially since I never questioned the use of laws, but the 'readability' of those.

And to clarify something, I actually formulated the discussion in this forum should 'revolve around the game' like that, in order to not exclude the various aspects that come with the game, just like mapping, contests, clan matters and so on. I do know that there's more going on, but the actual development on the coding front.

I don't see what there was to discuss about this any further and think I have made myself pretty clear. In short, we need no excessive moderating rules and processes but have to get rid of those that can't have an argue without constantly offending their opponents.

I'm sort of tired that I always have to make at least three posts until certain people will understand, or more probable will stop to mime they wouldn't understand and derail a simple point of view by dissecting every single sentence, while at the same time completely miss the very point that was made. That is indeed frustrating.

Thanks for reading.

[Undead]

I never said, nor implied that laws as a whole were irrelevant.

there was in fact this implication, yes. perhaps you weren't being clear enough.

Please name me one case, maybe apart from sophisticated technology, in that excessive sets of rules have successfully made things clearer or more transparent to everyone involved.

My sole point is that it is never going to make things easier, or more transparent for the average bob when things become more complex like some in here have suggested regarding a changed style of forum moderation. I thought we have already agreed on that actually.

what i am trying to do is remove subjective moderation. if we have a set of rules that are completely unbiased towards anyone and are commonly agreed to by everyone in the community, we can thus achieve a situation where anyone who breaks those rules can be, without debate, seen to be breaking the rules. if we allow for subjective forms of moderation to continue (such as framing moderation around a central directive of protecting the quality of discussion), then dissent and argument is inevitable. it is pretty obvious to me that this ambiguity regarding moderation is one of the main reasons why this tension is occuring and has occured over a long period of time. remove the ambiguity, remove the tension.

Not to mention it constantly feels like you were only challenging people for the sake of discussion rather than trying to come to a conclusion. I'm not saying it was your actual intention, but that is how you are being received by a lot of people. Just to let you know.

that perception is because of my willingness to push an argument, which many people are not used to. i'm glad you're just as keen on a good argument.

However, there are plenty of other examples of laws that keep hordes of lawyers and consultants busy.

hence why we need rules that are simplified at a base level. i feel like i would actually need to write some rules to demonstrate how this might be done.

And to clarify something, I actually formulated the discussion in this forum should 'revolve around the game' like that, in order to not exclude the various aspects that come with the game, just like mapping, contests, clan matters and so on. I do know that there's more going on, but the actual development on the coding front.

the implicit contention in your original argument is that the reason the forum is in its current state is because of these 'trouble makers', rather than on the part of the method of moderation, which i take particular issue with.

I don't see what there was to discuss about this any further and think I have made myself pretty clear. In short, we need no excessive moderating rules and processes but have to get rid of those that can't have an argue without constantly offending their opponents.

so, shall we get rid of stef? shall we get rid of harps? shall we get rid of half the forum? you shouldn't be basing moderating processes around a notion of offensiveness due to the inherent difficult in coming to a commonly agreed to standard of what constitutes "offensiveness", especially with regard to arguments where even the slightest thing can be regarded as offensive; according to your dictum, i would at least be up for warning points for making the implicit insult towards your character that your entire view is derived from a frustration with VAT laws. likewise, with your "Undead, please listen for once", there is the implicit assumption that i am unreasonable, don't listen to people properly, and can thus be seen as an offensive attack on my character. seems a bit ridiculous to base rules upon a notion of what is offensive, hey?

I'm sort of tired that I always have to make at least three posts until certain people will understand, or more probable will stop to mime they wouldn't understand and derail a simple point of view by dissecting every single sentence, while at the same time completely miss the very point that was made. That is indeed frustrating.

i completely understand what you're trying to say, you're just wrong, that's all. what you're regarding as "naturally simple" is not exactly simple; be very careful when you tread outside your discipline into other disciplines.

[Mr.Floppy]

i completely understand what you're trying to say, you're just wrong, that's all. what you're regarding as "naturally simple" is not exactly simple; be very careful when you tread outside your discipline into other disciplines.

I can't exactly see a discipline here. You might want to call it 'soft skill', but I would just put 'manners' as a headline, to be honest. Everybody has to deal with this interactions as long as he's taking part in the real world. Nothing extraordinary really.

Admittedly, forum moderation is more than just that, I agree. Though I'll stick to my statement that excessively complex laws, or in our case rules and their appendent penalties will not change people's behaviour - let's be careful here and say - who do not participate for reasonable intentions, but instead more likely will create space for more confusion and irritations.

Look, I have no handbook how to behave in my job or band or in heated discussions with family and friends where I can look up all and everything. Though, somehow I still manage to have a whole lot of negotiations, arguments and all kinds of chatter without people starting to spit and yell at each other. Maybe I'm naive, but I do believe that the majority of people is capable of doing so no less and that hopefully it is only a 'loud' minority that aren't, for whatever reasons.

In fact I often wonder if it's really necessary to put rules like 'be respectful' up on a forum board and why one would not know what's the difference between 'fuck off and drop dead' and 'no, I just can't agree here'. Sure, there's a blurred area, like your examples about implicit insults, but you're not going to get this regulated with rules, too. You've got to be realistic and there's where common sense comes in.

Sorry, but I can't help the impression that your greatest concern is to be probably disadvantaged in opposition to the moderators which might get away with one or two more insults than regular users would. Instead of being concerned with the overall low level of the communication we suffer from.

In the end, I'm not to decide anything about this and sure it would be best if you just put some concrete rules to the table so this theoretic blubbering can come to an end.

[1Cap]

"Undead 
anything you start i finish dat"

Please Undead, stop to do this!
You are using rhetoric to limit the thought of other people. Let people with different thoughts of thy discuss among themselves.
This is what I think. There is nothing to discuss about what I said, but you will answer me and prove that I'm right.

*MOD is about balance.

[Undead]

@Mr.Floppy

i'm referring to the social sciences. things that are taken for granted to be common sense often aren't, and many understandings that are regarded to be common sense are often confused and need to be re-evaluated. i'm going to go into a bit of a straw-man tangent, but its relevant if you consider the example abstractly, so just bear with me.

for instance, we have the supposedly "common sense" dictum that, if someone posts on the forum with supposedly "reasonable" intentions, if they post over a long period of time, they will be able to avoid a ban.
at an immediate glance, the evidence indicates that users, in following this dictum, have completely avoided bans by acting in a civil manner, and others have been banned for acting without reasonable intentions. however, we have the contradiction that there have been users that have been warned/banned despite having completely reasonable and honest intentions at heart. furthermore, many users who act completely out of reach of reason have not been banned.

in the face of this contradiction, we have to find a new dictate that results in warnings/bans. the actual uniting principle that results in a warning/ban is whether a moderator finds a specific action to contravene and undermine their goals in maintaining foremostly order, and consequently power, over the forum for their own specific purposes; this can take place through something as immediately threatening as posting cheats on the forum, or by something more subjective, such as an indirectly offensive statement. while this dictum is useful in maintaining order of sorts when the moderator is completely unimpeded, it results in people becoming angry at the moderator at it would seem as if they have no standards of justice, and simply ban as they feel.

so, as a solution, you need a standard of justice of sorts; you've argued the potential solution of simply along the lines of whether a user is being troublesome or not, but we've had that sort of moderation in the past before. i believe the most recent example of that was grenadier giving me a 3 month ban for proving stef wrong. you have to recognize that people are people, and power changes them, regardless of how petty you might regard that power to be.

tl;dr: we can avoid all of this theorizing (of which is legitimate, just a little bit too much for a video game forum) by simply setting down some agreeable, objective standards as to whether someone should be removed from the forum or not. isn't that the reason we have laws, at a simple glance?

Sorry, but I can't help the impression that your greatest concern is to be probably disadvantaged in opposition to the moderators which might get away with one or two more insults than regular users would. Instead of being concerned with the overall low level of the communication we suffer from.

i am fundamentally concerned with justice, and always have been. the reason people "act up" is because of this perceived lack of justice. there isn't any point in playing by rules as it stands.

In the end, I'm not to decide anything about this and sure it would be best if you just put some concrete rules to the table so this theoretic blubbering can come to an end.

i really do enjoy theoretical blubbering, but ok.

1cap can you please cease to intrude in this thread, much appreciated buddy.

[EndGame]

@Mr.Floppy

for instance, [...] at an immediate glance, the evidence indicates that users, in following this dictum, have completely avoided bans by acting in a civil manner, and others have been banned for acting without reasonable intentions. however, we have the contradiction that there have been users that have been warned/banned despite having completely reasonable and honest intentions at heart. furthermore, many users who act completely out of reach of reason have not been banned.

I said it before. There are ways and ways to express one's thoughts and honest intentions. Sometimes, what make people mad and lose attention to the meaningful message is how you communicate it. If you are rude or disrespectful, forget about your intentions and get ready for the offtopic, warning points, bans, etc.

am I wrong?

[Cemer]

both undead and mr. floppy bring up some really nice points, especially with the laws and human relations in general

i think starting with a small yet clear set of rules is a good course of action. these rules should use simple vocabulary and be clear in english and, to an extent, any language it can be translated to via google translate. if more rules are needed, so be it.

[1Cap]

"@1Cap it's a hard job, and I understand that. Dedication and consistency is a big part of our mindset here, and if you do not have those, this might not be the right thing for you to be spending your time with. Hopefully above all else you will enjoy yourself here and valiantly work hard at your new position! I wish you all the best of luck, and if ever there is a problem, don't hesitate to let us know."
I will.

Spoiler

A:  POLICY

We operate a three strike user discipline system.

A strike should be issued upon a ‘serious’ contravention of our rules, but not a single infraction violation, following staff discussion. We will issue a maximum of three strikes. One strike will be removed for each 3 month period in which users do not incur another. If a situation arises where a user is issued with a 4th strike, subject to staff discussion, they should be banned , permanently.

Temporary bans will be administered at administrator discretion.

B: FLAMING

A flame is an insult or slur directed to a member. Listed below are our definitions of "flames":

• Insults - Any type of insult directed from one member to another member. Please remember though that there is a big difference between "criticising" and "insulting".
• Sexual Slurs - Any type of sexual slur directed from one member to another member, whether it'd be describing explicit sexual behaviours involving the member being flamed, or typing sexually explicit slurs using the likeness of the member being flamed.
• Racial Slurs - Any type of slur directed from one member to another member, regarding their ethnic background, or insulting a specific ethnic background in general.
• Homo/bisexual Slurs - Any type of homo/bisexual slur directed from one member to another member, whether it'd be false claims that the member being flamed is a homo/bisexual, or mocking a homo/bisexual member for their sexual preference- this does not cover someone expressing an opinion about sexuality in general, though negative discussion about somebody’s sexual orientation is generally looked down upon. Mind you, this also goes for homosexuals criticising heterosexual behaviours.
• It is important to remember that it is the moderator's discretion as to what is classified as a "flame". If you would like another moderator to review something that you may feel is a flame, please feel free to contact them. Flaming is generally unacceptable and users doing it should be ‘verbally’ warned in public. Continued abuse following a ‘verbal’ warning should lead to one ‘official warning’ via PM, which is one strike.

C: TROLLING

Trolling can be a little harder to spot and is usually identified as a comment intended to antagonise another person. When a member makes a post knowing full well it will lead to an argument, for example, or makes subtle flames intended to provoke anger in other users. Trolls should be administered an infraction notice and repeated abuse in this manner should lead to the administering of an ‘official warning’ and one strike on their record.

D: SPAM

Spam is something that every forum has its problems with and unfortunately we’re no exception. Again, what is considered spam can depend on moderator discretion, but generally is any of the following.

• Off Topic replies- If a user posts a message that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject/content of a thread, it will be considered spam. This doesn’t necessarily have to be deleted, but it is the preferred choice, followed by a PM to the user whose post has been removed.
• Person-to-Person conversation- adding messages to a thread with personal messages directed between members is also spamming, unless they directly involve the subject at hand, so while users can ‘talk to each other’ in posts, they should be doing so with relation to the topic of the thread.
• Single word/One Sentence/Non-Contributive replies- Users often reply to posts with single words or a short sentence which really add no content to the discussion. 'Me too'/'I agree' and other short messages such as this will be considered as spam, and treated in the same manner as off topic replies.
• Bumping dead/old threads- Threads that have not been replied to in months are considered 'dead' and should not be resurrected. Again moderator discretion can apply here, if a user bumps a thread that hasn’t been responded to in 4 months, but adds a constructive response which relates to previous discussion, you may choose to leave the thread open.
• Excessive linking to other sites- See ‘Advertising’ for more extensive discussion. Linking to other sites for the sole purpose of personal promotion is forbidden at the moment (though the guild forum is subject to its own rules). Linking to sites to provide more information in relation to a thread’s topic is acceptable.

E: ADVERTISING

Advertising is generally when someone posts a thread linking to their own site or a product, but with no real intention other than to give that link coverage. We don’t allow that here, obviously and general procedure is to remove the link from the post and/or lock the thread at your own discretion. We do though allow users to post links when they are relevant to the subject of the thread, such as linking to a topic elsewhere dealing with the same subject, or linking to an article when posting news and so on. (Exceptions might be in place when an affiliate posts a thread advertising a new feature or news relating to their website, if in doubt contact an administrator..)

F: RELIGION/POLITICS

Due to the constant degradation of religious and political discussions into argumentative flame-fests, they are currently banned . If a user posts a thread explicitly orientated to discussing religion/politics or aspects of it, the thread should be closed down with a note [See public forum guidelines  not ready yet]. Minor exceptions to this rule include threads in which users express good wishes for a religious holiday, such as Christmas. But, if such a thread degrades into a serious discussion with the potential for argument, it should also be locked down.  

[Cemer]

im confused as to if you are a mod or if these are new rules or if they are even real

i guess im just confused

if these are the new rules; do these rules apply in offtopic? i would like to still have one free for all zone here

[Mousikos]

I would like clarification for advertising.

[Alien]

The moderation of forum is hard work and it isn't well paid. You don't need rules, you need team of cooperating pragmatic people.

[Robtics]

I wonder why this forum is working so well all of a sudden , with no new "guideline to post" ..?

[Nightmare]

What was the last time anyone here got warning points from one of these?

Spoiler