Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Tsk, tsk...I think some of you missed the joke. For those of you who didn't know Knight Dragon has been gobbled up by the monster known as Worlds of Warcraft eons ago. You can now go back to your regularly scheduled program.
 
The WoW servers must've been down.
 
Well, they're not as well known. This i probably the first time someone mention them in CFC.

The thing is that The website which shall not be named has numerous brethren and spin-offs so censoring only The website which shall not be named does ab-so-lute-ly nothing to stop the "mature content" problem...
 
How's the motion to remove <a certain website> from the auto-censor list...?

The thing about this particular website is that despite the content, it is one that people generally like to link to. If something is some mind-numbingly hilarious that gets posted there, and you absolutely MUST tell everyone about it, download it, stick it on imagebucket or something, then post it (provided that it is within what we allow to be posted, and there is no clue as to where it came from).

This is a family-friendly site. I will not have people making references that are likely to encourage children and teenagers to go exploring such a website, when it generally has no problem with bestiality or even child pornography (let alone normal pornography). This is NOTHING NEW. We have a one-click rule, that people may not link to any website that contains objectionable content. Those other derivative website? They are covered by that rule. I really don't see what people are complaining about here. I won't allow discussion of any other pornography websites, either.
 
How many other sites that allow pedophilia and bestiality would you like to link to so that children can go see it?

Censoring the word does nothing to stop that; people can always rehost the images. This isn't solving the problem, but rather making the problem more pervasive as there would be more sources of the things you mentioned.

Why isn't enforcing the ban on such content with auto-bans strong enough?
 
Censoring the word does nothing to stop that; people can always rehost the images. This isn't solving the problem, but rather making the problem more pervasive as there would be more sources of the things you mentioned.

Why isn't enforcing the ban on such content with auto-bans strong enough?
I edited to clarify.
 
We have a one-click rule, that people may not link to any website that contains objectionable content.

This is all fine and good, but again, why isn't enforcing the ban on such content with auto-bans strong enough? If someone posts contraband material he or she would get a hefty penalty. If several transgressions occur it's the permaban. What's wrong with that?
 
This is all fine and good, but again, why isn't enforcing the ban on such content with auto-bans strong enough? If someone posts contraband material he or she would get a hefty penalty. If several transgressions occur it's the permaban. What's wrong with that?

It is not about people posting the content here. People come to CFC to discuss Civilization, and maybe drop into the off-topic forums or humor & jokes. They may see things that interest them posted, that link to another website. They may be curious and go to that website. In most cases, its fine.

My son / daughter was on your website and someone there sent them to go look at a pornography website
.

We're not going to be put in that position. I'm sorry, but I am simply not going to change my mind on this one. People may not agree - I get that. But in the big scheme of things, I don't see why its such a big deal. Its not a huge inconvenience.
 
Seeing as this topic must require a specific thread to be discussed and it would be inappropriate to have this discussion in other threads, I'd like to ask about the record of infractions maintained for users.

To be clear, we are talking about infractions and warnings which are:
"expired"
"have zero active points"

or anything synonymous/equivalent to that.

Now, is there any specific reason this record exists? Is it easier or default in software or was it specifically set this way? It seems confirmed from a lot of recent clarification that the rules on, say, bans, means this record has zero effect. A history of 200 infractions does not change the 8 ACTIVE points needed for a ban, for instance. Likewise, there appears to be no method/indication that any expired infractions could ever become active again or have any other effect, and indeed they do not even allow a user to see records of the actual posts/infractions indefinitely.

We have had conflicting answers from moderators as to whether the record factors into the actual "process of giving infractions" - some have implied that a longer history of infractions means infractions will be more readily given out to that same poster. Is this true or not? Does it relate to additional factors like join date or number of posts? (since a mathematical/silly rule could lead to, say, newly registered accounts being given no infractions without extreme difficulty due to lacking a history, so it would have to be based off of individual human preference to start) It would be nice to know what is or is not the case here. Also, I do no know, having never had one myself, if "bans" have their own record sheet - do they?

In one related query - is there a way for a user to view the full list of either of the above? I'm not sure how a user can even currently view the full "record of infractions" FOR HIS/HER OWN ACCOUNT even though it exists, and of course I don't know if any record/history of bans is viewable.
 
Users who have been around longer should know the rules better, right? Thus they are more likely to receive an infraction (I would think)...especially if they have a history of committing the same offense.

Just because the points expire doesn't mean the history doesn't matter when a moderator weighs their moderating decisions. Of course, a history where one had several infractions, and then none for a very long time, would probably look positively upon the poster in questions, so it can go both ways.
 
I'm sorry, were you formerly a moderator or something or do you have links to official statements where the moderators actually clarified this? A poster's opinion on how the moderators "might" take "history" into account isn't a great answer if we don't know what the answer really is.

Also, that doesn't answer why/why not a user is/isn't allowed to actually see *his own* whole "record"
 
Now now, be nice to Moss. He pretty much has it right.

Try going to your user profile page. Get there by clicking on your avatar in one of your posts. I'm not sure where, but you should see them there.
 
I'm sorry, were you formerly a moderator or something or do you have links to official statements where the moderators actually clarified this? A poster's opinion on how the moderators "might" take "history" into account isn't a great answer if we don't know what the answer really is.

Also, that doesn't answer why/why not a user is/isn't allowed to actually see *his own* whole "record"

No, not formerly a mod...I've just been here waaaaaay tooo long. ;)

As an alternative to Turner's method, if you click the MyAccount link (next to where it says Home and right below the forum navigation at the top of the screen), your infractions are the first thing that show up.

Where can I access my sent PMs?

Click on your inbox, and then click the drop-down menu...however, for sent messages to be saved you have to have clicked the "save a copy of this message" box when you sent the PM.

 
Try going to your user profile page. Get there by clicking on your avatar in one of your posts. I'm not sure where, but you should see them there.

You can't view the records on posts or threads moved to who knows where though. Like do we even know if records of deleted/archived threads/posts exist somewhere, or just the record of an infraction? Not knowing what one got infracted for means this is still pretty worthless from the user's point of view.

And I'm still not clear what's been clarified on how moderators actually use this list. If they're supposed to use it surely they should look through a user's history or something each time a post is reported for Spam for instance? If moderators just go off of what they remember for the past month or two might as well not have a real record going back years anyway.
 
You can't view the records on posts or threads moved to who knows where though. Like do we even know if records of deleted/archived threads/posts exist somewhere, or just the record of an infraction? Not knowing what one got infracted for means this is still pretty worthless from the user's point of view.

And I'm still not clear what's been clarified on how moderators actually use this list. If they're supposed to use it surely they should look through a user's history or something each time a post is reported for Spam for instance? If moderators just go off of what they remember for the past month or two might as well not have a real record going back years anyway.
Deleted posts are visible to mods but to the best of my knowledge not tallied anywhere so that they can be linked to specific users. Reported posts are all in the reported post forum and listed in the order they are reported. Recycled threads are kept in the recycled bin. All infractions are kept in the Infraction forum.

Every infraction and warning is accompanied by a pm to the offender with the details of the infraction. If you save yours, then you have a completed record. For me all users fall into one of three groups; new posters, old posters and those who are chronic rule breakers. New posters are easily identified and get the benefit of the doubt, the chronic "problems" are well known and get less leniency; everyone else is an "old poster" and rarely cause trouble. I use the list to help determine just how hard to bang the hammer down. 75 infractions in 24 months is not a sterling record. it averages 3 a month or one every 10 days. You 'd think they get the message.

We easily get 50-60 or more reported posts a day. 75% (not counting spam bots) are the same group of posters every day. We don't need to check records and ascertain if they have a history of spamming or trolling. We know, as well as, they know, the game they play. If we need to search, we can and everything we might need is available.
 
What is the user threshold for the forums before we start seeing the "Server is Busy" message presently (I have a hunch that it would increase any time a server upgrade is done or something)?
 
Are there any future server plans to improve the reliability so we don't see the "servers are busy" messages?
 
Top Bottom