The Joys of Overzealous Moderators

[llamabeast]

Soy: Being as the intent there is clearly helpful I think it's fine.

Everyone: Sorry about this. It's a bit of an awkward spot for Edi and I. I've been a busy unfortunately but thanks are owed to Edi for greatly improving the situation (whether or not it's obvious). In future I believe Shrapnel would like to get more moderators on board, and hopefully it will be possible to avoid direct action by Shrapnel staff if there are sufficient active moderators.

[PriestyMan]

Originally Posted by PriestyMan

Okay, but my question is why does Exec get a warning about that, but Calahan didnt get any warning to edit his signature? i'm sure if someone had asked him he would have changed it immediatly

This is all i want to know

[Fantomen]

Thank you Edi for bringing sanity to this discussion, you're a great moderator.

I'll also take the opportunity to apologize for being overly aggressive to Gandalf in this thread, in hindsight that was uncalled for.

But the above declaration of censorship via proxy is some of the most disgusting things I've read here so far. So we can't include the relevant information when we discuss the issue? Consistent? Yeah, ****nels policy is super consistent in treating the community like ****, I'll give them that. (No offense to you Edi.)

If it's about preventing personal abuse wouldn't censoring ***********s name from the quote be enough for that?

Personally I will not censor myself, or adapt my posting to some vaguely repressive policy. Never have, never will. If I feel it appropriate to quote from banned members on dom3mods or Irc I will do so. And hopefully the thought police will be busy at the time, or have a rare outburst of common sense and see that neither me or anyone else are out to harm.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by shonuf

But - the forum administrators are here for the players, right?

You mean moderators or staff?

Fan-based forums are there for the players. To make them better players and weed out the crappy ones. They can become excellent players if they are willing to listen. We have an excellent forum for that and I highly recommend that anyone interested in becoming the best player they can to take a look at that forum.

An official support forum is more to support the game. Everyone who owns the game or wants to own it. They can play it all ways at all levels. Why would they care about crappy players? Maybe even crappy players would be desirable as long as they are happy playing the way they want since they might get their crappy player friends to want the game also.
Or worse yet, even solo players

[elmokki]

It was nice to see transparency about the bans and thanks for that Edi, but it does not change my opinion about the bans: god what bull****.

[jimbojones1971]

While we are talking about banned members, and in the interests of fairness, my understanding (based on chatting to him about it) is that bat/man aka chrisp created his new account because he was unable to log into the old one when he returned after being away for a long time, and despite repeated requests couldn't get the password reset etc.

Now, I can't personally validate this (and don't propose to defend it as this is not my battle - I just think it should be thrown into the mix in the interests of natural justice), but I have certainly had the same experience myself on other forums so its seems very plausible to me.

[Sigil Runestone]

Originally Posted by PriestyMan

This is all i want to know

I think Edi made this clear: Agree with the punishment or not, Calahan's sig seems to havecrossed an obvious forum policy, while Executors actions crossed a much less apparent policy. Therefore Edi, justly, edit the post and clarified the policy.

Please note, I am firmly in the Calahan camp but am just answering the question.

Sigil

[Edi]

Originally Posted by PriestyMan

Okay, but my question is why does Exec get a warning about that, but Calahan didnt get any warning to edit his signature? i'm sure if someone had asked him he would have changed it immediatly

Executor did not get a warning issued against him! His message post just got edited to remove that part and then there was a public explanation of why it was done and an appeal for everyone not to do that in the future. As in, a more a detailed clarification about how the policy is going to be interpreted in the future, but no ex post facto enforcement of said interpretation to past posts (aside from removing the sig quote).

I believe I also explained how things turned out because the moderators were absent. Had I not been absent, I would have asked Calahan to remove the sig, just like llamabeast would have done had he been around. I never had any problems with Calahan when I had to ask him to do something or refrain from doing something, so I agree with you that it would probably have solved the issue.

However, the administrators had to make the decision they did on the information they had, which was not the same information that would have been at my and llamabeast's disposal.

[Micah]

Thanks Edi. You have once again done the best you could with the mess you got handed, and you don't have to worry about your popularity taking a hit in my book, I think we all know the **** has indeed flowed downhill here.

[jimbojones1971]

So are there plans to draft in a few more moderators, to deal with this sort of thing before it escalates up the food chain and leads to outcomes like this?