Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 24, 2014, 02:03:37 PM

Quote from: Fagcicle on December 24, 2014, 02:02:30 PM

But whatever we do do - there won't be happiness. If we become more strict, we are becoming Waypoint. If we become more lax, we apparently don't care about the forums.

You're putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say there needs to be a change in the strictness or the laxness of the punishments, themselves.

Not you exclusively Meta. We already have your suggestions.

I know you do.

Although that actually highlights the underlying point I'm making here; it's about a communicative deficiency. I PM'd those suggestions to Isara and Mr P. and have heard nothing since this thread - no acknowledgement that they were being discussed or if anything was going to move forward. On some level is promoted a feeling of "why bother", but the more pressing issue was the fact that it gives the impression of an inefficient system into which ideas and suggestions are placed and nothing is done.

The fact that you're discussing them is good, of course, whether you like them or not but it isn't enough to fix the deficit in transparency and understanding between the moderation team and the community.

I've made my point by now, though, so I'll just leave it here unless you have any questions. I do have confidence that the moderation team is working in the right direction, it's just difficult to tell how effective such efforts are at the moment.

But whatever we do do - there won't be happiness. If we become more strict, we are becoming Waypoint. If we become more lax, we apparently don't care about the forums.

You're putting words in my mouth. At no point did I say there needs to be a change in the strictness or the laxness of the punishments, themselves.

It may not be black or white but it definitely needs streamlining and balancing out.

He said the exact same thing to me:

No he didn't, he just said that shitposting detracts from any prior contribution. It wasn't a specific accusation leveled at you.

Psychopathy

No. Actually I'd say too leinient. The problem is, the mods are trying to play nice, trying to play fair. Going for diplomatic approaches and working out things between users.

This.

Circumstances are important but they fall by the wayside when you realise it's exceptionally difficult to quantify them, especially when the circumstances tend to just be random variables as opposed to actual factors mitigating a person's responsibility.

Justice ought be blind.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 24, 2014, 12:40:13 PM

Quote from: Fagcicle on December 24, 2014, 12:38:29 PM

We can only communicate as much as possible.

It's obvious that there's currently a deficiency in communication.

I'm curious, what would you suggest in terms of communication?,

I'm just going to post the recommendations I made to Isara:

Obviously, we can't be banning people left right and centre otherwise we'd have no community left - but it's clear that something needs to be done.
- Expand the moderation team
- Improve the roles of monitors
- Standardise the system
- Better communication

Of course, it's all about balance in approaching these issues. Expanding the moderation team runs the risk of upsetting the ratio of users to moderators, and could result in people seeing the moderation team as a ramshackle confederation as opposed to a tight, monolithic organisation of people willing to keep the community up-to-scratch. In saying that, it's not clear that we're understaffed either. I think the lack of communication between the users leads to a feeling of neglect and the illusion that we might not have the man-power, when in fact we just need a more streamlined system. However, replacing Sandtrap - as well as adding perhaps another new monitor - in conjunction with the next point wouldn't be a bad idea.

The roles of monitors, also, need to be expanded. In truth - and I'm not sure how many people agree - the monitors are largely defunct and useless. They don't do anything, it's like the moderation team puts them there so it looks like people are around keeping an eye on shit. All they do, however, is dole out hesitant warnings and reluctant words of caution. Monitors need to be beefed up, and be put in a position of support to the moderators - acting as the bridge between them and the community. They need to be, in essence, the boots on the ground talking to the community and relaying the moderation team's information. They need to be dropping PMs to users who make reports and telling them that the ninjas are considering a proper course of action, and they'll be kept in the loop as to what's happening.

Standardising the system could be tricky and I'm no programmer. The warning system based on percentages was a good start, but we need to be able to say "if you do this, we'll do this", and stick to it. We rely to much on the discretion of the ninjas which, while valuable in serious instances - like Camnator's fucking retarded reveal of Nuka's personal information - it becomes something of a joke when you have Challenger and Kinder hurling insults at each for pages on end. There's also a degree of bias, as much as I hate to say it, within the team. Kinder deserves the bans he gets when he steps over the line, but it's usually in response to something from Challenger which is clearly pissing him off. Is he right to be upset? I don't know. But we need ninjas (and monitors) in the threads either telling Kinder why he shouldn't be upset if Challenger actually hasn't done anything wrong, or explaining to him personally what the team is doing about Challenger's behaviour, which he is reporting. I'm also not calling them out, just using them as an example. I also think monitors should be able to edit/censor posts, as ninjas do.

And, of course, better communication has been the central theme all through my proposals.

We try not to. But as the rules say - every decision and penalty can be different, depending on the circumstances and such.

Of course I'm not saying circumstances aren't important, but I think a lack of communication between the moderators and the community leads people to think it's more disconnected and ad hoc than it actually is.

>doesn't sensor language
>generally tells people not to fight before issuing warning
>really only bans people for being twats

Yeah, mods are dicks.

I think a general dissatisfaction/confusion with the moderation has led people to try and solidify their complaints, which leads to conclusions which are half-true at best.

Quote from: The Lord Ruler on December 24, 2014, 12:10:41 PM

Pretentious
Hypocrite
Crybaby

Nuka

That wasn't very nice.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 24, 2014, 12:11:20 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on December 24, 2014, 12:09:38 PM

(Easy one)
American
Teenager
Female

I literally have no idea.

Sarcasm?

Not at all.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 24, 2014, 12:08:15 PM

Quote from: Fagcicle on December 24, 2014, 12:07:17 PM

Young
Chick
Sarcastic

ME

You're a chick?

I'm whatever you want me to be.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 24, 2014, 12:03:28 PM

Quote from: TBlocks on December 24, 2014, 12:02:46 PM

Guitar
Brit
Soccer

. . .

Gatsby?

Nope

Lemon.

They don't have three words to describe them (no personality).

Lemon.

abrasive

belligerent

pseudointellectual

Verbatim?