Ban Policy Manifesto

[Foxworthy]

I have mod buddies? Cool. Least when I get banned for stepping over that line I'm not going to whine about injustice and unfairness and compare it to the Berlin wall.

Actually I don't know if you have Mod buddies. I have no clue really who is friends with who or what not. I'm sorry for doing that. I based it on circumstantial stuff that I really shouldn't have factored in. The main reason I made the comment was because I thought one of the posters who flamed PixelGuru was you. Which when I went back and checked and I saw I was wrong. I apologize for that. I connected my thinking you flamed PixelGuru and not being warned with the comment that you made about being a store owner and letting your friends get away with activities you wouldn't let others get away with.

Sorry about misreading that I was a bit woozy and things blended together a bit. Sorry.

I do agree that the comparison to the Berlin Wall was over dramatic but it was just a comparison.

I'm not for a moment arguing that Rogue got banned for a pretty minor disturbance. I'm not even arguing that he has provided a lot to AO. I'm not even arguing that I would have banned him in the same situation. However, Rogue skates close to the line very very often. If you choose to do that sometimes you are going to find you went to far. What I am noting is that there a lot of people whining (not you) about a very minor consequence and blowing this thing so far out of proportion its ridiculous.

In my case it's not really so much about the Rogue thing in and of itself. When people started coming over from the legion looking to get threads locked and themselves banned I was one of the first people to post about how wrong that was. Because it was.

The problem being is that in the fallout, it seems that the Mods don't care to follow the rules if they are broken against someone who doesn't like their stand point. That seems wrong. I understand you feel its cool for the Mods to protect their buddies or to allow people to post in rule breaking manners against people they seemingly don't like.

I don't see it like that though. I think Mods should enforce the rules evenly to everyone. Not doing so sets a bad example to newer posters. I'm sure our difference on this matter won't allow us to agree on that though.

I just think that the people that posted these comments...

Edit: Oh and whiney little pissants on the internet. Sorry I forgot to include you.

There should be an option "I don't care and the OP is an idiot who desperately needs some sort of worthy 'cause' outside of being a rebel on a message board" because I'm fairly sure that would garner a substantial amount of votes.

That's blatant flaming. They should have been warned. It just seems like that since the flames were against someone who doesn't think the mods are doing a good job makes it ok. That seems wrong to me.

[Lohman446]

In my case it's not really so much about the Rogue thing in and of itself. When people started coming over from the legion looking to get threads locked and themselves banned I was one of the first people to post about how wrong that was. Because it was.

The problem being is that in the fallout, it seems that the Mods don't care to follow the rules if they are broken against someone who doesn't like their stand point. That seems wrong. I understand you feel its cool for the Mods to protect their buddies or to allow people to post in rule breaking manners against people they seemingly don't like.

I don't see it like that though. I think Mods should enforce the rules evenly to everyone. Not doing so sets a bad example to newer posters. I'm sure our difference on this matter won't allow us to agree on that though.

Agreed that there should be no special exception to the rule solely because of who someone is. While discretion is important, and one's contributions as a whole should be considered when handing out punishments who they are should not matter. Yes, I know that seems contradictory in itself but I think the idea is out there. Solely because someone is a member of the Thordums or PBL (or whatever) does not mean it should be any different. If for instant Y stepped over the line slightly one considered his overall contribution to be smaller than others and he would probably be dealt with differently. Then you have to ask the question - did member X through his contributions earn leniency or flat out immunity from the moderators. How much leniency?

That's blatant flaming. They should have been warned. It just seems like that since the flames were against someone who doesn't think the mods are doing a good job makes it ok. That seems wrong to me.

One of the issues around is a lack of moderation as a whole. We also do not know if this person was warned privately. No, I am not arguing that he was, but neither does anyone likely have more indication that he was not.

I think the mods have to have some discretion. However, in giving it to them if one group feels they have been singled out (for better or worse) they will be able to point to examples to prove the point they want to make (to either side). Often public warnings come off as challenges. If a mod makes a public warning and it is not adhered to what choice do they have but to take action. Are the moderators allowed to adjust rules on the fly, and perhaps to only a single person or group for a certain offense in those warnings? I would think they have to be because the rules cannot see every possible circumstance.

[Foxworthy]

Agreed that there should be no special exception to the rule solely because of who someone is. While discretion is important, and one's contributions as a whole should be considered when handing out punishments who they are should not matter. Yes, I know that seems contradictory in itself but I think the idea is out there. Solely because someone is a member of the Thordums or PBL (or whatever) does not mean it should be any different. If for instant Y stepped over the line slightly one considered his overall contribution to be smaller than others and he would probably be dealt with differently. Then you have to ask the question - did member X through his contributions earn leniency or flat out immunity from the moderators. How much leniency?

The problem with discretion is that someone is going to be on the outside of it. Where as abiding by the rules as written doesn't leave as much of a gray area. I understand where your coming from though.

One of the issues around is a lack of moderation as a whole. We also do not know if this person was warned privately. No, I am not arguing that he was, but neither does anyone likely have more indication that he was not.

True more moderators would help overall. Mods are people too and I'm sure the recent assertions of their ability to do their jobs hasn't been the best thing for them. Its not like they get paid for this. It does seem like AO has a small Mod base for the amount of users.

You're right they could have been warned privately. Of course the precedent is when people have been flamed was for the post to be edited out so that the flames wouldn't still be there. Which is why I believe they haven't been warned.

I think the mods have to have some discretion. However, in giving it to them if one group feels they have been singled out (for better or worse) they will be able to point to examples to prove the point they want to make (to either side). Often public warnings come off as challenges. If a mod makes a public warning and it is not adhered to what choice do they have but to take action. Are the moderators allowed to adjust rules on the fly, and perhaps to only a single person or group for a certain offense in those warnings? I would think they have to be because the rules cannot see every possible circumstance.

You make good points. If someone doesn't listen to public warnings then that is when bans should be used. If the Mods are going to make up new rules though and apply them to one person then they should add the new rules into the rules section. That way other people know not to do the same thing. If they make up new rules to warn/ban one person while another gets away with it then people will cry afoul.

Sorry for chopping your post into bits and replying I hate doing that as some people thinks its rude.

[Lohman446]

True more moderators would help overall. Mods are people too and I'm sure the recent assertions of their ability to do their jobs hasn't been the best thing for them. Its not like they get paid for this. It does seem like AO has a small Mod base for the amount of users.

More moderators is easier said then done. MarkM basically got run off when he tried to enforce the rules. I thought Beemer was a great choice because he has always frankly been above the clique things and didn't seem to have any real enemies when he started. Who could you possibly recommend that

A) Is not going to abuse authority
B) Is online enough to moderate
C) Does not push the envelope
D) Is not going to upset one clique or the other?

[behemoth]

More moderators is easier said then done. MarkM basically got run off when he tried to enforce the rules. I thought Beemer was a great choice because he has always frankly been above the clique things and didn't seem to have any real enemies when he started. Who could you possibly recommend that

A) Is not going to abuse authority
B) Is online enough to moderate
C) Does not push the envelope
D) Is not going to upset one clique or the other?

Me.

and maybe Derek.

[Target Practice]

Me.

and maybe Derek.

Aren't you forgetting someone?

[behemoth]

Oh!

LPB?

[ThePixelGuru]

tl;dr.

how many time do we need to go over "this isnt a democracy/private owned forum'?

See, now if you read the threads you'd realize we addressed that. That's why people who don't bother to read shouldn't bother to write, because they don't know what they're talking about or the context it's in.

One of the issues around is a lack of moderation as a whole.

Wrong. You keep saying this, but that's not an issue here at all. That's non-enforcement, and the issue is uneven enforcement. While I don't think it'd be smart for the mods to ignore everything that goes on, that's not at all the point any of us are making. It is easier to refute, though, which is why you keep pretending that's what we're saying.

[Lohman446]

Wrong. You keep saying this, but that's not an issue here at all. That's non-enforcement, and the issue is uneven enforcement. While I don't think it'd be smart for the mods to ignore everything that goes on, that's not at all the point any of us are making. It is easier to refute, though, which is why you keep pretending that's what we're saying.

Really, so one of the issues wasn't telling a moderator to go look at SPAM threads rather than that one? Our moderators are not overworked and a lot of things don't slip by? They are fully aware of every rule violation and ignore everyone elses but those on PBL? You're conspiracy theory is spinning farther and farther away from reasonable. Do I agree that the rules are not evenly enforced all the time? Sure, part of it is discretion. Do I buy that anyone is out to get you guys? Not for a moment, and if it was, I doubt it would be Beemer. Besides, in the discussion Foxworthy and I were having, we were discussing lack of moderation (time, etc.). Read both sides of it and see if that was not one of the issues we were discussing at the time.

[behemoth]

See, now if you read the threads you'd realize we addressed that. That's why people who don't bother to read shouldn't bother to write, because they don't know what they're talking about or the context it's in.

See, I dont need to, really.

Your posts mean nothing. You will not change AO.

[Lohman446]

See, now if you read the threads you'd realize we addressed that. That's why people who don't bother to read shouldn't bother to write, because they don't know what they're talking about or the context it's in.

Blowing it off does not actually count as addressing it btw.

[Target Practice]

laffo @ dis thred

LPB 4 mod 4 lyfe

[ThePixelGuru]

Really, so one of the issues wasn't telling a moderator to go look at SPAM threads rather than that one? Our moderators are not overworked and a lot of things don't slip by? They are fully aware of every rule violation and ignore everyone elses but those on PBL? You're conspiracy theory is spinning farther and farther away from reasonable. Do I agree that the rules are not evenly enforced all the time? Sure, part of it is discretion. Do I buy that anyone is out to get you guys? Not for a moment, and if it was, I doubt it would be Beemer. Besides, in the discussion Foxworthy and I were having, we were discussing lack of moderation (time, etc.). Read both sides of it and see if that was not one of the issues we were discussing at the time.

That would be a valid point, except all those flames in this thread have been reported and still nothing's been done. If they don't have time to look at the reported posts, there's even more wrong with the moderation here than we thought. Don't think for a second that if I posted those same sorts of things in this same thread I wouldn't be banned near instantly. Oh, and I didn't blow off the issue of the moderators having no obligation to listen to us, I've addressed it in a ton of my posts. Suffice to say that they have no obligation to listen, but it's in their best interests.

[Foxworthy]

More moderators is easier said then done. MarkM basically got run off when he tried to enforce the rules. I thought Beemer was a great choice because he has always frankly been above the clique things and didn't seem to have any real enemies when he started. Who could you possibly recommend that

A) Is not going to abuse authority
B) Is online enough to moderate
C) Does not push the envelope
D) Is not going to upset one clique or the other?

I have no clue who would be good choices to add to the Mods. I wish I did though.

[behemoth]

I have no clue who would be good choices to add to the Mods. I wish I did though.

So, you're demanding changes, just dont know what you want?