Do you feel moderation on OWF is too heavy handed, or is it fair and balanced?

[Doktor Avalanche]

I cannot say heavy handed and I nullified my vote to see the results. I received a warning once, accepted it due its fairness. However I received one point for referring to Inst as a good reason why cousins should not marry. I thought that one point was unfair, because it was the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Edited December 6, 2015 by VasiliusKonstantinos

[Tali]

People get away with bloody murder in the forums in this game. if anything they should pick it up a notch. If you cant follow the rules, and have been getting crap from the moderators maybe you should spend less time complaining about them, and take some accountability for yourself, and stop acting like a dick.

 

I am referring to any of you whinny crybabies that constantly complain about the moderators.

I bet if this was posted by someone in VE posted this, you'd have a different tone. Also we all know who you attenpted to drag into your definition of crybabies. Gtfo with your biased replies and either don't reply, or join in with a less of a biased answer and less being a dick. Kthx

[Fox Fire]

It has, if nothing else, improved.

 

Why do you, sheepy, disguise their identity though?  You lean toward annonimity in several decisions.  I know you think this insulates people or something.  It actually breeds angst and paranoia.

Anonymity is there to preserve the integrity of the game. Obviously if the moderators or even the owner are players, you avoid a whole lot of unnecessary drama by preserving anonymity. Are you saying we turn alliance affairs into moderation support? 

[LordRahl2]

Anonymity is there to preserve the integrity of the game. Obviously if the moderators or even the owner are players, you avoid a whole lot of unnecessary drama by preserving anonymity. Are you saying we turn alliance affairs into moderation support? 

 

No.  How does being a mod influence the "integrity of the game"?  And it does not really avoid drama.  To your last sentence: wat?

[Spooner]

Actually, after some thought, I have reversed my position. I now strongly feel that there should be little to no moderation on this forum.

 

Reason being that the majority of posters here are complete walnuts. The complete lack of moderation would turn this forum into even more of a shitshow, which would be an excellent sight to behold.

[Fox Fire]

No.  How does being a mod influence the "integrity of the game"?  And it does not really avoid drama.  To your last sentence: wat?

To prevent moderation from getting mixed into alliance politics.

[LordRahl2]

To prevent moderation from getting mixed into alliance politics.

 

And for that you sacrifice the humanity of the mod team.  Making them distant and impersonal.  Which, as I said, is not good.  Besides the human assumption as it stands now is that any action might be alliance politics related (even if that is far from the truth).

[WISD0MTREE]

lol. None of the above. The moderation here is actually very light most times. People violate forum rules left and right with no consequence.

Are the mods light or are the rules strict? 

 

Moderation abuse surely used to be an issue, but I haven't really seen anything worth making a fuss over since beta. 

Good times. I've been trying to get Bloc to re-invade, but nobody wants to. That made the whole game so much more interesting.

 

And for that you sacrifice the humanity of the mod team.  Making them distant and impersonal.  Which, as I said, is not good.  Besides the human assumption as it stands now is that any action might be alliance politics related (even if that is far from the truth).

I feel like I actually have something relevant to add to this. 

In Bloc, we had anonymous moderators. This was okay for a period of time. Eventually, the mods started to delete threads which would make their alliance look bad. Then they moved onto banning other influential players in opposing alliances. 

In a Bloc clone, we had moderators who showed their identity. No problems.

 

EDIT: Just to be clear, I didn't see the whole thread which this is centered around. 

Edited December 6, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Spite]

I'm not whining about moderation, I'm having a discussion about what level of moderation is appropriate, and what level of activity is appropriate for mods.

 

If mods are super active as they have claimed, I can only assume they mod inconsistently deliberately.

 

For disclosure, I've had two warns whilst playing, one of which was overturned by Sheepy. I'm not really posting on behalf of anything that's happened to me, more to do with the seemingly random intervention of mods which is nearly always the heaviest option available - ie a lock instead of splitting a thread, a warn instead of editing the post and sending a PM asking people to tone it down. Remember the point is community management, not to be a police force.

[BeachBunny]

They are the hurt feeling police.

Edited December 6, 2015 by BeachBunny

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

I bet if this was posted by someone in VE posted this, you'd have a different tone. Also we all know who you attenpted to drag into your definition of crybabies. Gtfo with your biased replies and either don't reply, or join in with a less of a biased answer and less being a dick. Kthx

 

Nice to see you have no idea what you are talking about, if a member of VE posted this I would have said the same thing, and then I would have gotten on IRC and told them to stop acting like a petulant child.  The people I am referring to, are the people on the forums that are constantly complaining about moderation, there is a pretty vocal group of them.  I dont know who you think I am referring to, so who is being biased now?  Maybe you should take your own advice and Gtfo.  Or are you going to get your forum posse to gang up on me again?

[Skynet]

/Closed.

 

 

It's degenerated into exactly what I thought it would be.