20 Aug, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 361st comment:
Votes: 0
http://rule14.net/forum/index.php?topic=...
20 Aug, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 362nd comment:
and boom, there we have it. Even with the rule, people will discuss these things in public. Though with it being outlawed here that means most of the comments on crat's forum will be slanted against the admin here and probably won't result in anything except more people being upset. I'm not a malcontent or anything so please don't get me wrong here. I'm just stating what should be fairly obvious. Instating that rule would be like the American government suddenly taking away the right to the freedom of speech. We've had the freedom for so long that taking that freedom away only causes normally passive people to become angry with the government (admins). Waiting 6 months to rethink this rule is the worst idea I've ever heard of in the history of forum administration. This isn't an issue that will wait, it's an issue that affects all of us RIGHT NOW.
Please forgive me for all of this, I'm not trying to stir up trouble at all. I'm only trying to help here.
Please forgive me for all of this, I'm not trying to stir up trouble at all. I'm only trying to help here.
20 Aug, 2009, Davion wrote in the 363rd comment:
Chances are the person being moderated can't speak publicly on the forums anyways so I fail to see why this is unacceptable.
20 Aug, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 364th comment:
because not only the person being moderated is affected by this, having one person punished for a certain thing sets a precedence so we're ALL affected by it if one person is punished. Therefore we should have a right to discuss it.
20 Aug, 2009, Davion wrote in the 365th comment:
We're not saying don't discuss it. We have the PM setup just for that so the person in question can contact us. We're saying we don't want it on our boards. Crat seems to have found a way for you guys to do it anyways, and it keeps the exact kind of content we don't want, off the site. Ty, Crat ;).
20 Aug, 2009, Igabod wrote in the 366th comment:
I just sent a PM to samson regarding this, I probably should have sent it to Admin though. Samson could you forward that to Davion cause I think that PM responds nicely to what he just posted.
20 Aug, 2009, Davion wrote in the 367th comment:
In this case, it's probably better to send it to 'mods'. We also get it, and the people managing the forum will get it as well ;).
20 Aug, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 368th comment:
20 Aug, 2009, Koron wrote in the 369th comment:
Davion said:
We're not saying don't discuss it. . . . We're saying we don't want it on our boards.
You really don't see this as even a little ridiculous? There is no single reason why the rule is "unacceptable" and I won't be covering all of them. One reason is that it makes the administration look weak and terribly insecure, as if you're afraid to be questioned. Also, if you have good reasons for moderation, there is no cause to see discussion as dangerous; your reasons will stand for themselves, requiring little or no additional explanation. If you find that your moderations bring public backlash, it's probably because the community disagrees with them. The proper course of action in this case is not to moderate the entire group of people who are suggesting you've made a bad call, but rather to put yourselves in their shoes and consider why they think it was bad.
All administrations need regular reality checks in order to prevent insanity. This is a fact and I read it on the Internet so you know it's true.
20 Aug, 2009, Davion wrote in the 370th comment:
Koron said:
You really don't see this as even a little ridiculous? There is no single reason why the rule is "unacceptable" and I won't be covering all of them. One reason is that it makes the administration look weak and terribly insecure, as if you're afraid to be questioned. Also, if you have good reasons for moderation, there is no cause to see discussion as dangerous; your reasons will stand for themselves, requiring little or no additional explanation. If you find that your moderations bring public backlash, it's probably because the community disagrees with them. The proper course of action in this case is not to moderate the entire group of people who are suggesting you've made a bad call, but rather to put yourselves in their shoes and consider why they think it was bad.
All administrations need regular reality checks in order to prevent insanity. This is a fact and I read it on the Internet so you know it's true.
Davion said:
We're not saying don't discuss it. . . . We're saying we don't want it on our boards.
You really don't see this as even a little ridiculous? There is no single reason why the rule is "unacceptable" and I won't be covering all of them. One reason is that it makes the administration look weak and terribly insecure, as if you're afraid to be questioned. Also, if you have good reasons for moderation, there is no cause to see discussion as dangerous; your reasons will stand for themselves, requiring little or no additional explanation. If you find that your moderations bring public backlash, it's probably because the community disagrees with them. The proper course of action in this case is not to moderate the entire group of people who are suggesting you've made a bad call, but rather to put yourselves in their shoes and consider why they think it was bad.
All administrations need regular reality checks in order to prevent insanity. This is a fact and I read it on the Internet so you know it's true.
…You're acting like nothing we say can be over ruled. This is not the case. In no way, shape, or form are we stating what happens is set in stone. There will be a review process for any action receiving a complaint. We also aren't saying we don't want to hear what you have to say, we do.
20 Aug, 2009, Koron wrote in the 371st comment:
Being that you are the site admins, overseen by none, your rules give the impression of being set in stone. The precedent of unilateral moderation has already been set by Samson. Why would things be different now? Even if the admins are taking a step back from moderation, there's no reason for anyone to believe that this will mean an indefinite cessation.
I'm glad you want to hear what others have to say about this, but the frequent insistence of diverting a conversation to PMs really does not give this impression. The atmosphere created by the enforcement of a rule reading, "Whatever I say goes, no questions," is not a positive one.
I'm glad you want to hear what others have to say about this, but the frequent insistence of diverting a conversation to PMs really does not give this impression. The atmosphere created by the enforcement of a rule reading, "Whatever I say goes, no questions," is not a positive one.
20 Aug, 2009, Davion wrote in the 372nd comment:
Koron said:
I'm glad you want to hear what others have to say about this, but the frequent insistence of diverting a conversation to PMs really does not give this impression.
Really? Instead of your post going into the pile with dozens of other posters, going directly to the staff, where it shows, in big white font that you have a new PM. When you get there, that unread PM is a different colour than the rest. It really stands out and shows that you have something meaningful to say. At any rate Koron, if you have any further questions don't hesitate to PM us. Just toss 'mods' in there and it'll get sent to all of us ;).
20 Aug, 2009, Dean wrote in the 373rd comment:
What I ssaid to Igabod earlier on IMC. Edited to add some things because I was busy at the time.
Quote
[Thu Aug 20 04:02:12 2009] [Server01:ichat] Dean@DBAT: Whether I agree with "Rule 14" or not, the thing to remember is that the forum is supposed to be a place where MUD admins/staff can visit to get help/advertise/discuss design or code/other stuff relating to MUDs. Having public discussions about certain decisions really doesn't look good (esp. considering how some of them have gone down here lately..), they clutter the forum unnessecarily (More so the 'Recent Posts' section than anything else) which slightly impedes a persons ability to do the things mentioned just before. It's as simple as A) take to PMs or B) discuss it on another site.
20 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 374th comment:
If that is really the intention of the forum, I would point all of us back to Crat's post where he questions why the 'General Chatter' section exists. This is a serious post: if we want to discuss stuff related to MUDs, and anything else is noise, then why not deem off-topic stuff not related to MUDs – which, we should remind ourselves, is where nearly every single 'problem thread' has come from? (This is not in relation to "rule 14" but to the forum in general.)
20 Aug, 2009, Davion wrote in the 375th comment:
We aren't saying everything else is noise. But given past experience, almost every time a moderators actions has been brought up in public, it's been just noise ;). There are several non-mud related topics here that I find quite interesting and refer to them everyone once and awhile.
20 Aug, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 376th comment:
I think for some of you, the sharpest tool in your box is the ability to put a spin on things and sway public opinion. Taking things to PMs renders this useless, and thus your resistance to the process. You have to remember this is not a democracy, and the only opinion worth changing is that of the Admins, so PMs are quite adequate for "discussion".
20 Aug, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 377th comment:
There are tons of ways to "sway public opinion" without posting things on this forum, if that were what people were after. It's somewhat disgusting that you reduce people's unhappiness to "spin" and "public opinion". I suppose that says something about the atmosphere here, if what people feel are true concerns that are actually serious to them are viewed simply as some form of elaborate trolling. But what right have I to speak? Apparently I'm just spinning, nothing I possibly say could be serious. (It's true, Sandi said so.)
20 Aug, 2009, Ssolvarain wrote in the 378th comment:
Now you're just being silly, David.
In what way do these changes negatively affect you?
In what way do these changes negatively affect you?
20 Aug, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 379th comment:
Sandi said:
I think for some of you, the sharpest tool in your box is the ability to put a spin on things and sway public opinion. Taking things to PMs renders this useless, and thus your resistance to the process. You have to remember this is not a democracy, and the only opinion worth changing is that of the Admins, so PMs are quite adequate for "discussion".
I am disappointed with your apparent effort to make this a personal thing. Please
consider the possibility that I actually mean what I've been saying.
Ssolvarain said:
Now you're just being silly, David.
In what way do these changes negatively affect you?
In what way do these changes negatively affect you?
Could you point to where David said the changes affect him negatively?
I didn't realize this was his position.
20 Aug, 2009, Hades_Kane wrote in the 380th comment:
Your concerns, on all fronts, aren't being ignored. I don't want anyone to think that any suggestions or concerns about all of this is falling on deaf ears or simply being dismissed.
Give us some time to mull over what's been discussed and said here. I don't think that arguing amongst ourselves at this point is doing anything constructive, so if we could ease off attacking one another I think that would be good. Hopefully soonish there will be some sort of final clarification on things. As to whether or not anything will be different coming out of this, I don't know, but you aren't being ignored.
Give us some time to mull over what's been discussed and said here. I don't think that arguing amongst ourselves at this point is doing anything constructive, so if we could ease off attacking one another I think that would be good. Hopefully soonish there will be some sort of final clarification on things. As to whether or not anything will be different coming out of this, I don't know, but you aren't being ignored.
Random Picks
