donsig
Low level intermediary
So does that mean your recent posts (which are not in red) in the MSDG telling us to re-write our constitution are not you posting as moderator?
Civ 3 demo game mods
- Thread starter donsig
- Start date
So does that mean your recent posts (which are not in red) in the MSDG telling us to re-write our constitution are not you posting as moderator?
I understand that that is your point of view, but it doesn't make it right. And even if it was right, that was not the way to deal with it.
You know this is the case... So much so that you knew to mimic it.
Goonie was the first to post in the thread with just a vote, at what point is he to tell people that it shouldn't happen anymore? I don't know how vocal the Mods were in this decision before hand, but once it is made, it needs to be listened to, even if people don't agree. There are ways to get things changed, but direct conflict is not the way and can result in a ban.
They actually did present some information that may affect how people vote. It was not a simple guilty/innocent vote, but showed a section of the game that related to the inquiry. They should not have included their vote in the posts either, that looks to be why they were edited out by a Mod. It looks like they were not singled out becasue by the time aother Mod had come by and posted, there were actually several posts more.
A mod had already stated what was allowed or not allowed, Goonie questioned it, a poster clairified it for him, he continued to question it, a poster clarified it for him, then he was warned. He, just like very other poster knows that the Mod for the ofrum handles what happens. He is not able to interpret what it right and wrong for the forum based on his own ideas.
I have always been fair and honest when I was modding the Demo games. In my opinion, the ban for donsig was valid. It was an obvious attempt to mimic a Mods post.
If it was me, the only thing I woud have done differently was that I would have tried to post the new requirement before anyone else had posted their vote. If that had happened and Goonie made the posts he did after I had posted the new requirement, he may have been banned as well. Since it didn't happen that way, he was only warned.
If people are taking things personally, then that needs to get worked out by PM, but not in the forums.
If the thread that was referred to is being used as an example, then I see no real problems with it. The Mods were trying to keep the thread from blowing up the way the previous one had.
donsig
Low level intermediary
eyrei said this in his second warning after someone had asked what could be posted in the thread:
Neither Strider nor CivGeneral added anything *new*. Then Chieftess (who was the one the guilty / not guilty poll was about) steps in and warns Goonie (not Goonie, Strider and CivGeneral) and says no further discussions! That is incredible! One more post four hours later by someone who does not even say anything about the voting yet he says
Which draws the third Mod (Shaitan) to post. He talked of Chiftess's *advice* but said nothing of her command to halt discussion. Shaitan talked of tempers being high. What tempers were high? Goonie made a post saying how he voted. Big deal. If eyrei had not acted to stifle the content of our posts there would have been no flame war. We would have all posted our views and gone on with life. There was no need for him to douse a fire that was not there especially the way he did it. eyrei was tired of the investigation process and wanted it over. He was too close to the game to use fair judgement in his moderating. Chieftess really made a mockery of our investigation process by using her mod authority to stop a debate in an investigation of herself!
I am not saying my ban was invalid. I did my time and came back and started this discussion in an effort to play by the forum rules. This discussion is about the problems I see with having players in the demogame also be referees in the demogame. I do not agree that we need mods who are all that familiar with the demo game rules. We do not need mods to enforce our demo game rules as we have a process in place to do that. The moderators really only need be aware of the forum rules since those are the rules they are there to enforce.
Here is the previous one. The one's with the tempers are Cyc, eyrei and Shaitan. The three of them have an arguement in one thread and that means eyrei has to stop the rest of us from posting how we voted in a different thread, a practice we have been following for a year now? No, his moderator action was uncalled for and I really think a moderator who was not so involved in the game would not have stepped into that thread the way eyrei did. If moderators are supposed to stop arguments in the forums then they should not be participating in them!
donsig, if I were an univolved moderator, I would have vetoed PIs altogether. They do technically break the forum rules, and they bring about little more than a chance for people to flame each other. I have always done my best to try to tone the arguments down, but the last set of 6 PIs severely disrupted the game. I did what I thought necessary to try to put an end to it. The only thing I would have changed is the firmness of the warning I issued in that thread, and that I would have made stronger.
Oh, and the reason donsig got a ban was not because he disobeyed what I admit to being a slightly out of the ordinary moderator warning, but because he mocked it. That is also the reason noone else got banned in that thread.
Oh, and the reason donsig got a ban was not because he disobeyed what I admit to being a slightly out of the ordinary moderator warning, but because he mocked it. That is also the reason noone else got banned in that thread.
You are simply going to have to get over this. The instant I am told I cannot participate in discussions in the forum I am moderating, I will resign as a moderator. I am pretty certain most of the other moderators feel the same way. It is a thankless, difficult and frustrating job, and we are not paid money for it. It becomes more difficult when certain posters decide that they know everything, are the perfect internet psychologists, and that any minor misstep by a moderator is reason enough for whining and complaining. If you can't deal with authority figures, that is your own problem. Don't try to force it on others, and don't try to sow discontent because of it.
I don't know if what they added was new or not, but they were discussing information and showed an understanding that they shouldn't be posting their vote. Goonie did not, in fact he challenged it. That is why he was singled out in the warning. As far as saying no further discussions, it seems to me like she was acknowledging what Cyc had said; things should have been discussed earlier, so there was no need for futehr discussion. True, she was the target of the investigation, but that does not keep people from voting and the discussion had already taken place.
Again, it looks like it was an attempt from the Mods to keep the thread from becoming like the previous thread. What you feel was their reasoning and motive is your own, but again, it doesn't make it fact.
Goonie had mentioned that he felt your ban was not valid, so that is why it was addressed. And, yes, you do need Mods to run the game. Not everyone interprets the 'rules' the same way. The Mods are there to make sure they are done consistantly and fairly. I know I tried to let the game run on it's own for the most part, but I had to step in many times to handle 'game' issues.
Things change. Obviously not all the earlier threads had blown up into a heated discussion, so that changed, since that changed, the Mods felt a rule change may help to Allleviate that.
The Mods do need to be involved in the game, but they should know when things directly involve them that it might be best to let the other Mods handle some situations.
Mr. Duke. You are saying we need mods to enforce our rules now?! That is going to far! We have an 'elected' judiciary in place for that.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45355
Please refer to the end of that thread where eyrei ends a discussion. He is ending a discussion on a very important matter! Why, because he seems to be the only one with his view and he does not want opposing views to be shared! I agree with the first part of his 'red', but not his second. He is killing the discussion on an issue that needs to be discussed. He is not letting us follow our own constitution.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45355
Please refer to the end of that thread where eyrei ends a discussion. He is ending a discussion on a very important matter! Why, because he seems to be the only one with his view and he does not want opposing views to be shared! I agree with the first part of his 'red', but not his second. He is killing the discussion on an issue that needs to be discussed. He is not letting us follow our own constitution.
So do I. We are letting you follow your own constitution, however, some things must stay in line with the forum rules. How would you feel if we saw you only had 1 post and said "Who's this Goonie? He's only got one post! He must be a spy. Let's not let him in just yet...". It's creating a mass hysteria witch hunt, and isn't looking at the facts. Besides, there's more than enough exploits in a PBEM that you don't even NEED a spy.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Did I say you (or anyone else) shouldn't be able to participate in discussions? No, eyrei - read what I said:
]
Note the use of the word argument as opposed to discussion. Your whole point is that you felt you had to step into that poll thread and prevent a flame war like in the previous poll thread. You were flaming as much as anyone else in that first thread and you were one of the first to do so! Your own actions made a mockery of your mod warning in the second poll.
If the moderating job is so thankless and frustrating for you eyrei then you should consider giving it up and just play the game.
BTW, you still have not answered my question about your posts in the MSDG.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Goonie, in retrospect, I see the debated clause as unnecesary. Assuming the other games are as honest as we are, we should have no problems.
Further, I have no objection to our moderators taking an active role in the democracy game. You have to admit, when arguements occur, we tend to have some looseness in the enforcment of the rules. It is Thunderfall's grace that allows us to even have these forums. Therefore, we must follow his rules.
Further, I have no objection to our moderators taking an active role in the democracy game. You have to admit, when arguements occur, we tend to have some looseness in the enforcment of the rules. It is Thunderfall's grace that allows us to even have these forums. Therefore, we must follow his rules.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Goonie,
The problem here is that you and the Multi Site game seem to have lost sight of your position in the big picture. Your constititutions, rules, and procedures are at most the equivalent of a state constititution or a city charter and these rules are absolutely subservient to the site rules for the CivFanatics Center as a whole.
It is not possible for you to make up rules that put you in conflict with the site rules. That would be unconstitutional. The interpretation of these issues is up to the site administrator and the forum moderators and not subject to debate of a vote within you small segment of the world.
If your concpets of what you want to do stay within the site rules, you are given wide latitude. If you take you role playing games into directions that violate the site rules and the expected standards of conduct then it is the responsibility of the mods to intervene.
eyrei, is absolutely right on track with his interpretation that your proposed little bitty "constitution" would conflict with the site rules.
This is not a matter for a vote but an issue that you need to address internally. The options are that you would stay within the site rules or that additional intervention would be required to institute changes in leadership or to restructure the MultiSite concept to use communication processes that do not need to violate the site rules.
The problem here is that you and the Multi Site game seem to have lost sight of your position in the big picture. Your constititutions, rules, and procedures are at most the equivalent of a state constititution or a city charter and these rules are absolutely subservient to the site rules for the CivFanatics Center as a whole.
It is not possible for you to make up rules that put you in conflict with the site rules. That would be unconstitutional. The interpretation of these issues is up to the site administrator and the forum moderators and not subject to debate of a vote within you small segment of the world.
If your concpets of what you want to do stay within the site rules, you are given wide latitude. If you take you role playing games into directions that violate the site rules and the expected standards of conduct then it is the responsibility of the mods to intervene.
eyrei, is absolutely right on track with his interpretation that your proposed little bitty "constitution" would conflict with the site rules.
This is not a matter for a vote but an issue that you need to address internally. The options are that you would stay within the site rules or that additional intervention would be required to institute changes in leadership or to restructure the MultiSite concept to use communication processes that do not need to violate the site rules.
Yep, that's what I am saying. I'm not saying that they are there to enforce the rules alone, but they are there to make sure everyone follows all of the game and forum rules, including the 'elected' judiciary.
There are times in the game where the players may vote and approve something. However, if the Mods feel this violates a forum rule or may hamper the game, they can veto it. No matter what people may think, they are in charge of the game. Not who is elected President, not the judiciary, not someone who is organizing some aspect of the game.
If you don't like what a Mod has done, PM them and ask for an explination. If you feel the explination isn't valid, open a thread in Site Feedback.
donsig
Low level intermediary
We are aware that our rules for the MSDG cannot conflict with CFC rules. One article of our constitution is:
Article K: The constitution, laws and standards of Fanatikou can never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such constitutional amendments, laws or standards.
eyrei has said we have to rewrite the following article:
Article A: All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of Fanatikou, subject to the approval of the Judiciary. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to demand satisfaction and the right to vote.
Due to the nature of the MSDG we have a secure subforum that not everyone can see. In order for new players to gain access to the secure sub-forum they must be added to our roster and someone (TF?) must do something in order to allow them to see the sub-forum. Our intent in writing article A is simply to recognize that other teams may want to spy on our secure forum and we would like a means to prevent that if possible. The teams in the MSDG have all agreed to keep their team rosters public. We would like to be able to check new team applicants against the rosters of the other teams to look for duplicates before adding new members. We realize this system will not catch those determined to dupe us but it is something we would like to do nonetheless. Is such a system against CFC rules? I do not think so.
Unfortunately, we have gotten off on the wrong foot on this issue and some threads were opened to discuss whether individual posters were spies. I think we in the MSDG regret this and I for one have worked to stop it. I also think that is eyrei's main concern and he is correct in that. But eyrei goes too far when he says we have to rewrite article A. Article A does not say we have to start threads about any one. I think article A can be left in place and we can set up a system (as I outlined above) that satisfies both our constitution as written and CFC's rules.
I would much rather have had this discusison in the MSDG sub-forum but eyrei issued this warning:
Had I posted the above comments there I would have been banned once again. My comments are not inflammatory, insulting or spamming. I do not see how they would violate CFC rules. I see no reason for eyrei to stifle this discussion in this way. I have pmmed eyrei the post I would have made in reply to his warning. I really do not see the need to have to pm him and then come to site feedback to post about his modding when the discussion could take place in the pertinent thread.
Article K: The constitution, laws and standards of Fanatikou can never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such constitutional amendments, laws or standards.
eyrei has said we have to rewrite the following article:
Article A: All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of Fanatikou, subject to the approval of the Judiciary. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to demand satisfaction and the right to vote.
Due to the nature of the MSDG we have a secure subforum that not everyone can see. In order for new players to gain access to the secure sub-forum they must be added to our roster and someone (TF?) must do something in order to allow them to see the sub-forum. Our intent in writing article A is simply to recognize that other teams may want to spy on our secure forum and we would like a means to prevent that if possible. The teams in the MSDG have all agreed to keep their team rosters public. We would like to be able to check new team applicants against the rosters of the other teams to look for duplicates before adding new members. We realize this system will not catch those determined to dupe us but it is something we would like to do nonetheless. Is such a system against CFC rules? I do not think so.
Unfortunately, we have gotten off on the wrong foot on this issue and some threads were opened to discuss whether individual posters were spies. I think we in the MSDG regret this and I for one have worked to stop it. I also think that is eyrei's main concern and he is correct in that. But eyrei goes too far when he says we have to rewrite article A. Article A does not say we have to start threads about any one. I think article A can be left in place and we can set up a system (as I outlined above) that satisfies both our constitution as written and CFC's rules.
I would much rather have had this discusison in the MSDG sub-forum but eyrei issued this warning:
Had I posted the above comments there I would have been banned once again. My comments are not inflammatory, insulting or spamming. I do not see how they would violate CFC rules. I see no reason for eyrei to stifle this discussion in this way. I have pmmed eyrei the post I would have made in reply to his warning. I really do not see the need to have to pm him and then come to site feedback to post about his modding when the discussion could take place in the pertinent thread.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Donsig ,just give it up.Keep youre oppinion ,that aint no problem ,but you are clearly convincing noone here ,so this discussion aint constructive.This thread will serve noone ,all it can create is conflict.
Be a man ,take the situation as it is.We all gave to give in from time to time.
Be a man ,take the situation as it is.We all gave to give in from time to time.
donsig
Low level intermediary
OK.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Wise decission ,people will respect you for it.
As I had mentioned before, people interpret the constitution differently. You may not see it where threads about people need to be started, but others may see it that they can start threads about others. Slight differences in interpretations, but they can lead to very different results.
eyrei is not saying that Article A needs to be removed, but rewritten.... reworded so that others who come in later, who were not part of this whole discussion have a better idea what is and what is not expected of them.
eyrei is not saying that Article A needs to be removed, but rewritten.... reworded so that others who come in later, who were not part of this whole discussion have a better idea what is and what is not expected of them.
Just to set the record straight, I believe you badly misinterpreted this. I did not say you could not discuss reasonable means of dealing with the problem of spies and/or rewriting that clause. The warning was for those who would question the fact that I even dared to issue a warning, and most of all, to prevent any of those ridiculous witch hunt threads from being started while we work this out. My intent was not to stifle discussion on the issue, and I have not.
TheDuckOfFlanders
the fish collecter
Ok OK ,all people had they're say and hopefully it wil lead to some change's that will prevent these conflict's from ever again occuring.That said ,can we close this matter now?
