A little too strict, perhaps?

[King Henry V]

The moderation guidlines in areas such as the Mudpit have recently become very strict. I realise that there have been problems with flaming and such, however, I do believe moderation there has become a little too strict and should be revised somewhat. For instance, an immediate suspension for a first offence is perhaps a bit draconian. A warning is meant to be just that, a warning telling someone that if they do that again they will be punished for it. However, not only are punishments becoming harsher, but they are now being issued more readily. The rule seems to be "when in doubt, ban". To become stricter may be understable, however to do so for borderline offences (i.e offences which could be legal as well as illegal) tends to come off as harsh.
I am not making this statement because I have been a victim of such moderation, but staff should be careful in their actions, as the latter may be driving away some of TWC's best members (I have already spoken to one who say he probably won't come back here after he was suspended for a couple of days).
Oh, and please don't suspend me.

 

[Nicholas Rush]

It is my believe that the rules have been tightened across-the-board, not just in the mudpit. Suspensions for trolling and flaming are justified, in many cases. What seems unusual to me is the uneven pattern of the application of these rules. If the mods are going to suspend, warn or other, a member for writing "idiot", or "moron", "slop" etc., then they should apply that rule to everyone. It is also an issue of fairness.

 

[imb39]

TOh, and please don't suspend me.

I'll consider it... Oh, please, KHV, that was not quite what I would have expected from you.

 

[Tom Paine]

KHV, what you see is public moderation. What you fail to see is lots of behind the scenes PMing, negotiation and similar to frantically avoid suspensions. I dislike giving suspensions out and in almost every case would not do it for a first offence unless the first offence was extremely serious and in obvious and definite breach of the rules of the fora. And I am among the stricter moderators...

 

[Omnipotent-Q]

I half-agree with you. I think the reasons for the warnings seem fine, but the punishments being listed and (I assume) rigidly adhered too doesn't make much sense. There are two fundamentally basic reasons against listing specific punishments in the Political Mudpit rules, and in fact, most forum rules:

• Firstly, someone can look at the punishment for say, a flame, and decide "Ok I know I'll get a caution for it, but it's worth the price". With no punishments listed, then they don't know what they'll get;
• Secondly, rigid punishment lists have no context on the seriousness of rules infringements. It is seemingly the case that someone could get the same punishment for a minor flame such as "you idiot" as someone that has an excessively flame ridden post, such as "you ****ing ****, i ****ed all your family, you suck, i will kill you, you idiot fag moron piece of **** a**wipe". It might be in a moderators judgement and best interest to impose a harsher penalty on the latter, to get the message across that such behaviour is unacceptable....however, if they use said judgement, then people are likely to complain and whine in some "tribunal" that they haven't stuck to the listed punishments and that they've been unfairly treated.

Essentially, on the face of things I've personally see, I think things can vary between too lenient and too harsh, due to rigidly defined punishment guidelines. Guidelines that could be summed up with something along the lines of "Breaking the rules may result in a permanent or temporary ban. You may or may not receive a warning depending on the seriousness of the breach." gets the same message across. If rigid guidelines are needed so moderation is applied in a consistent way, then I'm sure that Albhar-wookie staff forum would do the same job.

Oh, and please don't suspend me.

I'm sure they welcome good constructive criticism

 

[Simetrical]

Guidelines aren't rules, they're a framework that reduces the effect on forum members of what side of bed a moderator happened to get up on this morning. If anyone appeals on the sole basis of the moderator not following the guidelines, in a case that reasonably deserves to be an exception, they will rightfully be told to STFU.

 

[Shaun]

The moderation guidlines in areas such as the Mudpit have recently become very strict. I realise that there have been problems with flaming and such, however, I do believe moderation there has become a little too strict and should be revised somewhat. For instance, an immediate suspension for a first offence is perhaps a bit draconian. A warning is meant to be just that, a warning telling someone that if they do that again they will be punished for it. However, not only are punishments becoming harsher, but they are now being issued more readily. The rule seems to be "when in doubt, ban". To become stricter may be understable, however to do so for borderline offences (i.e offences which could be legal as well as illegal) tends to come off as harsh.
I am not making this statement because I have been a victim of such moderation, but staff should be careful in their actions, as the latter may be driving away some of TWC's best members (I have already spoken to one who say he probably won't come back here after he was suspended for a couple of days).
Oh, and please don't suspend me.

I agree whole heartedly.
Yes, people who flame should be suspended, same with trolling.
But some people with a slightly more agressive nature of posting (eg Ferrets) are also suspended for just that, slightly aggressive posts. Your strict rules are scaring away some of the best debators, the debates are simply too moderated, its not how it used to be.

 

[Tom Paine]

Omni-Q, your assumption is, I'm afraid, wrong. Those rules are not rigidly followed; or more precisely they are because they specifically state moderator discretion is allowed.

Shaun, Ferrets was never punished, especially post-appeal, for anything harsher than any other member. If anything he was given more leeway due t his debating ability.

 

[Omnipotent-Q]

Those rules are not rigidly followed.

Even if the assumption is wrong, as I said, it makes them being there pointless when it can be covered with some generic line about getting banned depending on severity.

Red-tape ain't no fun.....just look at the laws on public nudity for example!

 

[Tom Paine]

But its hardly red tape, Omni-Q; red tape would be bureaucratic systems and loops we were forced to jump through, rather than what this is. Which is just stricter moderator guidelines.

 

[Omnipotent-Q]

But its hardly red tape, Omni-Q; red tape would be bureaucratic systems and loops we were forced to jump through, rather than what this is. Which is just stricter moderator guidelines.

It's red tape.

 

[Tom Paine]

All right. In what manner, specifically, is it red tape?

 

[Omnipotent-Q]

All right. In what manner, specifically, is it red tape?

Red tape: excessive formality and routine before official action can be taken.

Those rules are not rigidly followed

If the rules are not rigidly followed, then the appearance of a punishments list is unnecessary red tape. (I.e. it's a formality that doesn't need to be listed as it isn't used).

The last part of the Terms of Service isn't a do want you like without justifying it clause. It's clearly meant to combat threats of legal action.

The list is also counter-productive in some ways, as I have shown above.

 

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Watch out KHV you might get your rank taken from you.

 

[Tom Paine]

You mean the whole 'demotion' to civitates thing? How many times must we point out that that happened to all Patricians except those confirmed, under a fair vote, as Patricians?

 

[removeduser_426582376423734]

You mean the whole 'demotion' to civitates thing? How many times must we point out that that happened to all Patricians except those confirmed, under a fair vote, as Patricians?

Flaming (Insulting Other Users)
* Insinuations ("Are you stupid or something?") or insults towards family ("Your mom...")

Please don't make insinuations that those who ask these questions are stupid, maybe they didn't see your other posts? Most of us don't look around for them.

 

[Tom Paine]

That wasn't insinuation, that was an honest question... seriously, there have been three or four topics on this. I'll link you some if you want.

 

[removeduser_426582376423734]

*cough*i dont care*cough*

 

[Tom Paine]

So... wait. You are complaining you had your rank taken from you and don't care why?