2018-11-06 20:53:06

The nature of rules like this is very simple. If a mod really and truly wants to abuse you, they can probably do it.

this is why there is protocol, however, to get around that. Technically nothing stops me doing what you're thinking I might do, but there is tons and tons of reason now for other forum users to see exactly what happened and either to leave outright or to demand my head. If the former didn't happen, the latter would.

To clarify your issues though:

Topics change. I guess this might have been missed in your analysis. If someone brings up a point and that point sparks a bit of back and forth, you aren't going to be warned for that unless you, I dunno, totally and completely derail the thread and are utterly ignoring the main point of it. This is something which will actually be pretty easy to enforce, because we won't actually -have to enforce it most of the time.

Non-English speakers already exist here and are already supported where possible. This rule doesn't make it harder on them, it makes it easier on them because we aren't going to let others badger people for broken English.

Last point. Sometimes, there really are going to be cases where a topic needs shutting down. Please note that bit where we said we want to have a hands-off approach wherever possible. We'll do everything we can to let things fizzle out, but every so often, that won't be possible. Letting something burn out may do more harm than good. In that instance, we'll shut it down/ask it to drop, and we expect to be listened to.
I mean, I'm not sure what you're after here. If you don't want to be accountable at all, then why have any rules at all?

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

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 21:02:00

@Jade

I'm screwed then if that mod sees me tongue Go Red Sox! smile Seriously though, you can have all the protocols in the world, but if people are determined enough to skirt them....there's ways and means for that to happen. THere's ways around any rule a mod has to abide by, There's ways around rules mods have set down. People on both sides can get extremely creative. All it takes is one mod to get dominant and shove the others around until the other mods don't stand up any more, then said dominant mod has free reign and no accountability though.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 21:06:54 (edited by braille0109 2018-11-06 21:10:50)

but 25. who's to say there won't be a next time? again, if Jayde wants to, as demonstrated by the rules, he can do whatever he wants to me, upon our disagreement. that still has to go.
and 26. I'm after fair treatment. let's pretend that a BSG topic comes up again, and it gets closed down again. so OK, we disagree. so we create 2 or 3 different versions of that same topic, to send out a wake up call, to show the admins the community is not yet done. so now, we can be warned for: 1) useless spam topics. 2) for going against an admin. 3) continue responding to something that was technically shut down. do you see where I'm going with this? as for the english speakers, I'm honestly interested what percentage of the forum is actually aware of the current rules. if we want to stick to them, we want them understood. I'm somewhat worried to see that you took offence to my feedback given through examples.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-06 21:13:44

Jade, it's unlikely you're going to let this go, I can see that. I have no power to do anything about it, I can only disagree with it, and I do. The thing is Jade, and I promise with all my heart there's no malice in this statement, I don't trust you, that's the trouble. None of us is any good at analysing our own motives. If we want to better understand ourselves, the best we can do is look at others and try to learn from that. At this point I really think you yourself don't know what's motivating you to behave the way you are. And the same goes for me and my motives. Others could probably tell me brutally and leave me in floods of tears, heheh. Again, I don't say this to hurt you, I just don't know any other way to explain myself other than honestly. I've run out of red flags with your progress as a mod. You asked to be one. Instead of keeping your head down and learning the ropes quietly by dealing with clear-cut breeches of the rules, You went on a rampage, creating flames everywhere you went. All the mod warnings you issued in those first few days were the result of your own behaviour. After the first mishandling, You went on to repeat the same action a day or so later. It just looked like you couldn't wait to break in your new baton. You very quickly established yourself as the dominant voice of the mod team by being very vocal on the floor, and drawing up very eloquently written statements. And now you're making the rules. This has all happend in a week. There are people in support of you, and believe it or not, I'm glad there are because I personally couldn't have stood a tenth of the flack you've endured. I admire your fortitude.
I don't know if this is the case, but you give the impression that if the entire user base declared a vote of no confidence in you at this time, and you could get away with it, you'd dismiss it as illogical and ignore it. I think you're power tripping right now, and it's scary how fast you've gone from a regular user to drawing up rules, one of which seems perfectly tailored to justify that disaster that occurred on your first couple of days.
The thing is, promises, statements, apologies are all well and good, but only a fool judges people on words. It's actions that matter, and your actions do look power hungry.
All that said, the decision I've arrived at over the past day or so is that people like me need not care who the mods are because on the whole, I do the right thing out of respect for the community, not for fear of consequences. I'll never agree with that clause thing, but I know I won't fall foul of it too. But it stinks on principle is all. I'll just kkeep my head down and respond to things I think are interesting, and you follow your star too.

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-06 21:15:55

so here's the thing yall.
I was going to write like a gigantic novel length post, but I think I can sum this up.
The rules are being designed to help the community. Most places have a failure clause. If the clause is invoked it can not be done with out other moderator's agreeing to the invocation. There seems to still be this belief that Jayde is this rigid dictator or tyrant. Which is absolutely not true.
I'll say this for the like 5 millionth time.
Did Jayde make a mistake? Damn right he did.
Did he own up to it? Damn right he did.
We need to trust our moderators to do the right thing.
Having a set of rules that everyone can discuss is absolutely the right thing.
Most of the rules are just common decency.

2018-11-06 21:18:40

@Aaron, if I'm being honest here, I don't think anyone would have done anything including reopen that topic if there hadn't been a massive public outcry about it. Jade certainly would not have retracted his warnings if loads of people hadn't pressed on until it was done. I'm not trying to patronize jade here, maybe I am wrong and I want to be wrong in this case, but I am speaking what my trust makes me speak. The only reason anything happened, the topic being reopened, those warnings being retracted, is because people turned up the heat, and in short, basically said F that hardcore. This rule tries to enforce that we have to agree with the admins officially. Right now, it appears the only reason admins are doing the right thing is because so many people are as you say, turning up the heat. You are trying to say directly in the rule that if topics become decidedly overheated, you have the right to close them. But based on what has been clearly witnessed here the only reason we're making any progress, and probably the only reason amine and others weren't temp banned is because people turned up the heat. I could never agree to a rule that gives the mods the exclusive right to extinguish that heat, when it is likely the only thing that is making things go in a positive direction right now. Sure the warnings were retracted, but after the warnings jade gave out, I no longer trust his judgement as to what is too heated or not.

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

2018-11-06 21:23:00

Right Liam and having been a mod before....I get both sides. I've been speaking Jade privately bout this and we both get each others viewpoints. So, Do I fully trust Jade? Not 100%. Do I get where he's coming from, and how he could have acted in error? Absolutely.

That being said. It is entirely possible as I said for one mod to push the other mods into agreeing to anything. Let's say mods A B C D and E are on a list. A wants to invoke the failure clause, so he starts that. B disagrees and says hang on, there's no prof. C stays silent seeing where it's going, D and E are offline. A takes C's silence as cowardice and starts pushing Mod C to side with A. B keeps standing up to A. A threatens B that unless he sides with A, A will have him removed as unfit for purpose. D and E aren't there so don't get to chip in. In the and A B C all agree. Failure clause is invoked.

That's....not as far fetched as it sounds, by the way. It's essentialy office politics at a harsh level.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-06 21:24:33 (edited by Aprone 2018-11-06 21:26:20)

Flackers, well said on post 29!

aaron wrote:

The fact that the warnings were retracted in the firstplace, especially when I stepped in, surely, must tell you something. You know, I could have easily just backed Jayde up in that case. But I didn't. I took it to the list and I took it to multiple topics, and he relented, and this is what he's getting at. Even he realizes how harsh he was being.

What that tells me is that warnings are not being agreed upon ahead of time.  If they were, no one would have come in after the fact to retract anything.

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

Thumbs up +3

2018-11-06 21:28:36

@Liam, he made his mistake, then he owned up to it and we thought it was all well and good. Then he made the mistake with 3 times the level of severity the next day, and again owned up to it after creating way more flames. Who's to say he won't make the same mistake when this rule is here so that he can just close the topic when he sees fit. I don't think he intends to cause harm don't get me wrong, but someone who has A, clearly made this mistake multiple times now, B, has the power to just casually extinguish what he considers flames without a second thought, and c, thinks he is right unless there is massive opposition is a very dangerous combination for a moderator. Lets als not forget that we can clearly see that arrogant side of jade that makes him think he is right all the time from previous posts on the forum, and the example that really clinched it for me was when he said something along the lines of, "what I have learned is that the validity of a statement is outweighed by the number of people a posed to it." Jade thinks he is right all the time, it's been clearly shown. So if he thinks there is flaming, then in his mind, there is flaming no matter what. I'm not just speaking for myself when I say that, I've heard this comment about jade from many many other people. I want to trust jade, but I simply can't after seeing the stuff that has been going on lately.

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

2018-11-06 21:31:07

I basically had to relentlessly chase after my warning to get it removed (Thank you for doing so) and under these new rules I'd probably be looking at a community failure ban thing.

I'm going to have to say no to these rules as they currently stand.
I'm also in full agreement with Flackers here.

All the seats are taken in the house that makes the rules.
All the seats are taken in the parliament of fools.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-06 21:32:22

I think it's pretty clear that the moderation team is not changing.
So as users we have two options.
1. We trust the mods we have to do the best job we can.
2. We go somewhere else.
I'm happy with option 1.

2018-11-06 21:35:55

This is why we've got admins and mods (I'm an admin, Jayde's a mod, admins are higher up than mods).
An admin can in theory remove a mod. If we had a rogue mod, there wouldn't be a mailing list, teamwork would be out the window, and the rogue mod would be rogue mod and that's that, but we can't allow that to happen.
Also, regarding off topic, see the Injustice arcade topic, at the moment we're talking about guitar hero arcade and other machines and getting quite excited by those posts, no way will that be getting warnings or anything like that. Conversations in topics change their flow quite a lot, so we shouldn't really need to punish it. In fact @Jayde I do have a question for you, well, could you sort of explain this rule a bit more because I will be honest I am confused by it. It feels more like etiquette rather than a rule, when would a punishment really be necessary? Because I don't see it, it is a little confusing actually.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 21:44:46

I feel like the difference between hijacking a topic is as such.
1. This isn't a hijack.
In a topic about mortal Kombat. Mortal Kombat is my favorite game, but I also love street fighter. What about you guys?
2. This is a hijack
In a topic about Playstation.
Hey everyone. I've got this new program I wrote that turns mp3's in to midi files. I'm gonna put the link here for everyone to download it.

The wording in the rules should probably be a bit more clearer.

2018-11-06 21:44:51 (edited by cartertemm 2018-11-06 21:52:44)

These new rules are all well and good, as is community contribution. However, the point of trust is outlined here a couple times, and I'll add my two sense.


I don't have to directly say we don't trust a grand total of 0 of our current staff who most didn't even know existed in the first place.

Liam, I by no means believe the claims of dictatorship are not without warrent. Maybe you know Jayde a little more than the rest of us, maybe you are better able to sympathise? However the little I know of his is a couple prior minor disagreements, he takes the ropes as mod, the next couple days we see outrageous warnings and an uproar the likes of which I've never seen here. All these are retracted for more to fit in their place, to be retracted themselves at some later point. These wounds aren't the type to heal quickly.
I've been admin of a number of communities before. Upon being admitted, I lie low for the first week or so just to make sure I know how to handle situations as per my obligation.

Since the recent step down of Sebby, Noctornous (sorry for the misspelling), and demotion of Dark, who I might add were some of the most active, I presume we'll shortly see some others appointed.

Bluntly speaking, all but one of the remaining mods are either extremely inactive, highly submissive, or untrusted by the community. We can have countless posts announcing and attempt at reform, but it can become rather detrimental when the so called enforcers are questioned every step of the way so as your having to spend more time writing retorts than listening to suggestions. Right now, I feel as if Jayde wanted to close a topic he could shoot off a quick message and get an OK, I imagine most of you know what I'm referring to. So this other guy comes forward, case closed.

A team appointed due to personal trust/connections or registration date is inevitable, but highly biased. If we're promoting by means of a backdoor so to speak, we're really not doing much other than introducing a new face for the community to hopefully learn to eventually trust. Right now, the newbie makes one mistake and it's over with everyone jumping down his throat. We really can't have that again. So I propose one or two new mods be chosen from active forum members, who're well-known and liked here. Maybe someone who has been involved in this situation specifically and can start off strait away. Rules are only effective if we're able to have confidence in the fairness of our higher-ups, and right now that's a no for me.

Thumbs up +1

2018-11-06 21:45:48

Aaron. I know that this was asked on another topic, but can someone please create a sticky of who the admins and mods actually are?

2018-11-06 21:57:28

I hope to do this in an updated sight and forum faq, which will be a faq now, with stuff like forum ranks but no weird rules in there.

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 21:59:34

That's a good idea, but I'd also have a sticky topic in one of the forums. A lot of forums do this. Heck every subreddit lists the admins in plain site so you know who they are.

2018-11-06 22:21:36

I also have another question about another rule sorry I don't know the number. The one about creating multiple accounts. Say I have an account and my fiend has an account and we both create our own games. But then we wish to unite into our own company so to speak, is our company allowed to create an account we can both use to publish our games, while we still individually use our own accounts to publish games we aren't collaborating on?

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

2018-11-06 22:54:38

post 37. if Jayde has proposed the rules to you guys, and you guys have aproved them, may I wonder why you've asked Jayed for clarification? I'm sorry, but it just does not add up. if they were aproved, and read through, surely you would have clarified them with him right there and then? this worries me.
Giving a mod the power of what happened in the past, and giving him a free ride, in the way that he can back up himself using the rules per say, is just asking for troubles. I do agree with Liam, option 1 it is, where we stay here, and deal with the admin team. with that said, the admin team should listen. at this point, we want more clearer rules, so that no admin or mod can over abuse their powers, trying to justify them using the rules. because honestly, that's what seems to be happening here. written the rules, knowing one can rely on them in the future, once they kick into life. as for the varification point, I'll wait for a reply before we go further. I'm just surprised why an admin asks another for clarification on rules that have apparently been approved.

Thumbs up +2

2018-11-06 23:10:38

alright

Jayde wrote:

10. This forum possesses a community failure clause. If you do things to make the staff team think that your presence on the forum is doing more harm than good, you may be subjected to discipline greater than what you would receive for any individual breach of the rules. In such a case, members of the team will get together in order to weigh the evidence and come to a reasonable decision.

Why does this rule sounds to me a bit vague and possible walter situations may raise from it?
@post37

Aaron wrote:

In fact @Jayde I do have a question for you, well, could you sort of explain this rule a bit more because I will be honest I am confused by it. It feels more like etiquette rather than a rule, when would a punishment really be necessary? Because I don't see it, it is a little confusing actually.

I am assuming that when Jayde sent the rules before posting (if he did) you guys had time for raise any questions/clarifications. This makes me wonder if the rules were indeed being really reviewed by all the mod team.

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

2018-11-06 23:31:08

Sam, you bring up a good question regarding two people then creating a company and wanting an official account. That's something I hadn't yet thought of, so thank you for highlighting it. We will have to talk about this.

To those asking about why an admin is asking for clarification, there are potentially a lot of reasons for this, the simplest of which is because there is some doubt that was not, for one reason or another, expressed before.

Aaron, here's a simple answer:
The rule about off-topic posting/hijacking is meant to stop people from coming in and utterly derailing a topic. It is not meant to discourage a post that lets a topic wander.

Liam, you're right. That one could probably do with a bit more tweaking. I'll edit and see what you think of a slightly simpler presentation.

And to the rest of you who are worried? Your worry is justified, but Liam is right when he mentions two choices. My advice is to keep his wisdom in mind, and to also remember that anything involving stuff like topic closure or community failure is going to go through the team.

In the disaster that happened the other day, let's play the full transparency card, which I've playd before but will cite here again. We talked on list, we thought it might be a good idea to shut things down. It wasn't utterly complete unanimous agreement but there was strong support for it, and I actually don't recall it being my idea originally. Nevertheless, I bought into it, and I went with it, and it exploded. Our bad, guys. I was the public face at that point and rightfully took the heat. A sort of state of emergency was declared, and warnings were issued and later retracted.
By the following day I was coming to realize the error in closing that topic, but I was still thinking that a very firm hand was necessary. This has nothing to do with hunger for power and everything to do with a mistaken perception of how things were likely to shake down. I made what I thought was a reasonable request - to drop a subject - and when two users deliberately ignored it, I issued more warnings, retracting them when I realized the good sense in what Liam was saying. This is the point where I came to understand that quite frankly, fur was gonna fly for a little while, and as long as people weren't truly hurting each other, the best thing we could do is just let it blow itself out. Passivity is something that does not come naturally to me, which is why it took someone with more mod experience to give me that advice.

You want to know how you can believe this won't keep happening. Here are some compelling reasons:
1. I've learned a thing or three
2. I have a broader perspective
3. I intend to hold everyone, self included, to the rules, however they look when this all finishes up
4. I learn from my mistakes
5. I am open, and I encourage feedback; remember how even in that so-called state of emergency I kept urging people to come talk to me if they wanted?
6. I am not above admitting when I am wrong

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

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 23:35:17 (edited by TJT1234 2018-11-06 23:41:03)

I apologize in advance for the rant.

Only the final draft of the rules should have been submitted to the forum after all of everyone on the moderators' email list had clarified them, edited them and discussed them—even the moderators have on more than one occasion asked for clarification. They were written and posted here too soon, and the fact that they have already undergone substantial edits shows that they were clearly not discussed enough. I am also concerned that Jayde, a moderator, wrote the rules. Even though he expresses himself more eloquently than Aaron, Aaron is of a higher rank. If I am ever in a position in which I hold the most power and a code of conduct has to be written, I would write them myself so that they are more authoritative and thus more credible.

As for the rules themselves, I feel that they are good on the whole as I don't think anything is missing, however there are guidelines interspersed with rules, and some rules have explanations. The text below the rules themselves could be reworded. If a rule requires explanation, then it is probably too vague or broad. This isn't just a theory—just look at all of the explanations people have asked for from this topic. Rules themselves should be water-tight (or to use Jayde's favorite word, "ironclad"), and having explanatory sentences does not make the rules achieve these aims. Laws do not contain explanatory sentences, but are so water-tight because they are clearer in their scope, purpose and intent. As we are not discussing how a law should be written, we don't need numerous sub-points, but we do need the rules to be more succinct. Some of the users of this forum whose first language is not English use Google Translate; when a document contains more sentences, there is more to be translated which leads to more text being translated incorrectly and as a result more confusion for the forum user. I would be quite happy to make some small edits to the rules to make them easier to read if the moderators and administrators would like this.

I have an objection to rule 8. Quite often when topics are closed, there is more divisiveness among the community. This was not only demonstrated on the weekend, but another example that comes to mind is the discussion of audiogames on the Steam platform. While Jayde has apologized for his actions over the weekend, there is nothing to prevent a current or future moderator from doing the same thing in the future. However, moderators should definitely have the power to close topics when they become toxic and are not ultimately good for the forum. To prevent topics from being closed unnecessarily, I propose that at least three moderators must agree to do so, and a record of these moderators must be posted in the final post of the topic. Everyone has biases, and I know that all of the moderators want to do what is best for the community, but this forum contains a lot of users, and situations can spiral out of control very quickly. Ensuring that three moderators agree that a topic should be closed guarantees that moderators are not acting too hastily and assures users that biases are not influencing moderation decisions.

Finally, I want to touch on something I said in a previous topic. Too many moderators are leaving, not enough moderators are replacing them, and the moderators and administrators that we have are sometimes unwilling or deliberately choose not to act. Moderators should take equal responsibility for the moderation of this forum, and I will state again that a moderator who chooses not to publicly moderate a forum upon which they have the responsibility to do so is not acting in the best interests of the community. Ensuring that all moderators have equal power and equal responsibility ensures that decisions are made with care, multiple perspectives and appropriate judgement.

Thumbs up +2

2018-11-06 23:46:37

jayde, please allow me to try again. also, this post is not aimed at you. but my question is this. so you sent that email to the admin list, by pressing CTRL+enter, presumably. the admins have presumably pressed enter on the email, perhaps while drinking their daily coffee, and they read it. they then pressed CTRL+R, and told you that these rules were good, and that they were good to be sent off. this is all good and beautiful. I would even understand if an admin thinks a rule needs editing, or modification to fit the theme, they ask you publicly. what I won't believe, and will continue not to, until someone like aaron answers, is how some rules not being understood by the admins in the first place, could have been approved? it's like them approving your idea of allowing cracks. it seems like the rules were not read, and therefore, were approved without knowing what they have approved. now that they have been read, now they're asking the questions. the question of mine is, why was this let to happen in the first place? why haven't these rules been worked on together as admins, and when all admins have edited them, and were happy, they then got posted on here? that did not happen. why not?

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 23:49:18

Interestingly, it was one of the people on the list who suggested I post this publicly to get feedback. I did not receive extensive, detailed feedback from anyone, but everyone who read my first draft said they liked the general idea behind what was going on and had no serious objections.

This method is a means by which to involve the community even further. A means to heal the breach, if you will.

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

Thumbs up

2018-11-06 23:59:41

Hmm. I didn't think about that. It is kind of odd that admins are asking for clarification, though, there is a logical explanation. I'm thinking Aaron didn't think about this until now. A bit strange, to be sure. This ruleset probably should have been ran through with as fine a toothed comb as possible by as many mods as possible, but it is what it is. I for one am glad these rules were sent as soon as they were. Gives the community more time to analyze what the Mod staff is thinking and decide if we want this sort of setup.

Thumbs up