The Joys of Overzealous Moderators

[elmokki]

The rule system is hillariously retarded. There is a detailed list of rules and then basically "We may ban anyone permanently should we feel like it".

I do understand if someone does something that obviously crosses the line, but at least for my sense of general internet forum behavior the line here is placed so that I have absolutely no idea what crosses the line. Not that I believe I have a high chance to get banned from anything I post apart from maybe my posts in this thread since it isn't A HARMONOUS CONTENT THREAD. Seriously, if someone crosses whatever random line Shrapnel's forum moderation has pulled out from their place of harmony, ban them for a week and tell them the reason unless it's something that's absolutely obviously intentional and very offensive. Then if they don't stop it for at least a decent time go ahead and ban them forever.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Explain me this one thing. Why are the rules so important people? I don't get it.

Okay. Let's start with the basics.

I don't have a right to post in this forum. You don't have a right to post in this forum. None of us do, save the Shrapnel staff. It is, effectively, a private club. And in a private club, you follow the rules regardless of whether you like them or not. Now, why is that, you ask?

Because I have entered a voluntary agreement, whereby in return for agreeing to follow the forum rules on this particular private forum (the price), I am extended the privilege of posting here (the benefit).

If I violate the forum rules consciously, then I violate my given word.

Which is something I will not do.

If I no longer wish to adhere to my side of the agreement or if I cannot in good conscience do so because I disagree with the rules, then I will no longer post in the forum.

This argument is good enough for me.

The question to you is then, given that you, too, have voluntarily entered this agreement, knowing full well what you agreed to as it was presented to you to read before joining and having all the time in the world to reread the agreement later on, why is obeying the forum rules not important to you?

[Anaconda]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Explain me this one thing. Why are the rules so important people? I don't get it.

This extremely - I underline extremely - good book on the topic; why rules are important and why it is very important people voluntarily follow them:

http://www.schneier.com/book-lo.html



The Finnish review said if there were Nobel Security Price, this time it would go to Bruce Schneier and, having read the book, I second that.

The list of notable (readable) reviews here, the Finnish review among them:
http://www.schneier.com/book-lo-reviews.html

[rdonj]

Originally Posted by Peter Ebbesen

Okay. Let's start with the basics.

I don't have a right to post in this forum. You don't have a right to post in this forum. None of us do, save the Shrapnel staff. It is, effectively, a private club. And in a private club, you follow the rules regardless of whether you like them or not. Now, why is that, you ask?

Because I have entered a voluntary agreement, whereby in return for agreeing to follow the forum rules on this particular private forum (the price), I am extended the privilege of posting here (the benefit).

If I violate the forum rules consciously, then I violate my given word.

Which is something I will not do.

If I no longer wish to adhere to my side of the agreement or if I cannot in good conscience do so because I disagree with the rules, then I will no longer post in the forum.

This argument is good enough for me.

The question to you is then, given that you, too, have voluntarily entered this agreement, knowing full well what you agreed to as it was presented to you to read before joining and having all the time in the world to reread the agreement later on, why is obeying the forum rules not important to you?

If shrapnel sets rules that it intends for us to follow, and it tells us what action it will take if we don't follow their rules, and they ignore that and just do whatever the hell they feel like, there is no sense of order whatsoever. Especially this whole business of not bothering to inform a person why they've been banned is nonsense.

As stated earlier there is no good reason to be banning calahan right now as opposed to times when he actually did something. In fact banning him at this point is sheer stupidity, regardless of whatever reasons shrapnel things they had to ban him. But what else is new.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Anaconda

This extremely - I underline extremely - good book on the topic; why rules are important and why it is very important people voluntarily follow them:

Very nice. Added to my Dom3Minions.com store.
http://astore.amazon.com/dom3minions...ail/1118143302

[quantum_mechani]

I'm honestly not sure why we are even talking about rules in this context. Obviously, Shrapnel can and does do whatever they feel like with regards to moderation. If Mr. Parker decided to instantly and permanently ban people for, lets say, calling anything under-powered, and that's what Shrapnel wanted then that would be fine and dandy. They wouldn't even have to make an explicit rule about it, much like arguments for legalizing necrophilia or cocaine*, we can simply say what people choose to do in their own time on their own property is their business.

What I think confuses so many people though, is the why. If we take at face value Shrapnel's claim to be promoting a vibrant and harmonious community, some actions seem hard to fathom. I can see very little reason, for example, to refrain from even the briefest of warnings or explanations on bannings. Or why temporary bans seem so seldom used as opposed to permanent ones. These sorts of tools seem easy enough, and indeed as far as I'm aware are used on the fast majority of internet forums.


*I mean to neither support nor disrespect such arguments.

[Bat/man]

...unless it's something that's absolutely obviously intentional and very offensive.

Except that it obviously was intentional and very offensive. Cal made posts in a variety of threads expressly for the purpose of harassing people, including game threads. And not just once - often. It was frequent and flagrant abuse.

Calling someone a "douchebag" for being wrong about game mechanics is inappropriate. Defeat the idea, prove it wrong. Enjoy the presentation of ideas and their merits. Discuss the game. Doing it often is grounds for being banned.

For the record, AFAIK I had nothing to do with his being banned. I didn't report it, I didn't request it, I'm relatively late finding out about it.

But baiting people, harassing them, and maligning them is against the forum rules; claiming that this is anything other than a textbook example of why shrapnel has that statement in their TOS is just willful ignorance.

As for "why now" - I suspect because the administrators here have other things to do. Selling games. Raising families. Whatever. And that they check in to moderate threads infrequently.

I suspect the same reason contributes to why Cal didn't get warned. Presumably no one monitored the threads for a long period of time; by the time someone did a large body of posts were established to show that this was repeat and flagrant behaviour; not the kind of behavior they wanted, and unlikely to be fixed by infractions.

[parone]

well, this sure is a lot of wrangling.

i just don't get this: when callahan stepped in for me, a member was systematically misrepresenting things that i said, taking them apart piece meal, and trying to paint me as a person who had serious mental issues, confidence problems, and a mild form of multi personality disorder. it literally got bad enough that i considered quiting the forum altogether.

that's ok.

but...whatever callahan did, none of us can even figure it out? and he IS banned?

i think the problem here might be a lack of transparency by the moderaters.

[Hrum]

Originally Posted by Anaconda

This extremely - I underline extremely - good book on the topic; why rules are important and why it is very important people voluntarily follow them:

http://www.schneier.com/book-lo.html

From the end of the IEEE Spectrum review, the link to which is listed on Schneier's site:

"In other words, sometimes rule breakers are a threat to society, and sometimes they are its best hope. If that sounds like Thomas Jefferson’s "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it," we can still thank Schneier for updating this eternal truth for a digital age."

I would agree with this. Yes, rules are important, but there is a reason why it is preferrable to have them applied by a human intelligence that can make a judgement call, that can see gradations, that can interpret grey areas. Shrapnel is doing that, and to the extent that they do it correctly that's great. The problem is that there are a lot of us who are pointing to some very high profile instances when many of us feel that they got it wrong. This is one of those instances.

In this case, re: the banning of Calahan, I am in agreement with others here - I would like to know why Shrapnel banned Calahan. Based on what I've seen of his postings here, Calahan may have given the admins the justification they needed to do so, but there's no question in my mind that his contributions to the community outweigh any offense he may have given. Couldn't some warning have been given? Why can't there be an intermediate step between ignoring borderline behavior and a permaban?

Isn't that passive aggressive? Ignore the rule bending of certain major contributors to the community for months or years and then one day snap and ban them permanently without warning?

[Bat/man]

But I do agree that Shrapnel could spend more time in the forums. Pruning weeding, planting little stakes helps promote a good garden. Doing the same in a forum helps make sure everyone knows the rules and we don't lose interest - either from flame wars - or a forum dwindling away due to disinterest.