[Pornographic / inappropriate DMs]

No need to post the actual images. @Alex will check the message in-game.

[Personal Attack in Messaging system.]

Ok, a lot of people received it. No reason for all of them to make the same report.

[Oi, discussion of theme is in an appropriate place though]

On 1/28/2020 at 11:16 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

I'm not trying to stir drama here, I'm just surprised since this action represents a decision that's very unfamiliar.

I wouldn't be against 1-2 jabs in this thread, but the actual result was 30% or so of the thread at that time being just the exchange of those jabs.
Keeping in mind this also took place in the very first page of the thread, I found it appropriate to hide these comments, to help people focus on the main topic of the announcement.
I am sure that the OP would prefer for people to have a discussion on the actual treaty too, instead of a random discussion about colors.

For the record, that's the reason I kept some of those posts around.
Since you reported the remains of that discussion though, I just hid them too.
I am kind of surprised you want them back now, after reporting them.

No warnings were issued and I am pretty sure you and Inst had your fun and exchange of jabs, so I don't think any harm was done.

[Brainstorming to improve the retention rate]

Lack of knowledge for new players is an issue. If you are unlucky enough to end up in a not-well-established alliance, the main issue is not as much as that you don't get funded/protected as that you don't get to learn the game.

Having a common knowledge repository available to everyone (integrated in the wiki?) would be good enough to resolve this issue.

To that direction, the experienced players/ alliances could (should?) share their guides and work together to perfect them. Most of them get leaked anyway, one way or another.

tl;dr: Open guides for everyone, created by experienced alliances/players.

[Enforcement of no-discussion rules is explicitly inconsistent with the written rules.]

I think that the spirit of the rules as they are phrased already (e.g. "you can post if you have specific evidence to provide regarding the report") is clear enough.

In any case, I've updated the phrasing of the rules for now.

[Enforcement of no-discussion rules is explicitly inconsistent with the written rules.]

17 hours ago, Zaurg said:

There we go. I have gotten one warning point for posting “lol” in a thread in which I was reported again for an utterly frivolous reason. I was the accused the in the topic. There is no rule that says I am obligated to engage a frivolous and frankly borderline offensive report with more of a response than it deserves. I was the accused in the thread. It’s that simple.

The fact that you are the one being reported doesn't mean you can post anything you want. You have to specifically provide evidence that e.g. explains/defends yourself from the report. Besides, at any parts of the forum, posts including only "lol" or the like fall under the "no spamming" rule.

17 hours ago, Zaurg said:

Secondly, I added an instance of a person (noctis) spamming my own thread into a thread about other instances of noctis’s behavior that was quietly deleted without any other apparent action. I was hit with a warning point despite clearly adding specific evidence about him spamming non-discussion forums. This is even more silly since it’s clearly good faith participation.

I don't know about this event. I would have to see the actual post to decide whether the warning was justified or not.

[Give us our RoH back]

4 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Let’s face it you’re letting your in game biases seep into your moderation and it’s a terrible standard to set.

All reports pass through at least two moderators and are open for all moderators to discuss. There is no room for biases. Only for collective human mistakes.

If you have concerns about the structure of the moderation team, feel free to make a report and state your rationale behind them.

[[Alliance Affairs] Deletion of our DoW]

14 hours ago, Alex said:

I'm not the one who hid your thread, but I'm looking at it now. It's not clear to me what you're announcing. What are you announcing?

This has been handled, Alex. Although too poetic, the DoW mentions only TKR, TCW and some "neutral" alliances, against which Camelot is indeed in a state of war.

The DoW is open again.

[Post here about how much you enjoy the current war/state of events]

off-topic: off-topic posts have been nuked. Here is an advice for future reference: When you are in page 3+ of a thread and your message exceeds 10 lines, take a deep breath, check the topic again and ask yourself whether your current post is off-topic. Due to cascading effects, the probability this is the case is quite high. At that point, respect the OP and either stay on topic or say nothing and continue your debates to other threads.

on-topic: I really enjoy the current war/state of events. Nothing better than coming back home, opening the P&W forums and seeing 173 reports to go through.

[Give us our RoH back]

9 hours ago, Epi said:

If there was a problem with the latter why not edit it to remove the parts you don't like? When people filter evade you don't nuke their posts, you remove the parts that broke the rules.

Most of the time, the posts get nuked, actually. Personally, I do remove just some offensive/rule-breaking parts when they offer nothing to the discussion but the whole post does offer something.

9 hours ago, Epi said:

Your job isn't to dictate how politics are run between alliance govs and your powers stop at the forums, ...

We do not dictate how politics should run, but we are following politics, else keeping the Alliance Affairs subforum clean from spam/troll threads would be impossible. This has been done in the past (e.g. see fake war declarations on The True The Polaris or meme declarations following repetitive patterns).

9 hours ago, Epi said:

There's also the point that by taking this action you are De-Facto picking a side in a current war argument over whether you can be at war with someone if you don't fight them for a month.

If we had kept the threads up, this would also De-Facto pick a side at the current war argument: the side of the ones posting the threads. There is no escape for the mods on that part.

Regarding the legitimacy of the wars per-se, Alex's current (numerous) actions of negating in-game wars based on the aforementioned "DoW"s kind of proves our moderation call was not a wrong one.

P.S. / off-topic: Camelot's DoW is back, after careful re-examination of the DoW per se.

[The game must be reset back to 1/11]

17 minutes ago, Chief Wiggum said:

"UPN recognizes a state of war with Farksphere and all of non-Covenant Memesphere"

Leaving the cheating/trolling part aside (let's say these do not matter), UPN has zero wars with non-Covenant coalition B members.
That alone is enough to consider the RoH a fake one on its own.

The situation is even simpler than the other "RoH" announcements, where some actual wars were/are taking place in-game.

 

The "RoH" was taken down since it was (partly) fake. The state of war between UPN and non-Coalition B alliances was never disputed.

Unless you have something serious to add, I will go ahead and lock the thread in a few hours.

 

[Give us our RoH back]

4 hours ago, TheNG said:

tl;dr:

James goes full Scarfalot, doesn't even read the thread or realize that Farksphere is not in fact BK before reporting it anyway.

Hey mods, I think warnings for false reporting are in order for this disgusting attempts at censorship by Coalition A. 

"UPN recognizes a state of war with Farksphere and all of non-Covenant Memesphere"

Leaving the cheating/trolling part aside (let's say these do not matter), UPN has zero wars with non-Covenant coalition B members.
That alone is enough to consider the RoH a fake one on its own.

The situation is even simpler than the other "RoH" announcements, where some actual wars were/are taking place in-game.

[[DOW] TR Sparks Boogaloo With Opus Dei]

  

7 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I mean I'm 100% confident if an alliance Declared War with a CB of "We are Nazis and you have Jews in your alliance" then that would not be allowed. Yet Alex is portraying that there is no rules when it comes to CBs. 

There is a rule about hate speech though, which is violated, breaking both in-game and forum rules.

You can declare in-game for whatever reason, as long as you don't break the in-game rules. And you can also post a CB on the forums, as long as it doesn't break forum rules. For example, launching an OOC attack against someone (not just out of game context but a personal one, like "you are a pedophile") is a no go in a DoW.

7 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

An explanation for why one is being hit ICily, without any OOC material (discord logs or anything), seems fine under Alex's ruling. Or are you contradicting Alex's own statement a few posts above? 

I am sorry, I don't understand the question. Maybe I am not reading it right.

To the OP, sorry for the derail.

[[DOW] TR Sparks Boogaloo With Opus Dei]

6 hours ago, Blutarch Mann said:

You warned us for declaring on TCM for "OOC reasons".

In-game, you can declare war on anyone for any reason (in terms of casus belli), as long as you don't break rules such as slot-filling etc.

What you cannot do is make an announcement at the Foreign Affairs forums that includes OOC attacks (completely irrelevant to IC and the game as a whole).

[PnW Academy Awards]

2 hours ago, Leonard J Crabs said:

I've played 20 years of gaming with GOONS to take down aristocracies. It happens every game I've ever played, and I won't support any attempts to have aristocracies.

sips tea

I will be waiting.

[Hey Guys]

Welcome on board. Have fun!

[Inappropriate nation name]

What's wrong with "Meatopia"?

[Removal of an unjust warning]

Leaving aside the flaming part (I won't bother starting a debate on that), the specific post was also irrelevant to the main topic of the thread, and thus was under the category "thread hijacking/derailment", etc.

[[Bloc] A new power is rising]

6 hours ago, Madokami said:

@Chief Wiggum could we get some deletions for thread derailment? there's multiple pages.

Thanks for calling 911.

Kind reminder to everyone to stay on topic.

[Failure to report rule violation/referencing rule violation]

Are you trolling us?

[War because of OOC]

From what I see, you are using a Confederate flag and your nation name also points towards in-game support of the Confederate.

Why do you consider the above declarations OOC ones?

[Alliance flag is rapidly-flashing gif that could trigger epileptic shock]

As you wish.

[Where is the downvote option?]

 

[Get off your high horse]

2 hours ago, Josh of Clan Mason said:

A moderator literally confirmed it in this thread.

I will only intervene since it looks like my post caused some confusion.

I never stated from whom the leak was. I thought that was obvious. In case it isn't, you can just check the corresponding thread.

[Chief Wiggum appreciation thread]

14 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Greetings, friends!

I would like to take a moment to appreciate my favorite moderator: Chief Wiggum! He consistently manages to hit that balance between humorously indulging our bullshit and enforcing the rules of this forum. His approach to moderating is refreshing. A genuine thank you to doughnut man for putting up with us!

https://gph.is/1VPe5iR

Gratitude, friend!

Most of my days at the forums, I am like this...

So, thanks for your consideration.