Undue banning

[Hansarius]

I'm not sure where I should put this topic as it's not really an appeal, but rather a complaint.

 

One of my members, Saru, got banned from the #Politicsandwar channel as well as the forums for an incident where he called out one of the mods

I know making guesses as to Mods' in game identities is frowned upon, but it should not warrant a permanent ban, and that should be revoked.

 

Further more, the identities of the mods would probably not be such a heated topic if they prove themselves to be less biased than we have seen so far.

Case in point would be this topic: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2081-vereenigde-oost-indische-compagnie-declaration-of-war-again/

Where several of the members on one side of the argument received warnings for infractions that are so minor that the only reason for giving them is purely spiteful.

While those arguing on the other side of said argument got off scotch free.

 

And again, there was another topic made discussing the rules: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2116-less-strict-moderation/ which was locked for no good reason.

If we cannot have free discussion concerning game events and the running of these boards without having to worry about getting banned or warned for very minor things, then I fear for it's future. 

[Ayayay]

Felt that this was relevant (talking about the VoC DoW thread)

 

[00:31:46] <@underlordgc> jodo, fif you get a single warn from that thread?

[00:32:02] <Jodo> No. I didn't. WHich I honestly should have.

[00:32:47] <Jodo> Just to make this clear, I'm not kissing his ass or anything. We just fell on the same side of the war. I get along with him. Thats it.

[Jodo]

Felt that this was relevant (talking about the VoC DoW thread)

 

[00:31:46] <@underlordgc> jodo, fif you get a single warn from that thread?

[00:32:02] <Jodo> No. I didn't. WHich I honestly should have.

[00:32:47] <Jodo> Just to make this clear, I'm not kissing his !@#$ or anything. We just fell on the same side of the war. I get along with him. Thats it.

Confirming this quote, for reference sake.

[Ayayay]

I would also like to point out that a vast majority of the community believes that Ragnar and Grendle are one and the same and whether they are actually different people is no longer relevant. As far as the more active and influential player base goes, Ragnar is Grendle and he is clearly acting in a biased manner. At this point it no longer matters what Grendle and Ragnar have to say about the subject. The active player base believe they are the same person and are tired of what they perceive as obvious bias on Grendles part.

 

I do think that if my suggestion of moderators having to have an in game account that the public can see was implemented it would have been a step in the right direction since people can then easily identify any bias that may exist and it would lead to a better and less closed community as it exists now.

Edited July 3, 2014 by underlordgc

[Cody K]

I would like to pledge my support for Hansarius and his complaint with regards to the blatantly biased and poor moderation that has developed as of late. I've seen other games that held potential completely collapse as the players lost faith in the moderation. I'd hate to see Politics and War suffer the same fate. 

[Grendel]

The fact of the matter is, Saru had been told by Sheepy multiple times to not discuss moderation identities. Yet he chose to bring it up time after time, he along with everyone else was told discussion of moderation identities will not be tolerated, so he's been given a ban on the public channel until Sheepy un-bans him.

He's also received a temporary forum ban until Sheepy returns tonight.  

 

 

Felt that this was relevant (talking about the VoC DoW thread)



[00:31:46] <@underlordgc> jodo, fif you get a single warn from that thread?

[00:32:02] <Jodo> No. I didn't. WHich I honestly should have.

[00:32:47] <Jodo> Just to make this clear, I'm not kissing his !@#$ or anything. We just fell on the same side of the war. I get along with him. Thats it.

 

I believe you were given a warn point from that topic. I'll double check, as a lot of people were given warns. If not, then you will be given one.

 

 

 

 

 

Further more, the identities of the mods would probably not be such a heated topic if they prove themselves to be less biased than we have seen so far.

Case in point would be this topic: http://politicsandwa...n-of-war-again/

Where several of the members on one side of the argument received warnings for infractions that are so minor that the only reason for giving them is purely spiteful.

While those arguing on the other side of said argument got off scotch free.

Moderation identities wouldn't be a "heated topic" if there was any truth to them.  It's been proven that the membership will target people because of the actions of a few ex-players/mods who have a grudge with people here.

 

The first topic you've linked was closed due to the consistent OCC in a IC forum. There wasn't one or two cases and it wasn't just a mistake by a few people, they did it time and time again. So they were warned and the topic was closed. It will not be re-opened. Period.

 

 

 

And again, there was another topic made discussing the rules: http://politicsandwa...ict-moderation/ which was locked for no good reason.

If we cannot have free discussion concerning game events and the running of these boards without having to worry about getting banned or warned for very minor things, then I fear for it's future.

 

 

Looking back, it was a bad judgement call. I'll own up-to that. The topic has been re-opened for people to voice their opinions. 

 

 

 

I would like to pledge my support for Hansarius and his complaint with regards to the blatantly biased and poor moderation that has developed as of late. I've seen other games that held potential completely collapse as the players lost faith in the moderation. I'd hate to see Politics and War suffer the same fate. 

There's absolutely no "biased" moderation. If you break a rule, regardless of who you are, you get a warn point. It's as simple as that.

 

 

 

 

I need to make this clear.

 

There's a seven strike policy in place. Not one, or two or even three. There's seven chances before you get a permanent ban. You have more than enough chances to not break the rules, however you go about acting on the forum, is completely within you way of doing "things". However if you break a rule, you will be warned. It's really as simple as that.

 

We are very lenient with a lot of stuff that comes on the forum, a lot of stuff gets brought up and we'll handle it without dishing out warns. However if somethings need to change, then they must change. 

However a there will not be any discussion of moderation identities. Period. If this gets brought up at all, you will be warned and will face the possibility of being banned.

 

 

[Jodo]

If there is a seven point system in place, and Saru broke the IC rule which appears to have since been changed, and the second rule of guessing mod identities... My math comes to two points.

 

That is less than seven.

[WISD0MTREE]

There's a seven strike policy in place. Not one, or two or even three. There's seven chances before you get a permanent ban. You have more than enough chances to not break the rules, however you go about acting on the forum, is completely within you way of doing "things". However if you break a rule, you will be warned. It's really as simple as that.

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but this is pretty relevant. I am currently not warned for anyone who thinks otherwise. You say 7 chances before a ban. Well, if we get warnings for slightly going OOC, then that can be pretty fast. We shouldn't be able to get banned for OOC every once in a while. Someone said somewhere that the offences should be split into major and minor, and I agree with that. Also, who really cares if you break character by one word? Its just a game. And a cop doesn't walk up and say "Sir, you are under arrest for spitting in public. Let me read you your rights..." No, they will give a verbal warning and maybe a citation. In Texas cops have to read you the law that you broke so you know that they didn't make up some stupid law in their mind. Not that we have that problem here, since it is only one page. 

[Mr. Blonde]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but this is pretty relevant. I am currently not warned for anyone who thinks otherwise. You say 7 chances before a ban. Well, if we get warnings for slightly going OOC, then that can be pretty fast. We shouldn't be able to get banned for OOC every once in a while. Someone said somewhere that the offences should be split into major and minor, and I agree with that. Also, who really cares if you break character by one word? Its just a game. And a cop doesn't walk up and say "Sir, you are under arrest for spitting in public. Let me read you your rights..." No, they will give a verbal warning and maybe a citation. In Texas cops have to read you the law that you broke so you know that they didn't make up some stupid law in their mind. Not that we have that problem here, since it is only one page. 

 

 

I'm going to be combing over the rules and possibly tweaking a few things to better define the process.  There are many things covered by the rules, and there are those that aren't as cut and dry.  There are offenses that will result in a suspension or ban without following a seven strike process.  That's why we have this included in the rules:

 

Questionable Actions and Content

The guidelines above may not cover every situation. Should we encounter something that we deem harmful to the community, we reserve the right to take action against it.

 

I've taken into consideration a couple of suggestions being put forth, which I will respond to soon. The rules are in place to preserve a sense of structure and appropriateness for everyone.  If we can make small alterations to forum rules without losing sight of that, then I am open to it.