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)
|
Retry
05/16/14 12:16 AM
76.7.236.208
|
I'm not sure how you can interprete that as a "bait tactic" in any form but whatever.
I will repeat, a new mod or two would not be a bad idea, but not because our current one is biased or exceptionally flawed.
ATM, the best potential new mods I can think of would be Kamikaze Johnson or His-most-royal-highass-donkey. Of course, considering the active Sarna user pool is probably under double-didgets, and my own pool of people to choose from this site is like 4 or 5 people anyways.
EDIT:Looks like the moderators have already been appointed too. That was quick.
Edited by Retry (05/16/14 12:19 AM)
|
ghostrider
05/16/14 05:33 AM
66.74.185.193
|
I did get a partial warning about megamek and information that may or may not be correct on it. So Karagin isn't the only one that was asked to drop it. Mine was nicer since it was a request. Sorry if this will count against reviving the topic in another thread.
Karagin is not the only person who has questioned it in the forums. Now combined with spamming a few times along with another person may have helped issues along. On this line, he was not the only one that was guilty of spam badgering.
As for combining rules, as much as they cover the same ground, they do cover other areas as well, that the others don't.
In the end, there can be only one rule... don't post.
|
Karagin
05/16/14 01:25 PM
70.118.139.48
|
As a way to avoid issues, I purpose we have a rule that requires full posting of all stats and critical information about a design be it a vehicle or mech etc. That way we would not have folks getting into arguments over this.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/17/14 02:32 AM
66.74.185.193
|
Hate to say it, but that one would be very difficult to set up.
It sounds stupid, but that would be an infringement of civil rights, being forced to avoid use of a particular program.
I was going to help threadjack this one but realized before I hit enter what I was doing.
I would like to see who they have lined up for being a mod.
|
Cray
05/17/14 09:24 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
I would like to see who they have lined up for being a mod.
Nic already said that in this thread. 
Quote:
Nic Jansma writes:
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.
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.
|
Frabby
05/17/14 10:07 AM
87.164.128.36
|
...which isn't clearly spelled out. So, to confirm, BobtheZombie and myself have been made admins on this forum by Nic.
|
Karagin
05/17/14 11:04 AM
70.118.139.48
|
No Ghostrider it would not be an infringement on anything. This a private site, NOT a public one. It has rules, and since the rules pretty much tell us we can't say what we want how we want then there would be no issue with a rule stating that all the stats and information pertaining to what makes up a unit be posted. It would be a simple rule. All posting will include the full stats for a vehicle or mech etc...wording can be worked out. No program would be excluded unless it doesn't give you full stats.
Example would be weights for the engine, gyro, controls heat sinks, special equipment etc...all that makes up the information of a mech or vehicle. Not seeing how hard this is to understand since the same information is found in every TRO for the game and pretty much every design program shows and allows for export to a text file, all but Mega Mek and it's flawed system.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (05/17/14 02:32 PM)
|
BobTheZombie
05/17/14 11:44 AM
198.45.174.125
|
Quote:
Frabby writes:
...which isn't clearly spelled out. So, to confirm, BobtheZombie and myself have been made admins on this forum by Nic.
Actually, I think we're just Moderators; I'm pretty sure Nic is the only true "Admin" here (hence the A by his name and M's by our names).
|
Frabby
05/17/14 02:03 PM
87.164.128.36
|
Um, yeah. What Bob said. That's what I get for posting on the fly while doing other things.
I think I mistook it for Admin level on the Wiki (where NicJ also has a higher rank, called bureaucrat in the Wiki's case.)
|
Cray
05/18/14 12:47 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
No Ghostrider it would not be an infringement on anything. This a private site, NOT a public one. It has rules, and since the rules pretty much tell us we can't say what we want how we want then there would be no issue with a rule stating that all the stats and information pertaining to what makes up a unit be posted. It would be a simple rule. All posting will include the full stats for a vehicle or mech etc...wording can be worked out. No program would be excluded unless it doesn't give you full stats.
Example would be weights for the engine, gyro, controls heat sinks, special equipment etc...all that makes up the information of a mech or vehicle. Not seeing how hard this is to understand since the same information is found in every TRO for the game and pretty much every design program shows and allows for export to a text file, all but Mega Mek and it's flawed system.
I understand the information content you're requesting for new, user-posted designs. But are you asking that this be made a forum posting rule enforced with warnings and bans in the same fashion as the other posting 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
05/18/14 05:48 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Yes. Given how quick bans can be made for pointing out issues, then all of the normal rules would apply as well. Seems fair to me.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Edited by Karagin (05/18/14 08:53 PM)
|
Karagin
05/21/14 11:06 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Oh and for the record, I am not suggesting limiting it to one program time, which, again since Cray likes to point out things related to CBT for his examples how the rules etc..., I will point out that Rick bans any programs other then the Heavy Metal Pro ones, which makes sense there, here, though no, a design program works IF it shows all the needed information in the same or a similar format that the TROs show, which. I do not believe this is asking too much or censoring anyone, it's more of keeping things on the same level as what is considered standard by and how TPTB present mechs, vehicles and other units in the game to us the players.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/22/14 06:31 PM
198.45.174.125
|
To clarify, if someone used a program that leaves out some info but they manually put it at the bottom of the post, would they be breaking the rule?
|
Karagin
05/22/14 07:02 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I would say no, since they would be providing the info, but if they leave out the tonnage of things or where it goes then yes it would be.
Example listing 600 points of fuel for an aircraft/fighter. Where is the tonnage for this?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/23/14 02:59 AM
24.30.133.143
|
I agree that anything uploaded as a design should have all the stats listed, even if it means going in and manually inputting the information for it.
But that is left for nic to decide. If he if fine with the way things are, then there is nothing short of making your own board that can be done about it.
And this is for you nic, please make some sort of official statement on this.
I am sure alot of people are tired of seeing questions asked about things that should be in the stats and aren't. Yes, that is a loaded statement.
And cray, if the stats uploaded had all the information in there, then people could see at a glance if something fishy is going on. A bad code in a matrix is hard to catch if you don't look for them. Programmers make mistakes. Even the official coders make them. Windows is a good example. More then a few times they needed a update right after a release because they missed something.
|
Cray
05/23/14 12:03 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
And cray, if the stats uploaded had all the information in there, then people could see at a glance if something fishy is going on. A bad code in a matrix is hard to catch if you don't look for them. Programmers make mistakes. Even the official coders make them. Windows is a good example. More then a few times they needed a update right after a release because they missed something.
I understand that having poorly-detailed designs posted here is annoying, and something might be wrong in the design.
However, posts here are an optional, free luxury item that you choose to sample. They're not program code in the autopilot of an airliner you're stuck in. You are able to walk away from designs that have errors and ignore users you know won't be delivering a post that you're interested in. Therefore, detecting errors in the designs isn't vital.
The current forum rules are based on the premise of "you have the right to swing your fist until you hit someone's nose." You can post all manner of thoughts and free-wheeling ideas unless:
1, 10) You make it personal, or take it below the belt
3, 4, 8 ) You take it really-off topic or get into flamebait topics.
5, 6) You pick fights or don't let old fights go.
9) You steal other people's ideas
Within that framework, you get to discuss everything from critiques of current BT storylines (and express dislike of them), post alternate histories, share custom weapons, and much more. You can even be incorrect in your statements. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with being wrong, so long as you stay civil and mature about it.
Since you can easily ignore a civil post and are under no mandate to read it, a rule to force standard details into design posts does not seem appropriate. Instead of lobbying for "Retry's Rule," try exercising a key skill of civil discourse: turn the other cheek.
But if Sarna's owner feels otherwise, then I'll enforce a rule that insists on standard data for fan-made designs to the letter.
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.
Edited by Cray (05/23/14 12:09 PM)
|
Karagin
05/23/14 12:38 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I call BS on that Cray, plenty of posting here of folks pointing out issue with the WoB and Jihad storyline and if you are telling me they allowed to express their ideas etc without being attacked, then I think you may want to read the older posts again.
I am sorry but we need something that has the formating of designs done so in a manner to allow for easy of reading and also allows for an easy of understanding the direction the poster is going. Following your logic then the TROs shouldn't have a format listing things in nice tables and giving us the details to show the mechs or any unit in a manner that appeals to the players to use them in a game. They should just list pages of simple stats and no detail and be done with things.
Also why are you against this?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 01:07 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Folks post their ideas and such here, either to share or to get input on them to improve them or generate a discussion about things. Yes Cray you are right we can post just about anything related to BT, and most of us do. Problem is 99.9% of the folks post things in a format others can read with ease, and when folks have not in the past and it has been suggested to them to follow the other examples there has never been as much as hostility as we have seen recently over it.
I do find it odd that you are against this and have even taken the step to label it and thus in a way made it a possible flame bait topic kind of thing. And yet you say this with immunity of being a moderator, which I feel goes against the ideas of having rules if the moderators are above them then what good are these rules?
Asking for a rule on having a posting format for designs isn't a bad thing. It allows folks to see the designs and make their points in favor of or against or hey here is away to improve it. Yet your stance is for what ever floats the boat of the poster and who cares if the rest of us can read it or not.
And many of us have tried to help him, suggested other programs, I even pointed out to him that there is a document here on Sarna that is a Word format that he could paste his Mega Mek stuff into and it would be very similar to the other programs formats. He didn't even want to discuss that idea, so many of us have tried the civil approach and been rebuffed on it. Yes we could turn the other cheek and ignore him or anyone else, but that is not what this is about. It is about having something as simple as common format that allows for things to be presented in an easy to follow and understand based of the standard given to us since the very first TRO came out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Frabby
05/23/14 01:35 PM
87.164.164.134
|
In my opinion, we don't need rules here forcing people to adhere to a certain format when they're posting ideas or designs. If you don't like the format offered, or find it hard to work with, then you do have two options already:
- politely inform the other party of the unresolved questions you have about the design, or
- refrain from commenting on the improperly presented idea altogether.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 03:29 PM
70.118.139.48
|
As has been said, we have tried to tell the current poster about how to improve the posting and he choses to ignore us and tells us he feels certain things aren't needed on a design information layout.
And your second option won't work, since stuff is posted here it is an expectation for it to be seen, understood and commented on.
Clearly I do not understand the apparent issue with asking for a standard posting format for designs that allows for ease of reading and give us nothing that isn't already shown by most design programs when the files are exported to text to share, in that they follow the TRO layout when offering the data to us.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/23/14 05:23 PM
198.45.174.125
|
Karagin, I completely understand your wish for consistency. That is my main line of work at the wiki. People add things to there all the time that aren't perfectly completed, so I help with fixing them. This rule you proposed would be like telling people that edit at the wiki "if you mess up any grammar/formatting/data when adding info, you get a warning". This would keep the wiki very tidy but wouldn't allow for much addition. People would be scared to add stuff. The same goes for the forum. If you copy and paste it here and miss the last line, should you really be punished? This just seems a little extreme in the way that it deals with people's posting.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 06:21 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I don't see it that way. I think it would show that there is a level expected from posters who are sharing information to do so in a manner that allows all to understand it.
Every forum has it's rules of conduct, like this one we are expected to follow, how is having a rule that says hey here is the standard for posting units, please follow it any different then telling us not cuss each other out? I don't see folks not posting here with that rule in place. So why would they be afraid to post if asked to follow a format?
There is very little fun in seeing a new unit posted, clicking on it find that you can't tell if it's a mech or tank or what ever and then all you see is speed, armor and weapons...while that is amazing detail when rolling the dice and using scrap paper for the record sheets, it's not so great for talking about a design.
A warning is all that should be needed, if they don't take the hint then just like other rules the same levels should be taken. It would not stifle any one's ability to post things and in fact I think it would help people understand the mechs or vehicles better.
Can you point to a webpage that has such strict rules that no one post there?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 06:33 PM
70.118.139.48
|
http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=174077&page=0&vc=#Post174077
The above is an example of what does get posted, a bit neater then some, but it doesn't tell you what it is or anything about it and assumes your the player can figure it out. But yet it's all okay to post and thus comment on and for some complain about with out anything beginning said.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 07:11 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Here is a purposed idea of a template which should give a simple example of what I am talking about:
Code:Mass:
Chassis:
Power Plant:
Cruising Speed:
Maximum Speed:
Jump Jets:
Jump Capacity:
Armor:
Armament:
Manufacturer:
Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:
Equipment Mass
Internal Structure:
Engine
Walking MP:
Running MP:
Jumping MP:
Heat Sinks:
Gyro:
Cockpit:
Armor Factor:
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head
Center Torso
Center Torso (rear)
R/L Torso
R/L Torso (rear)
R/L Arm
R/L Leg
Weapons & Ammo Location Critical Tonnage
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BobTheZombie
05/23/14 10:57 PM
198.45.174.125
|
I actually was going to ask for a template, and that one you provided looks easy enough to understand. I think that perhaps this could work if it was abundantly clear to members (current and future) that they have to use this template and tell them the consequences of not using it. I think that this rule does address an issue of consistency, but in the wrong way. To me it seems like a heavy-handed approach at dealing with the topic at hand; what if you just want to propose a vague idea like "What about a 4 PPC Nova Cat"? or the commonplace changes that people say to make it better? Should that really warrant a warning just because they didn't sit down and figure all the stats out? I'm not trying to be aggressive by asking these hypotheticals, but am trying to look at this from every angle.
|
Karagin
05/23/14 11:07 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I am not saying it's the perfect rule, hence why I asked for a discussion about it. I think that by having a format or template we have a starting point. I do understand that some times ideas are just posted like you said an 8 PPC Nova Cat or a 20 Med Laser Hunchback, but those are topics of discussion not mechs posted for comments.
I am open to idea, and I as said it's not perfect but as can be shown if stuff is missing you have no idea really what you are looking at and spend more time figure out the wheel from the rest of the car.
And this is just one issue, I think we have ongoing as I have mentioned the abuse of the rules by the at the time single moderator with no checks or balances. I still stand what I said that the rules need to be revised and several of them merged. Because as it stands, something said by a poster can be considered in violation of several rules all because our one time moderator feels it is and in fact this entire topic could be considered to break almost all of them, given how they are written or how the again at one time single moderator felt.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
05/23/14 11:19 PM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Frabby writes:
In my opinion, we don't need rules here forcing people to adhere to a certain format when they're posting ideas or designs. If you don't like the format offered, or find it hard to work with, then you do have two options already:
- politely inform the other party of the unresolved questions you have about the design, or
- refrain from commenting on the improperly presented idea altogether.
Exactly.
If you don't like store's wares, you don't shop there - and you don't call the cops. If you don't like a TV channel's shows, you don't watch it - and you don't call the cops.
You're not being forced into reading Retry's posts. You can ignore them and leave them to languish with no input because they're not working for you.
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.
|
Cray
05/24/14 12:17 AM
97.101.96.171
|
Quote:
Cray writes:
Exactly.
If you don't like store's wares, you don't shop there - and you don't call the cops. If you don't like a TV channel's shows, you don't watch it - and you don't call the cops.
You're not being forced into reading Retry's posts. You can ignore them and leave them to languish with no input because they're not working for you.
As a follow-up point about walking away from aggravating threads is that, whether or not Nic orders a new standardized formatting rule into effect, Rule 6 is definitely in effect. Rule 6 includes "no trolling" and "not being confrontational."
What does trolling and being confrontational include? Well, it involves entering a thread and behaving in exactly the same fashion that you know got you warned and banned in the past.
And do you know what changes if Nic insists on a standardized formatting rule? Nothing for users. It will be the moderators' job, not the users' job, to issue the warnings for that new rule. Meanwhile, Rule 6 is still in place and will still get you warned for the same reasons.
So before trying to be all innocuous, polite and on-topic by (for example) asking Retry for clarification about whether another of his under-detailed posts is XL or vodka powered, think instead about just walking away and just ignoring him instead. That path leads to far less warnings and bans, and is a good all-around approach for avoiding headaches on a forum.
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
05/24/14 12:42 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Funny how rule 6 is worded since your comments Cray here in this thread could be considered to be in violation of it, unless you are saying that moderators don't have to follow the rules to enforce them, or is this too in violation of Rule 6 in that I am pointing out the issues I see with that rule and 2 and 8 given how easy it is for you to tell me I am pushing the limits of poorly written rules or is there something else?
As for the moderator doing his job, that being you, I think you have failed and have become to bias and I believe it is time for you to step down and move on to other things. Now I may be the only one who feels this way, but I getting it out there since you seem to delight in being above the rules and playing lose and fast over things, and letting others slide and going after me and I do consider your posting above to be breaking the rules, but wait my opinion doesn't count since you will tell me I am breaking the rules by pointing out your bias and failure to be neutral as a moderator.
So how about we return to civil discussion about things and stop with the baiting.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/24/14 01:55 AM
70.118.139.48
|
Having been asked to let thing rest for the time being and having it point out that I have made my point, I will respect the request of the person who sent me the email and explained their take on things.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/24/14 04:10 AM
24.30.133.143
|
Well retry has stated he has tried the other programs and couldn't get them to work. I will give him the benefit of the doubt here.
I am not asking for a complete change, but to have some information in the stats. Granted this is not the need of new moderator conversation, but it is a basis for the challenge.
Saying someone has cranial rectumitis is a nice way of saying they have their head where the sun don't shine. I see where sugar coating some responces will give the person the wrong idea, or mislead them, while saying something harsh is a problem as well.
I would say if you want to test the voting aspects, there are a couple of things here to vote on.
Conformity of stat pages.
Some sort of rule clarifications such as a public warning of violations and hopefully a reason for the warning.. threadjacking is a big one. Not being confrontational is point of view at times. And the use of boy can be considered racist.
I do not really see much of a problem with the rules as given. There is gray area but that is with all things. Hell, I never really read the rules until the first warning I got. I figured you can't get personal, and seeing some of the neveron posts, I am surprised more people weren't banned.
|
Nic Jansma
05/28/14 12:08 AM
68.41.71.3
|
Karagin,
Regarding any proposed changes to the Sarna forums' rules, as far as I can tell, this is what you have suggested:
Quote:
Suggested changes, Rule 2 be revised to remove the part that says moderators can do as they want.
The current and past moderators have not abused this rule, and thus I see no need to change it. The rule helps give Moderators the powers they need to help maintain the peace and order on the forums.
If a moderator were to repeatedly abuse this rule without justification, I would take the simple action of removing their moderator abilities.
Quote:
Rule 1 and 6 and 8 be merged into one rule.
I do not see a need to merge the rules, as they all deal with different, distinct, behaviors that we want to avoid. I cannot see a reason why merging them would make the rules clearer, or prevent abuse, or would otherwise be a benefit.
Quote:
As for the moderator doing his job, that being you, I think you have failed and have become to bias and I believe it is time for you to step down and move on to other things
As I've stated before, I do not think Cray has abused his powers in any way, and am incredibly thankful for his help over the years. Additionally, besides your complaints, I have not received (privately nor publically) complaints from anyone else about Cray.
Quote:
I think that by having a format or template we have a starting point
I am not in favor of requiring a specific format for all design posts, which I think would be intimidating for new posters. Just coming up would a "required format" would probably take months of arguing over.
What I would suggest instead, is to create a new sticky topic in the Designs forum that is a community-agreed upon list of "suggested text formats" that posters would be encouraged to use when sharing their designs. The post could also list any design programs that the community feels have a "good" textual output exporting mode. I've started another thread in this forum to discuss what that Sticky should say.
This "suggested text formats" and design programs posts would only be for reference and encouragement, not as a bannable offense. New posters should get the benefit of the doubt and be politely directed to the sticky.
Does that sound good?
|
BobTheZombie
05/28/14 01:38 PM
198.45.174.125
|
I concur. This looks like a good compromise between the two sides and is very reasonable.
|
Karagin
05/28/14 10:34 PM
70.118.139.48
|
Nic, it's your boards. I feel Cray has over stepped his bounds as a moderator and needs to go. That is my opinion based on his actions. You feel otherwise and so have said so. I have lost faith in his ability to remind even handed and act as a third party.
As for the format/template thing, I don't see it as something that will scare off anyone, but again I am sure that if we can figure out a common middle ground then things will be fine.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
05/28/14 11:30 PM
24.30.130.67
|
I guess it comes to this.
Do you know for a fact cray did not warn anyone else that got you banned?
If he did tell others to back off, would that change your whole line?
Without some of the back ground info, it does seem like he has tried to stop people from enforcing their will on others by looking like he was playing favorites.
I do not think this is the case, but without private information being given out, it would appear that way.
This is how it looks, but probably not how it is.
He may have gotten tired of the crap and acted in the only way he can without crossing the boundaries himself that have lead to the punishment. I did see him suggest dropping the subject, but not in the way it seems he needed. He said to stop spam trolling on the one, and asked to change the subject a few times back to the thread. I guess he needed to say 'hey. If you continue, I will hit you with rules (x, x, x, x).
It is sad that it had to come down to it, but there were a few hints it would happen without him being completely rude saying stop it then breaking them himself.
I don't agree with everything that shows, but as I said, I do not know what happened behind the scenes unless someone says it that doesn't violate the privacy clause.
|
Karagin
05/28/14 11:42 PM
70.118.139.48
|
I am not going to argue about this, I have stated my feelings on the matter, and I stand by my statement, in my opinion his actions have shown to me that he has stepped beyond being just a moderator, a prime example is his recent comment in the Ground Hawk tank thread. But as Nic has said he still wants Cray a moderator. I have made my opinion known.
I have also stated my issues with the current rule set, Nic feels they work as written. So in that matter it's done. Nic is not going to remove Cray, he has added two other moderators, so that may help things and offers at least more then a single voice in any matters that come up. As for the rest you can IM or Cray about it, I am sure he will tell you his side and I can give you mine.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Nic Jansma
05/29/14 10:55 AM
68.41.71.3
|
Thanks for all of the input. I think this thread has run its' course. If you have any additional items you'd like to discuss or suggestion, please open a new thread (or PM me).
This thread will now be locked.
|