The OFFICIAL GRIPE THREAD

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Solver
Somebody has Rah's phrase in his signature, like "people are screaming for consistency but they're not going to get it from us".

Hey! I'm a somebody now!!!



I also have "God...I have to agree with Asher" in there

[Solver]

Ah, it's you. How appropriate for the discussion we're having

[SlowwHand]

Rule books are really just suggestion books, aren't they?

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Lancer
This thread really is something we've never had before.

you've got to be joking... we've always had threads discussing bans. sometimes they run more sometimes not but it's not like moderation actions were not discussed in the past...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Solver
Ah, it's you. How appropriate for the discussion we're having

Indeed.

I am not even asking for consistency...I understand the reasons to be inconsistent.

It would be nice if the attitude was a bit better though.

[rah]

Yes the rules are guidelines. And further I do apply judgement to them. I treat newbs much different then those that traditionally push the limits. Some people should know better (and do) and as a result are dealt with more firmly. No set of rules can cover every situation and still be fair. As war gamers we are trained to find and exploit loopholes. It's our job to make the judgement calls. Judgements are not always consistent or correct no matter how hard we try. We reserve the right to be wrong sometimes.

[Solver]

Okay, the attitude... what do you want to change, specifically? I am all for having more communication with members regarding what's going on with the site.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by rah
As war gamers we are trained to find and exploit loopholes.

I insist that you back up that stance to the hilt by wearing camo paint while posting.

[rah]

Ferrets are camo by nature.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Solver
Okay, the attitude... what do you want to change, specifically? I am all for having more communication with members regarding what's going on with the site.

In many cases there are more than one side to a story. It has been my experience that some mods here determine what they think is right and then ram it down a members throat regardless of anything said by the member.

Now, I am not saying that the mods should just flip flop, but a calm reasoned response as to why things are as they are would be nice. People can disagree without being hostile. At the end of the day, it certainly is ya'll's site and you can rule as you wish. That, I believe, people can respect. It is when it is done with a harsh, condesending attitude that it makes people want to find another home on the web.

Believe it or not...more people leave due a holier than thou attitude than because of a disagreement over a rule.

[Solver]

The problem is that much of the time people disagree when they get banned - understandably so. That is when hostilities often erupt.

Sure, we do sometimes have a harsh attitude. It mainly comes with bans for repeated rule-breakers because, every once in a while, we do actually get annoyed when someone breaks the rules for the umpteenth time.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Solver
The problem is that much of the time people disagree when they get banned - understandably so. That is when hostilities often erupt.

Sure, we do sometimes have a harsh attitude. It mainly comes with bans for repeated rule-breakers because, every once in a while, we do actually get annoyed when someone breaks the rules for the umpteenth time.

I can understand that. I was refering to those times when someone had never broken a rule before.

Using a nuke to kill a fly is a bit much I hope you would agree?

That is what needs to change. Folks like Asher know what is coming and probably deserve it. Still, the mods should uphold a certain modicum of restraint in their public postings...

...but people who have been loyal to the site and get accused of things thay didn't do and get totally blasted over it is a problem.

[rah]

I have never banned anyone that has never broken a rule before. I don't think that's common from any of the mods. But I'll grant that there may always be an exception.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have never banned anyone that has never broken a rule before. I don't think that's common from any of the mods. But I'll grant that there may always be an exception.

FALSE.

[Solver]

PLATO, do you have something specific in mind? I'm hard pressed to think about bans for first-time offenders in a long time. Granted, I don't do most of the banning and generally stay out of the OTF. I've banned Kuci a few times for on-topic posts, and those were offenses he had been warned for previously. Asher, Wiggie and Sloww get banned relatively often, and all have broken rules at various points.

I honestly don't remember recent bans for first-time offenders. We've sure had some - such as banning Skanky - but that reaction by Markos was not unprovoked. The last time I banned a first-time offender was for a fairly serious offense, that was when a poster made strongly racist comments in an on-topic forum.