How many people constitutes everyone? There are 762 users on this site, should they all think its poor? Yes i am exagerating, but how many people? 3? 5? What about cliches that form to defend each other, thus making it useless when they have x amount of people.

Not criticising, just pointing out flaws and looking for answers.

Rule number 14 does not prohibit questioning an administrative decision. It prohibits it from being done in public. The purposed system likely will not change this fact, but instead publicly announce warnings/punishments dished out by the moderators. Should an appeal be necessary, it would also be done in private I'd assume.

That's why I said it should be a private decision, based not only on numbers of votes but on the different arguments put out.





Sheesh. You asked for comments on the system, I'm giving you my opinion on the matter. If you don't want to listen thats your business. Stomp all over the community for all I care, see where it gets you.

You should have got more people to mark no on prop 14. You'll get no sympathy from me.

I don't see where he's stomping on the community by clarifying what the new system is supposed to do. I also fail to see where he's not listening. He obviously read your post and it made him realize that clarification of what the system is, and is/isn't supposed to do was needed.

I think I'm good with a super majority of moderators/admins/whatev reviewing every ban/suspension/lock in retrospect. Knowing that an official review is coming for each one should curtail their use in questionable places. Furthermore, I think the user base being able to lobby independent admins is good enough to sway decisions on their behalf in these situations. And certainly policy as we're already seeing. So to answer your question, like 4 [specific] people currently?

Hmm. What post were you reading?
.. Stomp ..Crunch



… not willing to listen to people…?

To be fair the key word here is public. You can listen to people without it being a public discussion that [for the most part] would use mudbytes and the administration as a punching bag.

… hmm.. ok.. perhaps you are correct.

However, on the other points (not this one), it does not make it an "open" and "transparent" process when it's non-public.

The same one you just chopped up and spliced together. Which I applaud you for, but it fails to make you look like anything but a troll.

Let's look at the same things you quoted but in their entirety, shall we?


That means the new system isn't going to just be a public debate and appeal-fest. Debates of punishments and appeals for removable of punishments would still be handled via PMs.

The rest you actually managed to quote completely.

But either way, as the Administration, they don't have to take our input on the rules. Private forums like this one, are NOT under the jurisdiction of free speech.

The discussion of a rules set was never mentioned as being open or transparent. What was, was the decisions in regards to suspensions/threadlocks/etc.

Someone had better ban me then. To be honest, it was not a troll, I was trying to make a point about why I reacted the way I did. Most people do not react well to being told they will not be listened to, or consulted, or have their issue discussed publically. If they want their issue discussed publically, they should be able to do so without fear of being suspended.


Even if thats not what some people want?



No, they don't HAVE to. But they should be fair. And fairness stems from not only what the admins want, but from what we want. Isn't that what this is all about?

You appear to have missed the entire premise of the system.

It's not to rewrite any of the existing rules, or change the way the site works in any way.

It's to add a moderation layer to the way things already work. So that the Admins can focus more on the site itself, instead of trying to police the forums.

The rules here are perfectly fair. The Admins DO listen. But they do not air dirty laundry in public. Got a dispute? Take it to PMs.

Wanna air your laundry in Public? Take it to TMC. They seem to enjoy things like that over there.

Well, no. They don't have to guarantee any free speech. They could edit our posts retroactively after a thread is locked to make themselves look better if they wanted to. There's no free speech laws broken, still. This would obviously be a bridge too far.

But when you get in this territory you're balancing on an unique-per-user fulcrum with one end of the spectrum that of acceptability with the other ebbing dangerously towards discontent.

So the question I would pose for any policy is, 'Does this policy best serve us or does it best server the users?' The answer should be reflective upon the validity of any policy at face value.

Yeah, about that.. I missed a couple lines or so of that thought thanks to cold meds, and found I didn't care enough to correct it. :P

The issues you indicated were not part of the proposal and were never up for consideration or debate. The only thing being address in this topic is whether or not a new approach to handling things like suspensions should be done in a more transparent manner than we are now. Along with adding a moderator layer to the system. And I think I was being entirely reasonable by asking that the things you keep bringing up should be left out of this, to keep this productive and civil. I'd really like to keep it that way and if you have anything to offer on the actual subject at hand I'm all ears.



Even if that's not what some people want. Arriving at a unanimous decision that involves upwards of 750 people is not possible. So we'll have to make due with what we turn up here.

Nope. I've made my points.

Replying to the first line in the post here. This would be my suggestion of how to handle things when you inevitably must do something when situations arise. I'm reiterating a previous post a little bit but wanted to expand on it while getting this thread back on topic. I'd like a super majority (3/4ths?) of moderators/admins/whatev reviewing every ban/suspension/lock in retrospect with a ruling in private. I think this ruling should then be made public after it's arbitrated with possibly a statement to explain the reasoning. This should let cooler heads prevail. Also, Knowing that an official review is coming for each decision should curtail their use in questionable places and bring a sense of legitimacy that from my perspective is lacking in a private messaging system.

In my opinion, when these situations arise, if anyones decision is above reproach to have the reasoning known publicly then it inherently is a bad decision. A wise man told me once, 'If the truth hurts, it should.' and I still think that's true today.

That would be ducky.

We haven't really made a big deal of it, but that already happens behind the scenes - where it belongs. Suspensions and bans are generally discussed before they take place. Locks often end up needing to go through that afterward just because of the nature of why locks get done. I don't see any reason for that process to be out in the open, I imagine the Nexus folk probably discuss things to some extent behind the scenes too but what we're getting at most here is that the rulings are what would go in the new forum with a brief reason - no need to write novels - and a reference link to the material that brought it about if that's appropriate.

The reason it may not be appropriate to reference something would be in situations where a statement is clearly libelous, bot spam, or violates the rules regarding promoting illegal activities since leaving that sort of thing in place even in a public notice area accomplishes what those types of post set out to do anyway. That obviously means that some instances will require a bit of public trust, but it's my hope that with enough eyes having been on it and with moderators handling this stuff most of the time that we're not going to have to worry about it too much.