Letter to the Moderation Team

[Magneto]

If you feel something should be locked warned as well that isn't, please report it.

 

Also to everyone here, I just want to say that the mod team does not have any bias towards any alliance. We have that double mod check in place to do that and often other mods as well see each of our decisions. We point out and discuss things through and through and in many cases give the benefit of the doubt. For instance, there have been many times I've seen reports on Mensa members but I didn't give the warning because I saw there was the benefit of the doubt and felt that it wasn't quite warn worthy. We work for the community, not ourselves, and if you feel you have seen something biased, report it to Sheepy and another mod or two that didn't make the call on it. We will gladly review everything possible to see how to best help the player. 

 

Please do stop at least yelling all the time that we have so much bias. Our jobs are really really tough often. Deciding whether or not to give someone a warn point is a tough process sometimes as it comes down to often if they will have a post restriction. Sometimes we get nasty mail. It's a tough job, we sometimes make small mistakes however we are here to try to work through them. So at least try to respect the team and find ways to compromise. I will gladly work with any of you to see if there is a rule exception to something that was called. Also I promise you for this exact reason we wont ever be giving up identities. Attacking mods and specifically going after them on a personal basis is uncalled for. It has happened recently and should not happen.

[Kastor]

I've yet to hear an answer to my question.

[Mike Haggar]

I've yet to hear an answer to my question.

Disagreeing with my answer does not mean I did not attempt to answer it :-/

[Goalenator]

For the record, this is not a Mensa thing. I don't appreciate everything being tied as our entire alliance. You guys know our activity, if this was a Mensa wide thing or alliance viewpoint it would be 40+ people complaining, which I don't see.

[Kastor]

Disagreeing with my answer does not mean I did not attempt to answer it :-/

I would just like a Mod to answer, thats all.

[Four]

So here https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10764-rose-must-really-hate-deic/page-2you guys closed a thread for spam, when in fact, it wasn't spam, just in the incorrect subforum. You easily could have moved this to Orbis Central and it would have been fine and not considered spam. So why didn't you? Are Mods practicing that they close first, more later? Just looking for a response.

 

Note: I am not calling out any mods, nor am I complaining about a ruling, I am asking for clarification on a ruling that was done by the moderation team. This is in a discussion forum, so please do not close this thread, even if and when you answered because I may have additional questions to follow up your response.

 

Thank you,

 

~Kastor

 

 

I would just like a Mod to answer, thats all.

 

Since I was the moderator that took the action on that, allow me to respond..and hopefully I can answer your question.

 

I received the report - Thor was the first moderator and I was the second. The intial findings were that it was spam, it was an inproper post and it was in an inproper forum. The recomendation was a warn and a lock. I agreed and took the proper action. The thing many neglect to understand is that mistakes are made - locking a thread isn't the end of the world and questions like you have asked and many have asked since the lock of the thread are completely valid.

 

Just like real world policing - some actions need to be questioned to deterimine whether or not that was the correct action to take.

 

For example: One could argue that if this thread wasn't locked and this never brought up, a review of the forum rules would not be underway. Therefore, causing more problems down the line, continually.

 

This wasn't out of bias - I am a mod that has no negative standing with any alliance in this game or player (I would hope) and I do not issue warnings verbal or non with any type of bias in mind. When I am in my moderator account - I mod - I do the job assigned to me and as I've said before, I try my best to figure out a way to not give warns/points (within the realm of actual community rules) because I try to see posts from the OP's view, not my own or through the user who reported it. I'm sure my mod friends could agree - I usually post against recommendations requiring a third mod to step in and make a decision.

 

 

I agree, this post in question could have been moved to Orbis Central - that is on the mods, it was a bad decision not to just move it. That will not happen again. The reason I didn't, is pretty much listed above - It was a bad judgement call and a mistake, but it lead to a fix/update to rules.

 

Also - this has been stated time and time again - I understand you were upset by this and seeking answers, but Moderators do not perform an action without approval from a 2nd mod and in some cases a third. 

 

 

We will come across misunderstandings - that is inevitable. This goes to show you that we are not always right and we rely on your help, to be cohesive, this way we learn and you learn and thats the only way we can actually grow to a common understanding of community policing policies as well as relationships between mod and users.

 

I hope this can clear up things.

[Buorhann]

I do not understand your example.  I mean, I get where you're trying to go with it, but as LordRahl quoted - my post did not break any rules at all.  It brought light to current in-game events between alliances, and most people who replied knew what/where it was going.  So why would someone argue or review about forum rules if it was not locked/removed?  Which leads me to believe that someone, if they truly did this, reported it out of malice.

 

The issue I see here is that the moderators took action with rules that were rarely, if ever, enforced ( Signatures ) and decided to find context of a rule that, as far as I can tell, didn't exist publicly ( Posting in Alliance Affairs as I did being labeled as spam ) to apparently fulfill a report.

[Four]

I do not understand your example.  I mean, I get where you're trying to go with it, but as LordRahl quoted - my post did not break any rules at all.  It brought light to current in-game events between alliances, and most people who replied knew what/where it was going.  So why would someone argue or review about forum rules if it was not locked/removed?  Which leads me to believe that someone, if they truly did this, reported it out of malice.

 

The issue I see here is that the moderators took action with rules that were rarely, if ever, enforced ( Signatures ) and decided to find context of a rule that, as far as I can tell, didn't exist publicly ( Posting in Alliance Affairs as I did being labeled as spam ) to apparently fulfill a report.

 

Maybe I just don't understand the whole "bias" and "malice" because I do not take my actions that way. Whichever way we go, the sides are "mods were wrong" and "your post was spam" - we can keep going back and forth or we can just identify that it was a mistake. As the 2nd moderator, I should have been more aware of the situation and more aware that I could have simply moved the post. 

 

We can continue arguing technicalities - but this post has been brought to light and it brought a discussion and review. 

 

I can personally say that I do not think this was done out of malice. I do not personally have anything against you, mensa, or any other type of alliance out there. From here on out I will pay more attention to revise these types of reports to ensure that:

 

1. It is in fact a rule break for that particular forum.

2. A secondary option, such as moving to proper forum, can be taken. 

[BeachBunny]

What rules were broken?

[Mike Haggar]

What rules were broken?

I think it was a problem of categorization. The confusion probably lies in the fact that the rules themselves don't state what "Alliance Announcements" is for, but it appears to be assumed from the title and the subtitle

 

 

In-Game alliance announcements

So if it isn't an announcement from a specific alliance, it shouldn't go in that forum. AKA if you are not a gov member of one of the alliances in question, you shouldn't be posting a thread in there. I'd recommend that one of the mods either make a rule requiring this, or specify in the pinned rules that general discussion threads should go in Orbis Central or National Affairs.

 

I think the warning point to Buorhann was unfair, based on the confusion I listed above. Buorhann did not attempt to impersonate anyone from Rose, only point out an in-game event. On review, I further do not think there was any way for him to be mis-identified as a Rose member. Thor appears to agree with us above, and next time he will move offending threads, instead.

 

Appeals take time, and likely have to be signed off by someone with very little time. I hope that Buorhann will have his warning point removed, and that discussion on the embargo can move to a more appropriate subforum.

 

Since everyone seems scared to make their own thread in Orbis Central, I will do so. I accept any fate that follows, whether it's continued vitriol or a slap in the profile.

[Thor (Former Moderator)]

I think it was a problem of categorization. The confusion probably lies in the fact that the rules themselves don't state what "Alliance Announcements" is for, but it appears to be assumed from the title and the subtitle

So if it isn't an announcement from a specific alliance, it shouldn't go in that forum. AKA if you are not a gov member of one of the alliances in question, you shouldn't be posting a thread in there. I'd recommend that one of the mods either make a rule requiring this, or specify in the pinned rules that general discussion threads should go in Orbis Central or National Affairs.

 

I think the warning point to Buorhann was unfair, based on the confusion I listed above. Buorhann did not attempt to impersonate anyone from Rose, only point out an in-game event. On review, I further do not think there was any way for him to be mis-identified as a Rose member. Thor appears to agree with us above, and next time he will move offending threads, instead.

 

Appeals take time, and likely have to be signed off by someone with very little time. I hope that Buorhann will have his warning point removed, and that discussion on the embargo can move to a more appropriate subforum.

 

Since everyone seems scared to make their own thread in Orbis Central, I will do so. I accept any fate that follows, whether it's continued vitriol or a slap in the profile.

 

You're fine to make your own thread about the issue.

 

Buorhanns posts wasn't locked and warned for impersonation. It was locked and warned for spam. A post containing 3 words, purposely mispelled is not in proper etiquette for a discussion thread. Had the post contained more information and proper etiquette the decision may have been different. 

 

The Alliance Affairs subforum description (and soon the rules within) have or will be updated to include what the purpose of the forum is and proper posting etiquette. An announcement regarding new rules will follow. At the time of his post, he was not breaking any rules for posting inside that specific forum, only for the content within his thread that was considered "spam". Again, Four & I will discuss appealing his warn as soon as we can catch either online. 

[BeachBunny]

Is there a rule that states Proper Etiquette or what Proper Etiquette is required?

[Magneto]

Is there a rule that states Proper Etiquette or what Proper Etiquette is required?

Are you referring to within the rules? 

 

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules<-- forum rules

 

If you are talking about how you should act, pretty much everything in those rules.

 

Most specifically I will highlight these strictly not allowed rules:

 

 

 

Flaming, Baiting, Trolling, Racism, and Name Calling

• Flaming - posts targeted at a player in an effort to anger, hurt, insult, harass, or provoke.
• Baiting – coercing a player into breaking the rules.
• Trolling - deliberately provocative posting with the aim of inciting an angry response.
• Name Calling - abusive or insulting language referring to a person or group. *Prohibited everywhere except role play forums, and only in role play forums where it is being used within reason with no intent to flame, bait, troll, insult, or hurt.
• Racism - having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.