Thanks, Samson. Much more nicer, I think.


BTW, I like the new layout.

(unless… it's old, and I just haven't noticed, in which case, (yawn) it's boring an needs to be changed…)

layout looks the same to me

Looks like I missed all the fun during my over-two-week suspension.

I'd tell you why I was suspended even after it was discovered
rule 14 was a stealth add…but I actually do not know why I
was still suspended after it was discovered rule 14 was a
stealth add, so it'll have to remain a mystery.

In any case, apparently I'm back now, and this thread has
left me rather baffled.

Can someone explain to me exactly how this new system works?

Better yet, can it be posted somewhere obvious for newcomers?

This thread maybe?

I did notice that, thx, as well as the updated rules.

What I'm curious about are details such as do I get to express my thoughts on what happened.

What is the public process to contest moderator action?

What is the public process to contest administrator action?

Does this mean admins are no longer moderating?

You know. Stuff beyond "say hello to the new boss".

I'm tired, so I apologise now if my answers aren't 100% accurate.

1. That would depend on the manner you do so, I would imagine.

2. PM any of the three moderators. A post will be made in the thread where the initial decision occured, to the notion that it is being contested/investigated (and I would imagine that the person who is contesting it is listed as well.)

3. See next answer.

4. Yes, the admins are taking a step back from moderating the forums.

Also, http://www.mudbytes.net/index.php?a=arti...


Admins will not be actively moderating the forum but we are still admins on this site and its entirety.

I think my suspension made no sense at all. It was based on a stealth
added rule which was subsequently (apparently) removed. I was fisted
publicly, and I see no reason to avoid discussing it publicly. The
administration lacked the courtesy to explain to me why I was
suspended after the unfairness of the stealth rule was revealed. I
hope the administration has the sense to apologize to me for
the ill treatment. Publicly.



Davion sent me intermud tells in which he told me I'd be unsuspended
last Friday. It didn't happen, and I still don't have an explanation.

This is what private administration does. It lets people make promises
they feel less compelled to fulfill, and doesn't make them particularly
sorry to break them, since they are not public.

There is also the question of differential treatment. Private
administration lets people enforce rules to different degrees based
on things other than the rule being broken.


Thanks.

Was it intentional that the rules article be user-editable?

Generally speaking the new rules look good, although determining what exactly constitutes racism, sexism, bigotry and libel will make your jobs all kinds of interesting considering past comments here. :smile:

It shouldn't be! I protected it. All the links should appear either way, but you shouldn't actually be able to submit something.

Crat,

You've been banned so many times over the years it's hard for a rational person to conclude it's anything but deliberate manipulation on your part. And, it's hard to feel sympathy for someone that's always looking for an excuse to go into grief mode.


You remind me of those guys who step into traffic hoping to get hit so they can sue.

So is this considered:


Or is this too mild? Too what extent will the moderators mod things? Does have to be like a blatant 'F YOU'?

I have nothing against Sandi and find Crat rather harmless, but just kinda seeing what the boundries are. I don't ever think that I would get modded for any of these, but it's nice to know the limits.

To address some of Cratylus' concerns… and let me clarify this is my view on the matter, and may or may not reflect the view of the other Moderators or Administrators.

I think the changes that have been made in regards to adding moderators, changing the rules, and the general shift in policy is an attempt to "fix" some things that the Admins and the users have seen as being in need of fixing. Particularly with the lack of response or notification to you personally and to the rest of the site, I believe these changes should keep something like that from happening again. It is my intention to do what I can in regards to being as responsive as I can be, and be as public about any moderation I do as is appropriate. It is also my intention to take to heart the concerns that the users might have in regards to moderation, such as Flumpy's concerns about not being replied to when expressing a concern. I was hoping that by the suspensions being lifted, it might serve as a bit of an olive branch and a show of good faith that we might be able to move past the past couple of weeks and look ahead to what lies ahead of us. A lot is still being ironed out, so there may not be a definitive answer to a lot of questions in the coming couple of weeks, but I'll do my best to respond as best I can and find answers when I don't have them. Probably the more questions asked and the more we have to clarify, the clearer our paths and policy will become even to us as well. Which leads me to…




I could tell you how I personally feel, but this is one of those things that we probably still need to discuss at length to determine as close as we can where we draw the line between someone being very blunt with another poster and someone flaming another poster. I imagine the last thing we need are three individuals moderating based on their own interpretations of the rules and there being no consistency in the way the site is being moderated (which I believe has been part of some people's concerns). So… I hope to be able to get back to you on this.

I believe this is the response I was seeking. Thanks HK. Looking forward to what else you will have to say.

It's hard to understand what site policy is when people give personal opinions that don't reflect what other moderators think. I realize that it's difficult for you, or any other moderator, to speak for the entire team, but please try to understand that from the other perspective, we need to understand what the official policy is and not what one staff member's personal opinion is (although that opinion is of course valuable in other ways).

I understand that. I also understand the responsibility, expectation, and scrutiny that will be placed on anything I say that even appears as a comment on moderation or policy, and I intend on doing my best to be careful with that. I also understand that at least for a while, the other users will be closely watching everything we do or say on the subject to try to get an idea on how we are going to moderate things. That bit that in my previous post is how I understand the policy shift, and I just wanted to be sure to clarify that the statement I made on it wasn't necessarily official policy, but at least how I was understanding it. After all, I'm trying keep conscious of the "any response is better than no response" wishes that certain members have expressed.

In some situations the case for moderation is obvious, but in others opinions are going to vary. We are currently trying to put together a review process by which individual moderator actions can be changed in order to reflect the consensus view among the moderation team. Hopefully this will help mitigate the effects of any inconsistent moderation.

OK, thanks for the clarifications guys. This is good expectations management, and I'm glad that you're taking it seriously. :smile:

In those cases where the case for moderation is less obvious, the addition of a "report this post" button will give the moderators a way to gauge community response to a particular post without the need to explicitly ask, "Hey, do you guys think we should put a stop to this kind of post?"

Is this what is referred to as a filibuster to rules? This thing seems to keep
going on and on and on.

Vladaar