The OFFICIAL GRIPE THREAD

[MikeH]

As a specific example I am very glad that we no longer get posts like "I don't make the rules, I just enforce them" from Ming. It always seemed a bit disingenuous. Now they are his rules so he, or any of the other mods, can't abdicate responsibilty in that way.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MikeH

Making the Off Topic moderation a lot more relaxed is a good thing, but it hasn't stopped this kind of problem because the inconsistency is still there. I don't think any Apolyton poster could say "this offence would result in this punishment" and be correct. In my view that's a very bad thing. Someone already mentioned it but Agathon has posted stuff in this thread that I think Asher would have been banned for if someone complained about it.

Don't start with that again. How many times do the moderators have to tell people the following:

Repeat offenders and troublemakers are held to a higher standard than those who rarely make trouble.

That's the rule. I should know, I've been a "victim" of it in the past.

There is no inconsistency in this rule. It's no different than a judge giving a repeat offender a longer sentence than a first time offender. The rule is simply applied proportional to the degree of previous wrongdoing. It's applied that way for everyone.

If you really decide to turn over a new leaf, then you get taken off the "watch list" and you are allowed more leeway. I know. This happened to me. It's completely fair.

Of course there will always be some inconsistency due to the fact that moderators are distinct persons and sometimes they make errors. That's just life.

We are talking about being banned for a couple of days from an internet forum, not imprisonment or torture. Some perspective is needed.

[Lancer]

Edited my post above when I saw your post. Night!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by MarkG
Mike hates me

Alright, while we're at it....

Were you responsible for jumping on my Dead Pool thread all those years ago?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon

There is no inconsistency in this rule. It's no different than a judge giving a repeat offender a longer sentence than a first time offender. The rule is simply applied proportional to the degree of previous wrongdoing. It's applied that way for everyone.

You are a self-confessed repeat offender.

I think a banning is in order as you still haven't learned your lesson.

j/k

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Agathon
Don't start with that again. How many times do the moderators have to tell people the following:

Repeat offenders and troublemakers are held to a higher standard than those who rarely make trouble.

That's the rule. I should know, I've been a "victim" of it in the past.

There is no inconsistency in this rule. It's no different than a judge giving a repeat offender a longer sentence than a first time offender. The rule is simply applied proportional to the degree of previous wrongdoing. It's applied that way for everyone.

Don't get me wrong, I think mostly the repeat offenders know exactly what they are doing, thrive on the attention of getting banned and push as hard as they can for it. In any moderated system you'll get people trying to cause trouble like that which is why (in my opinion) it's important to be transparent about how the rules are applied and to be seen to be fair.

It should be just as important to have guidelines about what you can't ban people for as it is to have guidelines about what you can get banned for.

That's all completely aside from the fact that a lot of people see being banned temporarily as a badge of honour rather than a punishment which totally devalues it as a punishment.

[MOBIUS]

You can't ban Aggie, who else would we have to laugh at!!?

[MikeH]

I think answering that question would break site rules.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MikeH

Don't get me wrong, I think mostly the repeat offenders know exactly what they are doing, thrive on the attention of getting banned and push as hard as they can for it. In any moderated system you'll get people trying to cause trouble like that which is why (in my opinion) it's important to be transparent about how the rules are applied and to be seen to be fair.

The rules here are pretty transparent. No posting NSFW material. No picking on the mellower posters. No excessive swearing. No posting pirate stuff. No posting PMs. No excessive and prolonged rudeness.

It should be just as important to have guidelines about what you can't ban people for as it is to have guidelines about what you can get banned for.

A problem with rules like that is that the attention whores will use them to create trouble by doing stuff that can be interpreted as both keeping to the law and breaking it.

There's another reason as well. Ming explained this to me a few years ago. Keeping the rules fairly vague actually causes less *****ing, because if they are quite precise, then people will start whine threads complaining that the rules haven't been followed to the nth degree. Discretionary power actually has a lot going for it. It also allows noobs to be given a free pass while they are still learning the rules (Some noobs don't even realize there are moderators. When I first got here, I thought MtG was just some nosey old fogey trying to interfere in other people's discussions - I didn't know that was his job ...).

Most of the rules here are politeness rules, not laws. We don't have hard and fast rules about politeness in everyday life, and most people still manage to be reasonably polite. Changing the understanding of site rules from rules of politeness, which are vague, to legal style rules, which are not, would be inappropriate to the sort of community this is: namely someone's digital living room.

That's all completely aside from the fact that a lot of people see being banned temporarily as a badge of honour rather than a punishment which totally devalues it as a punishment.

I've often thought that bans should be longer.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Agathon

When I first got here, I thought MtG was just some nosey old fogey trying to interfere in other people's discussions

[MikeH]

Well like many posters I disagree with that living room analogy, I think it's a site that's providing a service. Without the posters, a forum has no worth, it's not up to us to please the site owners, it's up to the site owners to create a site with content and a community that we want to use and be part of. Apolyton clearly has done that and has been going for over 10 years, which is a great achievement. There's an issue with the forum being 'dead' now because whilst people are still playing Civ4, a lot of people have moved on, there is no apparent next Civ game on the horizon so it's a bit of a limbo period for any Civ site.

With that in mind the Off Topic is valuable to the site because it creates a sense of community, and keeps people here between Civ releases. I think that's a very key part of the site, some people might disagree. In my view the fundamental problem is the whole concept that it's the moderator's job to intervene in poster disagreements and relationships. This isn't what happens in the real world. People manage their own relationships. I think that setting yourself up as someone who is going to intervene between the personal disagreements of posters sets you in an almost impossible situation. Deleting NSFW content, moving threads to the appropriate forum, deleting excessive swearing or whatever is as far as I'd ever be prepared to go as a moderator (and I am on another site, although a less busy one).

Ok, people aren't as polite on the internet as they are face to face, it's just a fact of life. You don't get the visual or audible cues that you get in real life if you are upsetting someone and there's no fear that someone might turn round and punch you on the nose. I just don't think that any amount of moderation is going to change a person's behaviour in that regard. The views and actions of the rest of the community can sometimes change peoples behaviour, but sometimes you just have to accept that someone is who they are and either you want them at the site or you don't. You can say "you can stay, but only if you change your personality" it's just not going to work. I think posters have to learn to cope with that environment and not rely on moderators to do it for them.

On the discretionary power issue this site could keep the current system of discretionary power, and still report on it. I think most of the community would support most decisions, and as this thread shows, it is possible to have civilised discussion about decisions even if people don't agree. If you talk to people maturely about things there's a much greater chance they'll respond maturely. Like a lot of people I have only heard Asher's side of this current saga and from his point of view he's been hard done by, my experience is that Asher's side of the story is rarely the whole story. I think having the other side of the story would help people.

As for bans being longer, I understand the concept of giving a poster a 'chill break' but other than that I don't see the value of any ban other than a permaban. People like getting banned, or it makes them mad and feel unfairly treated. Is someone like Asher ever really as happy as when he gets to ***** about getting banned?

Asher will come back in 2 weeks, having stewed about his ban for a fortnight and probably say something that immediately gets him banned again. Probably for daring to question his banning in public.

Anyway, I choose to post here even though I don't agree with the policies, knowing the rules and philosophy behind the site. Mostly because I find the on-topic forums to be extremely helpful and much more chilled than somewhere like CFC. I don't see the point in trying to change it by acting like an arse. Unless I think it's funny to do so but most people here don't get my sense of humour, except ironically sometimes the mods.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, my concern about banning Asher is the Agathon-Asher dynamic. One keeps the other in check...without one the other becomes utterly obnoxious and unbearable. This means you can ban neither or ban both. I'm in favour of the latter approach

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by MikeH
Deleting NSFW content, moving threads to the appropriate forum, deleting excessive swearing or whatever is as far as I'd ever be prepared to go as a moderator (and I am on another site, although a less busy one).

Where?

[Krill]

Originally posted by 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.

I got banned for a week for pulling a tuberski of the entire site and the OTF at the same time, almost a year ago.

I deserved it, but I've never been banned for spamming up the OTF any time I've done it after that first incident.

[BeBMan]

"pulling a tuberski" ??