Kemal Ergenekon Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 This was posted by a government member of an alliance, recognizing hostilities with another alliance. Sure the format they used was that of an announcement from Mensa HQ, but it's a lot different than the 3 word post that was locked. I don't think that is a valid counterargument. The rules clearly state this: "Do not impersonate other players/nations/governments." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 As far as I know, no one here is complaining on behalf of Mensa. Unless otherwise stated, all of our various posts are in our individual capacity as players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Nah, my first reply gave that impression. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I don't think that is a valid counterargument. The rules clearly state this: "Do not impersonate other players/nations/governments." Really? I'm pretty sure the Forum Rules read: Impersonation of, or an intention to imply that you are a moderator, administrator, or other P&W official is forbidden. AND Posting for Other Players Making appeals or posts for players that are banned from the forums. Quote Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Really? I'm pretty sure the Forum Rules read: AND Here is a refresher for you: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3412-alliance-affairs-forum-guidelines/ You are welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachBunny Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) Bias is always impossible to completely remove. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Anonymity allows mods to take actions that strong alliances may not like. If their in-game identity is known, then they are more likely to cater to the whims of their alliance leaders and the foreign policy of their alliance. For example, if a known mod belongs to an alliance that wants to befriend another alliance, they are much less likely to warn gov members of that alliance. It's up to Sheepy and the mod team as a whole to determine partiality. It's an imperfect system, but the best one that the community can get with the resources that we have. Already above, you can see Thor admit that they could've reacted differently, and it's likely this will be discussed on the mod forums. So time and cooler heads will prevail in the end. Stay patient and allow the mods to do their unpaid jobs. The only advantage I can see to public mod identities is that players can gang up on mods that they disagree with. Tyranny of the majority is not impartiality. No. If their in game names are known they are LESS likely to cater to their own. The bias would be more obvious to the casual observer. The rest of your analysis flows from this flawed assumption. Edited January 25, 2016 by LordRahl2 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachBunny Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The fact that their identity is hidden it automatically creates distrust. Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Good point, guys. We should probably update those. Wow, 2 years old. Regardless those are the rules posted so now let us evaluate the post. Did UNKNOWN impersonate a different nation? I don't see any evidence of it. Did UNKNOWN impersonate a different player? I don't see them posting under any different player names. Did UNKNOWN impersonate a different government? I don't see any sign of them impersonating as any members of your government. Quote Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 UNKNOWN impersonated Mensa HQ in that thread. You acknowledged this fact, but claimed it violated no rule. When presented with the rule, you now claim it is not impersonation. You are being inconsistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crust Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The rules to most of the subforums on the forum Politics & War should be updated as to not cause too much misunderstanding. There's been a lot of cases where threads get moved or locked to other parts of the forum without a real explanation and without really showing what exact rule the thread was in violation of. Quote It's my birthday today, and I'm 33! That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS! *every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 UNKNOWN impersonated Mensa HQ in that thread. You acknowledged this fact, but claimed it violated no rule. When presented with the rule, you now claim it is not impersonation. You are being inconsistent. You are the one who wants to be so literal on the rules. I see no evidence of any of these. He used your flag, sure. He said you forgot to post a DoW, sure. He never said he was a member of Mensa HQ, he never said he was government of Mensa HQ and he never said he was anyone other than UNKNOWN. The rules to most of the subforums on the forum Politics & War should be updated as to not cause too much misunderstanding. There's been a lot of cases where threads get moved or locked to other parts of the forum without a real explanation and without really showing what exact rule the thread was in violation of. Agreed. If you noticed, a few of them have received recent upgrades. I just posted 4 new sets of rules, yesterday if i remember? Quote Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Thanks for your direct replies to my concerns Thor! Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saruman Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Mensa, I'm pretty sure all of the forums are tired of your constant !@#$ing. The moderator team doesn't have anything against you, you need to recognize that you don't get special treatment. There is no moderator bias, and the only explanation as to why you get more warning points than the rest of us (which isn't even true) is that you break more rules. 1 Quote 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...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 You are the one who wants to be so literal on the rules. I see no evidence of any of these. He used your flag, sure. He said you forgot to post a DoW, sure. He never said he was a member of Mensa HQ, he never said he was government of Mensa HQ and he never said he was anyone other than UNKNOWN. Oh, I am not the one who seeks to be so literal on the rules. You have taken all the rules literally (see the signature issue and one that started this thread), and thus I am seeking to follow up on your inconsistent administration of the forum rules. Thus far, we have established that you are unaware of the forum rules on impersonation active in the alliance affairs board. We are now discussing whether your judgement on claiming UNKNOWN's thread is impersonation or not is correct. UNKNOWN used the same alliance announcement template that I have used to declare war on Arrgh, representing Mensa HQ. He has our flag, some text underneath, and ends the message with: Let it be known that Mensa HQ declared war on Vanguard! ZA WARUDO! He is clearly making a declaration in the name of Mensa HQ, whereas we declared no war on Vanguard at that moment. I would also like to let you know that if you set this precedent, I will employ the same strategy UNKNOWN did for other alliances, and see whether it is judged according to the same criteria. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crust Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Agreed. If you noticed, a few of them have received recent upgrades. I just posted 4 new sets of rules, yesterday if i remember? Ah, thanks! Has there been a post about this? Just so I can read about the rule updates. Quote It's my birthday today, and I'm 33! That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS! *every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Ah, thanks! Has there been a post about this? Just so I can read about the rule updates. They were posted in the appropriate subforums with the titles *READ BEFORE POSTING* - FORUM-NAME RULES Quote Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Thanks for your direct replies to my concerns Thor! Not sure if sarcasm or not. Did I miss something or did I actually address your concerns? I haven't really paid much attention to who I'm responding to, only the content I'm responding to. Quote Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longbowe Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 You are the one who wants to be so literal on the rules. I see no evidence of any of these. He used your flag, sure. He said you forgot to post a DoW, sure. He never said he was a member of Mensa HQ, he never said he was government of Mensa HQ and he never said he was anyone other than UNKNOWN. Also, I started the post with "This announcement brought to you by Vanguard." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Also, I started the post with "This announcement brought to you by Vanguard." With the tiniest of fonts possible. If this is considered legitimate, I will do the same for other alliances and expect the same light treatment. (BTW, your rule violation did not bother me personally. This is about inconsistent application of forum rules by moderators.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 With the tiniest of fonts possible. If this is considered legitimate, I will do the same for other alliances and expect the same light treatment. (BTW, your rule violation did not bother me personally. This is about inconsistent application of forum rules by moderators.) As of right now, yes his post was within the Alliance Affairs subforum rules. If you were to post in the same format as UNKNOWN you would receive the same treatment. Guaranteed. As I stated earlier though, we're in the process of updating most of the subforum rules now. Not to say those rules will change, but just be aware of them if they do. You have brought up very valid points and I can see your side of things. We will be discussing the rules like the ones you have pointed out that leave way too much wiggle room. Quote Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 As of right now, yes his post was within the Alliance Affairs subforum rules. If you were to post in the same format as UNKNOWN you would receive the same treatment. Guaranteed. As I stated earlier though, we're in the process of updating most of the subforum rules now. Not to say those rules will change, but just be aware of them if they do. You have brought up very valid points and I can see your side of things. We will be discussing the rules like the ones you have pointed out that leave way too much wiggle room. OK, that's fair. To reiterate my main criticism: It is within the moderators' initiative to be too literal or not in applying certain rules even when there are no complaints present by forum users. The sig issue is a clear-cut example. My signature was more than 5 lines, and inconsistent with the forum rules. But as you can see, I can still have the same signature and more by just putting it as an image. If you had applied common sense, you could have seen that my signature, although more than 5 lines, was not intrusive. You did not; and this approach to moderation is what most of us have a problem with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 My problem is the warning points over ambiguous or inconsistent rule calls. Like I stated earlier, could care less that the thread got locked. It'd annoy me, sure, since it was posted (at the time) within all rules stated for Alliance Affairs, but the "Locked for spam, warn point, boom". Whoa... shit. That's when I have an issue. It's one thing to go "Locked, verbal warning, we'll clarify the rules to accommodate what it's suppose to be" but that wasn't it. It was "Locked, spam, here's a warning point, now we'll change the rules". 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor (Former Moderator) Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 My problem is the warning points over ambiguous or inconsistent rule calls. Like I stated earlier, could care less that the thread got locked. It'd annoy me, sure, since it was posted (at the time) within all rules stated for Alliance Affairs, but the "Locked for spam, warn point, boom". Whoa... shit. That's when I have an issue. It's one thing to go "Locked, verbal warning, we'll clarify the rules to accommodate what it's suppose to be" but that wasn't it. It was "Locked, spam, here's a warning point, now we'll change the rules". Again, we may have acted a little swiftly on that call. We will review the warn and deal with that issue in private with you. I apologize on behalf of myself & the other moderators for that. Quote Forum RulesGame RulesToSWikiRedditIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 (edited) My problem is the warning points over ambiguous or inconsistent rule calls. Like I stated earlier, could care less that the thread got locked. It'd annoy me, sure, since it was posted (at the time) within all rules stated for Alliance Affairs, but the "Locked for spam, warn point, boom". Whoa... shit. That's when I have an issue. It's one thing to go "Locked, verbal warning, we'll clarify the rules to accommodate what it's suppose to be" but that wasn't it. It was "Locked, spam, here's a warning point, now we'll change the rules". I get your concern with this specific instance, but what other ambiguous or inconsistent rule calls have there been past today/last night? I think the new system has made things a lot more stable and that this has been more of a "bad day" that we can all have a mature discussion on and progress from, instead of seeing it as par for the course. Edited January 25, 2016 by Kurdanak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.