Enforcement of no-discussion rules is explicitly inconsistent with the written rules.

[Zaurg]

 

Quote

This is a No-Discussion Forum. Do notreply to topics in this particular subforum, unless you meet one of the following criteria:

 

• You are the topic creator
• You are the accused in the original topic
• You have specific evidence to provide regarding the report
• You are a Staff member

If you fail to follow these regulations, you will receive a Warning Point, and potentially have a temporary account suspension as-per the Forum Rules.

There we go. I have gotten one warning point for posting “lol” in a thread in which I was reported again for an utterly frivolous reason. I was the accused the in the topic. There is no rule that says I am obligated to engage a frivolous and frankly borderline offensive report with more of a response than it deserves. I was the accused in the thread. It’s that simple. 

 

Secondly, I added an instance of a person (noctis) spamming my own thread into a thread about other instances of noctis’s behavior that was quietly deleted without any other apparent action. I was hit with a warning point despite clearly adding specific evidence about him spamming non-discussion forums. This is even more silly since it’s clearly good faith participation.
 

If what is being enforced isn’t what is actually written what is the point of rules anyway? Either change the rules to reflect an actual standard, correct these warning points or drop the pretense of rules based moderation.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Zaurg

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

55 minutes ago, Zaurg said:

 

There we go. I have gotten one warning point for posting “lol” in a thread in which I was reported again for an utterly frivolous reason. I was the accused the in the topic. There is no rule that says I am obligated to engage a frivolous and frankly borderline offensive report with more of a response than it deserves. I was the accused in the thread. It’s that simple. 

 

Secondly, I added an instance of a person (noctis) spamming my own thread into a thread about other instances of noctis’s behavior that was quietly deleted without any other apparent action. I was hit with a warning point despite clearly adding specific evidence about him spamming non-discussion forums. This is even more silly since it’s clearly good faith participation.
 

If what is being enforced isn’t what is actually written what is the point of rules anyway? Either change the rules to reflect an actual standard, correct these warning points or drop the pretense of rules based moderation.

Damn it, I have to agree with someone from GOONs, 

Alex your rules are not enforced in a standard way, some are free to talk in a non discussion others are not, Camelot was given a pass for abusing a bug others not, I do truly feel you need to spend sometime or pay someone to write rules that detail what people can and can not do rather than a rule that's so broad it can mean anything.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Agreed fully.

@Madden8021 In your case it was because you were going beyond providing evidence or helpful information, you were perfectly safe until then.

[Sir Scarfalot]

Just writing "lol" as your post is against the rules on its own.

The way I see it, even if you are the accuser or the accused, you have to actually contribute to the discussion both neutrally and responsibly. It's not like you can just go in circles of 'no u' between the accuser and accused, that's pretty duh. If you didn't feel that the report was worthy of engaging with... then all you had to do was... not engage it. Simple as.

Second bit seems a little sketchy though I'll give that to you.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Sir Scarfalot

[Chief Wiggum]

17 hours ago, Zaurg said:

There we go. I have gotten one warning point for posting “lol” in a thread in which I was reported again for an utterly frivolous reason. I was the accused the in the topic. There is no rule that says I am obligated to engage a frivolous and frankly borderline offensive report with more of a response than it deserves. I was the accused in the thread. It’s that simple.

The fact that you are the one being reported doesn't mean you can post anything you want. You have to specifically provide evidence that e.g. explains/defends yourself from the report. Besides, at any parts of the forum, posts including only "lol" or the like fall under the "no spamming" rule.

17 hours ago, Zaurg said:

Secondly, I added an instance of a person (noctis) spamming my own thread into a thread about other instances of noctis’s behavior that was quietly deleted without any other apparent action. I was hit with a warning point despite clearly adding specific evidence about him spamming non-discussion forums. This is even more silly since it’s clearly good faith participation.

I don't know about this event. I would have to see the actual post to decide whether the warning was justified or not.

[Salt Meat]

2 hours ago, Chief Wiggum said:

The fact that you are the one being reported doesn't mean you can post anything you want. You have to specifically provide evidence that e.g. explains/defends yourself from the report. Besides, at any parts of the forum, posts including only "lol" or the like fall under the "no spamming" rule.

I believe that's the point he's trying to make. What you said is how it's enforced, but the rules specify otherwise, particularly that you can post if you're the accused, or you're providing evidence, not necessarily both.

In addition, if the post is spam, perhaps give a warn for spam, not for posting in NDF, which as far as the written rules are concerned, he is allowed to.

I guess the idea here at the end of the day is clarity. The way the moderation was handled is reasonable, but the rules should be adjusted to reflect the approach.

[Zaurg]

That’s my point exactly. Given how strict the system can be in that even minor violations still lead to a ban, most requests (in my personal experience) for clarification/redress go unanswered and 0 point warns seem rare I expect the rules to be enforced at least somewhat closely to how they are written. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Zaurg

[Chief Wiggum]

I think that the spirit of the rules as they are phrased already (e.g. "you can post if you have specific evidence to provide regarding the report") is clear enough.

In any case, I've updated the phrasing of the rules for now.

[Zaurg]

Thanks for your input. I agree, while I think the point warning system is still very flawed, I wouldn’t really mind if it was given for the correct reason, 

 

This is the other post however, and I think it clearly fits the theme others brought up of trying to directly add to the discussion and still getting punished 

 

 

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:36 PM, Chief Wiggum said:

I think that the spirit of the rules as they are phrased already (e.g. "you can post if you have specific evidence to provide regarding the report") is clear enough.

In any case, I've updated the phrasing of the rules for now.

how about enforcing them, still see people posting in topics not about them nor giving information about the report

[Guest Zephyr]

On 1/24/2020 at 9:03 PM, Salt Meat said:

I believe that's the point he's trying to make. What you said is how it's enforced, but the rules specify otherwise, particularly that you can post if you're the accused, or you're providing evidence, not necessarily both.

In addition, if the post is spam, perhaps give a warn for spam, not for posting in NDF, which as far as the written rules are concerned, he is allowed to.

I guess the idea here at the end of the day is clarity. The way the moderation was handled is reasonable, but the rules should be adjusted to reflect the approach.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the forum rules: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/guidelines/

Quote

No Discussion Forums

All sub-forums within the Moderation Forum are non-discussion forums. Specific rules are posted in these forums and must be adhered to. Failure to adhere to the rules will result in a warning.

• Specific forum rules are posted and pinned at the top of each forum please read those.

Note it says 'specific forum rules', this does not indicate that these are the only rules in these forums. If it did that'd imply that any time you're the thread creator or accused, you can go on a porn posting spree if you so felt inclined because those rules weren't explicitly included in the specific forum rules thread. Obviously this is not the case and the forum rules apply, the specific forum rules are pointing out the deviations from the normal forum rules.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Zephyr

[Salt Meat]

7 hours ago, Zephyr said:

I think this is a misunderstanding of the forum rules: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/guidelines/

Note it says 'specific forum rules', this does not indicate that these are the only rules in these forums. If it did that'd imply that any time you're the thread creator or accused, you can go on a porn posting spree if you so felt inclined because those rules weren't explicitly included in the specific forum rules thread. Obviously this is not the case and the forum rules apply, the specific forum rules are pointing out the deviations from the normal forum rules.

That's... exactly what I just said my dude. 

Going on a "porn posting spree" is obviously disallowed no matter where you post, but warning you for "posting in a NDF" rather than for posting porn, spamming, or whatever gives mixed signals.

Regardless, the rules have been updated now to more closely represent the moderation approach, which is appreciated @Chief Wiggum

[Zaurg]

15 hours ago, Zephyr said:

I think this is a misunderstanding of the forum rules: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/guidelines/

Note it says 'specific forum rules', this does not indicate that these are the only rules in these forums. If it did that'd imply that any time you're the thread creator or accused, you can go on a porn posting spree if you so felt inclined because those rules weren't explicitly included in the specific forum rules thread. Obviously this is not the case and the forum rules apply, the specific forum rules are pointing out the deviations from the normal forum rules.

Yes, that part we already discussed and wiggum said his part on. 
 

Now let’s focus on the two other examples here (which are indicative of more cases I think, though we can’t know due to lack of transparency on this forum’s software) about the adding specific evidence part.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Zaurg

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

I did get a bunch of strikes for this at once, so funny you keep bringing my name up on this when most of mine are for what seem to have got hit by now.

[Zaurg]

You really, really don’t have to make every thread about yourself. 
 

There have been a few cases now of people bringing up what seem to be reasonable good faith attempts to add to the discussion and follow the rules and being punished for it, with no clear consistency. It would be nice to get the admin to clarify.

[Furiosa]

I too would like thurther clarification, as the current state makes me wary of participating at all on the forums.

[Zaurg]

Good to see Alex was busy with this sleuthing rather than clarifying rules in any case.

[Sir Scarfalot]

6 hours ago, Zaurg said:

Good to see Alex was busy with this sleuthing rather than clarifying rules in any case.

He was clarifying rules. And lest we forget, y'all had every opportunity to get out. Hell, Sheepy literally allowed you a plea bargain after conviction, and you still just were nothing but rude and disingenuous to him all the way through to this very moment.

All you had to do was fix your goddamn attitude, but no. Grow up.