This is friggin ridiculous!!!

[Becka]

Here here, starlifter! An eleqent post indeed!

 

[Fez_Monk]

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.

 

[Thunderfall]

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...

 

[philippe]

congats starlifter for your post where i tottaly agree with!

 

[Kilroy]

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.

 

[Kilroy]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Kilroy]

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.

 

[duke o' york]

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.

 

[Shabbaman]

I've read this thread with great interest. My initial reaction was something like WTH, 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.

 

[starlifter]

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 .

 

[starlifter]

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.

 

[starlifter]

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.

 

[floppa21]

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.

 

[starlifter]

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.

 

[Ming]

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".

 

[Graeme the mad]

'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'

 

[Dell19]

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!

 

[Thunderfall]

*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.

 

[Ming]

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.