2018-11-03 19:38:07

I'm a little confused and would like clarification on how warnings and cautions work now, and what the levels of severity are when placing a post.  This was recently said in another topic by the moderator Jayde:

Jayde wrote:

In fact, consider this an unofficial caution, of sorts, not just to Aprone but to all forum members. I want this thread to stop.
...
Anyone who posts in this thread after this point will receive some sort of punitive action, whether it be further warning or a short ban, dependent upon the severity of the infraction.

It sounds at first like there is nothing official going on, at least not anything moderation related.  It is an unofficial caution, of sorts.  A few sentences later it seems like the specifically stated "unofficial caution" means that anyone who does add to the post will be "officially" punished in some way.

I see that the official punishment would be based upon the "severity of the infraction", and I'd like some help decoding what that might mean.  The moderator said he didn't want any more posts, so does that maybe mean the severity scale is based on the number of new posts?  For example if I had posted 1 post following that message would it have been not severe but had I quickly posted 2 it would be severe?  Is the severity scale perhaps based on the length of new posts, so replying with 5 words is less severe than 2 paragraphs?  Saying no new posts would be a pretty black and white kind of thing, but this stuff about severity clearly indicates that there is some sort of scale being used.

I find this all extremely open to interpretation, and think someone should break it down.  When moving forward, people are going to need to know what they can and cannot do around here to avoid punishments.  It may seem like I'm being overly picky, but at the same time an "unofficial caution" surprisingly has very real consequences associated with it.

- Aprone
Please try out my games and programs:
Aprone's software

Thumbs up +5

2018-11-03 19:43:52

We are working on this. My aim here was to be as gentle as I could without actually giving away any ground.

The topic is locked now anyway, and I knew it would be eventually, but in essence, if you see me say something like that it basically means that the lengths to which one goes to rock the boat will determine punishment. A post like "Oh great, here come the dictators" would've gotten a warning. A post denouncing the mod team in detail or starting further arguments would've gotten a couple of days worth of ban so the person could cool off.

You can definitely expect more clarity when it comes to this in future. I am very transparent, and if anyone gets punished regarding this particular situation, I will be extremely clear with them - privately or publicly, or both - about what, and how, and why.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 19:49:18

Wouldn't either of those examples been going against you stating that you wanted the thread to stop?  It feels like you're stating 2 different things, then choosing to only punish based on the second one.

Rather than expecting more clarity in the future, perhaps the better approach would be to figure out what you actually want, decide what official moderation warnings/cautions you and the team want to give, and Then post.  I don't feed you my sentences 1 word at a time and ask you to hold off for them to make sense.  I figure out the whole sentence and then send it to you.

- Aprone
Please try out my games and programs:
Aprone's software

Thumbs up +6

2018-11-03 19:56:17

It seems like your also just making up rules here. You do not punish people for posting. Anywhere. What kind of person are you to do such a thing? How about I punish you for living? Or hey, even better, how about we punish you for... something random that makes no sense. Wouldn't that be fair? After all, you said you'd punish someone who posted in that thread after you posted...

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-03 20:12:25

Given the climate on the forum, the issue at play and the way things continued to flare up, I feel I was justified in what I said. I had already consulted the other active mods prior to posting, so they knew that this was coming. I didn't just go rogue and make the decision on my own.

Aprone, neither example 1 nor example 2 was okay. One would've received a warning, the other a ban, and I would have explained either privately, not in the thread. If I knew how to/was able to lock posts, I'd just have done it with no cautions being given. The reason I called it a caution is because essentially it's not targeted at any one individual, and because no one had, as yet, crossed what I asked. If they had, they'd had full understanding of what they were doing.

Please believe me that, at least in that regard, we have a pretty firm idea of what's going on. Again, I did not act without thinking or considering.

And Ethin, we've generally decided that this topic has run its course, and further beating it to death is not helping anyone. We are not sweeping it under the rug. We are not going to be silent in hopes you all will forget everything and slink away. We are not in the habit of minimizing wrongdoing, but nor are we going to tolerate further bickering on the subject. In that light, we have every right to ask that you not talk about something anymore, especially given that what I actually said was that if you had more to say, you were welcome to contact me privately. It is more draconian than this forum is used to, and believe me, I like it just as little as you do. But when we have made our stance fully clear, when things have settled down again, you will probably be glad in hindsight that the damage is limited.

Again, I cannot overstate that we are not ignoring your words, we are not dismissing those who feel they have genuine grievances. Everything is being weighed on its own merits. I am a big believer in telling the truth, even if it hurts. I can object to timing, and sometimes feel that people do not consider the big picture as much as they ought, but that doesn't mean I don't sympathize in part with what's going on. Many of you people see a gross miscarriage of justice, and while I am not convinced you are right, I recognize your right to that opinion, and I understand how being told that you cannot currently express that opinion further in public must chafe. It's damage control. Let's just leave it there.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 20:19:27 (edited by Xoren 2018-11-03 20:24:19)

There's a problem in the site's rules, wherein it requires forum users to explicitly follow a moderator's dictates, be they justified, ethical, warranted, or not.

8) Instructions by the moderator team are to be followed.

This blanket rule basically means that any moderator could say "Hey Aprone, I don't like your post in 307. I need you to edit it so that it sounds like the Chiefs are performing horribly this year." Under the loose dictates of the current ruleset, you as a user would be obligated to abide by this demand, and failure to do so seems to carry an implication of any degree of punitive reaction by said moderator. There seem to be no implied levels of severity of instruction, the results of refusing to follow said instruction, and whether or not these instructions need to be official or personal. Technically speaking, according to the rules, Aaron could PM Aprone with a request to turn over his personal information and, assuming Aprone refused, he could choose to ban him for life, since there are no strictures placed upon rule 8 as to the degree of retaliatory response by the instructing moderator, nor as to the nature of these instructions.

Amusingly, rule 6 seems to contradict with a later statement of the ruleset.

6) (Slightly) Off topic posting is allowed, but make sure to start the topic with OT: (Off Topic). This way everyone knows that it is off topic.

And most important: posting a message with advertisements, spam or anything else that is off-topic, non-related to game accessibility, offensive material, p0rn etc will lead to immediate removement of the topic plus a ban of email, ip and/or ip-range.

This effectively says that slightly off topics are ok, so long as they're clearly distinguished by the use of OT. However, this statement is then quickly countermanded by saying that if the post is off topic and doesn't pertain to game accessibility, you can be banned. The short and narrow of it seems to be that rules are whatever the moderating individual desires them to be. (No, I do not countenance the FAQ as any kind of clarification of the rules, as the clarifications should be in the rules page itself). I did not have to read that FAQ before joining, did not agree to any terms laid therein, and my membership did not require the understanding of such an unofficial post.

I can only conclude from these rules that users basically have no firm guidelines whereby they are safe to execute their discussions on these forums. If such broadly interpretable rules matter to you, it's probably a better idea to become a patron of some other medium, at least until these discrepancies are cleared up.

This site's drama(s) needs major popcorn!

Thumbs up +5

2018-11-03 20:29:50

This is, among other things, one of the bits we're trying to iron out, because I agree with you completely. Any rules you agree to should be public before you agree to sign up, in case you have a problem with any of them which would sway your decision to join. If I knew enough about forum software, and had the permissions to do it, I'd make good on this and try to edit them myself, as the sort of blanket authority expressed in rule 8 can be used to justify some pretty awful behaviour. Knowing this, I am not going to abuse that broad term aven if the rules, as they are written, would support me. I am here to help this forum grow and to keep it from imploding; I am not here to get my jollies from lording it over anyone.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 20:35:59

alright. I believe there's a contraddiction here.

Jayde wrote:

And Ethin, we've generally decided that this topic has run its course, and further beating it to death is not helping anyone. We are not sweeping it under the rug. We are not going to be silent in hopes you all will forget everything and slink away. We are not in the habit of minimizing wrongdoing, but nor are we going to tolerate further bickering on the subject. In that light, we have every right to ask that you not talk about something anymore, especially given that what I actually said was that if you had more to say, you were welcome to contact me privately. It is more draconian than this forum is used to, and believe me, I like it just as little as you do. But when we have made our stance fully clear, when things have settled down again, you will probably be glad in hindsight that the damage is limited.

True, you have the right to ask that some things should not be discussed. But I believe that we too, have the right to know fully what's going on Here. By asking people to speak with you privately you are basically preventing the community from having informations which I think can benefit the whole.
And with all the respect, but it does seem that you guys wanted to close the topic down since some informations that you did not like to be displayed, have been.
You then say that you are a believe in telling the truth even if it hurts. If so, why did you show your self unpleased when aprone opened up and spoke with us about the walter situation?
Keep in mind, that I don't have no aim in starting drama, and I might as well have miss understood what you say. If I did so, please feel free to correct me.

If you want to get in touch with me you can follow me on Twitter
have a nice day.
Paul

2018-11-03 20:40:15

@7, again though, the rules are an issue. You under the rules can do anything you like. There are no restrictions on what you can and can't do. Under the rules, you could PM me and ask me for my social security number and they state that I'd be required to give it to you or face punishment for doing so.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 20:50:51

also, post 7. so you closed down the topic, and 2 or even 3 of the same nature, have been created. this shows pretty obviously, that the community is not yet done. are you going to warn all of us and close down all the topics, and keep closing and or banning, if and when someone tries to create another? I'm just trying to understand things. as said elsewhere, there is flame, and lava holes all around  me.

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-03 20:55:26

If you block a passage, an other will be opened.
Closing the topic when the situation was slowly clearing it's self "and it was", only made it  worse. I hate being a complainer, but there are ways and ways to handle things. Sure, doing the moderator is a difficult task, but that should not be always the excuse. If you appoint as a moderator, or if you accept to be such, you know what you're going in to.

If you want to get in touch with me you can follow me on Twitter
have a nice day.
Paul

2018-11-03 20:59:07

i think that regardless of how many topics are locked and the like this is not going to be silenced. there are other forms of meedia in which this can be spoken of and all you've done by locking that topic is to effectively shift people to talking elsewhere. rather than dealing with the problem all you've done is spread it. which really isn't exactly the best idea. what's to stop the likes of london or other outspoken people from openly putting that blog post up on the likes of facebook and also the post in which eventually discussion of this nature was terminated? it just makes this look worse and worse. also banning people will just go to reaffirm people's belief in a dictatorship and as such they will take to social media all the more. you won't stop it especially by locking the thread. i'm sorry but another big mistake has been made here. restrict me if you wish but if you do that will only serve to prove a point. not that it bothers me either way really it doesn't. the mods will just damage themselves even more by further warnings of people talking about this. in all the 10 years or so i've been registered here i've posted hardly at all compared to some people who have been here a lot less time than me and have posted too and responded too a lot more topics. equally until the rules are propperly dealt with and an (absolute) consensus has been made with regards to them, then i don't feel the mods should be throwing warnings around at all. as has already been pointed out above there are massive problems with doing this.

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-03 21:05:16

I'm not at all sure that every member of the moderator team has the users' best interest at heart, though. Granted I can only bear witness to two individuals, but the fact that any such dismissal of user rights poses a problem for any potential update to the forum rules.

In my altercation with Dark about the inclusion of Steam games, his abrupt closure of the topic (started by another moderator, I might add) seemed to iply heavily that Audiogames.net was more about games that Dark approved of, rather than those which the user based wish to be represented.
Then in my communication with the site administrators, I witness a certain degree of condescension from Sebby when he responded to the topic where I made public my communication.

Sebby wrote:

I'm not going to address your points at the moment, because it would only invite more impassioned disagreement, but I think you should know that the issue that's giving you so much grief is presently being debated in the house--I mean, among the moderators.

If you can't detect the amount of condescension from such a response, it may do well to signify that we'd also had a few private messages on the subject, wherein his opinion on my efforts was made quite plain to me. I cannot submit them as proof, though, since I regularly purge my PM's of old messages, so feel free to take my word with a degree of salt.

I hope that any future modifications to the rules will be made as a concerted effort, rather than being made the province of one sole author. Furthermore, these rules should be made public in a community vote, so that we can all see the text and elect whether or not we agree with these new rules, barring the demonstration of disagreement by simply removing ourselves from this forum, of course.

This site's drama(s) needs major popcorn!

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-03 21:07:11 (edited by pauliyobo 2018-11-03 21:08:05)

On an other note, has anyone looked in to ironcross' email? I thought a banned user had the right to speak with the moderation team.
Why instead of getting irritated and closing posts not going in  a wanted way, don't we concentrate on making this place more fair, like it  should be?

If you want to get in touch with me you can follow me on Twitter
have a nice day.
Paul

2018-11-03 21:20:23

@14, on that issue, one of the mods said that his appeal was "smoke at this point", implying that they could care less. I'm sorry, mods, but nothing you've done lately is reaffirming (in any way) that I can trust you, in any way, n a position of authority or power, and that's just me.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-03 21:26:35 (edited by pauliyobo 2018-11-03 21:27:22)

A smoke? like really? LOL sorry but this thing makes me laugh. Claiming that doing the moderator is a difficult job "which it is", closing down posts even if not necessary, and not dealing with more relevant issues, for example listening a player that is willing to explain and discuss in a civil manner about his punishment. Wow, claps! I should have them as an example to follow.

If you want to get in touch with me you can follow me on Twitter
have a nice day.
Paul

2018-11-03 21:27:27

that is wrong everybody has the right to an appeal. even in the criminal justice system has that right.

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 21:29:33

I didn't even read this entire topic, because I need to reply to post 2. Am I to understand that I am going to get banned if I protest about the moderation team? Or did I read that wrong. What is this place turning into. sorry, oh masters, if I just broke a rule and am going to get banned for saying such a horrible thing.

I am a web designer, and a game developer. If you wish see me at http://www.samtupy.com

2018-11-03 21:32:20

I have a constructive suggestion that is central to the BSG blog thread.  Jade, where do I put this suggestion?

Try my free games and software at www.rockywaters.co.uk

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-03 21:51:44

When Ironcross's appeal was characterized as "smoke", this does not mean it was ignored. it means that it did not exist. I have personally seen no such appeal from Ironcross - although I am new, so it's possible it showed up beforehand - and don't know what's going on with that. It was "smoke" in the sense that it was intangible. The wording there was somewhat unclear. We have no desire whatsoever to ignore someone's legitimate appeal if they feel that we have abused our power or feel that their punishment was in error. There is only so far that can go, but I, for one, am always willing to listen. I've said this before. Please remember it.

Rocky Waters, you can feel free to send me a private message with your constructive suggestion. Those are always welcome, so thank you.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 21:54:28

To address a question that wasn't answered yet: not sure if moderators are allowed to do this, but in the registration section of the administration panel of Pun-bb, there is indeed a rules section that you can modify as you wish. I believe that html is allowed so you could make a multi-level organization of them, for example, if you wanted to explain one rule in further detail that didn't involve a single long-winded bullet point.

I'm the only adventure at c: master hahahaha I have unlocked just about everything!

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 21:58:25

@20, reopen the topic you closed. having two or more discussion about similar things is not helping anyone.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +2

2018-11-03 22:03:14

No, its a constructive suggestion, not a pm suggestion

Try my free games and software at www.rockywaters.co.uk

Thumbs up

2018-11-03 22:09:49

Let me clarify, I am going to post up a constructive suggestion that is directly related to the BSG blog, where do I put this so that people see it?  I would also prefer not to get banned or have my motives interpreted, simply by posting.  Please have a look at my previous posts, I have not entered into flame wars or side taking.  My question is simply where do I put it?

Try my free games and software at www.rockywaters.co.uk

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-03 23:12:39 (edited by flackers 2018-11-03 23:14:43)

Rocky, just start a new thread called BSG blog continued. JK.

Thumbs up +2