Karagin
05/08/14 09:50 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I believe it is time for new moderators and a revamping of some of the rules. So I asking for a serious discussion of this matter to allow for a better rule set and a more tolerant group of moderators.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nic Jansma
05/09/14 09:17 AM
68.43.36.90
|
Happy to consider any revamping of the rules you propose.
Would also love any additional help moderating by anyone who wants to volunteer.
|
Karagin
05/09/14 02:57 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Quote:
FORUM POSTING RULES
1. Speak to each other in a mature, civil and respectful manner. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated; address the topic, not the person.
2. The Administrators and their Moderators have the right to delete any message and/or thread for any reason. There may be NO warning and NO explanation as to why. The moderators of the Sarna.net Forums use their own discretion and judgment in deleting posts. That means even if it's wrong, it's our right, so long as we think our action is necessary to keep the forum clean, tasteful and abiding by these guidelines.
3. These forums are for the support of BattleTech and Neveron in general. Please try to keep to these subjects; there are unlimited sites on the Internet for other subjects. Politics and Religion, in particular, are topics not allowed to be discussed on this board. Also, Spamming is not allowed except for BattleTech-related items; this is not a commercial forum.
4. Posts should be made on the appropriate forums, which have been provided for that purpose.
5. Carrying "flames" and arguments from another board to this board may result in the offending poster being banned without warning.
6. If you are only confrontational, "trolling," or otherwise adding nothing to the forum but trouble, you will be banned.
7. You are only allowed to have one account on this forum. Using additional accounts is cause for banning. Similarly, posting as another user without that user's permission is strictly prohibited and cause for banning.
8. Avoid "Thread-Jacking". If a topic reminds you of another subject, start a new thread to discuss that subject, rather than high-jacking the thread. No one likes to have their question/topic ignored and changed to another topic. Doing so also makes the topic's title unusable. Posts not related to the topic are subject to being moved, or deleted, without notice. If your thread is being thread-jacked, please ask posters to obey this rule, and if necessary, ask a Moderator to step in.
9. If you post materials from other web sites and/or newsgroups, credit should given whenever possible.
10. There is an automatic censor function now activated on the forums. You will find the naughtiest words in your posts ****ed out. Bypassing the Censortron-2000 with misspelling will get you banned, even if you didn't mean to misspell siht or fcuk.
11. By registering and logging in, you agree to and have accepted these Forum Rules. Please remember, it is a privilege granted to you to post on this board; do not abuse it.
Above are the current rules, thing is Rule 6 is very vague, in that what some may consider trolling might not be that at all but just random comments folks post into a conversation and Rule 8 covers the same thing as Rule 6 so really they are the same thing.
Also Rule 2, is a bit open ended as well given that if one moderator feels that they are right, we the posters are limited in who we can appeal to and given that even appealing things doesn't mean much since the main goal here to keep it fun and not have flame wars, yet a moderator can use their own "take" or interpretation of each one of these rules to do as they please without a set of checks and balances in place to prevent bias and other things from a curing.
Further along the lines of two moderators, one is around that would be Cray, and the other Matt is not seen around at all. We should have at least four moderators to allow for a vote on things or a common ground take so as to keep things from becoming an issue of bias or a witch hunt to remove folk who have strong standing on things related to the game or topics of or about the game.
Also, we should have some common ground on how things are posted design wise, many sites have formats they like their posters to use, so as to allow clarity and easy of reading and to avoid misunderstandings in things. Which around here we don't have. So it is very easy for folks to post what ever they want, and then when it is pointed out multiple times that they are leaving things out and thus starts the issues of them defending their point versus the point of you are providing your design so it should be easy for all to understand and use if they want and offer comments ideas etc...on it. Not a grabbed mess that omits information needed to see what makes it tick and work.
Maybe I am the only one who sees these things as issues, but we do need more moderators and I believe it is time for the current ones to step down, be thanked and news ones take their place.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/09/14 04:59 PM
97.101.96.171
|
If anyone is curious about the genesis of the current rules, they were borrowed from the then-current rules used by Rick at his forums for HeavyMetal Software (I actually asked Rick about plaigarizing them) and also borrowed from the rules at the official BT website.
http://www.heavymetalpro.com/policy.html
http://bg.battletech.com/?page_id=1005
Accordingly, you're seeing some elements of the moderating rules that never come up on a low-traffic forum like Sarna. For example, Rule 2 is something that's never been an issue on Sarna. There's never been problem with users here throwing a tantrum because they misunderstood they're on a privately owned website, so there's been no fundamental disputes of moderator / admin / owner roles. Rule 2 is something that has been needed with problematic users on Wizards of the Coast official forums and FanPro/CGL's official forums - there's some real sweat and tears behind it, so it seemed worth keeping as a reminder if nothing else.
As for the differing approaches of different moderators, the standard element learned from CBT.com was to maintain a record of all warnings with user names and time/date stamps for later discussion and dispute resolution. There shouldn't be differing enforcement of the rules.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
05/09/14 05:06 PM
70.118.139.48
|
This is not CBT or any other site. Which is part of the point.
And you are correct Cray there shouldn't be different enforcement of the rules, but there seems to be and I will say that if others are saying the same thing about an issue maybe you should actually deal with the issue versus the ones pointing it out, but that also leads to my point about how the moderators do not seem to have any checks or balances to keep things on the same level. Which shows that Rule 2 is to open ended and allows for a moderator do as they please. Which I feel allows for bias to come into play.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/10/14 05:56 AM
24.30.128.46
|
I have seen a few times that a ban was appropriate.
I am sure you have felt the notice of a possible ban with some of the posts. I can not say if the other person involved in most of your warnings was warned as well.
For some stupid reason, I feel this is why you are complaining.
All sides should have received the warning, since all sides baited the other.
Mattbuck quit neveron years ago, and I don't think he comes to the board anymore. I know we had a few questions about shadow masters run at a mod.
No offense to cray, but we could use another moderator. It avoids the issues of being accused of favoritism.
I have received a few warning when the conversation has slipped, both subject and content. Initial shock upset me, but when I thought about it, and really looked, I was surprised it didn't happen sooner.
|
Cray
05/10/14 09:36 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
No offense to cray, but we could use another moderator. It avoids the issues of being accused of favoritism.
None taken. When accused of bias, all I can do is kick the matter to Nic and he partly hired me to take the moderating burden off his shoulders. Another mod would make a useful sounding board. CBT.com uses teams of mods to review any proposed moderation actions. I'd like to have that, too.
Quote:
I am sure you have felt the notice of a possible ban with some of the posts. I can not say if the other person involved in most of your warnings was warned as well.
That is a disadvantage of protecting user privacy. I can't talk about moderating activities with other users unless the subject user(s) gives permission. That sometimes gives the incorrect impression that a user is being singled out for chastising when both users in a conflict are receiving warnings.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
BobTheZombie
05/10/14 09:57 AM
198.45.169.134
|
I'm not on here extremely often, but it is easy for me to check at random times throughout the day. I'd be a little interested in helping moderate, but I have no idea how much that would take away from my editing on the wiki. At the very least I could offer another voice if you want.
|
Karagin
05/10/14 10:16 AM
70.118.139.48
|
This is NOT CBT Cray can you please stop comparing the two. And Ghostrider I am not complaining. I am stating that we need more moderators and we need a revamping of the rules to allow for more checks and balances. The idea that a moderator can be having a bad day and according to rule 2 they can do pretty much as they please with NOTHING there to prevent this.
As for both side baiting each other in a conversation, that happens in just about every conversation where people are trying to push their ideas or version of something, the idea is not react, which many fail, my self included, to do.
We need fair and well setup group of moderators that can easily vote on matters and prevent to the best of their ability any thing from being called bias or seen as singling out a poster over their comments just because the single moderator disagrees. Public warnings should be done first. That should be the first check, then a private message about it and if that doesn't work then go to the next level, with full backing of ALL of the moderators.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bad_Syntax
05/10/14 10:28 AM
24.27.126.92
|
As somebody who was perma-banned on the CBT forums for having a different opinion than a moderator, as well as posting in a game thread for a particular group "Bring money this weekend if you want some of my extra stuff", I ask what possible need do these rules have?
I mean, a moderator can jump into any topic and say "woah, lets not talk about this here" regardless of if its a rule or not. They can also tell people "Hey, that thread you had about killing babies with LBX weaponry in your RPG isn't really what we want to see here" without any rules being broken.
Moderators can do whatever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. They are the police of forums. As a board administrator, select the people who have an opinion you value, who have the character you want represented on your forums, and let them go moderate away. They don't need rules, nor need to abide by them.
Course, what do I know, my forum is dead, my rules are "be nice", and I'm a pretty darned disliked member of the BT community regardless of my contributions.
|
Karagin
05/10/14 10:44 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Trust me Bad Syntax I know how you feel. But I do not agree with the part about the watchers not needing to be watched. That leads to abuse and or bias against folks.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/10/14 12:30 PM
24.30.128.46
|
when the neveron boards were running, I know there were a lot of warnings and I know of at least several week bans.
I would figure it was a second job moderating that one. I seen a lot of modified posts from the mods.
While we are on this subject, has nic modified the mod commands, making it easier?
Or do we need the cattle prod again?
|
Karagin
05/10/14 12:38 PM
70.118.139.48
|
What we need is fair and impartial moderators who have a series of checks and balances in place not carte blanc rules like Rule #2 allows for and the double standard rules of 6 and 8.
We have a single moderator currently, I feel he is no longer being fair or impartial or staying neutral on matters. I get the idea we all want to enjoy things related to Battletech, but when it is more then one of us telling someone hey there are some issues with things and they don't listen and it is very clear that the single moderator can see the issues doesn't even suggest to the person hey you may want to consider this or that, instead he feels the best course is to wait tell temper flare and then do something which defeats the point of having a moderator and doesn't keep the peace.
I get the fact that folks will post what they want, but there has to be some checks and balances in place and the fact that right now one person is in charge of keeping the peace isn't the right way to do things. And I do understand we all have lives outside of this fun game and we all want to enjoy things. All I am asking is that we look at this and make things better.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/10/14 10:21 PM
198.45.169.134
|
Yes, I agree it would be best to have more moderators and for them to vote on stuff. If you really want change to happen, perhaps you should email/PM Nic. That would probably be the best way to move this idea forward.
|
Karagin
05/10/14 11:01 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I think it best if we all come to an agreement here in the open where all can add in their comments and such so as things are seen to be done fair and without anything done behind the vale of emails.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/11/14 05:48 AM
66.27.181.253
|
putting it in the forums is a good way to get a few candidates going, instead of just one person.
And there are 2 people in charge of keeping the peace. Granted it is really bad when nic says something, but he is still there.
|
Bad_Syntax
05/11/14 10:58 AM
24.27.126.92
|
Well it is very hard to find people who can be unbiased in every moderator situation... almost impossible, especially since in BT typically moderators are very PRO everything BT, and when others give contradictory opinions they are treated differently.
I would think self moderation is viable. If nobody complains about a thread, why would a moderator need to visit it? I mean, if people get upset, let them click the little 'report this message' thing, and then a moderator can get involved. You would still have bias though I guess.
I personally pride myself on knowing the difference between my own opinion, and what is actually write and wrong. In my life it seems that is a very rare trait. Heck, even when I went to court to try to find a traffic ticket I saw extreme bias, acceptable perjury, and ignorance prevail over a truly unbiased system.
I guess I can just say good luck!
Edited by Bad_Syntax (05/11/14 11:00 AM)
|
Karagin
05/11/14 12:39 PM
70.118.139.48
|
You are right self moderation is a good thing, but the issue is that were two or more are having a debate, heated or other wise, it always seems that some where along the way the moderator is quick to pick sides around here, whether not that is the plan or outcome it does indeed seem to fall into that area and given how gray rule 2 is and how redundant rules 6 and 8 are well it's no surprise that this happens.
Like I said with the first post a serious discussion about these issues I believe are warranted and needed, given the fact that a moderator can ban someone just because they don't like something and then claim to cover their actions that some how some way a rule is being broken when in fact the rules need revising to remove this ability. Given that yes a moderator can be wrong and have the statement of well even if they are wrong they are right is not a good way to do anything and leads to questions of bias and out right abuse.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/11/14 02:38 PM
198.45.169.134
|
I agree that rule 2 gives extreme powers to the moderator, and yes, there should be a way to help balance this; I'd say that if we had more moderators they could vote on whether or not to go ahead with certain things.
|
Nic Jansma
05/13/14 09:40 AM
68.43.36.90
|
Karagin, a couple responses to your concerns:
Quote:
Above are the current rules, thing is Rule 6 is very vague, in that what some may consider trolling might not be that at all but just random comments folks post into a conversation and Rule 8 covers the same thing as Rule 6 so really they are the same thing.
Rule 6 may be a little vague, but that's what warnings are for. If one of the moderators feel that someone is trolling, they can bring that to their attention with a warning first.
Rule 8 covers a different scenario entirely (though ones' actions may violate both Rule 6 and 8 if trolling in a separate thread). Rule 8 is intended to keep each topic to a separate thread, to discourage newbies from coming in on a Design thread and trying to start a discussion on BT politics just because the thread is popular.
I don't see them as being redundant at all.
Quote:
Also Rule 2, is a bit open ended as well given that if one moderator feels that they are right, we the posters are limited in who we can appeal to and given that even appealing things doesn't mean much since the main goal here to keep it fun and not have flame wars, yet a moderator can use their own "take" or interpretation of each one of these rules to do as they please without a set of checks and balances in place to prevent bias and other things from a curing.
Further along the lines of two moderators, one is around that would be Cray, and the other Matt is not seen around at all. We should have at least four moderators to allow for a vote on things or a common ground take so as to keep things from becoming an issue of bias or a witch hunt to remove folk who have strong standing on things related to the game or topics of or about the game.
Ultimately all of the rules are a bit open ended and at the mercy of the moderators' interpretation. We really haven't needed more than two or three moderators in the recent past because the forums here just don't get as much traffic as something like CBT.
That being said, the more help the merrier. For what it's worth, Cray (and Matt when he was around) both bring to my attention anything that might be contentous to get my input. I haven't seen either of them behave in a biased way.
Quote:
Which shows that Rule 2 is to open ended and allows for a moderator do as they please. Which I feel allows for bias to come into play.
I understand you're upset about your recent temporary ban from Cray. Cray had already explained to me, in great detail, the motivation for his actions. There was nothing biased in what he presented. When one is the subject of something like a ban, it's easy to feel that you're being singled out or that the moderator personally dislikes you. But you weren't singled out for anything other than your recent actions. I fully support the reasons for the temporary ban.
Quote:
We need fair and well setup group of moderators that can easily vote on matters and prevent to the best of their ability any thing from being called bias or seen as singling out a poster over their comments just because the single moderator disagrees. Public warnings should be done first. That should be the first check, then a private message about it and if that doesn't work then go to the next level, with full backing of ALL of the moderators.
Karagin, this is what happened with you... remember I'm ultimately a moderator as well. 
Again, all that being said, you do make a great point about having additional moderators to help with dispute resolution. I'm all for it.
I'll be contacting a few folks to see if they're interested in helping out Moderating. If anyone else is interested, please PM me as well!
|
Karagin
05/14/14 11:27 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Actually I am not upset over the ban, what I am upset over is Cray's inablity to see that others have pointed out the same thing I pointed, some more then once to Retry and yet he feels the need to single myself out and use the god-like powers rule allows him and then he tosses Rule 6 as the sole cause, yet says nothing to the others. I find a lot wrong with his actions. That is what I am not thrilled about.
If he or another moderator is waring one, then ALL should be warned at the same time, not singling one person, that leads to the possibility of claims of bias, which I still say Cray has done, he knows I can and will be vocal about things, thus he chose to single me out when in fact others have pointed out the posting of Retry's have many issues but Cray seems to have missed this, where as IF we had another active moderator beyond yourself, Nic, then this might have avoided since there would have been a second possible voice or interpretation of the matter as well as another to keep a check an balance in affect.
I do feel I was singled out, given as I said above and the fact that the rules allow Cray or any moderator do damn well do as they want without anything putting the breaks on. I do not believe Cray took into account the facts that others were and still are point out the issues with Retry's design format and post editing. And I believe Cray's actions actually have stifled folks from point out issues since to do so could, based on Cray's actions, warrant breaking the rules since he or any moderator can say the person is trolling or not offering acceptable input to the thread. Hence why I believe Rules 6 and 8 need to be redone or merged or removed for ones that have no gray areas and prevent abuse. Same for Rule 2.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Retry
05/14/14 11:54 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I think Karagin is right with the more mods part for the right reasons but with an iffy example. And I probably won't elaborate, as I'm still working on wording it in the least offensive way possible.
Only thing I'm wondering about is how many mods there should be in the first place, considering the rather low user population on Sarna.
That said, who do you think should be the next mod?
Edited by Retry (05/14/14 11:56 PM)
|
KamikazeJohnson
05/15/14 12:44 AM
50.72.218.68
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
That said, who do you think should be the next mod?
Can I be the first to nominate HeroChip?
With an active population which appear to be in the single digits, 2 mods who are on daily should be plenty, plus Nic to mediate in case there's a Mod involved in a dispute.
This is where I really miss all the guys who used to post here a lot back when I first joined up.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
05/15/14 02:27 AM
24.30.130.67
|
I was gonna suggest that kj, but wanted to keep the serious tone.
I do not feel stifled in the least. I still try to make my point, but after 3 times it gets to be to much.
As cray said, he can not discuss who might have been warned about what. There were a few spam fests about the did not, did to, syndrome.
I almost got in on it myself. Had to click the back key instead of continue more then a few times.
There is a way to disagree with people. The key is finding it.
And honestly, cray has been very lenient about threadjacking.
|
Karagin
05/15/14 06:14 AM
70.118.139.48
|
This isn't about threadjacking, that is going to happen, whether or not it is planned or a spur of the moment thing, this is more about Cray over reacting when it is more then just myself or one other person pointing out hey there is something wrong with how person ABC post or design or what have you. Many of us said something about certain posts, all Cray had to do was address things as a whole in public, then he could have done the warnings etc...but instead he picked who he felt he could push around and went from there.
The bottom line to me is the rules should not be setup in manner that causes folks concern, be it one or two hundred and I feel that is happening here. And right now, I feel that if any of us are vocal in our disagreement with someone or get a bit over zealous in our defense of something then that gives Cray all the more reason to go full rule crazy on any of us and that is not what should be happening.
So again, I call for a revision of the rules and the vote or what ever is needed to pick another moderator to allow for a fair system and one that has built in checks and balances.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nic Jansma
05/15/14 03:32 PM
68.43.36.90
|
I've received one offer to help with moderation and am looking for a third moderator. If anyone would be willing to volunteer their time (it doesn't take much), please contact me.
Once there is a larger team of moderators helping with the forums, I'm hoping your perceived concerns about a bias will be addressed.
Other than that, I honestly have not heard a compelling reason to change any of the rules. If you have specific changes you'd like to propose, the best way would be to propose wording changes here.
|
Frabby
05/15/14 06:28 PM
87.164.128.232
|
Well. Okay. On the understanding that I'm second or third in line as a moderator, and not even regularly browsing this forum (actually, not reading large parts of this forum at all), I hereby volunteer as a forum moderator.
I'll be upfront and state that I won't be very proactive, and really only intend to be a sounding board for Cray and any other moderators where they feel they have to take action against one or more users.
(Sigh. It's not like I have too much on my plate already.)
Edited by Frabby (05/15/14 06:29 PM)
|
Retry
05/15/14 06:42 PM
76.7.236.208
|
I don't see a bias. You seem to be referring to an apparent ban after posting about the lack of "visible" information on those designs I post(again), while the others didn't get a warning. From what I recall, the others weren't really rude, not really confrontational, or anything else warning-worthy. I didn't really pay attention to your posts before they presumably got deleted, so I wouldn't know whether yours was justified or not.
I'd really like to know who Karagin suggests should be a new moderator.
|
Nic Jansma
05/15/14 06:58 PM
68.43.36.90
|
Thanks Frabby. You and BobTheZombie have been wonderful help on the wiki, and I would appreciate your help being additional moderators here as the need arises.
|
Karagin
05/15/14 07:14 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Suggested changes, Rule 2 be revised to remove the part that says moderators can do as they want.
Rule 1 and 6 and 8 be merged into one rule.
And Retry, I asked for a serious discussion, not your normal baiting attempts. But wait according to the rules your post breaks them as does my comment back at you which shows there are issues with HOW the rules are worded. Because if a moderator wanted to the comments could be considered flaming attacks etc...and I do find your comments to be such, but wait I don't see Cray or the other moderators saying or doing anything about it, but I am sure I will hear about this whole paragraph...
As for who I would like to see a moderator, I really don't have a first or second or third choice, I do know who I don't want. And before anyone asks, I don't want the job and I do recall my name being put up last Nic did have a vote.
All I am asking for a review of things and an adding in of a set of checks and balances, and since I don't have all the answers, yes I know shocking for some to hear, I started this to voice my concern and to get things out in the open with the hope that we could have civil discussion on the matter, which I do believe I stated from the start.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (05/15/14 07:22 PM)
|