Arguably, I suppose, issuing more verbals while issuing infractions in lieu of warnings might actually cut back on the number of complaint threads in CI, despite being a more severe response.
We had basically this system for a couple years in the beginning of the forum, and I can tell you that it didn't lessen the complaints any that I can remember--and it was problematic in a number of other ways, too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Keep in mind that the genesis of this thread is post-rotation discussion in an area where it is explicitly not allowed. That's not a mod looking to prove themselves; that's just a rank and file warning and move.
Correct, Abuse of Power is the wrong thread title. Really he's saying loosen the rules, let us spam where we want, let us flame other users and call them names with contempt cause then we'd magically be a better forum.
I'm pretty sure most of the people here think the forum is better off with organized discussion rather than troll posts and people IYELLING at each other about who's been in mom's basement longer with no girl friend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I'm torn about them, for the reasons people said earlier. On the one hand they're certainly a lot friendlier-feeling (partly because that automatic warning message is just so robotic-sounding) and don't seem quite as permanent as the others. On the other hand, I like having the bookkeeping that warnings give us for free, and they cause me a lot less work (1. give card, with message 2. edit post; vs 1. edit post with warning 2. send PM to user with explanation (which is probably going to be longer than the one for a card) 3. CC at least my co-mods about it so they don't card the post 4. if I see someone else warn him for the same thing somewhere else a day later do I say something? 5. etc), which isn't exactly ideal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
In my short time here, (about 1 month,) i've got infractions for
making a joke in the rulings forum (does panoptic mirror allow you to counterfeit cards?)
saying "sweet sweet blue mage tears" in a thread complaining about lack of counter magic.
making a joke in the general forum regarding lying to judges ("yes i think you're fat")
And one for swearing.
I wouldn't call it moderator "abuse" as I have seen nothing to suggest that the moderates are using their power for personal gain, but they are being fairly uptight and overly strict.
I can only speak for myself, but I ignore expired warnings. True, they aren't deleted, but after 40 days, I don't consider them relevant. The same goes for expired infractions as far as I'm concerned.
Then again, the Casual forum is not the same as WCT, Debate, Market Street, etc. Something that gets a warning in Casual might be an infraction elsewhere due to the nature of the forum in question.
You are in the minority. Most mods I have dealt with use your infraction history to justify some pretty sketchy infractions.
"Past user infractions" is the get out of jail free card that mods fall back on whenever they need to justify a dubious action.
The best answer to a troll thread is to subvert it into a productive discussion. Which is what we've done here.
So is that a best practice policy?
Every time you see someone acting out you grab their hands and sing kumbaya?
In reference to the #2 example earlier where some were skeptical of moderators infracting into silence I have 23 infractions within 19 months ranging from bumping a trade thread too early, calling someone a jerk when they were being a jerk because "jerk" is too offensive, posting an excerpt on a chas Andreas article on trading on mtgs because a mod said it was copy write infringement only to have the same moderator re open my thread with its content the next day while I was hit with a ban. I'm still waiting on responses to appeals made weeks and months ago.
Yes moderators do abuse powers but not in the example the OP gave.
You are in the minority. Most mods I have dealt with use your infraction history to justify some pretty sketchy infractions.
"Past user infractions" is the get out of jail free card that mods fall back on whenever they need to justify a dubious action.
I'm going to fall back on the "casual is different" justification. When I have issued warnings, I have not seen anyone with a lengthy infraction history.
Let's say I need to issue a warning for spam. As I issue the warning, I notice that the person in question received a warning for spamming 60 days ago. It's not a big deal. He/she gets another warning.
Now, if I see that person has (exaggeration) 15, 20, 30, etc. warnings for spam in the past, I might think differently--especially if those all happened in the same forum. With all those warnings, shouldn't he/she know better by now? Again, it hasn't come up for me. However, a person who has a lot of flaming infractions in the past, or who has been suspended for flaming, etc. might deserve more than a warning the next time he/she flames someone. Consider that warnings are reminders, and one can only be reminded so many times.
That's not abuse of power. It's a judgement call that requires more thought than your run-o-the-mill warning. I can understand user infraction history mattering in some of our forums.
I reiterate my previous point: different forums require different methods of moderation.
I'm seriously surprised this troll thread was allowed to continue. It should have been locked an hour into it being alive. This really is reinforcing my theory that the administration and moderators have no idea how to spot trolls unless it fits into their very awkward definition (which appears to be, "If it made a moderator go "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!", it's clearly trolling!")
Tip for moderators: when a thread like this appears and says, "Does anyone think...", it's 9/10 times a troll thread. Don't feed the troll.
How do we know it's a troll thread?
Where's the specifics? Sure, the OP mentions posting in the wrong section, but if that's "abuse of power" then I don't want to live on this planet anymore. If you got nothing else it's a troll thread. You lock it.
Or you can continue to feed the trolls! Yaaaaaay food!
Actually, its not a troll thread. Im not trying to be funny or incite people. This is an actually a concern of mine because I wanted to come to a forum where I could discuss my ideas and the ideas of others. No, i dont have any specifics, other than warnings for posting in the wrong spot, and I recieved an Infraction for editing out the ugly block of red text at the bottom of one of my posts because i recieved one for posting "f***" instead of "****" as part of a joke title for a deck. I mean stuff like that is ridiculous. That is why I started this thread. Not because I expect everyone to be allowed to run rampant, but because I believe that warnings and infractions need to be issued less, and i agree that verbal warnings might be more effective that those blocks of red or yellow or whatever.
As for the incident that Cardfather was referencing, yes, I did flame someone who was quite obviously trolling. did he recieve a warning or infraction? of course not. I did, because I made a quip about him living in his mothers basement and never knowing what a woman feels like. Maybe I shouldnt have said that. Maybe I should. But I dont think that anyone needs to get their undies in a twist because someone flamed a troll.
Maybe abuse of power was not the right title. But I definitely see a problem, with the way warnings and infractions are handled.
The fundamental problem is none of the sites moderators interpret or understand the sites rules in the exact same way. Moderators are appointed policeman, lawyer, judge and executioner on this site each with their own interpretation and sometimes abuse or favoritism such as allowing certain posts from fellow moderators that others would have been infracted for.
It takes decades of life experience and law to become a judge and interpret and understand the law and sometimes they get it wrong.
Some of the moderators on this site have very little or limited life experience and the rules in this site are complex and lengthily. A whole course in university could be dedicated to how mtgs came to be and I bet none of those students or the moderators on this site could quote every rule and infraction.
The funny thing is that although I partially blame individual mods, the real issue is what an elephant in the room these convoluted rules came to be and how little sense they make and how easily they van be subject to interpretation and abused.
I keep reading from the staff how mtgs would fall apart and go into chaos if moderators didn't act exactly as they do now. I have far more faith in my fellow man than the fear mongering policies pushed forward.
Actually, its not a troll thread. Im not trying to be funny or incite people. This is an actually a concern of mine because I wanted to come to a forum where I could discuss my ideas and the ideas of others. No, i dont have any specifics, other than warnings for posting in the wrong spot, and I recieved an Infraction for editing out the ugly block of red text at the bottom of one of my posts because i recieved one for posting "f***" instead of "****" as part of a joke title for a deck. I mean stuff like that is ridiculous. That is why I started this thread. Not because I expect everyone to be allowed to run rampant, but because I believe that warnings and infractions need to be issued less, and i agree that verbal warnings might be more effective that those blocks of red or yellow or whatever.
As for the incident that Cardfather was referencing, yes, I did flame someone who was quite obviously trolling. did he recieve a warning or infraction? of course not. I did, because I made a quip about him living in his mothers basement and never knowing what a woman feels like. Maybe I shouldnt have said that. Maybe I should. But I dont think that anyone needs to get their undies in a twist because someone flamed a troll.
Maybe abuse of power was not the right title. But I definitely see a problem, with the way warnings and infractions are handled.
I for one, understand that you are unhappy with how things occured. Its never particularly fun to get a warning or infraction. No one wants to see that in one of their posts or to get one of those pm's relatedly. Back when I was a new poster here, It took me a little bit to get the hang of some of the posting rules, much as I might have had the best of intentions with what I was posting about. My reaction to that wasnt to get angry or otherwise about it. I took the advice from the mod that gave me the warning/infraction, and I learned from it, and took the time to go back and read through some of the forum rules for the areas I was posting in, and chatted a little with the mod in question so as to answer any questions I might have had about what I had done wrong, and what I should do differently in the future. I realized that I had made a mistake in where/how I had posted and did my best to fix those issues for the future. 4 years (or so) later, Ive yet to get another infraction/warning. Its really not that bad once you get through the learning process and figure out how things work here. The key thing to remember is that this site is much more organized and thusly much more moderation than many other forums. I personally find this to be the best of all of such similar sites because of the organization kept, and moderation to keep it that way. Ive wanted more than a few times to post back a negative comment for some posters, but instead, I follow forum rules and report the post and let the mods handle it, as we as users are supposed to do.
The fundamental problem is none of the sites moderators interpret or understand the sites rules in the exact same way.
(...)
I have far more faith in my fellow man than the fear mongering policies pushed forward.
I don't see fear-mongering policies written anywhere.
I see an admittedly complex and overly-lengthy set of rules that attempt to define common sense, but that's just not something practical in a forum this size.
As for these complaints of supposed "moderator abuse", welcome to the internet. Moderators of forums very typically interpret the rules their own ways and enforce them as they see fit. There's no practical way to make a universal ruling application system because each person posting and each member of staff are different people and no two situations are the exact same. What you're asking for is completely ridiculous.
The whole point of appointing moderators is that the staff above them feel that the people they select can adequately (and not mechanically) interpret and enforce the rules as they see fit. Abuse of that would be taking that authority to force down any comments, opinions, or statements of contrariness to the individual, or using that power to eliminate people that person just does not like. That is what abuse is, and that's not what's happening in any of the arguments given here.
Also, this is the internet and not real-life, so drawing correlations between the two isn't going to be productive.
The fundamental problem is none of the sites moderators interpret or understand the sites rules in the exact same way. Moderators are appointed policeman, lawyer, judge and executioner on this site each with their own interpretation and sometimes abuse or favoritism such as allowing certain posts from fellow moderators that others would have been infracted for.
It takes decades of life experience and law to become a judge and interpret and understand the law and sometimes they get it wrong.
Some of the moderators on this site have very little or limited life experience and the rules in this site are complex and lengthily. A whole course in university could be dedicated to how mtgs came to be and I bet none of those students or the moderators on this site could quote every rule and infraction.
The funny thing is that although I partially blame individual mods, the real issue is what an elephant in the room these convoluted rules came to be and how little sense they make and how easily they van be subject to interpretation and abused.
I keep reading from the staff how mtgs would fall apart and go into chaos if moderators didn't act exactly as they do now. I have far more faith in my fellow man than the fear mongering policies pushed forward.
Worth pointing out:
1) Moderators are 100% unpaid, it's all volunteer work, which they do for the sake of the site, not for the sake of themselves.
2) MTGS should not have any real life implications for individual users (unless we're talking about Market Street), it's simply not terribly important. Long education is not necessary given that we're just set to govern an internet discussion forum, and drawing connections to "policeman, lawyer, judge and executioner" feels like a massive exaggeration.
3) There will be differences in moderating, because we're all humans, and because we don't have the time to thoroughly discuss each and every moderator decision. We have policies (that vary from subforum to subforum) that guide us to get us where we want, but it's not possible for us to treat every similar situation 100% equally, try as we might.
We have to use our own judgment a lot, and that's simply how it has to be, everything considered. Sometimes users will feel treated unfairly, sometimes they have every reason to do so. But we do our best, we do not enjoy carding people, we do it because we want the forums as a whole to be a safe (in the case of Market Street in particular), fun, friendly, and spam-free place. How to best achieve that, while at the same time maximizing the users' forum experience, is of course a topic for discussion (right here in CI), but it helps to remember that we're on the same side, we want the same thing, staff does not take pleasure in dishing out penalties, and we're always willing to discuss this sort of thing. I'd really appreciate it if we didn't automatically make negative assumptions about the other side's position, which has been done many times already in this thread. That really is the opposite of being constructive.
Being a user of this site is also "unpaid" but does it mean that a user has any less interest in the website?
As for real life, when I'm put in a stupid position where I have to argue with a moderator over semantics because I posted "everytime I see a post from jeff Crandall it makes my eyes roll" instead of posting "this post from jeff Crandall makes my eyes roll" its takes up real time in my real life.
Sene you yourself have taken "2 well deserved vacations" from mtgs because of frustrations. Don't you think there is something wrong with the "system?"
A user has inherently less responsibility than a moderator. A user is responsible for one person alone. Him or herself. A moderator is responsible for the content of whatever forum they moderate and have the task of keeping it clean, whatever definition of "clean" applies to that subforum. Interests aren't as much the problem as responsibility. Users and moderators have VERY separate degrees of responsibility and I think users tend to take that for granted, and that can evolve into a sense of self-entitlement.
And why not just ignore the posts the user you dislike makes instead of addressing them? It's not necessary to address posts from people you don't like, and would, in fact, be more prudent for the average user to ignore them. It would completely avoid any problems you might gain from infractions in the long run and you wouldn't have to argue semantics.
My only real beef with the mods is when they close threads where:
1. noone is breaking any rules
2. they are not participating in the discussion
Oh hey, that's a nice discussion about Enchantress you're having in the legacy general discussion. No flaming, no spam, and I'm not involved in any way. Just gonna randomly pop in, lock it, and direct you all to the other thread for literally no discernible reason.
That kind of behavior I've never seen mods do on any other forum before, such as close a benign topic just for the sake of it.
My only real beef with the mods is when they close threads where:
1. noone is breaking any rules
2. they are not participating in the discussion
Oh hey, that's a nice discussion about Enchantress you're having in the legacy general discussion. No flaming, no spam, and I'm not involved in any way. Just gonna randomly pop in, lock it, and direct you all to the other thread for literally no discernible reason.
That kind of behavior I've never seen mods do on any other forum before, such as close a benign topic just for the sake of it.
That often has to do with organization purposes. If there is allready a thread discussing the same topic, card, or the like, then often you will see them close the new threads and point people in the direction of the main thread for that topic. If everyone was able to post their own threads on any topic, then you would see the forums in question flooded with hundreds of threads about various things when they could have all been combined down to just a few threads based on the general topic many of them were discussing.
My only real beef with the mods is when they close threads where:
1. noone is breaking any rules
2. they are not participating in the discussion
Oh hey, that's a nice discussion about Enchantress you're having in the legacy general discussion. No flaming, no spam, and I'm not involved in any way. Just gonna randomly pop in, lock it, and direct you all to the other thread for literally no discernible reason.
That kind of behavior I've never seen mods do on any other forum before, such as close a benign topic just for the sake of it.
Strange enough I see that quite a bit on other forums. The one I'm thinking of right now moderates spam in a similar nature to this one, but is relaxed on flaming.
I often wonder when a thread is unique enough to justify its own discussion. I think a lot of times someone opens a thread with a question, gets an answer but the thread goes on to some other topic that mirrors another thread. Should you just let both go, or is it bad to say.. "hey the OP got question answered take the new discussion to the other thread"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
My only real beef with the mods is when they close threads where:
1. noone is breaking any rules
2. they are not participating in the discussion
Personally, if a moderator is participating in a discussion, I'd rather they not do any moderation in that thread. Keeps it from appearing that they're using their mod powers to "win" an argument (maybe I'm paranoid, but you know, I've been on forums where the mods -did- do stuff like that...)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retrodrome!
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Police officers always say the LAST thing they want to get involved in is a shootout.
Mods are generally the same way: the LAST thing they want to do is start flame wars and appear as condescending to the visitors of the forum they moderate. It does nothing to help the community, and all it does is get the rabble rousers fired up.
Now, I know I'm not the best example of a "good mod." That's why I was demodded. Because it wasn't the right fit for me. I have learned that there are other communities you can take part of on this site and still feel welcome even if you disagree with the people who are running it.
If you don't like a particular mods actions, go through the proper channels. We have globals and admins for a reason. Hell, there even is a part of this forum where people can lodge complaints anonymously without anyone but the mod staff to see it.
But running up the black flag and starting another mess of a quagmire doesn't just hurt the community at large; it also causes deep impacts on the way this site is run by the people who were chosen to watch over the site for trouble. For every ten complaints I got, I received one "you're doing a good job". And that wasn't even from the userbase. That was usually from someone else on staff.
It's a tiring, UNPAID, unforgiving, volunteer position. You wonder why there's so much turnovers in the staff? Because it wears you out when you seem to be putting your heart and soul into something only to have your reputation and every move scrutinized beyond belief.
Please, cut the mods some slack. If these threads continue to pop up, we will see even more turnover. More turnover means new mods. New mods means they won't know the interworkings of the site. It also means they will probably infract more often than usual and then we're back to step one.
Off hand, any of you guys active members of MMO Champion?
I ask this because MMO champion is a website that I've never heard referred to as draconian, and it's much much larger than this one. Still, this topic? It wouldn't be allowed exist on MMO champion.
Don't get me wrong, I will fight against corruption if it presents itself, but some of these comments are ridiculously conspiratorial.
imo, the mods do a great job compared to most of the other forums I've frequented. one example would be vwvortex which went from a great place to talk about cars to 4chan for cars. even though I've been warned for things I did while attempting to prevent confusion and warned for things I did while drunk and stupid. I can forgive the former thanks to appropriate action in the latter.
I actually watched the video clip, so I sort of understood what point you were trying to make. Perhaps if you would have added an explanation of what you were getting at with the mention and link rather than just the mention and link you would have avoided the infraction? Im sure a mod could clarify that regardless, but thats what popped into my head when I saw the post and then the subsequent infraction.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We had basically this system for a couple years in the beginning of the forum, and I can tell you that it didn't lessen the complaints any that I can remember--and it was problematic in a number of other ways, too.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What's your take on verbals?
Correct, Abuse of Power is the wrong thread title. Really he's saying loosen the rules, let us spam where we want, let us flame other users and call them names with contempt cause then we'd magically be a better forum.
I'm pretty sure most of the people here think the forum is better off with organized discussion rather than troll posts and people IYELLING at each other about who's been in mom's basement longer with no girl friend.
I'm torn about them, for the reasons people said earlier. On the one hand they're certainly a lot friendlier-feeling (partly because that automatic warning message is just so robotic-sounding) and don't seem quite as permanent as the others. On the other hand, I like having the bookkeeping that warnings give us for free, and they cause me a lot less work (1. give card, with message 2. edit post; vs 1. edit post with warning 2. send PM to user with explanation (which is probably going to be longer than the one for a card) 3. CC at least my co-mods about it so they don't card the post 4. if I see someone else warn him for the same thing somewhere else a day later do I say something? 5. etc), which isn't exactly ideal.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
making a joke in the rulings forum (does panoptic mirror allow you to counterfeit cards?)
saying "sweet sweet blue mage tears" in a thread complaining about lack of counter magic.
making a joke in the general forum regarding lying to judges ("yes i think you're fat")
And one for swearing.
I wouldn't call it moderator "abuse" as I have seen nothing to suggest that the moderates are using their power for personal gain, but they are being fairly uptight and overly strict.
You are in the minority. Most mods I have dealt with use your infraction history to justify some pretty sketchy infractions.
"Past user infractions" is the get out of jail free card that mods fall back on whenever they need to justify a dubious action.
So is that a best practice policy?
Every time you see someone acting out you grab their hands and sing kumbaya?
In reference to the #2 example earlier where some were skeptical of moderators infracting into silence I have 23 infractions within 19 months ranging from bumping a trade thread too early, calling someone a jerk when they were being a jerk because "jerk" is too offensive, posting an excerpt on a chas Andreas article on trading on mtgs because a mod said it was copy write infringement only to have the same moderator re open my thread with its content the next day while I was hit with a ban. I'm still waiting on responses to appeals made weeks and months ago.
Yes moderators do abuse powers but not in the example the OP gave.
I'm going to fall back on the "casual is different" justification. When I have issued warnings, I have not seen anyone with a lengthy infraction history.
Let's say I need to issue a warning for spam. As I issue the warning, I notice that the person in question received a warning for spamming 60 days ago. It's not a big deal. He/she gets another warning.
Now, if I see that person has (exaggeration) 15, 20, 30, etc. warnings for spam in the past, I might think differently--especially if those all happened in the same forum. With all those warnings, shouldn't he/she know better by now? Again, it hasn't come up for me. However, a person who has a lot of flaming infractions in the past, or who has been suspended for flaming, etc. might deserve more than a warning the next time he/she flames someone. Consider that warnings are reminders, and one can only be reminded so many times.
That's not abuse of power. It's a judgement call that requires more thought than your run-o-the-mill warning. I can understand user infraction history mattering in some of our forums.
I reiterate my previous point: different forums require different methods of moderation.
Thanks to GR @ Yavin IV Studios for the signature!
Actually, its not a troll thread. Im not trying to be funny or incite people. This is an actually a concern of mine because I wanted to come to a forum where I could discuss my ideas and the ideas of others. No, i dont have any specifics, other than warnings for posting in the wrong spot, and I recieved an Infraction for editing out the ugly block of red text at the bottom of one of my posts because i recieved one for posting "f***" instead of "****" as part of a joke title for a deck. I mean stuff like that is ridiculous. That is why I started this thread. Not because I expect everyone to be allowed to run rampant, but because I believe that warnings and infractions need to be issued less, and i agree that verbal warnings might be more effective that those blocks of red or yellow or whatever.
As for the incident that Cardfather was referencing, yes, I did flame someone who was quite obviously trolling. did he recieve a warning or infraction? of course not. I did, because I made a quip about him living in his mothers basement and never knowing what a woman feels like. Maybe I shouldnt have said that. Maybe I should. But I dont think that anyone needs to get their undies in a twist because someone flamed a troll.
Maybe abuse of power was not the right title. But I definitely see a problem, with the way warnings and infractions are handled.
It takes decades of life experience and law to become a judge and interpret and understand the law and sometimes they get it wrong.
Some of the moderators on this site have very little or limited life experience and the rules in this site are complex and lengthily. A whole course in university could be dedicated to how mtgs came to be and I bet none of those students or the moderators on this site could quote every rule and infraction.
The funny thing is that although I partially blame individual mods, the real issue is what an elephant in the room these convoluted rules came to be and how little sense they make and how easily they van be subject to interpretation and abused.
I keep reading from the staff how mtgs would fall apart and go into chaos if moderators didn't act exactly as they do now. I have far more faith in my fellow man than the fear mongering policies pushed forward.
I for one, understand that you are unhappy with how things occured. Its never particularly fun to get a warning or infraction. No one wants to see that in one of their posts or to get one of those pm's relatedly. Back when I was a new poster here, It took me a little bit to get the hang of some of the posting rules, much as I might have had the best of intentions with what I was posting about. My reaction to that wasnt to get angry or otherwise about it. I took the advice from the mod that gave me the warning/infraction, and I learned from it, and took the time to go back and read through some of the forum rules for the areas I was posting in, and chatted a little with the mod in question so as to answer any questions I might have had about what I had done wrong, and what I should do differently in the future. I realized that I had made a mistake in where/how I had posted and did my best to fix those issues for the future. 4 years (or so) later, Ive yet to get another infraction/warning. Its really not that bad once you get through the learning process and figure out how things work here. The key thing to remember is that this site is much more organized and thusly much more moderation than many other forums. I personally find this to be the best of all of such similar sites because of the organization kept, and moderation to keep it that way. Ive wanted more than a few times to post back a negative comment for some posters, but instead, I follow forum rules and report the post and let the mods handle it, as we as users are supposed to do.
Just a couple thoughts on the topic.
I don't see fear-mongering policies written anywhere.
I see an admittedly complex and overly-lengthy set of rules that attempt to define common sense, but that's just not something practical in a forum this size.
As for these complaints of supposed "moderator abuse", welcome to the internet. Moderators of forums very typically interpret the rules their own ways and enforce them as they see fit. There's no practical way to make a universal ruling application system because each person posting and each member of staff are different people and no two situations are the exact same. What you're asking for is completely ridiculous.
The whole point of appointing moderators is that the staff above them feel that the people they select can adequately (and not mechanically) interpret and enforce the rules as they see fit. Abuse of that would be taking that authority to force down any comments, opinions, or statements of contrariness to the individual, or using that power to eliminate people that person just does not like. That is what abuse is, and that's not what's happening in any of the arguments given here.
Also, this is the internet and not real-life, so drawing correlations between the two isn't going to be productive.
Worth pointing out:
1) Moderators are 100% unpaid, it's all volunteer work, which they do for the sake of the site, not for the sake of themselves.
2) MTGS should not have any real life implications for individual users (unless we're talking about Market Street), it's simply not terribly important. Long education is not necessary given that we're just set to govern an internet discussion forum, and drawing connections to "policeman, lawyer, judge and executioner" feels like a massive exaggeration.
3) There will be differences in moderating, because we're all humans, and because we don't have the time to thoroughly discuss each and every moderator decision. We have policies (that vary from subforum to subforum) that guide us to get us where we want, but it's not possible for us to treat every similar situation 100% equally, try as we might.
We have to use our own judgment a lot, and that's simply how it has to be, everything considered. Sometimes users will feel treated unfairly, sometimes they have every reason to do so. But we do our best, we do not enjoy carding people, we do it because we want the forums as a whole to be a safe (in the case of Market Street in particular), fun, friendly, and spam-free place. How to best achieve that, while at the same time maximizing the users' forum experience, is of course a topic for discussion (right here in CI), but it helps to remember that we're on the same side, we want the same thing, staff does not take pleasure in dishing out penalties, and we're always willing to discuss this sort of thing. I'd really appreciate it if we didn't automatically make negative assumptions about the other side's position, which has been done many times already in this thread. That really is the opposite of being constructive.
Being a user of this site is also "unpaid" but does it mean that a user has any less interest in the website?
As for real life, when I'm put in a stupid position where I have to argue with a moderator over semantics because I posted "everytime I see a post from jeff Crandall it makes my eyes roll" instead of posting "this post from jeff Crandall makes my eyes roll" its takes up real time in my real life.
Sene you yourself have taken "2 well deserved vacations" from mtgs because of frustrations. Don't you think there is something wrong with the "system?"
And why not just ignore the posts the user you dislike makes instead of addressing them? It's not necessary to address posts from people you don't like, and would, in fact, be more prudent for the average user to ignore them. It would completely avoid any problems you might gain from infractions in the long run and you wouldn't have to argue semantics.
1. noone is breaking any rules
2. they are not participating in the discussion
Oh hey, that's a nice discussion about Enchantress you're having in the legacy general discussion. No flaming, no spam, and I'm not involved in any way. Just gonna randomly pop in, lock it, and direct you all to the other thread for literally no discernible reason.
That kind of behavior I've never seen mods do on any other forum before, such as close a benign topic just for the sake of it.
That often has to do with organization purposes. If there is allready a thread discussing the same topic, card, or the like, then often you will see them close the new threads and point people in the direction of the main thread for that topic. If everyone was able to post their own threads on any topic, then you would see the forums in question flooded with hundreds of threads about various things when they could have all been combined down to just a few threads based on the general topic many of them were discussing.
Strange enough I see that quite a bit on other forums. The one I'm thinking of right now moderates spam in a similar nature to this one, but is relaxed on flaming.
I often wonder when a thread is unique enough to justify its own discussion. I think a lot of times someone opens a thread with a question, gets an answer but the thread goes on to some other topic that mirrors another thread. Should you just let both go, or is it bad to say.. "hey the OP got question answered take the new discussion to the other thread"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rVQGT01Kzg
Spam infraction issued.
-Sene
Personally, if a moderator is participating in a discussion, I'd rather they not do any moderation in that thread. Keeps it from appearing that they're using their mod powers to "win" an argument (maybe I'm paranoid, but you know, I've been on forums where the mods -did- do stuff like that...)
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Police officers always say the LAST thing they want to get involved in is a shootout.
Mods are generally the same way: the LAST thing they want to do is start flame wars and appear as condescending to the visitors of the forum they moderate. It does nothing to help the community, and all it does is get the rabble rousers fired up.
Now, I know I'm not the best example of a "good mod." That's why I was demodded. Because it wasn't the right fit for me. I have learned that there are other communities you can take part of on this site and still feel welcome even if you disagree with the people who are running it.
If you don't like a particular mods actions, go through the proper channels. We have globals and admins for a reason. Hell, there even is a part of this forum where people can lodge complaints anonymously without anyone but the mod staff to see it.
But running up the black flag and starting another mess of a quagmire doesn't just hurt the community at large; it also causes deep impacts on the way this site is run by the people who were chosen to watch over the site for trouble. For every ten complaints I got, I received one "you're doing a good job". And that wasn't even from the userbase. That was usually from someone else on staff.
It's a tiring, UNPAID, unforgiving, volunteer position. You wonder why there's so much turnovers in the staff? Because it wears you out when you seem to be putting your heart and soul into something only to have your reputation and every move scrutinized beyond belief.
Please, cut the mods some slack. If these threads continue to pop up, we will see even more turnover. More turnover means new mods. New mods means they won't know the interworkings of the site. It also means they will probably infract more often than usual and then we're back to step one.
I ask this because MMO champion is a website that I've never heard referred to as draconian, and it's much much larger than this one. Still, this topic? It wouldn't be allowed exist on MMO champion.
Don't get me wrong, I will fight against corruption if it presents itself, but some of these comments are ridiculously conspiratorial.
Q.E.D.
Infraction for spam.
-:ER:
I actually watched the video clip, so I sort of understood what point you were trying to make. Perhaps if you would have added an explanation of what you were getting at with the mention and link rather than just the mention and link you would have avoided the infraction? Im sure a mod could clarify that regardless, but thats what popped into my head when I saw the post and then the subsequent infraction.