Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 The problem I see, and I take this personally from an old critique of when I was once a mod here (from a current mod who basically hates me non the less), is that it can appear to be bias if things are not distributed evenly. So unless the same exact thing is being posted in every single welcome thread, I'd suggest avoiding it entirely. It's not the moderators job to welcome new players. Welcoming some and not others, or welcoming some more than others, can give an appearance of bias. The Welcome & Introductions forums is actually one of the sub-forums I am assigned to monitor. I post the same exact welcome message to every new player who posts in there. Its a post containing descriptions of our forums with links to the different categories. Here lately some players have found humor in taking our welcome message and posting it themselves, which has resulted in some different welcomes (and warns, might I add). Other than that, all the messages since I've taken over should be the same exact message and it should be in every new thread posted. 2 Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Man Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Here is a suggestion to try and fix the current problem with the moderation team in terms of the biases. Perhaps we should do away with moderators that are part of the politics and war game entireley. This way they could have a public profile and not have to worry about retaliation in game. They could have a special moderator account for the game if they would need an account for whatever reason, but it would be like Sheepy's. The only problem that I foresee from this is that the mods might have a harder time relating to the game itself if they have not played the game, and that it may be difficult to recruit mods. I have a possible solution of recruiting moderation positions for people who retired from the game. They would keep their old name, and do things like the current mods do now I suppose. If they were intervening with bias towards a particular player or alliance that they had contact to in the past, it would be easy to tell. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnipotent Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) Here is a suggestion to try and fix the current problem with the moderation team in terms of the biases. Perhaps we should do away with moderators that are part of the politics and war game entireley. This way they could have a public profile and not have to worry about retaliation in game. They could have a special moderator account for the game if they would need an account for whatever reason, but it would be like Sheepy's. The only problem that I foresee from this is that the mods might have a harder time relating to the game itself if they have not played the game, and that it may be difficult to recruit mods. I have a possible solution of recruiting moderation positions for people who retired from the game. They would keep their old name, and do things like the current mods do now I suppose. If they were intervening with bias towards a particular player or alliance that they had contact to in the past, it would be easy to tell. Thoughts? Sorry, what are you trying to say here exactly? The system that is currently in place, in which two mods have to approve something before it's done, seems to me like it does that job already. Any bias with that in place is going to be noticed and unlikely to happen as a result. If it does happen under the current system, I'm sure Sheepy will be up for a PM when you explain in detail where the bias is and if it is there, he will be able to deal with it. There is simply no need to go through with what your suggesting at the current time. Edited January 19, 2016 by Omnipotent 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Here is a suggestion to try and fix the current problem with the moderation team in terms of the biases. Perhaps we should do away with moderators that are part of the politics and war game entireley. This way they could have a public profile and not have to worry about retaliation in game. They could have a special moderator account for the game if they would need an account for whatever reason, but it would be like Sheepy's. The only problem that I foresee from this is that the mods might have a harder time relating to the game itself if they have not played the game, and that it may be difficult to recruit mods. I have a possible solution of recruiting moderation positions for people who retired from the game. They would keep their old name, and do things like the current mods do now I suppose. If they were intervening with bias towards a particular player or alliance that they had contact to in the past, it would be easy to tell. Thoughts? As the Omnipotent said above me, if you see any instances of bias please do report them to Sheepy. 1 Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post durmij Posted January 20, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted January 20, 2016 Here is a suggestion to try and fix the current problem with the moderation team in terms of the biases. Perhaps we should do away with moderators that are part of the politics and war game entireley. This way they could have a public profile and not have to worry about retaliation in game. They could have a special moderator account for the game if they would need an account for whatever reason, but it would be like Sheepy's. The only problem that I foresee from this is that the mods might have a harder time relating to the game itself if they have not played the game, and that it may be difficult to recruit mods. I have a possible solution of recruiting moderation positions for people who retired from the game. They would keep their old name, and do things like the current mods do now I suppose. If they were intervening with bias towards a particular player or alliance that they had contact to in the past, it would be easy to tell. Thoughts? The only way to get non-players to have the commitment needed to cover this community is through money, and I doubt that's affordable. We're extremely lucky to have the moderation we have. Moderation is pretty thankless and time consuming; having done it in other capacities I can tell you that it can be pretty draining. 7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Problem: the overall image is that the PW boards are free-for-all anarchic discussions, with suspensions not handed out Issues: suspensions are given out but are not announced Solution: if any poster is suspended for any length of time above and including 1 week, that should be announced in either 1) the thread where the offense occurred (by quoting the offender and listing the suspension or 2) on the moderation board (provided someone had started a thread to report the offense) This would clear up the image that the PW boards are free-for-all areas, with the additional benefit of seeing what causes posters to be suspended. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnipotent Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) Problem: the overall image is that the PW boards are free-for-all anarchic discussions, with suspensions not handed out Issues: suspensions are given out but are not announced Solution: if any poster is suspended for any length of time above and including 1 week, that should be announced in either 1) the thread where the offense occurred (by quoting the offender and listing the suspension or 2) on the moderation board (provided someone had started a thread to report the offense) This would clear up the image that the PW boards are free-for-all areas, with the additional benefit of seeing what causes posters to be suspended. A better option would be to add a little tag to the users name, public humiliation, if that's what you're suggesting, is a very poor way of moderating and I base that off past experiences in other communities. One idea I do like, is actually banning disruptive players from certain areas of the forum, but not actually all of it. An example would be players that have Fascist/Nazi views, that we simply don't want to hear, but are otherwise, active players of the game and community. In this circumstance, we can ban them from just the debate forum, so they cannot promote their viewpoints to the community, but still take part in the game. Edited January 23, 2016 by Omnipotent 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saruman Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 One idea I do like, is actually banning disruptive players from certain areas of the forum, but not actually all of it. An example would be players that have Fascist/Nazi views, that we simply don't want to hear, but are otherwise, active players of the game and community. In this circumstance, we can ban them from just the debate forum, so they cannot promote their viewpoints to the community, but still take part in the game. This is actually a really good idea in my humble opinion. º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR BIO DRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¸ BIO DRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Haggar Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 A better option would be to add a little tag to the users name, public humiliation, if that's what you're suggesting, is a very poor way of moderating and I base that off past experiences in other communities. One idea I do like, is actually banning disruptive players from certain areas of the forum, but not actually all of it. An example would be players that have Fascist/Nazi views, that we simply don't want to hear, but are otherwise, active players of the game and community. In this circumstance, we can ban them from just the debate forum, so they cannot promote their viewpoints to the community, but still take part in the game. Main issue with this is that it may not be within the capabilities of the forum software. The best thing you can do with people you don't want to talk to is just not talk to them. That gives them fewer excuses to post and makes it impossible to carry on a dialogue. Don't respond to their topics unless you are ready to deal with the stupid involved. I find a lot of the hostility towards warns really amusing. People say "it's just a joke" and "grow thicker skin", and then flip out over a single warn. If you want to live the Thug Life, then don't piss yourself when the po-po shows up. A thug does his time with dignity. Otherwise, you're outing yourself as a weak little punk. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Main issue with this is that it may not be within the capabilities of the forum software. The best thing you can do with people you don't want to talk to is just not talk to them. That gives them fewer excuses to post and makes it impossible to carry on a dialogue. Don't respond to their topics unless you are ready to deal with the stupid involved. I find a lot of the hostility towards warns really amusing. People say "it's just a joke" and "grow thicker skin", and then flip out over a single warn. If you want to live the Thug Life, then don't piss yourself when the po-po shows up. A thug does his time with dignity. Otherwise, you're outing yourself as a weak little punk. Clicked back to this thread to say this. The forums aren't like the game itself, where Sheepy has basically complete creative control. We have to operate within the limited realm of possibilities set by IB.Board. Edited January 25, 2016 by Kurdanak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh, this thread. I noticed that another necro thread has remained unlocked. Why is that? -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Oh, this thread. I noticed that another necro thread has remained unlocked. Why is that? Too busy with the War on Sigs 1 Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Oh, this thread. I noticed that another necro thread has remained unlocked. Why is that? Well, someone must have went digging on a history spree and found an old poll and voted in it, "bumping" the thread. But I'm going to assume you never reported it, like one is supposed to? Even though you posted in it exclaiming the fact that it's a necro. No big deal, though, I did. I'm sure it'll be taken care of. Hooray for the system at work. \o/ Edited January 25, 2016 by Kurdanak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Well, someone must have went digging on a history spree and found an old poll and voted in it, "bumping" the thread. But I'm going to assume you never reported it, like one is supposed to? Even though you posted in it exclaiming the fact that it's a necro. No big deal, though, I did. I'm sure it'll be taken care of. Hooray for the system at work. \o/ Oh, I was sure it was reported by many of the faithful defenders of our new threads only policy and did not want to flood the inboxes of our noble mods. I will increase my vigilance. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Oh, I was sure it was reported by many of the faithful defenders of our new threads only policy and did not want to flood the inboxes of our noble mods. I will increase my vigilance.You know what they say... Go team! /o/ Edited January 25, 2016 by Kurdanak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10764-rose-must-really-hate-deic/page-2#entry196213 Ok, a warning point for this thread. This is what I'm talking about. This is bullshit. First, the topic was completely legit and wasn't spam. If you checked in game on the Embargo tab, there is literally mass spam from Rose embargoing DEIC. The thread was bringing this to attention of others. Even if it deserved a lock, the warning point was excessive as the topic still did pertain to Alliance Affairs. Guess I see why moderators want to keep their identities hidden. 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Which is my point precisely. I honestly suspect that the mods who locked it did not want the fact that a majority of one alliance was embargoing another alliance to be public. I am sure they will cry that this is not true. But it sure as hell appears that way. -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Which is my point precisely. I honestly suspect that the mods who locked it did not want the fact that a majority of one alliance was embargoing another alliance to be public. I am sure they will cry that this is not true. But it sure as hell appears that way. Amusingly untrue to say that we're trying to hide our embargoes. But with that said, I do agree that it should not have been outright locked. EDIT: Ah, I see now that you're saying that the mods might be wanting to do that, not necessarily us. If I read that correctly now. Edited January 25, 2016 by Kurdanak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Are you speaking as a Mod or a member of Rose? So confusing. Edit: yeah. Its part of the "politics" part of P/W. Edit: I saw your edit. Edited January 25, 2016 by LordRahl2 -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Are you speaking as a Mod or a member of Rose? So confusing.See edit. Anyway, Sheepy is on IRC right now if you'd like to direct his attention to this. Edited January 25, 2016 by Kurdanak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Anyway, Sheepy is on IRC right now if you'd like to direct his attention to this. Just PM'd him. <Sheepy>: Idle for 13hrs 29mins 55secs 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omnipotent Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Main issue with this is that it may not be within the capabilities of the forum software. The best thing you can do with people you don't want to talk to is just not talk to them. That gives them fewer excuses to post and makes it impossible to carry on a dialogue. Don't respond to their topics unless you are ready to deal with the stupid involved. I find a lot of the hostility towards warns really amusing. People say "it's just a joke" and "grow thicker skin", and then flip out over a single warn. If you want to live the Thug Life, then don't piss yourself when the po-po shows up. A thug does his time with dignity. Otherwise, you're outing yourself as a weak little punk. Clicked back to this thread to say this. The forums aren't like the game itself, where Sheepy has basically complete creative control. We have to operate within the limited realm of possibilities set by IB.Board. Sheepy should be able to do it by making a Permission Set called something along the lines of "Member - Banned From Debate Forum" and then adding that member to that Permission Set. I would offer to see if I could make a plugin to do something along the lines of banning a member from an area, but making plugins seems to require reasonably high level knowledge of the workings of IP.Board, knowledge I don't have. The best bet here for Sheepy would be to see if he could try using the Permission Sets to block certain people. If he can't find or make a plugin. As for thicker skin, everybody needs it. Especially if the criticisms being said are valid and correct. I myself do attempt to be polite on here, but others are different and yes, if you are going to troll, don't get annoyed if you et warned for it, I can agree on that point as well. Edited January 25, 2016 by Omnipotent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) You guys let captain illiterate post thread after thread of crap on the forum, but then warn people all over the place for months-old benign signatures and close perfectly normal threads in alliance affairs about actual in-game occurrences. Did the mod team have a bad weekend or are things taking a turn for the worse? ETA: And it strains credulity that you continued to give people "Verbal warnings" for signatures after it was demonstrated that your own forum interface gave conflicting instructions about line limits, images, URLs etc. Edited January 25, 2016 by Avruch 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I changed my forum signature to be consistent with the rules. Enjoy! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts