2020-12-11 20:38:50

I have been feeling this way for a little while, and I finally decided it needed voicing. I feel that there needs to be someway for the every day for member to speak up on enforcing the community failure clause on members of the forum who may not necessarily break any direct rules, but are clearly not doing anything to help the form community go forward. They would obviously have to be some sort of checks and balances system, maybe some sort of community pole or the like. I don’t know how feasible this is, and I’m really posting this to see if we can brainstorm a way for the every day user to impact moderation decisions in some sort of way

Is this the real life?
Or is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality

Thumbs up +3

2020-12-11 21:05:30

I refer to these people as skaters because they skate under the rules. They don't exactly break them, but they make a general nuisance of themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wake me up when the world has unfucked itself
Is time really linear?
You can find me on discord: ironcross#8090, though I don't know why you'd want to.

Thumbs up

2020-12-11 22:44:38

I feel like sometimes we’ve all just had enough, see moonwalkers situation

Is this the real life?
Or is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 04:40:43

Yup, full agreement. Its called, "Community", failure, so the community should have some formm of input. Maybe in order foor it to be initiated, foorum user says x  user shoould be dealt the watch, then provide at least a pargraph detailing why, then if possible, links/evidence of where the user demonstrated such behaviour, then the motion be taken to the staf team. Possibly 1/2 admins shoould agree, and a majority of moderators should also. Lastly it be taken publically, where a poll be taken. A minimum amount of users should agree, and if it passes, then the clause is inacted. However I feel like the last bit should be omitted.



Just my 2 cents.

The past is obviously in the present
Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it

Thumbs up +2

2020-12-13 05:57:37

Agreed here too.

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 08:34:36 (edited by redfox 2020-12-13 08:35:44)

Wait, @4... Why even outline the last bit if you then think it should be omitted???

Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree. Maybe the system could look something like the following:

  • User sees something they don't like:

    • Reviews rules thurroughly to make sure there isn't any easy rule breach to site,

    • If no, carefully weighs the potential backlash and drama the situation may cause, and if it would be better to simply try and reason with the offender,

    • If the user finally decides that it is in the community's best interest, he creates a post in Site and Forum Feedback, or wherever we decide it should go, detailing specific events and posts that prompt the idea, as well as detailed, rational reasonings as to why action should be taken against this user.

  • Other users add to the thread with detailed, rational reasonings as to why action should or should not be taken against this user. This is why I don't suggest we do a poll, because answers should have actual reasons.

  • We give the user a small amount of time, maybe a day or two, to respond and defend themselves, or whatever they choose to do. As the user is already being watched, any drama stirring or general rule breaking during times of inquiry, particularly on the topic in question, should be dealt with in an even stricter manner.

  • Staff reviews the topic on there own, compares notes and points they've gathered and reaches a verdict.

I can't stress enough that the user making the topic against someone else should be beyond sure that they wish to do so, knowing full well the consequences to all parties involved. People who post against the offender may take a huge hit to reputation if the offender is deemed inocent. Likewise, it may not be the best feeling to have gotten someone banned from a comunity for technically doing nothing wrong. Just food for thought,. I'd love to have a good conversation about this.

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up +1

2020-12-13 09:55:25

I can see this turning into bullying people off the forum... I don't agree.

When life gives you oranges, demand lemons since everyone else is obviously getting them.

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 10:16:51

Another vote of support here. Nocturnus brings up a good point; of course there could be consequences to such a thing, and some of them not all that good? But to be frank, I don't care.
Not wen certain members are allowed to continue posting the same things, over and over, for several years -- years! -- without ever getting a warning for their spam. Is what they're doing against the rules? No. But that is a problem of the rules, not an excuse to just let them keep doing what they've been doing even longer, even though no topic of theirs ever results in any productive discussion.

Yeah, I think it's pretty clear who I'm talking about. Personal attack? Maybe. No regrets.

Favorite game: Code 7, a SciFi adventure game where you play as a hacker trying to save humanity from complete annihilation. https://store.steampowered.com/app/6505 … _Adventure
If you'd like to talk about it, join us on Discord! https://discord.gg/code7
I've made a folder with puzzle tips: https://cloud.owncube.com/s/4Smo8cNC7qq6P7m

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 13:53:40

@Nocturnus, that's part of my last point, where people who did something like this would have to really consider what was going to happen, because real shit could go down, especially with the people who get kind of obsessed with communities like this... It's unfortunate, but it happens.
I could see your argument, but Mayana hit it on the head... I don't care anymore.

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:36:48

@7, the reason I said it should be omitted is because community voting generally tends to have bad results/undesirable results. Lets say we have a person called gamer1136. He's been doing alot off spam on the forums off late, and nobody really cares, aside from a select few. Its motioned to inact the clause, and lets say the mods agree. 6 people agree to it being inacted, while 7 of his friends who also participate in the rabble vote against. Also, what about the chance of someone attempting to cheat the system, IE, creating a bunch of alts n different VPN networks then swaying the vote in their favour.
So basically what I'm egging at is I couldn't think anything better at the time as it was late, so I just went with it, but its not an optimal solution as its open to fraud

The past is obviously in the present
Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:45:31

It's a stupid idea. If you need more rules, make them, don't ban someone because people don't like someone. That's called bullying in real life and if it's not tolerated face to face why should we let mob mentality throw people around online?

Follow me on twitch
And
Find me on Twitter.
Leave a thumbs up if you like what I write.

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:45:55

I agree with the idea of writing out detailed rational reasoning and threads. And again agreement here, after the way so many people do nothing but shit stir for years and have no actual consequences because we can’t give them consequences, there has to be some sort of way to give them consequences

Is this the real life?
Or is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide,
No escape from reality

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:53:05 (edited by redfox 2020-12-13 17:55:05)

@LordLondon, you're missing the point. The point isn't to ban someone cause we feel like it. It's to remove a potentially harmful person from the community, who manages to skate directly under the line of punishment because they're not breaking any rules. See the situation with Moonwalker/Deathstar... She had been a plague upon our community for quite some time, and so we got rid of her because she was only causing harm to us and herself. And even that was a difficult decision on the mods part.
Also, how is this mob mentality, when I specifically pitched the idea of allowing them time to respond and defend themselves?

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:54:50

Consequences for what? Not acting in the way you want them to?
Do you expel the weird kid from school just because he's antisocial?
As long as they aren't being actively hostile or spammy you do not get to pick on someone just because they don't fit your idea of normal behaviour. And there should be rules in place to deal with hostility or spam.

Follow me on twitch
And
Find me on Twitter.
Leave a thumbs up if you like what I write.

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:55:28 (edited by redfox 2020-12-13 17:56:05)

But Deathstar was being hostile. She repeatedly questioned authority, the community and generally shit stirred because she was unstable.

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:57:48

@redfox how wonderful is it then that this is an open forum ... you may choose to read whatever you want. If you don't want to read posts from a certain user that you think is causing unnecessary drama, ignore it.
Also what do you mean defend themselves? Oh hey we think you're a piece of shit, what you gotta say to that? Punk!
If you need more rules make them, but this is just an excuse to force a normal behaviour... with so much potential for abuse down the line as well, but that's just the cherry on the cake.

Follow me on twitch
And
Find me on Twitter.
Leave a thumbs up if you like what I write.

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 17:59:41

LordLundin wrote:

Also what do you mean defend themselves? Oh hey we think you're a piece of shit, what you gotta say to that? Punk!

Did you even read my post, you know the part where:

Redfox wrote:

Other users add to the thread with detailed, rational reasonings as to why action should or should not be taken against this user. This is why I don't suggest we do a poll, because answers should have actual reasons.

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 18:02:54

Also, the whole point is to not make new rules, also to discuss them in a constructive manner, so that we can come up with the best set of guidelines we can. Notice I said guidelines, not rules. Because that is the point of the Community Failure Clause.

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 18:11:09

Redfx, London is another one who just stays in the shadows then just leaps opportunistically to shit stir. See the stw topic, and the reprt manamn tpic.

The past is obviously in the present
Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 18:13:07

It does have the potential for abuse, but that's why the mods would have the final say. The final outcome doesn't have to be a ban either. We could use it when we think someone should go on watch.

I'm tired of a select few being nothing more than a thorn in our side and getting away with it just because what they're doing doesn't break a written rule.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wake me up when the world has unfucked itself
Is time really linear?
You can find me on discord: ironcross#8090, though I don't know why you'd want to.

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 18:19:10

Hey LordLundin, the only reason you're aposing this so much is because you know that you fuck up once, you're gone.

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 18:20:13

Technically it's a good idea, but I do see some issues with the system Jayjay or Redfox proposed.

It would take a huge amount of time to come to a final decision if every possible user has a say in the matter. From creating a topic about a certain user to a final decision by the mod pannel, it could take weeks before something happens. yes, weeks is probably an overstatement, but don't forget that we don't have that many mods online, so this could take a while.
Secondly, depending on what user is beeing discussed, favorites could be played. If a user is well liked around the forum but did some questionable things, others could vote against the failure clause be useed against that forum member.
And thirdly, not everyone could write detailed opinions on why the failure clause should be used in this case. Many don't speak fluent English, or opinions might be jumbeled up by translators these persons use. They could mean one thing, but the translator would turn it into something else simply due to a translation mistake.

As I said, technically a good idea, but it needs some major work to be efficient and useable.

Greetings Moritz.be

Er nahm sie dann ins Stoßgebet,
der Kirchturmpfal zum Himmel steht,
Der Wein geweiht, die Erde bebt.
Dem Herr seih nah im Stoßgebet

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 18:21:12

I didn't say every user. I propose a set amount of time for the topic to be opened, at the end of which, the staff would come together with there voting.

----------
The  canonical, "Python is a great first language", elicited, "Python is a great last language!"
My Github
"When you play the Game of Thrones, you either win, or you die."

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 18:36:27

@Sightless Horseman, language barrior is indeed a fair point, however if they can at least make some little bit of sense and drop links to the ooffending content, they should be fine.

The past is obviously in the present
Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it

Thumbs up

2020-12-13 19:19:59

It's rare, and you know it's rare, when I agree with @LordLundin, or when he agrees with me...  I think it's something to consider, and I'll show you why:
1.  When Dark, Sebbi, Arqmeister, I and others were mods you thought we banned too speedily.  We can argue about that as much as you like, whether we were in fact right or wrong for doing so, but it is what it is.
2.  The rules were less outlined at the time, so there was in fact, a greater chance of you unknowingly breaking them because rather than treating you all like spoiled children, we chose to err on the side of letting you prove your maturity on the forum, or letting you grow into it if it wasn't there.  Again, arguable and questionable practice, but it is what it is.
3.  We left.  Rules became more transparent and some of your moderation panel decided it would be best to add in this community failure clause.  More leniency to be a dirtbag and get away with it, but at the same time, more chances of, in the event that you were doing something in absolute and innocent naiveness the most you would get would be a caution your first time around.  Dark and I?  We didn't give cautions!
4.  Now that this system is in place, you want the ability to use it against others within the community because *throw in example of bad apple here to support your opinion,* which tells me that you either,
a.  Do not trust the mods you currently have working for you to dilligently do their job and keep you safe from bad apples when they present themselves or,
b.  Will not be satisfied until you can control the forum yourselves, however that actually takes shape, even if you have to use the mods to do it for you.
In essence, what I feel those of you pushing for this thing want is a group of puppets, not mods.  IN an atempt to strike of the shackle of rule you feel the mods have over you because rules exist, you seek to erode the rule by bending the mod over little by little until he has no say left because you have subverted it with your will.  No, for the record, I'm not saying that mods/admins are not corrupt/cannot make mistakes/will not ever screw it up.  They can, they do and they will, just as much as anyone else in this community can, does, and will.  What I am saying, however, is that in order for this thing to work at all there has to be stability involved, and that does not come from moving the anchors around with all of your whims and wishes and fancies.  I said power belongs to the people, and I will keep saying that.  What I do not believe is that power belongs to any one subset of people, and it belongs less to the individual.
To conclude, you have the ability to PM mods.  You have the ability to report offensive posts.  You have the ability to see who's been put on watch.  You have the ability to even speak up about these things within the topics that offend you, provided you don't go stupid crazy and start spewing insults and throwing out baseless accusations.  What you want now, is the ability to act as enforcers of the rules.  You want to police your own forum and see to it that people are gone as soon as you can collectively get enough people together to suggest that such a thing should happen.  Post 1 is entirely indicative of what I've written here by saying things such as the every day forum user should have some way to impact moderation decisions.  I do not believe this is needed nor should it be wanted, anymore than it should be possible for the every day citizen of a country to have a say on who is allowed to live in it just because opinions don't exactly match.

When life gives you oranges, demand lemons since everyone else is obviously getting them.

Thumbs up +3