Revision of the Community Guidelines

[notyou2]

...however, if players feel the need to troll my posts, insult and disrespect me via the forum and pm, then they have to accept the punishment they receive for doing so. I don't mind people calling bullshit on me, just do it appropriately.

[/quote]


Why is it that if one player does it to another, and the offending player is not usually a vocal member of the community, then they are told to "ignore/foe and move on, but if the offender does it to a mod/admin, or a member respected by the mods/admins then they are banned?
This is clearly a double standard, and if this is the case then the mods/admins should make a list of players in favour and those not in favour, so we all know where we stand.

Power corrupts.

[Mr Changsha]

Yet the story doesn't end here! By this point, a few posters smelled a rat and one such poster (the honourable Skittles!) wrote this to jpcloet:

"My understanding is that you just need to grow the f*ck up"

One day later, he was banned too!

Now does anyone really believe that Skittles! would have been banned if he had directed that at someone other than a Team CC Member?

I assume any time I read a direct flame like this, that includes obvious profanity, that directly attacks another poster, that the poster will be warned or banned.

Im more surprised to see such things posted, than I am to see them banned. Its such a simple rule to follow, and telling someone to grow the f*ck up is so outside of the rules, Im absolutely amazed you used it as an example.

I admit there is some gray area on the forum, but that also comes from the fact that language is a gray area. But its also why there are warnings. Im fairly certain skittles has had warnings, and Im also nearly positive, he expected to get a banning for posting...or...simply didnt care if he did when he posted it. But I certainly wouldnt post anything remotely like that. I seriously would expect not to even get a warning, because I should know better, and there is an implied warning in the rule "no flaming" that clearly would include telling someone to "grow the f*ck up"

now, if he simply said "grow up" I think that would be a tough call. I suppose technically it could be considered a flame, but since I really dont know what flaming really includes... Ive always assumed it included some sort of vulgarity, profanity, or an openly hostile verbal attack, and since thats usually what I see people warned for and banned for, Ill assume that my guess is pretty much on the money, with the gray area that is always present in such a situation.

But in answer to your question again. Im not surprised he got banned for that. Id be more surprised if someone got away with it. I wouldnt expect to get away with it. If I saw lackattack write it, id have reported him for flaming, and would expect a warning or ban if it wasnt his first offense.

I'll set the (imaginary) scene AAFitz. Skittles! (with 16,000 posts to his name) has had five minor offences over the past year. One more minor offence puts him up to the six month ban (btw the way if it is seven...no need to get technical).

Viewing the forums one day, you spot Skittles! has written the above quote to a randomn member. Knowing his precarious position...would you report it?

Without wishing to be emotive, would you be heartless enough to ban someone who has written 16,000 posts for six months for writing 'you need to grow the f*ck up'. Do you really think that would be justified?

It seems you do, but I thought you were more humane than that.

But you missed the main point of the thread! Do you think a member is more likely to be banned for a minor flame if they direct it at a member of Team CC? Remember, my suggestion is that an extra sentence or two should be added into the community guidelines saying something like:

'Moderators and Administrators work (in general) for this site for free. They really don't need to put up with abuse from members and any infractions will be dealt with in as severe a way as the guidelines allow.'

So, do you agree with my premise (in general even if you think my choice of example was misguided)? Do you like my revision?

I think its hotter than a young asian girl in a 'have me!' pose!!!

[Woodruff]

Woodruff? Night Strike?
No come back?

Dude, I gotta sleep sometime. <laughing>

Woodruff isn't on Team CC

Ain't that the truth!

Can anyone from Team CC give me a reasonable alternative to my theory and if not, explain why (if I'm right) this unwritten rule should not become a written rule in the community guidelines?

As to your assertion that they more frequently ban those who flame the moderators, I do believe that Night Strike's explanation for that does make sense. If a moderator is being flamed directly, then they're probably actually involved in the thread and so they're going to see it. If someone else (myself, for instance) is being flamed directly, then they're not as likely to see it.

Now, SHOULD the moderators be seeing every thread? Yes, I would agree with you on that, absolutely. However, that leads us to the conclusion that perhaps there need to be more moderators (there are a lot of threads to keep up on, after all), and I'm not sure that's something that any of us wants, for various reasons.

[MeDeFe]

In terms of the Community Guidelines, any flame is against the rules, even if they aren't "very bad". Of course I support the escalating system: if people can't learn to read and follow the guidelines, then they shouldn't get to enjoy the privilege of being part of this community.

[...]

The thing that I don't think a lot of people realize is that moderating is not an exact science. There are some things that are clearly black and white (pornography, bigotry, etc.), but there are a lot of things that are in the gray. Any time a post is reported, the moderator has to ask whether the post crosses the line or not.

Thank you, this certainly clears up nothing. Any flame is against the rules but you have no fucking definition of whether something is a flame or not.
It really all depends on who happens to be the judge? Yes, that is what you're saying, even with the parts of your post I didn't quote.

So who's going to judge this post?



or

[AAFitz]

Yet the story doesn't end here! By this point, a few posters smelled a rat and one such poster (the honourable Skittles!) wrote this to jpcloet:

"My understanding is that you just need to grow the f*ck up"

One day later, he was banned too!

Now does anyone really believe that Skittles! would have been banned if he had directed that at someone other than a Team CC Member?

I assume any time I read a direct flame like this, that includes obvious profanity, that directly attacks another poster, that the poster will be warned or banned.

Im more surprised to see such things posted, than I am to see them banned. Its such a simple rule to follow, and telling someone to grow the f*ck up is so outside of the rules, Im absolutely amazed you used it as an example.

I admit there is some gray area on the forum, but that also comes from the fact that language is a gray area. But its also why there are warnings. Im fairly certain skittles has had warnings, and Im also nearly positive, he expected to get a banning for posting...or...simply didnt care if he did when he posted it. But I certainly wouldnt post anything remotely like that. I seriously would expect not to even get a warning, because I should know better, and there is an implied warning in the rule "no flaming" that clearly would include telling someone to "grow the f*ck up"

now, if he simply said "grow up" I think that would be a tough call. I suppose technically it could be considered a flame, but since I really dont know what flaming really includes... Ive always assumed it included some sort of vulgarity, profanity, or an openly hostile verbal attack, and since thats usually what I see people warned for and banned for, Ill assume that my guess is pretty much on the money, with the gray area that is always present in such a situation.

But in answer to your question again. Im not surprised he got banned for that. Id be more surprised if someone got away with it. I wouldnt expect to get away with it. If I saw lackattack write it, id have reported him for flaming, and would expect a warning or ban if it wasnt his first offense.

I'll set the (imaginary) scene AAFitz. Skittles! (with 16,000 posts to his name) has had five minor offences over the past year. One more minor offence puts him up to the six month ban (btw the way if it is seven...no need to get technical).

Viewing the forums one day, you spot Skittles! has written the above quote to a randomn member. Knowing his precarious position...would you report it?

Without wishing to be emotive, would you be heartless enough to ban someone who has written 16,000 posts for six months for writing 'you need to grow the f*ck up'. Do you really think that would be justified?

It seems you do, but I thought you were more humane than that.

But you missed the main point of the thread! Do you think a member is more likely to be banned for a minor flame if they direct it at a member of Team CC? Remember, my suggestion is that an extra sentence or two should be added into the community guidelines saying something like:

'Moderators and Administrators work (in general) for this site for free. They really don't need to put up with abuse from members and any infractions will be dealt with in as severe a way as the guidelines allow.'

So, do you agree with my premise (in general even if you think my choice of example was misguided)? Do you like my revision?

I think its hotter than a young asian girl in a 'have me!' pose!!!

No, I dont think anyones above the law. The fact that hes posted 16000 times means he of all should know how to follow the rules, and it would have been very easy not to include the f*ck. Its simple to follow the rules, especially those that post alot.

[gimil]

but you have no fucking definition of whether something is a flame or not.

You clearly haven't read the guidelines have you? Why don't you dander over and give those a read before you make an ass of yourself again? (clicky)

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user is not allowed.

To look at your point MrChang,

Perhaps the idea you are trying to community has some merit. Not because moderators should have a free ride, or be held to a different standard, but simply because as you put it:

'Moderators and Administrators work (in general) for this site for free. They really don't need to put up with abuse from members'

Alot of what I see around these board is what seems like bullying on the part of the community. It just seems everywhere I turn someone somewhere is picking at a decision, twisting a rule or questioning something to do with policy, behaviour, anything really to make life of teamCC difficult. It is in my experience that if you are constantly being spoke down to, constantly having you actions doubted then you are more likely to make a forced mistakes.

This community has went sour ever since the 'ultimare' wicked was given her ban. Since that very weekend many members of this community have ridiculed teamCC at any given opportunity. I feel that the current atmospher, attitude and behaviour of this community )inc. moderators) has been born and evolved out of tension and conflict caused by the uproar and tension of that very weekend.

[Artimis]

'Moderators and Administrators work (in general) for this site for free. They really don't need to put up with abuse from members'

Some clarification to indicate that directly offending a member of Team CC is more likely to get punished because of the increased likelihood of being noticed.

Alot of what I see around these board is what seems like bullying on the part of the community. It just seems everywhere I turn someone somewhere is picking at a decision, twisting a rule or questioning something to do with policy, behaviour, anything really to make life of teamCC difficult. It is in my experience that if you are constantly being spoke down to, constantly having you actions doubted then you are more likely to make a forced mistakes.

This community has went sour ever since the 'ultimare' wicked was given her ban. Since that very weekend many members of this community have ridiculed teamCC at any given opportunity. I feel that the current atmospher, attitude and behaviour of this community )inc. moderators) has been born and evolved out of tension and conflict caused by the uproar and tension of that very weekend.

I didn't know Wicked so it's not appropriate for me to comment on that part. What I will comment on is that while Team CC should be shown the same respect as all the other players of CC, they must also have the skin of a rhinoceros. The reason is simple, people will complain a lot when you get something wrong(or are perceived to get something wrong), when you get something right you'll get a small smattering of thanks and gratitude, but such honeymoon periods are extremely short lived. This I know from real life experience where I was a union rep for my workplace. It was and still is a thankless task, you can't take the constant stream of negs personally. If you do then you'll be too distracted from your job to do it properly.

I reiterate, when you work for free to represent a community/workplace you must have a thick skin, you won't be able to do your job otherwise.

[gimil]

I didn't know Wicked so it's not appropriate for me to comment on that part. What I will comment on is that while Team CC should be shown the same respect as all the other players of CC, they must also have the skin of a rhinoceros. The reason is simple, people will complain a lot when you get something wrong(or are perceived to get something wrong), when you get something right you'll get a small smattering of thanks and gratitude, but such honeymoon periods are extremely short lived. This I know from real life experience where I was a union rep for my workplace. It was and still is a thankless task, you can't take the constant stream of negs personally. If you do then you'll be too distracted from your job to do it properly.

I reiterate, when you work for free to represent a community/workplace you must have a thick skin, you won't be able to do your job otherwise.

I agree with what you are saying artimis. Moderating if a thankless job indeed. You pour hours of free time and labour into helping some elses business and it gets to a point where you go from feeling useful to usless very quickly. But a few people around here need to realise that their constant picking at the system does more bad than it does good. Mistakes happen, the more you push hard the more mistakes that are likely to be made.

[PLAYER57832]

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user is not allowed.

With all due respect, this definition is pretty subjective. Specifically, while some people are pretty clear on the difference between attacking another user and simply disagreeing with a point they make.. not all are. Further, particularly when it comes to some debates, the line between these things can get rather narrow.

I think in many cases, public thread warnings should be used far more ... so everyone can see upfront what was done wrong by who and, yes, who is saying it was wrong. This will help keep the site "clean" without being draconian. It is one thing to be in an intense and active debate and let an expletive fly or let yourself get a little too negative/too sarcastic "in the moment". (I think we all do it at times) and something else to go on an all out campaign against someone.

That said, while I don't think moderation has been perfect, I have been generally happy. (there was a time when I was not sure, but I spoke of that then and, things have changed).

Perhaps the idea you are trying to community has some merit. Not because moderators should have a free ride, or be held to a different standard, but simply because as you put it:

'Moderators and Administrators work (in general) for this site for free. They really don't need to put up with abuse from members'

This makes absolute sense and is well worded.

Alot of what I see around these board is what seems like bullying on the part of the community. It just seems everywhere I turn someone somewhere is picking at a decision, twisting a rule or questioning something to do with policy, behaviour, anything really to make life of teamCC difficult. It is in my experience that if you are constantly being spoke down to, constantly having you actions doubted then you are more likely to make a forced mistakes.

This community has went sour ever since the 'ultimare' wicked was given her ban. Since that very weekend many members of this community have ridiculed teamCC at any given opportunity. I feel that the current atmospher, attitude and behaviour of this community )inc. moderators) has been born and evolved out of tension and conflict caused by the uproar and tension of that very weekend.

I would say that weekend was more a symptom than a cause. Things were "brewing" before that. Also, you have a fundamental gap in some people's beliefs. That is not a "CC" issue, so much as a societal issue. CC is just a microcosm of the world around us in that regard.

A lot of the dissent, seems to be over the main forums. Maybe the answer is to have more mods, who work in tandom. This would do two things. First, 2 people with different views can be more objective than one. Also, if each mod has to give less time.. it is easier for all. I realize that having too many mods can be cumbersom. I am not suggesting this generally, just for the main forums.

On that note, is there a set amount of time each mod is expected to give? If so, how much?

[MeDeFe]

but you have no fucking definition of whether something is a flame or not.

You clearly haven't read the guidelines have you? Why don't you dander over and give those a read before you make an ass of yourself again? (clicky)

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user is not allowed.

Let's take a look at that so-called "definition" in detail, shall we? I will ignore the mangling of the grammar in that quote so as not to bring this off topic and be banned for that.


Flames is what is being defined, so far so good.

Flames are posts or parts of posts. Considering that this is an internet forum, this makes sense.

Flames can be direct or indirect. Now it's getting tricky already. If I were to call you "a narrowminded cave-man with the IQ of a cucumber" it would clearly be a direct flame. But, if I were to say that you "argue like a narrowminded cave-man with the IQ of a cucumber" and expose all the flaws in your argument, am I still flaming you or am I expressing a valid opinion?
Even this post could be construed to be an indirect flame by me of you. Allowing for indirect flames goes far beyond the shades of grey that NS mentioned, it takes the border for flames all the way to the white.

Flames insult. I can live with this.

Flames belittle. You said I made an ass of myself. You flamed me. No, I'm not going to report you. That's because I disagree with this definition of flaming and think it's a load of bullshit, but under this definition you did flame me.
"Belittle", to make someone or something little, to make them smaller, to lessen their stature. So if I went and told JR just what I think of his umpteenth "I'm so fucking great, none of you others have done this before"-thread, I'm belittling and therefore flaming him. It's a too wide term to have any place in a definition of flaming.

Flames bully. Possibly. If someone is being "stalked" and the same people respond to each of this person's posts by ridiculing or belittling them or by insulting the person, I suppose that can be called bullying. I think something like this happened to stahrgazer a while back and nothing was done about it. However, this bullying can only be demonstrated using the content of the posts, so I think this part is superfluous.

Flames name-call. I think this is superfluous as well, seeing how "insults" are already included.

Flames otherwise attack another user. "Otherwise attack"? So in addition to the indirect belittling (i.e. disagreeing with what an other poster has stated, thus claiming to have a better opinion than they and making their opinion look worse), ANYTHING that can be construed as an attack is now potentially seen as a flame and as such worthy of a ban? This is not a definition, this is a blank cheque for banning people.



What you call a definition is useless, it is so wide that it can encompass practically any post. Add the history of mods and admins playing favourites and selectively warning and banning only some people who take part in a two-sided exchange and you get a recipe for continuing the disaster known as "moderating the CC fora".

[Thezzaruz]

I remember getting pm'd by Andy the wonder monkey with a "stern warning" and that I would face an extended vacation. I responded back that I was heavily abused by "others" on the same thread. Andy said, " Report it." Well....I don't play that way, PERIOD!

If you aren't prepared to tell anyone about a problem then you really can't expect anyone to know about or fix said problem. Simple logic I would think.

It's too bad that regular and paying customers are being banned for long periods of time [myself included] for minor and petty offenses. I use to talk highly about C.C. to all my friends and co-workers....not anymore. Might as well be a free-loader, instead of paying for services that are being DENIED for petty infractions.

If you know that it is an infraction why do you keep doing it??? Anyone that knowingly and repeatedly breaks the rules deserves to be called up on it tbh.

I know you don't care if they are paying customers or leaches.

I really don't care much for being called a leech, IMO that ticks off a lot of the boxes in the flame definition.

I assume any time I read a direct flame like this, that includes obvious profanity, that directly attacks another poster, that the poster will be warned or banned.

Im more surprised to see such things posted, than I am to see them banned. Its such a simple rule to follow, and telling someone to grow the f*ck up is so outside of the rules, Im absolutely amazed you used it as an example.

[AndyDufresne]

In regards to revising and adding more clear examples or definitions, we can add more of this. Of course though the examples wouldn't be able to cover everything, but that is when a moderator's judgment comes in.


--Andy

[MeDeFe]

In regards to revising and adding more clear examples or definitions, we can add more of this. Of course though the examples wouldn't be able to cover everything, but that is when a moderator's judgment comes in.


--Andy

Well, in the other thread (the one about the permabans, btw, Andy, that debate is not over, drop by again and actually engage with us, will you?) I did say that it might be an idea to post a proposal for the clearer guidelines and new system of bans before implementing them as official policy. Going "Judge Dredd" on the community will only work for so long.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

I remember getting pm'd by Andy the wonder monkey with a "stern warning" and that I would face an extended vacation. I responded back that I was heavily abused by "others" on the same thread. Andy said, " Report it." Well....I don't play that way, PERIOD!

If you aren't prepared to tell anyone about a problem then you really can't expect anyone to know about or fix said problem. Simple logic I would think.

MY RESPONSE:

Oh my...we've become a "society of rats" and "dog eat dog" finger-pointers. If anyone wants to warn someone and especially BAN a poster, then the Moderators should do some homework and see if it's "tit for tat" b.s.

It's too bad that regular and paying customers are being banned for long periods of time [myself included] for minor and petty offenses. I use to talk highly about C.C. to all my friends and co-workers....not anymore. Might as well be a free-loader, instead of paying for services that are being DENIED for petty infractions.

If you know that it is an infraction why do you keep doing it??? Anyone that knowingly and repeatedly breaks the rules deserves to be called up on it tbh.


MY RESPONSE:

Puhleeeze, there seems to be a great discrepancy of how the rules are enforced and what infraction was being violated. Do YOU know what rules I broke?!?! Please tell me, cause I'm still trying to figure that shit out myself.

I know you don't care if they are paying customers or leaches.

I really don't care much for being called a leech, IMO that ticks off a lot of the boxes in the flame definition.


MY FINAL RESPONSE:

So....you're pissed off about my "term" for freeloaders, heh? No wonder your post sounds more like "sour grapes", then say a intelligent response to my posts.

Heck, if I was a Moderator, I would perma-ban you, for crossing the line of good taste.

Regards,
General Stoneham

[Thezzaruz]

Oh my...we've become a "society of rats" and "dog eat dog" finger-pointers. If anyone wants to warn someone and especially BAN a poster, then the Moderators should do some homework and see if it's "tit for tat" b.s.

The fact that someone else is breaking the rules doesn't give you a free pass to do the same.

So....you're pissed off about my "term" for freeloaders, heh? No wonder your post sounds more like "sour grapes", then say a intelligent response to my posts.

You're accusing me of sour grapes? Best laugh I've had in a long time, I you sir...

[PLAYER57832]

In regards to revising and adding more clear examples or definitions, we can add more of this. Of course though the examples wouldn't be able to cover everything, but that is when a moderator's judgment comes in.


--Andy

Well, in the other thread (the one about the permabans, btw, Andy, that debate is not over, drop by again and actually engage with us, will you?) I did say that it might be an idea to post a proposal for the clearer guidelines and new system of bans before implementing them as official policy. Going "Judge Dredd" on the community will only work for so long.

While no rules can cover every situation, more clarity just keeps things easier for everyone. As I said before, some people are always going to complain, but if the guidelines are written down, they cannot very well say they "did not know" with integrity.

[Mr Changsha]

Well I expect that about covers it. In summary, we have two conflicting opinions with regards to the charge I laid out. Mine, suggests that there is an inherent bias in the following of the community guidelines, with an emphasis made on stamping out any flaming directed at Team CC members. General Stoneham widened the issue to involve the actual targetting of members who are out of favour, in the sense that flames directed against them will be ignored, as well as, of course, any flames they might make (directed at whomever) will find the banstick swooping down from a great height.

Nightstrike however, suggests that the perceived bias is actually caused by moderators and admins simply failing to see so many of the flames directed at non-Team CC members, thus there is no actual determination to only defend Team CC members (though it might seem that way), but in fact is simply a question of scope.

Yet, we had two members (timminz and stargazer) who actually stated that when they reported flames themselves, they were directed to foe the user (etc etc) and nothing was done about their complaint. I feel this certainly seems to weigh the argument in my favour.

Now naturally, it is impossible for me to prove that there is a definite policy at work here, at least without a Team CC member spilling the beans..and none have done so. Therefore I think the best one can say is that members should tread lightly around Team CC members, whether because of argument 1, or argument 2 is, to an extent, irrelevent.

Should the community guidelines be updated to include something like...?

"The moderators of CC volunteer to do this job and should not have to put up with any abuse from members of this site. Infractions will be dealt with in the harshest possible terms."

I believe they should, for regardless of the actual reason for this situation (and the thread itself certainly shows I am not alone in seeing the phenomenen in question) the fact is, is that flaming a moderator, annoying a moderator or whatever else will certainly land a member in hot water pretty quickly, while doing so to another member certainly seems to be a much safer bet! While just recently I was trolling the hell out of Khazalid in this very forum (the thread about reserving spots by Khazalid) and the moderators and hunters certainly seemed to find no problem with it. Imagine if I'd gone after a moderator like that! Well of course I wouldn't, because I practice what I preach...certainly in this case.

The debate was further widened by Medefe (as well as others) as to what actually constitutes a flame. A sticky subject indeed, and it is my considered opinion that the current guidelines are certainly ripe for misinterpretation. AAFitz made a good point about aggression and I think that it might be worthwhile to consider the issue of flaming in that light.

Skittles! (now quite famously!) wrote "I think you need to grow the f*ck up." I can see AAFitz's point here, it does come across as a mite aggressive. If he had written something like "Well, Jpcloet is far from the first person to be sorely lacking in the quality of maturity, yet his inherent lack is so blatant, that one must wonder if he has actually grown the f*ck up at all..." would, I think, have past muster. In all the essentials, both comments say the exact same thing. Yet the second lacks the aggressive punch of the first. Might this be a good basis for revising the actual definition of a flame as well?

[MeDeFe]

Mr C, I see one problem with your proposal.

By adding a line such as you proposed to the guidelines, this behaviour by the mods would become official CC policy, seeing how widely spread this problem is perceived to be already, I think there's a substantial risk that the situation could become even worse. Up to the point where you cannot criticize any decision (no matter in how civil terms) by a coloured without risking a ban.

I think it would be better to put in terms like "History has shown that the mods, who largely do volunteer work and deserve some kudos for that, do not appreciate being addressed in the same manner as every other member on the site. They are also known to sometimes play favourites and to bend the rules at times. Please consider this when you know that a mod is likely to read your posts."

[Mr Changsha]

Mr C, I see one problem with your proposal.

By adding a line such as you proposed to the guidelines, this behaviour by the mods would become official CC policy, seeing how widely spread this problem is perceived to be already, I think there's a substantial risk that the situation could become even worse. Up to the point where you cannot criticize any decision (no matter in how civil terms) by a coloured without risking a ban.

I think it would be better to put in terms like "History has shown that the mods, who largely do volunteer work and deserve some kudos for that, do not appreciate being addressed in the same manner as every other member on the site. They are also known to sometimes play favourites and to bend the rules at times. Please consider this when you know that a mod is likely to read your posts."

I think it might read better as...

"The moderators of CC volunteer to do this job and do not believe they should have to put up with any abuse from members of this site. Infractions will be dealt with in the harshest possible terms."

Yours is lovely Medefe, but I think we both know Andy would rather shove one of those bananas of his up his own arse than add your lines to the community guidelines. I think mine alerts the forum-goer to the extent of the danger he is in, without making him assume he's joined a gulag, rather than an on-line forum!

Anyway, I suppose we can but wait to see if Andy will see the light, share the love and embrace the man by adding this revision to the community guidelines.

Let there be light Andy, for where there is darkness there is mistrust and fear, but where there is light there is understanding.

[Thezzaruz]

the fact is, is that flaming a moderator, annoying a moderator or whatever else will certainly land a member in hot water pretty quickly, while doing so to another member certainly seems to be a much safer bet!

I just don't see the need, this can't be hard to understand or a surprise for anyone really.

Skittles! (now quite famously!) wrote "I think you need to grow the f*ck up." I can see AAFitz's point here, it does come across as a mite aggressive. If he had written something like "Well, Jpcloet is far from the first person to be sorely lacking in the quality of maturity, yet his inherent lack is so blatant, that one must wonder if he has actually grown the f*ck up at all..." would, I think, have past muster. In all the essentials, both comments say the exact same thing. Yet the second lacks the aggressive punch of the first.

Well the second had a bit of DM feeling about it and we all know how that turned out don't we.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Mr C, I see one problem with your proposal.

By adding a line such as you proposed to the guidelines, this behaviour by the mods would become official CC policy, seeing how widely spread this problem is perceived to be already, I think there's a substantial risk that the situation could become even worse. Up to the point where you cannot criticize any decision (no matter in how civil terms) by a coloured without risking a ban.

I think it would be better to put in terms like "History has shown that the mods, who largely do volunteer work and deserve some kudos for that, do not appreciate being addressed in the same manner as every other member on the site. They are also known to sometimes play favourites and to bend the rules at times. Please consider this when you know that a mod is likely to read your posts."

I have to concur, the Moderators will use these terms to "get even" at the regular posters who even "slightly" disagree with them.

Andy now has a history of using [twisting] past inputs to punish posters. Just like he did with the input with the racism and bigotry thread.

Mr. Changsha, these definitions you want to incorporate will only be used against us. Bring back Flame Wars and this problem will be settled.

Regards,
General Stoneham

[Mr Changsha]

Mr C, I see one problem with your proposal.

By adding a line such as you proposed to the guidelines, this behaviour by the mods would become official CC policy, seeing how widely spread this problem is perceived to be already, I think there's a substantial risk that the situation could become even worse. Up to the point where you cannot criticize any decision (no matter in how civil terms) by a coloured without risking a ban.

I think it would be better to put in terms like "History has shown that the mods, who largely do volunteer work and deserve some kudos for that, do not appreciate being addressed in the same manner as every other member on the site. They are also known to sometimes play favourites and to bend the rules at times. Please consider this when you know that a mod is likely to read your posts."

I have to concur, the Moderators will use these terms to "get even" at the regular posters who even "slightly" disagree with them.

Andy now has a history of using [twisting] past inputs to punish posters. Just like he did with the input with the racism and bigotry thread.

Mr. Changsha, these definitions you want to incorporate will only be used against us. Bring back Flame Wars and this problem will be settled.

Regards,
General Stoneham

Ah, so you think I should go back to....

"The moderators and admins and CC absoutely abhor any criticism directed their way and will ban the living shite out of you all!!!! Mwah hahah ha hah!!!!!"

It seems the alliance of the great unwashed is disintergrating...which is hardly surprising as we all are, by nature, non-conformist types! I truly think that Team CC should be clear on their policy with regards to Team CC members accepting the rough and tumble of forum life...to avoid the bannings we are all against.

Yet Timminz and Stoneham believe they would use my heartfelt suggestion against us all? The shock! The horror!

You chaps might well be right.

But I've come to the conclusion that if they can't take the heat, if they can't stand up in a thread and defend their positions with their wit, then they may as well throw in the towel and make it clear they can't/won't take the heat. I'm perfectly capable of not joshing a moderator and in fact don't josh moderators for the exact reasons outlined above. It seems they can't take it. Very well, then they should admit that fact in the guidelines. I have enough arrogant generals, idiotic children and pretentious wannabes to rip the shit out of in these forums and have never had much interest in playing with the moderators anyway. They play a straight bat pretty well, but one can only read a 'forward defensive shot' so many times before thinking 'you're not actually saying anything are you?'

Stoneham's point is a good one. My revision would allow a moderator (one who had engaged in an argument) to fall back on my rule and start waving the old phallus around. However, my revision would also tell the forum-goer to NOT ENGAGE THE MODERATOR AT ALL, thus eliminating Stoneham's point at a stroke. No communication, no ban.

[Timminz]

Yet Timminz and Stoneham believe they would use my heartfelt suggestion against us all?

Not to pick, but I don't recall saying that, and as far as I know, you can't read my thoughts. I think you may have me confused with MeDeFe, in this instance.

[MeDeFe]

I think it might read better as...

"The moderators of CC volunteer to do this job and do not believe they should have to put up with any abuse from members of this site. Infractions will be dealt with in the harshest possible terms."

This way of stating it is vastly preferable over your first version, as well as a much more diplomatic formulation than my admittedly somewhat direct way of expressing the matter.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Mr. Changsha said,

Ah, so you think I should go back to....

"The moderators and admins and CC absoutely abhor any criticism directed their way and will ban the living shite out of you all!!!! Mwah hahah ha hah!!!!!"
**************************************************************************************************************



Yes, that's the point. The Moderators and andministrators have rounded their wagons and are fighting against "THEM!" They have no intention to give a "blanket amnesty" for forum abuse. DM is history! Oh, they might reconsider his perma-ban and reduce it to SIX MONTHS...WHOOPPIE-DOOO! SIX MONTHS only! For what? What horrible crime did he commit to be perma-banned? Oh, "WE" warned him and "WE" gave him small vacations, but he continued to harrass "US!" Yes, he questioned "OUR" motives, questioned "OUR" bias and other horrible and terrifying acts of terrorism.

Address it anyway you want Chang, but it's plain to see that when you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

Regards,
General Stoneham