A of A and I have disagreed in the past on many political issues and I don't think either of us has made any secret of this fact. I HAVE however always respected his position of authority. Mods are the "powers that be" around here and thats fine.

I've never before seen fit to question their "word" and sometimes even get a LITTLE sick of people whining about their bannings.
You do the crime and you do the time etc etc. So this is my first complaint about this type of thing and I'm not just trying to raise a stink or offend a mod.

I'm sorry however but A of A has simply gone too far in his latest abuse of power:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25556

Hakan half jokingly asks if birthday threads are banned and he gets threatened? Why? Because A of A doesn't like him questioning the thread that HE started? If it had of been any other poster that started the thread not a single mod would have complained.

Hakan then questions the "threat" and he gets banned for a week?!

Thats totally uncalled for and completely ridiculous... He (A of A) doesn't like you for whatever reason (justified or not) so he can treat you however he wants? Oh and don't talk back because then he slaps a banning on you... and since he is a power hungry maniac that likes throwing weight around and we are just posters, we have to take it.

The fact remains that some people deserve to be banned - either for trolling, spam, or just plain offensive posts. Hakan's however was neither of these things.. He made a simple comment and he gets threatened and banned? He even wished BlueMonday a happy birthday which means his post had merit and he wasn't just being a pest.

If anybody didn't realize before the above mentioned incident that A of A was an intolerant tyrant then they should have ample proof now. We all know that I'm not the only one to believe that he's been corrupted by the power of being a mod - I've talked about it via PM with people before and I've seen people make the point in public posts. Can we all be wrong? When a mod has a problem with that many people then maybe the problem lies with that mod.

People get fed up with that kind of atmosphere and eventually they start to leave. Nobody wants to hang out in a dictatorship - yes mods have to have authority to ban the spammers and people that offend others rampantly but at some point it goes a little overboard. This banning is far more of a travesty then most of the spam I have seen on this site.

The fact that I posted this at all shows how strongly I feel about this... Maybe it was over the top - I don' know and I don't really care at this point.

I agree RedWolf! He has gone to far with his power craze. TF needs to send him through mod school again... lets just hope we both don't get banned for this...:(

I figure there's no way this thread can last 24hrs once a certain aformentioned mod sees it. That would kind of help prove your point though redwolf.

[edited to avoid offending anyone. Was meant to be half joking but I realize it could be taken quite wrong. My apology]

If Aoa is as ban happy as he has been especially lately. . .All I can say is. . .See you in a week guys. I'll probably be joining you for this now.

:p

I agree that this sort of thing can be annoying.
But remember that we don't have to be here and that this is just a discussion forum- We are not deciding the fate of the world (well apart from Simon).

In other words- I don't think its worth getting too upset about. When people with real authority act like that- then you've got something to worry about.

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
I figure there's no way this thread can last 24hrs once a certain aformentioned mod sees it. That would kind of help prove your point though redwolf.AoA doesn't have mod powers in this particular forum. Only TF does. As AoA said in another thread TF is the only means of appeal at CFC, and I hope he unbans Håkan cause that was indeed a strange, to say the least, ruling from AoA.

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Sometimes I do think Aoa must be a woman on permanent PMS. Might explain some of occasionally his less than rational behaviour(also why he/she won't post a picture;)). Definitely one of our less stable mods overall.

If Aoa is as nuts as he has been especially lately. . .All I can say is. . .See you in a week guys. I'll probably be joining you for this now.

:p That's funny, but I think you're going to get your period because of your witty remark.

Keep in mind that Hakan also opened a thread that AoA had to close, so I imagine that that figured into it too.

(I usually don't in the middle of things like these, but I thought I might say something. :blush: )

I wonder who the most unpopular mod is? :D :D

Probably get banned for that, as soon as I post in OT. Who the hell cares, if you have a different viewpoint from him, you're banned. Its as simple as that.

Becka hinted on it a bit, but most of you don't know the full story. You can't look at one specific action of a Mod and think the thread you are reading it in is the only thing going on in the whole situation.

oh leave AoA ALONE!Hakan made several threads that where closed.Anyone remembers his gay threads?Today attacking the bible.hakan was eager for a little banning.It isnt AoA fault its Hakan fault SO LEAVE AOA ALONE!He is a good mod,a bit harsh but thats ok.We NEED a HARSH MOD in the off-topic forum.
So back off leave AOA alone and go whine about something else.

I agree with RedWolf.

I agree with philippe. A harsh mod is needed and Hakan was not banned solely for that one questioning/comment/threat. Another thing is that he is on a short leash, especially after just being unbanned. I hope he comes back after the ban duration and I hope he can remain unbanned after that :)

I did not believe banning the bible thread was fair and complained to Tf though he appears to have ignored me

as i said in another thread i think this conflict could all be cleared up if a line saying something like - Moderator action may occur even if this code of conduct is followed would avoid all these problems . Basically mods can do whatever they like (though AoA seems to be the only one who does)

:sleep:

Funny how all the troble makers always rally together in bash threads, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Let's have the roll call:
RedWolf
Scrimshaw (these two have commented on how they are friends in the past, and both have disagreed with me before, and we see them together here, what a coincedence. :rolleyes:
I can't even say nice try, because this is just a moronic personal attack, laughable in it's "fury".
You REALLY need to mature Red Wolf.
Scrim Shaw, no offense, but you REALLY need to get a clue.
This is from the staff forum, Lefty's opinion of Hakan Erickson, since you (as usual) don't give me the benifit of the doubt:
"Yep, the usual forum is a dictatorship business down with moderators stuff. Wonder why he regressed to toddler training at this time. "

Nobody is getting banned for comments here, and just so you know, since a lot of you don't seem to, any moderator can ban any member, doesn't matter where you post.

Erikson has disrupted the site for the LAST time.

Count on it.

Let me make this clear, since the bad boy brigade doesn't seem to get it, I will not allow trolling threads (the bible thread) or disrespecful little twits trying to be wise-guys.

Now I suppose a bunch of you will run to game cather for another thread on how I suck. :rolleyes:

That kid is trouble, and he is gone.

This is the same kind of lame-ass whining that caused complaint threads to be stopped for a bit, a poster gets banned, and we don't see people saying why, we see how "I have a big head and am out of control".

In other words, chilish personal attacks.
Pathetic.

"Probably get banned for that, as soon as I post in OT. Who the hell cares, if you have a different viewpoint from him, you're banned. Its as simple as that."
A moronic statement, why would I ban you for that?
Many times people get nasty, like your assinie post, THAT's what gets them banned, not disagreeing with me.
This from someone who calls himself "god", little bit of a complex there, eh?

If it looks like I have contempt for some of you, you are surely correct, people with scrupples don't run to other boards to insult others, and I'm damn tired of this "I have a big head" bull, you children take all the joy out of CFC with your pettiness both for myself and all the other moderators.
You may get a charge out of people getting insulted and having hard feelings, but thank god people like you don't run the show, we would have about 5 posters, and those five would be you.

Erikson did exactly what he wanted, disrupted the board, becase a jack-ass with a grudge did his work for him, how typical.

I don't understand what everyone is moaning about. The rules to the site are quite clear, and even if you don't know them then basic common sense and politeness should give you excellent guidance on how to behave here. Alcibiates and Lefty are doing a great job and a necessary one. Would you really prefer it if the OT section was a free-for-all and anarchy reigned supreme? As veterans of this site, and of internet forums in general, then they are in the best position to judge what goes and what should be stamped out before it becomes the prevalent tone of posts there. I suggest that rather than whining about what you perceive as injustice then you should learn from the examples set and modify your posting habits accordingly.

Whoops. Double post

Originally posted by Aoa
Scrimshaw (these two have commented on how they are friends in the past, and both have disagreed with me before, and we see them together here, what a coincedence.


I never said we were friends. If your memory serves you correctly(and it doesn't) I said we have debated in the past cause we tend to strongly disagree with one another. I'd say the one thing we can agree on is how we think of you. That's why my post was so short. Redwolf summed up my opinion nicely.

I can't even say nice try, because this is just a moronic personal attack, laughable in it's "fury".

Hey, I never meant to attack anyone. I took those comments out and apologized. They were only intended to make a little light of the situation. I realized they could be taken wrong and edited it. Calm down there.:rolleyes:

More to come but I gotta go to work. It's too early for thinkin' anyway.:sleep:

That's fine Scrimshaw, and I'm relativly calm about it, but I'm damn tired of all this backseat driving.

Some people act as if I don't consult them first I'm completely wrong, and believe me, I respond extremly poorly to threats, not saying you, more towards Red wolf.
The nerve, threatening the site, saying if things aern't done to suit him people will leave.
Such hubris is ridiculous, seeing as I have been moderator for a year now, and CFC has grown from a tiny community to a giant in the civ world.

Explain to everyone Red Wolfe, it's I'm such a Hitler, why do so many people step foward to defend me and my point of view?

Some of the other comments are just down right insulting, especially the phrase "abuse of power".
Try making the kind of comments you make at me at moderators on other boards, and see how fast you would be IP banned.
I never complain about all the petty personal attacks a lot of people lauch in their sigs, titles, and location fields at me.
That is both petty and childish, but do we ban you or threaten you for it?
We could easily, especially if I was the ogre such ill-informed mysenthropes often claim I am.

Saying I ban people I disagree with is just a personal insult, I have NEVER done that, I have banned people who were IMPOLITE or THREATENING to me, if you can't make that distiction, then moderation of a web site is the least of your worries.

I'm interested in bonified feedback, not another "beat on Alci's head because we have long standing gruges" thread.

This non-sense is a waste of time, anybody that pays attention knows that Hakan went from a nice kid to a little wise guy determined to cause as many problems as possible.

His last thread wasn't an attempt at discussion, it was a TROLL.
Is there ANYONE in our modern world that agrees with slavery?
ANYONE?
He was going for the christians, making a biblical link, in another of his attempts to fire up peole and hurt them, the same way his Israel thread did.
This time I caught it before it happened, I could have let it run, and had a dozen complaints.
Not again.

And another matter.
Why do so many people think it's perfectly acceptable to threathen moderators, yet complain when the mod reacts?
Try that in your real world, see how far it goes.
I also don't appreciate this "he can't touch us here" bull.
If I was the banning nut many of you claim, you would be gone, the ban function is based on user name, not where you post.

In closing, all you do with this is antagonize me, and lower my opinion of some of you.
Do any of you think this is productive?
Anyone?

On the basis of that thread alone I thought the banning was out of order...

BUT within the context of Hakon recent "performances" it was obvious Hakon was dragging contention between himself and AoA into another thread. In a thread wishing BlueMonday a happy birthday he decided to bait AoA...if he had a problem with double-standards then TF is a mere e-mail away.

It isn't a dictatorship...it is simply that a small number of people are rubbing the moderators up the wrong way. Indeed we have far too many posters who look at the rules and then try to push the boundaries.


Does civfanatics really need a rules section that covers all eventualities? Is this in keeping with how civfanatics has always been run...e.g by the disgression of mods and TF? I say NO! Keep the status quo!


P.S I'll probably get banned for this :p

Quit the whinin. Threaten to leave CFC but then you don't. If you do, it's for a week until you're back. If this is such a terrible place and AOA is such a meany, LEAVE. People should be banned and sometimes permanently. No suckup "I'm sorry" email to get them back. Good bye you're gone bans. Well, AOA, some comments about you I found kind of impressive...

has simply gone too far in his latest abuse of power...
he's been corrupted by the power of being a mod...
...since he is a power hungry maniac
...to far with his power craze
most unpopular mod...

He he he... :goodjob: We like ya AOA and you do a good job. You know this already.

Kitten, nice postscript... ;)

I don´t care or want to comment on any of AoA´s actions, but I do have to answer to this remark! :mad:
Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
...
Now I suppose a bunch of you will run to game cather for another thread on how I suck. :rolleyes:
...
Again, I don´t care what you do here as a Mod, but LEAVE GAMECATCHER OUT OF THIS!

We have nothing to do with your problems with any posters and we are NOT a harbor for troublemakers or CFC-haters.

I don´t care what you personally think of Gamecatcher, but this does not give you the right to discredit it in public!
EVERY whining thread about any other forum are immediatly closed at GC. And of our now 130 members, only 2 or 3 have actually come only because they have problems with you or CFC. And they received their warning not to continue anything started here.
You may personally find our site childish, but believe me, how some things are handled here at CFC is much more childish. :o

I and every other GC member would prefer it if you would stop pulling GC into those topics here, just like we stop any pulling of CFC into topics at GC.
If you have any problems or critizism to make about GC, please do that over in our fora, not here. There is no need for you to try to convince anyone with your opinions about GC, let them have their own impressions, without your input.

Thank you.
:D

Lucky, I happen to be friends with Spy, whether you realize that or not, and I always respected her site, but not all such threads were closed immediatly, some staff members even added to them.

I would never show such disrespect to Spy or her site by going there and starting an argument, nor do i care to read how much I suck from everybody with a grudge.

The thing I would ask is that such threads be deleated, not closed, I wouldn't allow such things here, all I ask is the same.

Fine, I totally agree with you. Such threads should be deleted, but I´m only a lowly mod over there.
And I don´t want you to start an argument over there, as well. I just ask you to make any complaints there, not anywhere else. :yeah:

Again, only very few people actually complained about you, most of us are regulars at both fora.

The thing that bothers me is how you deliberately talk bad about GC. Neither the site nor the staff have offended you in any way.

So ALL I ASK, is to stop casting a negative light on GC from your part. You are welcome to discuss anything you don´t like over there, but there is no need to imply such a thing in public.
Such remarks form opinions and we would like all people to form their own without negative input from someone else.

And I will put forward your request to delete such threads.
:D

I have only good things to say about GC, nothing negative (except for the aforementioned threads, in fact, I used to contribute to the old EZ Board version of it).

I agree with Lucky. But, about how staff members added to these threads, which includes me I must not deny, this was wrong. It will not happen again!

Anyway, about Hakan. He might not have done much in the birthday thread but like others said, we don't know about other circumstances.

Forget it, it's over and done with. ;)

Red Wolf is still a whiny i see.....some things never change :lol:

AoA tryt to see our position - we disagree with your moderating decisions and so try to challenge them - for instance the thing about the bible and slavery is a valid point yet you take it out because no one believes in it today - I think that's rather the point Hakan was trying to make.
This appears as if you are shutting down threads you disagre with and bannign those you disagree with (such as in my case).
However as I saids in the other thread I now accpet that this is the case - there is no argument about mod descisions at civfanatics and I happen to continue to want to enjoy this site so will not be opposing any more except to thunderfall who doesn't seem to care either

If he really wanted a conversation, he wouldn't be so confrontational.
I'm not stupid, so don't treat me as such, I know the difference between a discussion and an attempt to get someone's blood up.

One thing to add.

I agree totally with hakan's banning after looking more into it. The part I disagree with is that if he is to be banned for his actions in a couple threads, ban him. Don't wait and bait him later in someones birthday thread and ban him for replying as harshly as you did. That makes it look like he's banned for a simple comment that started as a joke. That's redwolfs whole problem too I think. He may not know the whole story so he thinks you are Totally wrong, instead of just half wrong.

That's my only problem with this. I never thought I'd be saying he should have been banned sooner. It's a mad world:crazyeye:

Wow, what a mess! :crazyeye:

Let me first start by saying that I don't believe Hakan deserves his 1 week ban for what he wrote in that B-Day thread AND that Bible thread combined. I wouldn't even call Hakan's post a "threat". Posters should respect mods' authority, but they shouldn't be banned for slightly questioning the mods (or admin). [We are not untouchable. ;)] I always believe banning is the last thing mods should do because it's not the best way to solve problems -- lots of the times it makes the problem worse. The mods know how I feel about this issue well...

I'll unban Hakan tomorrow. Let's leave 1 week ban to more serious violations, AoA.

Please read the staff forum now.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

If it looks like I have contempt for some of you, you are surely correct, people with scrupples don't run to other boards to insult others, and I'm damn tired of this "I have a big head" bull, you children take all the joy out of CFC with your pettiness both for myself and all the other moderators.
You may get a charge out of people getting insulted and having hard feelings, but thank god people like you don't run the show, we would have about 5 posters, and those five would be you.

Erikson did exactly what he wanted, disrupted the board, becase a jack-ass with a grudge did his work for him, how typical.

First off - I made no secret that I do not personally like you. However this is my first ever complaint in this forum about your decisions. If I was truly a "jack ass with a grudge" then I would be complaining left right and center. This however is my FIRST such thread. I do NOT make a habit of attacking you.

As I said I respect your authority as a mod and I fully believe that some people do deserve to get banned - I just don't think this was one of those times and i made me angry. THATS why I started this thread. If I had of waited even a few minutes I probably would not have done so because it wasn't worth my time.

I don't regularly make trouble for you or other mods and thats why I feel this complaint has (had) merit.

You don't personally like me because I argue from the political left and that allows you to dismiss me as "inmature" - I ALWAYS argue intelligently and I beleive for the post part maturely. You don't like what I have to say, however my opinions are valid.

Simply, because you are offended on the basis of DISAGREEMENT - does not make what I say by itself offensive. It's ironic that you call my views trolling, baiting etc etc but I can open a major daily newspaper and read published editorials with similair views to my own... Are those reporters baiting, trolling? NO, they're expressing valid opinions which is what democracy comes down to in the end. I feel that I bring a valuable voice to Off Topic and I've been told this others (Even some I regularly argue with)


The nerve, threatening the site, saying if things aern't done to suit him people will leave.
Such hubris is ridiculous, seeing as I have been moderator for a year now, and CFC has grown from a tiny community to a giant in the civ world.

Explain to everyone Red Wolfe, it's I'm such a Hitler, why do so many people step foward to defend me and my point of view?


it wasn't a threat by any means - I was just stating what I feel to be a fact - one more example of you turning an opinion into a "threat".

I have never called you a "Hitler" or a "Nazi" - and I never will. They're harsh words and when someone on the left starts throwing those words around they lose credibility. The genocide of 10 million Jews doesn't really compare to a disagreement on a web page.


I also don't appreciate this "he can't touch us here" bull.


I actually fully expected a ban for this thread and didn't believe "he can't touch us here". I had at first considered replying to the original thread but out of respect for the off topic forum I moved it to "site feedback" where it belongs.



In closing, all you do with this is antagonize me, and lower my opinion of some of you.


You already dislike me - I had nothing to lose. I made my feelings known and THAT was the point.

moderation in all things

Originally posted by Thunderfall
Wow, what a mess! :crazyeye:

Let me first start by saying that I don't believe Hakan deserves his 1 week ban for what he wrote in that B-Day thread AND that Bible thread combined. I wouldn't even call Hakan's post a "threat". Posters should respect mods' authority, but they shouldn't be banned for slightly questioning the mods (or admin). [We are not untouchable. ;)] I always believe banning is the last thing mods should do because it's not the best way to solve problems -- lots of the times it makes the problem worse. The mods know how I feel about this issue well...

I'll unban Hakan tomorrow. Let's leave 1 week ban to more serious violations, AoA.

TF - as always, we prosper under your wise and benevolent rule

yeah go TF
(but why didnt you reply to me personally - i thought you';d gone evil :D )

Originally posted by RedWolf
First off - I made no secret that I do not personally like you. However this is my first ever complaint in this forum about your decisions. If I was truly a "jack ass with a grudge" then I would be complaining left right and center. This however is my FIRST such thread. I do NOT make a habit of attacking you.I find your postion somewhat dubious, considering the rather childish title you chose.

As I said I respect your authority as a mod and I fully believe that some people do deserve to get banned - I just don't think this was one of those times and i made me angry. THATS why I started this thread. If I had of waited even a few minutes I probably would not have done so because it wasn't worth my time.Mr Erikson has quite a little history, but as was pointed out to me by a mod from another site that I respect, I should have been clear that said poster had been saying things in PMs before the birthday thread.

I don't regularly make trouble for you or other mods and thats why I feel this complaint has (had) merit. No you don't, but this did not and does not.

You don't personally like me because I argue from the political left and that allows you to dismiss me as "inmature" - I ALWAYS argue intelligently and I beleive for the post part maturely. You don't like what I have to say, however my opinions are valid. Your quite incorrect here, you believe that I have some grudge against you, what I don't care for is unsubstatiated nonsense, not Leftist things.
You have this long standing belief that I don't want you around, this isn't the case, I really don't mind anyone's postion on politics, but you built up this whole scenario of myself out to get you, it simply isn't so.
Simply, because you are offended on the basis of DISAGREEMENT - does not make what I say by itself offensive. It's ironic that you call my views trolling, baiting etc etc but I can open a major daily newspaper and read published editorials with similair views to my own... Are those reporters baiting, trolling? NO, they're expressing valid opinions which is what democracy comes down to in the end. I feel that I bring a valuable voice to Off Topic and I've been told this others (Even some I regularly argue with)There is a difference between being argumentative and debating, and what you did after 9/11 was not debating, that is the route of your clash with me, a year ago.
Since that time, you have made it a point to say I don't like you, when I said no such thing.

it wasn't a threat by any means - I was just stating what I feel to be a fact - one more example of you turning an opinion into a "threat".
I have never called you a "Hitler" or a "Nazi" - and I never will. They're harsh words and when someone on the left starts throwing those words around they lose credibility. The genocide of 10 million Jews doesn't really compare to a disagreement on a web page.
"If anybody didn't realize before the above mentioned incident that A of A was an intolerant tyrant then they should have ample proof now. We all know that I'm not the only one to believe that he's been corrupted by the power of being a mod - I've talked about it via PM with people before and I've seen people make the point in public posts. Can we all be wrong? When a mod has a problem with that many people then maybe the problem lies with that mod."
You say in your second post I'm putting words in your mouth, so let's see, you say I'm an intolerant tyrant, corupted by power, and you have the proof, in your little cabal.
Or it could be that there are more then one person that needs to mature on a site, and if you took an honest look at yourself and the people whom cronically break the rules and complain, you would realize just how unjust and rediculous you sound in that paragrapgh.
Your basically saying that that I'm a power mad meglomaniac, when the truth is I subordinate my feelings for the good of all, the mistake you and your friends make, and it's common, is you never see the other side's view, only your own, and when it differs, you lauch into phrases like "Intolerant tyrant" (if that were true, you would have been history long ago, so you yourself point out the fallouscy of your own accusation) or "Corrupted by power" (What power? this is a little gaming site, there is no power here, everything that is done must be accountable, being a moderator is a horendous burden, I can't tell many people what I really think or fell about them, because I have a job to do, make the site good for all).
In other words sir, you are all wet.

I actually fully expected a ban for this thread and didn't believe "he can't touch us here". I had at first considered replying to the original thread but out of respect for the off topic forum I moved it to "site feedback" where it belongs.
Which is why I answered it.

You already dislike me - I had nothing to lose. I made my feelings known and THAT was the point. I did not, and do not.
I do not respect you, simply because you accuse me of actions and motivations that are not true, and never have been.
Like doesn't play into matters, but I can say you make it difficult to like you by these actions, but it would play no part on my discissions as a moderator, never has, never will.

Originally posted by Thunderfall
Posters should respect mods' authority, but they shouldn't be banned for slightly questioning the mods (or admin). [We are not untouchable. ;)]He questioned the mod in the thread where he was already warned for being off-topic. He questioned him not once, but twice. He made up a fake rule trying to get AoA's goat.

Site Feedback is the correct place for questioning a mod's action.
Trolling is against the rules.
This guy just came off a ban, what the heck do you wants us to do TF?
How many freaking rules do they have to break to get a ban?
We are here to enforce the rules but if we get no backing then what the f@#$ are we trying for?
I, as always, disagree with AoA's tone. ;)

I don't know what happened to Hakan, but he seems to have gone off the deep end...

I remember him being a bit sensitive, but now he just causes trouble.

He has repeatedly searched up inflammatory articles, and then posted them here, only to anger other posters and cause strife among the ranks...

As I type this, I realize that this is ONLY a computer site (albeit my favorite one) and is this really worth getting angry for?

I agree with the Mods on this one...

RedWolf, I hope to see you more in OT... Your opinions are valued, if not always agreed with...

To AoA: You're a mod in the most active and controversial forum, by it's nature. And there's always gunna be those that disagree with you. And there may even be times when you get overruled by higher ups (e.g, TF). But the vast majority of people are not complaining, and by my count (not that the bean counting is the determining issue), lots more support your modship anyway. You do a time-consuming and difficult job. Thanks for doing it for us.

:goodjob:


To TF: Were it up to me, I'd probably have a single, isolated place for criticism of Mods, like a sub-Forum of Site Feedback. Any questioning of Mods should be in that single, separate, isolated place.... so that context can be more easily referenced. In that place, people could post their "case", provided:

1. They use a hyperlink to all posts they question.

2. Use no personal attacks or ulterior inuendo of the mods or anyone else in their post.

3. Mod-baiting and mod-attacks (esp. personal attacks) get summary punishment.

4. Keep it objective (mod complaints), or keep it off CFC.

5. If CFC people become aware of Mod-attacks made on other BBSs, then the attacker should be treated as a hostile CFC member and banned. It is a direct insult to CFC and you (TF) for people to accost a mod outside CFC.... the correct method it to appeal to you, then you make the ruling, and the case is closed either way. To continue it somewhere else is the pinnacle of insult to you personally, not to mention CFC membership in general.


To Anti-AoA posters: TF and even AoA are pretty tolerant, otherwise all criticisms would be summarily delt with. I realize a lot of this is AoA baiting, and there is no doubt in my mind that some enjoy getting AoA's goat. He can be blunt, as we all know. Even coarse at times. But you all know (whether you admit it publically or not) that he does a very good job overall. Instead of criticizing AoA when he is overruled by TF (like the Hankon case), you should simply be glad that there is an appeals process.... which by definition means that he is not a tyrant or dictator.... were it up to me, any posts that attack a mod like that would cause the poster to suffer a severe penalty.... A tyrant or dictator cannot be overruled (by definintion, duhhhh...), and so any such post should be treated as it really is: an personal insult requiring a harsh slapdown.

He's not perfect, but none of us are. And personally, I'd rather see anyone that continues to slam AoA to be dismissed from CFC before seeing AoA go.

PS, This does not mean you cannot post civil, logical reasonable objections (in the proper place) to something with which you disagree.


:hammer:

:)

@Starlifter:

:goodjob: :cool: :goodjob:

Here here, starlifter! An eleqent post indeed! :goodjob: :king: :cooool:

Ok, I didn't know Hakan had posted that Bible thread when I said that I agree with RedWolf. I had thought he was banned for his comments in the Birthday thread.

A 1 week ban is too harsh IMO. But I'm not a mod.

Originally posted by starlifter
To TF: Were it up to me, I'd probably have a single, isolated place for criticism of Mods, like a sub-Forum of Site Feedback. Any questioning of Mods should be in that single, separate, isolated place.... so that context can be more easily referenced. In that place, people could post their "case", provided:

1. They use a hyperlink to all posts they question.

2. Use no personal attacks or ulterior inuendo of the mods or anyone else in their post.

3. Mod-baiting and mod-attacks (esp. personal attacks) get summary punishment.

4. Keep it objective (mod complaints), or keep it off CFC.

5. If CFC people become aware of Mod-attacks made on other BBSs, then the attacker should be treated as a hostile CFC member and banned. It is a direct insult to CFC and you (TF) for people to accost a mod outside CFC.... the correct method it to appeal to you, then you make the ruling, and the case is closed either way. To continue it somewhere else is the pinnacle of insult to you personally, not to mention CFC membership in general.
Not a bad idea, Starlifter. The system you proposed could make the mod complaint procedure more civil and systematic. A "Read before you complain" sticky thread in the mod complaint sub-forum willl be necessary... :)

I'll see what I can do...

congats starlifter for your post where i tottaly agree with!:goodjob::cool::)

So now people can be banned from CFC forums for things they do outside CFC forums? That's what you want, starlifter? It's a horrible idea for two reasons:

1. You can't enforce something like this. Nobody can cover the whole internet. This leaves a few spots where many CFCers also visit - Apolyton, for example - more vulnerable than others. How would TF like it if Markos decided to ban from Apolyton everyone who bad-mouthed Ming over here? The only thing that would come of a situation like this is reduced traffic for BOTH sites.

2. You're basically saying that we all need to obey CFC rules regardless of where we are, internet or otherwise, and what we are doing. In that case 90% of us are GONE.


As for your claim that any complaint against a mod is a complaint against TF, or any insult for that matter - don't be ridiculous. That is identical to saying that TF is a perfect judge of character and never makes mistakes. If saying otherwise is a bannable offense then tell me now so I can delete this forum from my favorites list.

Get a grip, starlifter - this isn't the military and there is no "command structure," at least not in the way you describe.

Also, though I'm no fan of AoA, I must now make a complaint against Thunderfall in defense of AoA:

Well, not so much a complaint, I guess, but an observation - call it friendly advice.

Your earlier post in this thread and your public reversal of AoA's decision were a BAD IDEA. You do not want private disputes among mods to become public, EVER. If that isn't the number one rule of running a forum, it should be. This isn't to avoid bruised egos or anything like that, it is simply to maintain a unified front on your board (or at least the illusion of one, which is all that matters). A better course of action would have been to explain to AoA why you didn't like his decision IN PRIVATE or in a restricted forum, if you have one. Then let AoA publicly unban Hakan saying he had a change of heart or whatever.

Once you start going around reversing decisions like that, confidence in the mods plummets. And, that's when all hell breaks loose.

Wow! Kilroy read Ming's thread too. And don't give starlifter **** for his post. You can't read everything literally. He obviously doesn't mean you should obey CFC's rules EVERYWHERE you go but he does mean that stuff like e-mailing AoA and calling him a tyrant should be punished even if it wasnt' at CFC. And no one says TF is perfect in any way. But attacking people he chose for a job is in a way attacking him. Not directly, but indirectly.

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
Wow! Kilroy read Ming's thread too. And don't give starlifter **** for his post. You can't read everything literally. He obviously doesn't mean you should obey CFC's rules EVERYWHERE you go but he does mean that stuff like e-mailing AoA and calling him a tyrant should be punished even if it wasnt' at CFC. And no one says TF is perfect in any way. But attacking people he chose for a job is in a way attacking him. Not directly, but indirectly.

As long as your not flooding his inbox it shouldn't be a problem. It's better than posting it in site feedback, and perhaps more likely to resolve the issue.

And starlifter stated that it was a direct attack and should be dealt with harshly. Otherwise I would have assumed he meant indirectly, etc etc.

And please provide a link to this thread of Ming's - I haven't read it.

It is a very sorry state of affairs indeed that we must publicly express our support for AoA and his moderation of the forums. I am normally in favour of constructive criticism but all the petty whines that are coming out of the woodwork at the moment are pushing me more and more toward the floppa philosophy of modding. If you care so much about this forum then swallow your pride, serve your ban and return here after your week off to make informed, intelligent and non-provocative posts. Matrix was able to wait about a year for his girlfriend to come back from abroad so you should be able to wait a single week without the forums here. You can still visit if you are incurably addicted, just not post. I don't like to say this as it will not be positive advertising for TF, but if you don't like it then please go elsewhere.
With regard to starlifter's idea of banning members for attacking the site or mods at other sites then I would support this idea but we should be aware that people could register with a CFC member's username elsewhere in an effort to get them banned from this site. I've got my username registered here (obviously), at 'poly and Gamecatcher so am not too worried about this but others may not be. This would require IP investigation by the site admin of wherever the attacks were being made and that may be too much hassle.
And Kilroy shouldn't worry about the status of the command structure - basically how things run is none of our business and it is up to the whole mod team to regulate themselves if they so wish. CFC sure as hell ain't a democracy and I would probably have gone elsewhere had it been.
Can everyone please just settle down and stop trying to cause a scene.

I've read this thread with great interest. My initial reaction was something like wtf, but luckily AoA took the time to explain his decision: to me, it wasn't clear what hakan had done before that. And perhaps what's a problem here, as I've mentioned before (which, by the way, was no comment on PH as a person, I'm sorry if it seemed that way) is the wording a mod uses: it might seem rude (not in this case) or harsh ('tyrannic', not my words), but actually you should read the 'legal disclaimer' which the post is lacking: "adding up your recent irregularities".

Well, I should read it that way anyhow. Maybe, but who am I to say that, mods could point this out more precise in the future. I hope that there's a lesson in this thread, so that the CFC will grow even better.

I want to add that I think that the moderators do a good job.

So now people can be banned from CFC forums for things they do outside CFC forums? That's what you want, starlifter?

It should be obvious what not only I want, but all CFC members should want.... basic respect for a gaming site that we all supposedly like.

Abut banning for things outside CFC, you bet. Assuming it is noticed. Why is it necessary to defame a mod? And if one really feels that is what one should do, then one should to it to the mod's face in a PM (not in a public thread), or make a fair and reasoned case to TF.

Since it is America, and one is free to do what one chooses, one is responsible for one's choices. This includes resolving "issues" and moving on with life in a civil way.

That said, this is my input, and I have zero say in the matter, other than making a suggestion. As you have done, you may feel free to make whatever suggestion you like.

One thing is for sure.... you can't please all the people all the time. IMHO, the line is crossed as far as CFC is concerned when one rips CFC, TF, or his representatives (the mods).... whether is is done at CFC or not. The two sites in particular are probably Gamecatcher and Apolyton, where there are significant numbers of CFC members, as we all know.



It's a horrible idea for two reasons:

1. You can't enforce something like this. Nobody can cover the whole internet.
...

I respect your opinion on that... what you state is called a truism (something that is so obviously true that it neext no explanation :) ), and has no bearing on the actual issue.

The way it would work is if a person reported the incident, with a link and/or a screenshot, via whatever means TF would establish (a PM to TF, most likely), the matter could be looked into.

This should not be an issue with 99.% percent of the people. But the bottom line is that CFC is a privately held BBS, and participation is voluntary. If one must be a negative force against CFC, TF, or his representatives, then one should simply not be extended the privledge of participating in the BBS (CFC) they obviously do not respect.


This leaves a few spots where many CFCers also visit - Apolyton, for example - more vulnerable than others. How would TF like it if Markos decided to ban from Apolyton everyone who bad-mouthed Ming over here?

Without stating the obvious, this is not Apolyton. However, I fail to see why Apolyton member should come to CFC and verbally accost someone like Ming. One should not be a coward and hide out in another BBS and snipe at people of other BBSs... either shut up, or state your case to the individual like a responsible person.

But that said, I don't know Apolyton's rules. Their BBS can be run how they see fit.


The only thing that would come of a situation like this is reduced traffic for BOTH sites.

Quite untrue, inthe overall sense. But in regards to a cowardly flame, the whole point IS to reduce that person's traffic, at least until they cool off and wish to conform to civilized norms.




2. You're basically saying that we all need to obey CFC rules regardless of where we are, internet or otherwise, and what we are doing. In that case 90% of us are GONE.

I didn't suggest that. But you just did. ;)

Your whole paragraph 2 is an exercise in diversion of attention from the topic at hand, and I need not delve into it because I didn't suggest what you wrote....


As for your claim that any complaint against a mod is a complaint against TF, or any insult for that matter - don't be ridiculous. That is identical to saying that TF is a perfect judge of character and never makes mistakes.

Again, you are simply dreaming up hysterical nonsense. You get points for imagination, though ;).

1. Complaints are, and have been OK. But one must do it properly.

2. Flaming CFC, TF, and/or his Mods in others places is the pinnacle of cowardly anti-social behavior. Eitehr resolve it directly with the Mod via PM, or if one does not feel comfortable with that, contact TF. In private. Or post a proper, well-reasoned message in whatever forum/format TF provides (right now, that ocation is here in site feedback).

3. As I understand it, all the Mods discuss bans amongst themselves, out of the public eye. That is as it should be. And there is mechanism for appeal, obviously.

4. Mistakes by TF are not the issue. To follow your illogic on this issue, no final decisions could be made on any subject because of the possibility of mistake. Rules should be abandoned because of possible mistakes. This is of course all obfuscation and rubbish.






Get a grip, starlifter - this isn't the military and there is no "command structure," at least not in the way you describe.

There is a clear chain, albiet only 3 deep. Here it is for you:

1. (top) Owner of site (TF).
2. Mods (Delegated authority by Owner, TF).
3. Members (the rest of us).

As I understand it at CFC, a Mod has control over his/her delegated Forum. This makes the Owner's span of control managable on a day to day basis. Mods act in the stead of the owner. The military works on this same principle, and it is called the Chain of Command. The term is also used in the civilian environment, particularly in the corporate world.


If someone is accosting a mod on site or off site, the clear message they are sending is that (in their own opinion) the mod is not ______ (something not good), and CFC (TF) keeps these people, therefore CFC (and TF) are not running things properly. If someone believes that, then fine :). Let them spend time elsewhere. If not, they would not be doing such nonsense. Cut and dry.

Ask yourself: what is the purpose of a person attacking, insulting, flaming CFC staff (on site or off)? What do they wish to tell the world? What are thay saying about CFC? What are they saying about their own character (or lack thereof) by accosting someone (esp. an official staff member) in public? The answer is they are ripping CFC and saying that the Mod(s) and/or TF would not resolve it the way they wanted, and are imposing their judgement in place of the Mod, the staff, and the Leader (TF).



Bottom line: members should resolve the conflicts with Mods in a civil, reasoned, and non-inflammatory way. If someone does not like a mod, they need to contact TF and resolve it, and/or get over it. If someone takes such issues off site, let them stay off site (e.g, keep out of CFC).


Hope that clears things up not only for you, but also for others that might have had the similar questions :).

:hammer:

:cool:

And starlifter stated that it was a direct attack and should be dealt with harshly. Otherwise I would have assumed he meant indirectly, etc etc.

In any real-world organization, that is exactly what it is. In all fariness, the harshness should only come after making clear what the rules of the road are. Attacking a mod is attacking TF; some may look at it as an indirect attack, so I hae explaind in detail why that is not so. If you acost a CFC staffer, that is an attack (direct) on CFC. How can you interpret it in any other way? You may say "Well, I didn't mention TF explicitly, and it was not TF that did _____ to me." Well, it is a direct attack you because yu chose to disregard procedure and rules, and make the rules yourself, substituting your own rules for those everyone else is expected to abide by.

Just because you do not mention TF's name does not define it as a mere indirect attack.

:)

by Kilroy:
Your earlier post in this thread and your public reversal of AoA's decision were a BAD IDEA. You do not want private disputes among mods to become public, EVER. If that isn't the number one rule of running a forum, it should be. This isn't to avoid bruised egos or anything like that, it is simply to maintain a unified front on your board (or at least the illusion of one, which is all that matters). A better course of action would have been to explain to AoA why you didn't like his decision IN PRIVATE or in a restricted forum, if you have one. Then let AoA publicly unban Hakan saying he had a change of heart or whatever.

Once you start going around reversing decisions like that, confidence in the mods plummets. And, that's when all hell breaks loose.

You observations are quite noteworthy and on target, FWIW, I agree. Hopefully, it can be used as a positive learing experience for TF and everyone else to make things better in the future.

:)

If someone feels the need to attack CFC, they shouldn't be here. Let your fingers do the talkin and go somewhere else that you won't have to flame/troll/whimper/snivel. Whiny maggots. In California, they have a 3 strikes you're out rule. Something like that should be done. 3rd time's a charm and the ban is PERMANENT. As in no mas, finite, get the hell out and don't come back. But this is not my site. If it was, you'd all be banned right now dammit. ;)

Because of some spamming and childish behavoir by someone in the Computer Talk forums a little while ago, I took look at the currently posted CFC rules. It turns out that TF has covered most of what I suggested in the Forum Rules (link at the bottom of every page):

...
Behave as you would in a public location.
This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being. If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

Respect the authority of moderators and admins.
If you don't like something that an admin or a moderator did, you can post why you think a moderator is wrong in the Site Feedback forum. We encourage rational discussions of moderator actions, but posters who feel the need to insult moderators and admins will be punished.
....

This Version 2.5, 08 May 02, BTW.

;)

I see no reason why a members actions on another site should have an effect here. If I banned everybody that abused me on other sites, Poly would be a very quiet place.

It critical that Mods have a thick skin. It's the nature of the beast.
No matter what action a mod takes, somebody will disagree with it. I personally don't care if people call me names or accuse me of being a tryant or whatever... it's only an opinion... and usually a bad one... ;)

The only rule I have is "leave my family out of it".

'If someone feels the need to attack CFC, they shouldn't be here.'

i agree however this is differnet from:

'If you don't like something that an admin or a moderator did, you can post why you think a moderator is wrong in the Site Feedback forum'

Originally posted by starlifter
He's not perfect, but none of us are. And personally, I'd rather see anyone that continues to slam AoA to be dismissed from CFC before seeing AoA go.

Exactly! :goodjob:

*sigh*

I hope you all see that while I did overruled AoA in this case, I didn't disagreed with him completely -- I just reduced the penalty from 1 week to 3 days. And the reason for this is obvious: I just thought 1 week ban is too harsh and still do.

I also hope what I said in this thread don't give you the wrong impression that I consider AoA a bad mod. Not at all. AoA is one of the most responsible mods here on CFC, and definitely the mod who does the most moderation work. Our differences in opinion mainly lie in the style of moderation and in the severity of punishment given to rule violators.

The CFC staff knows while I prefer order more than anything else in this forum, I don't believe excessive punishment is the way to achieve it. My position on this issue has been the same since day 1 and is unlikely to change in the future.

I hope mods will just *recommend* duration of bans in the future and let me decide the exact length. Chance is I probably will only disagree with maybe 5% of mods' assessments.

Maintaining order in the forum and respect between posters, mods, and admins are still the paramount goals of this forum.

I now consider this case closed and hope the forum returns to normal soon.

Peace.

Originally posted by Thunderfall
I hope you all see that while I did overruled AoA in this case, I didn't disagreed with him completely -- I just reduced the penalty from 1 week to 3 days. And the reason for this is obvious: I just thought 1 week ban is too harsh and still do.


You just don't get it. You have impowered you mods to make decisions on you behalf. If you have a problem with a decision... deal with them. DON'T HANG THEM OUT TO DRY IN PUBLIC.
Half the problem here is because of your actions. You gave credibility to the whiners by disagreeing with a mod publically.
As suggested by another poster, you should have discussed it with him first... and then shown him the courtesy of allowing him to state in pulbic that HE might have been a little harsh and reduced the sentence.

Your post just insures that nobody needs to take YOUR mods very seriously in the future. They now know they can come whine to you.


I also hope what I said in this thread don't give you the wrong impression that I consider AoA a bad mod.

That's the EXACT impression you gave with your post.


I hope mods will just *recommend* duration of bans in the future and let me decide the exact length. Chance is I probably will only disagree with maybe 5% of mods' assessments.

Then why bother to have mods if you don't trust them. If you are going to decide exact length... do away with mods. You obviously don't respect the mods you have put in place.


Maintaining order in the forum and respect between posters, mods, and admins are still the paramount goals of this forum.


Then show the same level of respect to your mods that you expect back in return.

I must agree on this. I would not have replied as strongly as Ming, but I do agree the whole thing should have been handled differently from the get go.

Edited for a misspelling

Originally posted by floppa21
I would not have replied as strongly as Ming


You must forgive my passion on this subject... but it is something I take very personally.

As somebody who is also on the firing line every day... I know I must have the support of my management if I'm to do the job I'm tasked with. If I didn't have the support I needed... I would just quit. My time is my own. I give it freely because I support the efforts and time put in by owners of gaming sites.

But I just couldn't sit back after reading TF's post.
While I respect this site and TF... I was appalled at what I read.

As I said, I will say no more on this case.

Ok guys, I agreed it was a mistake to disagree with AoA publicly. I will avoid doing that in the future. :)

Other than that, I maintain the 1 week ban is too harsh.

Hakan will be unbanned later tonight. I hope we can forget this incident after that.

Really case closed now. :)