A call for Minarchism

[Ogaden]

Forum rules are highly abusable things that are primarily used as weapons to stifle discussions and to harass people.  Consider the Cybernations Forums, virtually everything you can post in a forum post there is against the rules, and new forum posters could literally be harassed out of the game and even banned by vindictive use of forum rules, to the point that using moderation as a weapon is also a crime there, because it's so abusable.

 

We already have an example of this where Vanguard's announcement of war with Mensa HQ was locked, in an action meant to show the moderation team the irony of their decisions harming legitimate discussions Mensa members pointed out that Vanguard's announcement broke these stupid rules, and rather than reverse themselves or abandon this rule, the moderation team locked a legitimate discussion in the alliance forums.

 

Every new forum rule you create just puts another weapon in the hands of pedants, bullies and trolls, the very people the rules are supposed to keep in check.  You will poison the well as people self-censor as more and more ways of communication are closed off as not fun.

 

Rather than create swathes of new rules and try and control the community, I would propose rather that we eliminate all but the most necessary rules, and a miniarchist administration.

 

Thank you for your time and may the great old ones have mercy on your soul.

[Thor (Former Moderator)]

We already have an example of this where Vanguard's announcement of war with Mensa HQ was locked

 

It was?

[Mike Haggar]

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10725-god-emperor-dio-brando-is-bored/page-9#entry197155

Um, what? Isn't this the thread you're talking about (Vanguard and Mensa)?

 

Or did you mean the Rose & DEIC thread, which was allowed in Orbis Central? As I now understand it, the mod's main beef was that the OP did not have enough substance for the casual observer (you had to know that both Rose & DEIC were alliances, and figure out that the OP meant that Rose was embargoing DEIC, which was not obvious).

 

Please do not turn this into 4chan.

[Ayayay]

Please do not turn this into 4chan.

NORMIES GET OUT

 

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Ogaden]

Hmm alright I misunderstood Thor's post in that thread

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10725-god-emperor-dio-brando-is-bored/?p=197138

 

Still my points stand

[Stormrideron]

Let's revolt, peacefully.

[Kastor]

I agree. Relax the rules unless it's obvious spam, pornography, or breaks our board's ToS. Relax guys, give more verbal warnings, let things slide unless there are repeat offenders.

[Licorice]

Some forums need a strict and discipline team of mods to enforce peace and security and make said forum a better place.

.

.

.

This one is not one of them

[Alex]

Hmm alright I misunderstood Thor's post in that thread

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10725-god-emperor-dio-brando-is-bored/?p=197138

 

Still my points stand

 

I agree with you.

 

I agree. Relax the rules unless it's obvious spam, pornography, or breaks our board's ToS. Relax guys, give more verbal warnings, let things slide unless there are repeat offenders.

 

I don't know where you (any of you) are getting this idea that the moderation team is so controlling and evil. We hand out lots and lots of verbal warnings, actual warning points expire after 30 days, and the posting suspensions are pretty minimal. Do you know how many people have been permanently banned from this forum via warning points? 0. Not a single person. The goal of moderation and the warning point system is not to punish you (like it would appear to be in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)) but to just correct behavior, keep everyone in line with the rules, and let you guys do your thing.

 

There's a happy medium between no rules chaos, and over moderating, and I think we're fitting that quite nicely. Obviously, some people just flat out ignore our verbal warnings, and often times even the warning points as well. Verbal warnings aren't effective when there's no penalty, and that's why we have the system in place that we do to discourage repeated rule-breaking behavior.

[Mike Haggar]

It's like Sheepy is the riot cop and that post was his nightstick. That. That was beautiful.

[Alex]

It's like Sheepy is the riot cop and that post was his nightstick. That. That was beautiful.

 

Get off the streets, protesters! Don't make me bring out the tear gas and rubber bullets!

 

But in all seriousness, some of this is just a bit ridiculous. I had a player complain to me the other day about how being warned for one of his 4 day old posts really created an unwelcoming atmosphere. The moderator had issued him a verbal (0 point) warning, explained what rule had been broken, and told him "Just make sure to be vigilant next time :)" (with the smiley face and everything)

 

You can always find something to complain about, and if it's something legitimately troubling or bad, please do. But sometimes you just have to take a step back and a deep breath and realize things are okay, too.

[Licorice]

It's like Sheepy is the riot cop and that post was his nightstick. That. That was beautiful.

 

But where's the doughnut!? D:

[Moon Man]

I agree with you.

 

 

I don't know where you (any of you) are getting this idea that the moderation team is so controlling and evil. We hand out lots and lots of verbal warnings, actual warning points expire after 30 days, and the posting suspensions are pretty minimal. Do you know how many people have been permanently banned from this forum via warning points? 0. Not a single person. The goal of moderation and the warning point system is not to punish you (like it would appear to be in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)) but to just correct behavior, keep everyone in line with the rules, and let you guys do your thing.

 

There's a happy medium between no rules chaos, and over moderating, and I think we're fitting that quite nicely. Obviously, some people just flat out ignore our verbal warnings, and often times even the warning points as well. Verbal warnings aren't effective when there's no penalty, and that's why we have the system in place that we do to discourage repeated rule-breaking behavior.

how many people have been banned from this forum, not counting bots and multis? can we get a wall of shame or something for the outlaws?

[Four]

how many people have been banned from this forum, not counting bots and multis? can we get a wall of shame or something for the outlaws?

 

Do you know how many people have been permanently banned from this forum via warning points? 0. Not a single person.

 

 

Also - we have a suspension thread now.

 

[Spite]

I agree the moderation does suck. For example when foxfire and I got into a slanging match the other day, I called her a terrible player and got a warn point for personal insults. Because saying someone is rubbish at a game is a personal insult now.

 

The only thing that I could possibly be accused of is flaming since I was pretty vicious, but even then she came into my thread and started being hostile, so it wouldn't really stick.

 

I think realistically if the mods hadn't interfered it would have been fine. They warned me after the argument was over and the topic had already moved on anyway.

[Mike Haggar]

A couple things, Spite. We don't know if FoxFire was warned as well, although she has semi-disappeared from the forums since then. I would bet that she got warned. Next as Sheepy stated above, the warn system appears to be meant to be instructional, so the mods gave you a verbal(?) to ask you to refrain from such behavior in the future. Any verbal doesn't affect your profile, so you can still post.

[Moreau]

No more silly rules

[Avruch]

The number of warn points isn't going to be directly correlated to the suppression effect of forum rules - most people will follow the rules, even if they are overbearing and not rationally linked to promoting activity, discussion and good times.

 

• Take the IC/OOC rules of the alliance affairs section - why? what point does it serve? Each sporadic enforcement action looks capricious and weird.
• Why do new topics in that section have to be "announcements" on behalf of an alliance?
• How about the new concept of announcing suspensions - why can it only be discussed in the moderation forum?
• What's the point of declaring certain sections of the forum to be "no discussion"? Is the discussion that might occur over a game report so distracting from the OP that the mods / admins can't see the OP? 

Lots of section have weird rules that you then need a big mod team to enforce, and then you get errors and conspiracy theories and the occasional angry dustup after people are warned off (verbally or otherwise) over some arbitrary and picayune rule. The cumulative effect is to reduce discussion and inhibit interaction, which would seem to be antithetical to the point of a forum.  

[Kastor]

That's actually not true.

There was that one guy in the debate section, right?

 

I haven't seen Khalifah in a minute. And its basically impossible to be "permanently" banned by the warning system, due to how long you get your account "suspended" for.

[Buorhann]

I'm certainly happy to get a verbal warning over something trivial and ambiguous.

 

Oh, wait...

[Franz Von Dietrich]

                                                                              

Edited January 28, 2016 by Francisco Franco

[Mike Haggar]

The number of warn points isn't going to be directly correlated to the suppression effect of forum rules - most people will follow the rules, even if they are overbearing and not rationally linked to promoting activity, discussion and good times.

 

• Take the IC/OOC rules of the alliance affairs section - why? what point does it serve? Each sporadic enforcement action looks capricious and weird.
• Why do new topics in that section have to be "announcements" on behalf of an alliance?
• How about the new concept of announcing suspensions - why can it only be discussed in the moderation forum?
• What's the point of declaring certain sections of the forum to be "no discussion"? Is the discussion that might occur over a game report so distracting from the OP that the mods / admins can't see the OP? 

Lots of section have weird rules that you then need a big mod team to enforce, and then you get errors and conspiracy theories and the occasional angry dustup after people are warned off (verbally or otherwise) over some arbitrary and picayune rule. The cumulative effect is to reduce discussion and inhibit interaction, which would seem to be antithetical to the point of a forum.  

I'll take these point-by-point.

 

1.IC/OOC has always seemed odd to me, as well, but I believe it's to increase the verisimilitude of the game. Some people actually enjoy pretending to run a real nation. They don't want to roleplay a massacre, and then have someone else come along and go "Oh yeah, those pixels will be missed". There are only two subforums that require IC discussion. You've got at least a dozen others where you can run wild and free. Enjoy them.

 

2. Topics in "Alliance Affairs-In Game Alliance Announcements" must be alliance announcements because it helps more casual players to distinguish between topics that have in-game consequences and topics that are just jabbering. Not everyone has hours a day to comb through dozens of threads to figure out which ones are spam. Anyone posting in that subforum should keep a casual audience in mind and make sure topics are as informative as possible. Don't get me wrong, I love jabbering. That's why I visit other subforums.

 

3. The very idea of subforums is to index discussion so people can find the discussions they want. Most people don't want to go through a dozen topics about moderation to find five about roleplay. In that case, the presence of the mod threads in the wrong subforum actually INHIBITS discussion in the roleplay threads by making them harder to find. Plus, topics in the moderation subforum are easier for mods to monitor and act on. Discussing a mod issue in Orbis Central is useless because it's unlikely a mod or admin will even see it unless someone reports it.

 

4. "No discussion" is largely to keep down the clutter on an important thread. Reports and appeals are among the most important threads because they have a direct impact on a player's continued existence on Orbis. Just like a court has specific protocols to ensure the accused gets a brief and fair hearing (try randomly running to the front of a courtroom because "I just want to comment on how murder is bullshit and this whole trial is creating an unsafe space"). Mods have some discretion on allowing presentation of evidence from other members, but they generally don't have time to comb through dozens of spam posts that are essentially "No you".

 

On that note, a lot of members seem to feel that they are owed a "safe space" (whatever that means). If they mean a space away from moderation, that is what 4chan is for, although I'm sure even 4chan has mods. This is a forum to support gameplay and camaraderie among players. While amiable hostility is welcome (bring it Wayne), posts that shut down discussion and endanger the existence of the forums themselves by causing problems with hosting (which is what a lot of the "no racism, promotion of illegal activities, etc." rules are REALLY about) should not be tolerated.

 

TLDR-No U

Edited January 28, 2016 by Mike Haggar

[Longbowe]

 

how many people have been banned from this forum, not counting bots and multis? can we get a wall of shame or something for the outlaws?

Do you know how many people have been permanently banned from this forum via warning points? 0. Not a single person.

 

To be fair to Mr. Moon Man, that isn't exactly an answer to his question. Sheepy very specifically said "via warning points" and it is very possible to ban someone from the forum other ways.

 

For example: I myself was banned from these forums for quite a while. This had nothing to do with warning points and was solely related to the fact that I made a post without having a nation.

[Ayayay]

1.IC/OOC has always seemed odd to me, as well, but I believe it's to increase the verisimilitude of the game. Some people actually enjoy pretending to run a real nation. They don't want to roleplay a massacre, and then have someone else come along and go "Oh yeah, those pixels will be missed". There are only two subforums that require IC discussion. You've got at least a dozen others where you can run wild and free. Enjoy them.

That would be allowed. IC/OOC was changed waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in Alpha to basically allow any talk about the game or functions thereof. 

[Alex]

I haven't seen Khalifah in a minute. And its basically impossible to be "permanently" banned by the warning system, due to how long you get your account "suspended" for.

 

He was suspended for 30 days previously, but that suspension has since ended, and during that time all of his warning points expired.