Clarity on decisions and moderator interpretation.

This is part of my post on a different thread, but Clovis suggested that it was 'off topic' and needed a new thread so I post here for community discussion. Note the conversation here is about moderator cohesion and what the communities perspective of that is, it is not about decisions made previously specifically although an example has been given.

''I would hope that the moderators will already have their own guidelines set out on dealing with potential issues? I can tell you though that from my perspective (and I am sure some others) the moderation team appears to be a rule unto each entity, this is a bad image to give the userbase. Example http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=17818. On this thread you have two moderators Acqui and Desu who are willing to debate and let the community share their greivences/opinions and another in Cthulu who is using the community guidelines to lock/censor the thread. Neither is right or wrong (I would prefer debate) but how can the users be expected to follow guidelines and avoid breaking them with such inconsistencies in approach?

Perhaps the moderators should outline very clearly within your own forum which approach should be taken, I assumed that this would already be the case but on the recent evidence it appears to not be so. I understand the need for removal of threads and individual decision making (spambots etc), but genuinely believe that if you guys can come to a cohesive viewpoint then at least us, the users, will be clearer on what is tolerated and what is not. Obviously the vast majority of cases where peoples post get removed or threads deleted from our the users perspective can be summed up with 'don't be an asshole' but the less licence for interpretation that moderators have of rules the better imo. My understanding UK law generally works that decisons / punishments from an original case will set precedent for all future cases of the same nature, something I would like to see incorporated here.''

Just a reminder, this thread is not to discuss Cthulus decision, although it is a point in question, it is not the purpose of the thread.

The key question of this thread is whether moderator actions in general should be unified, approached with a similar thought process and in turn if the punishment for user actions should be regulated.

I think you missed this part when you checked the rule thread: "Even when not specified, staff has the sole right and final judgement of how to interpret and apply these Rules and Guidelines to any specific circumstance and situation, including proper punishment. The rules may, at any time, be applied or changed by any moderator or admin if they feel right. Relying on rules is therefore useless."

Cthulhu is just doing his job, flame wars aren't healthy for the community

Following up this line

लिखा द्वारा Columna Durruti, 30.01.2015 at 20:28

लिखा द्वारा b0nker2, 30.01.2015 at 19:39

Don't joke me around and tell me the previous thread was removed for 'going off topic' then not proceed to implement the same policy in all threads, honesty and transparency is better than trying to fob us off with a weak excuse.

Sorry, but you assume that Mods are omnipresent and know everything that is going on and debate every decision made by on of the Mod team. There are about 50 decisions (mutes, bans, forum "clean-ups", SP-farming penalties, map reviews, chat log review, banlist review, etc.) taken every day and it is IMPOSSIBLE to be updated on everything.

I think mods should coordinate themselves and discuss( Maybe do it at a certain amount of approval? ) the following actions:

- Delete Threads / Posts.
(*Exception to be made and one mod to be allowed to delete one thread without approval, if the thread was made by spam bots)

- Remove someone's right from posting in Public forums.
- Remove banlist from certain player.
- Ban / Permaban / IP-ban someone.
- Long mutes (more than 1 week) and removing completely those channels from someone (1 year or 9999999 time mute).
- Apply SP multiplier on a map/ scenario.
- next?

Being bias on one action cannot be avoided, but at least those actions that can cause a considerable harm should have some mods approval for prevent as much bias as possible.

EDIT: It doesn't need to be fully approval or majority, but two-three mods having the same opinion would reduce the chance of that action to be wrong or biased greatly.

लिखा द्वारा Abraham, 30.01.2015 at 22:49

I think you missed this part when you checked the rule thread: "Even when not specified, staff has the sole right and final judgement of how to interpret and apply these Rules and Guidelines to any specific circumstance and situation, including proper punishment. The rules may, at any time, be applied or changed by any moderator or admin if they feel right. Relying on rules is therefore useless."

I have missed nothing, read the first paragraph to realise how much of the point of this thread you are missing.

'Note the conversation is about moderator cohesion and what the communities perspective of that is'

besides there are huge flaws in that rule:

1. any moderator can therefore overturn any other moderators decision without need for discussion or reasoning.

2. The rule is also a paradox since 'Relying on rules is therefore useles'

Lets stay on topic though ey

लिखा द्वारा clovis1122, 30.01.2015 at 22:50

Following up this line

लिखा द्वारा Columna Durruti, 30.01.2015 at 20:28

लिखा द्वारा b0nker2, 30.01.2015 at 19:39

Don't joke me around and tell me the previous thread was removed for 'going off topic' then not proceed to implement the same policy in all threads, honesty and transparency is better than trying to fob us off with a weak excuse.

Sorry, but you assume that Mods are omnipresent and know everything that is going on and debate every decision made by on of the Mod team. There are about 50 decisions (mutes, bans, forum "clean-ups", SP-farming penalties, map reviews, chat log review, banlist review, etc.) taken every day and it is IMPOSSIBLE to be updated on everything.

I think mods should coordinate themselves and discuss( Maybe do it at a certain amount of approval? ) the following actions:

- Delete Threads / Posts.
(*Exception to be made and one mod to be allowed to delete one thread without approval, if the thread was made by spam bots)

- Remove someone's right from posting in Public forums.
- Remove banlist from certain player.
- Ban / Permaban / IP-ban someone.
- Long mutes (more than 1 week) and removing completely those channels from someone (1 year or 9999999 time mute).
- Apply SP multiplier on a map/ scenario.
- next?

Being bias on one action cannot be avoided, but at least those actions that can cause a considerable harm should have some mods approval for prevent as much bias as possible.

EDIT: It doesn't need to be fully approval or majority, but two-three mods having the same opinion would reduce the chance of that action to be wrong or biased greatly.

I'm sure for some of what you have mentioned they already do, especially with regards to the permabans and IP bans. mutes and things as far as I am aware from information available is logged somewhere in mod world.

The others that you mention I think it is reasonable to ask that at least three moderators agree upon with the names included in the message for such actions. Transparency can do no harm.

Mods do communicate with each other frequently, and when we have to deal with a moral dilemma. However, when the choice is obvious, then we make it, because we each have what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is not universal, because we are all raised different, in different cultures. If we had to make discussion about everything we take, our decision will be made slowly. We have to make fast decisions, because that is the nature of mod job. To deal with on the spot problems.

I believe this post was created because of a fear from abuse from the mods. I believe fear is created from misunderstanding, and I want to correct that by helping you understand some of moral decisions. More specifically, why I did what I did.

I believe the reason I am very liked player, is because I care about everyone. You may ask why this related to my point, but it is my point. When I deleted the post, I had many valid rules available to me to use, but my main reason was that I care deeply about my friends. I would do the same if it happened to you or other players (which I have done time and again in the past). You think you lost many pages of valuable discussion? It was not a discussion, it was a salem witch trial. I was tired of seeing my friends having to defend their opinions over and over again. It was enough. You may have got one or few good post in there, but it was hurtful to see my friends being persecuted for not playing clan wars. I even made a new thread just for a discussion, but asked no examples to be used, because that led to trouble last time.

You may or may not agree with what I did, but what I did was right to me. I defended my them just like I would defend anyone on atwar. Does it make logical sense that a person like me, whose character you know. Look at everything I ever did, helping beginners, writing guides, helping everyone to the best of my ability. It should be obvious of what I tolerate and what I do not tolerate.

What I am asking you, is it really a surprise to you that I did what I did? If the answer is yes, then you surely don't know me well enough, and you should pm me if you still have questions about my decisions.

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 31.01.2015 at 04:52

ive stayed out of al this up until now, but im going to add my 2 cents.

While its very admirable that you seek to defend your friends, you shouldnt do it with your mod powers. Describing that thread as a witch trial is a bit dramatic. Many in the competitive community were debating and criticising the actions of your clan, as theyve a right to do. The only hate speech i remember in that thread was provided by devil tbh. And while ive a lot of respect for devil i have no problem stating that i think he was out of line.

Its a thin argument to attempt to justify the deletion of the first thread on the grounds of it being hate speech. You had the rules the backup the locking of subsequent threads but frankly you werent solving the problem only inflaming it. You cant police the community into silence. Either stand by your original claims that your clan doesnt care or attempt to defend your position.

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 31.01.2015 at 04:52

Mods do communicate with each other frequently, and when we have to deal with a moral dilemma. However, when the choice is obvious, then we make it, because we each have what we believe is right and wrong. Morality is not universal, because we are all raised different, in different cultures. If we had to make discussion about everything we take, our decision will be made slowly. We have to make fast decisions, because that is the nature of mod job. To deal with on the spot problems.

I believe this post was created because of a fear from abuse from the mods. I believe fear is created from misunderstanding, and I want to correct that by helping you understand some of moral decisions. More specifically, why I did what I did.

[...]

I believe there are not clear rules or guideline about "when" to delete a thread. If other mods also saw the thread and didn't deleted it, then I can only assume they had different opinions. It is not good to "hang on" on oneself's opinion..... Yeah, sometimes you need to take action fast, but In my opinion, there is a relation between effectiveness and time - After an action start, the more time - the more effective.

One example was provide, where other mods had a different point of view:

लिखा द्वारा b0nker2, 30.01.2015 at 22:40

Example http://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=17818. On this thread you have two moderators Acqui and Desu who are willing to debate and let the community share their greivences/opinions and another in Cthulu who is using the community guidelines to lock/censor the thread. Neither is right or wrong (I would prefer debate) but how can the users be expected to follow guidelines and avoid breaking them with such inconsistencies in approach?

For the rest I agree, bonker should had PM'ed you. Actually not bonker since he didn't had problem with this, but just waffel and whoever wanted explanation about why.

---

---

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 31.01.2015 at 06:10

Many in the competitive community were debating and criticising the actions of your clan, as theyve a right to do.

Please choose one topic. Everything else is off-topic:

Question: ¿Why the post was made?

1. For flame SA and other troll purposes - Waffel's original post.
2. For discuss about the Clan War system - How many players took the post.
3. For discuss about SA behaviors - This is the one you're pointing at.
4. For talk about the life and give other analogies - How many players defend.


Why I say choose one? Because those four are clearly different topics. Hence what khal replied in another post:

लिखा द्वारा Khal.eesi, 30.01.2015 at 19:24

i agree but thats why a good indicator that posts that contain arguments or attempts at one/some, using logical reasoning and evidence, supporting a conclusion, are usually not hate speech/preach.
For example.

1."Desu is such an ashole and an evil person, he is a liar and a murderer.He hates people and animals and has a cabin in the woods where he takes people and kill them."I hate him and i want bad things to happen to him."


2."Desu is such an evil person.Im posting here a picture of Desu in a cabin, smiling, whereas theres dead people and animals all around him.Its obvious Desu murdered these people and animals and he s been lying to us and people who murder and lie are asholes and evil.I think something must be done about this."

The first one is clearly hate speech ( not under the exact definition but whatever) or preach or insult or slandering or whatever.But the second one is a well constructed argument, supported by evidence.Could it be false?Yes it could.Its up to Desu now, to come to the thread and defend his position, explaining why he was at that cabin with all those bodies and why was he laughing.Or he can just delete the damn thing..right?

---

It would had been better if other mods had locked the thread before something valuable was lost. I wonder why they ever let a clearly flaming thread opened (With all those bad words that waffel uses. It is hard to believe that it was not).

The only way to solve this is by locking the thread before it is made any big mess.

लिखा द्वारा Permamuted, 31.01.2015 at 06:10

The only hate speech i remember in that thread was provided by devil tbh. And while ive a lot of respect for devil i have no problem stating that i think he was out of line.

I cold count more than 10 hate speech / off-topic comments per 1 valid argument. And just saying, the topic had about 100 replies. Whenever deviL is part or not, that's not my point. But you should include the other people there too!

I think that to avoid conflict of interest mod shouldn't take action in case linked to them or their clan. If another mod did deleted/locked the thread we wouldn't have this discussion no ?

Why was Waffle banned for 60 days? ...isn't that a little harsh. I thought he insulted Cthulhu in private or something ...don't get me wrong i would do the same thing as Cthulhu and lock it ...making topics ("hate") about certain clan or person should be locked on sight no matter who.

But i talked about this before ...we have written rules (all great), but we don't have written punishments for does rules so how can we know the punishment fit the crime.

I mean ...Tito and me caused countless topics to go to hell, flamed, insulted and we got miserable punishments compared to this o.O

लिखा द्वारा Goblin, 31.01.2015 at 09:01

But i talked about this before ...we have written rules (all great), but we don't have written punishments for does rules so how can we know the punishment fit the crime.

Maybe we should discuss the implementation of a public punishment history, but we would need to work on a new report system for appeals to organize it.

लिखा द्वारा Goblin, 31.01.2015 at 09:01

I mean ...Tito and me caused countless topics to go to hell, flamed, insulted and we got miserable punishments compared to this o.O

Yeah, and I'm glad you're aware of it.

लिखा द्वारा Pinheiro, 31.01.2015 at 09:17

Yeah, and I'm glad you're aware of it.

I never got to apologize for my message, was ashamed of how i acted.

लिखा द्वारा Goblin, 31.01.2015 at 11:12

लिखा द्वारा Pinheiro, 31.01.2015 at 09:17

Yeah, and I'm glad you're aware of it.

I never got to apologize for my message, was ashamed of how i acted.

Inside though, you were laughing and acting giddy.

लिखा द्वारा Skittzophrenic, 31.01.2015 at 11:20

Inside though, you were laughing and acting giddy.

I apologized many times in AW ...i can admit when im wrong or being an asshole.

As a participant of the deleted thread... I feel like there was no real (apparent) reason for that decission. At least, I find it quite excessive.

Cthulhu, I admit that there were some little flame warring comments or maybe offending one, but all of them were at the beggining and with irrelevant meaning to the whole thread... As soon as the thread grew in answers, more logical people participated, taking it to a whole different level. At the moment when you or devil came into the argue, things were a bit calm. You stated your opinion, devil went full deffense mode and other people asnwered to you guys as consequence, everyone stated their opinion or stated obvious facts that were hard to refute. The thread was not about attacking your friends nor as individual nor colectively, it was about criticising a specific behaviour related to cws. You must understand how your "no cw politics" affects all other competitive clans... as for me, I don't care about a trophy nor some cws, but I must agree with some points of view given in that thread, which are now deleted. Now I find myself with no reminder about those actually good points of view.

I admire that you feel like defending your friends, we all do that (or should do it), but what you did didn't help anyone in my opinion. The thread did go a bit off topic at the very end, every single opinion was given and it was obvious you had made up your mind and woulnd't change your decision. But deleting the whole topic wouldn't help anyone, wouldn't defend anyone nor would it make forget everything... Why deleting a post that was already argued and that no one felt like deleting before? Locking it would have been a much better choice by arguing that it was over, eventhough that it wouldn't make sense to lock something where people no longer posted. If you really wanted to defend them (which you tried by arguing, which is the most correct option in my opinion) in some other way different from arguing, it should be by deleting / locking the thread before the damage is done. In your case, you opted for the reasonable aproach so... what made you change your mind at the end? Is it that you didn't want anyone else to be able to read that again?

IMO, the punishment system should work in this way:

---

Punishments:

Number of ~ means number of moderators that need to agree with the action.

---

Public channels behaviors:

Aimed for Lobby/Room, Help, Global, and Radio behaviors

What the rules say:

अवतरण:

Chat Behavior
5. Harassing, threatening, embarrassing, or doing anything to another member or guest that is unwanted is not permitted. This includes posting insulting, offensive, or abusive comments about members or guests, repeatedly sending unwanted messages, attacking a member or guest based on race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc. Hate speech is not tolerated, and we reserve the right to end any conversation to avoid further escalations.

6. "Trolling" which we define as comments, posts or threads that knowingly lead to overly strong, negative, and emotional responses for mere shock value, is not allowed. Accounts created with the sole intent to "troll" will be immediately and permanently banned. Constant personal attacks are also considered trolling.

7. Disrupting the flow of chat with abusive language, use of excessive shouting [all caps] in an attempt to disturb other users, "spamming" or "flooding" [posting repetitive text] is also not permitted.

8. Global channel is for advertising games and game related information (community events, tournaments, etc.). Radio channel is for radio-related talks (general talk, song requests, etc.). The Help channel is for asking game related questions and technical support. Avoid any unrelated comment on any of these three channels.

9. Only the English language is permitted in public chat channels. You may use non-English in private chat and private, password protected games or in the according room.

10. Advertising or promotional messaging, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or other commercial activities that are unrelated to the game are not permitted.

Punishments:

1. A player posted a comment not related to AtWar in Global Channel. Also, spam messages and those written up with caps. ( ~ )

Examples:

[gl] User1: Hello.
[gl] User2: I've won a duel against this guy.
[gl] User3: Albania is strong.
[gl] User4: Did you guys read the new? A hurricane is coming to western U.S coast!
[gl] User5: Hi ~Mod. Ur the best <3
[gl] User5: Hey ~Mod why you ignore me.
[gl] User5: I don't love you anymore ~Mod ):
[gl] User5: ~MOD JOIN THIS GAME.

Actions:

1st time: Remove the message in question. Advice the user in private chat message ([pr]) to not do it again. Refer to the rules if possible.

2nd time: If you've advice the user to not do it but he does it, remove the message in question. Warn the user. If you don't know if this is his first or second time, do the 1st step.

3rd time: If the user in question already had a warning related to this, mute him for 15 minutes. Remove the message in question.

4th + time: If the user had already been muted, remove the message in question, and mute him again. The punishment shouldn't be more than one week (This will be detailed down). For example:

0th mute: 5 minutes.
1st mute: 15 minutes.
2nd mute: 45 minutes.
3rd mute: 1 hour.
4th mute: 2 hours.
5th mute: 4 hours.
6th mute: 8 hours.
7th mute: 16 hours.
8th mute: 1 day.
9th mute: 3 days.
10th mute: 1 week.

(Only in global channel)

---

---

2. A player posted a link (not shocking) not related to AtWar in Global Channel. ( ~ )

Examples:

[gl] User1: http://www.slideshare.net/maopitagor/clculo-jamesstewart7
[gl] User2: http://i.imgur.com/jJe2wVG.png
[gl] User3: Nice picture https://www.facebook.com/
[gl] User4: Hey guys, please watch my videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNpkSyryQz4
[gl] User5: http://en.lichess.org/KpT8SuAj

Actions:

1st time: Warn the user.Remove the message in question. Advice the user in private chat message ( [pr] ) to not do it again. Refer to the rules if posible.

2nd time: If the user has been warned, remove the message in question and mute him.

3rd + time: If the user had already been muted, remove the message in question and mute him again. The punishment shouldn't be more than one week (This will be detailed down) For example:

0th mute: 15 minutes.
1st mute: 1 hour.
2nd mute: 3 hours.
3rd mute: 8 hours.
4th mute: One day.
5th mute: Three days.
6th mute: One week.

(Only in global channel)

---

---

3. A player posted an insult in Global Channel, or tried to abuse the rules by posting one valid comment and then other invalid comment. ( ~ ).

Examples:

[gl] User1: cw? http://i.imgur.com/jJe2wVG.png
[gl] User2: Faggot.
[gl] User3: Are you jew by any case? Fuck you
[gl] User4: You are a fucking retard and join my game http://atwar-game.com/play/#g/0543041987
[gl] User5: Join my game! Please leave the stupid retard RP, your fags http://atwar-game.com/play/#g/0543041987

1st time: Remove the message in question and mute the user. Explain him to not do it again in ( [pr] ) channel. Refer to the rules if possible.

2nd time + : If the user had been muted, remove the message in question and mute him again. For example:

0th mute: 15 minutes.
1st mute: 1 hour.
2nd mute: One day
3rd mute: Three days.
4th mute: One week.

(First two on global channel. 3rd and 4th can be on all public channels (Not private channels))

---

---

4. A player posted a shocking link on Global Channel.

Examples:

[gl] User1: http://i.imgur.com/jJe2wVG.png

The link used in this explanation is not a shocking link. Please understand by "shocking" material that can be 18+ , sexual implications, decapitation, and other type of stuff that can cause a very emotional feeling.

1st time: Remove the message in question and Mute the user. Explain him to not do it again in ( [pr] ) channel. Refer to the rules if possible.

2nd time +: If the user had been muted, remove the message in question, and mute him again. For example:

0th time: 45 minutes.
1st time: 3 hours.
2nd time: One day.
3rd mute: Three days.
4th mute: One week.

(First one only in global channel. 2nd and 3rd can be on all channels (not private ones). 4th can be on all channels (private too))

---

---

Since global channel is the most demanding one, it is obvious that it should get the most attention. However, the other channels are pretty important too :

- Radio channel:

Same as above. Except that "One week" punishment can be changed to "Remove the channel from this user".

- Help channel:

Same as above. Except that "three days" punishment can be changed to "Remove the channel from this user".

- Room/Lobby channel:

- This one should have more freedom. Maybe short all the punishment by 2, or multiply them by 0.5x .

---

For more than one week in Global and Room/Lobby channel ( ~ ~ ~)

For remove Global and Room/Lobby channels (~ ~ ~ ~ ~)

---

---

---

Public Forum Behavior.

Aimed for Any English forum in AtWar that can be accessed by the public users.

What the rules say:

अवतरण:

Forum Behavior
11. Posting comments within a thread which severely disrupts the original conversation is prohibited.

12. Petition posts are frowned on. If you have an issue with the game, please discuss it in a civil and informed fashion.

13. Do not post to pillory other players. If you have a problem with another player or want to report something please contact a moderator.

14. Do not post about locked or deleted threads or other moderation actions on forums or in public chat channels in game.

15. Posts deemed inappropriate to a particular forum will be moved to a more appropriate section or even removed completely. Posts that have been removed are not to be re-posted.

Punishment:

1. A player post inappropriate or discourage topics. ( ~ )

Example: Threads based on politics, sexual implications, snuff, religion, etc.

Action: Lock the thread. Refer to the rules if possible.

---

---

2. Off-topic comments: ( ~ )

Examples: "The original thread was about how sweet is to eat apples, but they end up talking about GoT ".

Action: "If only one-two person went off-topic, delete their comments. Don't lock the thread and don't delete the thread. Just the comments."

"If various people (Creator of the post include) went off-topic, lock the thread. Don't remove any information".

---

---

3. A player bump an old thread.

Example: "The thread was made in 2011 about implementing an idea. Now in 2015, a player posted there about the same idea, but the thread was already over, or the participants were inactives (owner include). "

Action: Lock the thread.

---

---

4. A player make a thread about a moderator's action. ( ~ )

Example: " ~Mod muted me. This is unfair!!! AtWar is a dictatorship."

Action: If you are not the mod in question, don't lock the thread. However if you are the mod in question, provide a valid reply, and subsequently lock the thread. Ask the player to discuss about the matter on Private Message (PM).

---

---

4. A player make a thread that breaks any of the "Private or Game Accounts behavior" or any other rule expressed in the main AtWar Rules.
( ~ )
Example:

" This is X guy picture: http://i.imgur.com/jJe2wVG.png "
" I've got this guy password. This one is: ********** "
" I've looked at your Facebook. Ur a ugly person."
"Are you a boy or girl? "

Action: Lock the thread. Censor any sensitive information that was shared.

---

---

5. A conversation about certain implementation is over. Every player had submit their opinion, and everything is up to Moderators. ( ~ ~ )

Example: Discussions about certain rule, certain changes to strategies, that need mod's approval.

Action: It can be either left there and mods submit their changes, or moved to moderator forum. If moved, mods should leave up another mod explaining the process.

---

---

6. A player made a comment/thread about propaganda (spam bots). ( ~ )

Examples: "You've got a point! And I want to introduce a good game *link to FIFA15 page* ".

Note: When I say Spam bots I am referring to those post that clearly lead to another page out of AtWar, by promoting another website.

Actions: If the thread was made by a know member of the community, move the thread to off-topic and don't do any further mod action. If the thread is already on off-topic, don't do any further action. If the thread was made by a rank 0-3 account and it is proved to be a spambot, Delete the post/thread in question, and ban the account.

---

---

7. A player made a thread for insult an user, clan, group of any other kind of subjects. ( ~ )

Examples:

" This player is being unfair to me. He say "let's tie" and he didn't tie up the game. Such fag must be banned".
" This clan is rewaller. Fucking cunts don't know how to play without bugs."
" All the MapMakers are idiots. They banned me without reason, what a faggot group"
"All the mods are retard and unfair. This gay ~Mod muted me for no reason. What an ass! "

Actions: Lock the thread A.S.A.P. Do no reply the thread, as it would encourage the same user to keep making the same type of threads.

---

---

8. A player had posted a thread that can greatly harm the whole community. ( ~ ~ ~ )

Examples: Full-hate threads, etc.

Action: Lock the thread. Discuss with other mods, and possibility delete the thread if 3 or more agrees to this option.

---

---

This doesn't cover up the whole "moderation" actions, but I guess they cover some of the most important ones, forum and games moderation.

If mods are going to add a list of punishments, they should make it public for critic purposes.

Just a reminder, this thread is not to discuss Cthulus decision, although it is a point in question, it is not the purpose of the thread.

The key question of this thread is whether moderator actions in general should be unified, approached with a similar thought process and in turn if the punishment for user actions should be regulated.

This is not a good way to support the comunity in future having revange between clans or personal hate it is not professional

लिखा द्वारा b0nker2, 31.01.2015 at 12:27

Just a reminder, this thread is not to discuss Cthulus decision, although it is a point in question, it is not the purpose of the thread.

The key question of this thread is whether moderator actions in general should be unified, approached with a similar thought process and in turn if the punishment for user actions should be regulated.

i kinda agree with this statement.

लिखा द्वारा Cthulhu, 31.01.2015 at 04:52

I appreciate your response to this thread, your honesty in this post has done more to quell some of the unrest and questioning of your decision than any banning or other actions will have. That's not to say I agree with the decision, but at the very least I have the insight into your thought process.

The point about morality is a tough one, yes you are correct, individuals have their own set of codes and ethics. but in the position you hold one would assume that the morality is decided for you or by the collective in regards to what actions can be appropriately used. In my personal life I work in the security industry so I understand the need to take individual action with fast decisions, that said if I choose to follow my own procedure or morals I would find myself out of a job. I must always be aware of the consequences of decisions as I am acting as an extension of my employer not as an individual. In the same way as you are acting on behalf of the website the decisions you make at any moment is a reflection of website policy and should not be dictated by individual morality as you put it. The confusion comes when somebody is allowing something and a colleague is overruling them, a personal example would be me not allowing someone into a venue but my colleague overruling and allowing them in (1 mod allowing something another not) as I have repeated consistency in approach is of paramount to any system working with minimal backlash.

Now I am not saying that moderators should be acting always with the threat of consequential actions if mistakes are made, but the loose nature and wording of the rules and regulations leaves both the user and indeed the moderation team open to abuse / bad decision making. Tying up these lose ends will go a long way in helping the community understand what is appropriate since evidently some members are confused and do not know where the line is (hi waffel). As Clovis and I have suggested on this thread, perhaps the moderation team themselves should if you have not already agree on a 'collective morality' for dealing with issues and make this morality clearer then it is now.

The rules list does not accomplish this as the opening statement essentially gives moderators uncheckable powers, this would be like saying I could refuse entry to a venue for someone if they are fat or homosexual. It is contradictory in its outline, firstly by saying moderators can only interpret already existing guidelines, then given the power to make new rules or edit existing ones on the spot without need for discussion. Hypothetically you could ban me permanently for the creation of this thread, under the presented code of conduct if you made a rule at your whim that 'no threads about xyz' can be made. This is wrong surely? From a user perspective such confusion over rules gives leeway for complaint threads etc etc, once again consistency and moderator cohesion is key.

As much as I respect you defending your friends, I agree with Laochras thoughts about allowing that to influence your actions, however if you approach every thread collectively as moderators the same way then suggestion of bias will be laughed off by any reasonable user and threads like waffels and even this one would not even appear. Finally given the title of the thread, I am surprised you asked the question in your closing sentence as evidently there are members of the community that do not understand your original decision including myself.

I would hope that moderators can come together and outline very precisely what the forum etiquette should be, and even if an individual of the team disagree with the consensus that they will implement the policies on a consistent basis.

I honestly think forum is no place to moderate. The game itself should keep the moderators busy enough. The forums are places to discuss the game and keep things productive. Forum isn't a place lock down discussions that to 1 moderator seems "flaming" or useless.

Ironically if any MODS end up locking this thread I guess it would end up proving this threads point.

Mods have moral duty to be completely neutral to all decisions they make. If they can't be completely neutral to their decisions(such as when they themselves or their friends are involved) they should delegate that job to other Mods. This is of utmost importance and helps keep the system fair. Off course in the real world all this is easier said than done, but that does not suggest that we should not try.

I suggest we use the new upvote system in forum to good use. All threads in the forum that gets atleast 15 votes on the thread or 50 votes inside the thread are not to be locked down or deleted by moderators. The game creator should make such adjustment to make it impossible for moderators to lock threads. I think that would keep the forum clean and democratic. For this I also suggest we add 2 more buttons disagree and spam for marking them appropriately. Also when too many people click spam or disagree on the topic, it should get auto locked. Off course this system would have its own disadvantages that we can address later through the forum itself.

As for our moderators, Cthulu is the only one I keep hearing bad things about time and time again. I have nothing against him personally but most people I know tend to talk negatively about him. All this is just my opinion and I have nothing against anyone here.